The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, John Harris, should be granted an exemption from disqualification from employment pursuant to Chapter 435, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, John Harris, was employed at the Florida State Hospital in Chattahoochee, Florida, from October 1977 to January 15, 1998. The Florida State Hospital is a residential facility for mentally ill adults. Mr. Harris was employed as a Unit Treatment and Rehabilitation Specialist. Mr. Harris was involved in the provision of direct care to residents of Florida State Hospital. During 1997 the Department of Children and Family Services (hereinafter referred to as the "Department") pursuant to Chapter 435, Florida Statutes, conducted background screening of employees involved in the provision of direct care to residents of Florida State Hospital. As a result of a background screening check of Mr. Harris, it was determined that Mr. Harris had pled nolo contendere to possession of cocaine, a felony pursuant to Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, in 1989. As a result of the determination that Mr. Harris had pled nolo contendere to a felony under Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, Mr. Harris was notified by the Department that he was disqualified from employment in his position with Florida State Hospital. The following are the pertinent facts concerning the 1989 nolo contendere plea: During the afternoon of September 11, 1989, Mr. Harris was traveling by automobile from Tallahassee, Florida, where he had picked up the automobile from his wife, to Quincy, Florida, where he lived; Mr. Harris was traveling at a speed of 100mph while being chased by law enforcement. He was stopped by other law enforcement personnel waiting for him just outside Quincy; The automobile that Mr. Harris was driving was searched and cocaine was discovered; Mr. Harris was charged with possession of a controlled substance in violation of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, and reckless driving in violation of Chapter 316, Florida Statutes; Mr. Harris pled nolo contendere to the charge of possession of cocaine, a felony, and was adjudicated guilty of the offense on or about February 21, 1990; and Mr. Harris was sentenced to probation for a period of one year. Although not listed in the letter informing Mr. Harris of the results of his background screening, Mr. Harris also was charged and pled nolo contendere to the offense of possession of cocaine with intent to sell in 1981 and driving under the influence of alcohol and possession of cannabis in 1995. The following are the only pertinent facts concerning the 1981 offense offered at hearing: On or about May 24, 1982, Mr. Harris pled nolo contendere to possession with intent to sell cocaine in violation of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, a second degree felony, as a result of an incident that took place in 1981; and Mr. Harris was adjudicated guilty and was sentenced to probation for a period of eight years. The following are the pertinent facts concerning the 1995 offenses for driving under the influence of alcohol and possession of cannabis: Mr. Harris was driving an automobile in or near Bainbridge, Georgia, when he was stopped by law enforcement; Mr. Harris was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol and possession of cannabis that was found in the glove compartment of the automobile; Mr. Harris was adjudicated guilty of both offenses; and Mr. Harris was sentenced to probation for a period of one year and a number of week-ends in jail. At the time of the formal hearing Mr. Harris was 44 years of age. Mr. Harris' immediate supervisor, Rollean Lloyd (Ms. Lloyd indicated at the hearing that her first name is spelled "Rollean") testified at the formal hearing in support of Mr. Harris' continued employment at Florida State Hospital. Ms. Lloyd also signed a letter (Ms. Lloyd's first name is spelled "Rollene" on the letter) supporting his continued employment at Florida State Hospital. Ms. Lloyd's supervisor also testified at the formal hearing and signed a letter supporting his continued employment at Florida State Hospital: I have known John Harris for approximately eight years as an employee of Unit 4, Florida State Hospital. I have observed Mr. Harris over this time and he had become a concientious [sic] worker who relates well to the residents and to the staff in Unit 4. His recent attendance record has been good and Mr. Harris performs his job to the best of his ability. Mr. Harris is cooperative with his supervisors and supportive of his co-workers. For the past eleven years Mr. Harris has been, and was at the time of the formal hearing, married to Ollie Harris. Mr. Harris has two sons, one twenty years of age and the other eighteen years of age.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Department of Children and Family Services denying John Harris' request for an exemption from disqualification from employment pursuant to Section 435, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of May, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of May, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Ben R. Patterson, Esquire Patterson and Traynham 315 Beard Street Post Office Box 4289 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-4289 John Perry, Esquire District 2 Legal Office Department of Children and Family Services 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2949 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Richard A. Doran, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue is whether the Board of Pharmacy (board) should revoke or otherwise discipline the Respondent’s license as a registered pharmacy technician (RPT) because his application for licensure failed to disclose a felony criminal conviction.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was convicted of the crime of committing a lewd act upon a child in 1996. In 2015, the Respondent took a course at Anthem College, now called Florida Career College, to qualify to be licensed as an RPT in Florida. Towards the end of the course, an application for licensure was submitted to the department. The application required the Respondent to answer the question whether he had been convicted of a crime other than a minor traffic offense. The answer on the application said, “NO.” Based on the application, the department issued the Respondent license RPT 64709 in January 2016. Later, the Respondent’s criminal conviction came to the attention of the department and board, and an Administrative Complaint was filed charging the Respondent with violating section 465.016(1)(a) for obtaining his license by misrepresentation or fraud or through an error of the department or board. The Respondent explained at the hearing that he was not being dishonest and did not willfully obtain his license by fraud or intentional misrepresentation. He testified that he disclosed his criminal conviction to Beth Shelton, his instructor at Anthem, when he went online to create an account to apply for licensure and saw the application and the question regarding his criminal conviction. He testified that she told him his conviction was not an absolute bar to licensure, but that he would have to write a letter explaining the conviction and his rehabilitation from it to submit to the department with his application, along with copies of the court records. The Respondent testified that he put his application on hold and logged out