The Issue The issue presented for consideration concerns the question whether action taken by the Respondent in its efforts to comply with the mandate of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), constitutes a rule or rules which has or have not been duly promulgated in accordance with the provisions of Sections 120.53, 120.54 and 120.56, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact This case is here presented on the Petition of Livingston B. Sheppard, D.D.S., by an action against the Board of Dentistry, an agency of the State of Florida and the Department of Professional Regulation, an agency of the State of Florida, as Respondents. The purpose of this Petition is to have declared invalid certain activities of the Respondents pertaining to their efforts at complying with the provisions of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), in promoting license revocation or suspension cases against various dentists licensed to practice in the State of Florida. The Petitioner contends that these activities by the Respondents constitute a rule or rules which fail to comply with requirements of Sections 120.53, 120.54 and 120.56, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner, Livingston B. Sheppard, D.D.S., is a dentist licensed to practice in the State of Florida and thereby regulated by the Respondents. The Petitioner is also the subject of disciplinary action in Case No. 78-1481 before the State of Florida, Division of Administrative Hearings, and it is the action which was taken against Dr. Sheppard in the course of that prosecution, dealing with the subject of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), which the current Petitioner asserts to be an invalid rule or rules. The language of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), states: (5) No revocation, suspension, annulment, or withdrawal of any license is lawful unless, prior to the institution of agency proceedings, the agency has given reasonable notice by certified mail or actual service to the licensee of facts or conduct which warrant the intended action and the licensee has been given an opportunity to show that he has complied with all lawful requirements for the retention of the license. If the agency is unable to obtain service by certified mail or by actual service, constructive service may be made in the same manner as is provided in chapter 49. Having considered the statement found in the above-referenced Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), counsel for Dr. Sheppard in D.O.A.H Case No. 78-1481 filed a Motion to Dismiss the Administrative Complaint on August 31, 1979, alleging that the agency had failed to comply with the provisions. Oral argument on that motion was scheduled for 2:30 o'clock p.m. on September 17, 1979, and was heard at that time; however, prior to the oral argument, the Board of Dentistry on September 14, 1979, filed a docent in the case, which document attempted compliance with the provisions of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978). The document was entitled "Notice of Intended Action Conference" and by its terms granted Dr. Sheppard an opportunity to appear before H. Fred Varn, Executive Director, Florida State Board of Dentistry, on September 17, 1979, at 10:00 a.m. in Tallahassee, Florida. (A copy of this "Notice of Intended Action Conference" was attached to the Petition in the case sub judice as an exhibit.) The Board of Dentistry had alerted the Hearing Officer to the action it had contemplated by its "Notice of Intended Action Conference." It did so through the Board prosecutor by correspondence of September 14, 1979, a copy of which may be found as the Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 admitted into evidence. Dr. Sheppard filed an objection to the adequacy of the "Notice of Intended Action Conference" and refused to appear at that conference. After considering the oral arguments of the parties directed to the Motion to Dismiss of August 31, 1978, in D.O.A.H. Case No. 78-1481, the Honorable Delphene C. Strickland, Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings, entered her Order dated September 26, 1979. (A copy of that Order has been attached as an exhibit to the current Petition.) In her Order, the Hearing Officer found the "Notice of Intended Action Conference was insufficient, in that the notice did not grant Sheppard sufficient time to prepare for the conference to be held on September 17, 1979, to the extent of demonstrating his compliance with the provisions of Chapter 466, Florida Statutes, as contemplated by Sub section 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978). The Hearing officer did feel that Dr. Sheppard had been notified of those allegations for which he was called upon to defend against and she granted the Board of Dentistry thirty (30) days from the date of her Order, September 26, 1978, to allow the accused an opportunity to show that he had complied with all lawful requirements for the retention of his license. There followed the current Petition which was filed on September 28, 1979. That Petition has been the subject of a Motion to Dismiss which challenged the adequacy of the Petition. The Motion to Dismiss was responded to and in the course of that response the Petitioner's counsel attached a copy of a "Notice of Informal Conference" to