Findings Of Fact Thomas Singleton, Jr. is the holder of ACLF License No. P-4-16-0089C held under the provisions of Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes. This is a form of temporary license for operating adult congregate living facilities. Mr. Singleton is also an applicant for a permanent license for operating an adult congregate living facility. Carolyn Bothwell, is a social worker with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, who specifically works in the field of aging and adult services. Sane of her clients were residents of Tom's Rest Home, 1834 Silver Street, Jacksonville, Florida, which is owned and operated by Thomas Singleton, Jr. On January 10, 1978, Ms. Bothwell received a call from Mr. Singleton in which Mr. Singleton expressed some consternation about trying to collect money owed by one of his former boarder's at Tom's Rest Home. In Ms. Bothwell's opinion, Mr. Singleton's speech was slurred and he seemed very different than her prior contacts with him. On January 13, 1978, Mr. Singleton came to her office to further discuss the problem about the payment by the hoarder. His appearance was disheveled and his speech was incoherent. In this conversation of January 13, Singleton also mentioned that his wife had left him and that he wanted Ms. Bothwell to be at the boarding home when he told the boarders of his wife's departure. Ms. Bothwell went to the location of the boarding home around 12:00 moon on the date, January 13, 1978, in the presence of other members of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative staff. When she arrived at the boarding home, she discovered that the boarding home was locked and the boarders were on the front porch, locked out of the hone. Mr. Singleton had difficulty remembering why he had gone to meet with Ms. Bothwell earlier that day and made no mention of the fact that his wife had left. In Ms. Bothwell's opinion he appeared very vague and confused. Ms. and the other members departed the premises a short time later. On that .same date, January 13, 1978, June K. Frye , a District Program Specialist, with the Department of Rehabilitative Services dealing with adult congregate living facilities, spoke with Mr. Singleton. This conversation apparently took place in the morning. In the course of the conversation Ms. Frye mentioned that she had called Mr. Singleton to advise him of an upcoming reinspection on the question of considering his probationary license status. Ms. Frye felt that Mr. Singleton was incoherent and unable to give concrete information about the license situation. She asked to speak to someone else at the facility but Mr. Singleton was unable to assist her in that request. Prior to this conversation with Mr. Singleton, 345. Frye had never noticed any slurred speech or inability on the part of Mr. Singleton to respond to requests or to give information. Later that afternoon, Ms. Frye, in the presence of Mr. Otto G. Hrdlicka, went to the facility at 1834 Silver Street.' When they arrived they found that Bertie Mac Baldwin was in charge of the facility. Mr. Singleton's wife was not at the facility and Mr. Singleton was on the bed in his room, out of contact with the boarders. Several attempts were made to awaken Mr. Singleton, but none of those attempts were successful. It should be mentioned that Mrs. Baldwin was hired as a housekeeper whose hours were from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. each day and at the time of the visit by Mrs. Frye and Mr. Hrdlicka, Ms. Baldwin was preparing to leave the facility. Ms. Baldwin had no responsibility in terms of cooking the food or attending to the overall needs of the boarders in the home. Testimony was also given in the course of the hearing that Mr. Singleton had written a check for insufficient funds to April Russel on January 15, 1978. This check was in the amount of $50.00. Restitution was made on the check, however. Testimony was also given that Mrs. Frye had been approached by Marion Thomas, a cab driver who claimed that Mr. Singleton had written him checks on January 13, totaling $50.00, for which there were no sufficient funds. Again restitution was made for those checks. A representative of the Atlantic Bank of Springfield, Jacksonville, Florida, testified in the course of the hearing and indicated that the operating account of Mr. Singleton for his business Ton's Rest Home had been closed out in February at a time when the account was overdrawn $151.90. Subsequent to the January 13, 1978, incidents at the rest home, the boarders have been moved and placed in other facilities. Part of the motivation for such removal was due to the fact that some of the patients had come to the boarding home after being released from the Northeast Florida State Hospital, at Macclenny, Florida, an institution for the treatment of patients with mental illness. It was felt by the program coordinators of the adult congregate living facilities that Mr. Singleton would be unable to properly care for these individuals and others in his boarding home and in view of the fact that no other employees were in a position to take care of the needs of the individual boarders, the decision was made to remove them from Tom's Rest Home. Mr. Singleton gave testimony in the course of the hearing and indicated that he had suffered a severe stomach disorder beginning in April, 1977 and had undergone an operation to remove part of his colon. He says this caused him to take a number of pills as treatment. In addition he indicated that he had had some domestic problems with his wife. He also stated that on January 19, 1978 through January 23, 1978, he received psychiatric treatment in a local hospital, in Jacksonville, Florida, for his condition. He described the condition as a collapse of his nerves, which was brought on, according to Mr. Singleton, by failure of the treating physician who dealt with his colon problem to respond to a need to control his blood pressure. The events of January 13, 1978, and the state of Mr. Singleton's finances have lead to a complaint letter of January 19, 1978. Mr. Singleton has received that letter and been given an opportunity to respond to it. The complaint letter falls into two broad categories. The first category pertains to the matters of January 13, 1978 and the second category pertains to the financial situation of Mr. Singleton. Under the matters of January 13, 1978, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services has alleged violations of Chapter 10A-5.06(5)(b)(2); 10A-5.09(1), (4)(a), and (6), Florida Administrative Code, and Section 400.414(2)(a)(d) and Section 400.441(2), Florida Statutes. Those provisions read respectively: 10A-5.06 Operational Standards. Facilities shall offer close supervision and living conditions as is necessary to the condition of the resident. This includes supervision of diets as to quality and quantity, and watchfulness over the general health, safety and wellbeing of residents. There shall be daily awareness of the residents by designated staff of the facility as to the apparent well-being of the individuals with sufficient provision for contacting the resident's physician, if the resident has not already done so, at any time there appears to be significant deviation from his normal appearance or state of health and well-being. Appropriate notice of such instances shall be recorded in the personal records of the individual. * * * (5) The minimum personnel staffing for adult congregate living facilities shall be: * * * 2. There shall be at least one staff member on call at all times when residents are in the facility. 