Findings Of Fact On or about September 24, 1982, the Petitioner, Donald Ray Shelton, submitted his application to the Department of Insurance in order to become licensed as an Ordinary Life including Disability agent in the State of Florida. On January 21, 1983, the Department of Insurance, by letter, notified Petitioner that his application for examination and licensure as an Ordinary Life including Disability agent had been denied. That letter, in summarizing the grounds for denial, stated: The reason for the denial is because on your application for license you failed to note that you had been charged with a felony, your record of issuing worth- less checks and your record of traffic offenses. Additionally, on a previous application for license processed by the Department of Insurance for examination, you gave false information, i.e., social security number, birthplace, residence address, employment history and license history as insurance agent. One of the grounds for denial related to an application filed with the Department by American Republic Insurance Company in March, 1981. (See Respondent's Exhibit 1.) The social security number, birthplace, residence address, employment history, and license history as an insurance agent were all false. This information had been entered on the application by the Petitioner during a job interview with American Republic. The petitioner signed the application but did not sign in the presence of a notary. Petitioner also signed an additional application form titled Application for State and County License as Life/Disability Agent. (See Joint Exhibit No. 2.) This form did not require a notary. The interview with American Republic had been arranged by a close friend and the Petitioner gave the false information in order to not appear disinterested. He, however, did not want his friends, relatives, and business associates being bothered by a background investigation for a job he was not going to accept. The Petitioner had not intended for the March, 1981, application to be filed with the Department of Insurance, because he had no intention of going to work for American Republic. He learned that the application had been filed when he received notification that he had been approved for taking the examination. He did not take the examination. He did not notify the Department of Insurance that the application was filed without his knowledge or authorization. In October, 1982, Petitioner sent a letter of explanation to the Department after inquiry was made about the March, 1981, application in connection with the processing of the current application. (See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1.) Another ground for denial by the Department was the Petitioner's failure to disclose he had been arrested for a felony, auto theft. Petitioner unequivocally denied ever having been arrested or charged with auto theft or any other felony. The evidence offered by the Department did not establish that the Petitioner had ever been arrested for larceny of an auto or that larceny of an auto as set forth in the Index to Criminal Records (Respondent's Exhibit 3) was a felony. petitioner did not fail to disclose an arrest for or charge of larceny of an auto. The application form does not ask for nor provide a space for the disclosure of traffic, bad check offenses, or other non-felony offenses. On October 29, 1980, the Petitioner pled guilty and was found guilty of the crime of worthless checks. The offense arose out of a check written to the Army Store on June 8, 1980, in the amount of $149.46, and returned due to the account being closed. The check was signed by Petitioner and was check number 126. The face of the check reveals that the account was in the name of "Donald R. Shelton" and "Vickie Shelton". Petitioner was sentenced to six months imprisonment which was suspended for two years, two years probation, and payment of restitution, and court costs. This conviction occurred in Case Number 80 Cr 4469, 30th District Court, Baywood County, North Carolina. Also, on October 29, 1980, Petitioner pled guilty to six other worthless check charges. Court records reveal the following information with regard to those convictions. Case No. 3205 involved Check No. 107 written to Bilo in the amount of $60.57 on March 1, 1980, and returned not paid because of insufficient funds. Case No. 80 Cr 2639 arose out of Check No. 3 written to Ingles on February 22, 1980, in the amount of $37.49 and returned not paid because of insufficient funds;. This check is a counter check without the name and address of Petitioner and Vickie Shelton printed on it. The check number is written on the check rather than pre-printed. Case No. 80 Cr 4053 arose out of Check No. 108 written on March 4, 1980, to Gas & Groceries in the amount of $21.30 and returned not paid because of insufficient funds. Case No. 80 Cr 4054 involved Check No. 105 written on March 1, 1980, to Gas & Groceries in the amount of $23.60 and returned not paid because of insufficient funds. Case No. 80 Cr 6027 involved Check No. 120 written to Potts Texaco on June 7, 1980, in the amount of $25.50 and returned not paid because of account closed. Case Nos. 80 Cr 2639, 80 Cr 4053, 80 Cr 4054, and 80 Cr 6027 were consolidated and for the conviction in these four cases, Petitioner was sentenced 30 days imprisonment suspended for two years with two years probation and restitution on each check and court costs in each case. This sentence was to begin following completion of the sentence in Case No. 80 Cr 4469 discussed in Paragraph 7 above. In Case No. 3205, Petitioner was sentenced to six months imprisonment, suspended for two years with two years probation and payment of restitution and court costs. All of the checks in these cases were written on the same account. This account was a joint account with Petitioner and his ex-wife as signatures on the account. On January 9, 1981, the Petitioner pled guilty and was convicted of worthless checks. That charge arose out of Check No. 109 written on March 4, 1980, to John Graham's in the amount of $259.98 and returned not paid because of insufficient funds. He was sentenced to pay court costs plus restitution. On February 16, 1981, the Petitioner pled guilty to the crime of worthless checks. The charge involved Check No. 101 written to Sky City on February 28, 1980, in the amount of $33.58 and returned not paid because of insufficient funds. Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to pay court costs plus restitution. On February 25, 1981, after making full restitution, the two year probation was terminated by the Court. Each of the worthless checks discussed above was written in February, March, or June, 1980. During the period August, 1979, to July, 1980, the Petitioner was unemployed. During this period, Petitioner was also going through a hotly contested divorce and checks were being written on the joint account by his now ex-wife without his knowledge. During this time, Petitioner did not make an effort to determine the balance in his checking account. The Petitioner has been convicted of the following traffic offenses: September 24, 1970: Speeding. September 18, 1970: Violation of quiet zone ordinance. September 23, 1971: Expired inspection sticker. October 19, 1972: Driving under the influence. Petitioner was 17, 18, and 19 years old when the offenses occurred. From April, 1977, to August, 1979, the Petitioner was employed by Globe Life Insurance Company in the State of North Carolina. Until August 1, 1979, Petitioner was a licensed Life and Accident and Health Agent in the State of North Carolina. The Petitioner is an agent in good standing with the Department of Insurance of the State of North Carolina. He had no complaints made against him or his license while selling insurance for Globe Life. He was a good, reliable agent while with Globe Life.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner's application for licensure be granted conditioned upon passing the required examination and payment of the necessary fees. DONE and ENTERED this 15th day of August, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of August, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bill Gunter Insurance Commissioner and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Donald Ray Shelton Post Office Box 155 Grand Island, Florida 32735 Ruth Gokel, Esquire Department of Insurance 413-B Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times material herein, the Respondent was a licensed Health and Legal Expense Insurance agent in the State of Florida. By criminal indictment filed October 4, 1984, Respondent was charged with the crimes of conspiracy to commit fraud, use of the mails to defraud and the use of a fictitious name or address to defraud. After a jury trial, Respondent was convicted of the offenses of conspiracy to commit fraud, in violation of Title 18, USC, Section 1341, Title 29, USC, Section 501(c), all in violation of Title 18, USC, Section 371, as charged in Count One of the Indictment and mail fraud, all in violation of Title 18, USC, Sections 1341 and 1342, as charged in Counts Two through Five of the Indictment. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) was at all times material herein a labor union affiliated with the AFL- CIO, a labor organization as defined in Section 402 of Title 29, United States Code. Florida Public Employees Council 79 (Council 79) was at all times material herein a labor union affiliated with AFSCME and the AFL-CIO, a labor organization as defined in Section 402 of Title 29, United States Code. The scheme upon which the Respondent's conviction rests, was directed toward both AFSCME and Council 79. At all times herein, Respondent was employed by either AFSCME or Council 79. Upon Council 79 being chartered, Respondent became its Tallahassee Regional Director. The record does not reflect any persons as victims of the scheme upon which the Respondent's conviction rests other than AFSCME and Council 79. Respondent's participation in the schemes upon which his conviction rests was as follows: (a) at the directions of William Van Zandt, Assistant to Jerry Wurf, President of AFSCME, and Thomas J. Fitzpatrick, President of Council 79, Respondent enrolled David J. Michalski as an employee of Council 79 and met with David J. Michalski in November 1979 to set up an address where payments on expense account vouchers and salaries would be delivered, and assisted David J. Michalski in opening an account at the bank for this purpose, and; (b) contacted George Albert Cuneo, Jr., President and owner of Cuneo Advertising, Inc., and requested that Cuneo mail bills for printing a Council 79 newspaper directly to G.A.D., Inc. G.A.D., Inc. was a corporation used by defendants other than Respondent to funnel inflated bills for advertising and public relations for payment by AFSCME or Council 79. The record is clear that Respondent had no knowledge of the schemes, was following orders of his superiors, and received no money, property, or other consideration for his participation in the schemes. The only evidence in the record concerning the Respondent's participation in the mail fraud is that the Respondent did apparently mail some matters concerning David R. Michalski's expense vouchers. Whether he mailed anything concerning the "kick-back scheme" or the inflated bills for advertising and public relations is not clear from the record. Respondent had never been convicted of a crime before this conviction. Respondent was sentenced to three (3) years on Count One but served only eight (8) months. The sentences in Count Two through Five were suspended and Respondent was placed on probation. Respondent was placed on probation for six (6) months on Counts Two through Four which began immediately and was placed on three (3) years probation on Count Five which was to run consecutively with the sentence imposed in Count One. After serving the eight (8) months of his sentence, Respondent returned to Tallahassee and enrolled in, and completed, a course in insurance at Tallahassee Community College hoping to further expand his existing insurance license. The record is clear that Respondent's reputation for truth and veracity in the community is good despite his conviction, and the Respondent enjoys a good reputation as far as his integrity in dealing with others in concerned.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Insurance, enter a Final Order dismissing all counts of the Administrative Complaint filed herein. Respectfully submitted and entered this 31st day of March, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of March, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-4404 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3 as clarified. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5 with the exception of the phrase "with in excess of ten numbers" which is rejected as immaterial since there was no substantial competent evidence in the record to show that any individual member had been defrauded or that any conspiracy to defraud was directed at any individual member. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 2-7. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Findings of Fact 9 and 11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 9 and 11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 9 and 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Findings of Facts 9 and 11. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Rejected as immaterial and irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 19.-20. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert V. Ellias, Esquire Department of Insurance 413-B Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Ben R. Patterson, Esquire PATTERSON and TRAYNHAM 1215 Thomasville Road Post Office Box 4289 Tallahassee, Florida 32315 Honorable William Gunter State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times relevant to this proceeding, Eduardo E. Ramos was a licensed medical doctor in Florida. He is also licensed in the states of Maryland, New jersey and New York, and specializes in general surgery. On November 11, 1977 , an Information was filed against respondent alleging one count of conspiracy and eleven counts of grand larceny. On or about April 6, 1978, respondent pled guilty to Count III of the Information, which charged respondent with grand larceny. Judge Richard S. Fuller of the Circuit Court of Dade County stated that he was satisfied there was a factual basis for the plea. On May 23, 1978, Judge Fuller entered an "order withholding adjudication." Said order states, in part, "it appearing unto the court that the defendant, Eduardo Ramos, has been found guilty of the charge of grand larceny as set forth in Count Three of the Information by the Court upon the entry of a guilty plea. . . ." The Court withheld the imposition of sentence and placed the respondent on probation for a term of three years. Among the conditions of his probation, respondent was ordered to pay a fine in the amount of $2,000.00, make restitution to the insurance company in the amount of $550.00 and serve one veer of weekends In community service at the Jackson Memorial Hospital, Ward D. At the time of the hearing in this cause, respondent had completed his year of weekend service at the Jackson Memorial Hospital. He reported there every Friday at 6:00 p.m. and stayed until Sunday, 6:00 p.m. His services included acting as a physician, a consultant, an instructor to nurses, a nurse and an orderly. Dr. Ramos did fill out and sign multiple insurance forms for a patient and responded "no" to the question on the form asking if there was other insurance coverage. He did not have specific knowledge of the patient's intent to defraud the insurance companies and he received no extra compensation from the patient for filling out the form. He received no compensation or reimbursement from the insurance company. He did realize that something was not right when he was asked by the patient to fill out and sign several forms.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board find the respondent guilty of violating Sections 458.1201(1)(c) and (1)(k), Florida Statutes, and issue a private reprimand to respondent for said offenses. Respectfully submitted and entered this day of July, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: William B. Wiley McFarlain, Bobo, Sternstein and Wiley 666 Lewis State Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Leonard Sussman 204 Biscayne Building 19 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 Michael Schwartz Suite 201 Ellis Building 1311 Executive Center Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On or about May 19, 1989, Viola DePeugh filed a complaint with the Department of Insurance, Bureau of Consumer Services, stating that the Petitioner, a licensed health and accident insurance agent for National States Insurance Company, visited the DePeugh home on or about May 4, 1989, and: tried to intimidate her and her husband; stated that the insurance agent who had sold them their Old Southern policy was "a crook and a liar" and not licensed by the Department; and stated that Old Southern had gone bankrupt and was about to go bankrupt again. The Respondent investigated the DePeugh complaint to the extent of interviewing the DePeughs and obtaining sworn written statements from them. Viola DePeugh's sworn written statement reiterated her May 19, 1989, complaint to the Department. She stated that the Petitioner had reviewed the DePeughs' Old Southern insurance policy, had stated that Old Southern had been bankrupt once before and was going bankrupt again, and had stated that her Old Southern agent was a "crook." Her husband, Forrest DePeugh, gave a sworn written statement that he had been present at the time of the Petitioner's statements to his wife and that he could verify his wife's statements. Besides the interviews with the DePeughs and their sworn written statements, the Department did not further investigate the DePeugh complaint. On or about September 21, 1989, the Respondent filed an Administrative Complaint charging the Petitioner with violations of parts of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, based on the DePeugh allegations. The Administrative Complaint charges essentially that, in order to induce the DePeughs to change from their Old Southern policy to a policy the Petitioner was selling, the Petitioner falsely represented to the DePeughs that Old Southern Insurance Company had been in bankruptcy and was about to go bankrupt again and that the DePeughs' insurance agent was "a crook." The Administrative Complaint was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for a formal administrative proceeding and was assigned Case No. 89-5712. The Petitioner's defense to the Administrative Complaint was that he did not make the statements attributed to him, not that the statements were true. The Recommended Order in Case No. 89-5712 found that the Department did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the DePeugh allegations were true. A Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint was entered on or about June 21, 1990. At the time of its filing on or about September 21, 1989, the Administrative Complaint against the Petitioner had a reasonable basis in law and in fact. If the DePeughs testified in accordance with Viola DePeugh's written complaint and sworn written statement, their testimony would have been legally sufficient to sustain the charges in the Administrative Complaint notwithstanding the Petitioner's denial of the charges. It was simply a case of the DePeughs' word against the Petitioner's word. There were no other witnesses, and there was no reason for the Respondent to think that further investigation would have uncovered extrinsic evidence that would support the Petitioner's denial of the charges or impeach the credibility of the DePeughs. Under these circumstances, it was not unreasonable for the Respondent to file the Administrative Complaint against the Petitioner.
The Issue Whether Respondent's licenses as a health insurance agent, a life and health insurance agent, and a life including variable annuity agent should be suspended or revoked based on the allegations set forth in the Department's Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Gary L. Koniz (Respondent) is currently licensed by the Department as a health insurance (2-40) agent, a life and health insurance (2-18) agent, and a life including variable annuity (2-14) agent. On August 17, 1988, Respondent plead guilty to operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol (DUI), a felony, in the County Court in and for Ulster County, New York, Case No. 88-57. Respondent was sentenced to five years' probation, license revocation, and payment of a fine. On or about September 30, 2000, Respondent submitted an application to the Department for licensure as health agent, a life and health agent, and a life including variable annuity agent, on which he was asked the following two questions: Have you ever been convicted, found guilty, or pleaded guilty or