The Issue Whether or not the Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services' cessation of further vocational rehabilitation services to petitioner and its (Respondent's) failure to release certain medical and psychological reports directly to Petitioner, was proper.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received herein, and the entire record compiled in this proceeding, the following relevant facts are found. Petitioner, William W. Englert, Jr., during times material herein, was a recipient of certain vocational and rehabilitative services and other benefits from Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Vocational Rehabilitation. 1/ By letter dated October 1, 1981, Petitioner was advised by Betty J. Mynatt, District Counselor for Vocational Rehabilitation in Brevard County, that the Office of Vocational Rehabilitation was closing his file as of October 1, 1981, based on his failure to follow the recommendation of the staff in the district office, including the medical and psychological consultants, work evaluators and the V.R. and supervising counselors who recommended that Petitioner pursue intensive psychotherapy. Based on Petitioner's failure to follow that recommendation, he was deemed ineligible to receive further Vocational Rehabilitation services. Two weeks prior, i.e., approximately September 15, 1981, Petitioner was advised by Charles E. May, Vocational Rehabilitation Program Supervisor for District VII, by letter dated September 15, 1981, that the Offices of Vocational Rehabilitation would not release, directly to him, medical and psychological reports contained in his Vocational Rehabilitation file based on his (Petitioner's) refusal to accept the recommendation or follow the advice of those recommendations contained in those reports. Rather, Respondent concluded that such reports should be released, in Petitioner's behalf, to a third party who would offer assistance to him in utilizing such information to his personal benefit. Certain persons were suggested to Petitioner who would be able to lend beneficial assistance to him. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 1.) Petitioner was observed by Harold F. Bernstein, Ph.D., a clinical psychologist licensed to practice in Brevard County, Florida, on three (3) occasions during early May and June of 1981. Dr. Bernstein, who is in private practice, is on the approved list of psychologists for vendor services to the Offices of Vocational Rehabilitation. He has served as a consultant, using Vocational Rehabilitation purchase of client services funds, since approximately 1973. (Respondent's Exhibit No. 5.) During the first and second sessions, which were held on May 7 and 14, 1981, Petitioner was evaluated and tested by Dr. Bernstein for the purpose of performing a psychological evaluation. During these two (2) sessions, Petitioner was "guarded" and resisted Dr. Bernstein's efforts to test and evaluate him. During the third meeting in June of 1981, Petitioner challenged and disputed Dr. Bernstein's evaluations, findings and ultimate recommendations. To perform the psychological testing of Petitioner, Dr. Bernstein used the Wischler Intelligence Scale for Children, 1952 Revision for Adults (WISC-R) , which in his opinion measured a valid profile of Petitioner. Dr. Bernstein noted six (6) impressions and/or problems as relates to Petitioner. These impressions were that Petitioner suffered from organic brain syndrome, neurological defects, anxiety disorders, paranoia, a social relations disorder and an average intellectual range. Shirlee Wise, a Vocational Evaluator, is Director of the Vocational Rehabilitation Achievement Center (Center) in Brevard County. The Center is a work oriented facility, private, nonprofit. Vocational Rehabilitation has a contract with the Center to provide both work evaluation services and personal adjustment services to selected, eligible clients of the Vocational Rehabilitation Program. Petitioner was referred to the Center and was enrolled in a work evaluation program which permitted Ms. Wise to prepare a final work evaluation report for petitioner. During the course of that program, Petitioner was resistant to the various work sample techniques utilized by the Center and consistently refused to be timed when assigned tasks to complete. Petitioner occasionally left the Center when its staff conducted work sampling tests and during the fifteen (15) work day period involved in the program, Petitioner was present only seven (7) of the fifteen (15) work days. At the conclusion of the program, staffers from the Center prepared a final work evaluation report on Petitioner on August 14, 1981. The report dealt with academics, interests testings, vocational work samplings, behavioral observations, a personal interview and a summary. When the report was prepared, Petitioner, who was present, was given a copy, and an oral explanation of the findings and summaries contained therein. The report concluded that Petitioner, based on observations, work samplings and the