Recommendation It is recommended that the license held by the Respondent, Rachael Ross Washington, to be a licensed practical nurse in the State of Florida, number 15136-1, be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold, Esquire 1130 American Heritage Life Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Ms. Rachael Washington 2461 West 25th Street Jacksonville, Florida 32209 Duval County Legal Aid Association 205 East Church Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to the issues, Respondent was licensed as a registered nurse in the State of Florida under license number 1262382 and was employed as a registered nurse at University Hospital of Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Florida. On the late afternoon or early evening of March 14, 1984, a female patient was brought into the emergency room at University Hospital suffering from an overdose of asthma medicine for which the prescribed treatment was dialysis to cleanse the blood of the drug. When the hospital personnel had determined that adequate dialysis had been accomplished the patient was removed from the dialysis machine. A patient is affixed to a dialysis machine through the insertion of tubes into a vein and artery which facilitates the removal and replacement of the blood being cleansed. When the catheters are removed, it is necessary that pressure be applied to the place of insertion for a period of time to allow clotting sufficient to stop bleeding from the vein or artery. Generally, the pressure is administered by a nurse physically applying pressure to the immediate area. This patient did not respond properly, however. As a result, Dr. Mendez-Vigo was called to examine her. He determined that because of her blood loss, a transfusion was appropriate, which he ordered, and then left the treatment area. Approximately ten minutes later, he was called again and advised that the patient's blood pressure was dropping and that the dialysis nurse, the nurse that was attending the patient at the time, needed him. Dr. Mendez-Vigo advised the nurse to start a saline solution and indicated he would come to the dialysis unit, where the patient was being treated, as soon as possible. The dialysis of this patient was accomplished in the dialysis room which is located contiguous to and immediately off the cardiac intensive care unit (ICU) in the hospital. Ordinarily, the dialysis room, which opens onto the ICU is not manned. It is however, generally fully equipped with its own supplies and equipment and when this patient was placed on the dialysis machine, she was moved to this dialysis unit and tended by a nurse, Ms. Domingo, whose sole job was in the dialysis unit. Ms. Domingo was called to come in from off-duty to attend to the patient in question and arrived at the dialysis unit at approximately 5:15 p.m. When she arrived, she found the patient stable, and the only treatment required at the time was pressure to the groin area as described above to promote clotting until the bleeding stopped. After Dr. Mendez-Vigo started the transfusion and left, as described above, the patient became restless and started sweating, which prompted Ms. Domingo to stop the flow of blood. This took place at approximately 6:00 p.m. Once she stopped the inflow of blood, she wanted to remove the needle through which the blood was being inserted, but because she was unable to remove the pressure from the patient's groin area and because she was alone in the dialysis unit, she called for help from those nurses assigned to the ICU. At first, no one responded, but shortly thereafter, after a second call for assistance, Nurse O'Brien did come in. Ms. O'Brien was, at the time, one of several nurses assigned to duty on the ICU and had worked there just a few days. She and Respondent, the nurse in charge of the unit, were the only two registered nurses on duty, along with several licensed practical nurses (LPN's). However, at the time in question, Respondent was off the unit at dinner and Ms. O'Brien is not sure where the LPN's were. When she heard the dialysis nurse call for help, she went into that room and saw the situation. Ms. Domingo told her that the patient looked to be in shock - sweating, with a high pulse rate, very low blood pressure, and in a semi-conscious state. At this point, Ms. O'Brien immediately opened up the IV point to put in a saline solution, then went outside the dialysis room to get equipment to start another intravenous line (IV), and to page Dr. Mendez-Vigo. When she brought back the equipment she needed and tried to start the second IV, she experienced difficulty because of the patient's low blood pressure. At this point, she asked another nurse from the ICU to speed the doctor up. At this time, in her opinion, the patient was extremely unstable and near critical. It was then that Ms. O'Brien first saw the Respondent. She told him she was going into the dialysis unit to help out. Respondent did not follow, but instead went to the nurse's station on the ICU from which he could see the door to the dialysis room and called to Ms. O'Brien telling her she was not to go into the dialysis unit since it was a separately staffed unit. Ms. O'Brien responded to the effect that while this might be the case, the patient was sick and needed help and she was going to give it. In response, Respondent told her several times that she was not to be in the dialysis room. Ms. O'Brien finally told Respondent that she was going to do what she had to do regardless of what he- said. She further contends that when Dr. Mendez-Vigo finally returned her call, Respondent took the call and spoke with the doctor but refused to tell Ms. O'Brien what the doctor said until she came out of the dialysis room to talk to him. To do so, she had to leave the patient with whom she was working to go to the nurse's station and get the message from the doctor which had been given to Respondent. When Dr. Mendez-Vigo arrived at the dialysis unit, he saw the Respondent and two other nurses in the ICU area. He went into the dialysis unit and observed the dialysis nurse still applying pressure to the artery and one other nurse, subsequently identified as O'Brien. At this point, Respondent and the other nurses in the ICU were standing around in that unit not assisting in the dialysis area. When he arrived, Dr. Mendez-Vigo found the patient to be nearly unconscious with a high pulse rate and low blood pressure. He suspected a transfusion reaction and because of that, started action to counteract that situation. Because both nurses in the dialysis room were totally occupied by the patient, he needed help to get other things ready for treating the patient. For example, he needed to get additional equipment, additional IV lines had to be prepared; and solutions had to be mixed. Both Ms. Domingo and Ms. O'Brien seemed to him to be upset because it appeared Respondent had attempted to keep the other ICU nurses from helping in the dialysis room when they were needed because the patient was not an ICU patient. During the initial telephone conversation between Dr. Mendez-Vigo and Respondent, the doctor requested Respondent to secure certain supplies. When the doctor got to the dialysis unit and saw the condition of the patient, he took a blood sample, which he asked Respondent to take to the lab for identification for transfusions. Respondent failed to respond to any of the doctor's requests. Another resident, Dr. Curran, was called into the dialysis from by Dr. Mendez-Vigo when she came to the ICU that same evening. On at least one occasion, after she started to work on this particular patient, she walked out to the nursing station of the ICU and asked Respondent for help. At that point he refused, stating that he was busy and responsible for all the other patients and could not leave. As a result, Dr. Curran took the blood to the lab for what lab work was necessary. When she got back from the lab, she asked Respondent where she could get MAST trousers for the patient and if he would call the emergency room to inquire. Respondent refused to do this, requiring Dr. Curran to do it herself. When she was advised that the operating room might have them and started to place that call, at that point, Respondent did make the call to try to secure what she needed. During the course of his treatment of the patient, Dr. Mendez-Vigo had occasion to attempt to use the cardiac monitor that was a part of the equipment in the dialysis room. It is unclear whether the doctor did not know how to operate the equipment or whether it did not work. In any event, the doctor requested the Respondent to get a portable monitor that was a part of the ICU's equipment. Respondent refused this request initially on the basis that the patient was a dialysis patient rather than an ICU patient, and that his instructions were that ICU equipment could not be used for dialysis patients. Notwithstanding his initial refusal, Respondent ultimately did provide the requested monitor, however. Dr. Mendez-Vigo's recollection of the incident was that the Respondent's total response was that since the patient was not an ICU patient, he could not help out and do what was necessary since he was assigned to ICU, not dialysis. He reportedly stated that he could get into trouble if he did. According to the doctor, however, none of the other patients in the ICU needed immediate attention so that, in his opinion, Respondent or some other member of his staff could have assisted in the treatment of this critically ill patient. What was