be held on October 23, 1979, at 9:00 a.m., in Tallahassee, Florida. (The location of that conference was subsequently changed to a place more convenient for Dr. Sheppard, specifically, St. Petersburg, Florida, but the amendment was otherwise the same as the original October 23, 1979, notice.) When the Motion to Dismiss and response to the motion were considered, the motion was denied by written Order of the undersigned dated October 22, 1979. That Order found in accordance with the Order of Hearing Officer Strickland, in D.O.A.H. Case No. 78-1481, referring to the Order dated September 26, 1979; that the efforts of complying with Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), made by the Board of Dentistry in its attempted action conference to be held September 17, 1979, were not adequate and the prospective events of an action conference that would have been held on September 17, 1979, were deemed to be moot. Nonetheless, in view of the further action by the Board of Dentistry to conduct an informal conference on October 23, 1979, the present case was allowed to go forward on the basis that the Petitioner would be afforded an opportunity to show how the events leading to the written "Notice of Informal Conference" held on October 23, 1979, the notice itself, and the events at the conference constitute a rule or rules that has or have not been duly promulgated in the manner contemplated by Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. In furtherance of this permission, the Petitioner was and is allowed to make the "Notice of Informal Conference" as attached to the response to the Motion to Dismiss a part of the Petition and that "Notice of Informal Conference" is hereby made a part of the Petition. In the course of the hearing a number of witnesses were presented and those witnesses included Tom Guilday, a prosecutor for the Board of Dentistry; Liz Cloud, an employee of the State of Florida, Office of the Secretary of State; H. Fred Varn, Executive Director of the Board of Dentistry; Nancy Wittenberg, Secretary, Department of Professional Regulation; and the Petitioner, Livingston B. Sheppard. In addition, the Petitioner offered three items of evidence which were admitted. The testimony of attorney Guilday established that as prosecutor for the Board of Dentistry in the action against Dr. Sheppard, he spoke with Charles F. Tunnicliff, Acting General Counsel, Department of Professional Regulation, who instructed Guilday to attempt to comply with the requirements of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), and this was in anticipation of the pending Motion to Dismiss to be heard on September 17, 1979. One of the results of that conversation was the letter of September 14, 1979, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1, addressed to Hearing Officer Strickland and the primary result was that of the September 14, 1979, "Notice of Intended Action Conference." The conference alluded to was to be held at the office of Mr. Varn. Attorney Guilday did not recall whether the contemplated disposition of September 17, 1979, was one which Tunnicliff indicated would be used in all similar cases pending before the Department of Professional Regulation. After Hearing Officer Strickland's Order was entered on September 26, 1979, attorney Deberah Miller of the Department of Professional Regulation instructed Guilday to comply with Hearing Officer Strickland's Order of September 26, 1979, on the subject of the dictates of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), and this instruction was supported by Memorandum of October 5, 1979, a copy of which may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. There ensued the conference of October 23, 1979, which was held in St. Petersburg, Florida. After the conference, pursuant to the instructions of attorneys Miller and Tunnicliff, Guilday prepared a memorandum on the results of that conference. This memorandum did not carry a recommendation as to the disposition of the case. Throughout this period of time, attorney Guilday was unaware of any general policy within the Department of Professional Regulation or Board of Dentistry which dealt with attempts at compliance with the provisions of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978). None of the discussions which Guilday had with attorneys Tunnicliff and Miller of the Department of Professional Regulation or with other officials of that Department or Board of Dentistry led him to believe that there was any set policy for handling those issues. Guilday did acknowledge that a member of his law firm, one Michael Huey, had been instructed by Staff Attorney Miller on the technique to be utilized in refiling a prosecution against John Parry, D.D.S., wherein the action against Dr. Parry had been dismissed for lack of compliance of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978). A copy of that Memorandum dated October 3, 1979, may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3 and it carries with it an attached form for "Notice of Informal Conference" under the terms of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1970), and that format is similar to the October 23, 1979, "Notice of Informal Conference" in the Sheppard case. Guilday indicated in connection with this Memorandum, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, that