Findings Of Fact Respondent, Florida Mortuary Services (FMS), is a licensed funeral establishment at 1495 N.W. 17th Avenues Miami, Florida, having been issued license number FH 661 by petitioner; Department of Professional Regulations Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers (Board). Respondent, William F. Richardt, is a licensed funeral director and embalmer having been issued license numbers FE 0001490, EM 001490 and FD 0001334 by petitioner. He has been a licensed funeral director since 1967 and is owner and funeral director in charge of the funeral establishment. Respondent, Robert Healy Jr., is also a licensed funeral director and embalmer having been issued license numbers FE 000650, EM 000650 and FD 000500 by petitioner. At all times relevant hereto Richardt and Healy were employees of FMS. A preneed contract is defined by Subsection 639.07(6), Florida Statutes, as "a contract to furnish funeral merchandise or service in the future." A funeral homed or its agents and employees is authorized to sell preneed funeral contracts if a certificate of authority is obtained from the Department of Insurance (Department). In early January 1964, the Department received an anonymous complaint by mail that FMS was offering preneed burial service contracts without having first obtained a certificate of authority. On January 27, 1984, the Department issued a letter to FMS reciting that certain information concerning the sale of preneed contracts by FMS had been brought to its attention, that Department records indicated that FMS had no license under Chapter 639, and that if the allegations were true, FMS must cease and desist from such activities until the firm complied with the law. The Department also furnished FMS with a copy of an application and the applicable law. On February 2, 1984, counsel for FMS advised the Department by letter that he had instructed his client to cease and desist such activities, and that an application to sell preneed contracts would be forthcoming. In May 1964 FMS sought the services of Funeral Services, Inc. (FSI), a holding company of funeral directors and others formed to facilitate the sale of preneed contracts and to aid funeral directors in obtaining licensure under Chapter 639. However, FSI declined to act as agent for FMS because of the earlier cease and desist order issued by the Department and because it believed that FMS had continued to advertise the availability of preneed contracts after that order had been issued. In its proposed application filed with FSI, FMS stated that no contracts for preneed funeral services had been entered into prior to its licensure application being filed. It did so on advice of legal counsel since it did not consider the services previously offered to be preneed contracts within the meaning of Chapter 639. Instead it construed them to be "pre-planning agreements" and not subject to the provisions of Chapter 639. An application was then filed by FMS with the Department on August 22, 1984. After review and processing, a certificate of authority was issued by the Department effective October 24, 1984. In its application FMS certified that there were no preneed contracts in existence which predated the October 24, 1984 registration date. Through complaints of unknown origin; the activities of respondents were brought to the attention of petitioner, who issued an administrative complaint on July 15, 1985. That prompted the instant proceeding. Records of FMS confirms and respondents conceded that during the period from 1976 through 1983, Richardt as the owner and funeral director in charge of the funeral homed and the funeral homed entered into agreements to provide funeral services and merchandise with at least 130 individuals, including the 113 listed in the administrative complaint. The agreements with consumers reflected that FMS was providing "Services for Preneed" for the particular consumer. They specifically referred to FMS providing professional funeral directing services; provision for funeral home facility use, transportation, funeral merchandise and cash advances for the funeral at an agreed upon price. The agreement itself read as follows: The foregoing contract has been read by (to) me, and I hereby acknowledge receipt of a copy of same and agree to pay the above funeral account and such additional services and merchandise as ordered by me on or before 19 . The liability hereby assumed is in addition to the liability imposed by law upon the estate and others, and shall not constitute a release thereof. The contract then contained a signature of the customer and the funeral director. Those contracts were entered into and signed by Healy or Richardt on behalf of FMS. Prior to October 1984, Richardt and FMS advertised the availability of a preneed trust plan through local telephone directories, business signs and radio advertising. In addition, approximately 20,000 advertising flyers were mailed to Broward County residents. These flyers stated that by signing up for the plan a