The Issue Whether the Petitioner is entitled to receive benefits pursuant to Option 3 as retirement earned by his deceased wife, Susana T. Fabian.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Howard Fabian, is the spouse of the late Susana T. Fabian. Mrs. Fabian was a member of the Florida Retirement System (FRS). The Fabians were married for approximately 14 years and have two children from their union. The girls, now teenagers, reside with Mr. Fabian and depend on him for their financial support. The Respondent, DMS, is the state agency charged with the responsibility of administering the FRS. Benefits payable to FRS participants are tendered pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 121, Florida Statutes, and DMS rules. Mrs. Fabian was employed as a teacher in the Miami- Dade County Public Schools on or about December 17, 1984. As such, she was eligible to participate in the FRS. In fact, Mrs. Fabian's employer made contributions to the FRS for her benefit throughout her employment with the school system. Such contributions continued for over 13 years. It is undisputed that Mrs. Fabian was "vested" and was, therefore, entitled to receive retirement benefits from the FRS. Unfortunately, Mrs. Fabian became ill in 1997 and was unable to teach. She requested an extended sick leave for the period August 31, 1997 through May 31, 1998, which her employer granted. Mrs. Fabian returned to teaching the following year and was able to perform her duties until January 2000. At that time her medical condition worsened. Her request for unpaid leave through June 2000 was granted. Despite her best efforts to regain her health, Mrs. Fabian did not improve. Each time her employer asked whether she would return to work, forms were returned seeking an extension of leave. The employer continued to grant the extension requests and approved sick leave without pay for the period through June 14, 2002. Mr. Fabian filled out a leave form seeking leave on his wife's behalf through June 2003. By letter dated May 14, 2002, the school system denied that request. Whether or not the employer correctly calculated the time Mrs. Fabian received unpaid leave is unknown. The Petitioner asserts that had Mrs. Fabian received credit for "hardship leave and dire emergency leave" in 1997 and 2000 (for which the union contract provided), the leave request in June 2002 would or could have been granted. The record is clear that the Respondent did not have any part in the internal workings of the Miami-Dade County School District and did not have knowledge as to whether Mrs. Fabian could have been granted additional unpaid leave. The employer's decisions regarding this employee were unknown to the Respondent until the instant action. However, about the time the employer denied the last leave extension request, Mr. Fabian received a FRS application for disability retirement. The application was completed on or about June 2002. The form signed by Mrs. Fabian was out- of-date and did not have a designation of beneficiary space. Pursuant to its policy, DMS accepted the out of date form and sent Mrs. Fabian a form for designating a beneficiary. The form for designating a beneficiary listed four options: Option 1, Option 2, Option 3 and Option 4. All (Options 1-4) were clearly and unambiguously described. However, only two of the options had estimates included on the form sent to Mrs. Fabian. Estimates for Options 3 and 4 were not noted. Under Option 1 the form indicated a monthly benefit of $895.28. Option 2 indicated a monthly payment of $824.89. At that point in time DMS did not have sufficient information to calculate Options 3 and 4. To calculate Options 3 and 4 DMS must have information regarding a "Joint Annuitant." Had Mr. Fabian included information for Options 3 and 4 those amounts would have been calculated. In this case, the Respondent could not know Mrs. Fabian was married, as the initial (outdated) form did not provide that information. The Respondent could have become aware of Mrs. Fabian's marital status as a result of a telephone call from Mr. Fabian to DMS in August of 2002. At that time DMS still needed information to put Mrs. Fabian on the retirement payroll. The request for information unambiguously listed information needed for a "joint annuitant." The first notice to Mrs. Fabian, dated July 11, 2002, asked for the proof of birth for the joint annuitant. Similarly, the SECOND REQUEST-RETURN WITHIN 30 DAYS (Respondent's Ex. 12) dated September 4, 2002, indicated the following: Your name cannot be placed on the retired payroll for the reason(s) indicated below: BIRTH VERIFICATION Please see the enclosed memo outlining the acceptable means of proving your birth date. BIRTH VERIFICATION OF BENEFICIARY If you elect Option 3 or 4, we will need proof of birth for your joint annuitant. FRS-11o, OPTION SELECTION FORM The enclosed Option Selection Form is needed. If you elect option 3 or 4, we will need proof of birth for your joint annuitant. You may wait until an estimate of benefits is provided before selecting your option. FORM FST-12, BENEFICIARY DESIGNATION This form must be completed to designate a beneficiary. You must designate a beneficiary to receive any benefits due at your date of death. [Emphasis in original] Nevertheless, when the Option Selection form was submitted to DMS, Mr. Fabian, exercising a power of attorney provided by his wife, chose Option 1. Mr. Fabian claims he did not know Option 3 was available. The Option Selection form clearly and unambiguously listed all four options available to Mrs. Fabian. Mr. Fabian is an educated professional. He has taught school for the Miami-Dade County School District and has operated a real estate office for approximately 20 years. The Option Selection form signed by Mr. Fabian for himself and for his wife on September 3, 2002 (Petitioner's Exhibit. 