Findings Of Fact On September 9, 1982 Petitioner filed an application with the Teacher Certification Section of the Florida Department of Education to be re-certified as a teacher in the State of Florida. He was previously certified as a teacher in Florida from September 3, 1974 until 1979 in the field of cooperative distributive education. Mr. Hill is a graduate of the University of South Florida with a bachelor's degree in distributive education and he has 20 to 25 hours of credit towards his master's degree in administration Supervision. From 1974 until 1977 he successfully taught school in the Orlando area. In December of 1979 Petitioner had an argument with his father. During the course of that argument Mr. Hill picked up a 12 gauge shotgun and hit his father in the stomach several times. Petitioner was arrested, charged with aggravated assault, and subsequently adjudicated not guilty by a reason of insanity. The court order adjudicating him not guilty found that "At the time of the alleged offense, defendant's psychological condition caused him to function under paranoid delusions and persecutory relations. He not only had such thoughts and beliefs, but they were held so firmly that he was acting upon them." After the entry of that order on March 24, 1980, Petitioner was found to meet the criteria for involuntary commitment to a state mental hospital pursuant to the provisions of the Baker Act. He was treated at G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital until June 1980 and then released to the Peace River Center for Personal Development as a resident there. In either October or November 1981 Mr. Hill ceased taking the psychotropic medication which had been prescribed for him. By March 1982 he was again readmitted as an involuntary patient at G. Pierce Wood Memorial Hospital and after treatment there he was released in August 1982 back to the Peace River Center. Dr. M. Saleem Jeewa has been his treating psychiatrist since June of 1980. At the present time Dr. Jeewa prescribes Mellaril, a major tranquilizer, and Pamelor, an anti-depressant medication for Petitioner. Mr. Hill now visits Dr. Jeewa on a monthly basis unless something unusual happens in the interim. Additionally Petitioner attends group therapy three times a week and lives in one of the satellite apartments at Peace River Center. The satellite apartments are an arrangement where three or four patients live together to share expenses and help each other as a peer group. The satellite apartments are not part of a residential facility but are leased out in the community by the Peace River Center. In April 1983 Petitioner began working at American Building Maintenance, a Tampa janitorial service. His other employment history subsequent to his arrest, but prior to this hearing, includes janitorial work for Goodwill Industries. This employment was terminated when, due to an automobile accident, Mr. Hill was injured and physically unable to perform his job. Prior to that employment he worked for a CETA program where he assisted in locating jobs for handicapped persons. With respect to Mr. Hill's present psychological state he has no evidence of any thought disorder. His speech is logical, coherent and relevant. He has a fair amount of insight into his own condition and his judgment is adequate. No psychosis is apparent. He continues however to display a mild form of mixed anxiety and depression. At the present time it would be difficult however, for Mr. Hill to handle a job where he is fairly independent, must be flexible with considerable responsibilities and handle a variety of tasks. In order for Mr. Hill to be a successful teacher in a classroom situation with responsibility for 15 to 20 children, he would initially need some additional assistance and support over and above that normally required by a new teacher. It is unlikely that due to Mr. Hill's present condition he would cause any harm or be dangerous to students or other people around him. While it is within the realm of possibility that Petitioner, if certified, could successfully handle the responsibilities of a distributive education teacher, that possibility is not probable in view of Petitioner's present fragile psychological state.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the State Board of Education as the head of the Department of Education, enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for certification as a teacher in the field of distributive education. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 4th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON 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 4th day of November, 1983.
