The Issue Whether the licenses issued to Jimmie F. Prevatt, George W. Ammen, Richard Miller and the Brevard Funeral Home North and the Brevard Funeral Home South should be revoked or suspended for violation of Chapter 470, Florida Statutes, particularly Sections 470.12(1)(k), 470.12(1)(h), 470.12(2)(d), 470.12(2)(i), 470.12(2)(p) and 470.12(4)(a) and Rule 21J-7.10 of the Rules of the State Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact By Administrative Complaint, Respondents, Jimmie F. Prevatt and George W. Ammen, were charged by the State Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers with violations of subsections 470.12(1)(h), 470.12(1)(k), 470.12(2)(d), 470.12(2)(i), and 470.12(2)(p), Florida Statutes, and Rule 21J-7.10 of the Rules of State Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers in that as licensed embalmers and licensed funeral directors, they paid or caused to be paid valuable consideration in the form of the use of the name and services of the licensed funeral establishments of which they were the licensed funeral directors in charge for use by Florida Memorial Gardens, a cemetery, in order to secure business from or through said cemetery, its affiliate organizations, its agents, and its employees, for the benefit of themselves and their respective funeral establishments; in that as licensed funeral directors in charge of licensed funeral establishments, they employed, retained or otherwise engaged Florida Memorial Gardens and its employees and agents to solicit business for their respective funeral establishments; in that they, as licensed funeral directors in charge of licensed funeral establishments, offered an inducement to Florida Memorial Gardens and its employees and agents as solicitors, agents, or canvassers for the purpose of securing or attempting to secure business for their respective funeral establishments by engaging in a marketing scheme involving the issuance of funeral service certificates in the form of a business-getting plan, scheme, or device not fully recognized and approved by the funeral profession as a standard funeral practice; and in that they violated the provisions of Chapter 470, Florida Statutes. By Administrative Complaint, Respondent Richard K. Miller, was charged by the State Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers with a violation of Rule 21J-7.10, Rules of State Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers, enacted pursuant to subsection 470.04(2), Florida Statutes, in that as a licensed embalmer and licensed funeral director he engaged in a marketing scheme involving the issuance of funeral service certificates in the form of a business-getting plan, scheme, or device not fully recognized and approved by the funeral profession as a standard funeral practice. By Administrative Complaint, Respondents, Brevard Funeral Home North and Brevard Funeral Home South, were charged by the State Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers with violations of subsection 470.12(4)(a), Florida Statutes, in that Jimmie F. Prevatt and George W. Ammen, respectively, as funeral directors in charge, and Robert G. Weld, as owner of said funeral homes, have been guilty of acts provided as grounds for revocation of an embalmer's license as provided in Section 470.12, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner, State Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers, seek to revoke the licenses of Respondents and impose on them the cost of these proceedings. The Complaint was dated June 9, 1976, and a copy was furnished to the Respondents herein. At the time of the filing of the Complaint, Robert G. Weld was the owner of Brevard Funeral Home North and Brevard Funeral Home South. Subsequent to the filing of the Complaint Mr. Weld sold the Brevard Funeral Home North to Respondent, Jimmie F. Prevatt and to Mr. Alan P. Meindertsma. Brevard Funeral Home South was sold by Mr. Weld to Respondent, George W. Ammen, Jr. The sales were effective September 20, 1976. The sale consisted of the furnishings, equipment and funeral service business but not the land, building and fixtures of Brevard Funeral Home North and Brevard Funeral Home South. Subsequent to the sale, the State Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers upon application reissued the funeral establishment licenses to Brevard Funeral Home North and Brevard Funeral Home South to reflect the new owners, with the same license number tags existing at the time of the ownership by Mr. Weld, reflecting that Mr. Prevatt and Mr. Ammen were the same funeral directors in charge. There was no new licensing inspection. A motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of Brevard Funeral Home North and Brevard Funeral Home South. The movants contended that the change of ownership from Mr. Weld to the new owners rendered the Complaint moot as against those establishments. The motion was denied for the reason that the parties are the same, there had been adequate notice, and the parties had an opportunity to be heard at the administrative hearing. The, Petitioner Board and this Hearing Officer has jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter. A motion to dismiss was filed for failure of the State Board of Funeral Directors to comply with Section 120.60(4), Florida Statutes, in that the agency had not given the licensees an opportunity to show that they had complied with all lawful requirements for retention of their licenses but were obligated to come immediately to a formal hearing. The motion was denied. A motion to dismiss was filed stating that the Petitioners contend the act complained of a violation of Section 470.12, Florida Statutes. Respondents contended this is a violation of the rights of Respondents under the Florida Constitution. Motion was denied. The Hearing Officer has jurisdiction. Prior to September 20, 1976, at which time Respondents Prevatt and Ammen purchased an ownership interest in Brevard Funeral Home North and Brevard Funeral Home South, Robert G. Weld, owner of said funeral homes, entered into an agreement with Gene Crowe, owner of Florida Memorial Gardens also known as Florida Memorial Cemetery. The agreement authorized the use of the names of the two funeral homes and authorized sales presentations to be made by salesmen employed by Mr. Crowe and his business organization to the general public to sell a product known as the "Eternal Rest Vault." Mr. Weld agreed to execute funeral service certificates for issuance by Mr. Crowe's organizations to purchasers of the Eternal Rest Vault in which Brevard Funeral Home North and Brevard Funeral Home South guaranteed to perform services constituting a complete funeral to be performed by one of said funeral homes at the time of need for a fixed price to be paid at the time of need. During the first half of 1976 Mr. Crowe's