consumer could avoid future price increases. They also stated that an installment payment plan was available, and that all monies received by FMS would be placed in a trust account at a banking institution in Miami. It also required a minimum payment of $100 in the form of a check or money order made payable to Florida Mortuary Services. Although the contract itself did not provide for refunding of the monies, the advertising flyer stated that the contract could be cancelled by the consumer. According to respondents, it was the intent of the contract to provide a guarantee of provision of the stated funeral services once the customer executed the agreement and made the required minimum down payment of at least $100. After an agreement was executed an account was set up at Amerifirst Federal in Miami with the following designation: "Florida Mortuary Services, in trust for 'Name of Customer'." Monthly bank statements showing the activity on each account were thereafter sent to FMS. If a person holding a preneed contract died, Richardt would present the banking institution with the death certificate and receive all monies in the account, including interest collected to date. Based upon the foregoing findings, it is found that the "agreements" sold or offered to be sold by respondents were in actuality preneed funeral contracts which cannot be sold unless approval from the Department of Insurance is obtained. After receiving the Department of Insurance certificate of authority in October, 1984, Richardt and FMS took all preexisting contracts and incorporated them into "new" contracts utilizing the contract format approved by the Department of Insurance. They were given new dates beginning with the date of licensure (October 24, 1984) and continuing through the end of the year. By doing so, FMS and Richardt made it appear that the contracts were entered into subsequent to the date of licensure. When the Department of Insurance conducted its annual audit of the insurance funds, it was informed by FMS that the contracts existed as of the new dates indicated on the contracts. The Department was never told about the original contracts, or the fact that such contracts were revised to meet the new Department format. Indeed, in its sworn annual statement filed with the Department, FMS represented that the first contract was entered into on October 24, 1984, and the other 129 contracts were entered into between that date and December 31, 1984. According to Richardt, FMS did not change its method or manner of transacting preneed business after October 1954, except to utilize the new contract form required by the Department. FMS continued to use the same method to create and make withdrawals from the trust account, and to provide the same contractual guarantees to the customer. Respondents maintain that the preneed agreements were just that and were not the contracts contemplated by Chapter 639. However, this position conflicts with the testimony of F. James Wylie, a Florida funeral director and administrative officer of FSI whose testimony is accepted as being more persuasive on the issue. According to Wylie, the contracts and advertising used by FMS prior to October 24, 1984, constituted the sale of preneed funeral service contracts. Wylie also opined that by engaging in this activity without a license, a funeral director was guilty of misconduct in the practice of funeral directing. Phillip S. Bennett, Jr., a preneed burial examiner for the Department of Insurance, corroborated Wylie's opinion and opined that FMS's activities constituted the sale and offering for sale of preneed contracts without licensure.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED that respondents be found guilty as charged in the administrative complaint, and the licenses of respondents Florida Mortuary Services and William F. Richardt be suspended for two years with said suspension stayed and their licenses placed on probation for five years, subject to such terms and conditions as the Board deems appropriate. The license of respondent Robert Healy, Jr., should be placed on probation for two years. DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of February 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. Hearings Hearings DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 17th day of February 1986.