to his knowledge no discussion on how to comply with the terms of the memorandum was made and no actual compliance with the memorandum has been taken to his knowledge. It was established through the testimony of Liz Cloud of the Office of the Secretary of State and through other witnesses that no formal rules have been filed with the Secretary of State by either of the Respondents dealing with the subject of compliance with the pie visions of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978). Testimony offered by Nancy Wittenberg, Secretary, Department of Professional Regulation, and by H. Fred Varn, Executive Director, Board of Dentistry, established that neither the Department nor the Dental Board has formulated final policies on how to deal with the requirements of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), whether the cases pertain to those such as that of Dr. Sheppard in which the agency, although it has not complied with Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), prior to the filing of the Administrative Complaint, has been granted an opportunity to try to comply or on the occasion where cases are in the investigative stage or the occasion where the cases have been dismissed for noncompliance with Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), and are subject to refiling. It is shown through Secretary Wittenberg's testimony that such compliance with Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), is still in the formative stages and the Memorandum of October 3, 1979, by Staff Attorney Miller with the format for noticing informal conferences to be held under the provisions of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), is but one method under consideration at this time. Moreover, Secretary Wittenberg has not spoken with attorney Guilday about the matters of the Sheppard case that are now in dispute or received reports of conversations between Guilday and Staff Attorneys Tunnicliff and Miller on the subject of the pending Sheppard dispute. Finally, Wittenberg has not instructed any of the support officials within the Department of Professional Regulation, to include departmental attorneys, to formulate policy directed to the implementation of the provisions of Subsection 120.60(5), Florida Statutes (1978), which action would constitute the final statement by the Department on those matters.
Findings Of Fact At all times, material hereto, Respondent Antonio J. Maniglia, M. D., has been licensed as a medical doctor under the laws of the State of Florida. Respondent graduated from medical school in Brazil in December, 1962. He came to the United States in 1963, and has practiced from then until the present date. He was licensed as a medical doctor by the State of Florida in 1971. On or about February 11, 1976, Maury Braga appeared at Respondent's office requesting to see him. Respondent had never before met Braga and had never heard of him. Braga brought with him a letter of introduction from a processor in Brazil whom Respondent knew. Braga advised Respondent that, he was a medical doctor from Brazil, that he had attended and graduated from the Faculdade de Ciencias Medicas de Santos, Brazil, that he had practiced the profession of medicine in Brazil during the years of 1967 through 1972, that he was in the process of, obtaining his medical license in Florida, and that to complete his Florida medical application he needed statements from local doctors acknowledging that Braga was a Brazilian medical doctor. Braga showed to Respondent documentation concerning his education and practice, including his medical diploma. Based upon his interview of Braga and his examination of Braga's documents, Respondent signed a form utilized by Petitioner, which form is entitled "Affidavit" and which reads, in pertinent part, as follows: - I, Antonio J. Maniglia, M. D., F.A.C.S., of 1776 NW 10th Ave, Miami, Florida 33136, do hereby swear and affirm by my personal knowledge, that Maury Braga attended and graduated from Faculdade de Ciencias Medicas de Santos and did lawfully prac- tice the profession of medicine, in Brazil during the years of 1967 through 1972, and that I also practiced the same, profession in Brazil. When Respondent signed the "affidavit," it was not notarized. Respondent had no personal knowledge regarding whether Braga had ever attended or graduated from medical school or regarding whether Braga had ever practiced medicine in Brazil. Respondent relied totally on the information contained in the documents, Braga showed to him and upon what Braga told him. After Braga left Respondent's office, he had the "affidavit" signed by Respondent notarized. He attached the "affidavit" to an Application for Examination and Course in Continuing Medical Education, which application he then submitted to the Florida Board of Medical Examiners. "On February 26, 1976, the same day that Braga's application was received, the Executive Director of the Board of Medical Examiners wrote to Braga advising him that his application was received after the deadline of January 26, 1976, and was therefore rejected. The application was not returned to Braga, but rather was placed in a file opened under Braga's name to be retained in the event that Braga again applied within the next three years to take the course in continuing medical education and