nolo contendere to a felony under the laws of any municipality, county, state, territory, or country, whether or not adjudication was withheld or a judgment of conviction was entered? Have you ever been convicted, found guilty, or pleaded guilty or nolo contendere to a crime punishable by imprisonment of one year or more under the laws of any municipality, county, state, territory, or country, whether or not adjudication was withheld or a judgment of conviction was entered? Respondent answered each of the aforementioned questions, "no." On the application dated September 30, 2000, Respondent signed and swore to the statement that read: Under penalty of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing application for licensure, related information and related attachments, and that the facts as stated in it are true. I understand that misrepresentation of any fact required to be disclosed through this application is a violation of the Florida Insurance and Administrative Code and may result in the denial of my application and/or the revocation of my insurance license. Respondent testified at hearing. Respondent made a court appearance at which he entered a plea as part of a plea bargain to a misdemeanor. He did not comply with one of the conditions and the matter was called back up before the court. At this second hearing, the court asked how he plead. Respondent indicated he had already plead. The court took this response as a plea to the DUI felony and imposed the aforementioned penalties. Respondent did not knowingly answer the questions on the application for licensure incorrectly.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance enter a final order finding Respondent Gary L. Koniz guilty of violating Sections 626.611 and 626.621, Florida Statutes, and suspending his licensure as a health insurance agent, a life and health insurance agent, and a life including variable annuity agent for a period of up to 18 months. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of April, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 23rd day of April, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary L. Koniz 9480 Princeton Square Boulevard, South Apartment 815 Jacksonville, Florida 32256 Matthew A. Nowels, Esquire Department of Insurance 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer/Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a Resident Customer Representative insurance agent should be granted.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a receptionist for an insurance agency and is seeking licensure as a Florida Resident Customer Representative from the Department of Financial Services. The Department is an agency of the State of Florida responsible for the licensing of insurance agents and customer representatives in the State of Florida, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes. On October 22, 2003, the Petitioner filed a license application (electronically) with the Department seeking licensure as a Resident Customer Representative insurance agent. On her application for licensure, the Petitioner answered the following question in the negative: Have you ever been convicted, found guilty, or pled guilty or nolo contendere (no contest) to a crime punishable by imprisonment of one year or more under the laws of any municipality, county, state, territory or country, whether or not adjudication was withheld or a judgment of conviction was entered? When the Petitioner signed her application for licensure she signed an "Applicant Affirmation Statement" and mailed it to the Department. In that statement, she swore that all the answers on the questions on the application were true and correct to the best of her knowledge and belief. She knew of the requirement to be truthful and honest on the application and that had been stressed to her by her instructor for the insurance pre-licensing course which she attended. On March 16, 1995, the Petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendere to one count of forgery and one count of uttering a forged instrument, both felonies. The related arrest had occurred on November 10, 1994. The Petitioner was sentenced to three years probation, required to make restitution, pay court fines and costs and to perform fifty hours of community service. She was to write a letter of apology to the victim and to have no contact with the victim. Adjudication of guilt was withheld. She performed all of the requirements of her sentence. She was excused by the court from providing the fifty hours of community service because she was pregnant at the time. The Petitioner acknowledges that she answered the question incorrectly and had made a mistake, because she felt the phrase "punishable by one year or more" meant that she had been imprisoned for one year or more, which she had not. She testified that she intentionally answered the question in the negative because she was not aware that her felony crimes were potentially punishable by one year or more. She signed the 1995 plea agreement, which indicated that it was then her understanding that the offenses could carry a maximum sentence of ten years imprisonment. At the time she answered the relevant question on her application, however, she did not have a present understanding or recollection that that would be the case. The point is, she answered in good faith. She did not intentionally answer the question untruthfully but rather due to a mistaken impression, after some nine or so years had elapsed, concerning the nature and effect of the punishment or potential punishment her crimes carried. The Petitioner has not had a criminal history since her 1995 plea, with the exception of a June 7, 2000 arrest in Hernando County, Florida, after her return to Florida from Tennessee, for purported violation of probation with regard to the 1995 felony case. The Petitioner's testimony demonstrates in a credible way that indeed she had fulfilled the requirements of her probation. The judge had released her from her community service requirement and the reason for the arrest, because she was believed to have failed to pay relevant costs and restitution, apparently was a mistake. She established that at or around the time of her moving to Tennessee she had paid the relevant monetary sums required with two cashiers checks. The court terminated her probation. It is found that this arrest was based upon a mistake. The Petitioner's supervisor corroborated the testimony of the Petitioner and established that the circumstances and mental impression leading to the Petitioner's negative answer show no intent to be untruthful or to defraud. The Petitioner and her witnesses (her supervisors) established that she has been fit and trustworthy in her work with the insurance agency. Petitioner has routinely handled sums of money for the agency and for insurance clients, always with proper accounting and never with any funds being missing or mis-appropriated. The Petitioner's employment provides her family's only livelihood for her and her child. Her employment is dependent on her being granted licensure as a Customer Representative. Denial of the license application will create a hardship for her. She was nineteen years of age at the time of the arrest and plea, made full restitution and complied with the terms of her probation.