recommendations of staffers, should receive intensive psychotherapy. To date, Petitioner has refused to follow this recommendation. During the period in which Petitioner received vocational rehabilitative services, he was given a complete battery of psychological tests and other evaluative materials, including a neurological and orthopedic evaluation; a complete series of neuropsychological evaluations including a CAT scan and a work evaluation assignment at the Center. During the period in which Petitioner was receiving services, he openly criticized the recommendations and findings of the staff of Vocational Rehabilitation and its contract service providers. When petitioner failed to follow the recommendations of the Vocational Rehabilitation staff, he was declared ineligible for further services from the program. The terminal date of his eligibility for benefits and services was September 30, 1981. The staff of Vocational Rehabilitation closed petitioner's eligibility file based on a Code 56, which signifies a "failure to cooperate from applicant status." As stated, Petitioner was advised of this decision to close his file by letter dated October 1, 1981. (Testimony of Betty Mynatt.) Lyle Peddicord, Supervisor and Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor for District VII since 1968 is familiar with Petitioner's Vocational Rehabilitation file. Supervisor Peddicord requested that Dr. Bernstein provide Petitioner with an explanation of his psychological report inasmuch as he felt that a personal explanation might be helpful to him. Supervisor Peddicord followed Petitioner's case history from the outset through the termination of Vocational Rehabilitation benefits. Charles E. May, Program Supervisor for Vocational Rehabilitation in District VII, was familiar with Petitioner and recalled a meeting with him on September 10, 1981. During the meeting with Supervisor May, Petitioner also openly expressed his dissatisfaction with the recommendations and findings of the medical and psychological reports and evaluations and his inability to directly gain access to the medical and psychological information contained in his file. Supervisor May also explained to Petitioner the importance of his need to follow the recommendations of the V.R. staff and the consequences which would result should he elect not to follow the staff recommendations. Supervisor May also explained to petitioner the restrictions that the V.R. program operates under with respect to the direct release of information to a client. Petitioner admits that he was absent from the work evaluation program sponsored by the Center, however, he related that he was not in the best mental state during this period due to his father's illness and the resulting stress as a result of that illness. Petitioner also considered that the two (2) visits which he made to Dr. Bernstein's office were not sufficient, in his opinion, for Dr. Bernstein to recommend intensive psychotherapy sessions. Petitioner also was of the opinion that the refusal of Vocational Rehabilitation to directly permit him access to his file was improper and urges that V.R. be ordered to grant him direct access to his medical and psychological file.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent deny Petitioner direct access to his medical and psychological material contained in its files and terminate further Vocational Rehabilitation services to him. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of February, 1982.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is qualified to take the examination for licensure as a mental health counselor.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner executed an application for licensure as a mental health counselor on June 13, 1989. He filed the application with the Board of Clinical Social Workers, Marriage & Family Therapists, and Mental Health Counselors on July 6, 1989. The application was accompanied by the appropriate fee and disclosed that Petitioner satisfied all of the educational requirements for taking the examination. However, Respondent determined that the application was incomplete because Petitioner failed to show that he had had the requisite clinical experience under the supervision of a qualified person. By letter dated July 17, 1989, Respondent informed Petitioner that his application was incomplete pending receipt of, among other things, documentation of the requisite clinical experience under the supervision of a qualified person. A second letter dated January 17, 1990, from Respondent to Petitioner restated that the application was still missing the items set forth in the prior letter. By Order of Intent to Deny filed April 12, 1990, Respondent informed Petitioner that it was denying his application on the grounds set forth above. Petitioner obtained a master's degree in clinical psychology from the University of Central Florida on December 20, 1985. From October 4, 1985, through October 20, 1988, Petitioner worked full- time as a psychological specialist at the Polk Correctional