The Issue The issues are as follows: (a) whether Respondent violated Section 470.036(1)(t), Florida Statutes, by embalming a deceased human body without obtaining permission from a legally authorized person; (b) whether Respondent violated Section 470.036(1)(p), Florida Statutes, by refusing to promptly surrender custody of a dead human body upon the express order of the legally authorized person; and if so, (c) what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the licensed funeral director in charge for Marion Graham Mortuaries in Jacksonville, Florida. Catherine Gillis died at her home in Jacksonville, Florida, on August 6, 2000. Ms. Gillis was 70 years old at the time of her death. Patricia Stokes, Ms. Gillis's daughter, called 911 when she found her mother on the kitchen floor. Deputy Michael Williams from the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office responded to the call. Deputy Williams was unable to contact Ms. Gillis's doctor, Dr. David Badolato. The on-call physician in Dr. Badolato's office refused to sign off on the death certificate. Therefore, Deputy Williams called the Duval County Medical Examiner's Office, making contact with Deanna Webber, a forensic investigator. After Ms. Webber spoke to the medical examiner, she called Deputy Williams back. She told him that Ms. Gillis's body could be transferred to the funeral home of the family's choice but the body must be held until the personal physician made a commitment to sign the death certificate or the medical examiner inspected the body and signed the death certificate. Ms. Stokes, in consultation with her church sister, Ms. Theresa Williams, chose Respondent's funeral home to receive the body on the evening of August 6, 2000. Deputy Williams then contacted Respondent's funeral home, specifically stating that the body was to be held for inspection by the medical examiner in case the personal physician did not agree to sign the death certificate. River City Removal Service transported Ms. Gillis's body to Respondent's funeral home at approximately 7:30 p.m. on August 6, 2000. Even though Ms. Stokes had approved this transfer, she mistakenly believed that the medical examiner's office had taken the body to the morgue. On Monday, August 7, 2000, Ms. Stokes called the medical examiner's office to inquire about an autopsy on her mother's body and to instruct its removal to an establishment other than Respondent's funeral home. After the call, Ms. Stokes understood that an autopsy would not be performed at public expense and that Ms. Gillis's body was already at Respondent's funeral home. In the meantime, Willie Mae Albany arrived for work at Respondent's funeral home at approximately 9:00 a.m., on August 7, 2000. At that time, Ms. Albany's job included performing clerical duties. Respondent arrived at the funeral home about 10:30 a.m., on August 7, 2000. He knew there were three bodies that needed to be embalmed that day: (a) Dorothy Green, whose body had been received on Sunday, August 6; (b) Leonard Hopkins, whose family had signed a release and permission to embalm on Saturday, August 5; and (c) Jimmie Simpson, whose body had been received on Monday, August 7. Respondent was aware when he arrived at the office that there was no authorization to embalm Ms. Gillis. He instructed Ms. Albany to contact Eric Fleming, a freelance trade embalmer, to come in to embalm Ms. Green, Mr. Hopkins, and Mr. Simpson. Mr. Fleming was not an employee of Respondent's funeral home. Instead, he was paid by the case. Ms. Albany left several telephone messages for Mr. Fleming advising him about the three bodies that needed to be embalmed. She did not know exactly when he came to work, but she transferred a telephone call to Mr. Fleming in the embalming room at the funeral home about 11:30 a.m. Ms. Albany also contacted Dr. Badolato's office on the morning of August 7, 2000. After that telephone call, Ms. Albany understood that Dr. Joedrecka Brown would sign the death certification for Ms. Gillis. Ms. Albany then typed an Application for Burial-Transit Permit for Ms. Gillis. This form advises the county health department that someone has died and that a death certificate is forthcoming. Ms. Albany placed the burial-transit permit application on the counter where Respondent usually picks up the typed forms. Respondent signed the form on August 7, 2000, even though his signature on the form was dated August 9, 2000. Because her mother's body was already at Respondent's funeral home, Ms. Stokes decided to make funeral arrangements with Respondent instead of removing the body to another establishment. Thus, Ms. Stokes and her church sister, Ms. Williams, went to Respondent's funeral home around 4:00 p.m., on April 7, 2000, for an appointment with Respondent. Ms. Albany greeted Ms. Stokes when she arrived at Respondent's funeral home. Ms. Albany advised Ms. Stokes that Respondent was delayed and that he wanted her to begin filling out the paperwork. Ms. Albany then took Ms. Stokes and Ms. Williams to a conference room. Ms. Albany had a file containing the necessary paperwork. Ms. Albany sat with Ms. Stokes, identifying the documents in the file as she handed them to Ms Stokes. One of the documents in the file was an Authorization to Embalm form. After Ms. Albany explained the purpose of the form, Ms. Stokes signed it without asking any questions. Ms. Albany also presented Ms. Stokes with a Disclosure/Disclaimer form, a death certificate application, an arrangements form, and a newspaper release form. Ms. Stokes filed out these forms and signed each one that required her signature except for the funeral purchase contract. Ms. Albany did not discuss the funeral purchase contract