The Issue Whether the licenses of the Respondents, or any of them, should be revoked, annulled or suspended, or whether the Respondents, or any of them, should be otherwise disciplined for "funeral directing" at an unlicensed "funeral establishment."
Findings Of Fact Respondent Carl F. Slade holds funeral director's license number 588 and embalmer's license number 733; Respondent Richard H. Clark holds funeral director's license number 1057 and embalmer's license number 1225; Respondent Vista's Cuban-American Funeral Home, Ltd. holds establishment operating license number 1068. Respondent Slade is the licensed funeral director and embalmer in charge of Respondent Vista's Cuban-American Funeral Home, Ltd. Vista's Memorial Gardens Cemetery has a building on its premises but is not licensed. Respondent Richard Clark is employed, and has been so employed at all times pertinent to this hearing, by both Respondent Vista's Cuban-American Funeral Home, Ltd. and Vista's Memorial Gardens Cemetery. He performs services for both entities but does not work at the funeral home location. Respondent Clark is regularly employed on a forty (40) hours per week basis at the Vista's Memorial Gardens Cemetery and has his office in that location. The locations of Respondent Vista's Cuban-American Funeral Home, Ltd. and Vista's Memorial Gardens Cemetery are several miles apart on Red Road in the Miami, Dade County, area. An administrative complaint was filed against Respondents by Petitioner, State Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers, on September 8, 1978, alleging that the Respondents were in violation of the statute prohibiting solicitation and, through Respondent Clark, were "directing funerals" at an unlicensed "funeral establishment." The Respondents requested an administrative hearing. A motion to dismiss by the Respondents was denied. At the time of the hearing the charges involving solicitation were abandoned by the Petitioner Board. Vista's Memorial Gardens Cemetery is a division of Pershing Industries, Inc., an interstate public stock company. Pershing Industries, Inc. is an 85 percent limited partner in Respondent Vista's Cuban-American Funeral Home, Ltd. The funeral home is located at 1825 NW Red Road, and the cemetery is located at 14200 NW Red Road. The general manager of the cemetery is also a general manager of the funeral home. The other general partner is funeral director, Respondent Carl F. Slade, who is also a 15 percent limited partner in Respondent Vista's Cuban-American Funeral Home, Ltd. Respondent Slade owns no stock in Pershing Industries, Inc. The Respondent funeral home is licensed to operate a funeral establishment at 1825 NW Red Road and 57th Avenue in Hialeah, Florida. The building at Vista's Memorial Gardens Cemetery at 14200 Red Road, where Respondent Clark works, has a display room containing four caskets for selection by the customers but has no funeral parlor or embalming room. The duties of Respondent Clark other than the sale of plots at the cemetery include: Meets the public; Discusses funeral arrangements with families and financing, whether for present or future need; Collects details of families' desires for funerals and information required for the removal of remains and release to a funeral home, and information required for the completion of death certificates required by state law; Displays and offers for sale caskets from a display area within the building on the cemetery premises; Forwards information collected and details regarding preliminary arrangements made at the cemetery on forms provided by Respondent Vista's Cuban-American Funeral Home, Ltd. to the funeral home for handling; and Presides at and assists other members or employees of Respondent Vista's Cuban-American Funeral Home, Ltd. in services at the cemetery. On a day prior to September 8, 1978, Ms. Louise Pakenhem went to Vista's Memorial Gardens Cemetery where Respondent Clark was employed. She told Clark her husband, John Pakenham, was critically ill and negotiated a contract with Clark. Ms. Pakenham paid $25.00 down and agreed to pay the balance at the time of her husband's death. She discussed the funeral arrangements with the Respondent, which resulted in a prearrangement. Respondent Clark secured Ms. Pakenham's signature on a prearrangement contract and on a form to release her husband's body to the funeral home. Clark obtained the necessary information for a death certificate. He then sent the form and said information to Respondent Vista's Cuban-American Funeral Home, Ltd. All necessary items had been done with the exception of payment for the services in the amount Respondent Clark had estimated would be needed when Mr. Pakenham died. On the day after the contract and arrangements had been made, Ms. Pakenham, who was in fact a widow, cancelled both the burial rights contract and the arrangements by certified letter. The cemetery and Respondent funeral home cancelled both contracts and returned the $25.00. It is immaterial that Ms. Pakenham deceived Respondent Clark as to her need for a professional funeral director. Respondent Slade receives at his place of business at Respondent Vista's Cuban-American Funeral Home, Ltd. information on funerals from Respondent Clark. Respondent Slade arranges for transportation of bodies and the preparation thereof, and at times supervises and directs funerals in the chapel of Respondent Vista's Cuban-American Funeral Home, Ltd. and at Vista's Memorial Gardens Cemetery.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that: Respondent Carl F. Slade and Respondent Richard H. Clark cease and desist from practicing funeral directing at Vista's Memorial Gardens Cemetery; A fine be imposed on Respondent Slade and Respondent Clark of $250.00 each; and The license of Respondent Vista's Cuban-American Funeral Home, Ltd. be suspended until the funeral business in the unlicensed funeral establishment at Vista's Memorial Gardens Cemetery is discontinued, or until such time as no funeral business is referred to Respondent Vista's Cuban-American Funeral Home, Ltd. from that establishment. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of July, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Dewberry, Esquire 1300 Florida Title Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 R. G. Maxwell, Esquire 135 Westward Drive Miami Springs, Florida 33166 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION BOARD OF FUNERAL DIRECTORS AND EMBALMERS STATE BOARD OF FUNERAL DIRECTORS AND EMBALMERS, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 78-1698 CARL F. SLADE, F.D., VISTA'S CUBAN-AMERICAN FUNERAL HOME, LTD., and RICHARD H. CLARK, F.D., Respondent. /
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