unknown to Respondent at the time was that the patient had been identified for admission to the ICU, and orders to that effect had been written by Dr. Mendez-Vigo though the formal process of admission had not taken place. As was stated, this information regarding proposed admission had not been communicated to Respondent or the other ICU nurses even though the information was contained on the patient's chart which was with her in the dialysis room during this period of time. If Respondent had gone in to help as requested and looked at the chart, he would have seen this. According to Ms. O'Brien, through all the period of requests for help prior to the arrival of the doctor, and even through the period of requests for assistance and equipment after the arrival of the doctors, Respondent did not come into the dialysis room to see the patient's condition for himself. It was only after Dr. Mendez-Vigo started the neck IV line that the Respondent came into the dialysis room, and when he saw the patient he said something to the effect of, "Oh, I didn't know she was so sick." This was 20 to 25 minutes after the original call for help. Sometime after the incident, Respondent went to Ms. O'Brien and apologized to her for not responding more quickly and for trying to get her out of the dialysis room when he returned from dinner. At that time, he said his resistance was based on the fact that he did not want her to get into trouble. He also told her that if she intended to report the incident, he would just go ahead and submit his resignation because he had been in trouble previously and this would hurt him. Respondent's demands to Ms. O'Brien to come out of the room when she was in assisting Ms. Domingo, prior to the arrival of the doctor, were heard clearly by Ms. Domingo. Ms. Domingo also overheard the doctor ask Respondent to help hook the patient up to the monitor and overheard Respondent's initial refusal. What was most puzzling to Ms. Domingo was that though she had never dealt with Respondent prior to this time, whenever she had asked for help from the ICU nurses previously, she had always gotten it. According to another nurse on the ICU that evening, Ms. Bowers, who was on her break at the time of O'Brien's first confrontation with Respondent, emergency situations requiring help from the ICU personnel were not frequent and this was the first emergency situation she knew of involving Respondent. In this case, she was not aware of any "code" being announced, nor overheard the argument between Respondent and Ms. O'Brien. She had been in the ICU for an hour prior to this time and during that entire period, had received no request from Ms. Domingo for help. She had not previously been asked for assistance and until she became aware of the problem by overhearing the dispute referenced above, she had no idea there was an emergency situation in the dialysis room. Frank B. Bellamy works as a nurse manager at University Hospital for the ICU. As a part of his job, he oversees and evaluates nursing services in the ICU and was doing so at the time of the incident in question. To his knowledge, at that time, there was no written policy on support of the dialysis unit by the ICU. However, the oral instructions given to ICU personnel were that ICU equipment and supplies were not be used in routine cases in the dialysis unit - only in emergency cases. In an emergency case, anything could be used. The job description drafted for registered nurses in University Hospital does not delineate any separation for jobs between ICU and the dialysis unit, but it was generally followed at the time in question that ICU nurses did not help out in the dialysis room in routine situations. However, in an emergency situation, ICU nurses could and should help--out. In Mr. Bellamy's opinion, in the instant case, as the fact situation existed, extra help was needed and the ICU nurses, including Respondent, could have and should have helped out if this assistance could be provided without jeopardizing the patients in the ICU. In such a case, the ICU nurse would have called the nursing supervisor, reported the situation, and requested help. In his opinion, Respondent's conduct in this case was unprofessional misconduct. It was not negligence but willful misconduct in that the Respondent refused to render assistance in an emergency situation and attempted to prevent Ms. O'Brien from doing so as well. Both of these are evidence of willful misconduct. In addition, in an emergency situation, the Respondent's failure to provide the portable monitor in a timely fashion was both unprofessional and unsafe in that the ability of the physician to determine cardiac rhythm is crucial. Nurses are obliged to acknowledge physician's orders and, if considered safe, to follow them. In emergency situations, according to Mr. Bellamy, it is negligence and unprofessional conduct not to provide assistance and equipment to a doctor upon request. Here, in the professional opinion of Mr. Bellamy, the Respondent's failure to provide the requested assistance to the doctor was critical and constituted negligence and unprofessional misconduct. The mere fact that the Respondent delayed responding is negligence because in an emergency situation, as here, time can be and was of the essence. Respondent made much of the need for the charge nurse to oversee the patients on the ICU. In fact, these checks by the charge nurse, the job which Respondent was filling at the time, were done only every 10 or 15 minutes, and assuming that this was necessary and critical on a routine schedule, there was still ample time between the checks for the Respondent to respond to the dialysis unit. Here it is clear that Respondent was asked for help and either refused to give it all, or failed to respond in a timely fashion. It is also clear that Respondent refused to provide equipment and other supplies, even though under the guidelines in place at the time, and which, though oral, had been briefed to the ICU nurses, this situation was one where he could have properly done so. With regard to Respondent's contention that he had been told that he was not to go into the dialysis unit to help, Ms. Kamienski, the Director of Nursing who helped to interview Respondent when he was hired, advised him that the dialysis section was responsible for routine care but that it was placed where it was, contiguous to the ICU, so that ICU nurses could help out in an emergency. She categorically denies ever telling Respondent that dialysis was to get no help, nor that he was never to go in there. As Director of Nursing, Ms. Kamienski received the complaint about the Respondent in the incident in question, and on the basis of the complaint did some investigation. She determined from her interview of the physicians and nurses involved, that the allegations were true and Respondent's conduct was inappropriate. In her opinion, any registered nurse who has the knowledge and skills (and, as here, the resources) to render aid and assistance in a need situation, who does do so and who, as here, attempts to hinder aid, is guilty of negligence and should not practice nursing in the State of Florida. Ms. Kamienski is satisfied that Respondent used poor judgment in this assistance. He should have either helped out himself or assigned someone on the unit to assist and he did neither. Also, he could have contacted the house supervisor to get help either for his unit or for the dialysis unit and failed to do that. In her opinion, his conduct was unprofessional and insubordinate. He had the responsibility to help out in a life threatening situation and failed to do so. Admittedly, the dialysis unit had been requested to use its own equipment and supplies, but in a life threatening situation, they were to get anything they needed. This is now, and was the policy at University Hospital, and to the knowledge of Ms. Kamienski, a similar policy is found in almost any hospital. It is a general standard of practice in nursing to use whatever is needed from wherever located in an emergency situation. Here, Respondent's delaying tactics in making the telephone calls at the request of physicians, was unprofessional conduct because of the life threatening situation. Death to the patient could be imminent in a situation such as this, and Respondent had a duty to respond in a timely fashion. Respondent also makes much of the fact that none of the other nurses in the ICU offered assistance and that nothing was done to them. The fact is that none of the other nurses were asked for help, nor were they asked for supplies and equipment by physicians, nor did they interfere to tell Ms. O'Brien to come out. As to the monitor, Ms. Kamienski feels that while admittedly it is not Respondent's responsibility to ensure that the dialysis monitor was working, under the circumstances of this incident, when he was asked for a portable monitor in an emergency situation, he should have provided it and not argued about whether the dialysis monitor was working or not. In the opinion of Ms. Cayer, a professor of nursing at Jacksonville University, a registered nurse should respond to an emergency and provide whatever assistance is necessary in the situation in the geographical area of the nurse, even if the patient is not the nurse's patient. Having had an opportunity to review the extensive documentation which outlines the situation here and what Respondent did and failed to do, and which fairly reflects the facts in evidence, she concluded that the patient here was unstable