The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding is whether Petitioner, a family day care center owner/operator, committed violations of the Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code, as alleged by Respondent, sufficient to justify Respondent's imposition of civil penalties upon Petitioner's license.
Findings Of Fact On October 26, 2000, Petitioner was notified by Respondent's representative that she was in violation of Section 402.302(7)(d), Florida Statutes, by "being over ratio" by having more than ten children in her care. Petitioner signed an acknowledgement of the notification. On October 30, 2000, Petitioner was formally notified by mail that she was over ratio. In the letter, Petitioner was notified that another violation would result in the imposition of an administrative fine. On July 16, 2002, Clark Henning, a day care licensing counselor for Respondent, made a routine inspection of Petitioner’s facility and determined that 13 children were present. On July 22, 2002, Respondent sent a certified letter to Petitioner advising her that she continued to be over ratio and that any future violations would result in the imposition of an administrative fine. Petitioner signed the certified mail receipt. On August 22, 2002, Henning made an unannounced inspection of Petitioner’s facility and observed that 14 children were in the facility. In accordance with requirements of Section 402.302(7), Petitioner is licensed to provide care to children solely in her home. During the course of his July 16, 2002 inspection, Henning observed that Petitioner was providing day care services in an out-building unattached to her home. At that time, Petitioner signed an acknowledgement of notification that Petitioner was prohibited from rendering care in an out- building. On July 18, 2002, Henning made an unannounced inspection of Petitioner's facility and noted that day care services continued to be provided in the out-building. On July 22, 2002, Respondent sent a certified letter to Petitioner advising her that if she continued to render day care services in the out-building, future violations would result in the imposition of an administrative fine. Petitioner signed the certified mail receipt. On August 22, 2002, Henning made an unannounced inspection of Petitioner’s facility and saw that the out-building was continuing to be used for day care. Section 402.302(3), Florida Statutes, requires that any person providing child care must first be properly background screened. On July 16, 2002, during his routine inspection of Petitioner’s facility, Henning observed an adult female, Molly Hilbert, providing care for the children. On July 16, 2002, Petitioner signed an acknowledgement of notification that Molly Hilbert had not been background screened. On July 22, 2002, Respondent sent a certified letter to Petitioner advising her that having Molly Hilbert in her employ without a background screening would, in the event of any future violations, result in the imposition of an administrative fine. Petitioner signed the certified mail receipt. In the course of his August 22, 2002 unannounced inspection of Petitioner’s facility, Henning observed Hilbert working with three children.
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 RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered imposing an administrative penalty of $100 upon Petitioner's license for each of the three violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint for a total of $300. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of January, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 21st day of January, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward T. Cox, Jr., Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 1601 West Gulf Atlantic Highway Wildwood, Florida 34785-8158 Lillie Shells Shell's Family Day Care Home 9340 County Road 231 Wildwood, Florida 34785 Paul F. Flounlacker, Jr., Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Nancy Boles owns and has operated Happy Days Guest Ranch for some 14 years. This facility is licensed as an ACLF and has no record of complaints other than those contested at this proceeding. On or about March 4, 1987, DHRS received a report from an undisclosed source that a resident at the Happy Days Guest Ranch ACLF had been abused by the proprietor, Nancy Boles, and an investigator was sent to the ACLF. Apparently the allegation was that Respondent had slapped a resident. At this time there were approximately 6 residents at the ACLF. After talking to these residents and with Respondent, the investigator, Katherine Massaro, concluded that a substantiated report of abuse had occurred. The HRS Division of License and Certification was notified and a decision was made to relocate the six residents and place a moratorium on further admissions to the ACLF. Additionally, Respondent's application to renew her ACLF license was denied. No evidence was presented that the HRS Division of Adult Services, filed a notification of a confirmed report of abuse against Respondent and placed her on the abuse register. Accordingly, this is not a proceeding challenging a confirmed report of abuse of the aged but is a license revocation proceeding. It is apparent that HRS notified the State Attorney's Office of the alleged abuse and the charges disposed of in Exhibit 1 were preferred. No adjudication of guilt was made in that case. Petitioner's eye witnesses to the alleged abuse were two elderly women. The younger, Mardell Surrency, whose deposition is Exhibit 2, was 75, and the other, Alice Beasley, whose