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department granting the licensure applied; or granting it for a probationary period of two years under reasonable terms and conditions specified by the Department in that final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 2nd day of December, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Pete Dunbar, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Tanya C. Lollie 4732 Elwood Road Spring Hill, Florida 34608 Elizabeth Penny, Certified Legal Intern Ladasiah Jackson, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Jack Michael Schwartz, held a life and health agent and ordinary combination life including health agent license issued by petitioner, Department of Insurance and Treasurer. Respondent presently resides at 2027 Northeast 172nd Street, North Miami Beach, Florida. On November 30, 1981 respondent submitted an application to petitioner for licensure as an ordinary life including disability agent. Question 15 on the application asked the following: "Have you ever been charged with or convicted of a felony?" Respondent answered "No." The application was subsequently approved by petitioner in February, 1982 after respondent successfully completed a written examination. On June 18, 1985 respondent submitted an application to petitioner for licensure as a general lines agent. Question 11 on the application asked the following question: "Have you ever been charged with or convicted of a felony?" Respondent answered "No." During the course of a routine background check of Schwartz, petitioner later learned that respondent had pled guilty to grand larceny by fraudulent representation on August 3, 1977 in circuit court in and for Broward County, Florida. The offense is a felony. Schwartz was thereafter placed on probation for five years under the direct supervision of the Department of Offender Rehabilitation. He was released from probation after two and one-half years. Schwartz acknowledged that he had pled guilty to a felony. However, after his probation was ended, Schwartz interpreted advice from his probation officer to mean he did not have to acknowledge on job or licensure applications that he had been convicted of a felony. He had no further explanation for his answers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the license and eligibility for licensure of respondent be REVOKED. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of September, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of September, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-1809 PETITIONER: Covered in finding of fact 4. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 3. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bill Gunter Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Wilbur W. Anderson, Esquire 413-B Larson Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jack Michael Schwartz 2027 N.E. 172nd Street North Miami Beach, Florida 33162
The Issue The issues for determination are: (1) whether Respondent violated the provisions of the Insurance Code as alleged in the Administrative Complaint by pleading guilty to a felony and failing to report such plea to the Petitioner; (2) whether the offense to which Respondent pleaded guilty is a crime involving moral turpitude; and (3) if yes to either of the foregoing, what penalty should be imposed on Respondent's license as a non- resident life and health insurance agent.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed in the State of Florida as a non-resident life and health insurance agent. Respondent has been a licensed insurance agent for twenty-four years, having first been licensed in Florida in 1994. In addition to holding a Florida insurance license, Respondent is also licensed as an insurance agent in North Carolina. On or about January 13, 1997, an information was filed in the Sixth Judicial Circuit, in and for Pasco County, Florida, Case No. 97-00245CFAWS, charging Respondent with one count of scheme to defraud. This offense constitutes a felony. On September 4, 1997, Respondent pled guilty to the charge of scheme to defraud. The judge withheld adjudication of guilt, placed Respondent on probation for three years, and indicated that he would consider early termination of probation after Respondent served 50 percent of his sentence. On September 12, 1997, the court entered a written Order Withholding Adjudication of Guilt and Placing Defendant on Probation that stated in part the following: It appearing to the satisfaction of the court that you are not likely again to engage in a criminal course of conduct, and that the ends of justice and the welfare of society do not require that you should presently be adjudged guilty and suffer the penalty authorized by law. Now, therefore, it is ordered [and] adjudged that the adjudication of guilt [and] imposition of sentence are hereby withheld, [and] that you are hereby placed on probation for a period of three years under the supervision of the Department of Corrections subject to the Florida law. . . . Respondent did not inform the Department that he pled guilty to a felony and was on probation as required by Section 626.621 (11), Florida Statutes. The reason that Respondent failed to report the guilty plea and probation was that he believed that it was unnecessary because he was not adjudicated guilty. The aforementioned criminal charge against Respondent and his ultimate guilty plea to the felony of scheme to defraud stemmed from an incident that occurred in 1996. At that time, Respondent was unable to obtain automobile loans due to his bad credit resulting from his divorce. In order to obtain a loan from First Union Bank to purchase automobiles for himself, his wife, and his daughter, Respondent used the name and social security number of his brother, Mark Wilson. As a result of using his brother's name and social security number, Respondent was able to obtain a loan for $43,000.00 to purchase three vehicles, a 1993 Grand Prix, a 1990 Eagle Talon, and a 1995 Lincoln. Several months after Respondent obtained the loan, his brother, Mark Wilson, discovered the loans were on his credit record. Thereafter, Mark Wilson's credit record was corrected and Respondent entered into a stipulated settlement with First Union, whereby he agreed to pay the loans and First Union's attorney's fees incurred in connection with the case. Respondent's brother did not file charges against him. Respondent was current on the loan payments when Mark Wilson, Respondent's brother, learned that loans had been taken out in his name. At the time of the hearing, on August 5, 1998, the loans had been paid down to approximately $7,800.00, and Respondent was current in paying the balance. No person or entity lost any money as result of Respondent's actions. At the time Respondent used the aforementioned deception to obtain the automobile loans, he was very depressed and was undergoing psychological therapy by Marcia N. Davis, a licensed therapist in Asheville, North Carolina. Respondent has continued to undergo psychological treatment by Marcia N. Davis. Her current prognosis is that Respondent has made definite improvement and that she would not expect that he would break the law again. The criminal charge against Respondent was not related to any action taken by Respondent in his role as a licensed insurance agent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is Recommended that a Final Order be entered suspending the license of Respondent, Perry Murray Wilson, for two months. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUMCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of September, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Patrick Creehan, Esquire Department of Insurance and Treasurer 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Paul B. Johnson, Esquire Post Office Box 3416 Tampa, Florida 33601 Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill Nelson, State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issues to be resolved in these proceedings concern whether the Petitioner is entitled to licensure as a non-resident life and health insurance agent in Florida in consideration of a prior history involving a criminal charge concerning a felony of moral turpitude, as well as his alleged failure to disclose prior disciplinary actions against his licenses by Florida and Wisconsin, which arose out of the same felony charge.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a licensed insurance agent, who has been practicing as an insurance agent for 25 years in Minnesota, Florida and Wisconsin. His Florida licensure was suspended for a period of two years by Final Order of the Department entered on November 25, 1985. That regulatory situation is described in more detail below. The Petitioner has now applied for licensure in Florida as a non- resident life and health insurance agent. He primarily practices insurance in the State of Minnesota, his native state. He did, however, practice in Florida from approximately 1980 to 1985 but relocated to Minnesota after his prior Florida disciplinary experience. The Respondent is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the licensure standards for insurance. Those standards are embodied in Chapter 626, Florida Statutes. The Respondent is charged with insuring that licensed applicants and licensed agents comply with those standards and with conducting enforcement actions and imposing penalties up through and including licensure revocation or denial where agents or applicants fail to comply with Florida's insurance law. Upon the convening of the prior disciplinary action against the Petitioner in 1984, the Petitioner was licensed as an ordinary life and disability insurance agent, doing business as Steven Miller Insurance and Associates in Daytona Beach, Florida. On June 2, 1983, the Petitioner was charged, by criminal information in Case No. 83-2219-CC, with two felony counts, Count One being presentation of a fraudulent insurance claim in violation of Section 817.234, Florida Statutes, and Count Two being a charge of grand theft of the second degree, in violation of Section 812.014, Florida Statutes. On January 5, 1984, the Petitioner entered a plea of nolo contendere to the felony offense of grand theft, second-degree felony. On January 5, 1984, the Circuit Court for the Seventh Judicial Circuit in and for Volusia County, Florida (Circuit Court) accepted that plea and placed the Petitioner on three years of supervised probation, but withheld adjudication of guilt and imposition of sentence. On July 18, 1985, the Petitioner was discharged early from his probation, after successfully completing 18 months of the original three-year probationary period. In June of 1982, the Petitioner's wife's sister and her husband came to Florida to visit the Petitioner and his wife for a period of time. The Petitioner's brother-in-law and wife were having severe financial problems. The Petitioner owned a 24-foot boat at the time, which he kept stored in a vacant lot, behind a chain-link fence, in the vicinity of his home. Several days after his brother-in-law and sister-in-law returned to their home in Minnesota, the Petitioner noticed that his boat was missing. On June 29, 1982, he reported the boat as being stolen to the Daytona Beach Police Department. Several months after reporting the theft, he filed an insurance claim seeking reimbursement on his insurance policy for the theft of the boat. Approximately one year later, the boat was found in the possession of his brother-in-law, who had returned to his home in Minnesota shortly before the boat was reported stolen. In order to save himself from prosecution, the brother-in-law claimed that the boat had been given to him by the Petitioner and that he had not stolen it. Consequently, the Petitioner was charged with one count of insurance fraud, a felony, and the other charge referenced above involving second-degree grand theft, also a felony. According to the Petitioner, he presented adequate proof that he had not stolen the boat and the insurance fraud charges were immediately dropped. He was then informed, by his counsel in the criminal matter, with the agreement of the state attorney and the court, that, in effect, if he pled nolo contendere to the grand theft charge, the criminal matter could be put behind him with a minimum of anguish and expense. In return for such a pleading, he was assured that it would effectively be the same as pleading not guilty, that his insurance license would not be affected by the matter or the result, and that by so pleading, he could avoid the straining of his marriage because of the family relationship involved in the underlying facts. Consequently, the Petitioner pled nolo contendere to the second criminal charge involving second-degree grand theft. Adjudication and sentencing were withheld, and he was placed on three years of supervised probation, which he successfully completed in 18 months. Thereafter, on or about October 25, 1984, an Administrative Complaint was filed by the Department against the Petitioner in Case No. 84-L-360LS (DOAH Case No. 84-4124), which ultimately went to hearing before a Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings. The issue in that proceeding concerned whether disciplinary measures provided for in Sections 626.611 and 626.621, Florida Statutes, should be imposed for the plea of nolo contendere to a felony offense involving moral turpitude. The Hearing Officer, after finding the facts as delineated above, entered a Recommended Order finding that the offense charged did involve moral turpitude and that the petitioner in that case had met its burden of proof of showing a violation which could stand independently of whether or not there had been an adjudication of guilt. Accordingly, the Hearing