of his account. He testified that the answer on the application at the time he logged out was, “YES.” He testified that he then wrote the letter suggested by his instructor, got the court records, and gave them to her. He testified that he assumed she took care of it for him. He was thrilled when he received his license in the mail in January 2016, and he was crestfallen and dismayed when he received the Administrative Complaint a few months later. Charles Stuard, who was Ms. Shelton’s supervisor at Anthem in 2015, and is now the associate director of education at Florida Career College, testified that it would have been against Anthem’s policy for Ms. Shelton to help the Respondent answer questions on the application or offer to help the Respondent as he said she did. Neither party called Beth Shelton to testify. Some of the Respondent’s testimony could be interpreted as inconsistent, but those possible inconsistencies seemed to arise from misunderstandings and confusion. The essence of the Respondent’s testimony is accepted as true—namely, he was not being dishonest and did not willfully obtain his license by fraud or intentional misrepresentation. The Petitioner did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent was dishonest or willfully obtained his license by fraud or intentional misrepresentation, or that the Respondent’s license was issued through an error of the department or board. However, it is clear that the Respondent’s license was obtained by a misrepresentation of fact.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Pharmacy enter a final order revoking his license RPT 64709, which was obtained by an honest and unintentional negligent misrepresentation, and allowing him to reapply so that the board can consider the true facts regarding his criminal conviction. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of November, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of November, 2016.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent properly denied Petitioner's application for licensure as a physician by endorsement.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is presently licensed to practice medicine in Maryland. He has been licensed there since 1990. The Maryland licensing board has never investigated him on any ground. Petitioner has passed all of his medical examinations on the first try. He passed the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates Examination in 1981 and the United States Medical Licensing Examination in 1987. He passed the examination for board certification in internal medicine in 1992. Petitioner has published articles in peer review journals. He teaches medical students in residency programs at two separate hospitals. Petitioner has a busy practice, seeing approximately 20- 25 patients per day. He has staff privileges at two hospitals. He is an approved provider with a number of insurance companies and managed care organizations. Petitioner has never had any Medicare or Medicaid complaints brought against him. He has never been sued for malpractice. A hospital peer review board has never investigated him for any reason. Petitioner requested an application for licensure as a physician by endorsement sometime before March 21, 1997. Respondent sent him a packet of materials containing an application form, last revised on January 1995, together with application instructions, supplemental documentation forms, and selected laws.1 Section one of the application materials contained the application instructions. The instructions included the following relevant statements: PITFALLS: The following items in the application process cause delays in the process, therefore we strongly recommend: . . . Please remember the applicant is responsible for completing the application process and that as pieces/parts of the application are received they sometimes generate additional questions to be answered. * * * APPLICATION PROCESSING: Once the application is received in the Board office . . . , an initial review of the application and the supporting documentation is made. Then, the applicant is notified, in writing, of any deficiencies or any additional documentation that is or may be necessary either from the applicant or from any other source. The applicant is responsible for requesting the following information: * * * 3. American Medical Association Data Profile (AMA). * * * Certain responses from any source may require additional clarification from the applicant. When all the requested information is received for a licensure application file, a supervisory second review is made for completeness and for eligibility determination. PERSONAL APPEARANCE: Appearances before the Credentials Committee or the Board of Medicine may be required for a variety of reasons, . . . If an appearance is required, written notification will be mailed . . . . * * * COMPLETING THE APPLICATION * * * 11. PROFESSIONAL OR MEDICAL EDUCATION: Answer each question and complete the table by listing the name of each and every institution attended; the location of the institution, address, dates of attendance by month and year, domicile (where lived), did you graduate, if so degree received. * * * INTERNATIONAL MEDICAL GRADUATES CONTINUE WITH INSTRUCTIONS 12 THROUGH 43 * * * NOTE: Questions 11, 15, 16, and 17 should contain and account for all periods of time from the date of graduation from Medical School to present date. Omission of this information will cause a delay in the application process. * * * PROFESSIONAL OR POSTGRADUATE TRAINING: Answer each question. In the section provided, list chronologically each program attended starting with the first program and ending with the last or current program. List all programs you began whether or not you completed or received credit for the program. Omission of any professional or medical postgraduate training program(s) will cause a delay in the application process. * * * International Medical Graduates. Submit certificates of completion for each year. Additionally, a letter from the Program Director is required confirming postgraduate training level and that the position was allocated. PRACTICE or EMPLOYMENT: List in the space provided all current and past practice and employment settings to include moonlighting and locum tenens. Also utilize this space to delineate any unaccounted period of time from date of matriculation into Medical School to present date. * * * After a correspondent reviews the application and the explanation provided you will be notified of any evaluation and/or documentation needed to complete the application process. * * * DOCUMENTS TO BE SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION * * * 8. CERTIFICATES OF COMPLETION FROM ALL PROFESSIONAL, MEDICAL-INTERNSHIP, RESIDENCY, FELLOWSHIP AND PGY LEVELS -- submit certificates of completion of all levels of training. * * * 19. Contact each applicable agency listed below on the form provided, to request the appropriate information be sent to the Florida Board of Medicine: . . . * * * AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION DATA PROFILE ON FORM PROVIDED * * * A COPY OF EACH REQUEST MUST ACCOMPANY YOUR APPLICATION Section two of the application materials is the application form. It requests the following relevant information: 11. PROFESSIONAL/MEDICAL EDUCATION: MEDICAL EDUCATION: List all medical schools and universities attended, whether completed or not. [Table provided to include information required in application