and rapidly declining; this was very near or actually was a severe emergency, and there was a need for help. Ms. Cayer was made aware of a hypothetical situation which very closely parallels the factual situation in this case. Based on this hypothetical situation, she concludes that the Respondent in that case was negligent because: (1) when the nurse in question arrived on the scene, he should have gone into the dialysis unit, assessed the situation, and made staffing changes to help out and meet the situation, all of which he failed to do (he needed to gain the knowledge of what the needs were and to take action to meet those needs); (2) he improperly attempted to get the nurse (Ms. O'Brien) to come out of the dialysis room without assessing the situation and its needs (by the time he knew that the blood pressure was low and communicated this information to Dr. Mendez-Vigo, he surely must have known there was a problem); (3) while it would not have been proper for him to leave the floor to go to the blood bank himself, it was unprofessional of him not to arrange for someone else to go in light of the fact that he could have done so; (4) as to the monitor situation, he should have followed up on the request for an additional monitor to see why the request was made (If he had done so, it would have shown that the monitor was not working and he would have provided a replacement sooner. His failure to follow up on the request and his rejection of it without further inquiry was unprofessional); (5) his failure to communicate effectively in all these respects hindered the staff in their treatment of the patient and was unprofessional conduct. Much the same approach is taken by Dr. Eileen K. Austin, also an expert in the field of nursing, who indicated that nursing education generally teaches that first and foremost the interest of the patient takes precedence over policies and regulations which may be ignored if necessary. Also, the nurse must assess the situation and either provide the needed service or get someone else who can provide it. Emergency procedures care is taught as a part of several courses in nursing education. Nurses are also taught generally that if the need is there, the nurse acts regardless of where the patient is assigned and once in the picture, retains treatment status until relieved. As to the response to physicians, nurses are taught they are to respond promptly unless they suspect it is an improper order which would endanger the patient. Nursing assessment includes observing the patient for signs and condition, to take vital signs, to ensure there is an airway for breathing, and once having made an assessment, either provide or secure help. These basic concepts are universal to nursing training. The course title may vary among nursing schools and among nursing programs, but the subject matter is basically the same and these subjects are, in substance, on the nursing licensing examination. The primary difference between the two-year associate of arts program in nursing and the four-year bachelor program is in the other primarily non-nursing, non-scientific curriculum. Basic nursing material is the same in both. The requirements for the registered nursing license requires certain basic information be taught, and it does not matter through which program these requirements are met. Respondent's reputation is good among the people with whom he currently works. For example, Respondent has worked for JoAnn Hahn at Methodist Hospital as a staff nurse for one year and she has observed his work in both routine and emergency situations in the accomplishment of his duties which are equivalent to being the charge nurse on a particular shift. She finds Respondent to have a very good knowledge of critical care situations and to her knowledge, he has never mis-diagnosed a case. He anticipates medications correctly and has them ready, and he also knows what lines are needed and has them ready. In critical care his performance is above the standards she has observed in other hospitals. In responding to requests from supervisors or doctors, if he agrees with the request, he speaks out, somewhat abruptly sometimes, but this is what she wants her nurses to do. Above all, however, Respondent never lets the patient down, and Ms. Hahn has no reservations whatsoever about his training, ability or performance. When he is on duty, she feels quite safe. Ms. Hahn is aware of the incident in question here, having reviewed the statements regarding it and her knowledge is consistent with the facts in evidence. She has also reviewed the hypothetical situation and based on this, she feels that Respondent's actions in question were not a violation of the Nursing Practices Act. In Ms. Hahn's opinion, Respondent was not incorrect in calling Ms. O'Brien out of the dialysis room because the ICU was, in her opinion, under-manned in light of the serious condition of the patients on the floor, and Respondent did not have a report on the condition of the patient in the dialysis room. As to the monitor situation, she feels the patient should not have been put on the dialysis machine in this case without being put on a monitor as well from the very beginning. Also, the needed IV lines should have already been started prior to the dialysis in case of need. As to Dr. Mendez-Vigo's telephone request to the Respondent to start an IV line, since Ms. O'Brien was already trying to get it started and Respondent could see this, it was not necessary for him to go in and attempt the same thing. The fact that Ms. O'Brien could not accomplish the start and it was necessary for the doctor to start a sub-clavian line is immaterial since a registered nurse would not do that procedure anyway. In short, in light of the condition of the patients on the ICU, Ms. Hahn feels Respondent could not have properly left the unit. He also could not have gotten the blood because he did not have the patient's proper plates or bands as required by the lab. As for the portable monitor, he could have asked why they did not use the monitor they had, but, Ms. Hahn feels the delay based on his understanding of the monitor being in there was "just common sense." Cathy Carvery has known Respondent from the time she hired him at University Hospital. She observed him in his work there in the handling of patients and feels that his competence, training, and other skills are very good. He handled crisis situations very well and knew what he was doing. She, too, has reviewed all the background information on the situation and is familiar with the dialysis room and equipment at University Hospital. In light of the staffing in the ICU at the time, in her opinion, it was not at all improper for the Respondent to have refused to send any more of his staff to the dialysis room. Also, in her opinion, though he could have tried to get the blood as requested, he would not have been able to do so without more information on the patient, which was not available to him. In addition, even if he had tried to insert the IV line as requested by the doctor, the likelihood is great he would not have been able to get it started. What is overlooked by both Ms. Hahn and Ms. Carvery in their exulpatory comments regarding Respondent's failure to assist, failure to go for blood, and failure to attempt to start the IV line as requested, is that though what they say may well be true and that Respondent could not have accomplished anything, the fact is he did not even try. With regard to assisting or providing more help, a telephone call to the supervisor of nursing would have resolved that situation without either he or any more of his people being required. Though he called Ms. Lee, he did so to report what he considered to be Ms. O'Brien's improprieties and at no time requested any help. Though he most likely could not have accomplished getting the blood as requested because of the lack of plates, the fact is that though asked to do so, he did not even try and the same is true with regard to the IV line. It does not matter that the sub-clavian insertion was done by the doctor. Respondent was not asked to insert a sub-clavian catheter. He was asked to attempt an intravenous line and did not even try. It is impossible to say what he would have done if he had attempted to assess the situation and find out what the condition of the patient was as he should have done. He did not, and it this particular especially, he was deficient. With regard to the incident in question, when Respondent came back from dinner he was told by one of the LPN's on staff that Ms. O'Brien was in the dialysis room because a patient was bleeding from an arterial line. In his experience, this was not too serious and in light of the fact that Ms. O'Brien was off the ward, one nurse was out to dinner, another was on duty, and he did not know here the fourth was, he was miffed. As a result of this, he called Ms. O'Brien out of the dialysis room to talk to her and she did not respond to his request. This made him angry. He did not have any responsibility for dialysis patients and his understanding of support to be furnished to the dialysis unit was that he was not to take any equipment in there. In light of his previous chastisement for doing so, he was upset. Though he denies refusing to convey Dr. Mendez-Vigo's message to Ms. O'Brien unless she came out of the dialysis room to get it, it is clear that in light of his admittedly poor frame of mind at the time, he did just that. He also admits to first suggesting, when requested to