The Issue Whether or not the Respondent, Franklin D. Zeigler, as a licensed embalmer violated Section 470.l2(1)(c), Florida Statutes, in that he has been found guilty by a jury in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Docket No. 76-227-NA-CR, after allegedly being charged with a crime involving moral turpitude; specifically, the convictions pertain to violations of 18 U.S.C. 371 (conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the United States), 18 U.S.C. 1341 (mail fraud), 18 U.S.C. 1342 (fraudulent use of a fictitious name) and 18 U.S.C. 1343 (fraud by wire, radio, or television) Whether or not the Respondent, Franklin D. Zeigler, as a licensed funeral director violated Section 470.12(2)(c), Florida Statutes, in that he has been found guilty by a jury in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Docket No. 76-227-NA-CR, after allegedly being charged with a crime involving moral turpitude; specifically, the convictions pertain to violations of 18 U.S.C. 371(conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the United States), 18 U.S.C. 1341 (mail fraud), 18 U.S.C. 1342(fraudulent use of a fictitious name) and 18 U.S.C. 1343 (fraud by wire, radio or television). Whether or not the Respondent, Franklin D. Zeigler, as a licensed embalmer violated Section 470.12(1)(k), Florida Statutes, in that he has been found guilty by a jury in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Docket No. 76-227-NA-CR, after allegedly being charged with a crime involving moral turpitude; specifically, the convictions pertain to violations of 18 U.S.C. 371 (conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the United States), 18 U.S.C. 1341 (mail fraud), 18 U.S.C. 1342 (fraudulent use of a fictitious name) and 18 U.S.C. 1343 (fraud by wire, radio, or television). Whether or not the Respondent, Franklin D. Zeigler, as a licensed funeral director violated Section 470.12(2)(p), Florida Statutes, in that he has been found guilty by a jury in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Docket No. 76-227-NA-CR, after allegedly being charged with a crime involving moral turpitude; specifically, the convictions pertain to violations of 18 J.S.C. 371 (conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the United States), 18 U.S.C. 1341 (mail fraud), 18 U.S.C. 1,342 (fraudu1ent use of a fictitious name) and 18 U.S.C. 1343 (fraud by wire, radio, or television).
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the complaint Franklin D. Zeigler held Funeral Director's license no. 1789 and Embalmer's license no. 1986, held with the State of Florida, Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation, State Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers. On July 29, 1977, the Respondent was sentenced to four years in prison for violations of Title 18 U.S.C. 371, 1341, 1342 and 1343. This judgement and sentence was entered in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee based on a verdict of guilty, arrived at in Docket No. 76-227-NA- CR. A copy of this judgement and commitment order may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 1, admitted into evidence. These federal crimes specifically pertain to the following: 18 U.S.C. 371 (Conspiracy to commit an offense or to defraud the United States) 18 U.S.C. 1341 (Mail fraud) 18 U.S.C. 1342 (Fraudulent use of a fictitious name) 18 U.S.C. 1343 (Fraud by wire, radio, or television) Based on the action taken in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, the Petitioner has charged the Respondent with violations of Chapter 470, Florida Statutes, pertaining to both his Funeral Director's and Embalmer's license. The action taken against his Embalmer's license is under Sections 470.12(1)(c)and (1)(k), Florida Statutes; and the action taken against the Funeral Director's license is in accordance with Sections 470.12(2)(c) and (2)(p), Florida Statutes. Section 470.12(1)(c), Florida Statutes, holds that it is a violation for an Embalmer to have been found guilty by a jury after being charged with a crime involving moral turpitude, and this is without regard as to whether a judgement of conviction has been entered by the court having jurisdiction in the case. Likewise, Section 470.12(2)(c), Florida Statutes, sets forth the violation in the same language as found in Section 470.12(1)(c) , Florida Statutes, the only difference being that this violation pertains to the license held by a Funeral Director. An examination of the nature of the judgement and commitment order for the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee demonstrates that a jury or a court acting as the trier of the fact has found the Respondent guilty of crimes involving moral turpitude, and those findings establish a violation of Section 470.12(1)(c) and (2)(c) , Florida Statutes. The Petitioner failed to make any other presentation in terms of a factual allegation. Therefore, the allegations against the Respondent's license as an Embalmer and Funeral Director respectively, under the conditions set forth in Section 470.12(1)(k) and (2)(p), Florida Statutes, have not been shown because those two substantive violations are premised upon the finding that the licensee has violated any provision of the Chapter and may only be read to pertain to provisions not already addressed factually and by allegation in some other part of the complaint. In this case there was a contemporaneous allegation of violation of Sections 470.12(1)(c) and (2)(c) , Florida Statutes. Therefore, proof of a violation of Sections 470.12(1)(k) and (2)(p), Florida Statutes, does not lie.