instructions] * * * PROFESSIONAL/POSTGRADUATE TRAINING: List all professional/postgraduate training program(s) began, whether completed or not. * * * List in chronological order from date of graduation from medical school all professional/postgraduate training (Internship, Residency, Fellowship) to the present. [Table provided to include information required in the application instructions] PRACTICE/EMPLOYMENT: List in chronological order from date of graduation to present date, all practice employment, non-employment and/or any unaccounted period of time from date of matriculation into medical school. [Table included to provide information required in application instructions] The last page of the application form contains an affidavit, which requires an applicant to swear as follows in relevant part: I have carefully read the questions in the foregoing application and have answered them completely, without reservations of any kind, and I declare under penalty of perjury that my answers and all statements made by me herein are true and correct. Should I furnish any false information in the application, I hereby agree that such act shall constitute cause for denial, suspension or revocation of my license to practice medicine/surgery in the State of Florida. On February 22, 1997, Petitioner signed the affidavit at the end of his application form. Section three of the application materials includes the form for applicants to use to request the AMA physician data profile. After receiving the request form, the AMA sends the requested information directly to Respondent. On March 21, 1997, Respondent received Petitioner's AMA physician data profile directly from the AMA. This information reflected, among other things, that Petitioner was in an anatomic and clinical pathology postgraduate training program at the University of Maryland Medical System (University of Maryland) from July 1, 1988 through June 30, 1989. On March 24, 1997, Respondent received Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement, along with an attached copy of his curriculum vitae (CV). The CV was not required as part of the application process. In response to question 15 on the application form, Petitioner listed the following: (a) an internship at Harbor Hospital Center in Baltimore Maryland from July 1989 to June 1990; and (b) a residency at Harbor Hospital Center in internal medicine from July 1991 to June 1992. Petitioner did not list his participation in a postgraduate training program at the University of Maryland in anatomic and clinical pathology from July 1, 1988 to approximately June 15, 1989, in his application form or CV. Petitioner's CV represented that he was an associate professor of pre-clinical medicine and co-director of student health services at Ross University of Medicine in the Commonwealth of Dominica, West Indies, from July 1982 through June 1989. This information was incorrect. In response to question 16 on the application form, Petitioner stated that he was employed at Ross University School of Medicine as an associate professor in internal medicine from June 1982 to June 1989 in Dominica, West Indies. This information was incorrect because Petitioner resided in Maryland in 1988 through 1989. As stated above, he actually attended the University of Maryland from July 1, 1988 to approximately June 15, 1989. Respondent processed Petitioner's application in the usual and customary manner. His application file was subject to the same scrutiny that is customary for all applications. Petitioner does not contend that Respondent treated him any differently than other applicants. There were no gaps in dates, blank spaces, or questions left unanswered in Petitioner's application form. Petitioner's application form, on its face, did not contain any apparent errors or omissions relative to his training program at the University of Maryland. In fact, Petitioner's application form listed other activities accounting for all of the time in question here. Respondent discovered the apparent inconsistencies contained within Petitioner's application file by comparing his application form and CV with the AMA physician data profile. Because the documents were inconsistent, Respondent had reason to initiate an investigation to determine whether Petitioner had intentionally misrepresented information on his application form and CV. By letter dated April 28, 1997, Respondent requested the current program director of the University of Maryland's pathology department to furnish information as to why Petitioner left the four-year residency program in pathology after one year. Respondent sought responses to the following questions: Why did he leave the program? Did he leave the program in good standing? Did he break his contract? Did he receive full credit for his training? Please confirm the dates and the PGY level of his training. Was any disciplinary action ever taken against him? If yes, please explain. On April 28, 1997, 35 days after Petitioner filed his application, Respondent sent Petitioner a letter2 commencing with the following notice in relevant part: NO APPLICATION WILL BE CONSIDERED COMPLETE UNTIL ALL OF THE REQUESTED INFORMATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED IN THE BOARD OFFICE. The April 28, 1997, letter informed Petitioner that he needed to furnish Respondent with numerous documents before his application would be complete. It requested additional information on several items. The letter also sought an explanation for Petitioner's failure to list his pathology training at the University of Maryland on his application form. On May 19, 1997, Respondent received a form from the University of Maryland, verifying that Petitioner completed a residency in pathology from July 1, 1988 through June 8, 1989. Petitioner sent Respondent a letter dated May 31, 1997. Respondent received this letter on June 3, 1997. Petitioner's letter states as follows in pertinent part: I apologize for the discrepancy regarding the dates in training/teaching. I was enrolled in the Pathology Department of the University of Maryland from 7/1/88 - 6/30/89. Consequently, my Internal Medicine training was from 7/1/89 - 6/30/92. The certificates from Harbor Hospital support that. Also, I joined the Northwest Primary Care Group on July 1, 1995, not 7/94, as listed in my c.v. On June 30, 1997, Respondent received a letter from Dr. Sanford A. Stass, M.D., Pathology Resident Program Director and Director of Pathology Laboratories at the University of Maryland. This letter states as follows: I was not the Pathology Resident Training Program Director during Dr. Desai's residency. It was noted in his file by the previous Program Director, Seena Aisner, M.D., that Dr. Desai would not be given credit for the year from July 1, 1988 - June 30, 1989 since he did not fulfill his contractual year. Respondent sent Petitioner a letter dated July 1, 1997. This letter states as follows in pertinent part: Please explain why you left the Pathology program at the Univ. of Maryland after one year. Did you leave in good standing? Did you break your contract? Were you given full credit for your training? Respondent's letters dated July 23, 1997, and August 5, 1997, made an identical inquiry. The August 5, 1997, letter3 contains an additional notice at its conclusion, which states as follows: YOUR APPLICATION REMAINS INCOMPLETE FOR THE ABOVE. PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT YOUR APPLICATION WILL EXPIRE March 26, 1998. The application fee is non-refundable. Petitioner