Findings Of Fact After surgery on his shoulder, petitioner found it painful to lift sacks of fertilizer and the like at the nursery where he was employed, so he left his job and sought help at respondent's Orlando office. Albert Michael Tester, a counselor in respondent's employ, caused petitioner's shoulder to be evaluated by a physician and arranged for vocational testing. Presented with various vocational options, petitioner chose a two year paralegal training program at Valencia Community College. Beginning April 26, 1977, respondent paid for petitioner's books and tuition and paid petitioner $10.00 weekly toward transportation expenses incurred in getting to and from school. Petitioner's counselor also found a job for petitioner, as a child care worker at the Orange Regional Juvenile Detention Center. Petitioner testified that the $10.00 weekly transportation "maintenance" he had been receiving ceased when he began work. Petitioner held down the job and did well in school until he left both in January of 1978. Petitioner had consulted two physicians before he left off working and quit school in January of 1978. Petitioner testified that one, Dr. Samano, told him he should cut something out; but that the other, Dr., Tew, told him he need not cut out anything. At the time of the hearing, petitioner had not been employed since January 23, 1978. After dropping out of the paralegal program, petitioner suggested to his counselor that respondent set him up in a woodworking shop as a means of vocational rehabilitation. Mr. Tester advised petitioner that, in all likelihood, this request would not be granted. In mid-February, petitioner and a legal services representative met with Charles May, Mr. Tester and other employees of respondent. When informed that the rules did not seem to authorize setting petitioner up in business, petitioner's representative asked that a final determination be postponed pending a medical evaluation of petitioner. Respondent agreed to order a series of diagnostic tests to evaluate petitioner's psychiatric condition and to access the effects of petitioner's essential hypertension. Respondent had been advised as early as August of 1977, that petitioner's shoulder "should not be disabling to any degree or restrict him from activity of choice." Respondent's exhibit No. 7. Petitioner's counselor arranged for petitioner to receive four weeks' "diagnostic maintenance" and suggested he use his spare time to gather information about establishing a woodworking business. By letter dated May 8, 1978, respondent formally notified petitioner that it was "unable to meet [his] request to assist [him] in self- employment." Respondent's exhibit No. 5. On or about June 16, 1978, respondent sponsored petitioner in the photography program in which he was involved at the time of the hearing. This sponsorship has included maintenance payments. At no time before filing the petition in the present case did petitioner request any maintenance benefits. Respondent's "Rehabilitation Services Manual" provides: "Maintenance may only be provided when supportive of other vocational rehabilitation services." Respondent's exhibit No. 9. Respondent's "Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor Manual" provides: "Maintenance will be provided a client only if it is necessary for him to derive full benefits from other services being provided." Respondent's exhibit No. 8. Neither manual has been promulgated as a rule.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent deny petitioner's request for back maintenance payments. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of March, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: William R. Barker, Esquire 128 West Central Boulevard Orlando, Florida 32802 Douglas E. Whitney, Esquire Room 912, 400 West Robinson Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue The issue posed for decision herein is whether or not the Petitioner, Johnny Eddines, should be transferred from the Ft. Lauderdale Try Center. At the hearing, the Petitioner appeared on behalf of himself and also called Bernard Rubrecht, a rehabilitation counselor, and Estella Reid, Petitioner's mother. Petitioner was afforded the opportunity to cross-examine other witnesses who appeared and testified on behalf of Respondent. Respondent presented the testimony of Herbert Burrows, a program specialist employed by Respondent for approximately 17 years, presently with the Children's youth and Family Division; Michelle Parrish, a group treatment leader at the Try Center; Veda Hamilton, a community control employee of Respondent since approximately 1975; Willie Hamilton, a district intake supervisor employed with Respondent approximately nine years; and Gregory Johnson, a supervisory employee of the Ft. Lauderdale Try Center and an employee of Respondent for approximately 12 years.