The Issue Whether Petitioner was discriminated against by the Department of Corrections based on race, religion, disability, age, or in retaliation for participation in an activity protected under Chapter 760, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Emory Mosley, is an African-American male (Petitioner). In 1989, Petitioner was hired as a correctional officer by Respondent, the Department of Corrections (Department). Initially, he was assigned to the main unit at Madison Correctional Institution in Madison, Florida. By all accounts, during his first nine years with the Department, Petitioner was well liked by the institution's administration and his fellow officers. He was thought of as a hardworking professional officer and as one of the best officers at Madison Correctional Institution. New officers were routinely sent to Petitioner for him to train. In general and during Petitioner's employment, officers are assigned to different shifts and work assignments at Madison Correctional Institution so that officers can become familiar with all aspects of the Madison Correctional system. However, Petitioner was allowed to remain at the same post and shift for his first nine years. Over nine years, such permanence in Petitioner's assignment caused some resentment among other staff because of the perceived favoritism exhibited by the administration toward Petitioner. At some point in his ninth year with the Department, Petitioner began to perceive problems with other staff members. He concluded that certain rules were not being followed and began to believe that co-workers were in some manner conspiring against him, abusing inmates, and/or committing crimes related to their duties at the institution. His relationships with co-workers became strained. Staff and inmates began to complain about Petitioner's behavior toward them. During this time, Petitioner also complained to the warden about rule violations by staff. However, the details of these complaints were not revealed at the hearing. Petitioner's complaints did appear to be in the nature of "whistle-blowing." The evidence did not demonstrate that any of Petitioner's complaints involved any activity protected under Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. In July 1999, Colonel David McCallum transferred Petitioner to the Madison Correctional Institution work camp. The work camp was located a few hundred yards away from the main unit. The duties of a correctional officer at the work camp are primarily the same as those at the main unit with the difference that there are significantly fewer inmates at the work camp. As a result, many officers feel that the work camp is somewhat more relaxed and an "easier" assignment than an assignment at the main unit. To some officers, it is a desirable assignment. To other officers, it is not a desirable assignment. Opportunities for promotion are not diminished at the work camp; pay and benefits remain the same. The evidence did not show that transfer to the work camp was an adverse employment action on the part of the Department. Colonel McCallum, who thinks highly of Petitioner, transferred Petitioner to the work camp because he believed that Petitioner needed a change of scenery because of the problems he was having with staff and inmates at the main unit. He believed that he was doing Petitioner a favor by transferring him because of the more relaxed atmosphere at the work camp. The transfer was also made due to complaints from staff that Petitioner was receiving preferential treatment in that he was allowed to maintain the same post and shift for such a long period of time. Colonel McCallum was not aware of any complaints by Petitioner to the warden of alleged rule violations at the time that Petitioner was transferred. The evidence did not show that Petitioner was transferred in retaliation for any activity protected under Chapter 760, Florida Statutes. Petitioner's supervisor at the work camp was Lieutenant Patricia Herring, an African-American female. Herring emphatically denied at the hearing that the work camp was in any manner run as a type of concentration camp as opined by Petitioner and did not relate any race relation problems at the camp. The camp was run in a less strict manner than the main unit, especially in relation to the procedure used during the counting of inmates. These more relaxed methods greatly disturbed Petitioner, and he constantly agitated the work environment about such relaxed methods that he perceived as "rule violations." Herring testified that Petitioner was insubordinate and disrespectful to her during his time at the work camp. She believed that his disrespect came from his unhappiness with having a female supervisor. Petitioner received a written reprimand as a result of his insubordination and disrespect toward Herring. Unquestionably, Petitioner and Herring had a serious conflict between their personalities. There was no evidence that any conflict was based on discrimination or retaliation. Ms. Herring also testified that Petitioner received the same treatment as all other officers, vis-à-vis, shift and post assignments. There was no substantive evidence that Petitioner was treated differently in the assignments he was given at the work camp. There was no evidence that Petitioner sought accommodation for his diabetes or high blood pressure. Petitioner retired from the Department, effective December 1, 1999. He admitted at hearing that his retirement date had nothing to do with any actions allegedly taken against him by the Department; rather, he planned to retire on December 1, 1999, well before any problems with the Department began because that date ensured that he would receive retirement benefits based on ten years of service. There was no substantive evidence presented at the hearing that Petitioner was discriminated or retaliated against. Therefore, the Petition for Relief should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of June, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 24th day of June, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Emory L. Mosley Post Office Box 8 Monticello, Florida 32345 Gary L. Grant, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2500 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue At issue herein is whether or not the Petitioner is entitled to continue receiving vocational rehabilitation benefits.