get another monitor, that they use the one in the dialysis room. Nonetheless, he says he went and got the portable within just a few minutes and hooked the patient up to it. Since Dr. Mendez-Vigo did not ask for any further assistance or give him any additional orders thereafter, he went back to work. When Dr. Curran asked him for the blood from the lab, he asked for a charge plate and was told it was in the dialysis room. He found, however, that the patient had not been admitted and did not have a charge plate, and he would therefore be unable to get the blood requested. He then started the admission process because he felt that when that was accomplished, within a 30-minute period or so, he could then get the blood as requested. As for the MAST trousers, when asked by Dr. Curran to get them, he, because of other duties, could not respond immediately, but did so several minutes later, at which time the request was refused. Dr. Curran, parenthetically, also was refused when she requested the trousers. When, as stated before, Respondent called Ms. Lee, the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. supervisor, to report Ms. O'Brien, he was told to let her stay there. No request for assistance, equipment or supplies was made. On the basis of the investigation by Ms. Kamienski and after consultation with Mr. Bellamy, a recommendation of termination was prepared and delivered to the Respondent. In accordance with the procedures that were in effect at the time, he requested a hearing and one was afforded him. Respondent contends that the hearing was a farce and he was not given the opportunity to confront any of the witnesses or evidence against him. After the hearing was over, he was offered the opportunity to resign in lieu of termination and did so.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED, that Respondent's license as a registered nurse in the State of Florida be suspended for one year and that upon completion of the period of suspension, he be reinstated and placed on probation for a period of three years under such terms and conditions as prescribed by the Board of Nursing. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 27th day of September, 1985. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of September, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephanie A. Daniel, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 L. Haldane Taylor, Esq. 331 East Union Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Judie Ritter, Executive Director Board of Nursing Room 504 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore Carpino, Esq. General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be issued a license as a Licensed Practical Nurse, pursuant to Chapter 464, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Mary Ellen Stone Zirkle, Huntington, West Virginia, submitted an application for Licensed Practical Nurse by Endorsement to Respondent Florida State Board of Nursing, dated August 29, 1978. The application was denied by Respondent by letter of September 28, 1978, for the reason that Petitioner had not completed a program approved by the Board for the preparation of Licensed Practical Nurses and had not completed the 12th grade. Petitioner, through her counsel's letter of October 19, 1978, requested an administrative hearing. (Exhibit 1, Case File) Petitioner attended high school in West Virginia for three years from 1940 to 1943. In November, 1958, she received a certificate from the Huntington East High Trades School, Huntington, West Virginia, certifying that she had completed the requirement in practical nursing prescribed in the adult trade extension program sponsored by the Practical Nurses of West Virginia, Inc., District No. II, and the National Association for Practical Nurse Education. The course in practical nursing consisted of 285 hours of classroom work which involved class attendance for two nights a week for approximately one and one- half years. Although the school was not accredited by the West Virginia State Board of Examiners for Practical Nurses until 1961, West Virginia permitted individuals who had engaged in practical nursing for a period of three years to be issued a license as a practical nurse by waiver. It further authorized such individuals who had completed extension courses equal in theory to those for the graduate practical nurses to thereafter take the examination prescribed by the Board and obtain a license without the designation of "waiver" thereon. In this manner, Petitioner obtained her West Virginia license by waiver on November 6, 1958 and, in 1959, she passed the State Board examination. During the time Petitioner attended the extension course at Huntington East High Trades School, she was simultaneously employed at Cabell Huntington Hospital performing the duties of a practical nurse. During the period March - September, 1960, she attended a "post graduate educational program" at the hospital in operating room technique and was awarded a certificate of graduation. She thereafter was employed as a licensed practical nurse at Doctor's Memorial Hospital, Huntington, West Virginia, from 1962 until 1976. Her duties included working in all areas of surgery as well as general central service type functions in the general nursing units. In 1974, she satisfactorily completed a required course of studies in operating room technician refresher program which consisted of 80 hours of classroom work. She was also certified as an Operating Room Technician in 1974. (Exhibits 2-6, 7-8) Petitioner submitted letters from the various physicians familiar with her performance of duty at Doctor's Memorial Hospital who "found her to be reliable and efficient in the Operating Room and seemingly quite knowledgeable as a Staff Nurse in the general nursing departments." Her former supervisor at Doctor's Memorial Hospital also submitted a letter in which she commented favorably on Petitioner's efficiency and reliability. The letter stated in part as follows: When assigned to other areas, she worked with as much efficiency as she did in the Operating Room. It was very evident she had been trained well to function as a L.P.N. Her knowledge of nursing procedures and medications was quite adequate even with long periods of absence from general duty. (Exhibit 7) In determining qualifications for licensure by endorsement, Respondent considers that an applicant's graduation from an "approved school of practical nursing" in another state is acceptable as meeting Florida's requirements and does not inquire into the number of hours of instruction required for such graduation. Its inquiry into Petitioner's qualifications in this respect was caused by the fact that the West Virginia State Board of Examiners for Practical Nurses indicated on Respondent's application form that Petitioner's education had been an extension course. It is a policy of Respondent that the equivalent of a four year high school education is completion of the General Education Development Test (GED). Petitioner has not taken such a test. (Testimony of Johnson, Zirkle)
Recommendation That Petitioner's application for license to practice practical nursing without examination pursuant to Section 464.121 (2), F.S., be approved. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of February, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold, Esquire 1107 Blackstone Building 233 East Bay Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Peter S. Penrose, Esquire 3175 South Congress Avenue Suite 103 Lake Worth, Florida 33461 Geraldine Johnson, R.N. Licensing and Investigation Coordinator State Board of Nursing 6501 Arlington Expressway, Bldg B Jacksonville, Florida 32211
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Jo Ann Murphy, is a licensed registered nurse in the State of Florida, holding license number 69367-2. The Respondent received her nursing education and training in Albany, Georgia, and became a registered nurse in Florida in 1973. In 1977 she became certified by the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology as a nurse clinician. In 1981 she was certified as a clinical nurse practitioner in ambulatory gynecology and obstetric care. Until 1979, the Respondent was head nurse of OB/GYN Labor and Delivery, Postpartum Unit, at West Florida Hospital in Pensacola. From 1979 to 1983 she was office nurse and nurse practitioner in the office of Thomas H. Wyatt, M.D., in Pensacola. The Respondent became employed at University Hospital in Pensacola on April 25, 1983, primarily because of her knowledge in the field of Caesarian Sections. She was terminated less than one month later, on May 23, 1983, while still in her probationary period, for unsatisfactory nursing performance. On May 18, 1983, another registered nurse on the morning shift with the Respondent, testified that she smelled alcohol on the Respondent's breath at 7:30 A.M. Although this witness worked with the Respondent each day, this is the only time she contends that she smelled alcohol on her breath, and this witness did not see the Respondent stagger or exhibit any other symptom of alcohol use. This witness testified that the Respondent showed a lack of initiative, but that when the Respondent was told to do something she would do it well, and that she never had any concern regarding the Respondent's ability to function as a nurse. Two other hospital employees, a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) and a nurses aide, testified that they smelled alcohol on the Respondent's