Institution under the supervision of Gerd Garkisch, Ph.D., who was head of the mental health department at the prison. Petitioner's work qualifies as clinical experience in mental health counseling. Dr. Garkisch does not hold any Florida professional licenses, such as a mental health counselor or psychologist. He is not so licensed in any other state, although he is licensed as a psychologist in Puerto Rico. Dr. Garkisch does not meet the education criteria required for licensure as a mental health counselor. Dr. Garkisch earned a master's degree in clinical psychology, which would otherwise satisfy the educational requirement for licensure as a mental health counselor. However, he received his degree from the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul, Institute of Psychology, which is located in Brazil. The school is not accredited by an accrediting agency approved by the U.S. Department of Education, Council on Postsecondary Accreditation, or Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation deny Petitioner's application for licensure as a mental health counselor. ENTERED this 11th day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of October, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Linda Biederman, Executive Director Board of Mental Health Counseling 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Vytas J. Urba, Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Suresh Paul Pushkarna, pro se 309 Hidden Hollow Court Sanford, FL 32773
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 Whether HRS should license 23 comprehensive rehabilitation beds to TMRMC, at the same time reducing general acute care beds licensed at TMRMC by 23? Whether, prior to midnight June 30, 1983, TMRMC had 23 comprehensive rehabilitation beds in service?
Findings Of Fact There are "several buildings on the campus" (T. 21) at TMRMC, including the Extended Care Building on Hodges Drive which houses 53 hospital beds, and another building that houses 60 psychiatric hospital beds as well as 60 nursing home beds. Elsewhere there are an additional 598 hospital beds at TMRMC. TMRMC was licensed at 771 beds (including 60 nursing home beds) on February 3, 1983, when TMRMC's chief operating officer, J. Craig Honaman, wrote Mr. Konrad in HRS' Office of Health Planning and Development as follows: We would like to inform you of an alteration in our acute bed utilization and request your observations relating to the need for a Certificate of Need application to reassign the title of the bed function. Historically, Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center has provided rehabilitative services to inpatients of an acute nature, as well as through a progressive care approach in a skilled facility.... Therefore, we intend to reassign the 53 beds currently utilized in the skilled nursing facility to a medical rehabilitation unit. The change would not affect our license bed capacity. Joint Exhibit No. 6. In reply, Mr. Porter wrote Mr. Honaman a letter dated February 17, 1983, stating: In that you have been providing rehabilitative services to inpatients on a continuous basis, and there will be no increase in licensed bed capacity, this reassignment of beds is not reviewable according to Chapter 10-5, Florida Administrative Cede, the Certificate of Need review process Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5. Effective June 8, 1983, Rule 10-5.11(24), Florida Administrative Code, set out a bed need methodology for comprehensive medical rehabilitation inpatient services. Effective July 1, 1983, Section 395.003(4), Florida Statutes, was amended to provide: The number of beds for the rehabilitation or psychiatric service category for which the department has adopted by rule a specialty-bed-need methodology under $381.494 shall be specified on the face of the hospital license. Before July 1, 1983, general acute care hospitals like TMRMC had been free to allocate beds among various specialty services on a day to day basis. Until September 1, 1984, HRS issued and renewed TMRMC's license authorizing it to operate a hospital without specifying the number of beds to be dedicated to specialty services. In the fall of 1983, TMRMC corresponded with Blue Cross, the medicare intermediary for Florida, requesting a distinct part provider number for rehabilitation services, and enclosing Mr. Porter's February 17, 1983, letter to Mr. Honaman. Blue Cross forwarded these materials to the Health Care Finance Administration (HCFA) in Atlanta, who then contacted HRS' Office of Licensure and Certification in Jacksonville for verification. The Office of Licensure and Certification advised HCFA that their records did not reflect rehabilitation beds licensed to TMRMC. EXPANDING SERVICES When Frances Elise Brown, now TMRMC's Technical Director of Rehabilitation, came to work at TMRMC in 1971, as a physical therapist, TMRMC did not offer speech therapy, occupational therapy or recreational therapy, and did not own what became the Extended Care Building. After TMRMC acquired the Extended Care