the examination for licensure. On January 17, 1977, Braga filed a second application to take the course in continuing medical education which would then qualify him to take the examination for licensure. The second application included "affidavits" from medical doctors other than Respondent. One of Braga's two applications was approved; Braga completed the course in continuing medical education; Braga took and passed the examination for licensure; and Braga was licensed as a medical doctor in the State of Florida on March 10, 1978. Maury Braga did not attend or graduate from the Faculdade de Ciencias Medicas de Santos, and did not lawfully practice the profession of medicine in Brazil during the years 1967 through 1972. Braga's license to practice medicine in the State of Florida has been revoked. At least prior to the revocation of his license, Braga's file with the Petitioner contained both the application he filed in 1976 and the application he filed in 1977 No evidence was introduced to show which application was reviewed when Braga's application to take the educational course and examination for licensure was approved.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the violation charged in Count Two of the Administrative Complaint, dismissing Counts One, Three and Four of the Administrative Complaint, and placing Respondent's license on probation for a period of one year, subject to terms and conditions set forth by the Board. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 17th day of February, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 17th day of February, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph W. Lawrence, II, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jack E. Thompson, Esquire Ingraham Building, Suite 516 25 SE Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dorothy J. Faircloth, Executive Director Board of Medical Examiners 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times material herein, the Respondent was a licensed Health and Legal Expense Insurance agent in the State of Florida. By criminal indictment filed October 4, 1984, Respondent was charged with the crimes of conspiracy to commit fraud, use of the mails to defraud and the use of a fictitious name or address to defraud. After a jury trial, Respondent was convicted of the offenses of conspiracy to commit fraud, in violation of Title 18, USC, Section 1341, Title 29, USC, Section 501(c), all in violation of Title 18, USC, Section 371, as charged in Count One of the Indictment and mail fraud, all in violation of Title 18, USC, Sections 1341 and 1342, as charged in Counts Two through Five of the Indictment. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) was at all times material herein a labor union affiliated with the AFL- CIO, a labor organization as defined in Section 402 of Title 29, United States Code. Florida Public Employees Council 79 (Council 79) was at all times material herein a labor union affiliated with AFSCME and the AFL-CIO, a labor organization as defined in Section 402 of Title 29, United States Code. The scheme upon which the Respondent's conviction rests, was directed toward both AFSCME and Council 79. At all times herein, Respondent was employed by either AFSCME or Council 79. Upon Council 79 being chartered, Respondent became its Tallahassee Regional Director. The record does not reflect any persons as victims of the scheme upon which the Respondent's conviction rests other than AFSCME and Council 79. Respondent's participation in the schemes upon which his conviction rests was as follows: (a) at the directions of William Van Zandt, Assistant to Jerry Wurf, President of AFSCME, and Thomas J. Fitzpatrick, President of Council 79, Respondent enrolled David J. Michalski as an employee of Council 79 and met with David J. Michalski in November 1979 to set up an address where payments on expense account vouchers and salaries would be delivered, and assisted David J. Michalski in opening an account at the bank for this purpose, and; (b) contacted George Albert Cuneo, Jr., President and owner of Cuneo Advertising, Inc., and requested that Cuneo mail bills for printing a Council 79 newspaper directly to G.A.D., Inc. G.A.D., Inc. was a corporation used by defendants other than Respondent to funnel inflated bills for advertising and public relations for payment by AFSCME or Council 79. The record is clear that Respondent had no knowledge of the schemes, was following orders of his superiors, and received no money, property, or other consideration for his participation in the schemes. The only evidence in the record concerning the Respondent's participation in the mail fraud is that the Respondent did apparently mail some matters concerning David R. Michalski's expense vouchers. Whether he mailed anything concerning the "kick-back scheme" or the inflated bills for advertising and public relations is not clear from the record. Respondent had never been convicted of a crime before this conviction. Respondent was sentenced to three (3) years on Count One but served only eight (8) months. The sentences in Count Two through Five were suspended and Respondent was placed on probation. Respondent was placed on probation for six (6) months on Counts Two through Four which began immediately and was placed on three (3) years probation on Count Five which was to run consecutively with the sentence imposed in Count One. After serving the eight (8) months of his sentence, Respondent returned to Tallahassee and enrolled in, and completed, a course in insurance at Tallahassee Community College hoping to further expand his existing insurance license. The record is clear that Respondent's reputation for truth and veracity in the community is good despite his conviction, and the Respondent enjoys a good reputation as far as his integrity in dealing with others in concerned.