sent Respondent a letter dated August 24, 1997. Respondent received this letter on September 10, 1997. The letter states as follows in pertinent part: I did not break my contract at the University of Maryland. I was offered an internship at Harbor Hospital Center in Baltimore, and I took the vacation due to me and transferred over into clinical medicine. This response was incomplete. It did not state whether Petitioner left the program at the University of Maryland in good-standing or whether he received credit for the program. Respondent sent Petitioner a letter dated September 11, 1997, which states as follows in relevant part: Did you leave the Pathology program at the Univ. of Maryland in good standing? Did you receive full credit for your training? Why did you not list this training on your application? By letter dated October 6, 1997, Petitioner indicated that he was enclosing additional documents for his application file and that documents related to his staff privileges at Harbor Hospital would be sent as soon as Respondent provided the hospital with the required paperwork. This letter did not reference Respondent's inquiry regarding the incomplete residency program in pathology. Respondent sent Petitioner a letter dated October 15, 1997, which states as follows in relevant part: Did you leave the Pathology program at the Univ. of Maryland in good standing? Did you receive full credit for your training? Why did you not list this training on your application? Petitioner sent Respondent a letter dated October 23, 1997. Respondent received this letter on November 3, 1997. It states as follows in pertinent part: 3. I have mentioned to you previously that I did one year of residency in Pathology, and left at the end, when my accrued vacation was due to me, to pursue clinical medicine. Whether I got credit for this or not is irrelevant, since it would not have counted towards my Internal Medicine training. I apologize if I did not list it in the application. This explanation does not state whether Petitioner left the program in good standing or whether he received credit for the program. Respondent determined that Petitioner's application file was complete on November 5, 1997. Respondent sent Petitioner a letter dated November 5, 1997. This letter states as follows: Your application is pending a secondary supervisory review. Please be advised you will be required to make a personal appearance before the Credentials Committee to discuss your postgraduate training at the University of Maryland and any relevant issues the Board may deem necessary. Pending passage of the above mentioned second review, and provided that no further issues need to be clarified, nor additional documentation submitted, your name will be placed on the agenda for the next scheduled Credentials Committee meeting of the Florida Board of Medicine. Your will be advised of the specific date, time, and location of the scheduled appearance. By letter dated November 6, 1997, Respondent advised Petitioner that he would be required to appear before the credentials committee to discuss his failure to list his training at the University of Maryland on his licensure application and his CV. Petitioner was to appear before the committee on November 22, 1997. He was advised that Respondent would consider the committee's recommendation and take final action on Petitioner's application at Respondent's meeting on December 6-7, 1997.4 Petitioner sent Respondent a letter dated November 10, 1997. This letter states as follows in pertinent part: Because of previous commitments to my on- call group, I will not be able to attend the meeting on 11/22/97. I will need at least 4- 6 weeks notice to make arrangements, if I am required to make a personal appearance. If you can provide me with a rational and pertinent reason for my personal appearance to explain the lapse in the c.v. and the application as regards the training at the University of Maryland in the Pathology program, I shall be happy to respond. As stated previously, I made an error in not listing this aspect of my career, but it was not applied towards any credit to the Internal Medicine residency that I later completed. In this day of instant communication, a phone conference would be just as appropriate. Please have the Board present me the necessary information so that I can justify a trip to Tallahassee. Respondent sent Petitioner a letter dated December 8, 1997. This letter states in relevant part: At a meeting on November 22, 1997 the Board of Medicine accepted the recommendation of it's [sic] Credentials Committee to defer action on your application until the next meeting of the Credentials Committee at which time you must appear to discuss the issues. The next meeting of the Credentials Committee is scheduled for January 17, 1998 in Miami, Florida. By letter dated December 15, 1997, Respondent advised Petitioner to appear before the credentials committee on January 17, 1998. Petitioner was also advised that the recommendation of the committee would be presented to Respondent on February 6-8, 1998, for final action. Petitioner agreed to attend the scheduled meeting in a letter dated December 19, 1997. At the meeting with the credentials committee on January 17, 1998, Petitioner revealed for the first time that he began receiving anonymous letters during the last two months of his pathology residency. The letters threatened him with physical harm if he did not leave the program. Petitioner got along very well with his colleagues and faculty members when he began his residency program in pathology in July 1988. Petitioner stated that he was not aware that he had problems with anyone in the residency program or hospital when he began receiving the letters. Petitioner discussed the anonymous letters with the director of the training program. Petitioner took no action until he was due for two weeks of vacation at the end of the first year of the program. On or about June 15, 1989, he decided to take his vacation and not return to the program. The program director of the residency program in pathology did not object to Petitioner's withdrawal from the program. Petitioner was not failing at the time of his withdrawal. However, he did not receive credit for his residency training in pathology because he technically withdrew from the program before he completed his first year. Petitioner subsequently transferred to another residency training program in internal medicine at the University of Maryland. He successfully completed that program. At the meeting of the credentials committee, Petitioner alleged that he had repressed his memory of the incomplete residency when he filed his application form on March 24, 1997. At the conclusion of the meeting, the committee advised Petitioner that his application would be denied based on misrepresentations and falsifications in the application. He was advised that a full report would be sent to Respondent. The decision by the credentials committee on January 17, 1998, marked the end of Respondent's investigation. By letter dated February 13, 1998, 27 days after Respondent completed its investigation and seven days after Respondent made its decision, Respondent advised Petitioner that it denied his application at a meeting on February 6-7, 1998. The letter purports to be unofficial notification of Respondent's action. It states that Petitioner would receive an order outlining his rights under Sections 120.57(1) and 120.57(2), Florida Statutes. On March 18, 1998, 60 days