7) required the Petitioner to complete a "Spousal Acknowledgement," recognizing that the member had chosen Option 1. The section must be completed if the FRS member is married and if Option 1 or 2 is elected. Clearly, the Petitioner knew or should have known that the form contemplated a permanent decision. In fact, the Petitioner acknowledged by signing beneath the section that stated: . . . I also understand that I cannot add additional service, change options, or change my type of retirement (Regular, Disability and Early) once my retirement becomes final. My retirement becomes final when any benefit payment is cashed, deposited, or when my Deferred Retirement Option Program participation begins. DMS received the Beneficiary Designation Form and Option Selection forms on September 12, 2002. The completed file was referred to payroll and Mrs. Fabian then received monthly retirement benefits under Option 1 (the option selected by her husband pursuant to his power of attorney). It is undisputed the first payment was negotiated upon its receipt. Prior to cashing the first payment Mrs. Fabian could have changed her option selection. On December 24, 2002, Mrs. Fabian passed away. The Respondent then notified Mr. Fabian that the option he had selected did not provide for continuing benefits beyond the month of Mrs. Fabian's death. Additionally, Mr. Fabian was advised that he was not entitled to a refund of any contribution Mrs. Fabian paid to FRS as she had not made any. The employer paid 100 percent of the contributions to Mrs. Fabian's account. Retirement benefits under the FRS are not equivalent to life insurance. That is, the retirement payments are payable to the employee who "earned" benefits or to those who may be "joint annuitants" as defined by law. At all times material to this case, the employer paid the full amount credited to Mrs. Fabian's retirement account, approximately $84,046.51. Obviously, Mrs. Fabian sought the benefits from her account prior to her anticipated retirement date. DMS allows disability retirement under such circumstances. Therefore, Mrs. Fabian's eligibility to claim her disability retirement is not disputed. The deposition testimony of Nina Barron was admitted into evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 5. Ms. Barron reviewed the retirement options with the Petitioner prior to the time the form was submitted to FRS. Ms. Barron also calculated the amounts payable to Mrs. Fabian pursuant to each option. Ms. Barron also believes she spoke to Mrs. Fabian regarding the options. Ms. Barron mailed the calculated estimates for each option to the Petitioner. The Petitioner's allegation that he was confused regarding the options and which election would best protect his family's interests has not been deemed persuasive in light of the testimony of Ms. Barron. The witness provided an unofficial estimate to Mrs. Fabian that included all 4 options.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement, enter a Final Order denying the Petitioner's request. S DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of June, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Sarabeth Snuggs, Interim Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Building C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Alberto Dominguez, General Counsel Department of Management Services Division of Retirement 4050 Esplande Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1560 Richard M. Ellis, Esquire Rutledge, Ecenia, Purnell & Hoffman, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 420 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0551 Larry D. Scott, Esquire Department of Management Services Division of Retirement 4050 Esplanade Way, Suite 260 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue Whether the Petitioner abandoned his position with the Respondent and resigned from Career Service pursuant to the personnel rules of the Career Service System?
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was an employee of the Respondent for more than five years. At all times relevant hereto, the Petitioner was employed by the Respondent. During the month of December, 1986, and the portion of January, 1987, prior to the date the Petitioner was removed from his position, the Petitioner was assigned to the Blountstown, Florida, road maintenance office. The Petitioner's immediate supervisor was Mr. Gustavev Goodwin. Mr. Goodwin was an HMT-3 with the Respondent and supervised a maintenance crew of three men, including the Petitioner. Mr. Goodwin was the Petitioner's immediate supervisor. Mr. Lloyd Blackburn, a Highway Maintenance Supervisor with the Respondent, was Mr. Goodwin's immediate supervisor. Mr. Blackburn supervises all crews operating out of the Blountstown office. The Petitioner and his crew worked a 10-hour day, 4 days a week. Mr. Goodwin prepares a weekly crew report on a daily basis. Mr. Goodwin records the hours a crew member worked or, if a crew member was not present, Mr. Goodwin notes the absence and the reason for the absence. Mr. Blackburn transfers the information recorded on the weekly crew reports to timesheets which are used for payroll purposes. If approval of a request for leave is required, employees are required to report to their crew supervisor or Mr. Blackburn. The Petitioner would have been required to obtain approval of leave from Mr. Goodwin or Mr. Blackburn, if prior