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. As stated above, Petitioner was placed in the Ft. Lauderdale Try Center on March 19, 1982. At the time of his assignment to the Try Center (Center herein) Petitioner was advised of the requirement that he abide by the rules and regulations of the Center (testimony of Parrish, Burrows, Veda and Willie Hamilton, and Gregory Johnson). Petitioner was given an orientation of the Center at the time of his commitment and was thoroughly apprised of the Center's rules and regulations. In this regard, Petitioner signed an agreement expressing his obligation to abide by the Center's rules and regulations. Petitioner was given an entrance test when he was enrolled in the Center and he tested out on the "top level." Immediately upon his enrollment at the Center, Petitioner was counseled respecting his attitude ad behavior and the necessity of his being able to get along with other enrollees at the Center. On April 4, 1982, it was necessary for Petitioner to again have a conference with Ms. Parrish about his "obnoxious behavior." Approximately two months after Petitioner was enrolled at the Center, he was made a house manager by Ms. Parrish in an effort to foster better relations and such that he would be regarded as a role model by other enrollees. During a beach trip during early April of 1982, Ms. Parrish requested that Petitioner perform certain chores, as other enrollees were requested to do, whereupon Petitioner engaged in a lengthy emotional outburst involving the use of profanity and displaying of offensive behavior directed toward Ms. Parrish. Following that incident, Ms. Parrish recommended that Petitioner be demoted from house manager as he was not a proper role model for other enrollees. On April 7, 1982, Ms. Parrish called in Veda Hamilton to discuss Petitioner's behavior and his failure to abide by the Center's rules and regulations. Also, on April 15, 1982, Petitioner left the Center and returned, according to Ms. Parrish, under what appeared to be an influence of drugs. On April 28, 1982, Petitioner was arrested for uttering at Taylor's Liquor Store. Throughout this period of time, Ms. Parrish had numerous consultations with Petitioner wherein he (Petitioner) used profanity and other abusive language. Following these incidents, Ms. Parrish recommended that Petitioner be transferred from the Try Center program. During late May, 1982, when Petitioner was arrested at Taylor's Liquor Store for uttering, Ms. Hamilton observed Petitioner at a bar drinking a beer. At that time, Ms. Hamilton discussed with Petitioner the recommendation that his assignment at the Try Center would likely be revoked and the further recommendation that he be sent to the Eckerd Youth Development Center at Okeechobee, Florida. On June 21, 1982, a hearing was held with Petitioner and representatives of Respondent wherein the recommended transfer of Petitioner to the Eckerd Youth Center was considered. Petitioner was afforded the opportunity to present witnesses and to cross-examine other witnesses who appeared on behalf of Respondent. Following that hearing, on June 21, 1982, an Order of Transfer was issued by Respondent transferring him (Petitioner) from the Try Center's program based on, inter alia, Petitioner's continued acts of delinquency and his failure to abide by the rules and regulations of the Try Center's program.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a Final Order transferring Petitioner from the Ft. Lauderdale Try Center to a higher-restrictiveness category treatment program more consistent with his needs. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of January, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. 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 17th day of January, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Johnny Eddines 222 North West 22nd Ave. Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33311 Lawrence Francis Kranert, Jr., Esquire 1000 South Federal Highway (Suite 103) Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Alicia Jacobs, Esquire General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. David H. Pingree Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner has cause to terminate Respondent's professional service contract based on his failure to correct his performance deficiencies during his 90-Day Performance Probation. Whether Respondent’s performance was properly evaluated.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was a classroom teacher employed by Petitioner pursuant to a professional service contract. At all times material hereto, Petitioner was a duly constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control and supervise all free public schools within the school district of Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to Article IX, Constitution of the State of Florida, and Section 230.03, Florida Statutes. Petitioner has employed Respondent as a classroom teacher since 1993. He taught at Redland Middle School from 1993 to 1996. He taught at South Miami Senior High School from 1996 to 1999. During the times pertinent to this proceeding (the school years 1999/2000 and 2000/2001) Respondent taught eighth grade math at Palmetto. Between 1984 and the school year 1999/2000 all teachers employed by Petitioner were evaluated under the Teacher Assessment and Development System (TADS). The United Teachers of Dade (UTD) is the collective bargaining unit representing all classroom teachers employed by Petitioner, including Respondent. In 1997, Chapter 231, Florida Statutes, was amended to provide for a 90-day performance probation period for annual and professional service contract teachers who are observed to have unsatisfactory performance. 