10A-5.09 Personnel Standards. The administrator of a facility shall: (1) Provide such qualified staff as are necessary to assure the safety and proper care of residents in the facility. * * * (4) Assure that each person serving in any official capacity in the facility shall: (a) Be on duty, alert and appropriately dressed during the entire tour-of duty. In smaller facilities it is permissable for the administrator to be on call during normal sleeping hours. * * * (6) Insure that the staff is mentally and physically capable of performing their assigned duties. They shall be free of any communicable diseases which would present the hazard of transmission to resident or other staff member. If any staff member is found to have or is suspected of having such disease, he will be removed from his duties until the administrator determines that such risk no longer exists. 400.414 Denial, suspension, revocation of license; grounds. * * * Any of the following actions by a facility or its employee shall be grounds for action by the department against a facility: An intentional or negligent act materially affect- ing the health or safety of a resident of the facility * * * (c) Violation of the provisions of this act or of any minimum standards or rules promulgated hereunder. 400.441 Rules establishing minimum standards. Pursuant to the intention of the Legislature to provide safe and sanitary facilities, the department shall promulgate, publish, and enforce rules to implement the provisions of this act, which shall include reasonable and fair minimum standards in re- lation to: * * * (2) The number and qualifications of all personnel having responsibility for the care of residents. It is established through the evidence that at all times on January 13, 1978, when the events as described took place, those boarders who had been assigned to Tom's Rest Home were living in that facility. Therefore, an examination of the events of January 13, 1978, as reported above, in view of the requirements set forth in the Florida Administrative Code which are related herein; demonstrates that Thomas Singleton, Jr. was in violation of those conditions and is subject to the penalties for such violation, to include revocation of the temporary licence ACLF License no. P-4-16-089C and the denial of an unrestricted license. Moreover, the financial disarray of Mr. Singleton's business account for Tom's Rest Home, which was shown in the months of January and February, 1978, demonstrates a violation of Rule 10A-5.08(1), Florida Administrative Code, which reads: 10A-5.08 Fiscal Standards. The administrator of a facility shall maintain fiscal records in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 400 F.S., Part II. There shall be a recognized system of accounting used to accurately reflect details of the business including residents' "trust funds" and other property. The fiscal and "trust fund" records shall reflect a verified statement. The facility shall: (1) Be administered on a sound financial basis consistent with good business practices. Evidence of issuance of bad checks or accumulation of delinquent bills far such items as salaries, food, or utilities shall constitute prima facie evidence that the ownership lacks satisfactory proof of financial ability to operate the facility in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 400 F.S., Part II. This would also establish a sufficient basis for denying any application for an unrestricted license, because it would show that the applicant has failed to demonstrate satisfactory proof of financial ability to operate and conduct the facility as required by Section 400.411(2) , Florida Statutes.
Recommendation It is recommended that the ACLF License No. P-4-16-0089C, held by Thomas Singleton, Jr. be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of May, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Robert M. Eisenberg, Esquire Department of HRS Post Office Box 2417F Jacksonville, Florida 32231 Thomas Singleton, Jr. Tom's Rest Home 1834 Silver Street Jacksonville, Florida 32206
The Issue The issues in this matter are whether Respondent, Willine Gracia, operated an assisted living facility without the required license, thereby engaging in unlicensed activity; and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact The Agency is the state agency responsible for the licensure of assisted living facilities (“ALFs”) in the State of Florida. See Ch. 429, Part I; and Ch. 408, Part II, Fla. Stat. As part of its responsibilities, the Agency serves as the enforcement arm regarding the licensed (and unlicensed) activity and operation of ALFs. See gen., Chs. 408 and 429, Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 58A-5 and 59A-35. Respondent owns a house located at 4502 Conley Street, Orlando, Florida. In January 2016, the Agency received a complaint alleging the unlicensed operation of an ALF at the 4502 Conley Street location. The Agency maintains records of ALF licenses and license applications pursuant to chapter 408 and rule 59A-35. Keisha Woods currently serves as an Operations and Management Consultant in the Assisted Living Unit for the Agency. Ms. Woods testified that she searched the Agency’s databases on October 26, 2016, and November 9, 2016, and found no record that Respondent was currently licensed as an ALF or had ever applied to be licensed as an ALF. Tresa Johnston is a Senior Human Services Program Specialist, also known as a “surveyor,” for the Agency. Ms. Johnston investigated the complaint on behalf of the Agency. On January 14, 2016, Ms. Johnston visited Respondent’s house located at 4502 Conley Street, Orlando, Florida. Ms. Johnston arrived around 8:30 a.m. Respondent was not present. Ms. Johnston knocked at the front door. An individual who Ms. Johnston later concluded was residing in the house, greeted her at the door and allowed her entry. Upon entering the house, Ms. Johnston met three individuals who she determined were living in the residence. She observed that the house contained three bedrooms and one bathroom. The residents informed Ms. Johnston that they stayed in two of the three bedrooms. Ms. Johnston also found personal effects in the bedrooms and bathroom that belonged to the residents. In the house, Ms. Johnston observed a combined living room/dining room area in which she found a piano, a small refrigerator, and a microwave. In the refrigerator, Ms. Johnston discovered several frozen meals and drinks. In the bathroom, Ms. Johnston did not find any toilet paper. She also noticed that the bathroom was lit only by a nightlight. On the doorway to the kitchen, Ms. Johnston encountered a sign that read, “Do not enter kitchen at any time.” The residents informed Ms. Johnston that Respondent forbad them from entering the kitchen. Disregarding the sign and entering the kitchen, Ms. Johnston saw that the refrigerator was chained and locked. She found canned foods on the counter and packaged food in the pantry. Ms. Johnston also discovered a dead rat on the floor. Ms. Johnston found the house was extremely cold. All three residents were wearing coats. The residents advised Ms. Johnston that Respondent did not allow them to manage the temperature. Respondent arrived at the house around 9:10 a.m. Respondent was carrying a plastic bag containing medication for all three residents. Upon entering the house, Ms. Johnston testified that she saw Respondent take several prescription bottles out of the bag, pour a dosage of medication into the caps of each bottle, and instruct the residents to ingest the medication. The residents then placed some medications in a daily pill box for a one-day supply. Respondent observed