approval had been required. In cases of sick leave, employees were expected to call by telephone on the day of the illness or injury and inform Mr. Blackburn. Mr. Blackburn was at the office each work day in the morning before the crews completed fueling their trucks and departed for the day. Mr. Blackburn was then out of the office during most of the remainder of the day. During the last week of December, 1986, Mr. Goodwin, the Petitioner and the other members of Mr. Goodwin's crew were "bull skating" (joking and talking). The Petitioner told Mr. Goodwin in response to some comment, probably pertaining to the work that would be done the first week of January, 1987, that "I won't be here next week anyway. I be in the hospital." Although Mr. Goodwin did not remember the Petitioner having made these comments, the Petitioner and one of the crew members, Mr. Arthur Jackson, both testified that the comments were made. Neither Mr. Goodwin or Mr. Blackburn told the Petitioner that he could be absent from work during the first week of January, 1987. The Petitioner was absent from work during the first week of January, 1987 -- January 5, 6, 7 and 8, 1987. Neither Mr. Goodwin nor Mr. Blackburn were contacted on January 5-8, 1987, by the Petitioner or anyone on behalf of the Petitioner, about the Petitioner's absence. Neither Mr. Goodwin or Mr. Blackburn told the Petitioner that his absence on January 5-8, 1937, was approved. The Petitioner had obtained approval of annual leave prior to the period at issue in this case. The Petitioner had planned to go to the hospital on January 5, 1987, because of problems he has had with his legs, and to remain in the hospital for the remainder of the week. Because of the problems with his legs and his automobile, the Petitioner did not go to the hospital or see a doctor on January 5, 1987. On January 8, 1987, the Petitioner had a friend drive him to Panama City, Florida, where he remained under the care of Dr. Ernest G. Haslam, M.D., in the hospital, until January 12, 1987. Although the Petitioner does not have a telephone at his residence, Mr. Goodwin or Mr. Blackburn could have been contacted by Petitioner's wife, who works at Hardees, or by a friend. The Petitioner acknowledged receipt on April 14, 1983, of the Florida Department of Transportation Employee Handbook and his responsibility to review the handbook in detail and to request clarification, if necessary. On page 43 of the handbook it is provided that "[a]fter an unauthorized leave of absence for three consecutive workdays, the Department will consider you to have abandoned your position and resigned from Career Service ..." On page 22 of the handbook it is provided that "[i]f a medical appointment is necessary during work hours, you should obtain `approval, in advance, to use your earned sick leave." By certified letter from Allen Potter, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Department, dated January 8, 1976, the Petitioner was informed that he was deemed to have abandoned his position with the Respondent and to have resigned from the Career Service because of his absence from work during the first week of January, 1987.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration rule that the Petitioner, Albert T. Smith, has not abandoned his position with the Respondent, the Department of Transportation, and has not resigned from the Career Service. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of May, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-0450 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s), if any, in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. Paragraph numbers in the Recommended Order are referred to as "RD ." Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact The Petitioner has filed a letter dated April 10, 1987. The only proposed finding of fact contained in this letter concerns the question of whether the Petitioner told his supervisor, Mr. Goodwin, that he would not be at work during the period of time at issue in this case. The proposed finding of fact has been accepted in RD 10. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding RD Number of Acceptance of Fact Number or Reason for Rejection 1 RD 1-4 and 8. 2 RD 5-7 and 9. 3 RD 10-11. 4 RD 11 and 13. The evidence did not prove that the Petitioner had obtained prior approval for sick leave subsequent to the period of time involved in this case. The evidence only proved that the Petitioner had on other occasions received prior approval of annual leave. 5 RD 19-20. RD 16 and 18. The evidence does not prove that the Petitioner got into a car and drove to town. RD 21. The Petitioner was not, however, "absent from his position without authorized leave ..." COPIES FURNISHED: Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Kay N. Henderson, P.E., Secretary Department of Transportation Hayden Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 ATTN: Eleanor F. Turner, MS 58 Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Mr. Albert T. Smith Route 1, Box 135, B 69A Blountstown, Florida 32424 =================================================================