salesmen did in fact use the names and reputations of Brevard Funeral Home North and Brevard Funeral Home South in their sales presentations to the general public and their direct sales campaign. Mr. Weld executed funeral service certificates which were delivered to Mr. Crowe's customers by Mr. Crowe's business organizations. Mr. Weld and Brevard Funeral Home North and Brevard Funeral Home South performed funeral services pursuant to said funeral service certificates. Respondents Jimmie F. Prevatt and George W. Ammen are two of the current owners and are licensed funeral directors in charge of Brevard Funeral Home North and Brevard Funeral Home South. They did not negotiate the aforesaid agreement between Mr. Weld and Mr. Crowe but they had full knowledge of the agreement including the name of the respective funeral homes in the sales presentation of Mr. Crowe's salesmen and the use of the names of the funeral homes on the funeral service certificates. Respondents Prevatt and Ammen performed the duties of funeral directors pursuant to the agreement between Mr. Weld and Mr. Crowe. Respondent Richard K. Miller is employed as a funeral director of the Brevard Funeral Home South and was a consultant by Mr. Crowe to his business organizations prior to the filing of the Complaint by the Petitioner. Mr. Miller consulted with Mr. Crowe and Mr. Weld regarding the sales presentation used by Mr. Crowe's salesmen in the marketing of the Eternal Rest Vault. He reviewed the form of the funeral certificates that were to be issued pursuant to said sales and at least once accompanied the salesmen during a sales presentation to a customer. Prior to the institution of the Complaint, Mr. Gene Crowe had acquired a distributorship for a product known as "Eternal Rest Vault." The sales concept used in marketing the Eternal Rest Vault is based upon the representation that the total cost of an entire funeral can be reduced by using the Eternal Rest Vault to serve as both the casket and a burial vault. Sale of the vault is directly to the public based on a preneed sale. Telephone solicitation and sales calls are made in the homes of prospective customers by Mr. Crowe's team of salesmen. The Eternal Rest Vault is intended to serve as both a casket and a vault and requires special arrangements in connection with the funeral services involved. The base of the Eternal Rest Vault incorporates a slumber bed upon which the dead human body lies. The sides and top of the vault are not used during the funeral services itself. A catafalque, a bottomless casket, is set on the base of the vault around the slumber bed and during the funeral service the body is lying in the catafalque on the slumber bed. After the funeral service is over, the catafalque is removed and the sides and top of the vault are then placed upon the base of the base of the vault and sealed. The vault is then buried in the grave. This system requires special equipment and services to be performed by the funeral home performing the funeral services. In order to be sure of a funeral home willing to perform the special services required of the Eternal Rest Vault and in order to assure potential customers of a fixed price at the time of need of a funeral service involving Eternal Rest Vault, the total funeral concept is an important integral part of the overall marketing package included in the sale of the product and the agreement between Mr. Crowe and Mr. Weld. The terms of the agreement entered into between Mr. Crowe and Mr. Weld included an arrangement whereby Mr. Crowe's salesmen would be authorized to include in their sales presentation, an assurance to their potential customers of the Eternal Rest Vault that Brevard Funeral Home North and Brevard Funeral Home South would provide funeral services involving use of the Eternal Rest Vault. The sales presentation described in the sales kit used by Mr. Crowe's salesmen during the first part of 1976 includes the language that was used by the salesmen who describe Brevard Funeral Home North and Brevard Funeral Home South as the finest funeral homes in the community with very fine reputations. The presentation included a copy of a funeral service certificate naming Brevard Funeral Home North and Brevard Funeral Home South as funeral homes in the community that were guaranteed to service the Eternal Rest Vault, a funeral service certificate was executed by Mr. Weld and mailed by Mr. Crowe's staff to the purchaser. The funeral service certificate stated a fixed price for which Brevard Funeral Home North and Brevard Funeral Home South would at the time of need provide a funeral service to the named certificate holder. The results of the arrangement included in the agreement between Mr. Weld and Mr. Crowe have been the sale of some twenty-six hundred (2,600) Eternal Rest Vaults in Brevard County and several funeral services provided by Brevard Funeral Home North and Brevard Funeral Home South pursuant to previously issued funeral service certificates for services for purchasers of the Eternal Rest Vaults. Respondents Jimmie F. Prevatt and George W. Ammen, the funeral directors in the home then owned by Mr. Weld, were told that they would be participating in the marketing arrangements included in said agreement. Mr. Prevatt and Mr. Ammen as funeral directors performed services consistent with the agreement between Mr. Weld and Mr. Crowe. Respondent Richard K. Miller was employed during the first half of 1976 by Mr. Crowe, Florida Memorial Gardens, and Mr. Weld, Brevard Funeral Home South. He performed full time duties as a funeral director for Brevard Funeral Home South and at the same time was a paid consultant, with Florida Memorial Gardens. He participated in the business organization of Mr. Crowe as a consultant and at least on one occasion accompanied one of Mr. Crowe's salesmen on a sales call and observed the entire sales presentation made to a potential Eternal Rest Vault customer. The names Brevard Funeral Home North and Brevard Funeral Home South, Respondent's establishments, were used on the certificates issued to various individuals as a result of the marketing of the Eternal Rest Vault. The Hearing Officer further finds: The agreement to allow the use of the names Brevard Funeral Home North and Brevard Funeral Home South is a valuable consideration and the use of the names was meant to secure business for the funeral homes and for the Florida Memorial Gardens, a cemetery, in the promotion of sales of the new type of vault. The valuable consideration is apparent because the new type of vault requires a funeral home and the funeral directors prepared to render special service not necessary with the traditional type of funeral arrangements. To service the product, the participating funeral home must also have a catafalque in which the vault fits. It is a valuable consideration to agree