that one medication bottle was empty. She shook it and advised one of the residents, “I owe you one of these. I have to refill it.” Respondent, after giving the residents their medication, put the medication bottles back into the plastic bag. Ms. Johnston also heard Respondent declare that she would have to return in the afternoon to give a resident her medication. Thereafter, Ms. Johnston interviewed Respondent. During this interview, Respondent informed Ms. Johnston that she: does not live at 4502 Conley Street; is not related to any of the three residents; provides housing, meals, and manages medications for all three residents; cooks two meals a day for the residents. (The residents are supposed to eat a frozen meal for their third meal); does not allow the residents into the kitchen; keeps the residents’ medications in a locked cabinet in her home because two of the residents cannot take care of their own medications without her assistance; and generally arrives at the 4502 Conley Street location between 9:00 to 9:30 a.m. each day. Respondent also called the residents her “clients.” Respondent explained to Ms. Johnston that her clients were referred to her by a local hospital. Respondent explained to Ms. Johnston that she is paid to lodge two of the residents through a payee. She was in the process of obtaining a payee for the third resident. On January 22, 2016, Ms. Johnston contacted Anthony Alexander, who is a Representative Payee for the Social Security Administration. At the final hearing, Mr. Alexander explained that the Social Security Administration designated him a payee for certain individuals who have been determined to be unable to manage paying their own personal expenses with their Social Security benefits. Mr. Alexander testified that in his capacity as Representative Payee, he made rental payments to Respondent for two of the residents Ms. Johnston found staying at Respondent’s house. Mr. Alexander recounted that he made the rental payments through direct deposit to Respondent’s bank account. Mr. Alexander further stated that he mailed weekly stipend checks for the two residents to the 4502 Conley Street address. Mr. Alexander represented that his records show that the stipend checks were cashed. In addition, Mr. Alexander testified that, as of the date of the final hearing, he is still paying rent to Respondent for one of the residents. He is also still mailing a weekly stipend check for that individual to 4502 Conley Street, Orlando, Florida. Based on her personal observations and the information provided directly to her from Respondent and the three residents of 4502 Conley Street, Ms. Johnston concluded that Respondent was engaged in unlicensed activity by operating an ALF without a license. Therefore, on January 14, 2016, Ms. Johnston issued Respondent a Notice of Unlicensed Activity (the “Notice”). The Notice instructed Respondent to immediately cease operating an ALF without proper licensure. On February 1, 2016, Ms. Johnston revisited 4502 Conley Street. Ms. Johnston again asked a resident permission to enter the house. This time she was denied entry. However, she saw that two of the three residents she met during her initial visit on January 14, 2016, were still in the house. Based on her observations, Ms. Johnston determined that Respondent was continuing to engage in unlicensed activity after receiving the Notice on January 14, 2016. Respondent was not present at the final hearing. However, in her Election of Rights she presented to the Agency, Respondent wrote: I Willine Gracia have never owned or operated a non license facility. . . . I’ve never promoted myself as such. However, I did have renters in my home and at times some of them came through Lakeside Behavioral. Each of these ladies were independent and did not require supervision and could live on their own without a caregiver. . . . I only offered meals to those ladies who wanted that. I did not provide anything more. . . . I do live at 4502 Conley Street and this is my personal home, which I can prove not a ALF or business. Based on the competent substantial evidence in the record, the facts demonstrate that Respondent was operating an ALF as that term is defined in section 429.02(5). The evidence and testimony also establish that Respondent was engaging in this activity, without the proper license, from January 14, 2016, through February 1, 2016.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency issue a final order finding that Respondent Willine Gracia operated an ALF without a license in violation of chapter 429. It is further recommended that the Agency impose an administrative fine in the amount of $18,000 against Respondent pursuant to section 408.812. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of December, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER 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 9th day of December, 2016.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. By its Administrative Complaint filed on August 10, 1981, Petitioner's district administrator notified Respondent that the Department intended to impose a civil penalty in the amount of two hundred dollars ($200.00) based on the fact that Respondent denied to one of Petitioner's employees the right of entry into Simmons Hesperides Home For The Elderly. Simmons Hesperides Home For The Elderly is an adult congregate living facility (ACLF) licensed to operate as such pursuant to Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10A-5, Florida Administrative Code. The facility is located at 4710 Hesperides Street in Tampa, Florida. The facility was licensed as an ACLF on December 2, 1980. Petitioner's program specialist, Alice Adler, made a periodic visit to Respondent's facility on June 23, 24 and 25, 1981, to perform a routine check of Respondent's operation to determine compliance with the applicable rules and regulations of the Department. During the June, 1981, visits, Ms. Adler advised Respondent that she did not have on hand a seven-day supply of non-perishable food to meet nutritional needs of residents and she was, therefore, in violation of Rule 10A-5.10(1)(k), Florida Administrative Code. Ms. Adler memorialized this deficiency by completing a deficiency report, a copy of which was provided Respondent. Approximately one week later, on July 1, 1981, Ms. Adler made another check of Respondent's facility to determine if Respondent was in compliance with the above cited rule requirement, at which time Respondent denied Ms. Adler the right of entry into the facility. Ms. Weinchowski was thereafter advised that her failure to permit her (Ms. Adler) to enter the facility could result in the imposition of a civil fine. Ms. Weinchowski, the owner/operator of Simmons Hesperides Home For The Elderly admitted that she denied Ms. Adler the right of entry into the facility on July 1, 1981. Ms. Weinchowski voiced her opinion that she was being harassed by Ms. Adler and, therefore, she did not permit her to enter the facility on July 1, 1981.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Department's notice of intent to impose a civil penalty in the amount of two hundred dollars ($200.00) upon Lea Weinchowski d/b/a Simmons Hesperides Home For The Elderly, be upheld. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of November, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Janice Sortor, Esquire Assistant District VI Legal Counsel 4000 West Buffalo Avenue Tampa, Florida 33614 Lea Weinchowski 4710 Hesperides Street Tampa, Florida 33614 JAMES E. BRADWELL, 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 24th day of November, 1981.