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a funeral director and embalmer should be denied on the grounds set forth in the Board of Funeral, Cemetery and Consumer Services' March 1, 2019, Notice of Intent to Deny.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner, Charles Williams, born on February 12, 1976, attended Gumpton-Jones College of Funeral Service in Atlanta, Georgia, graduating in February 1998. Mr. Williams received his embalmer license in March 1999 and became a licensed funeral director on April 12, 1999. Mr. Williams was working as a licensed funeral director and embalmer at George H. Hewell and Son Funeral Home in Jacksonville when he was arrested in 2004 and charged with sexual battery under section 794.011(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2004), which makes a capital felony of an adult’s committing sexual battery upon, or in an attempt to commit sexual battery injuring the sexual organs of, a person less than 12 years of age. The facts alleged in the charging affidavit were that Mr. Williams committed the violation by putting his mouth on the penis of a person less than 12 years of age. Mr. Williams stipulated that his victim was an 11-year-old boy. On March 6, 2006, Mr. Williams entered a plea of nolo contendere to a charge of lewd and lascivious molestation against a victim less than 12 years of age, a life felony under section 800.04(5)(b), Florida Statutes (2006). The court adjudicated him guilty and sentenced him to 12 years in prison followed by 13 years of probation/community control upon release. His conviction under section 800.04 means that Mr. Williams is designated a sexual predator under section 775.21(4)(a), Florida Statutes. Mr. Williams testified on his own behalf via deposition. He described going to work part-time for Masters Funeral Home in Palatka in 1993, while he was still in high school. He washed cars, dug graves, and removed bodies for Masters Funeral Home while learning about the funeral business. He graduated high school in 1994, the same year he served a one-year apprenticeship at Masters Funeral Home. In 1995, Mr. Williams obtained an intern license for embalming. He served a one-year internship at Masters Funeral Home and then began his studies at Gupton-Jones College of Funeral Service in September 1996. He graduated with an associate of science degree on February 27, 1998. Mr. Williams returned to Palatka and applied for his funeral director intern license. In his deposition, Mr. Williams explained that the internship lasts one year. He performed the bulk of his internship at Masters Funeral Home. Mr. Williams also spent about one month at Hardage-Giddens Funeral Home in Jacksonville, part of the Service Corporation International chain of funeral homes. Mr. Williams described Hardage-Gibbons as an “assembly line.” He quit the job because he did not wish to employ his training working in a “factory.” He came back to Masters Funeral Home to complete his internship. Mr. Williams obtained his embalmer license in March 1999 and his funeral director license on April 12, 1999. For a time after receiving his funeral director license, Mr. Williams left the profession to work as a uniformed security guard at the Clay County Courthouse. In October 1999, Mr. Williams decided to join the United States Air Force because jobs were scarce in the funeral industry at that time. His initial enlistment was for four years but he lasted only six months. Mr. Williams testified that he did not disclose his homosexuality when he enlisted, but that word eventually got around that he was gay. Because this was during the period of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, Mr. Williams was granted an entry level separation from the Air Force after completing basic and security forces training. From 2000 until late 2003, Mr. Williams worked at Moring Funeral Home in Melrose. He described it as a small, family-run funeral home at which he performed every conceivable service that a licensee could, including meeting with families, embalming, digging graves, and transporting bodies. He did whatever needed doing. In December 2003, Mr. Williams went to work for George H. Hewell and Son Funeral Home in Jacksonville, another family-owned funeral home. They had two funeral homes and were very busy, going out on over 400 calls per year. Mr. Williams worked there until November 2004, when he was arrested. Mr. Williams testified that he was sentenced in 2006 and served 10 years and three months of his 12-year sentence. Mr. Williams credibly testified that he was a model prisoner. He was released on November 15, 2015. Since his release, Mr. Williams has been on sex offender probation, and will remain so until November 15, 2028. The terms of sex offender probation are fully described at section 948.30, Florida Statutes. Mr. Williams wears a monitoring bracelet on his ankle, is required to participate in a sex offender treatment program, reports regularly to his probation officer, and is restricted in terms of his proximity to children and places where children regularly congregate. Mr. Williams is required to disclose his status to prospective employers. The evidence established that Mr. Williams has abided by all terms of his sex offender probation. Mr. Williams testified that his first job upon release was at Gator Communications Service in Gainesville, where he worked answering phones for several months. He next went to work for Kirkland Enterprises, a landscape company in Green Cove Springs. Mr. Williams worked for about 10 months at Kirkland Enterprises, then took a job with Roller Die + Forming, a metal fabrication plant in Green Cove Springs. Since mid-2016, Mr. Williams has worked as a receiver and forklift operator at KeHE Distributors, a distributor of organic foods. While he was incarcerated, Mr. Williams allowed his funeral director and embalmer licenses to lapse. On May 31, 2018, Mr. Williams submitted to the Board his application for a “Combination Funeral Director and Embalmer License by Florida Internship and Examination.” The Board deemed his application complete on June 27, 2018. On March 1, 2019, the Board denied the application for the reasons set forth in the extended quotation in the Preliminary Statement, supra. At the hearing and by deposition, several witnesses testified on behalf of Mr. Williams, attesting to his abilities as a funeral director, and more generally, as to his good character. Charles Miller is a receiving lead at KeHE Distributors, supervising about a dozen stockers. He has known Mr. Williams since May 2018. Mr. Miller is not Mr. Williams’s direct supervisor, but does oversee his work from time to time. Mr. Miller testified that Mr. Williams is conscientious, punctual, helpful, efficient, and diligent. He takes his job seriously and takes direction well. He is a good communicator, a “people person.” Mr. Miller stated that Mr. Williams has a clean work record and is one of the most popular members of the workforce at KeHE Distributors. Mr. Miller testified that he knows Mr. Williams wears an ankle bracelet. Mr. Williams told Mr. Miller that he had been incarcerated for a lewd and lascivious act, but did not say with whom or whether the victim was a minor. Mr. Miller did not press Mr. Williams