to perform a service in a particular manner with a specified product. The agreement between the then owner of the funeral homes, Mr. Weld, and Florida Memorial Gardens was strictly a business transaction and his object was to solicit more business for his funeral homes. The advice to the holder of the certificate that the two Respondent funeral homes would service the product they bought leads them directly to those funeral homes to perform the service for which they will pay at the prearranged price. The Respondents Prevatt and Ammen were fully advised of the agreement which involved the funeral homes in which they were the licensed funeral directors. Both Respondents benefited monetarily by the business thus secured and as new owners benefit from these business efforts and solicitations of the former owner, Mr. Weld. The continuation of the servicing of the product provided for in the certificates is a continuation of the solicitation effort started by Mr. Weld at the time of the original agreement. The printed certificate is entitled "Funeral Service Warrant" and states "The basis or legal representatives of the holder of the warrant shall be entitled to receive a unit of service from their choice of Brevard Funeral Home South, Brevard Funeral Home North or Florida Memorial Mortuary for:" and the name of the customers is then inserted after the sale is made. The ultimate emoluments of the sale go both to the Florida Memorial Mortuary and later, at the tire of death, to the participating funeral homes. Certificates are not presently being issued. On at least two contracts, after the Respondent funeral homes had been sold to Respondent Prevatt and Respondent Ammen, to wit December 2, 1976, the customers were advised by letter from the President of Florida Memorial Gardens, Gene Crowe: "If you will take your Funeral Service Certificate to Brevard Funeral Home North, 1450 Norwood Avenue, Titusville, I am sure they will fully explain all services and make arrangements to accept whatever monies you may wish to pay against the final funeral costs of which your certificate calls for. If there is any further questions after you have contacted Brevard Funeral Home North, please do not hesitate to call us." It is self evident that the purpose of the Funeral Service Warrant or certificate was to solicit business for the Respondent funeral homes as well as Florida Memorial Gardens. Respondent Miller was fully advised of the agreement executed by Mr. Weld and Florida Memorial Gardens and as an employee of Florida Memorial Gardens consulted with and advised those engaged in selling the said vault to be serviced by the funeral home, Brevard Funeral Home South, in which he was also employed as a funeral director. His activities were attempts to secure business.
Recommendation Suspend the license of Brevard Funeral Home North and Brevard Funeral Home South and Respondents Prevatt, Ammen and Miller for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days and levy a fine on each of the Respondent licensees not to exceed Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) each. DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of April, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530,Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jarold W. Regier, Esquire Rogers, Towers, Bailey, Jones & Gay 1300 Florida Title Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Philip F. Nohrr, Esquire J. Wesley Howze, Jr., Esquire Nohrr & Nohrr Post Office Box 369 Melbourne, Florida 32901 Joe T. Caruso, Esquire Wolfe, Kirschenbaum & Caruso Post Office Box 1271 Merritt Island, Florida W. Ford Duane, Esquire Robertson, Williams, Duane & Lewis 538 East Washington Street Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact At times pertinent to this proceeding, Lewis J. Howell has been licensed as a funeral director and embalmer under the laws of the State of Florida, license numbers FE 1442, FD 1270, and E 1442. Further, Howell Morning Glory Chapel has been licensed as a funeral establishment under the laws of the State of Florida, license number FH 1092. Respondent Howell has acted as the only funeral director in charge, and owner of Respondent Funeral Establishment. The testimony of Assistant to the Executive Director of the Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers, Department of Professional Regulation, established that for the 1979/1981 renewal period for licensure of funeral directors and embalmers, Respondent Lewis J. Howell issued a check on November 1, 1979, to cover renewal fees and late penalties. This check was dishonored by the bank, and funds covering the returned check were received by the Department of Professional Regulation on or about January 18, 1980. The 1981/1983 renewal of the funeral director and embalmer licenses of Respondent Howell, were due as of September 1, 1981. After that date the licenses would become inactive. By a check dated March 3, 1982, Respondent Howell remitted to the Department/Board a check in the amount of $230 for renewal of embalmer and funeral director licenses and licenses for these capacities were issued by the Department/Board based upon this check. The check was later dishonored by the bank. Funds covering the dishonored check were received by the Department on or about August 4, 1982. On March 31, 1982, Crawford C. Richardson, Jr., investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation, went to the Respondent Funeral Establishment for the purpose of conducting an inspection of the premises. Due to Respondent Howell's absence, the investigator informed the attendent that he would return the next day at 9:00 a.m. On April 1, 1982, Investigator Richardson returned to the Respondent Funeral Establishment at 9:00 a.m., and met Respondent Howell. When he entered the Respondent Funeral Home he smelled a very strong, putrid odor emitting from the side of the building where the preparation room was located. Based upon his previous experience, Richardson identified this as the smell of decaying bodies. Richardson noted the following deficiencies on the April 1, 1982, inspection: No hand basin in the preparation room. No operating table in the preparation room. Embalming tools were rusted and dirty. Ceiling of the chapel was partially collapsed. Ceiling in the preparation room was water damaged. No sanitary waste receptacle was present. Ventilation equipment in the preparation room was inoperable. Entire funeral establishment was dirty and had empty liquor bottles strewn about. No printed or typewritten list of retail prices or written agreement form was available as required by Sections 470.035, Florida Statutes. On April 26, 1982, Investigator Richardson returned for an announced follow-up inspection but Respondent Howell was not present. None of the corrective work noted from the April 1, 1982, inspection had