The Issue Whether respondent should be administratively fined $500.00 for allegedly operating an Adult Congregate Living Facility without obtaining a license in violation of Section 400.407(1) Florida Statutes (1981).
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Edith Bartholomew is licensed to operate a boarding house in her home located at 201 Gould Road, Dade City, Florida. (Testimony of Cruz, R-1.) On March 24, 1982, Dr. Frederick Timmerman, Chairman of the Long Term Care Ombudsman Committee, and Diane Cruz, Adult Congregate Living Facility Licensure Specialist, inspected respondent's boarding home. Six residents, unrelated to respondent, were receiving meals, care, and lodging at respondent's home. Five residents were present during the inspection. Dr. Timmerman talked with each patient for the purpose of determining their physical and mental condition and the kind and level of physical services provided them. Only one of the five residents was capable of caring for herself during an emergency, the other four were incapable of taking care of themselves during an emergency and required physical services beyond room and board. (Testimony of Timmerman, Cruz.) Respondent explained that she kept the residents' medication locked in a kitchen cabinet. At mealtime, she would retrieve their medications from the cabinet and distribute them to the residents making sure they took the correct amount. (Testimony of Timmerman.) Respondent also admitted that she assisted her residents in bathing. The residents confirmed to Dr. Timmerman that she helped them bathe. There is conflicting evidence on whether the residents are capable of caring for themselves during emergencies, whether respondent dispenses medications to them, and whether she helps them to bathe. The testimony of Dr. Timmerman is considered the most credible and worthy of belief. He is a professional physician with no discernable bias or interest in the outcome of this proceeding. Dr. Timmerman told respondent to apply for an Adult Congregate Living Facility License, a request that had previously been made by other Department personnel. Respondent declined, responding that it involved too much paperwork. (Testimony of Timmerman.) Respondent has consistently operated a home which furnishes excellent care and services to its residents. For a reasonable fee, she provides food, lodging, personal services, and loving care to the elderly people who reside there. Department officials are convinced that she provides a valuable and essential service; they have even recommended that older persons be placed in her facility. She has always been courteous and cooperative with Department personnel. (Testimony of Cruz, Timmerman.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent be fined $500.00. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 10th day of November, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of November, 1982.
Findings Of Fact Based on my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following findings of fact: The Respondent, Boley Manor, Incorporated, is licensed to operate Boley Manor Group Home #1, 214 Fourth Avenue South, St. Petersburg, Florida, as an Adult Congregate Living Facility in compliance with Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. On August 13, 1984, Mr. Mike Morris, a Fire Protection Specialist from the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Licensure and Certification, conducted a survey of Boley Manor Group #1. During the survey, Mr. Norris observed that the facility was using an area below the stairway as a storage space for several items, including linens, boxes and a metal trunk. An exit conference was conducted by Mr. Morris with two representatives of the facility, Ms. Moulton and Ms. Murphy. Mr. Morris told Ms. Murphy and Ms. Moulton that the combustible items under the stairway had to removed. A deadline of October 1, 1984, was established in conjunction with the facility by which time the space under the stairway would no longer be used for storage of combustible items. The representatives of the facility were told that the metal trunk was not a combustible item and could remain under the stairway. Subsequent to the initial survey and exit conference, the Respondent was mailed a list of the deficiencies noted during the survey and suggested action required for correction. The list contained other deficiencies not related to the fire safety aspect of the survey. In regard to the deficiency concerning stairway storage, the document read as follows: "A. Space under stairway used for storage. (Action to correct: Remove storage from under stairway)." On March 14, 1985, Mr. Bernard Dunagan, Fire Protection Specialist with the office of Licensure and Certification, conducted a follow-up survey of Boley Manor Group #1 and observed that the metal trunk was still stored under the stairway. Thereafter, the Respondent was cited with the alleged deficiency set forth in the Administrative Complaint. When the nature of the deficiency was clarified in March of 1985, the Respondent removed the trunk from under the stairway. All of the other deficiencies, not related to the fire safety aspect of the survey, had been corrected or were being corrected by Respondent. Mr. Mike Morris is no longer employed as a Fire Protection Specialist with the office of Licensure and Certification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of April, 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day April, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Carol Wind, Esquire HRS District V Asst. Legal Counsel 2255 East Bay Drive Clearwater, Florida 33546 Donna Varnadoe Residential Program Boley, Inc. 1236 Ninth Street North St. Petersburg, Florida 33705 William "Pete" Page, Jr. Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steve Huss, Esquire General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Addressed in Conclusions of Law Section of R.O. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Partially adopted in Findings of Fact 4 and 5. Matters not contained therein are rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Partially adopted in Findings of Fact 5. Matters not contained therein are rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Matters not contained therein are rejected as not supported by competent substantial evidence. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent Salutatory remarks and not a finding of fact. Adopted in findings of fact 2-8. Addressed in Recommendations Section of R.O.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's applications to renew licenses for two Residential Level II facilities in Davenport, Florida, should be denied and a $2,500.00 fine imposed for the reasons given in the Department of Children and Families' (Department) Amended Denial of Applications & Imposition of Fines issued on February 8, 2018.