deposition is Exhibit 3, was 86. Both of these women testified that they saw Respondent slap Fowler Simmons, another resident of the ACLF who is senile or has other mental impairment that led these witnesses to conclude that mentally Simmons was "real bad" with the mind of a child who had to be told everything to do. Both witnesses gave an indication (pantomined) of how Respondent slapped Simmons. Unfortunately, a verbal description of this act is not contained in their deposition. Surrency testified that Beasley "was 86 years old so she didn't pay much attention to anything." Beasley, on the other hand, testified that she and "Modelle" were sitting alongside each other when the incident occurred and she and "Modelle" had often talked about how mean Respondent talked to Simmons. Neither ever saw any bruise on Simmons' face or body or ever saw Respondent strike Simmons other than this one time. Both testified Respondent told Simmons to not sit there "like a damn fool." Respondent's version of the incident was that she did indeed slap Simmons, but gently on the mouth, to get him to eat the meal she had prepared. She demonstrated a very light slap with the palm of her hand on the lips. This evidence is deemed more credible than the often rambling and disjointed testimony of the two female residents of the ACLF.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner when it fired her in March 2004.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an African-American female. Hampton Court is assisted living facility in Haines City, Florida. Its residents include elderly Medicaid recipients. Kenneth Wilder is the executive director of Hampton Court. Mr. Wilder is a white male. Mr. Wilder has approximately nine years of experience administering assisted living facilities, and at the time of the events giving rise to this proceeding, he had been the executive director of Hampton Court for approximately a year and a half. Petitioner’s immediate supervisor was Dorothy Pelemon. Ms. Pelemon, like Petitioner, is an African-American female. Petitioner was hired by Hampton Court as a Resident Care Aide in early February 2004. Her primary job duties in that position were providing direct care to Hampton Court residents. Petitioner’s salary was $7.50 per hour, and she typically worked 40 hours per week. Several weeks after she was hired, Petitioner was promoted to the position of Resident Care Manager. In that position, Petitioner still provided direct care to Hampton Court residents, but she also had some supervisory duties. Petitioner only held the Resident Care Manager position for two or three weeks. On March 10, 2004, she was demoted back to the position of Resident Care Aide for improperly transcribing medications on patient charts and for improperly assisting a patient with his medications. On Saturday, March 20, 2004, Petitioner was involved in an altercation with another employee, Ivette Rodriguez. Ms. Rodriguez is a Puerto-Rican female. She was re- hired as a Resident Care Aide at Hampton Court in early March 2004, after having been fired approximately six months earlier for excessive tardiness and absenteeism. The altercation between Petitioner and Ms. Rodriguez was the culmination of a series of disputes that the two had on March 20, 2004. According to Petitioner, the disputes started when Ms. Rodriguez got agitated with her when she took responsibility for the upstairs residents, who had fewer medications, and left Ms. Rodriguez with the downstairs residents, who had more medications. According to Petitioner, Ms. Rodriguez also got agitated with her later in the day for not taking a phone message. Petitioner also testified that she was agitated with Ms. Rodriguez for taking breaks and receiving numerous phone calls while “on the clock.” According to Petitioner, the altercation that led to her firing started when she observed Ms. Rodriguez writing in the “manager’s log” at the nursing station. Petitioner told Ms. Rodriguez that she was not allowed to write in the log and Ms. Rodriguez got upset. Petitioner and Ms. Rodriguez exchanged words, and at one point during the altercation, Petitioner told Ms. Rodriguez that “you don’t know who you’re dealing with,” or words to that effect, and she expressly threatened to send Ms. Rodriguez to the hospital. Petitioner did not follow through on the threat, and there was no physical contact between her and Ms. Rodriguez at any point during the altercation. The altercation was entirely verbal and never went beyond Petitioner and Ms. Rodriguez yelling at each other. The altercation was witnessed by other employees and by Hampton Court residents, and according to the “write-ups” given to Petitioner and Ms. Rodriguez, the altercation “created a hostile living environment for [the residents].” Petitioner and Ms. Rodriguez were separated for the remainder of the day, and there were no further incidents between the two. Neither Mr. Wilder, nor Ms. Pelemon was at the facility at the time of the altercation between Petitioner and Ms. Rodriguez. Mr. Wilder and Ms. Pelemon conducted an investigation into the altercation the following week. Based upon the investigation, they preliminarily decided that both Petitioner and Ms. Rodriguez should be fired and “write-ups” were prepared to effectuate that discipline. The “write-up” for Petitioner contains the following account of the altercation: On March 20, 2004, [Petitioner] was involved in an altercation with co-worker Ivette Rodriguez. The altercation resulted when [Petitioner] took control of the upstairs med cart instead of the one she was supposed to