for details. Mr. Miller’s wife, Ruth Ann Miller, also testified on behalf of Mr. Williams. Ms. Miller met Mr. Williams at the funeral of a person who had worked with her husband and Mr. Williams at KeHE Distributors. She also saw Mr. Williams at the funeral of his sister. On both occasions, she was impressed by his demeanor and helpfulness to the mourners, even at his own sister’s service. Ms. Miller stated that she does not know Mr. Williams well but that she could be his friend. She testified that Mr. Williams is attentive and “bubbly,” and has a way of putting people at their ease. Ms. Miller knew little about Mr. Williams’s criminal past. She knew he had been in prison and wore an ankle bracelet, but she did not know why. Eric Altman is a funeral director at Johnson Overturf Funeral Home in Palatka. He is a few years older than Mr. Williams and has known Mr. Williams since they were both children in the same small town, Bostwick. Mr. Altman did not interact much with Mr. Williams until the latter showed an interest in the funeral business as a teenager. Mr. Williams went to work for the “competition,” Masters Funeral Home in Palatka. They would run into each other and talk about the business. In 2001, Mr. Altman was working at a small funeral home in Green Cove Springs that he was hoping to buy. The home was shorthanded and Mr. Altman arranged for Mr. Williams to come to work there. Mr. Altman and Mr. Williams worked together for a few months. After this stint as a co- worker, Mr. Altman did not see Mr. Williams regularly. Mr. Altman testified that everything Mr. Williams did as a funeral director was appropriate. Mr. Williams showed initiative and ensured that things ran smoothly. Mr. Altman pointed out that a funeral is a bad place to make mistakes because people never forget them. A funeral director must pay close attention to detail, and Mr. Williams did that. Mr. Williams always made a good public appearance and was very compassionate, professional, and respectful. Mr. Altman noted that even now when he sees Mr. Williams in the public eye, he is always wearing a coat and tie, making the proper appearance. Mr. Altman testified that he had been aware that Mr. Williams went to prison for 10 years but did not have any firsthand knowledge of the facts of his case. Mr. Altman stated that he would hire Mr. Williams and would have no problems working with him. Mr. Altman stated that he could see from the beginning that Mr. Williams wanted to succeed in the funeral business. “It’s kind of in our blood . . . . It’s just not for everybody . . . . It has to be in you. You have to have the heart for it. And you want to succeed and do well and be well thought of in the community and the people you serve. And he has that.” Tony Sweat is a self-employed truck driver who met Mr. Williams when they both worked for Kirkland Enterprises in 2015 and 2016. Mr. Sweat was the lead foreman when Mr. Williams was hired as a driver and laborer. Mr. Sweat joked that as landscapers, he and Mr. Williams spent more time with each other than with their families. They became friends. After both men left Kirkland Enterprises, they stayed in touch by telephone but did not see much of each other, which Mr. Sweat attributed to their living in different towns. Mr. Sweat stated that he has only seen Mr. Williams two or three times in the last six months. Mr. Sweat testified that in January 2019, his mother- in-law died. He and his wife Summer had no clue how to even begin arranging for a funeral. Mr. Sweat knew that Mr. Williams had been in the funeral business and called him for advice. Mr. Williams recommended Masters Funeral Home in Palatka and accompanied the Sweats to the funeral home to assist them with the paperwork. He came to the funeral and was a support and comfort to Ms. Sweat. Summer Sweat testified that Mr. Williams was helpful, professional, supportive, and possessed a lot of technical knowledge regarding the funeral industry. He helped select the urn for her mother’s remains, set up a website for friends and family to make gifts in honor of the deceased, and did most of the speaking on behalf of the family at the funeral. Ms. Sweat testified that this was her only real exposure to her husband’s friend but that she was very happy with everything he did. Mr. Sweat testified that he spoke with Mr. Williams about his criminal conviction. Mr. Williams told Mr. Sweat that he had been charged with molesting a little girl. Mr. Williams said that he pled guilty but did not actually commit the crime. Mr. Williams used his homosexuality as an alibi, stating that he was a gay man and would never want to molest a little girl. Mr. Sweat believed Mr. Williams’s story. When counsel for the Board showed him the actual arrest affidavit, Mr. Sweat stated, “That’s crazy.” However, Mr. Sweat then defended Mr. Williams’s lack of candor. Mr. Sweat reasoned that Mr. Williams is gay, had just been released from prison for child molestation, and was going to work with “a bunch of roughnecks” at Kirkland Enterprises. It made sense that Mr. Williams would choose to shade his story in order to avoid ostracism, or worse, from a group of co-workers who are likely homophobic. Mr. Williams was not required to give his employer the full details of his criminal activity and understandably did not volunteer the true gender of his victim. Mr. Sweat concluded his testimony by stating, “I think y’all should give him a chance, maybe . . . I mean, the business side of it--like as far as handling funerals and stuff, I--he seems to thoroughly enjoy that and is pretty decent at comforting people.” Tiffany Desjardins is Mr. Williams’s immediate supervisor at KeHE Distributors. She testified that Mr. Williams is diligent, punctual, attentive to detail, and a hard worker. Ms. Desjardins attended the funeral of Mr. Williams’s sister. Though he was not working in any official capacity, Mr. Williams assisted the funeral director, Quincey Masters, in escorting and seating the family. Ms. Desjardins noted that Mr. Williams conducted himself in a professional manner. Ms. Desjardins stated that she would not hesitate to have Mr. Williams make final arrangements for her loved ones, even in light of his criminal past. She was aware that he went to prison, that his offense involved an 11-year-old boy, and that Mr. Williams is not allowed around children. Kale Cooper is the inbound supervisor at KeHE Distributors. He is Mr. Williams’s ultimate supervisor. Mr. Cooper also was aware of the details of Mr. Williams’s offense and also stated that he would not hesitate to have Mr. Williams assist in the burial or cremation of his loved one. Paul Roach is the head of maintenance at KeHE Distributors. He attended the funeral of Mr. Williams’s sister and was impressed by Mr. Williams’s professional manner under such difficult circumstances. Mr. Roach knew that Mr. Williams had been imprisoned for the sexual molestation of an 11-year-old boy. He nonetheless stated that he would hire Mr. Williams to