after Respondent completed its investigation and 39 days after Respondent made its decision, Respondent issued a formal Notice of Intent to Deny Petitioner's application. The denial was based on the following: . . . your inability to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety, and your fraudulent misrepresentations or falsification on your application, as demonstrated by your application [which] failed to document your training at the University of Maryland Medical System, your application failed to reflect your residency location or your practice in Maryland during 1988 and failed to account for the period of time between 1989 and 1995; your curriculum vitae failed to reflect: your "Educational Qualifications" at the University of Maryland Medical System, the conclusion of your "Appointments" at Ross University of Medicine in 1988, the conclusions of your "Teaching Experience" at Ross University of Medicine in 1988, and the conclusion of your "Clinical Experience" at Ross University of Medicine in 1988. In 1990, Petitioner applied for licensure in Maryland. He notified the Maryland Medical Board of his incomplete residency program. Petitioner disclosed his incomplete residency in pathology when he applied for staff privileges at Northwood Hospital in 1992. Petitioner revealed his incomplete residency in pathology when he underwent the application process to become a teacher at the University of Maryland in 1995. In 1998, after filing his application with Respondent, Petitioner disclosed his incomplete residency when he applied to Sinai Hospital. In this case, the evidence demonstrates that Petitioner made intentional or fraudulent misrepresentations on his application and CV by omitting information relative to his training in pathology at the University of Maryland. In an attempt to conceal his omission, Petitioner falsified other sections of his application and CV as outlined in Respondent's Notice of Intent to Deny. When Respondent began its investigation, Petitioner acknowledged his mistake. He explained that he entered a training program in internal medicine after leaving the pathology program. That was a truthful but incomplete statement. In subsequent correspondence with Respondent, Petitioner deliberately concealed his private reason for leaving the pathology program and transferring to an internal medicine program. He failed to answer direct questions about his withdrawal from the pathology program such as whether he left the program in good-standing or whether he received full credit for his training in 1988-1989. He stated that he had not broken his contract for the first year of his pathology residency even though he had not met all requirements to receive credit for his work. He took the position that it was irrelevant whether he received credit for the incomplete residency. After Respondent advised Petitioner that he would have to make a personal appearance before the credentials committee, Petitioner continued to assert that there was no "pertinent reason" for his personal appearance. At the meeting of the credentials committee meeting on January 17, 1998, Petitioner revealed the real reason that he withdrew from the pathology program for the first time. Petitioner's testimony that he repressed his memory of the incomplete residency when he filed his application is not credible. During the formal hearing, Petitioner stated that he did not answer the questions in Respondent's letters because he did not feel that it was appropriate to answer them. He stated that he did not want to answer the questions because of the nature of the reasons for his withdrawal from the program.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner a license to practice medicine by endorsement. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of June, 1999.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's request for an exemption from disqualification from employment in a position of special trust should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: This case involves a request by Petitioner, Charles W. Leverson, Sr., for an exemption from disqualification from employment in a position of special trust. If the request is approved, Petitioner would be allowed to return to work as a unit treatment rehabilitation specialist in a unit for developmentally disabled adults at Florida State Hospital (FSH). Respondent, Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), is the state agency charged with the responsibility of approving or denying such requests. In a preliminary decision entered on an unknown date, a DCFS committee denied the request principally on the ground that Petitioner had minimized or denied the gravity of his disqualifying offenses. Petitioner is now barred from doing such work because of disqualifying offenses which occurred on December 16, 1990, and March 24, 1992. On the first date, Petitioner was arrested for the offense of aggrevated battery on his wife, a misdemeanor under Section 784.04, Florida Statutes (1990). On the second date, Petitioner was again arrested for five offenses, including battery on his wife in violation of Section 784.03, Florida Statutes (1991). As to the first charge, on January 26, 1993, Petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge of battery and was placed on one year's supervised probation. He was also required to "[s]pend 15 weekends in the county jail." In addition, Petitioner was ordered "not [to] possess or consume any alcohol during the term of [his] probation," and to "[c]ontinue with counseling" (of an undisclosed nature). As to the second charge, Petitioner was found guilty by a jury on July 24, 1992, of committing battery on his wife in violation of Section 784.03, Florida Statutes. A "not guilty" verdict was entered as to the remaining four charges. The record does not indicate the sentence, if any, that he received for this offense. Petitioner successfully completed all terms of his probation. Since his arrest in March 1992, he has not consumed any alcoholic beverages. This is an important consideration since both disqualifying offenses occurred when he was intoxicated. Petitioner began working at FSH on September 26, 1979. He was first employed as a support service aide but was eventually promoted to the position of unit treatment rehabilitation specialist, a position involving supervision of developmentally disabled adults. Because of a background screening which occurred in 1997, Petitioner's disqualifying offenses were discovered, and he was forced to resign effective February 12, 1998. He has requested an exemption so that he can return to his employment. Since being forced to resign some four months ago, he has not been employed. The two disqualifying offenses involve battery on Petitioner's long-time wife, Shirler. In both cases, she suffered injuries serious enough to require treatment at a local hospital. Shirler says, however, that Petitioner has "changed" since his 1992 arrest, and he no longer drinks, is communicative with her and the three children, and is a good father. Petitioner attends church, is a member of a lodge in Quincy, Florida, and has a much better attitude since he stopped drinking. He has received good work evaluations during his most recent years of employment at FSH. Former co-workers and supervisors attested to the fact that Petitioner has good rapport with his co-workers and residents, and he performs his stressful job with a "cheerful" and "pleasant" attitude. He was also described as one