Building, "there were some physical therapy services provided in that facility." (T. 107) Thereafter, the intensity of physical therapy services increased campus-wide, and in 1978 occupational therapy was "initiated both at Extended Care and in the hospital at the same time." Id. In 1980, TMRMC "initiated speech therapy, which again was delivered both in the hospital and Extended Care at the same time." (T. 107) In 1981, TMRMC acquired an existing outpatient facility that offered physical, occupational and speech therapy. TMRMC "provide[s] services indifferent areas, acute care, long-term, nursing home, home health, in/outpatient services." (T. 102) Recreational therapy and occupational therapy are also available at TMRMC; and TMRMC enjoys a good working relationship with Williams Orthotics a firm which fits braces and prostheses for patients who need them. Respiration therapy is available as are psychological counseling and the services of a social worker. Nursing services are available, although nobody specifically trained in rehabilitation nursing is on staff. A psychiatrist and an audiologist serve as consultants, but no physiatrist consults. No substantial changes in rehabilitation services being provided at Extended Care have occurred during the last three years or so, although it might have been during that period that a speech pathologist began spending more time (ten hours a week) at the Extended Care Building. (T. 119) Neither before or after Mr. Honaman's letter of February 3, 1983, announcing "an alteration in . . . acute [sick bed utilization," Joint Exhibit No. 6, and an "inten[t] to reassign the 53 [sic] beds," Joint Exhibit No. 6, did TMRMC "change anything about those beds." (T 69) For business reasons, TMRMC was waiting for a distinct part provider number for rehabilitation before proceeding. At one time the thought was to offer comprehensive rehabilitation services in a joint venture with Rehab Hospital Services Corporation, but negotiations collapsed in May of 1983. EXTENDED CARE The Extended Care Building has 23 beds "to the right . . . as one goes in" (T. 66) and 30 beds to the left, but there are no "delineated beds" (T. 116) reserved exclusively for patients in need of rehabilitation. The Extended Care Building houses medically stable patients who need skilled nursing services, whether or not they are suitable candidates for rehabilitation. Administratively distinct from TMRMC's acute care facility, the Extended Care Building as a whole has a part-time medical director and a distinct provider number, although TMRMC never received the provider number it sought for rehabilitation beds only. Patients admitted to the Extended Care Building from acute care facilities at TMRMC must first be discharged as acute care patients. They are admitted into the Extended Care Building "according to the screening criteria for extended care." (T. 116) There are no separate rehabilitation admission criteria. The average stay for patients in the Extended Care Building is approximately one month. On an application for hospital license, TMRMC listed the 53 beds in the Extended Care Building as extended care beds on June 22, 1977. On an application for hospital license dated September 7, 1977, TMRMC listed the 43 beds in the Extended Care Building under the category "SNF (D.P.)," meaning skilled nursing facility, distinct part. TMRMC reported the beds in this category through April 23, 1981, on its renewal applications for hospital licensure. On March 17, 1983, for the first time in a licensure application as far as the evidence shows, TMRMC listed the 53 beds in the Extended Care Building as "SNF/Rehab," meaning skilled nursing facility/rehabilitation. Joint Exhibit No. 1. INVENTORY TAKE A joint communication from the director of HRS' Office of Licensure and Certification and its deputy assistant secretary for health planning and development dated December 8, 1983, advised hospital administrators that HRS had "arrived at a count of the number of beds in each category for each hospital in Florida," went on to state: We are asking that each hospital review and verify or comment on these counts prior to final agency action. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 10. In response, TMRMC's Mr. Honaman wrote HRS' Jackie Jefferson on December 20, 1983, reporting "[v]arious errors." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11. An attachment to Mr. Honaman's letter of December 20, 1983, reported 23 "Comprehensive Rehabilitation" beds at TMRMC. HRS caused notice to be published in the Florida Administrative Weekly on February 17, 1984, Vol. 10, No. 7 of its count of licensed beds in general hospitals by bed type by district, and reported no comprehensive rehabilitation beds at TMRMC. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 12. Mr. Honaman wrote Mr. Rond, administrator of HRS' Comprehensive Health Planning, stating that the "listing is incorrect, as previously reported to you . . . ." Petitioner's Exhibit No. After exchanging letters on the matter with John Adams, a licensure supervisor for HRS, Petitioner's Exhibit Nos. 15 and 16, TMRMC requested a formal administrative hearing. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 14. HRS memoranda written on July 26, 1984, reflected HRS' view that TMRMC had no comprehensive rehabilitation beds, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8, and that recognition of such beds hinged on their being "CARF certified." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 9. CARF STANDARDS The Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF) publishes accreditation criteria and standards for facilities serving people with disabilities. The Extended Care Building meets the safety requirements for physical facilities laid down by CARF (T. 122) and most of the services that CARF requires be offered TMRMC does offer, but TMRMC's Ms. Brown conceded (outside the hearing) that comprehensive rehabilitation is not available at TMRMC. TMRMC's M. T. Mustian was also quoted at hearing as acknowledging that TMRMC does not have a comprehensive rehabilitation program within the meaning of Rule 10-5.11(24), Florida Administrative Code, which references the CARF standards. Implicit throughout the CARF standards is the concept of a distinct rehabilitation unit, and there are explicit references to, e.g., "staff organization under the chief executive." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 27, p. 11. "Designated staff should be assigned to the rehabilitation program. Id., p. 39. The standards require that a rehabilitation facility "have clearly written criteria for admission." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 27, p. 27. Beds should be placed in "a designated area which . . . is staffed . . . for the specific purpose of providing a rehabilitation program." Id., p. 39. With respect to medical staff, the standards provide that the "physician responsible for the person's rehabilitation program should possess training and/or experience in rehabilitation" and that the "physician should attend and participate actively in conferences concerning those served." Id., at 39. "Rehabilitation nursing" is to be furnished in addition to basic medical nursing. Id. No staff are assigned exclusively to the putative 23-bed unit, nor are records kept separately for rehabilitation beds. TMRMC does not employ a rehabilitation nurse anywhere. There is no medical director of the comprehensive rehabilitation program TMRMC claims to have. The admitting physician sets the course of treatment and decides about discharge. Admitting physicians do not ordinarily attend conferences scheduled with the other therapists. In comprehensive rehabilitation units, physical therapists or other specialists typically spend five hours or more daily with a single patient as opposed to the 30 to 45 minutes patients at TMRMC are likely to receive from any one therapist. There are no cancer or cardiac rehabilitation patients at TMRMC. The primary caseload consists of stroke victims, patients recovering from joint replacement surgery, "amputee[s and] a few close head injuries." (T. 103) Most patients are older than 45 or 50 and none are admitted under 16 years of age. TMRMC does not furnish vocational training or try to teach people with disabilities to drive automobiles. There is no formal "activities of daily living" program. PROPOSED FINDINGS CONSIDERED Both parties filed proposed recommended orders, and proposed findings of fact have been considered in preparation of the foregoing findings of fact. Proposed findings have been adopted, in substance unless unsupported by the weight of the evidence, immaterial, cumulative, or subordinate.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That HRS deny TMRMC's request to reclassify 23 of its licensed beds as comprehensive rehabilitation beds, without prejudice to a subsequent application if TMRMC obtains a certificate of need. DONE and ENTERED this 17th day of May, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON II 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 May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Alfred W. Clark, Esquire Laramore & Clark, P.A. 325 North Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lesley Mendelson, Esquire and John Carlson, Esquire Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David Pingree, Secretary Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Respondent's determination that the Petitioner is ineligible for Vocational Rehabilitation services is consistent with the adopted goals, criteria, standards, and policies of the Department.