been accomplished. After waiting for over an hour for Howell to return, Richardson informed the attendent that he would return the next day at 9:00 a.m. On April 27, 1982, at 9:00 a.m., Investigator Richardson returned to the Respondent Funeral Establishment and Howell informed Richardson that he had insufficient time to complete the repairs, but that he would have them completed by the following day. Richardson noted that there was an electrician repairing the ventilator fan and that a stainless steel operating table was in the preparation room. On that visit, Respondent Howell produced his funeral director and embalmer licenses issued by the State. Investigator Richardson informed Respondent Howell that he would return in one week. On May 4, 1982, Investigator Richardson arrived at the Respondent Funeral Establishment at 9:00 a.m. and noted that the exhaust fan had been repaired, but noted that a deceased body was lying on a makeshift plyboard table in the preparation room. The table was of a porous material which cannot be properly maintained. Respondent had several bodies in the Chapel of the Funeral Establishment on this visit and they, too, were lying on makeshift plyboard shelves. Respondent Howell informed Investigator Richardson that the stainless steel operating table Richardson had seen on the April 27 visit was being repaired but refused to state which repair shop it was located at. The hand sink had not yet been installed. The general condition of the funeral facility was still filthy, and no written price lists or agreements were available. The preparation room floors were dirty and there were no sanitary waste receptacles present. As to the written price lists and agreements, Howell told Richardson that he had not had time to accomplish this requirement, so Investigator Richardson showed him several examples of these written documents from other funeral establishments to aid him in this task.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the licenses of Respondent Howell as a funeral director and embalmer, and the license of the Funeral Establishment, be suspended until the Respondents present to the Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers a plan for reentry into the practice of funeral directing and embalming that will insure that the statutes and rules governing such practice will be followed and that, thereafter, their licenses be placed on probation for one year subject to continued adherence to such statutes and rules. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of December, 1982, 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 30th day of December, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph W. Lawrence, II, Esquire Dept. of Professional Reg. 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Lewis H. Howell 669 Florida Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Bruce Barcelo, Acting Executive Director Board of Funeral Director and Embalmers Room 507, 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32301 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On or about October 22, 1976, Jimmy Kirkland died. The deceased had been a resident of a medicaid nursing center. When he died the nursing home contacted Vivian Guzman, the deceased's foster sister. Mrs. Guzman released the body of the deceased to the Franklin Funeral Home. On or about October 23, 1976, Mrs. Guzman went to the Franklin Funeral Home and discussed arrangements for the funeral with Jerry Franklin, Sr. Jerry Franklin showed Mrs. Guzman a casket which Mrs. Guzman agreed to purchase for the funeral. The casket was warn and unclean. Mr. Franklin assured Mrs. Guzman that he would get her a casket similar to the one he showed her that would be new. Two or three days later Mrs. Guzman returned to the funeral home with Mr. Lawyer Kirkland, the deceased's nephew, who had come from Virginia to attend the funeral. Mrs. Guzman and Mr. Lawyer Kirkland further discussed the arrangements with Jerry Franklin, Sr. They signed papers which permitted social security benefits to be released to the Franklin Funeral Home to in part pay for the funeral arrangements. They agreed to pay an additional $500.00. Jerry Franklin went to Mrs. Guzman's home to collect the $500.00. Mrs. Guzman gave Mr. Frank $400.00 of her money and Mr. Lawyer Kirkland gave $100.00 of his money for the funeral. Mr. Franklin then assured Mrs. Guzman that he would go right away to make arrangements to have the new casket delivered. Mrs. Guzman requested an itemization of the bill. Mr. Jerry Franklin wrote down some figures on a piece of scratch paper and gave it to Mrs. Guzman. This paper was received into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 4. It does not constitute an itemization of services performed by Franklin Funeral Home. On the day of the funeral Mrs. Guzman was provided with a statement for services which included a full itemization. This itemization was provided by Nettie Fay Franklin. The funeral for the deceased, Jimmy Kirkland, was conducted on October 30, 1976, at the Franklin Funeral Home. Mrs. Nettie Fay Franklin, directed the funeral service. Contrary to representations made by Jerry Franklin, the casket utilized at the service was the same casket that was shown to Mrs. Guzman. A new casket was not used as had been represented, and the casket that was used was unclean. While Mr. Jerry Franklin was making arrangements with Mrs. Guzman for Jimmy Kirkland's funeral, arrangements were also made by Mrs. Grace Kirkland, the deceased's wife. It appears that these arrangements were made with Nettie Fay Franklin, and that a full itemization of services was provided to Mrs. Kirkland. The statement provided to Mrs. Kirkland, the handwritten statement provided by Mr. Jerry Franklin to Mrs. Guzman, and the itemization provided by Mrs. Nettie Franklin to Mrs. Guzman are all different. No explanation for this was offered at the hearing. Nettie Fay Franklin currently holds funeral director's license no. 1220 issued by the Petitioner, and embalmer's license no. 1363 issued by the Petitioner. Franklin Funeral Home currently holds operating license no. 393 issued by the Petitioner. Jerry Franklin, Sr., is not a licensed funeral director. In paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of the Complaint filed by the Petitioner, Nettie Fay Franklin is charged with violating certain provisions of Chapter 470, Florida Statutes. Paragraphs 5 and 6 assert that the same conduct alleged in paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 constitute violations of additional provisions of the chapter. In each of the allegations it is alleged that Nettie Fay Franklin acted as a licensed funeral director and embalmer in charge of the Franklin Funeral Home. No evidence as offered at the hearing from which it can be concluded that Nettie Fay Franklin was in fact in charge of the Franklin Funeral Home. It was established that Nettie Fay Franklin performed services for the Franklin Funeral Home; however, there was no evidence to establish that she was the only licensed funeral director associated with Franklin Funeral Home, that she was in charge of the funeral home, or that she was responsible for the conduct of Jerry Franklin, Sr. Jerry Franklin, Sr., performed functions of a funeral director at the Franklin Funeral Home.