of the "better" employees in the forensic unit. In March 1987, or more than eleven years ago, Petitioner received a five-day suspension because of an altercation with an inmate in the FSH forensic section laundry room. The suspension was meted out after Petitioner became involved in an argument with an inmate and drew an opened knive in a threatening fashion. Although Petitioner denied that the blade was exposed, testimony by a co-worker established that it was exposed in a threatening fashion. The altercation was resolved, however, before any violence occurred. In mitigation, it was established that Petitioner's possession of a knive in the laundry room was not unlawful since it was necessary for him to use a knive to open the sealed buckets of detergents. On October 13, 1993, Petitioner received a written reprimand for "Abusive and/or Threatening Language." On that occasion, Petitioner was instructed by his supervisor to help fold some laundry in the laundry room. Petitioner replied that he would not and told him "to get off my fucking back." Petitioner also pointed his fist at the supervisor in a threatening manner and "threatened to kick his butt." On June 27, 1994, Petitioner was suspended for fifteen work days effective July 8, 1994, for using threatening and/or abusive language towards a supervisor. This disciplinary action was taken after Petitioner had again refused to comply with instructions by his supervisor. On that occasion, he became "real mad," called her a "motherfucker," shook his fist at her, and threatened to "get her." Although the supervisor stood her ground against Petitioner, she was "afraid" for her safety. Petitioner was less than candid in describing the incidents which led to him receiving disciplinary action by his employer in 1987, 1993, and 1994. He has, however, expressed remorse for striking his wife in 1990 and 1992, and he regrets the embarrassment he caused his wife and children. For the last four years, Petitioner has had a blemish-free record at FSH, including good evaluations from his supervisors and a reputation as one of the "better" employees in his section. Given these considerations, it is found that Petitioner has sufficiently rehabilitated himself since the disqualifying incidents, and that he will pose no threat to the FSH clients and inmates.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order granting Petitioner's request for an exemption from disqualification for employment in a position of special trust. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of June, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of June, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John S. Slye, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Ben R. Patterson, Esquire Post Office Box 4289 Tallahassee, Florida 32315-4289 John R. Perry, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 2639 North Monroe Street, Suite 252A Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2949
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence received at the formal hearing, I make the following findings of fact. The Respondent, Ahmed M. Elmariah, M.D., is a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME0027974. The Respondent's last known street address is 215 Pine Ridge Drive, Panama City, Florida 32405. During calendar year 1978, the Respondent was a practicing orthopedic physician in Lakeland, Florida. During calendar year 1978 he had staff privileges at Lakeland General Hospital in Lakeland, Florida, and, pursuant to those staff privileges, admitted patients and performed surgery at Lakeland General Hospitals. By letter dated July 24, 1978, from Luther A. Youngs, III, M.D., President of the Attending Staff at Lakeland General Hospital, the Respondent was notified as follows: This is to inform you that a hearing will be held before the Executive Committee of the Attending Staff of Lakeland General Hospital at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, August 2, 1978, in the hospital Board Room, to determine whether disciplinary action should be taken against you on the basis of the following charges: [Here followed four paragraphs of charges.] These charges are serious and may result in suspension or revocation of your probational privileges in Orthopedic Surgery. A regularly scheduled meeting of the entire Medical Attending Staff was held on October 17, 1978. An item on the agenda for that meeting was a proposal that the Respondent's hospital privileges be terminated. Shortly before the commencement of that meeting, the Respondent delivered a letter addressed to Luther A. Youngs, III, M.D., which letter stated. "I hereby resign from membership of the medical attending staff at Lakeland General Hospital as of today Tuesday October 17, 1988". Thereafter the Respondent's resignation was accepted by the Governing Board of Lakeland General Hospital. Subsequent to the Respondent's resignation from Lakeland General Hospital, on or about June 6, 1979, the Respondent applied to Lake Seminole Hospital in Seminole, Florida, for, staff privileges. As part of the application process at Lake Seminole Hospital, the Respondent was required to fill out an application form. Among the questions on the application form was the following: "Have your privileges at any hospital ever been suspended, diminished, revoked or not renewed?" The question was followed by a "yes" box and a "no" box. The Respondent answered the above-quoted question by placing a typed "x" in the "no" box. When the Respondent submitted his 1979 application to Lake Seminole Hospital, he knew that he had resigned his hospital privileges at Lakeland General Hospital during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings involving allegations that he had improperly or unnecessarily performed various surgeries. Thereafter, on or about January 25, 1984, the Respondent applied for appointment to the medical staff at Humana Hospital Northside in St. Petersburg, Florida. As part of the application process at Humana Hospital Northside, the Respondent was required to fill out an application form. Among the questions on the form were the following: Have your privileges at any hospital ever been suspended, diminished, revoked or not renewed? Have you ever been denied membership or renewal thereof, or been subject to disciplinary action in any medical organization? The foregoing questions (along with some others) were followed by a "yes" box and a "no" box. The Respondent did not indicate "yes" or "no" in response to either of the questions quoted immediately above on his initial application to Humana Hospital Northside. Instead, he left both of these questions unanswered. The Respondent was subsequently notified by Humana Hospital Northside that the two questions last quoted above were unanswered on the initial application form and that those questions must be answered in order for the Respondent's application to be processed. Along with that notification, Humana Hospital Northside also provided the Respondent with another blank application form. The Respondent thereafter furnished to Humana Hospital Northside an application form which was blank, except for a signature at the end and the following typed information: On the first page of the application form were the words "Addendum to Original Application Dated 1/26/84," followed by the name "Ahmed M. Elmariah, M.D." On the third page of the application there was an "x" in each of the "no" boxes corresponding to the following four questions: Has your