Recommendation In the course of the hearing before the undersigned the parties were given the opportunity to present matters in aggravation and mitigation, and availed themselves of such opportunity. Having considered those representations in view of the facts in this cause, and in particular the fact that the Respondent had been held in violation of the laws of the Petitioner by a final order of December 17, 1976; which violation was similar in nature to the violation herein, and further for which violation the Respondent was given a suspended sentence; it is recommended that the licenses of the Respondent, Franklin D. Zeigler, Funeral Director's license no. 1789 and Embalmer's license no. 1986, be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of April, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Dewberry, Esquire 1300 Florida Title Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 John London Arnold, Esquire 919 East Adams Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent, Rolle-Tillman Funeral Home, has been a licensed funeral establishment in the State of Florida. Respondent's license number is FH 0002111. The owners of Rolle-Tillman Funeral Home, Harry Rolle and Bobby Tillman, have not been licensed by Petitioner. At times pertinent to this proceeding prior to January 1, 1995, Cleon D. Mosley, a licensed funeral director, was the funeral director in charge of Respondent. Mr. Mosley notified Respondent and the Petitioner that effective January 1, 1995, he was terminating his relationship with Respondent to become the funeral director in charge of another funeral home. Upon Mr. Mosley's departure, the Respondent continued to operate as a funeral establishment without a licensed funeral director in charge. On February 14, 1995, Reuben Rolle, Jr., died and his body was released to the Respondent for final disposition. Harry Rolle, the unlicensed co-owner of Respondent, helped plan, arrange, and take vital information in order to effectuate the final disposition of the decedent. Manker's Funeral Home, a licensed establishment, embalmed the body of the decedent, but all other services were performed by Respondent without the benefit of a funeral director in charge. On February 15, 1995, James Cooper, died and his body was released to the Respondent for final disposition. Harry Rolle, the unlicensed co-owner of Respondent, helped plan, arrange, and take vital information in order to effectuate the final disposition of the decedent. Manker's Funeral Home, a licensed establishment, embalmed the body of the decedent, but all other services were performed by Respondent without the benefit of a funeral director in charge. On March 7, 1995, Maggie Bullard died and her body was released to the Respondent for final disposition. Harry Rolle, the unlicensed co-owner of Respondent, helped plan, arrange, and take vital information in order to effectuate the final disposition of the decedent. Manker's Funeral Home, a licensed establishment, embalmed the body of the decedent, but all other services were performed by Respondent without the benefit of a funeral director in charge. On March 8, 1995, Essie Thomas Bullard died and her body was released to the Respondent for final disposition. Bobby Tillman, the unlicensed co-owner of Respondent, helped plan, arrange, and take vital information in order to effectuate the final disposition of the decedent. Manker's Funeral Home, a licensed establishment, embalmed the body of the decedent, but all other services were performed by Respondent without the benefit of a funeral director in charge. On March 16, 1995, Guillermo Tejeda, an investigator employed by Petitioner, began an investigation of Respondent. On that date, Mr. Tejeda observed posted near the front door of Respondent's facilities a sign with the following inscription: Cleon D. Mosley Licensed Funeral Director This sign would lead the public to believe that Mr. Mosley was still acting as the funeral director in charge for Respondent. 1/ On March 31, 1995, three investigators and an inspector employed by Petitioner inspected the Respondent's premises. The inspector asked for the funeral director in charge, but Respondent could not make available any licensed funeral director. At the time of this inspection, the Respondent did not have on site or immediately available a sealed container of a type required for the transportation of human bodies that may be contagious as the result of disease. At the time of the inspection on March 31, 1995, the embalmed body of Essie L. Thomas was found in the preparation/embalming room of the Respondent and the cremains of Reuben Rolle, Jr., were found in a desk. Respondent failed to submit to Petitioner a required report entitled "Cases Embalmed or Bodies Handled" for the months of December 1994 through March 1995.