conduct the funeral services of his wife, son, or daughters. Mr. Roach testified that he had already entrusted Mr. Williams with the remains of a loved one. When Mr. Roach’s mother died about three years ago, everyone in his family was “too brokenhearted” to retrieve her cremated remains from the funeral home in St. Augustine. Mr. Roach asked Mr. Williams to do it. Mr. Williams put on a suit, drove to St. Augustine, and made sure that the mother’s remains were safely delivered to the family. Jennifer Brown testified that in June 2016, her father died in a nursing home in Jacksonville. Ms. Brown’s daughter, Angie Knighten, had known Mr. Williams since childhood. Ms. Knighten immediately suggested to her mother that they call Mr. Williams for assistance in making the arrangements. Mr. Williams rode to Jacksonville with someone from the Masters Funeral Home to remove the body. Ms. Brown was impressed that Mr. Williams arrived wearing a suit and also by his professional manner. Mr. Williams assisted the family through the entire cremation process. Ms. Brown stated that she lacked the words to say how much she appreciated everything Mr. Williams did for her family. Ms. Brown did not know of Mr. Williams’s criminal history at the time of her father’s death. By the time of the hearing, she was aware of the details of Mr. Williams’s offense. Ms. Brown testified that, even knowing what Mr. Williams had done, she would still not hesitate to call on Mr. Williams to handle the final arrangements for her loved one. Angie Knighten, Ms. Brown’s daughter, also testified on behalf of Mr. Williams. She had known Mr. Williams when they were children and they remained friendly through their teen years. Mr. Williams went away for about ten years. Then, in 2016, Ms. Knighten met Mr. Williams while they were both working at Roller Die + Forming. Ms. Knighten asked Mr. Williams about the ankle bracelet he was wearing and he told her where he had been for the past ten years. Mr. Williams told her that he had been convicted of lewd and lascivious assault on a child. Ms. Knighten did not pry into details, but she did ask Mr. Williams if he did it. Mr. Williams told her that he did not, but that he went to prison rather than put the child through the ordeal of a trial. Ms. Knighten stated that this conversation occurred in about 2016 or 2017 and that she had not discussed the matter again with Mr. Williams. She conceded that she had no way of knowing whether Mr. Williams was continuing to deny culpability for his crime. Quincey Masters III is the owner and operator of Masters Funeral Home in Palatka and Interlachen. Mr. Masters is a second-generation funeral director and has been in and around the funeral business for his entire life. Though not formally proffered or accepted as an expert, Mr. Masters is clearly knowledgeable about all aspects of the funeral business. His opinion regarding the appropriateness of Mr. Williams’s re-entry into the profession is deserving of special consideration. Mr. Masters testified that he first saw Mr. Williams when Mr. Williams was about six years old. Mr. Williams’s grandmother had brought him to the Baptist church for a funeral in his little black suit. In about 1993, Mr. Williams approached Mr. Masters about coming to the funeral home to learn about the profession. Mr. Williams went to work for Masters Funeral Home while still in high school and was trained in the business there. Mr. Masters testified that Mr. Williams worked for him for at least two years after graduating from high school and before getting his funeral director license. Mr. Williams was separately licensed as an embalmer and, according to Mr. Masters, was very good at it. Mr. Williams made funeral arrangements and helped conduct funerals. Even after he obtained his funeral director’s license, Mr. Williams was willing to wash cars and answer the phone at the funeral home. Mr. Masters testified that the public never sees the majority of the work done in his profession: the dressing, cosmeticizing, and placement of bodies in caskets. Mr. Masters observed Mr. Williams performing these tasks and testified that he did them well. Mr. Masters stated that Mr. Williams excelled in the public aspects of the funeral director’s job. He was always very professional when working with the public. He was caring and well-dressed. Mr. Masters stated that family members are in a vulnerable state during a time of mourning. It is important that the funeral director show an appropriate degree of concern and understanding, and Mr. Williams never failed in that respect. Mr. Masters testified that Mr. Williams did a lot of body removals when he worked for Masters Funeral Home, even before he was licensed. The removal person goes into the home, nursing home, hospice, or worksite, and assesses the layout. He must determine the best way to remove the body with the proper respect, compassion, and tenderness, whether or not the family is present to witness the removal. Mr. Masters usually sends two people to do the job, but on out-of-town removals he might send only one. He recalled sending Mr. Williams alone to Gainesville at least once. Mr. Williams always showed the proper respect and was always available to go out on removal jobs when called. Mr. Masters was aware of Mr. Williams’s crime and conviction. In fact, Mr. Masters visited Mr. Williams in prison. Mr. Masters testified that he would have no problem working with Mr. Williams in any aspect of the funeral business. Mr. Masters testified as follows, addressing his words to Mr. Williams: I believe, beyond shadow of a doubt, that you should have the opportunity to be a licensed funeral director and embalmer. I believe you have a lot to offer, to give back I don’t believe the State would have to worry one bit about you. The public would be safe. And, in all candor, and as sincere as I can say it, I believe you would be an asset to the profession once again. Teresa Perez is a licensed mental health therapist with ITM Group in Gainesville. She is specifically trained in the treatment of sexual abusers. Ms. Perez has been Mr. Williams’s therapist for sex-offender treatment for the past two years. She testified that he has made progress and is currently in the “maintenance” phase of treatment, which will be completed in March 2020. Ms. Perez stated that only a minority of her clients achieve the maintenance level of treatment. Ms. Perez testified that Mr. Williams’s risk assessments show him to be in the lowest risk category for recidivism for a sexual offense. Mr. Williams has been administered the Rapid Risk Assessment for Sexual Offense Recidivism (“RRASOR”) static risk factor tool, the STATIC-99 test, and a dynamic risk factors test, all of which indicate a low potential for a repeated offense. Ms. Perez agreed with Board counsel’s statement that the RRASOR tool suggests that Mr. Williams is part of a group having an expected recidivism rate of seven percent within five years, and a recidivism rate of 11 percent over 