license to practice medicine in any jurisdiction ever been limited, suspended or revoked? Have your privileges at any hospital ever been suspended, diminished, revoked or not renewed? Have you ever been denied membership or renewal thereof, or been subject to disciplinary action in any medical organization? Has your narcotic or dangerous drug certificate ever been suspended or revoked? When the Respondent furnished the above-described addendum to his application, he knew that he had resigned his hospital privileges at Lakeland General Hospital during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings involving allegations that he had improperly or unnecessarily performed various surgeries. On or about January 26, 1984, the Respondent made a second application for medical staff privileges at Lake Seminole Hospital. Again the Respondent was required to file an application form. The application form included the following questions under Section 16: F. Have your privileges or Staff Membership at any hospital ever been denied, suspended, diminished, revoked, not renewed, or otherwise acted against? H. Have you ever been denied membership or renewal thereof, or been subject to disciplinary action, in any medical organization or by any licensing agency of any state or country? The foregoing questions (along with some others) were followed by a "yes" box and a "no" box. The Respondent did not indicate "yes" or "no" in response to either of the questions quoted immediately above on his initial 1984 application form submitted to Lake Seminole Hospital. Instead, he left both of those questions unanswered. The Respondent was subsequently notified by Lake Seminole Hospital that the two questions last quoted above were unanswered on the initial 1984 application form and that those questions had to be answered in order for the Respondent's application to be processed. Along with that notification, Lake Seminole Hospital returned Respondent's initial 1984 application form so that he could complete it. Shortly thereafter the Respondent returned the initial 1984 application form to Lake Seminole Hospital, where it was received on February 15, 1984. When the Respondent returned the application form on February 15, 1984, there was a typed "x" in each of the two "no" boxes corresponding to the two questions last quoted above. When the Respondent returned his 1984 application to Lake Seminole Hospital on February 15, 1984, he knew that he had resigned his hospital privileges at Lakeland General Hospital during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings involving allegations that he had improperly or unnecessarily performed various surgeries.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Board of Medicine enter a final order in this case dismissing all charges against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 16th day of May, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 86-4527 The following are my specific rulings on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Findings Proposed by Petitioner Paragraphs 1 and 2: Accepted. Paragraph 3: Rejected as irrelevant or as subordinate, unnecessary details. Paragraph 4: Rejected as irrelevant and as not established by clear and convincing evidence. (It should be noted that the Amended Administrative Complaint does not allege any negligent acts by the Respondent.) Paragraph 5: Accepted in substance, with some additional findings. Paragraph 6: Accepted in substance with certain unnecessary or irrelevant details omitted. Paragraph 7: Rejected as irrelevant and as not fully supported by clear and convincing evidence. Paragraphs 8 and 9: Accepted. Paragraph 10: This paragraph is accepted with the exception of the portions described immediately hereafter. In the penultimate sentence, everything after the second comma is rejected as unnecessarily repetitious. The last sentence is rejected as not being fully in accord with the greater weight of the evidence. Paragraph 11: Accepted. Paragraph 12: First sentence rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Most of last three lines rejected as repetitious. The remainder of this paragraph is accepted. Paragraph 13: First five lines accepted. The remainder of this paragraph is rejected as in part irrelevant, in part not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence, and in part not fully in accord with the greater weight of the evidence. Findings Proposed by Respondent (None) COPIES FURNISHED: David E. Bryant, Esquire Bryant, Reeves & Deer 220 East Madison Street Suite 530 Tampa, Florida 33602 Ahmed M. Elmariah, M.D. Post Office Box 16473 Panama City, Florida 32406-1473 Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director Board of Medicine 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neil, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be granted the exemption from disqualification from employment that she is seeking.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: In 1975, when she was 36 years of age, Petitioner was dating a married man. When the man's wife found out about her husband's extramarital affair, she began to harass Petitioner and members of Petitioner's family. On March 4, 1975, Petitioner was sitting in her vehicle with her then 17-year old son in the driveway of her home. She was about to leave to take her son to work when her boyfriend's wife drove up and blocked the driveway. Petitioner's son got out of the car and asked the wife to move her vehicle. The wife responded by making what Petitioner perceived to be an "ugly" gesture that was directed to Petitioner's son. Petitioner reacted in anger to the wife's response. She exited her vehicle and physically attacked the wife, bloodying the wife's nose. Police officers arrived on the scene and arrested Petitioner. Petitioner was charged with, and on April 22, 1975, convicted of, aggravated assault as a result of this March 4, 1975, incident. As punishment for committing this crime, she was directed to pay a $50.00 fine and court costs. Petitioner recognizes that her physically aggressive behavior on March 4, 1975, was inappropriate. She is remorseful and repentant. Petitioner has not committed any similar unlawful acts of violence in the more than 22 years since the March 4, 1975, incident. In 1980, Petitioner was arrested and charged with two counts of resisting a law enforcement officer without violence after she had intervened in an altercation involving her son and several police officers, but the charges against her were ultimately dismissed. Petitioner is a certified nursing assistant. She began working as nursing assistant approximately 30 years ago. As a nursing assistant, Petitioner has assisted individuals (in their homes and in institutional settings) needing help in performing their activities of daily living. She has provided such assistance without incident, notwithstanding that she has had to care for some individuals who have been quite difficult, including certain residents of South Florida State Hospital, a state-operated mental health facility, where she worked from 1981 through 1991 (as an employee of two different private nursing agencies with whom the hospital had contracted to provide nursing assistant services) and from January 24, 1997, to July 23, 1997 (as an employee of the hospital).2 There were occasions during the time she worked at South Florida State Hospital that residents would become physically aggressive toward her. On these occasions, Petitioner reacted, not in kind, but rather with restraint and in a professional manner. On July 23, 1997, after a background screening investigation conducted by the Department had revealed that she was not qualified to serve in her position at South Florida State because of her 1975 conviction for aggravated assault, and following the Department's preliminary denial of her request for an exemption from such disqualification, Petitioner was terminated from her position at the hospital. Petitioner has been unemployed since July 23, 1997. Although she has been unable to find work as a nursing assistant, Petitioner still continues to perform nursing assistant services (without compensation) for her elderly aunt, for whom she has cared for the past five years. Based upon Petitioner's history since the March 4, 1975, incident that led to her arrest and conviction for aggravated assault, it appears that she has rehabilitated herself and that she will not present a danger if her exemption request is granted.