1/ Petitioner and the UTD collectively bargained a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to implement the 90-day performance probation. The new evaluation system is known as PACES, an acronym for the Professional Assessment and Comprehensive Evaluation System. The MOU amended the collective bargaining agreement between the UTD and Petitioner to authorize the replacement of TADS with PACES. During the 1999/2000 school year, the School Board piloted PACES in selected schools. During the 2000/2001 school year, PACES was utilized throughout the school district. Teacher evaluations at Palmetto were performed pursuant to PACES during the 1999/2000 and the 2000/2001 school years. The evaluations at issue in this proceeding were performed pursuant to PACES. PACES has been approved by the Florida Department of Education. PACES observers must be extensively trained to observe and evaluate teaching performance and student learning. School supervisory personnel perform PACES observations and evaluations. The principal and two assistant principals at Palmetto performed the observations and evaluations at issue in this proceeding. Respondent asserted at the final hearing that certain administrators who participated in observing and evaluating Respondent were insufficiently trained. That assertion is rejected as being contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. PACES was a major district initiative, and both teachers and administrators received extensive training in PACES. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that the principal and the assistant principals at Palmetto who observed and evaluated Respondent were appropriately trained in observing and evaluating teachers in accordance with PACES procedures. 2/ Individual schools across the district, including Palmetto, conducted PACES training for teachers. During the 2000/2001 school year each faculty member at Palmetto had a handbook which contained PACES information, including discussion on each domain, the indicators, the PACES website, and training videos on the website. Several faculty meetings were devoted to discussions of PACES. There were mini-workshops within various departments at Palmetto and all-day workshops for teachers were available in the district. The Palmetto assistant principals divided all six domains between themselves and explained and discussed them with the faculty. A projector was used to show the teachers how to get to the PACES website on the computers. There were 300 computers for teacher use at Palmetto by which Petitioner’s website could be accessed. The faculty meetings at Palmetto were mandatory. If a teacher missed any of the meetings, it was the teacher’s responsibility to come to an administrator to find out what was missed. Teachers who missed meetings were given the handouts that had been utilized at the faculty meetings. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent knew, or should have known, the evaluation criteria of PACES. 3/ Prior to the beginning of the 90-day probation under PACES an appropriately trained administrator must observe the teacher's classroom performance and find that performance to be below articulated standards. This observation is officially referred to as the “initial observation not of record.” Unofficially, this observation is referred to as the “freebie.” The freebie observation triggers the probation process, but it is not used to terminate a teacher’s employment. The same administrator who conducted the freebie observation meets with the teacher, goes over the observation, and notifies the teacher that he or she will be observed in approximately one month. The administrator offers a PGT to the teacher, the use of which by the teacher is voluntary at this point. Next is the “first observation of record,” which is unofficially referred to as the "kickoff observation." If this observation is below performance standards, a Conference-for- the-Record (CFR) is held. Next, a Professional Improvement Plan (PIP) is first given to the teacher, and the 90-day Performance Probation begins the next day. The Performance Probation lasts 90 days, not counting certain specified weekends and school holidays. There must be two official observations within the 90-day period. A PIP is given after any official observation that is below performance standards. If the second official observation is below performance standards, a confirmatory observation takes place after the end of the 90-day period to determine whether the teacher has corrected the deficiencies. The confirmatory observation must be completed within 14 days after the conclusion of the probationary period. The evaluator must thereafter forward to the Superintendent a recommendation whether to terminate the teacher's employment. In PACES, there are six domains. Each domain has components and each component has indicators. It takes only one unacceptable indicator for an observation to be rated below performance standards. If a teacher improves in a particular indicator from one observation to the next, but becomes unacceptable in another indicator, the second observation is rated below performance standards. Mr. Cromer conducted Respondent’s freebie observation on October 24, 2001. The observation did not meet performance standards. Mr. Cromer testified as to his observation of Respondent on October 