The Issue The issue is whether the Petitioner, a former employee of the Respondent, was overpaid in the amount of $1,165.76, and should be required to repay that amount to the Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was a career service employee of the Respondent and was initially employed on November 17, 1997. The Petitioner’s employment with the Respondent was terminated on June 30, 2003, due to layoffs created by the outsourcing of the Family Services Unit of the Respondent. The Petitioner’s annual rate of pay at the time of her termination was $19,797.44, paid bi-weekly. By letters dated August 26, 2003, October 14, 2003, and February 16, 2004, the Petitioner was informed that six separate salary overpayments had occurred. The Petitioner actually worked 56 hours during the pay period of June 20, 2003 through July 3, 2003, but was inadvertently paid for 80 hours of work. The Petitioner was inadvertently paid for working the days of July 1, 2, and 3, 2003, although her employment had been terminated effective June 30, 2003. The overpayment was for 24 hours, amounting to $183.79, based upon the Petitioner’s annual rate of pay. The Petitioner was no longer employed by the Respondent during the pay period of July 4, 2003 through July 17, 2003, but was inadvertently paid for 80 hours of work. The overpayment amounted to $601.70, based upon the Petitioner’s annual rate of pay. Following termination of employment, the Respondent’s Human Resources Department conducted an audit of the terminated employee’s leave. An audit was performed by the Respondent concerning the Petitioner’s leave. In the course and scope of the Respondent performing the audit of the Petitioner’s leave, the Respondent discovered that the Petitioner had been overpaid for four pay periods in 2003. Once an employee of the Respondent no longer has sick leave remaining, annual leave is used to cover any shortages in sick leave. Once an employee of the Respondent no longer has either sick leave or annual leave remaining, the employee cannot be paid for additional time taken as leave. The additional time becomes “leave without pay.” The Petitioner was overpaid in four separate pay periods when she had insufficient sick or annual leave as follows: 1/31/03-2/13/03: 16.50 hours 4/11/03-4/24/03: 22.75 hours 4/25/03-5/08/03: 4.25 hours 5/23/03-6/05/03: 4.75 hours The sum of the hours of overpayment is 48.25, which translates to the amount of $380.27 in overpayment to the Petitioner for the referenced pay periods. The total amount of the Respondent’s overpayment to the Petitioner, based upon the salary payments for July 1, 2, and 3, 2003, July 4 through 17, 2003, and the four pay periods in which the Petitioner was overpaid when her sick and annual leave had run out is $183.79 plus $601.70 plus $380.27, which totals $1,165.76. The Petitioner was not at fault for the overpayment. She did not falsify her leave reports or timesheets, nor was she accused by the Respondent of having done so. The Petitioner believed that the pay she received for July 4, 2003 through July 17, 2003, was severance pay since she had been terminated when her position had been eliminated. The Respondent does not issue severance pay to terminated employees. The Petitioner believes that some of the leave she had taken during the four pay periods when her sick and annual leave had run out should have been considered administrative leave which, according to the Respondent, was offered to employees in the Family Services Unit who were facing termination as an aid to finding new jobs. Administrative leave was available to employees whose positions were being eliminated to allow them to use the Internet while at the office to search for jobs, and to leave the office for interviews or any testing required for re- employment. The Petitioner failed to document leave time, if any, during the pay periods at issue in this proceeding, that she took for purposes of job testing or interviews. The Petitioner failed to properly designate administrative leave on the automated leave system, Time Direct, for the pay periods at issue in this proceeding, even though, as a secretary specialist for the Respondent for seven years, her duties included keeping track of leave for the people in her work unit. The Respondent offered several of the Petitioner’s timesheets that reflect the Petitioner’s having taken administrative leave on more than 30 occasions from October 2002 through May 2003. These time entries for administrative leave include time during each of the four pay periods at issue in this proceeding, January 31, 2003 through February 13, 2003, April 11, 2003 through April 24, 2003, April 25, 2003 through May 8, 2003, and May 23, 2003 through June 5, 2003.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a Final Order requiring the Petitioner to repay the Respondent $1,165.76. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 5th day of March, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Rosanna Boyd Apartment 162 3400 Townsend Boulevard Jacksonville, Florida 32277 Robin Whipple-Hunter, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Post Office Box 2417 Jacksonville, Florida 32231-0083 Paul Flounlacker, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Jerry Regier, Secretary Department of Children and Family Services Building 1, Room 202 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent was a career-service employee of Respondent. She served as a health service representative assigned to the Seminole County Public Health Unit. Her specific task was to investigate and follow up on contacts for sexually transmitted diseases. Petitioner's Employee Handbook, which Respondent received when she was hired, states: You may request annual leave for any purpose desired, but you must obtain Your supervisor's approval before taking annual leave. If an emergency develops, tell your supervisor of the emergency and ask for verbal approval to use annual leave. When you return to work, complete the leave request form for your supervisor's signature. The Handbook also Provides that certain employees are entitled to one eight-hour personal