breath on a date unknown. The nurses aide, however, never saw the Respondent stagger, or exhibit any other sign of intoxication, and she says she only smelled alcohol on the Respondent's breath on one occasion. The LPN testified that she also saw the Respondent sitting at her desk in a daze or stupor, but this symptom was not observed or described by any other witness. Both of these witnesses worked with the Respondent each day, but only claimed to have smelled alcohol on her breath on one occasion. The Respondent denied having any alcohol to drink on or before any shift that she worked while employed at University Hospital. Her husband and her daughter confirmed that the Respondent had not consumed alcohol on the morning of May 18, 1983, before going to work. Another witness, a physician who was in the residency program at University Hospital while the Respondent worked there, had the opportunity to work in close contact with the Respondent on five or six occasions in the labor and delivery suite, and never smelled alcohol on her breath, or saw her stagger or exhibit any other sign of intoxication. This doctor found her to be alert, she performed her functions with no problems, and he had no complaints with her. The nursing director at University Hospital, who conducted the termination interview of the Respondent, observed what she characterized as red, blotchy skim on the Respondent, and the Respondent appeared to be nervous. However, this witness did not smell alcohol on the Respondent's breath, and she saw no other symptoms of alcohol use. Both the Respondent and the physician who employed her for four years confirmed the Respondent's skin blotches, but this is an inherited tendency having nothing to do with medical problems or alcohol use. The nursing director and the patient care coordinator both testified that the Respondent stated at her termination interview that she used to have an alcohol problem, but that she had been rehabilitated. The Respondent denies having made such a statement. Another physician, in addition to the one mentioned in paragraph 7 above, who was in labor and delivery with the Respondent more than ten times, and probably every day she worked at University Hospital, did not smell alcohol on her breath although they worked together closely. This witness found the Respondent's nursing abilities to be competent and very professional. Likewise, the physician who employed the Respondent for four years had no problems with her or her work, he found her prompt and attentive in her duties, and an excellent nurse. On another occasion, not specifically dated, but separate from the instances of the alleged alcohol breath, the Respondent is charged with having "defied an order to stay with a critically ill patient". The evidence is completely devoid of any explicit order given to the Respondent to stay with any patient during the time she worked at University Hospital. Instead, it is contended that the Respondent violated what are characterized as "standing orders" that a nurse should not leave a patient who has been assigned to her. These "standing orders" are supposed to have been set forth in policy manuals given to employees of the hospital, but no such manual was offered in evidence; nor was the nature of the "standing orders" explicitly described by the witnesses. On the one occasion when the Respondent is charged with defying orders to stay with a patient, the patient was being attended also by an LPN when the Respondent left to telephone the patient's physician. In the same general area, but behind the curtains of an adjoining cubicle, another registered nurse was attending a patient there. The patient whom the Respondent and the LPN attended went into deceleration after the Respondent had left to telephone her physician. The LPN needed help with the oxygen and to turn the patient. The other registered nurse in the adjoining cubicle came in and the patient was stabilized. The Respondent returned in a few minutes. It is below minimum standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice for a registered nurse to leave a patient, whose condition is considered critical, in the care of an LPN. Yet the patient was not in critical condition when the Respondent left to call the physician, and there was another registered nurse in close proximity who responded when the need for her arose. Thus, there is not sufficient competent evidence to support a finding of fact (1) that the Respondent either had alcohol on her breath or was in a drunken condition while on duty; (2) that the Respondent defied an order to stay with a critically ill patient; or (3) that the Respondent left a patient whose condition is considered critical in the care of an LPN. The competent evidence in the record supports a finding of fact (1) that the Respondent did not have alcohol on her breath at any time while employed at University Hospital; (2) that the Respondent did not defy an order to stay with a critically ill patient; and (3) that the Respondent did not leave a patient whose condition is considered critical in the care of an LPN.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint against the Respondent, Jo Ann Murphy, be dismissed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 10th day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS 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 10th day of January, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Julia P. Forrester, Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas C. Staples, Esquire P. O. Box 12786 Pensacola, Florida 32575 Ms. Helen P. Keefe Executive Director, Board of Nursing Department of Professional Regulation Room 504, 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Between November 30, 1977, and December 6, 1977, Prado completed the Board's application for certification as an advanced registered nurse practitioner, in the category of family nurse practitioner. Prado was under the impression that her application was mailed shortly after its completion, however, the person to whom Prado gave the application for mailing did not do so. The application was discovered in Prado's desk on or about April 16, 1978. The application was then mailed to the Board and it was received on May 2, 1978. Among the requirements for certification of advanced registered nurse practitioners contained in Rule 210-11.04, Florida Administrative Code, is satisfactory completion of a formal education program conforming to program guidelines contained in the appendix to the cited Rule. The appendix provides in part that the program of study shall be at least one academic year in length (9 months full-time). On January 1, 1974, Prado completed the University of Miami School of Nursing and Medicine's six month advanced nursing practice course. At one of its meetings the Board established a policy that nurses completing such a program with all requirements except the one academic year length stipulation would, if otherwise qualified, be accepted if their application was made by March 31, 1978. This policy was never adopted as a rule. In fact, all nurses who had taken the same course as that taken by Prado, and who submitted their applications by March 31, 1978, were accepted for certification as advanced registered nurse practitioners. Thee evidence shows that the only difference between the six month course attended by Prado and others and the one year course now required as a condition for acceptance is its calendar length. The substantive content of the two courses is identical. That is to say, the one year course simply takes three months longer to teach the same subject matter as the six month course. The evidence further indicates that, had Prado's application been timely filed, she most probably would have been certified by the Board.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the matters under consideration here, Respondent was licensed by the State of Florida as a practical nurse, under license #0692631. Cynthia J. Pagonis entered University Hospital in Jacksonville, Florida, on April 11, 1983, for a routine laparoscopy to be performed the following morning. Early on the morning of the day of her surgery, April 12, 1983, Respondent, who was one of her nurses, came into her room with two other nurses, one of whom gave her a shot. While this was done, Respondent stood back and observed. Somewhat later, he again came back into her room with a rolling table onto which he told her to climb so he could take her down to the operating room. By this time she was somewhat drowsy from the shot. She asked Respondent what was in it and he told her, whereupon he wheeled her to surgery. After the procedure, that afternoon, Ms. Pagonis recalls him entering her room several times. One time, he checked her I.V. bottle--other times, he did nothing for her and, sleepy as she was, this concerned her because she wanted to sleep and Respondent's visits disturbed her. During this period, other nurses also came in to check her blood pressure or do something else, but Respondent never did anything--just looked. On the final visit, he came in and said he wanted to check her bandage. With this, he lowered her blanket to below her waist to the extent that her pelvic area was exposed. She was wearing a short hospital gown and nothing else. By this time, several hours after surgery, the anesthetic had worn off so that she knew exactly what was happening. After looking at her bandage, in this case no more than a Band-Aid, he pulled the cover back up