10 years. Board counsel placed great emphasis on the risk posed by Mr. Williams as expressed by the 11-percent recidivism rate in the RRASOR testing. The undersigned is less troubled by that statistic because of the great confidence Ms. Perez placed in Mr. Williams’s progress in treatment. The undersigned reads the 11-percent recidivism rate not as an expression of Mr. Williams’s personal risk, but as a general statistic about the subjects of the RRASOR testing. The number does not mean that every individual in the group of 100 subjects has an 11-percent risk of relapse. Rather, it indicates that the group includes 11 men who are virtually certain to be repeat offenders, and 89 who in all likelihood will not commit a repeat offense. Based upon her professional qualifications and experience, Ms. Perez seemed sure that Mr. Williams would be one of the 89. The undersigned credits her opinion. Ms. Perez testified that Mr. Williams consistently engages meaningfully in treatment. He is self-disclosing and helpful to other members of his group therapy sessions. Ms. Perez stated that Mr. Williams has consistently acknowledged that he committed a sex offense in the past. She stated that the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Offenders has in recent years questioned the utility of requiring persons receiving treatment for sexual offenses to continue identifying themselves as “sex offenders.” If polygraph tests and continued monitoring during probation prove that the client is not engaging in negative behaviors and if therapy shows the client is addressing the roots of the issues influencing his choices, then it may be counter-therapeutic to insist that the client continue to identify himself as a sex offender. Ms. Perez believes that Mr. Williams meets these criteria. Ms. Perez testified that, in her professional opinion, Mr. Williams would not pose a risk to the health and safety of the public if he were to receive a license to be a funeral director and embalmer. Ms. Perez testified that Mr. Williams has taken full responsibility for his actions in molesting an 11-year-old boy in 2004. She was unaware that Mr. Williams had, outside of the therapeutic setting, denied committing the offense. Ms. Perez stated that she intended to discuss that issue with Mr. Williams and could adjust his course of treatment in light of their discussion. On his own behalf, Mr. Williams testified that he knows a lot more about himself, after 10 years in prison and ongoing therapy, than he did at the time of his offense. He noted that a funeral director deals almost exclusively with adults and that there is almost nothing a funeral director does that is outside of the public eye. He would never be with an unaccompanied minor when performing his duties. He believed there are no triggers in the funeral service profession that might cause him to relapse. Mr. Williams testified that he poses no danger to the public. Counsel for the Board points out that funeral directors meet with families to make funeral arrangements and in the course of performing their services come into contact with family members of all ages during times of extreme vulnerability. Though this point is valid, it does not undermine Mr. Williams’s contention that he would never be alone with a vulnerable child in the course of his duties. Counsel also notes that funeral directors may make contact with family and friends in the removal and transport of the deceased, although the evidence at the hearing established that no license is required to remove and transport a body. In summary, the Board has stipulated that Mr. Williams possesses the skills, knowledge, and technical qualifications for licensure as a funeral director and embalmer. Therefore, the only issues in this proceeding are Mr. Williams’s good character and whether granting him the license he seeks would create a danger to the public. Mr. Williams presented the testimony of friends, acquaintances, co-workers, current and former employers, fellow funeral directors, and his mental health therapist, who all recommended that Mr. Williams be granted licensure as a funeral director and embalmer. Mr. Williams’s entire criminal record consists of one crime, of an especially heinous nature, for which he faultlessly served his sentence and continues to comply with all terms of his probation. Mr. Williams’s personal demeanor at the hearing and his deposition testimony bespeak a man who has acknowledged his transgression, accepted his guilt, and seeks to continue repaying his debt. Twice after his release from prison, out of understandable shame and fear, Mr. Williams did not tell the full truth about his crime, once to an employer and once to an old friend. However, the evidence supports a finding that Mr. Williams has consistently acknowledged his guilt during therapy. Ms. Perez testified that it is not uncommon for an offender’s ability to relate the truth to persons outside the therapeutic setting to evolve over time. At the time of the hearing, Mr. Williams was forthright in stating that he had committed the act of lewd and lascivious molestation of an 11-year-old boy. Mr. Masters was a particularly impressive witness. His time in the industry and his lifelong knowledge of Mr. Williams combined to make his plea on behalf of Mr. Williams’s licensure moving and convincing. However, it was not just Mr. Masters but every testifying character witness who expressed complete confidence in Mr. Williams’s reformation and his ability to skillfully perform the duties of a funeral director. Even knowing that Mr. Williams had committed a terrible crime, witness after witness stated that they would, without hesitation, employ Mr. Williams to make the final arrangements for their loved ones. The undersigned noted how often witnesses told of Mr. Williams dropping whatever he was doing to help a friend with some funeral-related need--helping to arrange and host the service, picking up the body of a recently deceased relative, assuming responsibility for the safe transport of a loved one’s ashes--without thought of remuneration. Mr. Masters and Mr. Altman spoke in terms of the funeral business having to be in one’s blood. It is a calling, a vocation that is not for everyone. The evidence presented at the hearing made clear that Mr. Williams felt this calling from an early age, pursued it with diligence and vigor, and now seeks to resume his career in the funeral industry. Mr. Williams has demonstrated his reformed good character and that his licensure would not create a danger to the public. The undersigned finds that the Board should give him the opportunity to return to his profession.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: The Board Funeral, Cemetery and Consumer Services enter a final order granting Petitioner's application for licensure as a funeral director and embalmer. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of September, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 9th day of September, 2019.