24, 2001, and stated the reasons Respondent's performance did not meet standards. The following findings are based on Mr. Cromer’s testimony. Respondent did not meet performance standards because he was going over 30 homework problems and simply giving out the answers, not making an effort to know whether the students understood. He did not seek input from the students. The students had no opportunity to participate. There was no interaction between Respondent and the students. There was no introduction to the lesson, thereby failing to establish motivation to learn. Respondent did not tell the students what they should learn from the lesson or why it was important that they understand the material. Respondent failed to provide a logical sequence and pace. He was going much too fast for the students. Respondent only demonstrated one math problem, failing to demonstrate any of the others, although there were six different types of problems for review. Respondent failed to utilize higher order cognition, teaching at only one cognitive level. There was no effort to clarify, using different words or examples. The students were not encouraged to make any association or consider examples from their own experience. The students were not asked questions and were not given an opportunity to answer questions. Respondent did not monitor the engagement or involvement of the students in the learning process. He made no effort to gauge whether the students understood the material. He sought no questions from the students and gave no feedback. Then Respondent sat down for approximately fifteen to twenty minutes. He did not walk around to monitor what the students were doing. Most of the students were not doing their work. Respondent failed to meet performance standards in components of Domain III, Teacher- Learner Relationships; Domain IV, Enhancing and Enabling Learning; Domain V, Enabling Thinking; and Domain VI, Classroom- based Assessment of Learning. Mr. Cromer met with Respondent on November 1, 2001, and went over each item on the observation and explained why Respondent did not meet performance standards. Mr. Cromer made suggestions for improvement. He advised Respondent that he would be coming back to do a follow-up observation and that Respondent was entitled to have a PGT. At first Respondent declined the PGT, but the next day, he accepted it. PGTs are for first year teachers and for any teacher on a PIP. PGTs are made up of seasoned teachers who are trained in PACES and give support and assistance to other teachers. Usually the administration chooses one member of the PGT and the teacher chooses the other. In this case, Respondent was permitted to choose both teachers. He chose Vivian Taylor and Maria Mayo. Both teachers gave appropriate assistance to Respondent. Under PACES, the same administrator who conducted the freebie observation must conduct the kickoff observation. On November 26, 2001, Mr. Cromer conducted Respondent’s kickoff observation. Mr. Cromer testified as to his observation of Respondent on November 26, 2001, and stated the reasons Respondent's performance did not meet standards. The following findings are based on Mr. Cromer’s testimony. Respondent did not meet performance standards because many of the students in his class were excluded from the first twenty minutes while Respondent focused exclusively on two students at the board. One student finished her problem very quickly. The other student was completely confused. Respondent did the problem for him but did not make sure the student understood. The rest of the class was ignored during that time. The students were not given any explanations as to what the two students had done. The remainder of the class talked among themselves, looked around the class, and one student was sleeping. There was no introduction to the lesson and no transition into the second portion of the lesson. The students were not engaged in critical analysis or problem solving. Respondent did not develop any associations between the pie graph he was working on and its relationship to percentages and fractions. Respondent did not provide sufficient “wait time” after questions to encourage the students to think about the answers. Instead, the same few students called out answers. Respondent did not meet performance standards in components of Domain III, Teacher/Learner Relationships; Domain IV, Enhancing and Enabling Learning; and Domain V, Enabling Thinking. On December 5, 2001, Mr. Merker and Mr. Cromer held a CFR with Respondent and Respondent’s union representative to address Respondent’s substandard performance, his Performance Probation, recommendations to improve the specific areas of his unsatisfactory performance, and Respondent’s future employment status with the School Board. Respondent’s input was sought. Those in attendance at the meeting on December 5, 2001, met again the following day. Respondent’s input was again sought. He was given a copy of the summary of the CFR and a PIP at that time. The PIP required Respondent to read and summarize pertinent sections from the PACES manuals. Respondent’s Performance Probation began on December 7, 2001. The time frame was established with the help of OPS. Respondent was provided assistance through his PGT and his PIP to help him correct his deficiencies within the