and, without warning, bent over and kissed her on the cheek. She was upset when he pulled the blanket down because she felt it was inappropriate for him to do it when her dressing had been checked by another nurse shortly before. She also did not think it was appropriate for a male to be in her room without a chaperone. When Respondent kissed Mrs. Pagonis, he told her he would be off for a few days and for her to take care of herself. Then he left. When Respondent kissed Mrs. Pagonis, she got angry. She had said nothing to him to lead him on. She had asked him what cologne he was wearing and when he told her, she said it smelled nice, but nothing more. Mr. Pagonis entered his wife's room on the morning of her surgery, both before and after the operation. When he was there before she was taken to the operating room, he saw Respondent in the room and Respondent asked him to leave so they could get his wife ready for the operation. When he came back later, after this incident, he found her nervous and upset. She looked to him as if she had been frightened. When she told him what had happened, that this "black male nurse had repeatedly come into her room and was doing nothing" for her, and that he had pulled down her covers and "got his eyes full," Mr. Pagonis became angry and went out to look for Respondent. He could not find Mills, however, and went through the nursing chain of command until he got to Mrs. Davis, the Director of Medical Nursing, to whom he told the story. Mrs. Davis found Mr. Pagonis to be upset, but rational and controlled. He was, in her words, restrained, gentlemanly, and "quite heroic" about the whole situation. Mrs. Davis was first contacted about the incident, while in her office, by a call from the floor nurse on Mrs. Pagonis' floor. The nurse alerted her that Respondent had made advances to a patient. She immediately went up to that floor and met with Mr. Pagonis, whom she then took downstairs to her office where he told her what his wife had related. She then went back up to Mrs. Pagonis' room, in an effort to be fair to everyone, to see how alert Mrs. Pagonis was and how accurate her observations were. Mrs. Davis found her alert, and a clearheaded woman who, in her opinion, had been free of the effects of anesthesia for quite awhile. Mrs. Pagonis told her what had happened, that Respondent had made an unnecessary check of her I.V., since another nurse had just checked her, and then checked her dressing, as described. Mrs. Davis verified that another nurse had recently checked on Mrs. Pagonis and, after checking the incision, concluded that because it was so minor, there was no legitimate need for Respondent to have done so also. In her professional opinion, based on service as a licensed practical nurse since 1971 and as a registered nurse since 1974, the way in which Respondent checked Mrs. Pagonis was inappropriate. The incision and dressing here were so small, it was not necessary to expose the patient all the way to the mons pubis, as Respondent did. In addition, a male nurse should always have a witness present in a situation such as this. As for the kiss, it is a rare situation when it is appropriate for a nurse to kiss a patient. This may be done only in the care of a very old, very young, very sick, long-term patient, where the parties had a long-standing relationship, and the action would be therapeutic. Under the circumstances here, Respondent's kiss of Mrs. Pagonis was inappropriate and unprofessional, notwithstanding Respondent's claim he did it, "but only as a friendly gesture." Mrs. Davis requested Mr. Pagonis to make a written statement. When this was done and signed, Mrs. Davis called for Respondent, who, she found, had signed off his regular shift, but was working overtime. She located him and took him back to her office, where she questioned him about the incident. At first he denied it, but subsequently admitted he had kissed Mrs. Pagonis and pulled down her covers, although he claimed he did this in an appropriate manner. She then sent him back to work and thought about the situation for a while. Having made her decision to discharge the Respondent, she prepared the appropriate paperwork, called him back to her office, and did so. The next day, Mills called her and told her he understood why she had done what she did, told her he loved her, and thanked her. During the period he worked at that hospital, she never had any other difficulty with Respondent. He was cooperative and would come in for extra duty when called. She bad received no direct complaints about his relationship with other patients; and though she was not his immediate supervisor, she understood that his performance of his nursing duties was satisfactory. Somewhat later in the year, in June 1983, Respondent was employed as a Float Nurse at the Jacksonville Convalescent Center, specifically on June 19 and 20, 1983. On those days it was, according to Carol R. Hadnot, Director of Nursing at the Center, his responsibility to change the dressings on certain patients. Respondent was present for duty on those dates. During this period, Fay K.F. Bennett, also a nurse at the Center, as a part of her duties, checked the dressing on several of the patients whose dressings were due to be changed. She found that the dressings had not been changed and that the Patients' charts bore initials and date for the last change, a day or two before. The initials on the charts were D.M., which could have been Respondent or Doris Minard. That initial is not significant, however. What is significant is that there was no note on the chart showing that Respondent had changed the dressings during his duty period as he was required to do. This information was reported to Mrs. Hadnot. It is the general policy at Jacksonville Convalescent Center to counsel an employee before taking discharge action here. This was not done here because before Respondent could be counseled, allegations that Respondent had made sexual advances to three nurses' aids were reported to her. She then discussed the situation with the faculty administrator. They decided that because he was still a probationary employee, the allegations described were sufficient to discharge Respondent without counseling, and this was done.
Recommendation That Respondent's license as a licensed practical nurse be revoked.
The Issue The issue is whether respondent's license as a practical nurse should be disciplined for the reasons cited in the administrative complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the entire record, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Ruthie Mae Owens Brooks (Brooks or respondent), was licensed as a practical nurse having been issued license number PN 0877941 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Nursing (Board). She has been licensed as a practical nurse since 1987. There is no evidence that respondent has been the subject of disciplinary action prior to this occasion. When the events herein occurred, respondent was an agency nurse for Underhill Personnel Services, Inc., an agency that furnished nurses to various health care facilities, including Methodist Medical Center in Jacksonville, Florida. She was employed at all times as a licensed practical nurse. On November 17, 1990, respondent was scheduled to work the 11 p.m. - 7 a.m. shift at Methodist Medical Center. Although her duty shift began at 11:00 p.m., respondent arrived a few minutes late and reported directly to the medical-surgical- orthopedic wing instead of signing in at the nursing office as required by hospital rules. After reporting to her work area, respondent went to the assignment board to review her assignment for that evening. Her specific duties that evening were to care for five patients in the medical-surgical-orthopedic wing. While respondent was at the assignment board, a registered nurse, Lynn Ivie, came to the board to ascertain her assignment. At that time, Ivie reported that she smelled a "strong odor of alcohol" on respondent's breath. However, Ivie said nothing at that time since she wanted to give respondent the benefit of the doubt. Around midnight, one of respondent's patients awoke in his room with severe chest pains. Both Ivie and respondent immediately went to the room. Although Ivie instructed Brooks to get a vital signs machine (also known as the Dynamap), Brooks ignored the instruction and "wiped the patient's face with a wet cloth". Ivie then brought the machine into the room and respondent was instructed by Ivie to take the patient's vital signs (blood pressure, temperature and pulse). This merely required her to place an attachment around the patient's arm and push a button to start the machine. The operation of the machine is considered a basic nursing skill. According to Ivie, respondent could not focus on the machine and did not seem to remember how to operate it. After waiting a few moments with no response from Brooks, Ivie finally took the patient's vital signs herself. During this encounter, Ivie again smelled alcohol on respondent's breath and concluded that her inability to assist in the care of the patient and to operate the machine was due to alcohol. Within a few moments, the patient was transferred to the intensive care unit (ICU) on another floor. Before accompanying the patient to the ICU, Ivie instructed respondent to chart the incident and action taken in the nurse's notes and then meet her in the ICU with the completed notes. These notes should be completed in an expedited manner so that the nurses in the ICU