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
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
The Issue Whether the Funeral Director's license and/or the Embalmer's License of Donald B. Johns should be suspended or revoked. Whether the license of the Donald B. Johns Funeral Home should be suspended or revoked.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Donald B. Johns, holds a Funeral Director's license, No. 1473, and an Embalmer's license, No. 1633. The Donald B. Johns Funeral Home is licensed as No. 827. A complaint was filed against Respondent by Petitioner for the violation of Section 470.10(6), 470.12(1)(k), and 470.12(2)(p), Florida Statutes, and the Respondent Donald B. Johns Funeral Home was charged with violations of Section 470.12(4)(a), 470.12(4)(c), and 470.30(6), Florida Statutes. A request for a formal hearing for an appointment of a hearing officer was made by the Respondent, Donald B. Johns, and the Petitioner, State Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers, petitioned for this hearing. Notice to appear were duly sent to the parties. Mr. and Mrs. James Jesse and the decedent's grandmother, Mrs. Jesse, contacted the Donald B. Johns Funeral Home in arranging for the funeral of the decedent, Jason Jesse, an infant. The Respondent, Donald B. Johns, as the funeral director and embalmer, appointed one Thomas Davis to make the arrangements for said funeral. The negotiations and arrangements included meeting the family at the funeral home; inquiry as to the desired services; quotation of the costs thereof; showing the family a casket catalog and ordering a casket for the family; requiring the family to complete the paperwork for the cremation; offering a cremation urn for sale; arranging a viewing for the family at the funeral home; advising the family on the availability of services at the cemetery selected by the family; discussing the availability of a sign-in book and name cards at the funeral home; attending services at the church; and attempting to correct defects in the casket and presentation of the body at the viewing. The Respondent Donald B. Johns was aware of and permitted Thomas Davis to handle the funeral arrangements on behalf of the funeral home which the Respondent owned and operated as the licensed funeral director in charge, when he knew that said Thomas Davis was only an attendant and not licensed as a funeral director. The funeral arrangements were not satisfactory to the family of the decedent and there were misunderstandings and unnecessary and trying experiences for the family.
Recommendation Revoke the licenses of Donald B. Johns and the Donald B. Johns Funeral Home, impose a fine under Section 470.34 in an amount not to exceed $1,000.00. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of March, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Dewberry, Esquire 1300 Florida Title Building Jacksonville Florida 32202 Donald B. Johns 3890 Andrews Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33309
Findings Of Fact From the pleadings filed herein, and argument of counsel, the following facts are determined. Petitioner filed its initial administrative complaint on August 11, 1981, alleging generally that in conjunction with the arrangement of an out-of-state funeral (1) Respondents were guilty of fraud, deceit, negligence, incompetency or misconduct in the conduct of their business of funeral directing, and (2) Respondents were guilty of misrepresentation and fraud in the conduct of their profession. Still pending are Count II, Count III (which has been dismissed this date by separate order for failure to state a cause of action without prejudice to Petitioner refiling a proper charge), and Counts IV and V (which are sought to be added to this proceeding through Petitioner's second amended administrative complaint). Petitioner accordingly sought to take disciplinary action against Respondents' licenses as funeral director, embalmer and funeral establishment. Upon a motion to dismiss being filed by Respondents, the complaint was dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. Thereafter, Petitioner filed its first amended administrative complaint on October 1, 1981, charging, inter alia, that Respondents were guilty of negligence or misconduct in the practice of funeral directing within the meaning of Subsection 470.036(1)(g), Florida Statutes. These charges again stemmed from a funeral purchase agreement entered into by Respondents on or about June 24, 1980, which required Respondents to pay from the proceeds of a funeral arranged by them a $1,250 payment to a Nebraska funeral establishment to handle the actual burial of the deceased. This payment was not made to the other funeral establishment until on or around February, 1981. Respondents thereafter filed a motion to dismiss Count I of the complaint on October 21, 1981, contending, inter alia, that Petitioner failed to state a cause of action under the facts alleged.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondents' motion to dismiss Count I of the First Amended Administrative Complaint with prejudice be and it is hereby GRANTED, DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of April, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph W. Lawrence, II, Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wilson W. Wright, Esquire 217 South Adams Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues in this proceeding are whether Emerald Coast Funeral Home (Emerald Coast) and Jeffrey Kevin Watts (Watts) failed to treat remains with dignity and respect in violation of Section 497.386(4), Florida Statutes, and whether Emerald Coast was required by Section 497.380(12)(a), Florida Statutes, to submit a change of ownership application.