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Insurance, enter a Final Order dismissing all counts of the Administrative Complaint filed herein. Respectfully submitted and entered this 31st day of March, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 31st day of March, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-4404 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3 as clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5 with the exception of the phrase "with in excess of ten numbers" which is rejected as immaterial since there was no substantial competent evidence in the record to show that any individual member had been defrauded or that any conspiracy to defraud was directed at any individual member. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 2-7. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Findings of Fact 9 and 11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 9 and 11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 9 and 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Findings of Facts 9 and 11. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 19.-20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert V. Ellias, Esquire Department of Insurance 413-B Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Ben R. Patterson, Esquire PATTERSON and TRAYNHAM 1215 Thomasville Road Post Office Box 4289 Tallahassee, Florida 32315 Honorable William Gunter State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Jack Michael Schwartz, held a life and health agent and ordinary combination life including health agent license issued by petitioner, Department of Insurance and Treasurer. Respondent presently resides at 2027 Northeast 172nd Street, North Miami Beach, Florida. On November 30, 1981 respondent submitted an application to petitioner for licensure as an ordinary life including disability agent. Question 15 on the application asked the following: "Have you ever been charged with or convicted of a felony?" Respondent answered "No." The application was subsequently approved by petitioner in February, 1982 after respondent successfully completed a written examination. On June 18, 1985 respondent submitted an application to petitioner for licensure as a general lines agent. Question 11 on the application asked the following question: "Have you ever been charged with or convicted of a felony?" Respondent answered "No." During the course of a routine background check of Schwartz, petitioner later learned that respondent had pled guilty to grand larceny by fraudulent representation on August 3, 1977 in circuit court in and for Broward County, Florida. The offense is a felony. Schwartz was thereafter placed on probation for five years under the direct supervision of the Department of Offender Rehabilitation. He was released from probation after two and one-half years. Schwartz acknowledged that he had pled guilty to a felony. However, after his probation was ended, Schwartz interpreted advice from his probation officer to mean he did not have to acknowledge on job or licensure applications that he had been convicted of a felony. He had no further explanation for his answers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the license and eligibility for licensure of respondent be REVOKED. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of September, 1986, 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 15th day of September, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-1809 PETITIONER: Covered in finding of fact 4. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 3. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bill Gunter Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wilbur W. Anderson, Esquire 413-B Larson Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jack Michael Schwartz 2027 N.E. 172nd Street North Miami Beach, Florida 33162
The Issue Whether Respondent’s felony convictions directly relate to the practice of public accounting and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed certified public accountant, having been issued license number AC-0001638 by the Florida Board of Accountancy. Respondent was convicted on felony charges of conspiracy to commit health care fraud, mail fraud, and making false statements in United States v. Tunick in the Southern District of New York on December 26, 2000. Respondent was thereafter sentenced to a year and a day in prison to be followed by three years of supervised probation. He is currently free on bail pending an appeal. Respondent’s convictions violate the level of professional conduct expected of a person licensed to practice public accounting in Florida and are within the scope of crimes that directly relate to the ability to practice public accounting.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order in this case finding Respondent guilty of the violations charged in the Administrative Complaint; permanently revoking the Respondent’s license to practice public accounting in Florida; and assessing Respondent an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of January, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 15th day of January, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Walter B. Lebowitz, Esquire 12555 Biscayne Boulevard, No. 924 Miami, Florida 33308 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Martha Willis, Director Division of Certified Public Accounting Department of Business and Professional Regulation 240 Northwest 76 Drive, Suite A Gainesville, Florida 32607 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