take control of. [Petitioner] refused to cooperate and escalated the level of aggression in the fight making threats such as, “I’ll send to you Heart of Florida Hospital!” . . . . The “write-up” for Ms. Rodriguez contains the following account of the altercation: On March 20, 2004, [Ms. Rodriguez] was involved in an altercation with co-worker [Petitioner]. The shouting and fighting took place in public areas and was witnessed by co-workers and residents. [Ms. Rodriguez] also had her brother-in-law come to the community to get involved by confronting [Petitioner]. . . . . The source of the accounts of the altercation in the “write-ups” is not entirely clear and, as a result, the findings made above regarding the altercation are based on Petitioner’s testimony at the hearing rather than the accounts in the “write- ups”. (It is noted, however, that the “write-up” given to Petitioner and her testimony at the hearing both make reference to her express threat of physical violence towards Ms. Rodriguez.) Mr. Wilder and Ms. Pelemon met with Ms. Rodriguez on March 24, 2004, to discuss the altercation. Ms. Rodriguez was given an opportunity to tell her side of the story and to explain her actions. In doing so, Ms. Rodriguez acknowledged that her actions were wrong, she expressed remorse for her role in the altercation, and she promised that it would not happen again. Based upon the remorse expressed by Ms. Rodriguez, Mr. Wilder and Ms. Pelemon agreed that Ms. Rodriguez should be suspended for one week rather than be fired. The “write-up” prepared in advance of the meeting was edited to change Ms. Rodriguez’s discipline from termination to “1 week suspension from 3/24/04 to 3/30/04.” Mr. Wilder and Ms. Pelemon met with Petitioner the following day, March 25, 2004, to discuss the altercation. Like Ms. Rodriguez, Petitioner was given an opportunity to tell her side of the story and to explain her actions, but unlike Ms. Rodriguez, Petitioner expressed no remorse for her actions and, according to Mr. Wilder, she was loud and acted aggressively during the meeting. Petitioner and Ms. Pelemon testified that Petitioner did not act aggressively during the meeting but, consistent with Mr. Wilder’s testimony, they acknowledged that Petitioner did speak in a loud voice at the meeting and that she never expressed any remorse for her involvement in the altercation with Ms. Rodriguez. Based upon the lack of remorse expressed by Petitioner regarding her role in the altercation, Mr. Wilder and Ms. Pelemon agreed that the preliminary recommendation of termination should stand for Petitioner, and her employment with Hampton Court was terminated on March 25, 2004. Ms. Pelemon testified that she fully supported the decision to fire Petitioner for her role in the altercation with Ms. Rodriguez and, consistent with Mr. Wilder’s testimony, Ms. Pelemon testified that race played no part in Petitioner’s termination. Ms. Pelemon also testified that she fully supported the decision to suspend Ms. Rodriguez rather than fire her based upon the remorse that she expressed for her role in the altercation. Petitioner started working for Wal-Mart in May 2004, and she is still working there. She is paid $15.10 per hour and she typically works 36 hours per week. Ms. Rodriguez was fired by Hampton Court in August 2004 for poor work performance.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission issue a final order dismissing with prejudice Petitioner’s discrimination claim against Hampton Court. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of October, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 25th day of October, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Kenneth Wilder Heart of Florida Care Inc., d/b/a Hampton Court of Haines City 301 South 10th Street Haines City, Florida 33844 Laurie Ann Johnson 623 Avenue O, Northeast Winter Haven, Florida 33881
Findings Of Fact During the latter part of 1981 and early 1982, Henry McLaulin, III, a counselor with the Adult Services Division of HRS, had contact on three separate occasions with respondent Marx at his then licensed adult congregate living facility (ACLF) in Orlando, Florida. These contacts were in connection with reports McLaulin had received that residents of Marx's facility had been forced to submit to high colonic irrigations, a procedure which, under some circumstances, could be life threatening. His interview of the three residents who had experienced this procedure revealed that at least in two cases the action was taken against their will. As a result, McLaulin petitioned the court for HRS to assume custody of the residents, and they were removed from Marx's custody. Approximately a week later, McLaulin returned to the facility to check on the remaining residents. On this occasion, he was denied entrance by Marx, who told him the residents had been moved to another address (9354 Fifth Avenue, Taft, Florida). Contact with family members of these residents revealed they had not been notified of the transfer and, as a result, McLaulin again petitioned the court for custody of the remaining residents. This was granted. McLaulin also recommended that Marx's license to operate an ACLF be revoked. Revocation action was initiated based on a Protective Services investigation revealing that the three residents mentioned above had been forced to undergo colonic irrigation, which constituted intentional or negligent acts affecting the welfare of the residents. Since Marx had been warned of this previously and had agreed to cease the practice at that time, his failure to do so supported the revocation