holiday "at a time which is mutually agreeable to the individual and the immediate supervisor." The local policy of the Seminole County Public Health Unit required each employee to request leave by filling out the back of a timesheet. In this manner, the employee would show the type of leave requested, the date and time of the leave, the employee's initials. The form provided spaces for the signature of the supervisor and the date described in detail in the Paragraph 5 below. The back of the timesheet states: "All Leave and Overtime must be requested and approved in advance." The Handbook requires advance approval of annual leave. Although the blanket statement on the back of the timesheet requires advance approval of all leave and overtime, the Seminole County Public Health Unit routinely did not require advance approval for all types of leave. For instance, sick leave, overtime, and annual leave for less than a few hours were normally approved after the fact. On at least two occasions, including one involving Respondent, annual leave for an entire day was also approved after it had beef taken. However, the Seminole County Public Health Unit normally requires advance approval of annual leave for a Period of one day or more. The instructions on the timesheet direct that the date next to the supervisor's signature indicate the date of the request for leave. Consistent with the varying policies governing leave, the date beside the supervisor's signature on the timesheet was used to show the date of approval of a request for annual leave and the date of the request for sick leave and certain other types of leave. By negative implication, the Handbook also requires written approval of annual leave for nonemergencies because it expressly permits "verbal approval" for annual leave for emergencies. There are no requirements in the Handbook or the timesheets for written approval of requests for other forms of leave, and the Seminole County Public Health Unit did not maintain enforceable policies to that effect. Two persons were authorized to approve requests of Respondent for annual leave. The first person was Charlotte Blades, who was the coordinator of the sexually transmitted disease program of the Seminole County Public Health Unit. Ms. Blades was Respondent's immediate supervisor The other person authorized to approve requests for annual leave was Bernice Duncan, who was the senior community health nurse of the Seminole County Public Health Unit and Ms. Blades' supervisor. In practice, the written approval of Ms. Blades could be revoked by Ms. Duncan. On one occasion, Respondent requested eight hours' annual leave to attend her son's high school graduation on June 9, 1989. Ms. Blades signed the timesheet on May 23, 1989. Between that date and the date of the leave, Ms. Duncan told Respondent that, although Ms. Blades had signed the timesheet, the leave was not approved. Ultimately, Respondent received approval for leave through 2:30 p.m., rather than 5:00 p.m., on the day of the graduation. In late July or early August, 1989, Respondent submitted a timesheet requesting 32 hours' annual leave from August 28-31, 1989. About one week later, before Ms. Blades or Ms. Duncan had acted on the request, Respondent changed the request to September 1, which was the Friday before Labor Day weekend, and September 13-14, 1989. In addition, she requested leave with pay for September 15, 1989, as her personal holiday. According to the timesheets, Ms. Blades approved the September 1 leave request on August 25, 1989, which was a Saturday. She assured Respondent that she would discuss with Ms. Duncan the remaining requests for leave. Respondent followed up with Ms. Blades several times, explaining that she wanted the leave to attend her son's graduation ceremonies from military basic training in South Carolina. Despite her assurances, Ms. Blades had not mentioned Respondent's request to Ms. Duncan before Ms. Blades became sick and missed work from September 6-9. On the second day of Ms. Blades' absence, Respondent took her request to Ms. Duncan, who said that she had not been aware of Respondent's request. Ms. Duncan told Respondent that Ms. Blades was on sick leave and did not respond further. The following day, Respondent spoke again with Ms. Duncan, who this time assured her that if Ms. Blades were not at work on Monday, September 11, Ms. Duncan would sign the timesheet approving the leave requested for September 13-15. Ms. Blades returned to work on Monday, September 11. When Respondent asked her in the morning to sign the timesheet, Ms. Blades refused to do so and told her that it had not yet been approved. Consistent with her prior conversations with Respondent, though, Ms. Blades did not say that the request had been disapproved. Respondent then left the office for much of the day. When she returned, Ms. Blades and Ms. Duncan were both out. The next day, Tuesday, September 12, Ms. Blades spoke with Respondent, but still declined to say whether the request was approved or rejected. She continued to say merely that the request had not yet been approved. Tuesday afternoon, Respondent told a coworker to tell Ms. Blades that Respondent was going to South Carolina and would be back the following Monday morning. While still in town, Respondent telephoned both supervisors shortly after 8:00 a.m. on Wednesday, but they had not arrived at work yet. Respondent asked the receptionist to remind Ms. Blades that Respondent had gone to South Carolina and would return the following Monday morning. Both messages were delivered to Ms. Blades, who relayed them to Ms. Duncan. Respondent then departed for South