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the arguments of the parties and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Ms. Virginia Ryan, Petitioner, has been a client in the Vocational Rehabilitation program since September of 1978. Pursuant to an administrative review by her counselor and specialist assigned to the Vocational Rehabilitation program, Petitioner was advised on February 1, 1980, that she was being terminated from the Vocational Rehabilitation program for the following reasons: Petitioner's case had been active since September, 1978, without accomplishment vocationally. Vocational Rehabilitation services had expended approximately Two Thousand ($2,000.00) Dollars to rehabilitate Petitioner, with no visible results from such expenditures. Work evaluation reports completed for Petitioner at Jackson Memorial Hospital Rehabilitation Center indicate that Petitioner was not trainable or employable. Petitioner's participation in two vocational training sessions were without success. Counselors for vocational rehabilitative services who had serviced and counseled Petitioner concluded, based on the foregoing, that further expenditure of Federal funds would not result in any gainful employment for Petitioner. Petitioner charges that her counselor, Mrs. Harriet B. Weaver, was unprofessional and had sabotaged her training program at Charron Williams Vocational Center; had practiced reverse discrimination with respect to her counseling and efforts to rehabilitate her vocationally; was incompetent to carry out any program to rehabilitate her and had sabotaged her efforts to obtain services through a dental program. Harriet Weaver, a Vocational Rehabilitation counselor since approximately January of 1976, was assigned to service Petitioner during approximately April of 1979. Mrs. Weaver examined Petitioner's medical history file and accepted her as an orthopedic disability client. (Respondent's Composite Exhibit 1.) During the period April, 1979, through February, 1980, Mrs. Weaver assigned Petitioner to approximately four dentists and enrolled her in the rehabilitation program at Charron Williams Vocational School. During this period, Mrs. Weaver also obligated the Vocational Rehabilitation program to defray lodging expenses for Petitioner at the Cadillac Hotel in the amount of approximately Two Hundred ($200.00) Dollars. The evidence also reveals that the program expended approximately Eight Hundred Seventy-seven ($877.00) Dollars to Petitioner in taxi fares, of which approximately 70 percent represented unauthorized fares for taxicab services. Evidence also reveals that Petitioner has repeatedly appeared late for scheduled appointments with dentists, doctors, therapists, and for that matter, she arrived at the subject hearing approximately thirty (30) minutes late, with no explanation for her lateness. Doctors Wainger and Rudman determined that Petitioner was not employable and would not benefit from vocational rehabilitative training so long as her present attitude continued.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's termination of Petitioner from the Vocational Rehabilitation program be UPHELD. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of July, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st Day of July, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Virginia Ryan 685 Northeast 64th Street Miami, Florida 33138 Morton Lightner, Esquire District 11 Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 401 Northwest 2nd Avenue, Room 1040 Miami, Florida 33128 Alvin J. Taylor, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1321 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
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.
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 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.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The Respondent is Elizabeth Joseph, licensed at all times pertinent to these proceedings to operate Jas Manor, an adult congregate living facility in Miami, Florida. Petitioner's employee, Elizabeth Baller, conducted an inspection of the Respondent's facility on September 18, 1986, and discovered seven persons in residence. This number of individuals exceeded the licensed capacity of Respondent's facility by one person. Ms. Baller recited the initials of those residents present in Respondent's facility on that date. Respondent's composite exhibit number 1, consisting of what are alleged to be copies of admission and discharge records, corroborates Ms. Baller's finding. The Respondent was not present at the facility at the time of this inspection. The failure of the Respondent to limit the capacity of the facility to no more than six residents posed a potential threat to the well-being of the residents. The existence of the deficiency finding was discussed with the Respondent