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner initially applied for Vocational Rehabilitation services on July 11, 1983. The Petitioner was determined to be eligible for benefits and received assistance until July 17, 1984, when her file was closed at her request. The Petitioner requested the file closure because she was rehabilitated and was not currently in need of services. She was informed by the Respondent that the file could be reopened if services were needed in the future. In April of 1987, the Petitioner had surgery done on her left leg which changed the shape of her foot and created new problems surrounding her physical disability. On June 26, 1987, the Petitioner reapplied for Vocational Rehabilitation benefits. The surgery required the Petitioner to be out of work for six weeks without pay. Her employee medical insurance program did not adequately provide for the physical therapy she needed to adjust to the changes in her leg. New orthopedic inserts were needed for her shoes as the shape and size of her left foot were changed by the surgery. A new clutch apparatus was needed in her vehicle because the present clutch aggravated her foot and interfered with her recovery from the surgery. The Petitioner was also under emotional stress because she had been informed that amputation may be necessary if the recent operation is unsuccessful. Vocational Rehabilitation benefits were sought by the Petitioner to help her through the situation in which she was currently placed because of her physical handicap. During the reapplication process, the Petitioner was treated as a "new applicant" for computer purposes and as a "returning client requesting post- employment services" for processing purposes. The reason for the discrepancy was that the original file had been closed before the new computer was installed. The computer refused to accept the application as a request for post-employment services, so the Vocational Rehabilitation counselor treated the case as an initial application in order to obtain a client number. During the file review to determine if the Petitioner is eligible for services, the Vocational Rehabilitation counselor spoke with the Petitioner's supervisors at work. The purpose of the interview was to determine whether the Petitioner's physical disability prevents her from performing her job or places her job in jeopardy. There was a communication problem during the interviews between the supervisors and the Vocational Rehabilitation counselor. As a result of the misunderstandings which occurred, the application was rejected by the Respondent on November 12, 1987. The reason given for the determination that the Petitioner is ineligible for services was that the disability did not prevent the Petitioner from performing her job or maintaining employment. During the hearing, the evidence revealed that the Petitioner's disability did prevent her from performing her job as a Public Assistance Specialist II. The surgery and the physical therapy placed her employment with the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services in jeopardy because she was unable to perform her job duties. The Petitioner was unable to work on her case load of clients. She was unable to complete home visits or work in the agency's outposts in the area hospitals. Other employees within her unit worked overtime in order to meet the duties the Petitioner was unable to fulfill. The expense of overtime payments to other workers made it impossible for the employer to continue with the arrangement over a long period of time. In addition, the extra work hours and heavier case loads negatively impacted on the unit's performance as a whole. The entire situation jeopardized the Petitioner's continued employment as a Public Assistance Specialist II. During the time period the Petitioner was recuperating from surgery, she was asked to return to the office as a switchboard operator. The purpose of the request was to help the Petitioner financially and to fill a temporary vacancy at the office. This temporary assist to the Petitioner was unsuccessful. The situation caused confusion with the clients, and the Petitioner's need to take time off for physical therapy sessions inconvenienced the office and interfered with office functions. The problems surrounding the permanent job and the temporary job were discussed with the Petitioner on different occasions by her supervisors. The supervisors did not consider these discussions to be "oral reprimands" as legally defined within the agency's personnel manual. The supervisors considered the discussions to be a preliminary attempt to resolve a personnel problem. Discussions of this nature precede oral reprimands and are not generally discussed with anyone other than the participants. Thus, when questioned by the Vocational Rehabilitation counselor about the Petitioner's job status, the supervisors' responses may have been convoluted due to the entire job situation. The Vocational Rehabilitation counselor's attempt to clarify her knowledge of the situation by inquiring about any disciplinary procedures was met with denial by the supervisors because they believed the discussions were confidential. When the Vocational Rehabilitation counselor and her supervisor sought information concerning the status of the Petitioner's employment from her supervisors misunderstandings continued to occur. The supervisors did not adequately explain the situation so that the Respondent would be able to make a just determination of the Petitioner's eligibility status. The Petitioner unsuccessfully pursued other avenues of possible assistance before she applied for benefits from the Respondent.