with Ms. Stokes. Ms. Albany stayed with Ms. Stokes and Ms. Williams in the conference room for about 15-20 minutes. After leaving the conference room, Ms. Albany noticed that Respondent had arrived at the funeral home. Respondent arrived at the funeral home sometime before 4:40 p.m. Respondent first checked the reception counter where he found the completed burial-transit permit for Ms. Gillis. At that point, he knew that Ms. Gillis's body could be embalmed and that the family could proceed with the funeral service arrangements. Respondent began his meeting with Ms. Stokes and Ms. Williams at approximately 4:40 p.m. During the conference, Respondent reviewed all of the forms with Ms. Stokes, including her signed Authorization to Embalm form. In discussing the funeral arrangements, Ms. Stokes informed Respondent that she definitely wanted a formal visitation for her mother. Respondent knew that the embalming process needed to begin as soon as possible in order for the body to be presentable for formal visitation. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Respondent, and not Ms. Albany, escorted Ms. Stokes and Ms. Williams to the selection room to view caskets at approximately 5:00 p.m. Respondent left Ms. Stokes and Ms. Williams in the selection room and went next door to the embalming room to speak to Mr. Fleming. Mr. Fleming had just completed the embalming process of Mr. Hopkins. Respondent directed Mr. Fleming to begin embalming Ms. Gillis because her daughter had given permission. Respondent returned to the selection room 30 seconds later. Respondent proceeded with the embalming while Ms. Stokes was in the funeral home. He made this decision based on his knowledge that Dr. Brown would sign the death certificate, thereby releasing the medical examiner's hold on the body. He also had a written authorization from Ms. Stokes to embalm. The majority of Respondent's cases are embalmed before he obtains a signed funeral purchase agreement. Respondent, Ms. Stokes, and Ms. Williams returned to the conference room to discuss the funeral purchase contract, showing the prices for a graveside service and a church service. This discussion lasted another 30 to 45 minutes. Ms. Stokes did not sign the funeral purchase contract, in part, due to her concern about the quoted prices. She advised Respondent that she would have to consult with a relative regarding the costs of a graveside service or a church service. Before she left the funeral home, Ms. Stokes asked Respondent if he had done anything to her mother's body. Respondent replied that he had embalmed Ms. Gillis because by that time, the embalming process was more than half complete. It takes an average of one hour to one and one half hours to embalm a body. For a worst case scenario, it would take approximately three hours to embalm a body. Leonard Hopkins would have taken longer than average to embalm because he had been the subject of an autopsy. Ms. Stokes consulted with relatives upon returning home on the evening of August 7, 2000. The family decided that Respondent's prices were too high. Ms. Stokes contacted Respondent by telephone around 9:00 p.m. She instructed Respondent not to do anything else to her mother's body because she intended to retain the services of another funeral home. Ms. Stokes also wanted to know what she owed Respondent. Respondent replied that he did not have the papers in front of him but that the expenses were approximately $850 for transporting, embalming, and paperwork. Respondent did not overtly state or imply that he would not release the body until he was paid. The next morning, Tuesday, August 8, 2000, Ms. Stokes made arrangements with Toston-LaFrans Funeral Home to handle her mother's funeral. Ms. Stokes then went to Respondent's funeral home where Respondent's staff informed her that the expenses were $860. Respondent was not at the funeral home on the morning of August 8, 2000. He was not there when Ms. Stokes returned to the funeral home around 1:00 p.m. Ms. Stokes then made arrangements with Toston-LaFrans Funeral Home to have Ms. Gillis's remains removed to their facility and to pay Respondent. In the meantime, Ms. Albany advised Respondent that Ms. Stokes wanted the body moved to Toston-LaFrans Funeral Home. When Respondent could not reach Ms. Stokes by telephone, he contacted Mrs. Walker of Toston-LaFrans Funeral Home, informing her that he needed a signed release prior to the removal of the body. After that telephone call on August 8, 2000, Respondent understood that Ms. Stokes would sign a release at Toston- LaFrans Funeral Home before the body was transported. Sometime before 2:00 p.m., on August 8, 2000, the medical examiner's office confirmed that Dr. Brown would sign Ms. Gillis's death certificate. The medical examiner's office then contacted Respondent's funeral home to let them know that the hold on the body was lifted. On Wednesday, August 9, 2000, around 4:30 or 5:00 p.m., Toston-LaFrans Funeral Home called to advise Respondent that Ms. Stokes had signed a release. Respondent informed Toston-LaFrans Funeral Home that the body could be picked up anytime before the office closed at 6:00 p.m., or after that time if need be because Respondent would be working late that evening. Ms. Gillis's body was removed to Toston- LaFrans Funeral Home that evening after 6:00 p.m. Respondent paid Mr. Fleming by check on August 12, 2000, for embalming four bodies, including Ms. Gillis, on August 7, 2000.