wing can utilize them in providing follow-up care to the patient. However, respondent did not chart the incident nor bring the notes to the ICU. Indeed, she failed to chart the notes on any of the patients assigned to her that night. By failing to chart any notes that evening, respondent contravened the requirement that a nurse file a report or record (nursing notes). Around 1:30 a.m. on November 18, Ivie and Joyce Biddix, the nursing supervisor, went to the room of one of the patients assigned to respondent and found the patient, a confused elderly male, sitting nude in a chair with the bed stripped of all linens. He had previously been tied to the bed to prevent him from falling. The linens were soiled with urine and were lying in a heap on the floor. Although respondent had taken the patient out of the bed, disrobed him, and removed the linens, she had left him unattended in the room and had not returned. Biddix called down the hall for someone to bring fresh linens and observed respondent "floating" down the hall saying "I can't find the linens" in a "singsong" voice. When she got closer to respondent, Biddix smelled alcohol on respondent's breath. It may reasonably be inferred from the evidence that respondent's conduct with this patient was unprofessional and constituted a departure from acceptable and prevailing nursing practice. After being confronted by Biddix regarding the alcohol, respondent told her she had drunk one beer with her meal around 10:30 p.m., or just before reporting to duty that evening. However, she denied she was intoxicated or unable to perform her duties. Respondent was then told to leave work immediately. The incident was later reported to Underhill Personnel Services, Inc. and that agency contacted the Board. After an investigation was conducted by the Board, an administrative complaint was filed. At hearing, respondent did not contest or deny the assertion that by reporting to work with alcohol on her breath, she was acting in an unprofessional manner and deviated from the standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice. In this regard, she acknowledged that she had drunk alcohol (which she claimed was only one tall beer) with her meal around 10:30 p.m., or just before reporting to duty. However, she contended that all of her previously scheduled shifts at the hospital had been cancel led and she assumed her shift that evening might also be cancelled. In response to the allegation that she could not operate the vital signs machine, respondent offered a different version of events and suggested that the machine in the patient's room was inoperative. Therefore, it was necessary for Ivie to bring a Dynamap into the room and Ivie took the vital signs without respondent's assistance. She justified leaving the elderly patient alone without clothes in his room on the grounds there was no clean gown, the patient was not combative, and she was only gone from the room for a few moments. Finally, she contended that she charted the notes for one of her patients but did not chart the others because the remaining patients were removed from her care by Ivie and Biddix when she was sent home at 1:30 a.m. However, these explanations are either deemed to be not credible or, if true, nonetheless do not justify her actions. Although there was no testimony concerning the specific issue of whether respondent is unable to practice nursing with reasonable skill and safety by reason of use of alcohol, taken as a whole respondent's conduct on the evening of November 17, 1990, supports a finding that her capacity was impaired that evening by virtue of alcohol. Accordingly, it is found that respondent was unable to practice nursing with reasonable skill and safety by reason of use of alcohol.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of facts and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating Subsections 464.018(1)(f), (h), and (j), Florida Statutes (1989), and that her nursing license be suspended for six months but that such suspension be stayed upon respondent's entry into and successful completion of the Intervention Program for Nurses. Respondent's failure to remain in or successfully complete the program will result in the immediate lifting of the stay and imposition of the six-month suspension. Thereafter, said license shall not be reinstated until such time as respondent appears before the Board and can demonstrate that she can engage in the safe practice of nursing. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 16th day of December, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 91-5033 Petitioner: Partially adopted in finding of fact 1. Partially adopted in finding of fact 3. Partially adopted in finding of fact 8. Partially adopted in finding of fact 3. 5-6. Partially adopted in finding of fact 4. 7-10. Partially adopted in finding of fact 5. 11-14. Partially adopted in finding of fact 6. 15-16. Partially adopted in finding of fact 7. 17-18. Partially adopted in finding of fact 8. COPIES FURNISHED: Roberta L. Fenner, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ruthie Mae Owens Brooks 1604 S.W. 40th Terrace, #A Gainesville, Florida 32607 Jack L. McRay, Esquire 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Judie Ritter, Executive Director 504 Daniel Building 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, FL 32202
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the matter in issue herein, the Respondent, University of South Florida, (University), was an entity of the State of Florida located in Tampa, and operated, among other services, a Student Health Services at which physicians and nurses were employed to provide health services to members of the student body. The Petitioner, Olympia Malone, was hired by the University as a registered nurse at the Student Health Service in January, 1986. At the time of her hiring, Ms. Malone had 3 years of college. She had received an Associate Degree from Hillsborough Community College, was licensed by the State of Florida as a registered nurse, and had been employed as such at St. Jospeh Hospital for 12 years. Over the years of her employment with the University, Ms. Malone received several performance evaluations which covered the period from July 25, 1986 through January 23, 1990. Prior to receipt of the last report on January 26, 1990, she received a commendation letter in May, 1989 from Ms. Sharon A. Berry, her immediate supervisor, and had been asked to transfer over to the physician area. Petitioner claims to have been told there was some problem in getting nurses to work in that area and she was asked to go there to get it organized. She was told she had the skills needed at the new section. She agreed to do this because she enjoyed it and saw it as a chance to keep her nursing skills up since the work related to direct patient care. While there she learned new skills and made suggestions for some of which she was commended. However, when she asked for a raise she was told by Ms. Allen, the Director of Nursing Services, that she had been transferred there because of personality conflicts. When a nursing supervisor position came open in the Student Health Service in 1989, Ms. Malone applied for it but the promotion was given to Ms. Hansen, another nurse, whom Petitioner feels was less qualified then she. Malone filed a grievance about this failure to select her for promotion but subsequently withdrew it because she felt she could not win and to carry it forward would polarize the work section. Ms. Allen selected Ms. Hansen for the position of supervisor because she felt, from the records, Hansen was best qualified. Though Ms. Malone indicates she has had supervisory experience as preceptor for licensed practical nurses, nursing assistants and students at St. Joseph Hospital, her application makes no reference to any supervisory experience as did Ms. Hansen's. Ms. Allen's selection was based on who had the most supervisory experience. She went strictly by what was on the applications. At no time prior to the rendering of the appraisal on January 26, 1990 was Ms. Malone given any indication there was any concern about her performance, nor was she counselled. Unknown to her, however, there were several memoranda concerning her performance, dating back to 1988 and 1989, which were being kept in a private file maintained by Ms. Allen. These memoranda, which were not being kept in Ms. Malone's official personnel record with the University, made repeated reference to personality conflicts involving her and other employees which were, apparently, causing some concern to the staff. An Addendum to Annual Performance Review relating to Ms. Malone, dated January 28, 1991 and covering the period from January 24, 1990 to January 23, 1991, refers to a counselling session with her conducted on January 24, 1991, one day after the expiration of the reporting period. At this session, Ms. Malone's non-written evaluation was discussed but she disagreed with it and left the meeting before the discussion could be completed. The use of a non-written evaluation was, at that time, a new, informal, fluid procedure whereby the rater, using the old rating form, discussed with the ratee that individual's strengths and weaknesses. The supervisor had the option of using the old formal form or the new discussion/memorandum format. Once the discussion was completed, the employee had the right to request a memorandum of the evaluation. In this case, the process did not get that far since Ms. Malone got upset and