Findings Of Fact Dale Woodward, the Respondent, holds Funeral Director's License No. 671 and Embalmer's License No. 536 at the present time, and during the times pertinent to 1978 and January through 1979. The Respondent Dale Woodward is the owner of the Dale Woodward Funeral Home of Holly Hill, Florida. The Dale Woodward Funeral Home holds an establishment operating License No. 123. During all times relevant to the allegations in the complaint, Ricky Charles Vyse and Richard G. McCafferty were employees of Dale Woodward and the Dale Woodward Funeral Home. In early 1978, one Howard McMurray made arrangements with Dale Woodward for his own funeral seven to eight months prior to his death. Mr. McMurray stated that he would prefer to have his funeral similar to that of his wife, which arrangements had earlier been handled by the Dale Woodward Funeral Home. On December 19, 1978, Howard McMurray passed away and his body was delivered to the Dale Woodward Funeral Home. On the morning of December 20, Violet Eggleston, his executrix, and her husband Raymond, came to the funeral home. Mrs. Eggleston was met by Mr. Woodward and Mr. McCafferty and introduced to Mr. McCafferty by Mr. Woodward. Although Mrs. Eggleston stated in her deposition (Exhibit 12) that she did not meet Mr. Woodward upon coming into the funeral home, she did state that he might have been painting or hanging wallpaper and that she would not have recognized him with painting clothes on and in fact Mr. Woodward's testimony establishes that he was painting the funeral home that day and was dressed in old clothes and his presence at the funeral home on that morning is corroborated by Mrs. Eggleston's later statement that Mr. Woodward introduced her to Mr. McCafferty at the time they began to discuss funeral arrangements. Mr. McCafferty was introduced to Mrs. Eggleston and obtained some information for the preparation of death certificates as well as for Mrs. Eggleston's desires regarding arrangements for funeral services. Mr. McCafferty also assisted Mrs. Eggleston on behalf of the family in making funeral selections from the Respondent's stock of caskets and urns. Mrs. Eggleston was not the person considered in sole charge of arranging for Mr. McMurray's funeral in that she was not the next of kin, rather the deceased's daughter Diana Keeley apparently had some responsibility in arranging for the funeral, although Mrs. Eggleston was primarily responsible for making the subject arrangements and indeed paid for the Respondent's services herself. Mr. McCafferty did not complete a sale of a casket or urn to Mrs. Eggleston, although she did select a salix casket that day. These preliminary negotiations and discussions of the funeral arrangements and the obtaining of a casket engaged in by Mr. McCafferty with Mrs. Eggleston were at the direction of Respondent Dale Woodward, the subject licensed funeral director, and Mr. McCafferty himself was not present at the funeral. On or about December 22, 1978, the same day, Mrs. Eggleston signed an authorization for the cremation of the body of Howard McMurray and he was subsequently cremated at the Cedar Hill Crematory in Daytona Beach, Florida. The body was removed from the casket in which it had been placed for viewing and was cremated in a cardboard cremation container, The value of that cremation container or the sales price, was substantially less than that of the $865 casket. Neither Mrs. Eggleston nor Diana Keeley, the decedent's daughter, ever gave any written instructions regarding the manner of cremation of the body of Howard McMurray as to the container which should be used, nor does the record reflect that any written instructions or understandings passed between these two ladies and Mr. Woodward or his employees. Mrs. Eggleston's instructions regarding the cremation were verbal and made no provision for the type container to be used in the cremation process. Ricky Charles Vyse was employed by the Dale Woodward Funeral Home on or about June, 1978. At that time, and at times subsequent thereto, he represented that he was qualified to embalm human bodies as an apprentice or intern embalmer in that he had submitted papers registering him for such internship to the Florida Board of Funeral Directors. Dale Woodward and Dale Woodward Funeral Home believed and relied upon that representation, thus permitting Ricky Vyse to assist or participate in embalming procedures. The Respondent Dale Woodward supervised any embalming procedures in which Ricky Vyse participated. Particularly, Dale Woodward did virtually all cosmetic work, including that in the cases involving the decedent, Howard McMurray, as well as with regard to the funeral and embalming of Mary Salvonge. Further, evidence adduced at the hearing revealed that Ricky Vyse had never actually been registered as an intern embalmer with the Board of Funeral Directors and the testimony of four of Respondent's witnesses revealed that Ricky Vyse had been detected on a number of occasions stealing office records and various items of property from the funeral home, including an embalming machine, a Beethoven bust, a desk globe, and other items. After repeated warnings, the Respondent Dale Woodward through his employees Franklin Muffley and Richard McCafferty terminated Ricky Vyse's employment. It was evident from the demeanor of Ricky Vyse on the witness stand that he was a disgruntled employee and hostile former employee of the Respondents, and that be approached the State Attorney in January, 1979 with accusations against Dale Woodward and the Dale Woodward Funeral Home involving violations such as those involved herein. The record reflects that no prosecution was initiated by the State Attorney's office. Franklin Muffley is the internal auditor and bookkeeper for the Dale Woodward Funeral Home. As such he is responsible for the billing in cases such as the McMurray case. It is his practice and custom to gather all figures and data regarding funeral arrangements, verify them and routinely mail a statement within approximately two weeks following a funeral service. In the McMurray case however, the executrix, Mrs. Eggleston, made payment on the day the funeral arrangements were made before any written itemization for funeral services to be rendered was finalized or verified by Muffley. As a result, after having been shown the salix casket priced at $865, she