Findings Of Fact Background The Department is charged with the responsibility of regulating the licensing and operation of residential treatment facilities pursuant to chapter 397, Florida Statutes (2017). Petitioner is a Delaware limited liability corporation authorized to conduct business in the State of Florida. Subject to the outcome of this proceeding, Petitioner is licensed to operate two Residential Level II facilities in Davenport under the name Cares Treatment. One facility is located at 146 Sunset View Drive (Case No. 18-0230), the other at 389 Sand Ridge Drive (Case No. 18-0234). The licenses were issued on December 15, 2016, and were to expire on December 14, 2017. Each license authorizes Petitioner to "provide substance abuse services for Adults and/or Children/Adolescents for the following component: Residential Level 2 (6 beds)."4/ Resp. Ex. 2. The Torres family home is not a licensed facility and services cannot be provided to residents who reside at that location. Petitioner is not licensed to provide services under the Partial Hospitalization Program (PHP), the Outpatient Program (OP), or the Intensive Outpatient Program (IOP).5/ These services require a separate license from the Department. In December 2017, Petitioner filed with the Department new applications to provide those services. However, the applications were denied and no appeal was taken. According to the renewal applications, Petitioner provides a "residential treatment facility for children and adolescents." Resp. Ex. 3. Each facility "is a free-standing residential facility which provides a structured living environment within a system of care approach for children, adolescents and adult[s] who have a primary diagnosis of mental illness or emotional disturbance and who may also have other disabilities." Id. Petitioner's facilities are a family-run business. Roberto Torres, Jr. (Mr. Torres), is the Chief Executive Officer and manager of the limited liability corporation; Cecilia Torres, his wife, is the Treasurer/Chief Financial Officer; Karla Torres, a daughter, is the Vice President/Chief Administrative Officer; Roberto Torres, III (the son), is the Secretary/Chief Information Officer; and Kristina Torres, a daughter, is the Ambassador/Chief Relationship Officer. Resp. Ex. 4. On November 27, 2017, Petitioner filed its applications for renewal of the two licenses. On December 1, 2017, the Department issued separate, but identical, letters denying both applications on the grounds they were not timely filed and they were incomplete. Resp. Ex. 5. On February 16, 2018, the Department was authorized to amend its letters of denial with a single amended denial document, which combined the original charges in the two letters into Counts I and II and added new Counts III, IV, and V. Resp. Ex. 1. The amended denial letter also seeks to impose a $2,500.00 administrative fine for violating various Class II rules. The specific rules are not identified in the original or amended charging documents, but the Department's PRO cites Florida Administrative Code Rule 65D- 30.003(1)(a) and "rules set forth in 65D-30" as the rules on which it relies. Because proper notice of the specific rules was not given, the rule violations have not been considered. The charges in the amended denial letter can be summarized as follows: Count I - The application for the facility at 146 Sunset View Drive was not timely filed and was incomplete in violation of sections 397.403 and 397.407(8). Count II - The application for the facility at 389 Sand Ridge Drive was not timely filed and was incomplete in violation of sections 397.403 and 397.407(8). Count III - In November 2016, O.G., a 16-year-old female who had been recently discharged from a Baker Act facility, was admitted for treatment of substance abuse and mental health issues. After residing a few months at the Sunset View location, she was moved to the Torres family home, an unlicensed facility, where she remained for one or two months. By providing services at that unlicensed location, Petitioner violated section 397.401(1). She was then moved to the Sand Ridge location for two or three months before being returned to the Torres family home. She continued to receive substance abuse treatment at the family home until her discharge two or three months later. This constitutes a second violation of the same statute. While under the care of Petitioner, O.G. was subjected to actions which resulted in verified abuse reports against Mr. Torres and his son and contributed to the delinquency and exploitation of a child. Such conduct constitutes a threat to the health or safety of O.G. in violation of section 397.415(1)(d). Count IV - On October 19, 2017, J.W., who transferred from a Baker Act facility, was accepted by Petitioner for care and to receive "partial hospitalization program" services, which Petitioner is not licensed to provide. This constitutes a violation of sections 397.401(1) and 397.415(1)(a)2.c. J.W. was later discharged in contravention of his wishes and desires, which resulted in him relapsing and again being Baker Acted. This conduct constitutes a threat to J.W.'s health or safety in violation of section 397.415(1)(d). Count V - On January 23, 2018, the Department attempted to conduct an onsite inspection at both licensed facilities to review J.W.'s files, but was denied access to the premises. Petitioner later failed to respond to a written request by the Department for records relating to J.W. and O.G. This conduct constitutes a violation of section 397.411. The charging document asserts the conduct in Count III violates four Class II rules (not otherwise identified), for which a $500.00 fine should be imposed for each violation; and the conduct described in Count IV violates "applicable" Class II rules (not otherwise identified), for which a single $500.00 penalty should be imposed. Rule 65D-30.003(1)(a), the only rule cited in the Department's PRO, requires in relevant part that "all substance abuse components" be provided "by persons or entities that are licensed by the department pursuant to Section 397.401, F. S." The Charges Counts I and II Section 397.407(8) provides that "the Department may deny a renewal application submitted fewer than 30 days before the license expires." For Petitioner to meet this deadline, license renewal applications were due on or before November 15, 2017. An application is not considered filed until an application with the signature of the chief executive officer is submitted by the applicant. Around 3:30 p.m. on November 27, 2017, Mr. Torres spoke by telephone with Ms. Harmon, the Department System of Care Coordinator, regarding three new licensure applications he was filing. During the conversation, he was reminded that renewal applications for his two existing licenses had not been filed. Mr. Torres responded that he "would have to get on that." Properly signed renewal applications were submitted electronically at 5:00 p.m. and 5:42 p.m. that afternoon. In his cross-examination, Mr. Torres attempted to establish that the Department's website, the Provider Licensing and Designation System (PLADS), was periodically inoperative, and this prevented