departed the room before it was completed. It is this evaluation which she now considers to be racial discrimination and retaliation for her prior grievance which forms the basis for this hearing. Ms. Malone objected to the use of this new procedure because she felt it did not require the supervisor to identify specifics. In December, 1990, she had requested of Dr. Anderson, the Director of the Student Health Service, that (1) she get an evaluation by an impartial rater, and (2) her evaluation be in writing. In response, Dr. Anderson advised Ms. Malone that her immediate supervisor, Ms. Hansen, had to render the evaluation and that she would be given "something in writing." About a year before this latter evaluation, Ms. Malone, in January, 1990, received a written evaluation by Ms. Hansen which, though it reflected she achieved standards in every category, also reflected she had experienced some difficulty in working with others and with carrying out assigned additional responsibilities. On February 2, 1990, Ms. Malone filed a grievance because of that evaluation and in August, 1990, her supervisors and Mr. Carrington, the University's Assistant Personnel Director, met with her to discuss the areas of insubordination alleged by Ms. Hansen. Ms. Malone was told this meeting was not a counselling session. When she asked for permission to gather information on her own time to refute the allegations, it was granted and the information was thereafter sent to Mr. Carrington and Dr. Anderson, but she got no response. Ms. Malone's attorney filed a complaint about this with the EEO office in the summer of 1990. This grievance got lost and was not responded to. Also that summer, Ms. Malone filed a grievance with the campus employment office based on what she felt was a negative performance appraisal. This matter was referred to an arbitration committee made up of two Black and one White member which determined that no evidence of discrimination or retaliation was indicated. In January, 1991, she then got the counselling session on which she walked out. Several days later, the written addendum, which she considered to be much worse than the original evaluation, was prepared. In March, 1991, Ms. Malone, who is African American, filed the current EEO complaint but did not get a response for "quite a while." She claims that during all this time she was treated differently from the White nurses and harassed with acts of reprisal. For example, Dr. Kali Derasari called her to her office and told her to pull an appointment for a patient to refer to a nurse practitioner. When she advised the doctor of the requirements for record keeping, the doctor disagreed so she did what was asked of her. As a result, the nurse practitioner complained to Ms. Hansen who counselled Petitioner for not following proper procedure. When the doctor, at Ms. Malone's request, backed her up, she was still reprimanded. On another occasion, according to Petitioner, she applied for leave two weeks in advance to attend a work shop she wanted and agreed to use annual leave, if necessary. She got approval from Ms. Hansen for administrative leave on March 27, 1991, 4 days later. She went to the workshop as approved, but 3 weeks later, was called in by Ms. Hansen, told she should not have had administrative leave for a workshop, and directed to change her time sheet which had already been approved. When Ms. Malone called someone at the Personnel office about it, she was told that office had not suggested the change - that her supervisor could approve administrative leave. When she told Ms. Hansen that, it was then agreed she could leave it as it was. There were numerous unspecified other instances of harassment claimed by Petitioner. She recalls one occasion where Ms. Hansen physically provoked her by leaning over her and coming up close to her face, criticizing her about her work. This was ultimately made a part of her record. In addition, Ms. Malone is the only Black nurse in the section. The other nurse there is a White licensed practical nurse, yet Ms. Malone claims she has been instructed not to refer to herself as a registered nurse. She feels this deprecates her position in an attempt to curry favor with the White nurse who is of a lower professional status. She also cites several occasions where she felt information she needed to do her job was kept from her though others were advised. When she reported all this to Ms. Allen, Ms. Hansen's supervisor, she got no response. However, she claims, whenever anyone complained about her, she was called in and counselled. She admits that management could have called and counselled those about whom she complained without her knowing about it. Ms. Malone also appears to disregard the fact that Ms. Allen, the overall supervisor, is Black. In 1987 and 1988, Ms. Malone's supervisor was Sharon Berry. According to Ms. Allen, there was some mutual complaining between the two of them At first Ms. Allen was very protective of Petitioner because she had hired her and wanted her to succeed. However, when Petitioner did not improve as expected, Ms. Allen's attitude changed and when she had an altercation with Ms. Malone about where Malone's car was parked, she began to believe that maybe Malone had some problem with personal relationships. Contrary to what Ms. Malone related, the transfer into the physician's section in 1989 was the result of problems Ms. Malone was having with her supervisors and after the move, she appeared to be doing better. Ms. Malone was given the opportunity, along with other nurses, to work in other areas to get more experience, but she declined the opportunity unless she got more money. Ms. Berry was Petitioner's immediate supervisor just after she was hired and initially they got along well. When problems first began to arise, she went to Ms. Allen who advised her to show Petitioner more understanding. This is consistent with Allen's testimony regarding her initial efforts to protect Petitioner. Nonetheless, Petitioner's performance, monitored on a continuing basis, was "fine." She was a good nurse. Gradually, however, Petitioner's relationships with Ms. Berry and the other nurses began to deteriorate and her lateness began to be a problem. Ms. Berry supervised Petitioner until she transferred to the physician's area. Toward the end of their relationship, Berry claims, Petitioner became remote and withdrawn from other staff, indicating they were "5 faced" and "barracudas." Things got so bad between Berry and Petitioner that Petitioner would not speak to her unless spoken to and then would not make eye contact. Ms. Hansen has been Petitioner's supervisor in the physician's area since 1989. Two of the 3 individuals she supervises are Black. She evaluates Petitioner's performance formally once a year and informally on a continuing, routine basis. She has found that Petitioner works without supervision most of the time. This is all right. However, at times Petitioner does not come to her as a resource person but goes to someone outside the section for answers to job questions and this is not all right. She has observed that Petitioner often has some difficulty in her relationships with others. When it became clear Petitioner was having difficulty with another person in the section, Hansen investigated and initiated a new procedure. A part of the problem was Petitioner's attitude and often, even when she was technically correct, her abusive and abrasive approach to others diminished her effectiveness. She has had to reprimand Petitioner in the past. When Ms. Hansen called Petitioner in for the January, 1991 evaluation, she showed Petitioner what she intended to say and Petitioner got angry and left. The matters which would have been discussed with Petitioner had she not walked out, were subsequently formalized. When Ms. Malone complained to Ms. Allen she was told she was too loud, and that she acted like Whites expected her to act. Allen also reportedly alleged that Malone was hostile to her. Ms. Malone admits to being loud and believes her loud voice can cause people to think she is hostile. Nonetheless, Ms. Malone claims that because of all the above listed perceived discrimination and retaliation, she has developed unspecified physical and mental aliments and is taking medication for both even though in the last few months the pressure has let up somewhat. When she notified management of this, she was referred to the Employee Assistance Program.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore recommended that a Final Order be entered dismissing Olympia Malone's Petition for Relief from the unlawful employment practices of both racial discrimination and retaliation filed against the University of South Florida. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of February, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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 February, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-3914 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 to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: None submitted. FOR THE RESPONDENT: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. & 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: George Clark, III, Esquire 610 Horatio Street Tampa, Florida 33606 Wendy J. Thompson, Esquire University of South Florida 4202 Fowler Avenue, Adm. 250 Tampa, Florida 33620-6250 Margaret Jones, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F. Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-4149