Carolina, where she remained through at least September 15. At the time of her departure, Respondent knew that her request for annual leave had not been approved and that she was taking unauthorized annual leave. When she arrived back in the office on September 18, Respondent received a copy of a letter dated September 15 that had been mailed to her the prior Friday. The letter states that Respondent had been separated from State service for abandonment of position, effective at the close of business on September 15, 1989. The second paragraph of the letter contains material misstatements of fact. It states that Respondent had been advised that, due to the present work situation, her leave could not be approved. The letter also states that she did not contact her supervisor that she would be absent. No one ever advised Respondent that her leave could not be approved or in fact was rejected until after her return from South Carolina. Also, Respondent informed both supervisors, directly and through third parties, that she would be absent, where she was going, why, and when she would return. However, she did not contact them during the three-day absence. Concerning the request for leave for a personal holiday, neither Ms. Blades nor Ms. Duncan ever informed Respondent that the date was inconvenient. Under the circumstances, Respondent could reasonably infer that the date was agreeable with Ms. Blades. At no time did Respondent intend to abandon her career-service position. The facts do not support a reasonable inference that Respondent abandoned her job during the three days in question.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Administration enter a Final Order finding that Respondent has not abandoned her position in Career Service employment with the State of Florida. ENTERED this 28th day of February, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT D. MEALE 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 28th day of February, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Linda L. Parkinson Attorney Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 400 West Robinson Street, Suite 701 Orlando, FL 32801 Aletta Shutes, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Jr. General Counsel Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Alva J. Barfield 1010 Locust Avenue Sanford, FL 32771
The Issue Whether, under the facts and circumstances of this case, petitioner is deemed to have abandoned his position and resigned from the Career Service.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Willie L. Claridy was an employee of the Department of Transportation for 2 or 3 years and was under the immediate supervision of Daniel E. Skinner at the Sarasota Maintenance Office for approximately a year, including March and early April of 1984. On or about Monday, March 26, 1984, while in the outside shop area at his place of employment, Mr. Claridy mentioned taking a vacation to some fellow employees. He said he was going home to a family reunion. The employees moved into the office area, and the conversation continued. Mr. Skinner, who was petitioner's supervisor, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Claridy, and two others were present in the office. During the conversation in the office, Mr. Claridy stated that he was going to take a vacation; however, he never specifically asked for leave, he was not told that he could have leave, and no specific dates were mentioned. 1/ Although Mr. Skinner could not recall the discussion regarding Mr. Claridy's vacation, he admitted that it could have taken place. However, Mr. Claridy never signed a leave slip requesting leave, and Mr. Skinner never signed a leave slip approving leave. Nevertheless, Mr. Claridy did not report for work on April 2nd, 3rd, 4th, or 5th, 1984, and did not contact his office during that time. The Employee Handbook, received by Mr. Claridy on April 20, 1983, clearly states that an employee must obtain the approval of his supervisor before taking leave. Neither the handbook nor the memorandum to employees of January 1982 states that prior approval must be in writing, although the language in the handbook implies that it should be. However, Mr. Claridy was fully aware of the procedure that he needed to follow in requesting leave. On two earlier occasions when Mr. Claridy had wanted time off he had submitted leave slips and received approval from his supervisor prior to his absences from work. Mr. Claridy's stated reason for not submitting a leave slip in this case in advance of his absence is neither accurate nor credible. He testified that he thought he might get called back to work during the course of his leave time due to a shortage of mechanics, and, if this occurred and he had submitted the leave slip, he would not have gotten paid for his time. 2/ However, the evidence at the hearing indicated that Mr. Claridy did not plan to be and was not in town during his absence from work, and therefore could not have been called into work. 3/ Further, Mr. Claridy stated that they might need him because they were short of help but also testified that "[w]e were caught up with all our work." Finally Mr. Claridy's return to work during a period of time when he was on authorized leave would not have adversely affected his pay or his annual leave time, and Mr. Claridy would have discovered this had he made any inquiries. Mr. Skinner did not approve Mr. Claridy's leave time nor did he inform Mr. Claridy that he could submit a leave slip after his vacation. Consequently Mr. Claridy's absence from work on April 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th was unauthorized. Mr. Claridy had received the Employee Handbook and the memorandum of January 1982 which informed him that three consecutive absences without authorized leave would result in termination of employment. Mr. Claridy was properly informed by certified letter dated April 5, 1984, that having failed to report for work during the period in question and having failed to take action to notify his supervisor of the reasons for the absence he was deemed to have abandoned his position and resigned from the Career Service.