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of December, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles J. Pellegrini, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Miriam S. Wilkinson, Esquire McConnaughhay, Duffy, Coonrod, Pope & Weaver, P.A. 101 North Monroe Street, Suite 900 Post Office Drawer 229 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Sherry Landrum, Executive Director Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue The three administrative complaints in these consolidated cases allege various violation of Chapter 470, Florida Statutes and Chapter 61G8-21, Florida Administrative Code, which regulate funeral directors and the operation of funeral establishments. Specifically, these violations are alleged: Section 470.024(2), Florida Statutes: operating a funeral establishment without a license; Sections 470.024(6), 470.036(1)(h), Florida Statutes and rule 61G8-21.00F(1), Florida Administrative Code: not being available to the public during normal business hours; Section 470.036(1)(h), Florida Statutes and rule 61G8- 21.005(3), Florida Administrative Code: not having the funeral director’s photograph with the license; Section 470.036(1)(h), Florida Statutes and rule 61G8- 21.005(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code: not having the latest inspection reports available for inspections upon demand; Section 470.036(l)(h), Florida Statutes and rule 61G8- 21.005(1)(c), Florida Administrative Code: not having a current copy of inspection rules or criteria available for inspection upon demand; Section 470.035(1), Florida Statutes: not having retail price list available upon inquiry; Section 470.036(l)(h), Florida Statutes and rule 61G8- 21.003(6), Florida Administrative Code: not having the name of the establishment and name of the funeral director displayed at the public entrance; Section 470.036(l)(h), Florida Statutes and rule 61G8- 21.003(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code: not having sanitary floors; Section 470.036(1)(h), Florida Statutes and rule 61G8- 21.003(5), Florida Administrative Code: not having prices conspicuously marked on the caskets; Section 470.036(1)(a) and 470.031(l)(f), Florida Statutes: employing an unlicensed person in the practice of funeral directing, embalming or direct disposition; Section 470.036(1)(n), Florida Statutes: aiding and abetting an unlicensed person in any licensed activity; and Section 470.036(l)(h), Florida Statutes and rule 61G8- 21.007(3), Florida Administrative Code: failing to insure that all employees comply with laws and rules of the Board. The issues in this proceeding are whether the alleged violations occurred, and if so, what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent James B. Kerney, Jr. has been a licensed funeral director in the state of Florida for approximately 28 years, having been issued license number FE 0001557. He has been director in charge of Kerney Funeral Home in Sebring, Florida for approximately 27 years. The business is owned by him and his wife, Nancy Kerney, and is a licensed funeral home, having been issued license number FH 000182. Mr. Kerney is confined to a wheelchair as the result of an automobile accident on December 6, 1993, in which his right leg and his neck were broken. His left leg had been amputated in 1986. Mr. Kerney also requires kidney dialysis, and on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays he is transported to a renal center where he spends three hours and fifteen minutes in each session. Nancy Kerney describes her husband as “...medically- termed incomplete quadriplegic, which means that he can use his hands to some extent, but he needs assistance with everyday tasks of using his hands.” (transcript, p. 118) Mrs. Kerney is his sole caregiver; she must bathe and dress him with the assistance of an automated lift. She also has a power of attorney which permits her to sign documents on her husband’s behalf. From January 1989 until August 1995, Frank Paolella was employed as an inspector for the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, conducting inspections of various facilities regulated by that agency, including funeral homes. On February 28, 1995, after calling for an appointment the previous day, Mr. Paolella visited Kerney Funeral Home for a routine inspection. Mrs. Kerney met the inspector at the funeral home and opened the office for him. Mr. Kerney was not present. During the course of the inspection, Mr. Paolella observed that the establishment license had expired on November 30, 1994 and had not been renewed. He