proceeded to pay for the casket, as well as for the other arrangements for a total of $1,785. The record is not clear whether Franklin Muffley or Richard McCafferty who were privy to the discussions of arrangements and price with Mrs. Eggleston that morning knew that the decedent would be cremated in a cardboard container. Dale Woodward, the Respondent in this case, did not learn of the fact that Mrs. Eggleston had been billed for the casket which was not used in the ultimate disposition of the body of Mr. McMurray until approximately three months later, in about March of 1979, when, as it was his regular custom and practice, he instituted his quarterly review of his business's billing and receipts. Having been closely acquainted with the McMurray family and being aware of the arrangements Mrs. Eggleston had requested for Mr. McMurray's funeral (i.e., cremation), Mr. Woodward detected an error in billing due to the charge for the casket which was not ultimately used except for display purposes. Mr. Woodward thereupon immediately made a refund to Mrs. Eggleston of $805 representing the price charged her for the casket less the $60 charge legitimately due and owing for the cardboard cremation container. Dale Woodward and Dale Woodward Funeral Home have been in operation and licensed approximately 25 years and have never been the subject of such complaints and charges heretofore. The Respondents Dale Woodward and Dale Woodward Funeral Home, as established by the four "character witnesses," enjoy a good reputation for truth and veracity in the community
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Department is the administrative agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular Chapter 470, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed funeral establishment in the State of Florida known as Marion Community Funeral Chapel (Community Chapel), located at 917 South Delaney Avenue, Avon Park, Florida, and issued license number FH 0001398. At all times material to this proceeding, Eloise Marion (Marion) was the sole owner of Community Chapel. Eddie J. Wyche, a 60 year old male, died while a patient in the care of Florida Hospital, Avon Park, Florida. A death certificate issued on March 29, 1995, shows the time of death to be 2:00 p.m. on March 23, 1995. Jannie L. Wyche, wife of Eddie J. Wyche (deceased), was present at the hospital at the time of Eddie Wyche's death. Jannie L. Wyche (wife) was the "legally authorized person" to direct the disposition of the decedent's body. Hospital officials advised the wife that the hospital did not have the necessary refrigeration facility to hold the dead body and that the body had to be removed immediately. Thereafter, the hospital furnished a release form for the wife to sign which legally allowed Community Chapel to remove the body of the deceased from the hospital and to transport the body to Community Chapel's place of business. Later on that same day, March 23, 1995, Marion, along with Leroy Brown, transported the body to Community Chapel. In the early evening of March 23, 1995, Marion went to the deceased mother's home to inquire about making funeral arrangements but was advised that the wife would be handling the funeral arrangements. Later on that same evening, Marion went to the wife's home to make an appointment to discuss the funeral arrangements. After Marion advised the wife that she had picked up the body, the wife told Marion "do what you have to do" or words to that effect. In response to the wife's inquiry of getting together to "make arrangements", Marion advised the wife that Marion did not have time at the moment to discuss the funeral arrangements due to a prior appointment, and because of a "viewing", which was scheduled for Friday, March 24, 1995, and a "burial" scheduled for Saturday, March 25, 1995, she would not be available until sometime between 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, March 25, 1995. No specific time for an appointment to discuss the "arrangements" was agreed upon at this time. Because there was nothing further, other than embalming, which needed to be done to the body, Marion interpreted the wife's response of "do what you have to do" as the wife's verbal permission to proceed with embalming the body. Marion proceeded with having the body embalmed. Although the wife and Cheryl Johnson testified that the wife did not make such a statement, I find Marion's testimony to be more credible in this regard. Previously, Marion had previously handled the arrangements for the funerals of the wife's mother and sister, and it does not seem logical that Marion would have moved forward with the embalming body without some indication from the wife to do so. Not completely satisfied with Marion's response about a time for making "arrangements", the wife, on the advice of her sister, decided to engage another funeral establishment to handle the funeral. Several hours later, the wife contacted Marion and advised Marion that she had decided to engage another funeral establishment to handle the funeral arrangements. At this time, the wife neither advised Marion as to the name of the other funeral establishment that was to handle the funeral arrangements nor give Marion any express order for the release of the body. Later on in the evening of March 23, 1995, the wife telephoned Ed Harrell in regards to his funeral establishment handling the funeral arrangements for her late husband. Harrell advised the wife to contact and advise Marion of her decision, and that he would come by Marion Community the next day to pick up the body. After talking with the wife, sometime around 10:00 p.m. on March 23, 1995, Ed Harrell telephoned Marion to advise her of the wife's decision to engage his establishment in handling the funeral arrangements. Harrell also told Marion that he had a release form to pick up the body and would be around on Friday, March 24, 1995, to pick-up the body. Upon inquiry by Harrell, Marion advised Harrell that the family owed for transporting and embalming the body. There is no evidence that a release form was presented to Marion at any time before, or at the time, the body was released to Harrell by Marion. Sometime on Friday, March 24, 1995, the wife advised Marion that Ed Harrell would be handing the arrangements for the funeral and would be by to pick up the body. At this time, Marion advised the wife that the wife owed Marion for transporting and embalming the body, and that "someone got to pay me for transporting and embalming." The amount owed was not discussed at this time. Marion did not tell the wife that the body would not be released unless, and until, the amount owed was paid. After the wife talked with Marion, on Friday, March 24, 1995, Ed Harrell attempted to visit Marion in regards to picking up the body, but Community Chapel was closed. Ed Harrell