him from filing his on-line applications in a timely manner. However, there is no credible evidence to support this claim. In fact, after Mr. Torres raised this issue early on in the case, Ms. Harmon reviewed the activity log of Mr. Torres' two on-line applications and found that he began the application process in late August or early September 2017, but did nothing further until he hit the submit button after speaking with her on November 27, 2017. Also, during this same period of time, the PLADS program (to which all applicants have access) indicated that the applications were in "Waiting Approval" status, which meant the applications were "in process" but had never been submitted. Therefore, the applications were not timely filed.6/ Section 397.403(1)(f) requires license applications to include, among other things, "proof of satisfactory fire, safety, and health inspections." Neither application filed on November 27, 2017, included an updated Treatment Resource Affidavit, a current Fire and Safety Inspection form, and a complete and current Health Facility and Food Inspection form. Therefore, the applications filed on November 27, 2017, were incomplete. Count III On November 17, 2016, O.G., then a 16-year-old female, was admitted for treatment at the facility. O.G. had a history of bi-polar episodes, depression, and drug abuse. Before seeking treatment at Petitioner's facility, she had been Baker Acted twice. After learning about Petitioner's facility through another provider, O.G.'s family placed her in the facility to address her substance abuse and behavior problems. Upon admission, a treatment plan was devised by a licensed mental health counselor (LMHC), with a target completion date of May 17, 2017. Resp. Ex. 10. The treatment plan listed four staff members overseeing her case: Karla Torres (case manager); the LMHC; and S.F. and K.V., two "caregivers" or interns. Id. O.G. was discharged from the facility nine months later on August 14, 2017. Petitioner was paid approximately $166,000.00 by O.G.'s parents for her nine-month stay. O.G. was initially placed in the facility located at 146 Sunset Drive, where she remained for approximately three months. She was then moved to the Torres family home at 2347 Victoria Drive in Davenport for two or three months. The Torres home is not a licensed facility. By housing her at an unlicensed location and providing services during that period of time, Petitioner violated section 397.401(1), which makes it unlawful to provide substance abuse services at an unlicensed location. O.G.'s parents were unaware that their daughter was residing in the unlicensed family home. After Mr. Torres and O.G. "got into an argument," she was moved to the facility at 389 Sands Drive for several months. She then returned to the Torres home, where she remained for two or three months until she was discharged. By housing her at an unlicensed location and providing substance abuse services, Petitioner violated section 397.401(1) a second time. During her stay at the Torres home, Mr. Torres discussed "sex" with O.G.; he told her that he cheated on his wife; and he complimented her "quite a few times" for having "a nice body." He also told her that "18" was a special age and if she were 18 years old, things would be different. He added that her parents were "too strict." These highly inappropriate comments were especially egregious in nature, given the fact that O.G. was a minor with mental health and substance abuse issues, and she was living in the licensee's family home. One photograph of O.G. taken in the home shows Mr. Torres standing in the background donned in his pajamas. Resp. Ex. 16. These actions constitute a violation of section 397.415(1)(d)2., which makes it unlawful to commit an intentional or negligent act materially affecting the health or safety of an individual receiving services from the provider. Mr. Torres occasionally escorted O.G. to two local bars (Miller's Ale House and Marrakesh Hooka Lounge) in Champions Gate. On one visit to Miller's Ale House in April or May 2017, he purchased her a Blue Moon beer, even though she was a minor and in a substance abuse program. She consumed the beer in his presence while the two sat at the bar. Although Mr. Torres attempted (through argument) to deny the incident, O.G. filmed the event on her cell phone. Resp. Ex. 13. This action by him also constitutes a violation of section 397.415(1)(d)2. Petitioner argues in its PRO that the whole incident was a fabrication and the result of a conspiracy by O.G.'s father, the Tampa Police Department, and Department counsel. The contention is rejected. When O.G. was discharged from the residential treatment facility in August 2017, Petitioner enrolled her in another program, IOP, which required her to periodically return to the facility on weekends for further treatment. Her first return visit was the weekend of August 26, 2017. During the weekend visit, the son gave her a cell phone. O.G.'s admission document for the IOP program indicated she would be given IOP services for 60 to 90 days, with a goal of her being substance free at the end of that period. Resp. Ex. 24. There is no record of her being discharged from the program. The Department argues in its PRO that by providing IOP services to O.G., Petitioner was providing a service beyond the scope of its license. However, this allegation was not included in the amended charging document and has not been considered. See, e.g., Trevisani v. Dep't of Health, 908 So. 2d 1108, 1109 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)(a licensee may not be disciplined for an offense not charged in the complaint). After being discharged from her original treatment plan on August 14, 2017, O.G. returned to her mother's home. Except for one weekend visit to Petitioner's facility for IOP services, she remained at home until September 16, 2017. That day, O.G. ran away from home with Preston, a resident she had met at Petitioner's facility. After leaving home, she went to Melbourne, and then to West Palm Beach. A Missing/Endangered Runaway Juvenile bulletin was posted by law enforcement on October 5, 2017. Resp. Ex. 11. During this period of time, Petitioner’s records show that O.G. was still enrolled in the unlicensed IOP program. Resp. Ex. 24. While in the West Palm Beach area, O.G. contacted the son on the cell phone he had given her and told him she had run away from home. She asked him to send her some money so that she could go to Tampa to work in a strip club. Because O.G. was not old enough to accept a wire money transfer, the son wired $600.00 to a friend of O.G., who gave her the money. Using the money provided by the son, O.G. traveled to Tampa and met the son on September 30, 2017. The two went to Todd Couples Superstore, where he purchased several adult entertainment outfits she could wear to audition for a job in a strip club. Resp. Ex. 12. He also purchased her various personal items at a Walgreens. The son then drove her to several clubs to audition for a job. After several auditions, she was hired by Scores Tampa, a local strip joint where "people take off their clothes for money." O.G., who was only 17 years