by Baller via telephone on September 26, 1986. Ms. Baller did not visit Respondent's facility on September 24, 1986 and is without any direct personal knowledge that the number of residents in the facility on that date exceeded the licensed capacity. In the absence of such direct testimony, Petitioner exhibit number 1, alleged to be a statement of deficiencies issued by Petitioner, is not corroborative or credited with probative value as to the existence of any deficiency of the licensed facility on September 24, 1986. Petitioner exhibit number 1 does not conform to the statutory requirements for a class III deficiency citation as specified in section 400.419(3)(c), Florida Statutes, in that the exhibit fails to set forth the time within which the deficiency is to be corrected. Ms. Baller conducted a follow up visit on November 21, 1986, which, she contends, revealed seven residents in the facility, and a continuation of the violation cited previously in September. This contention of Ms. Baller is not supported by the weight of the evidence. Respondent's denial of the continuation of the deficiency at that time is supported by the testimony of Christine Sassone who regularly visits the facility on behalf of the church attended by her and Respondent. Ms. Sassone works with the residents of Respondent's facility, teaching arts and crafts there every evening, Monday through Friday, from 3:30 or 4 P.M. until 8:30 or 9:00 P.M. She was present at the facility on September 18 and November 21, 1986. She attests that there were only six residents present on either occasion. It is her testimony that individuals in excess of the licensed capacity on both of the dates in question may have been visitors from a neighboring facility known as the "Vet's Nest" which abuts Respondent's property. While discounting Sassone's unsupported testimony regarding the number of residents present on September 18, 1986, her testimony and that of the Respondent establish the fact that only six residents were present at the time of the follow up visit by Baller. Notably, Respondent's exhibit number 1 which supported the Petitioner's finding of seven residents in Respondent's facility on September 18, 1986, corroborates the testimony of Respondent and Ms. Sassone establishing that such deficiency was cured by November 21, 1986. The evidence fails to establish that the violation of Respondent discovered on September 18, 1986, was a repeat offense. It is found that the offense was not a repeat offense.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order finding the commission of a class III violation by Respondent, but assessing no civil penalty for the violation. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 11th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 11th day of March, 1988. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings on findings of fact submitted by the parties. PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS Included in findings 2 and 3. Included in finding number 3, except for the last sentence relating to the visit of November 21, 1986. This sentence is rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. Included in finding number 3 and 9, except for the last sentence which is rejected. Rejected as unnecessary. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard T. Helfand, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 5190 N.W. 167th Street Miami, Florida 33014 Elizabeth Joseph Administrator Jas Manor 645 N.E. 131st Street North Miami, Florida 33161 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Serviced 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power HRS Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: The respondent, Dianne Tice, began teaching home economics at the Jan Mann Opportunity School North (Jan Mann) in the 1981-82 school year. Jan Mann is a school devoted to students with behavior problems, attendance problems and learning disorders. Student James Woody, thirteen years old, was a continuing discipline problem for teachers at Jan Mann. At the time of his admission to Jan Mann, there were discussions as to whether Woody was the type of student who should be admitted. The staff psychologist at Jan Mann believed that a more appropriate placement would have been a residential facility. Nevertheless, Woody was admitted to Jan Mann. On March 13, 1984, Woody was attending respondent's fifth period home economics class. Due to his loud, profane language and banging on desks and chairs, respondent sent Woody to the Principal's office with a referral slip. Approximately twenty minutes later, Woody returned to the respondent's classroom and again became disruptive. Respondent then requested the security guard or hall monitor to either talk to Woody or again take him to the Principal's office. The hall monitor spoke with Woody, placed him back in the classroom and told respondent to put Woody outside the classroom with him if Woody caused any further trouble. Thereafter, the respondent was in the front of the classroom when another student asked to be assisted with the placement of buttonholes in some pants she was sewing. The respondent picked up a pair of scissors, a seam ripper and some keys and began walking to the rear of the classroom to get other equipment from a cabinet so that she could