order. When Marx was first notified of the pending revocation, he initially requested a hearing, but before it was held, he withdrew the request. His provisional license to operate an ACLF, issued in 1981, was therefore revoked, and he knew it. In September, 1982, after the revocation, McLaulin again contacted Marx on the basis of an Orange County Sheriff's Office report that Marjorie Goodlett, a resident in Marx's home, had been required to undergo high colonic irrigation against her will. Mrs. Goodlett had been placed in Marx's facility by her former husband, who agreed to pay $900 per month to Marx and Ast for her care. According to Mr. Goodlett, his ex-wife was the type of person who would object to anything anyone would suggest to her. He related that her personal cleanliness was minimal, as she would not bathe unless forced to do so. He states she required constant care, although she has not been adjudicated an incompetent, and he placed her in Respondents' home where he felt he could depend on her being taken care of rather than in a nursing home. On the other hand, Mrs. Marx, who had lived with Mrs. Goodlett at her former residence for two weeks before she came to the Respondents' facility, indicated that while she would definitely require some form of continuing care, she was always willing to do what she had to do for her own well-being. The morning after Mrs. Goodlett arrived at the facility, she was observed by Mrs. Marx being taken by Respondents Marx and Ast toward the room in which the colonic irrigation machine was kept. Mrs. Goodlett was verbally protesting this treatment and was being gently, but firmly, escorted there. Somewhat later that same morning, Mrs. Marx observed Mrs. Goodlett on the colonic table. At that time, Mrs. Goodlett stated she did not want the treatment and wanted help to get out of there. At first, Mrs. Marx refused to help, but when she discussed the matter with another resident, Mr. Garner, she decided to call the Sheriff's Office. This other resident, Mr. Garner, was, at that time, paying $300 per month for his care at the Marx facility. Mr. Garner, who is physically disabled due to a brain tumor 16 years ago, had been a resident of another ACLF before coming to the Marx facility. Because of overcrowding in his former home, he had been required to leave, and the operator of that home arranged for him to move into the Marx place in August, 1982. When he got there, he found it roach infested and contributed $15 to have an exterminator come. Shortly after coming to live at this facility, he, too, was administered a colonic irrigation by Respondents. Though he did not object to the first treatment in advance, after receiving it, he absolutely refused to have another. Mr. Garner was a resident in Respondents' facility when Mrs. Goodlett was brought there. Before she came to the house, Mr. Garner slept in one twin bed in the house's one bedroom, separated by a partition from the other bed in the same room occupied by Mrs. Ast. When Mrs. Goodlett came, she was required to vacate the bedroom and moved out to a couch in the living room. Another couch in the living room was occupied by Respondent Marx. The day after she arrived at the house, Mr. Garner observed Respondents take Mrs. Goodlett, over her objection, into the back room ostensibly to administer a colonic irrigation. Mrs. Goodlett verifies that the colonic irrigation, a painful and embarrassing experience for her, was administered by Mrs. Ast, against her will, at the Respondents' house on September 16, 1982, the day after she arrived at the house. Mrs. Goodlett remained at this house for only one or two nights before being moved to another facility. Though five individuals occupied the premises for those two nights while she was there, full-time residents of the house were Respondents, Marx and Ast, and Mr. Garner. Mrs. Marx had lived there at one time, but had moved from the house and was occupying a trailer in back of the house. Mrs. Ast denies that Mr. Garner was forced to submit to colonic irrigation and instead indicates that he requested it. His $300 per month was for room and board only and did not include treatments such as irrigation or massage, which Respondent Marx follows. Mrs. Ast also denied that force was used in performing the procedure on Mrs. Goodlett, although she admits to the use of verbal persuasion. Considering the situation as a whole and the relative probabilities, I find that while physical force may not have been used to overpower a physical resistance to the procedure, sufficient persuasion was used by both Respondents to intimidate the subject, Mrs. Goodlett, and create a situation where the subject submitted to the procedure without consenting to it. Naturopathy, the discipline followed by the Respondent Marx, whose license is currently pending revocation, teaches, inter alia, the curative effect of high colonic irrigation to cleanse the bowels. Respondent Ast, a former licensed practical nurse in Florida for many years, was under the belief that it was legal to operate an ACLF without a license for one or two residents. She intended to evict Mr. Garner when Mrs. Goodlett came, as he was paying only $300 per month, as opposed to the prospective $900 per month the latter would bring in. After she and Marx started working together, she contacted various churches in the area, indicating that they would be able to take in a few residents. She no longer lives at Marx's facility, and the Taft house, where these allegations arose, is now rented out. Respondent Marx contends that ever since his entry into the