Findings Of Fact Introduction At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Tony L. Brooks, Jr.; was certified as a law enforcement officer by petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, having been issued Certificate No. 02-9720 on December 19, 1973. When the alleged events herein occurred, Brooks was employed at Plantation Key, Florida, as a deputy sheriff by the Monroe County Sheriff's Department (Department). In all, he has served as a law enforcement officer for some ten years. Respondent's marriage with one Brenda Joyce Brooks was dissolved by final judgment of dissolution of marriage entered on September 17, 1982 in the circuit court in and for Seminole County, Florida. According to the judgment, respondent was in arrears for child support payments previously ordered by the Court, and was directed to pay that amount within ninety days, or appear at a contempt hearing in Sanford, Florida on December 10, 1982. Respondent appeared at the contempt hearing on December 10, 1982, and was represented by counsel. He was required to appear since he had not paid all previously ordered child support payments and still owed some $687.17 as of the date of the hearing. A certified copy of the transcript of that hearing has been received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit 1. At the hearing, respondent was placed under oath and gave the following relevant testimony to the circuit judge to show cause why he should not be held in contempt: Q. (By Brooks' counsel) Okay, were you recently injured in the line of duty? A. Yes, sir. Q. Could you please tell us approximately when that happened? A. Yes, sir. It was in October. Myself, some other deputies, were making an arrest on several, several subjects, and in the course of the incident there, one of the individuals started to plunge headlong down a flight of steps, I reached over, grabbed the individual, in so doing pulling the weight of his body back up, tore a couple muscles in my back and strained the lower spine area. * * * Q. I'd like to show you a document, a discharge bill from Mariner's Hospital in Tavernier, Florida; do you recognize that? A. Yes, sir. This is a bill for two, two physical therapy sessions I've been required to take at the hospital, sir. Q. Do you have any other medical bills or documents from an attending physician during the course of this injury? A. From day one through . . . throughout the . . . until the present date I've been required to go to that place for physical therapy on a daily basis I also gave you a document there which shows that because I'm still on a probationer (sic) status down there, I do not have--what you call it? Q. Insurance? A. Yes, the insurance coverage. So this stuff I've been having to pay myself and wait on reimbursement; Q. Okay. So for approximately seven or eight weeks you were on workmen's comp? A. It wasn't . . . It wasn't really workmen's comp, they put me on reduced salary. Q. Okay. A. They are trying to get this reimbursed through workmen's comp. Q. How much was your salary reduced at Monroe County Sheriff's Office? A. From-- Q. Tell me whether you're giving net or gross figures. Before or after deductions? A. The gross figure was reduced from two hundred forty dollars, approximately two hundred forty dollars a week. Q. That's before deductions. A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay. To? A. To about a hundred and sixty-six. Q. So it was reduced by approximately a third, a little bit less than a third? A. Yes, sir. Q. Okay. Has that ever been reinstated, the full pay? I was told by Sergeant Warwick that the . . . I should be getting the reimbursement stuff from Workmen's Comp as far as the hospital expenses go and my salary should go back to its regular status this ending pay period, which will be the 15th, 15th of this month. (Emphasis added) In conjunction with the contempt hearing respondent's counsel submitted a financial affidavit to the Court reflecting respondent's pay status. This was reviewed by Brooks' ex-wife's counsel (Leon Cheeks) who contacted Brooks' employer requesting confirmation of the information contained therein. After being advised by letter dated December 21, 1982 that Brooks "received full compensation" after he suffered a job-related injury, Cheeks again contacted the Department and brought to its attention the testimony given by Brooks at the contempt hearing. The Department internal affairs chief (Mike Young) thereafter flew to Sanford and interviewed Cheeks. He also examined the transcript of hearing and noted what he perceived to be several "discrepancies" in