prescribed timeframe. Respondent's deadline to complete his PIP was January 10, 2002. On January 15, 2002, Mr. Merker conducted an official observation of Respondent in his classroom. Mr. Merker testified as to his observation of Respondent on January 15, 2002, and stated the reasons Respondent's performance did not meet standards. The following findings are based on Mr. Merker’s testimony. Respondent did not meet performance standards because the students were not actively engaged in learning. Only six students out of 27 were involved in the lesson. Many of the students did not have the materials and were not able to follow through with the lesson. Respondent did not monitor what the students were doing. Many students were off-task, inattentive, and bored. Respondent did not re-engage the students. Respondent did not re-direct the off-task behavior, which persisted for the entire period. Learning routines were not apparent. Respondent did not give directions for the lesson. Respondent’s explanations were unclear. No adjustments were made. Respondent did not assess the learning progress during the lesson. Respondent solicited only basic knowledge in his questioning. He did not utilize a range of questions to assess student understanding. Respondent did not meet performance standards in components of Domain II, Managing the Learning Environment; Domain IV, Enhancing and Enabling Learning; and Domain VI, Classroom-based Assessments of Learning. Mr. Merker conferred with Respondent on January 24, 2002, made recommendations with respect to the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance, and provided assistance through a PIP and PGT to help Respondent correct his deficiencies. The PIP required Respondent to observe other teachers and to view PACES vignettes. Respondent's deadline to complete his PIP was February 22, 2002. On February 27, 2002, Mr. Meneses conducted the second official formal observation of Respondent in his classroom. Mr. Meneses testified as to his observation of Respondent on February 27, 2002, and stated the reasons Respondent's performance did not meet standards. The following findings are based on Mr. Meneses’ testimony. Respondent did not meet performance standards because the students were not engaged in learning. After wasting 27 minutes copying numbers from the board, only three to four minutes were left for the main part of the lesson. Respondent wasted a lot of time during the lesson going over non-essential information, and the students were only presented with basic knowledge-level tasks. Inaccurate information was given by Respondent and accepted by the students. Students were not given "wait time" after a question to think about the answers. The learners were not given any introduction to the learning outcomes of the lesson. Respondent did not meet performance standards in components of Domain IV, Enhancing and Enabling Learning; and Domain V, Enabling Thinking. Mr. Meneses and Mr. Merker conferred with Respondent on March 5, 2002, made recommendations with respect to the specific areas of unsatisfactory performance and provided assistance through a PIP and PGT to help Respondent correct his deficiencies. Respondent’s PIP required him to complete a self- assessment through the PACES website. Respondent's deadline to complete his PIP was March 22, 2002. Respondent’s Performance Probation ended on March 24, 2002. Respondent completed all of the activities required by all of his PIPs. He never indicated that he had any difficulty understanding them. Because Respondent’s second observation within the Performance Probation was below performance standards, a confirmatory observation was required after the expiration of the 90 days to determine whether or not Respondent had corrected his performance deficiencies. On March 26, 2002, Mr. Merker completed Respondent’s confirmatory observation. Mr. Merker testified as to his observation of Respondent on March 26, 2002, and stated the reasons Respondent's performance did not meet standards. The following findings are based on Mr. Merker’s testimony. Respondent did not meet performance standards in components of Domain IV, Enhancing and Enabling Learning; Domain V, Enabling Thinking; and Domain VI, Classroom-based Assessments of Learning, because the lesson appeared staged. It was a lesson on fractions that had been presented approximately five weeks earlier. Respondent went full steam ahead regardless of what the students were doing. Respondent had not improved his questioning techniques since Mr. Merker’s prior observation. Mr. Merker notified Respondent on March 26, 2002, that Respondent had not satisfactorily corrected his performance deficiencies during his Performance Probation and that Mr. Merker was going to recommend to the Superintendent of Schools that Respondent’s employment be terminated. 