also observed other violations which he noted on his inspection form: there was no photograph of the funeral director displayed on the director’s license; there were numerous dead roaches on the floor; and the names of the establishment and funeral director were not displayed at the public entrance (noted as a second-time violation). In addition, when the inspector requested certain documents, neither he nor Mrs. Kerney could find them in the office. These missing documents included a copy of inspection rules or criteria, copies of signed need and pre-need contracts, copies of final bills or written agreements, and an itemized price list of merchandise and services with the establishment’s name, address and telephone number. After the inspection, both Mr. Paolella and Mrs. Kerney signed the inspection form. Mr. Paolella returned for a follow up inspection on March 21, 1995. This time he arranged to meet Mr. Kerney at the Kerney home, a couple of blocks from the funeral home. They met at 9:00 a.m. and made arrangements to meet again at the funeral home in the afternoon after Mr. Kerney finished his dialysis. That same afternoon, Mr. Kerney arrived at the funeral home in a handicapped-equipped van driven by his wife. Mr. Kerney was unable to reach the fuse box to turn on the lights, and only with some difficulty, Mrs. Kerney was able to get the lights turned on with instructions from her husband. On this visit, Mr. Paolella again observed many violations. There were still numerous dead roaches on the floor and sheets of plaster that had fallen from the ceiling to the floor. There was no price displayed on the least expensive casket; customers’ written and signed agreements were not available; the latest inspection forms and the copy of inspection rules or criteria were not available; the funeral director’s and establishment licenses were not properly displayed and the director’s and establishment’s names were not displayed at the public entrance. In addition, the funeral home license had still not been renewed. On this, as well as the prior inspection in February, Mr. Paolella noted his concern about whether, as director in charge, Mr. Kerney was reasonably available to the public during normal business hours. On or about April 5, 1995, Mr. Kerney was admitted to Highlands Regional Medical Center and was still in the hospital a month later, on May 2, 1995. (Answer to Administrative Complaint in cases no. 94-07325 and 95-07329.) On April 28, 1995, Mr. Paolella returned to Kerney’s Funeral Home, accompanied by his supervisor, James Potter. The agency had received a complaint that Kerney’s was conducting unlicensed activity. The pair approached the front door of the establishment and found it ajar, with lights on inside. They knocked and shouted out their presence, but there was no answer; they entered and proceeded to the back rooms, thinking that the inhabitant must be in the back, out of hearing range. The last room in the back is the preparation room. There they found a body laid out on the table, but no living person was present. Concerned that there may have been a problem, the inspectors went to the Sebring police station and returned to the Kerney Funeral Home with two policemen, a sergeant and a photographer. There was still no living person on the premises and the photographer took a series of photographs. The photographs accurately reflect what Mr. Paolella observed on the April 28th inspection: many dead roaches on the floor, fallen plaster from the ceiling, opened bottles and jugs of unidentified liquids, a dirty sink, tools and instruments laid out on a dirty linen, hairbrushes and combs with hairs still embedded, and the body laid out, covered except for the head. A photograph of the exterior of the building shows a permanent sign in the lawn, separate from, but in front of the building, with the name “Kerney Funeral Home”. The inspectors called the Kerney residence and Mrs. Kerney came to the funeral home. She opened the office and responded to questions. She said the Mr. Kerney was in the hospital and their son, James Kerney, III, had picked up the body and had embalmed it. The inspectors called another funeral home and arrangements were made to have the body picked up and a service and burial conducted. Mr. Kerney concedes that the funeral home license was allowed to lapse and he sent the check to renew it after the inspection by Mr. Paolella. From the end of November 1994 until the handling of Mr. Johnson (the corpse found by the inspectors) in April 1995, the home did not handle any bodies, according to Mr. Kerney. He submitted monthly affidavits to the agency reflecting this non-activity, but there is no monthly affidavit on file for the month of December 1994. By April, the license was apparently renewed. Mr. Kerney also concedes that there are long periods of time during which he is not able to be at the funeral home. The business phone rings at his residence and he arranges to meet clients at the facility. He sold Mrs. Johnson the casket for