old at the time, signed an employment contract on September 30, 2017, using a borrowed driver's license of S.F., a 21-year-old female. Resp. Ex. 15. S.F. was a former intern at Petitioner's facility and is listed as a member of the team staff on O.G.'s initial treatment plan. By that time, S.F. had left Petitioner's facility and moved back to Tampa. That same evening, O.G. began working in Scores Tampa. O.G. says she took off her clothes while performing. The son remained in the club while she worked. After she got off work at 2:00 a.m., he drove her to S.F.'s house. O.G. continued working at the club for the next few days. With the assistance of local law enforcement, O.G. returned to her mother's home on October 7, 2017. After she ran away from home, and even while working in the club, O.G. maintained contact with Mr. Torres through texts and Facetime and asked him not to report her whereabouts to anyone. Although O.G.'s mother spoke to Mr. Torres on several occasions after O.G. went missing in September 2017, neither Mr. Torres nor the son informed her of the daughter's whereabouts. On November 30, 2017, the Department received a report of alleged human trafficking and sexual exploitation of a child. The alleged perpetrator was the son, while the victim was identified as O.G. Because the son was an employee of Petitioner, an institutional investigation was conducted. The investigation was closed on December 26, 2017, with a confirmed report of Human Trafficking-Commercial Exploitation of a Child against the son. Resp. Ex. 17. During the investigation, Mr. Torres and members of his family declined to be interviewed or answer any questions. Instead, they referred all questions to their attorney. On February 6, 2018, the Department received another report of abuse involving Mr. Torres. The report alleged that in April or May 2017, Mr. Torres transported O.G. to a bar at Miller's Ale House in "Davenport" [sic] and purchased her a beer. After an institutional investigation, the file was closed on March 1, 2018, as verified for Substance Misuse – Alcohol against Mr. Torres. Resp. Ex. 18. See also Finding of Fact 18. Mr. Torres declined to participate in the investigation. By clear and convincing evidence, the Department established that the actions of Mr. Torres and his son presented a threat to the health or safety of O.G. in contravention of section 397.415(1)(d)2. Count IV J.W., who did not testify, is a 42-year-old male who was discharged from a hospital on October 9, 2017 (after being Baker Acted), and admitted to Petitioner's facility the same day to receive PHP services. He was diagnosed as having mental health and substance abuse issues and a history of suicidality. He voluntarily left the facility on November 9, 2017. In its PRO, Petitioner characterizes J.W. as "a disgruntled addict." While a resident at the facility, J.W. received a few video sessions with a Miami Springs psychiatrist, who was identified on the renewal applications as the facility medical director, and he was given online counseling sessions for two weeks by an LMHC, who resided in Palm Bay and worked as an independent contractor with the facility. Neither professional was told by Mr. Torres that Petitioner was not licensed to provide PHP services. By providing PHP services to J.W., Petitioner violated sections 397.401(1) and 397.415(1)(a)2.c. According to the LMHC, on October 24, 2017, she was directed by Mr. Torres, who is not a licensed clinician, to "discharge" J.W. from the PHP program and place him in a lower level of care, Sober Living. Resp. Ex. 25. This would still allow J.W. to remain a resident at the facility but not receive the PHP services. Although the charging document alleges that J.W. did not wish to be discharged from the PHP program, and this caused him to have a relapse in his condition and later Baker Acted again, there is no competent evidence to establish this string of events. Count V Section 397.411 requires all licensees to provide Department representatives access to their facilities and to allow the inspection of pertinent records. Based upon information from a provider in Jacksonville that Mr. Torres had requested its assistance in providing PHP services to J.W., the Department instituted an investigation of Petitioner. In January 2018, the Department attempted to conduct an onsite inspection of Petitioner's facilities and to review the files relating to J.W. The inspectors were denied entry. Thereafter, the Department sent a written request to Petitioner for the records of J.W. and O.G. No records were provided and Petitioner failed to respond to the request. These actions constituted a violation of section 397.411. At hearing, Mr. Torres contended (through argument) that because the Department had already taken preliminary action on December 1, 2017, to deny his applications, there was no requirement that he provide access to the facility or respond to written requests for records. This assertion has been rejected. See § 397.411(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (an application for licensure as a service provider constitutes full permission for an authorized agent of the department to enter and inspect at any time).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Families enter a final order denying the applications for renewal of Petitioner's two licenses. An administrative fine should not be imposed. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of September, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 27th day of September, 2018.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Vinder Homes, Inc., d/b/a The White House of Vinder Homes, Palm Harbor, Florida, is an 8-bed licensed adult congregate living facility. The Petitioner was licensed on February 5, 1986. On January 29, 1986, the Respondent, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, sent an inspection team to the Petitioner's facility to conduct the initial survey. Accompanying the team was Earl T. Wright, an employee of the Respondent. Present at the Petitioner's facility during the initial survey was Robert A. Jones, and James C. Vinson, the owner and applicant for the license. During the survey, the HRS survey team identified several violations of rules or statutes governing an adult congregate living facility. At the end of a survey conducted by HRS of adult congregate living facilities, HRS normally follows the procedure of orally describing and explaining the rule violations that have been found to those persons representing the facility who are present during the survey. The representative of the facility is then asked to sign an "exit letter." The "exit letter" is a form that is given to the facility representative to explain the procedures and deadlines that must be followed to correct the violations. HRS exhibit 1 is a copy of the "exit letter" given to the representatives of the Petitioner on January 29, 1986, at the conclusion of the survey. The letter was signed by Mr. Jones, who was expressly authorized by Mr. Vinson to sign the letter on that date on behalf of the Petitioner, and to receive a copy on behalf of the Petitioner. The Petitioner, through its duly