Findings Of Fact Emerald Coast has been licensed to operate a Funeral Establishment in the state of Florida and as an Apprentice- Intern Training Agency since May 4, 1998, holding license numbers FO41292-2600-01 and FO41292—2200-01. In 1997, Carriage Services of Florida, Inc., acquired Emerald Coast Funeral Home from Forest Lawn/Evergreen Management Corporation. Emerald Coast is a fictitious name registered with the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations, to Carriage Funeral Holdings, Inc. Also in 1997, Carriage Funeral Holdings, Inc., became the indirect owner of Emerald Coast through issuance of all the shares of common stock of Carriage Services of Florida. In 1998, shortly after the merger, Emerald Coast filed a change of ownership application with the Board of Funeral Directors & Embalmers. Unfortunately, the application contains a scrivener’s error that erroneously reflects “Carriage Funeral Services of Florida” as the owner of Emerald Coast instead of Carriage Services of Florida, Inc. However, the attachments to Emerald Coast’s application properly identify Carriage Services of Florida, Inc., as the direct owner of Emerald Coast, and Respondent’s records reflected Carriage Services of Florida as the owner. Additionally, at the time Emerald Coast’s application was filed, one of the attachments reflected that Carriage Services, Inc., was the sole shareholder of Carriage Services of Florida, Inc. However, as indicated, since 1997, Carriage Funeral Holdings, Inc., has owned all the common stock of Carriage Services of Florida, Inc., and is the ultimate owner of Emerald Coast. In 2000, Carriage Services of Florida, Inc. merged into Carriage Cemetery Services, Inc., a Texas corporation authorized to do business in the State of Florida. Under the Articles of Merger, Carriage Services of Florida and Carriage Cemetery as the constituent corporations merged into the surviving corporation Carriage Cemetery Services. Carriage Services ceased to exist and, by the terms of the merger, Carriage Services shares of stock were cancelled. The official records of the Department of State do not contain any corporate annual reports for Carriage Services after 1999. The official records of the Department of State do contain required corporate annual reports for Carriage Cemetery up through 2009. There was no evidence regarding the relationship between Carriage Holdings and Carriage Cemetery. However, all three corporations appear to be owned by the same individuals, but are legally separate entities. As separate entities, the merger of Carriage Services with Carriage Cemetery technically caused a change of ownership of Emerald Coast to occur at the time of the merger, since Carriage Services ceased to exist. At that point, the new owner should have notified the Department of the change in ownership. Emerald Coast did not file such a notification. There was no evidence that Emerald Coast intentionally elected not to notify the Department regarding its change in ownership or that it was trying to hide such change. As indicated, the people at Emerald Coast’s corporate headquarters remained the same, even though the technical corporate entity changed. However, the failure to notify the Department about the change in ownership is a violation of Florida law, albeit a very minor violation, easily corrected by filing the correct paperwork with the Department. Except for failing to notify the Department, no other violation of Florida law was shown by the evidence, since the funeral establishment is the licensed entity under Florida law and Emerald Coast, as the licensed funeral establishment, had a valid license to operate as such. Given these facts, Emerald Coast is guilty of violating Section 497.380(12)(a), Florida Statutes. All other statutory violations alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint should be dismissed. Jeffrey Kevin Watts has been a licensed Funeral Director and Embalmer for approximately 20 years holding license number FO47717. In 2008, he was the funeral director for Emerald Coast. In February of 2008, the family of decedent B.C. hired Emerald Coast to provide funeral services. Those services included embalming B.C.’s body for viewing and cremation. To enable Emerald Coast to prepare B.C.’s body for viewing, B.C.’s husband executed a written Embalming Authorization. The written Authorization authorized Emerald Coast to care for and prepare for disposition of B.C. in accordance with its customary practices. Additionally, B.C.’s family provided Emerald Coast with a photograph of B.C. in life. The purpose of the photograph was to enable Emerald Coast to prepare B.C.’s body for viewing by her friends and family. In fact, the goal of the embalming process was to restore B.C. to as natural state as possible towards which the picture served as the standard. Importantly, B.C.’s tongue did not protrude between her teeth and out of her mouth while she was alive. Thus, the goal was to prepare B.C.’s body so that her mouth would close normally and she would resemble the photograph provided by her husband. In order to prepare a body for viewing, the body of the deceased must be embalmed. Embalming is a restorative art and always involves removing fluid and tissue from the body and replacing the same with embalming fluid. The evidence demonstrated that it is standard practice for some tissue to be removed and discarded down the drain and some tissue to be removed and discarded in a biomedical waste container at the funeral home. The condition of the body at the time of death determines how much tissue must be removed from a decedent’s remains in order to restore the exterior features of that person to its natural appearance. On February 15, 2008, Mr. Watts embalmed the body of B.C. in preparation for its viewing on February 17, 2008. During the embalming process, B.C.’s tongue became swollen. Such swelling is not a frequent occurrence of the embalming process; but it is always a possibility due to the nature of the embalming fluid used to embalm a decedent’s body. In this case, the swelling caused B.C.’s tongue to protrude from her mouth and disfigure her appearance. The decedent’s tongue protruded approximately a quarter of an inch beyond her upper and lower front teeth and prevented the mouth from being closed. The disfigurement would not have allowed B.C. to be viewed with a normal appearance since her tongue would have protruded from her mouth. To reduce the swollen tongue, Mr. Watts first tried to put the tongue back into B.C.’s mouth using firm digital pressure. The pressure was unsuccessful. He also tried to roll decedent’s tongue back into her mouth and reduce the swelling using a series of forceps and clamps. Mr. Watts also attempted to reduce the swelling in decedent’s tongue using a hot towel. These procedures were also unsuccessful and did not improve B.C.’s appearance. Mr. Watts then attempted to suture the inside of B.C.’s upper and lower lip area. However, the sutures did not keep B.C.’s tongue from protruding out of her mouth and did not restore a natural appearance to B.C.’s remains. Next, Mr. Watts tried to put cardboard into B.C.’s mouth to create a barrier that would hold the tongue back. The cardboard was unsuccessful. He also used a syringe to try to remove the fluid from B.C.’s tongue. Again, the attempt was unsuccessful and B.C.’s tongue continued to protrude past her teeth. After all these methods failed to restore B.C. to a natural appearance, Mr. Watts consulted his supervisor, Chuck Jordan, regarding the swelling in the decedent’s tongue. Like Mr. Watts, Mr. Jordan tried to reduce the swelling in the B.C.’s tongue and to force it back into position. Importantly, all of the methods used by Mr. Watts and Mr. Jordan are standard practices in the embalming industry. In fact, the process and practices followed by both men are recognized as appropriate practices to restore a body’s natural appearance. As a last resort, Mr. Jordan and Mr. Watts agreed that excision