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein and which imposes an administrative fine against Respondent in the total amount of $2,200 and places Respondent's licensure on probation for a period of three years. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of October, 1996.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Florida Mortuary Services (FMS), is a licensed funeral establishment at 1495 N.W. 17th Avenues Miami, Florida, having been issued license number FH 661 by petitioner; Department of Professional Regulations Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers (Board). Respondent, William F. Richardt, is a licensed funeral director and embalmer having been issued license numbers FE 0001490, EM 001490 and FD 0001334 by petitioner. He has been a licensed funeral director since 1967 and is owner and funeral director in charge of the funeral establishment. Respondent, Robert Healy Jr., is also a licensed funeral director and embalmer having been issued license numbers FE 000650, EM 000650 and FD 000500 by petitioner. At all times relevant hereto Richardt and Healy were employees of FMS. A preneed contract is defined by Subsection 639.07(6), Florida Statutes, as "a contract to furnish funeral merchandise or service in the future." A funeral homed or its agents and employees is authorized to sell preneed funeral contracts if a certificate of authority is obtained from the Department of Insurance (Department). In early January 1964, the Department received an anonymous complaint by mail that FMS was offering preneed burial service contracts without having first obtained a certificate of authority. On January 27, 1984, the Department issued a letter to FMS reciting that certain information concerning the sale of preneed contracts by FMS had been brought to its attention, that Department records indicated that FMS had no license under Chapter 639, and that if the allegations were true, FMS must cease and desist from such activities until the firm complied with the law. The Department also furnished FMS with a copy of an application and the applicable law. On February 2, 1984, counsel for FMS advised the Department by letter that he had instructed his client to cease and desist such activities, and that an application to sell preneed contracts would be forthcoming. In May 1964 FMS sought the services of Funeral Services, Inc. (FSI), a holding company of funeral directors and others formed to facilitate the sale of preneed contracts and to aid funeral directors in obtaining licensure under Chapter 639. However, FSI declined to act as agent for FMS because of the earlier cease and desist order issued by the Department and because it believed that FMS had continued to advertise the availability of preneed contracts after that order had been issued. In its proposed application filed with FSI, FMS stated that no contracts for preneed funeral services had been entered into prior to its licensure application being filed. It did so on advice of legal counsel since it did not consider the services previously offered to be preneed contracts within the meaning of Chapter 639. Instead it construed them to be "pre-planning agreements" and not subject to the provisions of Chapter 639. An application was then filed by FMS with the Department on August 22, 1984. After review and processing, a certificate of authority was issued by the Department effective October 24, 1984. In its application FMS certified that there were no preneed contracts in existence which predated the October 24, 1984 registration date. Through complaints of unknown origin; the activities of respondents were brought to the attention of petitioner, who issued an administrative complaint on July 15, 1985. That prompted the instant proceeding. Records of FMS confirms and respondents conceded that during the period from 1976 through 1983, Richardt as the owner and funeral director in charge of the funeral homed and the funeral homed entered into agreements to provide funeral services and merchandise with at least 130 individuals, including the 113 listed in the administrative complaint. The agreements with consumers reflected that FMS was providing "Services for Preneed" for the particular consumer. They specifically referred to FMS providing professional funeral directing services; provision for funeral home facility use, transportation, funeral merchandise and cash advances for the funeral at an agreed upon price. The agreement itself read as follows: The foregoing contract has been read by (to) me, and I hereby acknowledge receipt of a copy of same and agree to pay the above funeral account and such additional services and merchandise as ordered by me on or before 19 . The liability hereby assumed is in addition to the liability imposed by law upon the estate and others, and shall not constitute a release thereof. The contract then contained a signature of the customer