Brooks' sworn testimony given at the hearing. After confronting Brooks with this information, and taking his statement, Young turned the file over to the State Attorney's Office in Sanford to determine if perjury had been committed. That office declined to prosecute Brooks. Nonetheless, Young concluded perjury had been committed, and the matter was then referred to petitioner. That prompted the issuance of the original and amended administrative complaints. In the amended complaint, petitioner alleges that the underscored testimony is false and constitutes grounds for revoking Brooks' certification. Other than this isolated incident, there is no evidence of any other blemish on Brooks' record as a law enforcement officer. There was also no evidence presented by either party concerning Brooks' honesty, trustworthiness or any other indicia of "good moral character." The Arrest On the evening of October 1, 1982, Monroe County deputy Jerry Moore received a call concerning a disturbance at a residence on Annie Bonnie Drive in Key Largo. Respondent was called to assist Moore and arrived by separate car. The two deputies climbed the stairs to a second floor apartment, entered, and found a white 21 year old female named Tammy Floyd "hogtied" on the floor. Her feet were bound together, her hands tied behind her back, and her step-father was lying on top of her in the kitchen area. She also had a black eye. It turned out that Tammy had a history of mental problems, had come home intoxicated, and after she went "berserk," the stepfather had tied her up. In the process of doing so, he administered the black eye. When she promised to calm down, the deputies untied Tammy. However, she again became belligerent and went into a "rage," and Moore and Brooks handcuffed her and began carrying her down the stairs to a squad car. Halfway down the stairs, Brooks volunteered to carry her by himself, and he hauled Tammy the rest of the way to his car. The testimony is conflicting, but it is found that a third deputy arrived by this time, and he assisted Brooks in placing Tammy in a squad car. She was then carried to the local jail. During the incident, Brooks injured his back and he now has a workman's compensation claim pending against Monroe County. The amended complaint alleges that Brooks' statement that he and "some other deputies" were making an arrest on "several subjects" was false since Brooks and Moore were the only two deputies present, and they arrested only a single subject, Tammy. However, Brooks was aware of several prior complaints filed by Tammy with the Department prior to October 1 against the step-father for abusive treatment. Because of this, he was under the impression that the step-father may have also been arrested later on that evening. Finally, it is found that three deputies were on the scene, thereby justifying the use of the words "other deputies" by Brooks. Reduction in Pay Brooks testified at the contempt hearing that, because of his injury, his employer had "put (him) on reduced salary" since the accident on October 1, 1982 for at least a seven to eight week period immediately thereafter. He specifically acknowledged that his salary had been reduced by one- third. According to Department pay records, Brooks received full pay ($757.92 every two weeks) during the period October, November and December, 1982, even though he had suffered a work- related injury on October 1, 1982. Brooks received, endorsed and cashed each of his pay checks during that period. Brooks was also entitled to receive a workman's compensation check during the same period but that check was turned over to his employer since he was already receiving full pay. Brooks contends petitioner has misinterpreted the above testimony. He estimated that his out-of-pocket expenses due to the injury were approximately one-third of his pay, and because this constituted an effective pay reduction, he asserts his testimony was not false. He also stated that his attorney had told the judge prior to going on the record what Brooks was going to say, and his basis for doing so. However, this was not corroborated by any other testimony, and it is hereby rejected as not being credible. Brooks also points out that he was taking medication at the time of the hearing and had driven all night from Tavanier to Sanford to attend the same. He conceded that he may have misstated some facts, but if he did, it was due to fatigue and medication. Nonetheless, it is found that the statements concerning a reduction in pay were not an accurate reflection of his true compensation. Physical Therapy Sessions and Insurance Brooks testified under oath at the contempt hearing that he was attending physical therapy sessions from "day one until the present date . . . on a daily basis." Such testimony was given in response to a question concerning Brooks' medical bills. The only inference to be drawn from this is that Brooks was attempting to convince the judge that he had incurred medical expenses for daily therapy treatments thereby causing a deterioration in his financial condition. However, the only evidence of attendance at these sessions was a single receipt for sessions on November 8 and 9, 1982 at Mariner's Hospital in Tavanier, Florida. Brooks also testified at the contempt hearing that he had no insurance coverage when his injury occurred implying