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order granting the exemption that Petitioner has requested. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of October, 1997.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Petitioner, a black female, was hired by Respondent on May 2, 1978. Petitioner was employed as a psychiatric aide until June 12, 1981. From June 13, 1981 until Petitioner's dismissal by Respondent on October 17, 1985, her primary duties consisted of working with severely mentally ill patients as a Human Services Worker II at Northeast Florida State Hospital in Macclenny, Florida. At all times material to this proceeding, Petitioner was a permanent employee of Respondent. Petitioner's immediate supervisor at the time of the incident was Dan Gibbs, a black male. On September 2, 1985, Petitioner volunteered to work a consecutive eight (8) hour shift from 11:00 p.m. on September 2, 1985 until 7:00 a.m. on September 3, 1925. Petitioner's primary duty was to observe A. G., a suicidal patient, on a one-on-one procedure throughout the entire shift. The one-on-one procedure requires the observer to remain within arms reach of the assigned patient at all times without interruption. At approximately 2:30 a.m. on September 3, 1985, Emma Jordan, a white female registered nurse and Geri Knowles, a white female security officer, found the Petitioner asleep in the T.V. Room of Ward Nine (9) with her feet propped up on a chair, a pillow behind her back and a cover over her. Petitioner's co- worker, Freddy Jones, a probationary employee, was also found sleeping and was subsequently terminated by Respondent for sleeping on the job. Two patients, including A. G., were also asleep. A. G., the patient assigned to Petitioner for a one-on-one procedure, was no less than ten (10) feet from Petitioner. Ten (10) feet is more than arms length. There was sufficient light from the nurses' station and the television for Jordan and Knowles to determine that Petitioner was asleep. Jordan and Knowles observed Petitioner sleeping for about two (2) minutes before she was awakened by Jordan. After Petitioner was awakened, Jordan, whose duties included caring for patients on Ward Nine (9), questioned Petitioner about who was responsible for carrying out the one-on- one procedure and was informed by Petitioner that both she and Freddy Jones took turns. When Jordan attempted to explain the safety violation, Petitioner responded with "you ain't my supervisor, mother fucker." From this point, the exchange between Petitioner and Jordan escalated with Petitioner using more obscenities and making actual physical contact with Jordan. Additionally, Petitioner encouraged Jordan to "Fight like a woman, mother fucker." Both Dan Gibbs and Freddy Jones had to intercede and physically restrain Petitioner on two (2) occasions. Petitioner had previously been suspended for three (3) days in August, 1982 for sleeping while on duty. Prior to this incident, Petitioner was aware of Respondent's personnel policy concerning disciplinary action for sleeping on the job. Respondent's disciplinary rule provides for a "written reprimand or up to thirty days suspension or dismissal" for sleeping on the job. With each subsequent occurrence of the same violation, the rule imposes a more severe discipline. A predetermination hearing was held by Respondent on September 26, 1985 and Petitioner was subsequently discharged by Respondent on October 17, 1985 for sleeping on the job and malicious use of profane language. The evidence in the record does not reflect a similar instance where an employee (black or white) had been accused and disciplined for sleeping on the job while observing a patient on a one-on-one basis and exhibiting conduct such as the Petitioner exhibited in this instance. Respondent's hospital had, prior to September 3, 1985, suspended both black and white employees for sleeping on duty and subsequent to this incident dismissed a white male employee for sleeping on duty while assigned to a one-on- one supervision of a patient. There was no evidence to support Petitioner's contention that her termination was "retaliation" by Respondent because she had successfully challenged an earlier termination by Respondent for abandonment of position. The evidence clearly established that Respondent reinstated Petitioner after receiving additional information from Petitioner without the matter going to hearing. The evidence clearly establishes that Petitioner was discharged because she was found sleeping on the job while assigned to a suicidal patient on a one-on-one basis and for use of malicious profane language. The evidence clearly establishes that Respondent's actions were not inconsistent with previous disciplinary actions taken against other employees, both black and white, with similar offenses. There was insufficient evidence to show that Respondent's actions taken in discharging Petitioner were motivated by impermissible racial consideration.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a Final Order finding that the Petitioner, Joann Postell has failed to establish that she was discharged due to her race in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (1985), and that the Petition for Relief be dismissed. Respectfully submitted and entered this 12th day of August, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 August, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-2391 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1.(a)(b) That Petitioner was employed by Respondent and terminated for sleeping on the job is adopted in Findings of Fact 1 and 13. The balance of the introductory sentence is rejected as not being a finding of fact but that Petitioner's argument that her dismissal was discriminatory. Rejected as not stating a fact but only why Petitioner denied being asleep. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 15. 2. Rejected as being argument rather than a finding of fact. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 5. Adopted in Finding of Facts 4 and 6. 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. 8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 14. 10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1a. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 David A. West, Esquire Legal Counsel Northeast Florida State Hospital Macclenny, Florida 32063 Carl G. Swanson, Esquire 335 East Bay Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Dana Baird, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925