then went to the wife's home. Later that day, Harrell contacted Marion by telephone, and was informed that there was a charge of $90.00 for transporting the body and $375.00 for embalming the body which had to be paid. Marion did not tell Ed Harrell the body would not be released unless, and until, the amount was paid. On each occasion (at least three) when Harrell called Marion about picking up the body, Marion insisted that she must be paid for the embalming (there was no dispute about the transport fee), and each time Marion was told by Harrell that the wife would not pay the embalming fee. And each time that Marion was told that the wife would not pay the embalming fee, Marion would hang up the telephone. However, the more credible testimony is that Marion did not tell Harrell that the body would not be released unless, and until, the amount owed was paid. Apparently, Harrell considered Marion's hanging up the telephone as a refusal to release the body without first being paid. Although it may have been frustrating, Marion's hanging up the telephone when told she was not going to be paid, does not rise to the level of refusing an express order to release the body. On Saturday, March 24, 1995, Marion released the body to Ed Harrell, and at the same time, Respondent was paid $465.00 for services rendered. Marion assumed, based on the wife instructing Marion to "do what you have to do", that she had oral permission from the wife to embalm the body of the deceased, However, Marion neither attempted, nor was she given, written permission or authority from the wife to embalm the body of the deceased. Other than advising Marion that Ed Harrell would be by to pick up the body, there is no evidence that the wife gave Marion an express order, requiring Respondent to promptly surrender the body to Ed Harrell. Likewise, there is insufficient evidence to show that Marion refused to release the body unless, and until paid, after being given an express order by Harrell, on instructions from the wife, to release the body, notwithstanding the testimony of Ed Harrell which I find lacks credibility
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and the disciplinary guidelines set out in Rule 61G8-30.001(4), Florida Administrative Code, it is recommended that the Board enter a final order finding that Respondent did not violate Section 470.036(1)(p), Florida Statutes (1993), and dismissing Count I of the Administrative Complaint. It is further recommended that the Board finds that Respondent violated Section 470.036(12)(t), Florida Statutes (1993), and that such violation was a "technical violation" requiring only a written reprimand and an assessment of an administrative fine in the amount of Five Hundred Dollars. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of June, 1996, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE, 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 26th day of June, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 95-5940 The following constitutes my specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Department in this case. Department's Proposed Findings of Fact. Proposed findings of fact 1-8, 10-14, 16 and 18 are adopted in substance as modified in Findings of Fact 1 through 22. Proposed finding of fact 9, as stated, is not a finding of fact but a conclusion of law. Proposed findings of fact 15 and 17 are not supported by evidence in the record. As to proposed finding of fact 19, Respondent was paid $465.00 which was calculated as $375.00 for embalming and 90.00 for transporting. There is an error in calculating the total amount due on Department's exhibit 4 since $375.00 plus $95.00 equals $470.00, not $465.00 as indicated on exhibit 4. The evidence shows that Respondent was paid $465.00 at the time the body was released but the release of the body was not condition upon the payment. Proposed findings of fact 20 and 21 are neither material nor relevant. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Respondent elected not to file any proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Building 7, Suite 728 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Richard Doran, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building 7, Suite 728 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Jack Emory Farley, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services District 14 270 Bartow Municipal Airport Bartow, Florida 33830 R. E. D. (Address of Record)
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been licensed in Florida since December 16, 1994, as a licensed funeral establishment, holding license number FH 0002113. Edgar Harrell, who is also known as Ed Harrell, has never been a licensed funeral home director in Florida. Mr. Harrell owns Respondent and has owned at least part of Respondent at all material times. Respondent advised Petitioner of a name change. By letter dated January 31, 1995, to "Ed Harrell and Jerome Smith, Owners, Ed Harrell Funeral Home," Petitioner informed Respondent that its request for a name change had been processed and was effective as of January 31, 1995. The name was changed from "Smith-Harrell Funeral Services" to "Ed Harrell Funeral Home." The name change reflected the purchase by Mr. Harrell of Jerome Smith's ownership interest in Respondent. Petitioner's investigator conducted an inspection of Respondent's facility on March 1, 1995. He completed an inspection form reflecting the results of the inspection. The items corresponding to Count I are 134, 142, and 143. The item corresponding to Count II is 139. The item corresponding to Count III is 129. The investigator marked each of these items as not satisfactory. Item 134 is: the "funeral establishment/director providing cremation services obtaining signed declaration for disposition of remains." The form states in handwriting, "Ed signed." Item 134 references Rule 61G8-31.001(2). Item 142 is: the "customer's written agreement contains name, address, telephone number of establishment and disclosure statement." Item 142 references Section 470.035(4). Item 143 is: the "customer's written agreement dated and contains signatures of customer and funeral director." Item 143 references Section 470.035(5). Item 139 is: the "itemized price list of merchandise/services with establishment name, address and telephone available." The form states in handwriting, "Old estab[lishment] name." Item 139 references Section 470.035(1) and (2). Item 129 is: the "establishment/funeral director in charge name displayed at public entrance." Item 129 references Rule 61G8-21.003(6). The investigator marked other items as unsatisfactory on the inspection form, but these were not cited in the Administrative Complaint. Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Harrell signed an Authorization for Cremation and Disposition. The agreement was dated December 15, 1994, and Mr. Harrell signed as the "licensed representative" of Respondent. Petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the customers' written agreements with Respondent failed to contain the correct name of Respondent. The agreements introduced into evidence bore the name, "Smith- Harrell Funeral Services," but the agreements predated the effective date of the name change to "Ed Harrell Funeral Home." The proof was inconclusive as to blank form agreements. However, Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that the customers' written agreements with Respondent were signed by Mr. Harrell, rather than the licensed funeral director. In three cases, Mr. Harrell signed such agreements on behalf of Respondent. Mr. Harrell was at all times a controlling person of Respondent. Petitioner thus proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent aided and abetting an unlicensed person in the practice of a licensed activity in the matters set forth above. Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent was still using an old price list, with the name of "Smith-Harrell Funeral Services," at the time of the inspection. Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent failed to display its name or the name of a licensed funeral director at the public entrance at the time of the inspection. Neither Respondent nor Mr. Harrell committed any fraud or deceit, nor did either party attempt to commit any fraud or deceit, in the matters set forth above. Mr. Harrell simply had failed to obtain a new price list and new name display by the time of the inspection, which was little more than a month following the approval of the name change. However, Mr. Harrell offered no excuse for signing documents requiring the signature of a licensed funeral director.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers enter a final order finding Ed Harrell Funeral Home guilty of two violations of Section 470.036(1)(h) and one violation of 470.036(1)(n) and imposing penalties of a reprimand, administrative fine of $750, and costs of the entire investigation and prosecution. ENTERED on May 22, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 on May 22, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan Foster, Executive Director Board of Funeral Homes and Embalmers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Linda Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Attorney Miriam S. Wilkinson Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Edgar Harrell 2435-C Fowler Street Ft. Myers, Florida 33906
Findings Of Fact In September, 1975 two sons of Mrs. Pearlene Dillard were drowned. At the hospital Mrs. Dillard selected Stevens Funeral Home to provide the burial services. Later that evening she was visited by Rudolph Gilliam who was a friend of one of her sons. Mr. Gilliam had been phoned by a roommate of one of these sons who was very upset and requested he go to Mrs. Dillard's home to assist in the funeral arrangements. At the time Mr. Gilliam was not an employee of Johnson's Funeral Home, but he had on occasion worked at the funeral home as an assistant at funerals. Gilliam is self-employed and owns a restaurant. When Gilliam talked to Mrs. Dillard and learned that she had already engaged the services of another funeral director he did not pursue the matter. However, Mrs. Dillard asked him to take her to Johnson's Funeral Home which he did on the evening of September 18, 1975. He also took her brother, a daughter, and a niece. Upon arrival at Johnson's Funeral Home Gilliam introduced Mrs. Dillard to Joe Johnson and departed the room. Johnson showed Mrs. Dillard caskets and explained to her some of the provisions relating to funeral arrangements. Thereupon Mrs. Dillard decided that she preferred to use Johnson's Funeral Home. She thereafter went to the hospital and signed a second consent to have the bodies committed to Johnson's Funeral Home. Under oath Mrs. Dillard denied that Gilliam had told her that Johnson could provide a cheaper funeral as she alleged in an affidavit that was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 2. She further indicated that she had made up her mind independent of anything that Gilliam had said and that she was happy with the arrangements that she had procured from Johnson's Funeral Home. She acknowledged that she had changed her mind before the bodies had ever been released by the hospital to Stevens Funeral Home and considered that she had the right to do so. Subsequent to this incident, Jerome Stevens, the licensed Funeral Director of Stevens Funeral Home, filed a complaint that led to these charges. His affidavit was admitted into evidence without objection as Exhibit 1. Exhibit 3, the Affidavit of Fannie Mae Goodman was admitted into evidence without objection. Therein Mrs. Goodman stated that Rudolph Gilliam came to her house three times trying to get her to take the body from Stevens Funeral Home and give it to Johnson's Funeral Home which she declined to do. Rudolph Gilliam testified on behalf of Respondent. He does not know Fannie Mae Goodman and denied any attempt on his part to request her to change from Stevens Funeral Home to Johnsons'. He was a classmate of Mrs. Goodman's daughter, and went to the house after learning of her father's death. He did talk to Mrs. Goodman's daughter but he did not talk to Mrs. Goodman. On September 19, 1975 Stevens went to Mrs. Dillard's home to inquire why she had changed the funeral services to Johnson. She told him that she had changed her mind and was going to use Johnson's for the burial services. Mrs. Dillard made no deals with Gilliam and did not discuss any funeral arrangements with him. The discussions pertaining to funeral arrangements were made between her, her brother, and Johnson. Joe Johnson testified in his own behalf. He handled the funeral arrangements for Mrs. Dillard, and Mrs. Dillard did come to his funeral home on the evening of September 18, 1975 in company with Gilliam. He stated that Gilliam was not working for him, that Gilliam did occasionally work for him as an assistant during funerals. At the funeral services for Mrs. Dillard's sons Gilliam acted as an attendant and drove a family car. For these services Gilliam was paid $10.00 for the use of Gilliam's car and $10.00 for his services as an attendant. Johnson at no time paid any commission to Gilliam or offered to pay any commission to Gilliam. Prior to the arrival of Mrs. Dillard Johnson was not in contact with Gilliam and Gilliam was not working for him. Johnson has not had enough business for the past several months to warrant the employment of any assistants other than himself and his father, who is also a licensed funeral director and embalmer. Johnson acknowledged that he placed the advertisement in the newspaper that is contained in Exhibit 4.