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that, under the facts and circumstances of this case, the action of the Department of Transportation in deeming the petitioner to have abandoned his position and resigned from the Career Service was correct and affirming such action. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of December, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of December, 1985.
The Issue The issue is whether a fee of $100 should be assessed against Respondent for filing its license renewal application late.
Findings Of Fact Respondent provides substance abuse treatment services on an outpatient basis at 650 South North Lake Boulevard, Altamonte Springs, Florida. Respondent holds license number 7A- AD610. By letter dated December 7, 1993, Petitioner notified Respondent that its license would expire on March 12, 1994. The letter notified Respondent that the application for renewal must be submitted no later than January 12, 1994, and advised Respondent that a fee of $100 would be assessed if the application for renewal was late. The letter dated December 7, 1993, stated, in relevant part: This letter is official notification that your HRS license . . . to provide substance abuse outpatient treatment services . . . expires on March 12, 1994. Per 10E-16.004,(4)(d), Florida Administrative Code, you must submit your agency's renewal packet at least sixty (60) days prior to the date of expiration on your license. Please submit your packet no later than January 12, 1994. Per 397.407(3), Florida Statute, the [Petitioner] shall assess a fee of $100 per license for the late filing of an application for renewal of a license. . . . On January 13, 1994, Petitioner provided Respondent with a second notification that its license was due to expire on March 12, 1994. The second notification imposed a late fee of $100. On or about January 17, 1994, Respondent mailed its application for license renewal. On or about January 27, 1994, Respondent requested that Petitioner waive the late fee. Respondent's renewal application was filed late as a result of an unspecified illness of its office manager and as a result of a fire inspection. Ms. Darlene Crockett, Respondent's Office Manager, was ill during the 60 days prior to January 12, 1994. During the same 60 day period, Respondent's premises were inspected by the local fire marshall. Petitioner refused to waive the fee imposed for late renewal applications. By letter dated February 11, 1994, Petitioner explained that it had no statutory authority to waive the fee imposed on late filed renewal applications.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order and therein DENY Respondent's request to waive the $100 fee imposed on late filed license renewal applications. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of September, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL S. MANRY 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 9th day of September, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Eric D. Dunlap, Esquire Assistant District Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 400 W. Robinson Street, Suite S-827 Orlando, Florida 32801 Ms. Darlene Crockett, Office Manager Newleaf Center, Inc. Suite 410 650 South North Lake Boulevard Altamonte Springs, Florida 32701 Robert L. Powell, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Kim Tucker, Esquire General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a chiropractic physician licensed in the State of Florida having been issued license CH-0001538 on December 31, 1973. On or about November 20, 1992, in DPR Case Number 91-8743, the Board of Chiropractic entered a Final Order against the Respondent imposing as discipline: A suspension of Respondent's license for a period of sixty (60) days from the date of the entry of the Final Order, and Payment of an administrative fine in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) within thirty (30) days of the filing of the Final Order. The Final Order further provided for revocation of Respondent's license should he violate the provisions of the Final Order. The November 20, 1992, Final Order was served on Respondent by U.S. certified mail on or about December 4, 1992. According to the terms of the Final Order, Respondent was required to pay the administrative fine by December 21, 1992, and in no instance later than January 5, 1993. Further, Respondent's license was suspended from November 21, 1992, through January 20, 1993. On or about January 27, 1993, Respondent submitted a check in the amount of two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) to the Board of Chiropractic as payment of the administrative fine. Respondent had sufficient funds to cover the check at the time it was written. On the advice of counsel, Respondent stopped payment on the check. The advice was based on the fact that Respondent had "appealed" the Final Order of November 20, 1992, to the United States District Court and that payment of the fine was stayed pending outcome of the "appeal." Respondent did not appeal the Board's November 20, 1992, Final