and the funeral director. Those contracts were entered into and signed by Healy or Richardt on behalf of FMS. Prior to October 1984, Richardt and FMS advertised the availability of a preneed trust plan through local telephone directories, business signs and radio advertising. In addition, approximately 20,000 advertising flyers were mailed to Broward County residents. These flyers stated that by signing up for the plan a consumer could avoid future price increases. They also stated that an installment payment plan was available, and that all monies received by FMS would be placed in a trust account at a banking institution in Miami. It also required a minimum payment of $100 in the form of a check or money order made payable to Florida Mortuary Services. Although the contract itself did not provide for refunding of the monies, the advertising flyer stated that the contract could be cancelled by the consumer. According to respondents, it was the intent of the contract to provide a guarantee of provision of the stated funeral services once the customer executed the agreement and made the required minimum down payment of at least $100. After an agreement was executed an account was set up at Amerifirst Federal in Miami with the following designation: "Florida Mortuary Services, in trust for 'Name of Customer'." Monthly bank statements showing the activity on each account were thereafter sent to FMS. If a person holding a preneed contract died, Richardt would present the banking institution with the death certificate and receive all monies in the account, including interest collected to date. Based upon the foregoing findings, it is found that the "agreements" sold or offered to be sold by respondents were in actuality preneed funeral contracts which cannot be sold unless approval from the Department of Insurance is obtained. After receiving the Department of Insurance certificate of authority in October, 1984, Richardt and FMS took all preexisting contracts and incorporated them into "new" contracts utilizing the contract format approved by the Department of Insurance. They were given new dates beginning with the date of licensure (October 24, 1984) and continuing through the end of the year. By doing so, FMS and Richardt made it appear that the contracts were entered into subsequent to the date of licensure. When the Department of Insurance conducted its annual audit of the insurance funds, it was informed by FMS that the contracts existed as of the new dates indicated on the contracts. The Department was never told about the original contracts, or the fact that such contracts were revised to meet the new Department format. Indeed, in its sworn annual statement filed with the Department, FMS represented that the first contract was entered into on October 24, 1984, and the other 129 contracts were entered into between that date and December 31, 1984. According to Richardt, FMS did not change its method or manner of transacting preneed business after October 1954, except to utilize the new contract form required by the Department. FMS continued to use the same method to create and make withdrawals from the trust account, and to provide the same contractual guarantees to the customer. Respondents maintain that the preneed agreements were just that and were not the contracts contemplated by Chapter 639. However, this position conflicts with the testimony of F. James Wylie, a Florida funeral director and administrative officer of FSI whose testimony is accepted as being more persuasive on the issue. According to Wylie, the contracts and advertising used by FMS prior to October 24, 1984, constituted the sale of preneed funeral service contracts. Wylie also opined that by engaging in this activity without a license, a funeral director was guilty of misconduct in the practice of funeral directing. Phillip S. Bennett, Jr., a preneed burial examiner for the Department of Insurance, corroborated Wylie's opinion and opined that FMS's activities constituted the sale and offering for sale of preneed contracts without licensure.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED that respondents be found guilty as charged in the administrative complaint, and the licenses of respondents Florida Mortuary Services and William F. Richardt be suspended for two years with said suspension stayed and their licenses placed on probation for five years, subject to such terms and conditions as the Board deems appropriate. The license of respondent Robert Healy, Jr., should be placed on probation for two years. DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of February 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. Hearings Hearings DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 17th day of February 1986.
The Issue Whether Respondent's personal and operating licenses should be suspended, revoked, or withdrawn.