assist the student. At this point, Woody again became disruptive -- pounding on desks and using loud, profane language. The evidence is very conflicting as to what then transpired. Woody left his desk, and it is not clear whether respondent told him to leave the classroom before then or whether he was attempting to proceed to the rear of the room in order to use the restroom. In any event, Respondent was walking toward or behind Woody with the scissors, seam ripper and keys still in her hands. They both ended up at the rear door of the classroom, which opens and closes by means of a push bar. Woody was on the outside of the door and respondent was on the inside. The evidence is again conflicting as to whether respondent was attempting to hold the door closed so that Woody could not reenter her classroom, or whether she was attempting to open the door to either bring him back in or see where he had gone. Whatever she was attempting to do, Woody was either pulling or pushing in the opposite direction. The hall monitor, sitting some ten to fifteen feet away from the door, observed Woody at the door outside the classroom pulling on the door, and began to go over to the door when Woody released the door and cafe over to him. The monitor observed blood on Woody's hand and took him to the bathroom to wash his hand. He then went back to respondent's classroom and asked respondent how Woody had gotten cut. Respondent then ran into the bathroom to help. What was said in the bathroom is also the subject of conflicting testimony. Woody at first told school personnel that he cut his hand while banging on a desk. Respondent told him not to try and protect her. Whatever was said, respondent does not deny that Woody may have been accidentally cut with the scissors, seam ripper or keys during the scuffle at the rear door of the classroom. After the incident, respondent told several people that she had cut Woody. There is no evidence, however, that respondent intentionally stabbed Woody's hand during the incident. As noted above, respondent was first employed at Jan Mann for the 1981- 82 school year. Her annual evaluation for that year indicates that she was rated acceptable in all categories of the evaluation and was recommended for re- employment by her then Principal, Robert Edwards. During this first year, respondent was also formally observed by the Dade County School Board Supervisor of Home and Family Education. She was found to be acceptable in all categories and all comments were very favorable. During the 1982-83 school year, respondent was formally observed in her classroom on three occasions. In November of 1982, Assistant Principal Altman rated respondent unacceptable in the two categories of "classroom management" and "techniques of instruction," and acceptable in the remaining six categories. She was given an overall summary rating of acceptable. In January of 1983, respondent was again observed by Ms. Altman and received an unacceptable rating in three categories, but an overall summary rating of acceptable. Approximately one week after the January evaluation, respondent and Ms. Altman were involved in an incident which resulted in respondent filing a grievance against Ms. Altman for allegedly pushing her in the presence of her students. Principal Oden investigated the matter and decided that respondent's allegations against Ms. Altman were unfounded. In March of 1983, a Department of Education consultant performed an instructional program review and found respondent to have met all assessment standards. Additionally, it was noted that respondent was "commended for her management and organization of the facility." Respondent's annual evaluation by Principal Oden, dated June 9, 1983, indicates that she was rated acceptable in all categories except for the category entitled "preparation and planning." Principal Oden remarked that respondent "does a good job at teaching, but needs to devote more attention to planning." Respondent was recommended for re-employment by Principal Oden. During the 1983-84 school year, Respondent had two formal classroom observations. Assistant Principal Willie Shatteen observed her classroom on October 6, 1983, and found her performance to be acceptable in all categories. His written comments included the following: "lesson plans are evident," "materials are arranged far in advance," "students orderly and attentive," and "has knowledge of background of each student to provide for individual's need." In a follow-up letter, however, Mr. Shatteen criticized respondent for not following her lesson plans and for her negative attitude toward constructive criticism. Several conferences were held between respondent and her supervisors in October and November, 1983. By letter dated November 17, 1983, Principal Oden expressed several concerns he had relating primarily to respondent's planning, teaching and classroom management skills, and made ten recommendations for improvement. Principal Oden formally observed respondent's classroom on December 8, 1983, and rated her acceptable in all categories except "preparation and planning," but gave her an overall rating of acceptable. His comments in the area of "preparation and planning" included "improvement may be achieved through better planning." A "conference for the record" was held on