her husband by dealing with her by telephone from the hospital. He denies that he told his son to embalm Mr. Johnson, but Mr. Kerney could not explain how the body did get embalmed or why it was at his establishment unattended. Mr. Kerney signed the Johnson death certificate as the funeral service licensee. Mr. Kerney insists that he is able to embalm bodies from his wheelchair. He mixes the fluid and makes the incisions or he directs someone in his presence to perform these tasks. According to Mr. Kerney, he deliberately left roaches on the floors because after he set off aerosol sprays he let the poison keep working before cleaning up the bugs. He attributed the fallen ceiling to a water leak caused by the upstairs tenant. He also claimed that the other violations found by the inspectors were just temporary lapses and that all of the problems were quickly corrected. It is evident that serious violations occurred and that Mr. Kerney has to rely on his family, his son and his wife, to perform functions for which he is responsible. Neither Mrs. Kerney nor James Kerney, III are licensed funeral directors. Mr. Kerney is unable to spend the time at his facility to keep it in compliance with licensing regulations and criteria even if he is able to personally supervise or conduct the embalming of the occasional body handled by the funeral home.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed against him, and, if so, what action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Michael W. Thomas has been a licensed funeral director and embalmer in the state of Florida, having been issued license number FE0003256. In November of 1993, Richard Hector was extremely ill and dying at A Better Way in Christ Mission in Ft. Pierce, Florida, a homeless shelter for men where he had lived and worked. In his final days, he was attended by a hospice agency. The Mission employees summoned Lena Cohens, Hector's sister, to travel from New York where she lived to Ft. Pierce to be with her brother. The St. Lucie County Department of Human Services maintains a rotation list for the funeral homes in the area to be responsible to care for the remains of indigents. Respondent was the designated business for the month of November, 1993. Under local ordinances, if there is no next of kin or if the next of kin files for indigency, the County will determine if the death is a County case and eligible for payment of burial expenses by the County. On November 15, 1993, at 2:40 p.m., Hector died at the Mission. The hospice employees advised the Mission employees that hospice would make arrangements to have his remains transported to a funeral home, and a Mission employee went to the motel where Cohens was staying to bring her back to the Mission. Someone contacted Respondent who dispatched a removal service, Tri- County Mortuary Services, to pick up the body of Hector at the Mission and transport it to Thomas & Sons Funeral Home. On November 16, 1993, Lena Cohens, Hector's sister, and Libby Piersall, one of the directors of the Mission and a friend of Hector, went to Thomas & Sons Funeral Home to make funeral arrangements. They took with them clothes for Hector to be used for his viewing and his burial. Respondent's mother, Eliza Thomas, was present at the funeral home when they arrived, and Respondent was not. Cohens and Piersall identified themselves to Respondent's mother and told her why they had come. They said they wanted a viewing of Hector for family and friends. Eliza Thomas told them that Hector would not need any clothes because they would just dig a hole, put the body in a box, and put the box in the ground. Cohens and Piersall became very upset at Respondent's mother's explanation of how the body would be handled and left the funeral home without authorizing Thomas & Sons Funeral Home to perform any services. Specifically, there was no discussion regarding embalming the body. Cohens and Piersall returned to the Mission and told Chuck Kramer, a Mission employee, what had happened at Thomas & Sons Funeral Home. Cohens told Kramer she wanted a different funeral home to care for her brother's remains. Kramer contacted Buddy Hobbs at Haisley-Hobbs Funeral Home and requested that he take over the arrangements so they could be handled in a better manner and so the family could have a viewing. Based upon what he was told, Hobbs advised Kramer that he could not do anything because the County would take over the arrangements. Hobbs explained to Kramer about the County's rotation list and that Thomas & Sons Funeral Home was on the list for November. The following morning, Piersall and Cohens went to the County's Department of Human Services to apply for County benefits for an indigent funeral. While they were there, Kramer began going through Hector's belongings at the Mission. Kramer found a bank statement and bank book showing that Hector had over $1,300 in the bank. As soon as Piersall and Cohens returned to the Mission, Kramer told them about the bank account. They again telephoned