4/ Mr. Merker notified the Superintendent of Schools on March 29, 2002, that Respondent had not satisfactorily corrected his performance deficiencies during his Performance Probation and recommended that Respondent's employment be terminated. On April 3, 2002, the Superintendent of Schools notified Respondent that the Superintendent was going to recommend that the School Board terminate Respondent's employment contract because Respondent had failed to satisfactorily correct his performance deficiencies during his Performance Probation. Petitioner established that it met all procedural requirements and time frames set forth by statute, by PACES, and by the MOU. Under the collective bargaining agreement and under PACES, a teacher is entitled to a fair, equitable, and impartial evaluation. Respondent’s evaluations were fair, equitable, and impartial. On April 17, 2002, the School Board acted upon the Superintendent's recommendation and terminated Respondent's employment contract subject to his due process rights.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board of Miami-Dade County, Florida, enter a final order sustaining the termination of Respondent's professional service contract, effective April 17, 2002. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 10th day of September, 2002.
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.
The Issue Whether Respondent, a licensed assisted living facility (ALF), committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a licensing and regulatory agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility and duty to regulate ALFs licensed pursuant to Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. At all times pertinent to this proceeding Ms. Rodriguez was an owner and administrator of Respondent, an ALF licensed by Petitioner. Respondent operates in Broward County, Florida. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, ALF administrators were required to receive core training administered by the Florida Department of Elder Affairs. At the time she took the core training, Ms. Rodriguez was not required to pass a final examination. Section 400.452(2), Florida Statutes, provides, in part, that effective July 1, 1997, all persons taking the core training must pass a competency examination to be administered by the Department of Elderly Affairs. 4. Effective April 20, 1998, Rule 58A-5.0191(1)(e), Florida Administrative Code, provides that any ALF administrator who did not attend mandatory periodic training updates must retake core training and must pass the competency examination. In 1998 and 1999, Ms. Rodriguez failed to attend mandatory training updates. On April 11, 2000, Maryanne Clancey conducted a survey of Respondent's facility. Ms. Clancey cited two Class III deficiencies that are pertinent to this proceeding. The first deficiency was Ms. Rodriguez's failure to attend mandatory core training updates. That failure justified the first Class III deficiency cited by Ms. Clancey. The second deficiency was the Respondent's failure to maintain an accurate up-to-date Medication Observation Record (MOR), which is required for each resident of an ALF. Ms. Clancey's determination that Respondent's MOR was inaccurate was based on the records for a resident of the ALF who will be referred to as Resident 1. Resident 1's record reflected that he had received certain prescribed medications at 9:00 a.m. on the morning of April 11, 2000. There was a conflict in the evidence as to whether Resident 1 was available to take his medicine at 9:00 a.m. on April 11, 2000. Ms. Clancey testified that she had been told by staff that Resident 1 was in the hospital that morning. Ms. Rodriguez testified Resident 1 had gone to the hospital during the early morning hours on April 11, 2000, but that Resident 1 had returned from the hospital by 9:00 a.m. that day. There was no other evidence as to whether Resident 1 had or had not taken his prescribed medicine that day. Based on the conflict between equally credible testimony, it cannot be determined that Resident 1 was not at the facility at 9:00 a.m. on April 11, 2000, as alleged by Petitioner, and it cannot be concluded that Resident 1 did not take his or her prescribed medicine that day. The alleged Class III deficiency pertaining to medical records should not be sustained based on the allegation that Resident 1 could not have taken his prescribed medicine as reflected on the MOR. The Class III deficiency pertaining to the medical records did not depend alone on the allegation that Resident 1 could not have taken his prescribed medicine on April 11, 2000. Ms. Clancey also observed that Resident 1's MOR for the month of March 2000 reflected that Resident 1 had received Cyprohepatadine three times a day for the entire month. There was no indication that Resident 1 had been administered Prozac. Ms. Clancey determined from Resident 1's pharmacist that Resident 1's physician had discontinued Cyprohepatadine on March 28 and had ordered Prozac on March 15. Ms. Rodriguez admitted that Resident 1's medical records failed to reflect those changes. The inaccuracies in Resident 1's MOR justified the second Class III deficiency cited by Ms. Clancey. Respondent was ordered to correct both Class III deficiencies by May 10, 2000. George Tokesky is the ALF Program Manager for the Department of Elder Affairs in Broward County, Florida. Ms. Rodriguez contacted Mr. Tokesky after Ms. Clancey's visit to determine what she needed to do about the core training. Mr. Tokesky explained to her that she would have to retake the core training program and pass the competency examination. Ms. Rodriguez took the core training program from June 6 to June 13, 2000, but she failed the competency examination. As of the final hearing, Ms. Rodriguez had not passed the competency