Officer recommended that a Final Order be entered suspending the Petitioner's licensure for a period of two years and, by Final Order entered on November 25, 1985, the Department adopted the Recommended Order as the agency's Final Order and imposed a suspension of licensure for a period of two years from that date. Thus, the suspension terminated on or about November 25, 1987. On his application for licensure, dated November 29, 1994, in response to the question concerning whether his application or licensure had ever been suspended, etc., the Petitioner answered "yes". The question requires no explanation of the circumstances on the application form. The Petitioner, however, gratuitously, drew an arrow to the margin of the form and indicated that he had been suspended in Minnesota in 1987 briefly, for two weeks, for accidentally "overlapping" a medicare supplement policy too long. He wrote no such explanation concerning his Florida suspension occurring in 1985. The Petitioner, however, established that he knew, of course, that the Department already had knowledge of that suspension, it having entered a Final Order, still in its records, suspending him for two years, as referenced in the above Findings of Fact. Moreover, the Petitioner was under the impression that since that suspension arose out of the criminal activity with which he had been charged and which record had been sealed by order of the Circuit Court, he need not respond in the affirmative to that question concerning the Florida suspension. That is the same reason he answered "no" to the question concerning any plea or conviction involving a crime of moral turpitude. This belief was based upon the fact that the sealing order of the Circuit Court, pursuant to Section 943.059, Florida Statutes, allowed him to deny that those criminal charges, and the probation imposed, had ever occurred to any employing or licensing entity not specifically enumerated in that statute. The Department is not specifically enumerated in that statute as an agency to which the protection of the sealed record for the Petitioner does not apply. Thus, the Petitioner had no intent to defraud or misrepresent, in a material way, his entitlement to licensure by his answers on the application concerning the earlier Florida prosecution. In any event, in the free-form stage of this matter, before the first denial letter and the amended denial letter were filed and served on the Petitioner, the matter had been discussed with agency personnel and thus disclosed. On or about September 11, 1987, the Petitioner's license in the State of Minnesota was suspended for four weeks for purported improper "overlapping" and duplicating of medicare supplement coverages, in violation of Minnesota statutes. The Petitioner established that that was an inadvertent violation. It occurred due to an administrative and record-keeping error in his office. He acted immediately to correct the error, and the licensure authorities in Minnesota were satisfied with his efforts to correct the error. No member of the public suffered any pecuniary or other loss as a result, nor did the Petitioner gain any pecuniary or other benefit by that mistake. It was simply a clerical or administrative error due to inadvertent mistake. On or about September 28, 1989, the Petitioner was disciplined by the State of Wisconsin, Department of Insurance, and ordered to pay a fine based upon a settlement negotiation. This occurred because of his failure to disclose on his application for licensure as an "intermediary" in Wisconsin his previous Florida disciplinary action concerning the criminal matter. Indeed, the Petitioner did not disclose that to the State of Wisconsin. The reason he did not, as he established by unrefuted testimony, was that by the time he applied for licensure in Wisconsin, the circuit court's order sealing the record concerning the criminal matter had been entered. By his lay understanding of the law concerning sealing of his record, he was allowed to decline to disclose anything concerning that criminal matter or any matter based upon it. In his mind, this included no longer being under a requirement to disclose the Florida Department of Insurance disciplinary action which arose out of that criminal matter. His belief in this regard was further buttressed by the fact that the Department itself, upon his request, issued a "letter of clearance" for him to supply to the Wisconsin Department of Insurance. This document depicted that he was in good standing in terms of his licensure in the State of Florida (this was after the lapse of his two-year suspension period) and that there was no impediment, as far as Florida was concerned, to his licensure in the other jurisdiction. Under these circumstance, the Petitioner did not believe that he had a legal obligation to disclose to Wisconsin the matters concerning the Florida suspension. Upon learning of it, the State of Wisconsin, Department of Insurance, initiated a disciplinary action. Upon negotiation and stipulation, he was required to pay a $500.00 fine. When the Petitioner was asked about any suspensions of his licensure, on the application form at issue, and since the form and the question do not provide for any written explanation, he did not disclose the Wisconsin action leading to his fine. This is because, in the first place, it was not a suspension. Moreover, he still believed that, due to the circuit court's order sealing the record, since the Wisconsin action grew out of the Florida disciplinary and criminal matter, it was all related and he was not required to disclose it. Further, he did not believe that he had actually had a disciplinary action imposed in the State of Wisconsin. This is because the $500.00 fine, which he agreed to pay, was based upon a "stipulation and order." This document clearly recites upon its face (Petitioner's Exhibit 3) that the respondent (the Petitioner herein) denied the allegation and merely wanted to resolve the matter to avoid further litigation and expense. It states that the stipulation and order did not constitute the adjudication of any issue of fact or law and would not be admissible as such in any proceeding. Thus, because no determination of any guilt had been made regarding him by the State of Wisconsin and because the $500.00 fine he paid was merely the result of a settlement negotiation to prevent litigation, the Petitioner did not deem that he had been subjected to actual disciplinary action and certainly not suspension by the State of Wisconsin. Thus, it has not been established that he failed to reveal the Wisconsin matter on his application through any intent to misrepresent or defraud the Department in Florida, in a material way, in an attempt to gain licensure. This is particularly deemed to be the case because if he had been merely seeking to conceal what he actually believed was a disciplinary action occurring in Wisconsin, it would be illogical to assume that he would disclose the Minnesota action. He freely and voluntarily disclosed the Minnesota