U.S. Army as a corpsman during World War II, his interest has only been to save lives. He believes this to be his duty as instructed and taught by his God, and he intends to do so until his Savior calls him. He conducts a ministry known as the "House to House Ministry," and all his income, as well as that of Mrs. Ast, which consists of Social Security payments only, goes into that ministry. He denies operating an ACLF now, nor, he contends, has he done so since Mrs. Goodlett left. However, on May 20, 1983, Roberta J. Harden, a counselor for HRS, contacted Respondent Marx by telephone on the pretext that she needed to find a place for her father to live and asked if Marx would take him on as a patient/resident. Respondent Marx said he would, that she should bring her father to his current residence on Satel Drive, and they would discuss fees when they got there. Respondent Marx admitted to this conversation, but contends, however, he was going to refer her to a licensed facility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That Respondent Lester L. Marx be assessed an administrative fine of $1,000 and that Respondent Loree B. Ast be assessed an administrative fine of $500. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 20th day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas E. Whitney, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 400 West Robinson Street Suite 912 Orlando, Florida 32801 Mr. Lester L. Marx 5219 Satel Drive Post Office Box 10267 Orlando, Florida 32809 Mrs. Loree B. Ast 5219 Satel Drive Post Office Box 10267 Orlando, Florida 32809 Mr. David Pingree Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact During times material hereto, Respondent, Ray C. Dorman, is the owner and administrator of Scarlet Manor. Scarlet Manor is an adult congregate living facility at 13009 Lake Carl Drive in Hudson, Florida. The facility has a census of 40 beds and of that census, two residents are elderly patients and the remaining 38 residents are "hard core" mental patients who require intensive and specialized nursing care. Ray Dorman (Respondent) is named as the confirmed perpetrator of neglect (FPSS No. 90-091417) based on a finding that Respondent neglected a resident at the ACLF. A certified letter from Petitioner dated September 22, 1990, which was received by Respondent on September 27, 1990, advised Respondent that he could challenge the confirmed finding of neglect if he considered that the classification was inaccurate or that it should otherwise be amended or expunged. Although Petitioner maintains that Respondent failed to challenge the confirmed finding of neglect, Respondent and his wife, Winifred Dorman, credibly testified that on October 10, 1990, she accompanied Respondent to an HRS office in Clearwater to deliver a written request to challenge the finding of neglect. While the office which would have addressed Respondent's challenge (Mr. Morton's office) is situated in St. Petersburg, on that point, it appears that Respondent's wife was either unclear as to exactly where the Respondent's challenge to the confirmed classification was delivered and nothing more. Respondent's facility has been the subject of regular survey reports wherein it was determined that Respondent's facility was deficient in maintaining minimum licensure requirements based on inspection surveys dating back to September, 1989. Mrs. Diane Cruz, a human services surveyor specialist employed by Petitioner, was part of a three (3) member team of surveyors at Respondent's facility during late September, 1989. During the September, 1989 survey, it was determined that Respondent's facility was deficient in several areas including fiscal policies, facility records, client records, medication records, staffing, food service standards, maintenance and housekeeping standards, resident care, admission criteria and fire safety standards. In all of the cited areas, Respondent corrected the deficiencies and no cited deficiency was outstanding at the time of the hearing herein. Significantly, of the numerous deficiencies that Respondent was cited, only three of the deficiencies were repeat deficiencies during the annual 1990 annual survey. Respondent's facility is a fairly new and modern facility and Respondent prides himself in providing his residents the high degree of nursing services which the residents of his ACLF require. In this regard, in each instance wherein Respondent was cited for deficiencies, the matter was corrected by the time that the follow-up survey was conducted with only two exceptions. Regarding those exceptions, Respondent credibly testified that he had undertaken a good faith effort to correct the deficiency by the time of the follow-up survey. In any event, all of the cited deficiencies were corrected and Respondent has abided by the terms of any restrictions including the payment of any administrative fines which were imposed by Petitioner. Such conduct evidences that Respondent is conscientious in the operation of his adult congregate living facility and, to his credit, more than one of and Petitioner's witnesses testified that Respondent operates a good ACLF.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a final order granting Respondent a conditional license to operate Scarlet Manor as an adult congregate living facility. 1/ Afford Respondent an opportunity to challenge the confirmed classification naming him as the perpetrator in FPSS Report No. 90-091417 as soon as practical. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of October, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 1991.