that he was personally responsible for paying all medical bills until he was reimbursed. According to Brooks' testimony at the hearing, this was because he was on a probationary status with the Department. Testimony by the Department's personnel officer in this case established, however, that an employee is covered by workman's compensation benefits from the initial date of employment regardless of whether his status is probationary or permanent. Therefore, Brooks was covered by workman's compensation benefits prior to and after the occurrence of his injury. However, the record is unclear as to whether medical bills are covered by such benefits, and if so, are paid directly by the insurance carrier, or whether the insured must personally pay the bills and then seek reimbursement from the carrier. If the latter is true, then Brooks would have paid the medical bills initially and then filed for reimbursement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the amended administrative complaint be DISMISSED, with prejudice. DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of October, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16 day of October, 1985.
Findings Of Fact Gene Flinn (Flinn), filed Complaint Number 95-156 dated October 31, 1995, with the Commission on Ethics against John G. Tomlinson, Jr., (Tomlinson) alleging that Tomlinson committed the following unlawful acts: Advising or instructing his attorney to suborn perjury by denying to the Executive Director and Chairman of the Ethics Commission the existence of Rose Upton. Advising or instructing his attorney to certify false and misleading information to the Ethics Commission concerning himself and Rose Upton with the intent to influence the Supreme Court in Flinn's disbarment proceedings. Conspiring to or participating in the act of tampering with jurors in the 1991 trial of Flinn v. Shields. Forwarding misstatements concerning the Shield litigation to clerks of the Florida Supreme Court to effect Flinn's disbarment and to foreclose appeals. Advising or instructing his attorney to falsely inform the Ethics Commission concerning the status of law enforcement investigations being conducted of Flinn. Committing acts in violation of federal and state racketeering laws by providing false information to other Judges of Compensation Claims, resulting in loss of fees and costs to Flinn. Filing a fraudulent application with the Governor for reappointment. On January 8, 1996, Bonnie Williams, Executive Director of the Commission on Ethics, filed a Recommendation of Legal Insufficiency with the Commission, recommending that the Commission dismiss Complaint Number 95-156 without investigation as legally insufficient. On January 25, 1996, the Commission entered a Public Report and Order Dismissing Complaint, dismissing Complaint Number 95-156 for failure to constitute a legally sufficient complaint. The order stated, "No factual investigation preceded the review, and therefore the Commission's conclusions do not reflect on the accuracy of the allegations of the Complaint." The unrebutted testimony of Tomlinson is that the allegations in the Complaint are false. Based on the testimony of Tomlinson and the case, The Florida Bar v. Flinn, 575 So.2d 634 (Fla. 1991), I find that Flinn filed Complaint Number 95-156 with a reckless disregard for whether the allegations in the Complaint were false. The only evidence presented relating to the amount of the attorney's fee requested is Exhibit Number 9 which is a letter from Stephen Slepin (Slepin) to Tomlinson, stating that the fee for representing Tomlinson regarding Complaint Number 95-156 was $10,000 plus expenses. On December 1, 1995, Slepin did file a five-page response to the Commission on behalf of Tomlinson. No evidence was presented as to the amount of time that Slepin spent in representing Tomlinson relative to Complaint Number 95-156. No evidence was presented as to the nature of the actual work performed by Slepin other than the written response submitted by Slepin to the Commission. Exhibit 9 did indicate that Slepin would review the Complaint, the previous Compliant, Flinn's disbarment proceedings and Flinn's federal actions and research the applicable law. However, no evidence was presented to show what work was actually done. No evidence was presented to show what the customary charge in the community is for such services. No evidence was presented concerning the experience, ability, and reputation of the lawyer performing the services.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying John Tomlinson, Jr.'s petition for attorney's fees. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of July, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 1st day of July, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen Marc Slepin, Esquire Stephen Marc Slepin, P.A. 1114 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gene Flinn 5100 Southwest 87th Avenue Miami, Florida 33165 Carrie Stillman Complaint Coordinator Commission on Ethics Post Office Box 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Bonnie Williams, Executive Director Florida Commission On Ethics Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Phil Claypool, General Counsel Ethics Commission 2822 Remington Green Circle, Suite 101 Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709