December 13, 1983, to discuss the recommendations made in the November 17th letter. Also discussed was the possibility that respondent would not be recommended for continued employment at Jan Mann should she fail to make the necessary improvements discussed in the November 17th letter. Another conference was arranged for a time between January 19, 1984, and January 25, 1984. The record is not clear as to whether that conference occurred. Respondent's lesson plans were submitted to and reviewed by her supervisors every week. While the January 4, 1984, review found that the plans were not organized to include certain items and that a conference was needed, the plans for the following five weeks were found to be "accepted" and, in one instance, "plans are excellent. No improvement is needed at this time." Just prior to the March 13, 1984, incident involving student James Woody, Principal Oden decided that he was going to recommend respondent for a continuing contract. He told her this and her name was included on the list submitted to the School Board containing those recommended for a continuing contract. While be felt that there were some modifications needed in her teaching behavior, he also felt that there was room for her to improve with the beginning of a new year. Had it not been for the Woody incident, Principal Oden would have recommended respondent for a continuing contract. Indeed, his decision of "not recommended for employment" contained on the 1983-84 annual evaluation contains the remark "pending S.I.U. ..." -- referring to the investigation of the Woody incident by the School Board's Special Investigative Unit. Had respondent been cleared of the Woody incident, she would have been recommended by Principal Oden for re-employment on a continuing contract basis. His annual evaluation for the 1983-84 school year, signed on March 21, 1984, rates respondent as unacceptable in the two categories of "preparation and planning" and "professional responsibility," and acceptable in the remaining six categories. Apparently in connection with the investigation of the Woody incident, a psychiatric evaluation of respondent was performed by Dr. Gail D. Wainger, a psychiatrist. After spending approximately one hour with the respondent on March 20, 1984 (the same day that respondent was informed that she would not be recommended for employment), Dr. Wainger concluded that respondent appears to be suffering from chronic paranoid schizophrenia, and that she experiences misperceptions and shows evidence of poor judgment. This diagnosis was based, in part, upon the respondent's expressions to the effect that the school administration was against her and was attempting to get rid of her and also her relating to Dr. Wainger incidents which occurred at an apartment complex in which she formerly resided. Dr. Wainger is of the opinion that respondent would be likely to decompensate during stressful situations. On June 20 and 22, 1984, another psychiatric examination of respondent was performed by Dr. Lloyd Richard Miller, a psychiatrist. Dr. Miller spent approximately three hours with the respondent over two different days, performed some psychological testing, and also reviewed Dr. Wainger's psychiatric report. It was his conclusion that respondent did not suffer from a mental illness, and he did "not view her as guarded, suspicious or paranoid in any way. It was Dr. Miller's opinion that respondent has the sufficient mental capacity to return to work as a teacher. An expert in the area of teaching personnel evaluation and personnel management employed with the Dade County School Board, Dr. Desmond Patrick Grey, reviewed respondent's personnel files, including her classroom performance and annual evaluations, the investigative reports of the Woody incident and Dr. Wainger's psychiatric report. Dr. Grey was of the opinion that respondent's performance evaluations indicate a serious problem that would limit her effectiveness as a teacher; that the Woody incident impaired the integrity of the profession and the respondent; and that respondent has an incapacity to perform the expected function of a teacher. Three employees at Jan Mann testified in respondent's behalf. A school psychologist believed that respondent's character and reputation at Jan Mann were outstanding. A graphic arts aide felt that respondent was excellent dealing with the children and was dedicated in her occupation. A workshop instructor felt that respondent had been a "pretty competent teacher."
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Amended Specific Notice of Charges against respondent Dianne Tice be DISMISSED, and that she be awarded back salary for the remainder of the contract period following her suspension. Respectfully submitted and entered this 16th day of May, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR 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 16th day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas Robertson, Esquire Merritt, Sikes and Craig, P.A. McCormick Building - 3rd floor 111 Southwest Third Street Miami, Fla. 33130 Carl DiBernardo, Esquire Commercial Bank of Kendall 8603 S. Dixie Highway - Suite 210 Miami, Fla. 33143 Phyllis O. Douglas, Esquire Dade County Public Schools 1410 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Fla. 33132