action, however, which he knew to be a brief suspension of his license. The Department, by the amended denial letter, is also seeking to deny licensure based upon his having pled nolo contendere to the criminal charge, as referenced above. This is so even though the Department, when it could have revoked his license for that same ground in 1985, chose the two-year suspension as an appropriate penalty for that criminal infraction, which resulted from a negotiated plea of convenience. In 1985, when the Final Order was entered, only two and one-half to three years had elapsed after the infraction is supposed to have occurred. The Department, however, without any significant time for rehabilitation from the effects on his license-worthiness from the purported criminal infraction, implicitly took the position that revocation of licensure was not appropriate and only a two-year impairment to licensure entitlement was warranted. Approximately a decade has now elapsed since the prior Florida discipline and approximately 12 to 13 years since the basis of that discipline (the criminal matter). The Petitioner has substantially shown his rehabilitation from the effects of that incident. The criminal matter itself did not involve any proof of actual guilt of immoral conduct but, rather, was a negotiated plea for the convenience of the Petitioner and the avoidance of the expense and anguish of trial. Moreover, the Petitioner has been a licensed agent in Minnesota, Florida, and Wisconsin for some 25 years and has never had any disciplinary altercation other than those mentioned in the evidence and this Recommended Order which arose out of that negotiated plea. The Minnesota and Wisconsin infractions were not significant in terms of reflecting adversely on the Petitioner's character, traits of honesty and trustworthiness, nor his competence, and qualifications to practice as an insurance agent. The Florida infraction in 1985 on its face is serious; however, the actual underlying facts do not reveal that the Petitioner was actually guilty of second-degree grand theft because of the findings concerning the imposition of probation through a "plea of convenience", upon advice of counsel and the court. The unrefuted testimony is that the Petitioner practiced insurance in a manner in which the public has never been harmed. No policyholder or insurer has suffered loss by any act or omission of the Petitioner, nor has the Petitioner benefited pecuniarily from any wrongful conduct. The above facts and circumstances, taken in their totality, show that the public in the State of Florida will not be harmed by licensure of the Petitioner. The total circumstances represented by the above Findings of Fact show that any adverse implication on his qualifications or worthiness for licensure has long since been rehabilitated by the passage of time and by the appropriate and proper conduct of his business as an insurance agent in the states where he has been licensed. In 25 years, he has continuously handled money and financial affairs of insurers and insureds with honesty and integrity. It has not been demonstrated that the Petitioner lacks fitness or trustworthiness to engage in the practice of insurance or that he is incompetent to engage therein. It has not been demonstrated that he made a misrepresentation or other fraudulent act in the obtaining of a license or appointment or in the initiation of an attempt to obtain a license or appointment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting the Petitioner's application for licensure as a non-resident health and life agent. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of February, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 6th day of February, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 95-3363 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-4. Accepted. 5. Rejected, as not entirely in accord with the preponderant evidence of record and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 6-14. Accepted. 15. Accepted, but not as to its entire purported legal import. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-5. Accepted. 6. Accepted, but not for its entire purported material import. 7-9. Accepted, but not in themselves materially dispositive. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas F. Woods, Esquire 1709-D Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Allen R. Moayad, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Bill Nelson, State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Dan Sumner, Acting General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offense set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Joseph Anthony Isabella, was licensed by Petitioner, Department of Insurance (Department), as a life insurance agent, having been issued license number A128269. On July 26, 1989, an Information was filed in the Circuit Court, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida, Case No. 89-10384CF A02, charging Respondent with one count of obtaining property or services in return for a worthless check, contrary to Section 832.05(4), Florida Statutes. Specifically, the Information alleged that: . . . JOSEPH ANTHONY ISABELLA on or about the 15th day of DECEMBER, 1988 in the County of Palm Beach and State of Florida, did unlawfully obtain services, goods, wares or other things of value from ABE GREEN, by means of a check in the amount of $8,515.00 drawn on the CAPITAL BANK, a banking corporation, bearing account number 4203001757, knowing at the time of the drawing, making, uttering, issuing or delivering of the said check that the said JOSEPH ANTHONY ISABELLA had not sufficient funds on deposit in or credit with such bank with which to pay the same on presentation. . . . Such offense constituted a felony of the third degree. On or about March 8, 1991, Respondent pled guilty to the charge, and on March 20, 1991, the court entered an order (nunc pro tunc to March 8, 1991) withholding adjudication of guilt and placing Respondent on probation for a period of one year under the supervision of the Department of Corrections. The conditions of probation included the following: PROBATION TO TERMINATE ONCE RESTITUTION IS PAID IN FULL. PAY $7,000.00 RESTITUTION TO ABE GREEN. Respondent failed to make restitution to Mr. Green, and on January 6, 1992, an affidavit of violation of probation was filed and a warrant was issued; however, the warrant was not executed, returned, and filed until September 22, 1994. Ultimately, by April 16, 1995, restitution had been paid, the notice of violation of probation was withdrawn, and Respondent's probation was "terminated successfully." At no time did Respondent inform the Department in writing of having pled guilty to the aforesaid crime.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered which finds Respondent guilty of violating the foregoing provisions of law and that, for such violation, the final order suspend Respondent's license for a period of 12 months. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of May, 1999.