Order to a Florida District Court of Appeal. Instead, Respondent filed an independent action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, for injunctive relief from the Board's November 20, 1992, Final Order. No order was entered by the United States District Court which stayed enforcement of the Board's Final Order. Clearly, the federal action was technically not an appeal of the Board's Final Order in the legal sense of the meaning of appeal. However, in layperson's language the term "appeal" could easily be applied to the Federal action with the resultant confusion, as in this case, of the effect of such an appeal to stay enforcement of the Board's Final Order. The stop payment order caused the bank to dishonor the $2,000.00 check and return the item to the Department unpaid. Around February 16, 1993, Respondent was notified, by letter, from Sheri Danzis of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Bureau of Finance and Accounting, that his check had been returned to the Petitioner dishonored. The letter also requested that he remit the amount of $2,000.00 plus a service charge of $100.00 for the dishonored check. Around February 22, 1993, Respondent informed Ms. Danzis that he had "appealed" the Board's Final Order of November 20, 1992, to the United States District Court and that the fine was stayed pending the outcome of the "appeal." Ms. Danzis notified the board of the unpaid fine. Ms. Danzis took no further action because the Final Order had been appealed. Around April 21, 1993, Respondent was again notified by letter from Ann Broome, Board of Chiropractic Staff Office, that his check had been returned dishonored and requested Respondent to pay $2,100.00 to clear up the matter. The letter also advised that Respondent's case could be reviewed for disciplinary action for violating the Board's Final Order. Respondent, around April 29, 1993, submitted payment of $1,500.00 to the Board of Chiropractic as partial payment of the administrative fine imposed by the November 20, 1992, Final Order. Respondent was unable to pay the entire fine because of financial problems caused by large medical bills. In the meantime, around June, 1993, the exact date is unclear, the Department's records reflected that Respondent's license had been revoked. The person making the record testified that Respondent's license was revoked because the Final Order called for that penalty if it was violated and the Respondent's license was therefore revoked. However, the Department's computer records of licensure submitted as evidence of licensing do not curently reflect the revocation. The computer records reflect only that Respondent's license expired on March 1, 1994 and was reissued on May 4, 1994, under the two-year renewal provisions of Chapter 460, Florida Statutes. No testimony regarding the data processing procedures of the Department was introduced at hearing. Therefore, given the general ability to add and delete information from a computer, the current records versus the live testimony of revocation, are not found to be reliable. The testimony of revocation is found to be reliable and establishes that Respondent's license was revoked and later reissued under Chapter 460, Florida Statutes. Around March 27, 1994, Dr. McCall mailed $350.00 to the Board for renewal of his license. However, the Board did not apply the $350.00 to reissuance of Respondent's license, but instead applied the funds to the Final Order debt. Respondent notified the Board of its error and demanded that the funds be applied to reissue his license. On April 21, 1994, the Board corrected its mistake and applied the $350.00 to Respondent's license reissuance. Importantly, the Department in an internal memorandum officially placed collection of the Final Order debt on hold pending the outcome of Respondent's "appeal." Around October 12, 1994, Respondent paid the remaining balance of his administrative fine. Respondent's "appeal" with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida was dismissed without prejudice by the Court sometime in December, 1993. 23. On January 20, 1982, the Board of Chiropractic issued a Final Order reprimanding the Respondent and admonishing him against the use of the title "Chiropractic Adjuster General of the United States." The Board's Final Order of November 20, 1992, was issued based upon a violation of the January 20, 1982, Board Final Order. 22. In this very confused case, Respondent did not timely pay the administrative fine imposed in the Board's November 20, 1992, Final Order. However, the untimeliness was initially caused by the advice Respondent received from his counsel and a layperson's incorrect understanding of the appellate process. The untimeliness was further exacerbated by the Department's willingness to place the collection process on hold pending the outcome of the "appeal." In short, the general impression given the Respondent by the Department was that collection was on hold. By the time the "appeal" was over, Respondent had financial difficulties and could not pay the balance of the fine. 19. The violation, if any, was minimal, at best; however, Petitioner had already revoked Respondent's license for the untimely payment or nonpayment of the administrative fine. Therefore, Petitioner has had its remedy in this case and the administrative complaint should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is accordingly, RECOMMENDED: that the Board enter a final order dismissing the administrative complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of January, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 26th day of January, 1995.