Findings Of Fact The State Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers charged Respondent, Elmer E. Hewitt, as follows: The Respondent, Elmer E. Hewitt, violated Section 470.30(4), Florida Statutes, and Rule 21J7-08 of the Rules of the State Board of Funeral Directors and Emba1mers for Florida in that he permitted Evergreen Mortuary to be operated without the full charge, control and supervision of an individually licensed funeral director and licensed embalmer, and in that he suffered Evergreen Mortuary to pretend or represent that it was legally qualified to perform funeral directing or embaliningby ban improper use of his license, to wit by representing himself to be the regularly employed licensed funeral director and embalmer in charge of such establishment when he was not so employed but rather employed full time as a social worker in Miami, Dade County, Florida; The Respondent , Elmer E. Hewitt, violated Section 470.12(1)(k), Florida Statutes, in that as a licensed embalmer he violated the provisions of Chapter 470, Florida Statutes, and in particular, Section 470.30(4). The Respondent, Elmer E. Hewitt, violated Section 470.l2(2)(p), Florida Statutes, in that as a license funeral director he violated provisions of Chapter 470, Florida Statutes, and in particular Section 470.30(4). The Respondent, Elmer E. Hewitt, is listed in the records of the State Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers of Florida as a licensed funeral director and embalmer regularly employed in charge of Evergreen Mortuary located at 325 Julia Street, Key West, Florida. Mr. Hewitt executed an affidavit on a formal application supplied by the Board stating that he was a licensed funeral director and embalmer regularly employed and in charge of the Evergreen Mortuary. Respondent also executed an affidavit in which it appears that he is a funeral director of Evergreen Mortuary and the only one licensed embalmer and funeral director employed by that establishment on a regular and full time basis. Mr. Hewitt is employed as a Social Worker I for the Comprehensive Alcohol Program, 1400 Northwest Tenth Avenue, Miami, Florida, and maintains a residence in Miami, Florida. The Board contends: (a) That the establishment operating license and the accompanying affidavits executed by Elmer E. Hewitt were false in that Mr. Hewitt was not and is not the licensed funeral director regularly employed in charge of Evergreen Mortuary and that he is not employed by Evergreen Mortuary on a regular and full time basis at his location in Key West, Florida, but rather is employed full time in Miami, Florida; That Mr. Hewitt acted as agent for or in behalf of or in furtherance of the interests of the Respondent Evergreen Mortuary in obtaining an establishment operating license; That he suffered the owners of Evergreen Mortuary to pretend or represent that it was legally qualified to perform funeral directing or embalming by improper use of his license; That Mr. Hewitt was not employed and in charge of Evergreen Mortuary within the meaning of Chapter 470, Florida Statutes, and the Rules of the State Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers of Florida; That Respondent, Elmer E. Hewitt, violated Sections 470.30(4), 470.12(1)(k), and 470.12(2)(p), Florida Statutes; That Respondent, Evergreen Mortuary, violated Section 470.12(4)(a), Florida Statutes, in that Elmer E. Hewitt, a person connected with Evergreen Mortuary as am employed agent, committed violations while acting as agent for or in behalf of or in furtherance of interests of Evergreen Mortuary. Respondent, Elmer E. Hewitt, contends: That he in fact has a residence in Key West, Florida; That he devotes his full time as funeral director and emba1mer to the business of Evergreen Mortuary; That although he is employed on a full time basis at the Comprehensive Alcohol Program, he fulfills his obligations to that job at night and on weekends and other times when he is not performing his duties as a full time employee of Evergreen Mortuary. The Hearing Officer further finds: That under the terms of Respondent Hewitt's employment for the Comprehensive Alcohol Program in Miami, Florida, he is required to work a 40-hour week, but there was no evidence submitted to show' that Respondent Hewitt does in fact work a 40- hour week in his employment in Miami, Florida; The evidence shows and it is found that Elmer E. Hewitt is a full time funeral director and embalmer within the requirements of Chapter 470, Florida Statutes, and the Rules of the State Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers of Florida; That Respondent Hewitt is employed by Evergreen Mortuary on a regular basis as required by the statutes and the Rules of the State Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers; That air transportation and telephone service from Miami to Key West provide current information and valid transportation so that the business of Evergreen Mortuary can be conveniently performed even though Respondent Hewitt may be in Miami, Florida.
Recommendation Dismiss the proceedings for the suspension of Elmer E. Hewitt, licensed funeral director and embalmer and dismiss the petition for revocation of the operating license of Evergreen Mortuary. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of March, 1976. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth Norrie, Esquire Counsel for Petitioner Robert I. Spiegelman, Esquire Counsel for Respondent =================================================================