of the protruding portion of the tongue was the only procedure that would restore B.C.’s natural appearance. Mr. Jordan authorized Mr. Watts to excise the protruding portion of B.C.’s tongue. Again, excision of the tongue, or a portion thereof, in cases such as the one here is an accepted and customary embalming practice specifically recognized by the industry and is addressed in the textbook used by all 49 of the colleges of mortuary science in the United States – Embalming: History, Theory and Practice by Robert G. Mayer – as a proper method of last resort in restoring a body to its natural appearance. Thereafter, Mr. Watts excised the protruding portion of B.C.’s tongue by tracing over the upper and lower teeth with a scalpel. This procedure resulted in the excision of a piece of waste tissue that measured approximately a quarter of an inch wide by an inch and a quarter long. He did not remove a body part from B.C.’s body since B.C.’s tongue remained with her body. After removal, Mr. Watts placed the excised tissue in the biomedical waste container in the preparation room. Such a receptacle is the appropriate container in which to dispose of waste tissue. Indeed, the better expert evidence demonstrated that disposal of such waste tissue as biomedical waste is appropriate and is standard practice in the industry. There was no clear and convincing evidence that demonstrated disposal of waste tissue, like the tissue in this case, was disrespectful or an undignified handling of a person’s remains especially since standard mortuary practice recognizes such disposal as appropriate. Moreover, there was no clear or convincing evidence that the excised portion of B.C.’s tongue constituted human remains since they were no longer part of the decedent’s body. In February of 2008, Kirk Kahler was a licensed embalmer’s apprentice working for Emerald Coast under the supervision of Mr. Watts. As the supervising embalmer, Mr. Watts was responsible to teach and instruct Mr. Kahler. On February, 17, 2008, Mr. Watts discussed the excision of the protruding portions of B.C.’s tongue with Mr. Kahler. Mr. Watts discussed the issues with B.C.’s tongue because the methods and processes he used to resolve the protruding tongue do not occur frequently; but, do occur during the embalming process. It was an opportunity for Mr. Kahler to learn about an infrequent occurrence in the embalming industry. While Mr. Watts was checking the point of excision to ensure there would be no fluid leaks from the area, Mr. Kahler asked Mr. Watts where the excised tissue was and how much had been removed. Mr. Watts informed Mr. Kahler the tissue was in the biomedical waste receptacle and removed it to show Mr. Kahler the amount of tissue removed. In order to show the tongue to Mr. Kahler, Mr. Watts held the tongue up. Mr. Kahler testified that Mr. Watts held the tongue up “like a trophy fish.” Mr. Watts denied such an action or that he demonstrated a “trophy fish” attitude. Such a personal opinion by Mr. Kahler about another person’s attitude or thoughts is neither clear nor convincing evidence that Mr. Watts treated B.C.’s tongue in an undignified manner. After showing Mr. Kahler the excised tissue, Mr. Watts placed the tissue back into the biomedical waste container. Later that day, without Emerald Coast’s consent, Mr. Kahler removed the excised tissue from the biomedical waste container, placed it in an envelope, and kept it in his mailbox at Emerald Coast. Mr. Kahler, whose rationale is somewhat suspect in this case, testified that he took the tissue because he was outraged by Mr. Watts’ handling of the tissue, thought the family should have been advised about the excision of the tissue, and thought the waste tissue should have been cremated with B.C.’s body. His desire was to preserve the tissue as evidence. The family of B.C. held her viewing and service on February, 17, 2008. On February 21, 2008, Mr. Kahler transported B.C.’s body to the crematorium where she was cremated. Even though Mr. Kahler professed concern for the family and felt that the excised tissue should have been placed with the body, Mr. Kahler neither advised the family about the excised tissue, nor placed the excised tissue with the body even though he had the opportunity to do so. Later, after his resignation from Emerald Coast in the middle of March, 2008, Mr. Kahler took the envelope home with him and kept it on his kitchen counter for approximately 45 days. On March 21, 2008, Mr. Kahler emailed the corporate headquarters of Emerald Coast regarding “the removal of a large portion of tongue,” from a decedent’s body. The email also voices other concerns about the management of Emerald Coast. Mr. Kahler again emailed corporate headquarters to advise that he had the “referenced tongue.” He communicated the same message about his possession of “the tongue” to corporate headquarters again on March 30, 2008. At some point, Emerald Coast’s corporate headquarters contacted its attorney regarding Mr. Kahler’s removal and possession of excised tissue from Emerald Coast. On April 29, 2008, the attorney wrote Mr. Kahler a letter demanding that he return the tissue to Emerald Coast by a specific date and time. The attorney advised that if Mr. Kahler did not return the tissue, Carriage would file a civil suit against Mr. Kahler. The letter does not constitute an admission by Respondents that the excised portion of B.C.’s tongue meets the definition of remains contained in Chapter 497, Florida Statutes. On April 30, 2008, Mr. Kahler responded that he would return the tongue to the family since he felt it “technically” belonged to them. He also stated that he would “contact his friends at the local newspaper.” That same day, Mr. Kahler asked that Petitioner contact him about the “illegal removal of body parts.” At that time, Mr. Kahler had the excised tissue in his possession for 70 days. An investigator for the Department met with Mr. Kahler and advised him to return the tissue to Emerald Coast so that it could be disposed of properly. Shortly after that meeting, Mr. Kahler returned the tissue to Emerald Coast. However, the evidence was neither clear nor convincing that either Emerald Coast or Mr. Watts treated B.C.’s remains in an undignified or disrespectful manner. The procedures they used to restore B.C. to a natural appearance were standard procedures. The disposal of the waste tissue from that restorative process was likewise standard. Similarly, there was no clear or convincing evidence that demonstrated Mr. Watts treated B.C.’s remains in an undignified or disrespectful manner. Mr. Kahler’s opinion is simply insufficient to demonstrate that either Respondent violated Florida law regarding the treatment of human remains. Based on these facts, the Count I of the Administrative Complaint filed against Emerald Coast should be dismissed. Similarly, the Administrative Complaint against Mr. Watts should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Jeffrey Kevin Watts and dismissing Count I of the Administrative Complaint filed against Emerald Coast. It is further RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Emerald Coast guilty of violating Sections 497.380(12)(a) and 497.152(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and issuing a letter of reprimand for such violation. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of October, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 5th day of October, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. David, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Derek E. Leon, Esquire Christopher J.M. Collings, Esquire Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLC 5300 Wachovia Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131-2399 Diana M. Evans, Director Bureau of Funeral and Cemetery Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Robert Beitler, General Counsel Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street, Suite 526 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