Hobbs, told him how much money Hector had, and Hobbs told them that he would make the arrangements for Hector's funeral for that amount of money. He made an appointment with them for 1:00 that afternoon, November 17. Cohens, Piersall, Kramer, and Reverend Ted Rice from the Mission went to the 1:00 appointment with Hobbs. Hobbs contacted Petitioner for guidance on how to handle the situation and was advised that he should prepare a release to be taken to Thomas & Sons Funeral Home. Hobbs prepared a release directed to Thomas & Sons Funeral Home which read as follows: I, LENA COHENS, sister of RICHARD HECTOR, Deceased, hereby authorize the release of the remains of my brother, RICHARD HECTOR, to Haisley-Hobbs Funeral Home of Ft. Pierce, Florida. The release was signed by Lena Cohens, witnessed by Libby Piersall and Chuck Kramer, and notarized. Cohens, Piersall, Kramer, Rice, Hobbs, and Victor Hankins, an employee of Haisley-Hobbs, then went to Thomas & Sons Funeral Home with the release to pick up the body of Richard Hector. When they arrived there, only Eliza Thomas was present. Hobbs told her who he was and then introduced everyone else. He gave her the release and advised her that they were there to pick up Hector's body. She told him she would not release the body and telephoned Respondent who came to the funeral home. When Respondent arrived, Hobbs gave Respondent the release. Respondent advised Hobbs that he would not release the body until after someone paid him $420 to reimburse him for transporting and embalming the body. Hobbs asked Respondent if Respondent understood what he was saying and that Respondent could not hold the body as ransom. Respondent told Hobbs that Hobbs could call it whatever he wanted but that Respondent would not release the body until after he was paid. Respondent then told the group to leave his place of business. Respondent's refusal and stated reason were heard by Piersall, Rice, and Kramer. Respondent stated no other reason for his refusal to release the body. Specifically, Respondent did not say anything about his belief that Hector was a County case. The group left Thomas & Sons Funeral Home without Hector's remains. On November 18, Hobbs called Petitioner again to advise what had happened. One of Petitioner's attorneys called Hobbs back and advised that the attorney had spoken to Respondent and that Respondent would be calling Hobbs to come and pick up the remains. Instead, Respondent telephoned the Mission and told Kramer to have Haisley-Hobbs come and pick up the body. Kramer then called Hobbs, and Hobbs sent a driver and another employee of Haisley-Hobbs to Thomas & Sons Funeral Home to pick up the body. When they arrived, Respondent refused to give them the body and told them that he would deliver the body to Haisley-Hobbs instead. Hector's body arrived at Haisley-Hobbs later that same day. In a prior administrative proceeding, Petitioner filed an administrative complaint against Respondent on April 4, 1989, alleging, inter alia, that Respondent had refused to promptly surrender the custody of a dead body upon the express order of the legally authorized person, and Respondent requested a formal hearing regarding that administrative complaint. That prior matter was subsequently referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings where the matter was scheduled for formal hearing. After the parties engaged in discovery, that administrative complaint was referred back to the probable cause panel of the Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers for re-consideration. In that prior action, the probable cause panel determined that although Respondent had violated the statutory requirement to surrender properly the custody of a dead human body upon the express order of the legally authorized person, the circumstances surrounding that refusal dictated that that administrative complaint be dismissed with only a letter of guidance issued to Respondent. That letter of guidance, dated November 22, 1989, and sent to Respondent at Thomas & Sons Funeral Home, became a permanent record in Respondent's licensure file. That letter of guidance does not, however, constitute prior disciplinary action.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint and requiring Respondent to pay an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000 by a date certain. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of June, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 13th day of June, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-14 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 1 has been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 2-4 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Donnette Reid, Qualified Representative Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Victor John E. Vale, II, Esquire 205 South Second Street Ft. Pierce, Florida 34950 Susan Foster, Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0754 Lynda Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