examination. On June 27, 2000, Leonard Meerow conducted a follow-up visit at Respondent's facility to determine whether the facility had corrected the Class III deficiencies that Ms. Clancey had cited. The first Class III deficiency cited by Ms. Clancey pertaining to Ms. Rodriguez's core training had not been corrected. Mr. Meerow observed continued Class III deficiencies pertaining to medical records during the follow-up visit. Specifically, MOR records for three residents reflected that each resident had been administered his or her hour of sleep medication. The entries had been made before 4:00 p.m. Ms. Rodriguez admitted that these entries were incorrect. The second Class III deficiency cited by Ms. Clancey pertaining to medical records had not been corrected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent failed to timely correct two Class III deficiencies. Petitioner should assess an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $1,000 per violation. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 21st day of February, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Ozzie Thompson is a licensed vending facility operator and holds License Number 493 issued by the Division of Blind Services on May 10, 1982. In June of 1983, Mr. Thompson became the vending manager and operator of the snack bar located in the Alachua County Judicial Building. This facility is leased by the Board of County Commissioners to the Division of Blind Services. Paragraph 4 of the Lease agreement provides, in part, that "....The Grantee (Division of Blind Services) may appoint a blind agent and sighted assistants to conduct the business and shall have the right to supervise the business and to replace the agent or employees at will. The Grantor (Board of County Commissioners) agrees to notify the Grantee immediately of any mismanagement by the agent which may come to the Grantor's attention. The Grantee will immediately remove the agent or employee who is unsuitable or unsatisfactory to carry on the business." Almost immediately after Mr. Thompson assumed the position of manager of the Alachua County Judicial Building vending facility, the vending facility specialist in charge of supervising that facility began receiving complaints. The nature of these complaints were the quality of service, sanitation and the presence of derelicts within the facility for long periods of time. The supervisor also received complaints from female employees at the Judicial Building that Mr. Thompson had a tendency to "bump into" them and make "suggestive" remarks to them. The Office of the Clerk, the security officer and the building superintendent at the Judicial Building likewise received complaints regarding the lingering presence of derelicts or "street people" within the vending facility and comments of a sexual nature from either Mr. Thompson, the derelicts or Mr. Thompson's assistants. The female employees complained that they did not feel comfortable going into the vending facility. While no one actually saw Mr. Thompson drink alcoholic beverages while he was working, he was observed on several occasions to be groggy and appeared to be in an intoxicated condition. Mr. Thompson does take pills for asthma, and the medication makes him drowsy. A vending facility operator at the Federal Building in Gainesville has observed Mr. Thompson to be in an intoxicated condition on two occasions. These occurred in the morning hours, at approximately 9:30 a.m., when Mr. Thompson visited his facility on his way to his own facility located about two blocks away. On these occasions, the odor of alcohol was present and Mr. Thompson's speech was impaired. As a result of the complaints received by employees at the Judicial Building, the observations of the Clerk, the security officer and the building superintendent and the continued, lingering presence of derelicts within the facility, the County Administrator requested the Division of Blind Services to immediately relieve Mr. Thompson from employment at the snack bar. At approximately 9:30 or 10:00 a.m. on June 15, 1984, the day that Mr. Thompson was to be removed and a final inventory taken, Mr. Thompson was not in the snack bar. When he later came into the facility, the odor of alcohol was detected and his speech was impaired. Mr. Thompson explained that he had been at home awaiting a telephone call regarding a recent death of a relative, and admitted that he had had "a little" beer before arriving at the facility.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the license of Ozzie Thompson to operate a vending facility be suspended for a period of two years and that, at the expiration of two years, he be required to complete the vending facility training program as set forth in Rule 6A-18.05, Florida Administrative Code, or its successor, prior to issuance of a license. Respectfully submitted and entered this 20th day of September, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR 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 20th day of September, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Herbert Sikes, Esquire Office of General Counsel Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ozzie Thompson D706-100 Memorial Parkway Palatka, Florida 32077 Ralph Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