authorized agent, was reminded by HRS exhibit 1 that it had been advised of the deficiencies and had been requested to write them down. It was further advised that a time frame had been established for correction of each deficiency and that it could request additional time, if needed. It was further advised that an unannounced revisit would be conducted after the date of correction to determine if the corrections had taken place. It was further advised by the exhibit that it was required to correct each deficiency by the date established, and that failure to do so might result in the assessment of an administrative fine. At the conclusion of the survey on January 29, 1986, Mr. Jones, the authorized representative of the Petitioner, was told by the HRS survey team the nature of each of the violations found, and was advised concerning the period of time established for correction of each asserted violation. Mr. Vinson had thee opportunity to learn about the violations as well, but it is unclear whether he availed himself of the opportunity. At some time after January 29, 1986, and before April 1, 1986, the Respondent mailed a copy of HRS exhibit 2 to the Petitioner. It was mailed to the Petitioner at the address of the facility. This was the address given to HRS in the license application by Mr. Vinson. HRS exhibit 3. Mr. Vinson had not requested that notices be sent by HRS to any other address. HRS exhibit 2 is a form used by the Respondent to give written follow-up notice to the adult congregate living facility of the violations and correction schedule. It is intended to give written notice of that which had already been orally discussed with the facility representative at the time of the survey. The violations listed on HRS exhibit 2 are the same violations which were orally described and explained to the authorized representative of the Petitioner on January 29, 1986. On April 1, 1986, Mr. Wright conducted an unannounced reinspection of the Petitioner's facility. A copy of HRS exhibit 2 was present at the facility on April 1, 1986, when Mr. Wright conducted his unannounced reinspection. By April 1, 1986, the Petitioner had corrected some of the rule violations listed on HRS exhibit 2. The Petitioner, through its authorized representatives present at the facility, in fact received a copy of HRS exhibit 2 before April 1, 1986. The Petitioner presented no evidence that HRS exhibit 2 was received by its authorized representative in an untimely manner, i.e., at some time after the deadline had passed for correction of violations. Mr. Vinson testified that he never received a copy of the exhibit, but his authorized representative, at the address he had given to HRS as the address of the licensed facility, did receive it. The following are the four violations contained in HRS exhibit 2 that are in dispute in this case. Each is alleged to have occurred on January 29, 1986, and to still to have not been corrected on April 1, 1986: A copy of the Resident Bill of Rights was not posted in the facility. A management person had not completed the Food Service Management Training Course given by the Respondent at the County Health Department. The facility did not have back-flow devices to prevent contamination from entering the water supply. The fire alarm system was not continuously maintained in reliable operating condition. A copy of the Resident Bill of Rights was not posted in the facility on January 29, 1986, or on April 1, 1986. Mr. Vinson's testimony that he "thought" it was posted is insufficient to overcome the proof presented by the Respondent. A management person had not completed the Food Service Management Training Course given by the Respondent at the County Health Department on either January 29, 1986, or April 1, 1986. Mr. Vinson's testimony that he thought Mr. Jones would have completed the course is not sufficient. Mr. Vinson did not produce Mr. Jones to testify, nor did he produce any record of completion of the course. The facility did have back-flow devices to prevent contamination from entering the water supply on January 29, 1986, or on April 1, 1986. The testimony of Mr. Vinson is credited over the contrary testimony of Mr. Wright. Mr. Wright did not explain how he conducted the inspection of the back-flow devices, and did not explain what he found and how that resulted in the conclusion that back-flow devices were not present. Mr. Vinson, on the other hand, stated that he built the building himself, that he installed back-flow devices, that such devices were required by his building permit, and that he obtained a certificate of occupancy following construction. The Department has not proved the point by a preponderance of the evidence. The proof that the facility did not have a fire alarm system that was continuously maintained in reliable operating condition on January 29, 1986, was not adequate to prove this fact by a preponderance of the evidence. Mr. Wright acknowledged that a fire inspector (who did not testify) accompanied him on the survey and conducted that portion of the initial survey. Although Mr. Wright testified that he heard the fire inspector attempting to work the fire alarm system, this second hand evidence is not sufficient to prove that the system was not in good and operable mechanical order on January 29, 1986. Moreover, the proof is not adequate that the system was not mechanically operable on April 1, 1986. Mr. Wright asked the young woman present during the revisit to work the system, and she was not able to do so because she did not know how to operate it. Mr. Wright did not try to work it either. Thus, no one conducted a test of the system, and there is, therefore, no evidence in the record to show that the deficiency that existed on January 29, 1986, had not been corrected. It must be remembered that the deficiency that existed on January 29, 1986, was not that the manager or administrator of the facility could not operate the fire alarm system, but that the system was mechanically inoperable. There were no elderly persons present in the Petitioner's facility during the initial survey on January 29, 1986, but on April 1, 1986, the young woman in charge of the facility was serving breakfast to four elderly persons. None of the violations discussed above were considered by HRS to be of sufficient gravity to deny issuance of the license.
Recommendation It is therefore recommended that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter its final order finding that Vinder Homes, Inc., d/b/a the White House of Vinder Homes, Palm Harbor, Florida, has failed to correct the first two violations described above in the time established by the Department, and assessing a total civil penalty of two hundred dollars ($200). DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of July, 1987. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. 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 21st day of July 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Warren A. Wilson, III, Esquire 2101 U.S. Highway 19 North Suite 201 Palm Harbor, Florida 33563 John Brook, Esquire 695 Central Avenue Suite 213 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