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner’s application for relicensure as a mental health counselor should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner was licensed as a psychologist in the State of New Jersey from May 14, 1979, until May 29, 1996. While so licensed, the Petitioner engaged in private practice as a psychologist in New Jersey where he engaged individual, family, and group therapy. On October 16, 1995, the Petitioner’s license to practice psychology in New Jersey was suspended pursuant to a Consent Order. The suspension was based on allegations of extensive insurance fraud perpetrated by the Petitioner during the course of his practice of psychology in New Jersey. Following the suspension of his license, the Petitioner continued to practice psychology in New Jersey by continuing to see patients and continuing to provide therapy. On May 28, 1996, the Petitioner pled guilty to one count of conspiracy and to one count of theft by deception in New Jersey Superior Court, Criminal Division. The criminal charges to which the Petitioner pled guilty resulted from the Petitioner’s having engaged in a scheme in his psychology practice whereby he would submit claims for payment to insurance companies, and would receive payments for those claims from insurance companies, for patients he did not see and/or for treatments he never rendered. The criminal court that convicted the Petitioner ordered the Petitioner to pay restitution in the amount of $2,793,656.70 and sentenced the Petitioner to a prison term of five years and six months. Ultimately, the Petitioner was required to serve only seven months in prison. The Petitioner has repaid a substantial amount of the restitution, but he still owes approximately $600,000.00 in unpaid restitution. On May 29, 1996, the New Jersey State Board of Psychological Examiners issued a Final Order which, among other things, revoked the Petitioner’s license to practice psychology in New Jersey. On June 27, 1996, the Superior Court of New Jersey in Case No. C-225-96 issued a Final Order and Judgment and Permanent Injunction against the Petitioner. That order permanently enjoined the Petitioner from engaging in the practice of psychology in any setting and also ordered the Petitioner to reimburse the patients he had treated while his license was suspended. On May 25, 1994, the Petitioner was advised by letter that he had successfully completed the requirements to be eligible for licensure in Florida as a mental health counselor. Shortly thereafter the Respondent received his license to practice as a mental health counselor in Florida. The Petitioner was licensed in Florida as a mental health counselor from mid-1994 until July 16, 2001. On July 16, 2001, the Florida Board of Clinical Social Work, Marriage and Family Therapy and Mental Health Counseling entered a Final Order revoking the Petitioner’s license to practice mental health counseling in Florida. The revocation order was based on an Administrative Complaint which alleged that the Petitioner had violated Sections 491.009(2)(b) and 491.009(2)(c), Florida Statutes, by reason of the revocation of his New Jersey license to practice psychology, and by reason of his criminal conviction in New Jersey of a crime that directly related to the practice of mental health counseling. The profession of psychologist and the profession of mental health counseling are comparable professions.2 The Petitioner has not completed a minimum of three semester hours or four quarter hours of graduate level coursework on the subject of substance abuse. The Petitioner has not completed a minimum of three semester or four quarter hours of graduate level coursework on the subject of legal, ethical, and professional standards.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Board of Clinical Social Work, Marriage and Family Therapy, and Mental Health Counseling enter a final order denying the Petitioner’s application for licensure as a licensed mental health counselor. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 28th day of June, 2005.
The Issue The issue is whether the Florida Department of Education (“the Department”) committed one or more unlawful employment practices against Petitioner (“Ms. Spradlin”) by discriminating against her based on race.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: Ms. Spradlin worked from 2006 to 2010 as a psychological specialist at a facility known as Sunland in Marianna, Florida. Ms. Spradlin is Caucasian. During a portion of the time that Ms. Spradlin was at Sunland, Tawana Gilbert worked there as a human service administrator. Ms. Gilbert is African-American. Ms. Spradlin and Ms. Gilbert did not work closely together, but they served on the same interdisciplinary team and worked with the same residents. Ms. Gilbert’s only knowledge of Ms. Spradlin was through the documentation that Ms. Spradlin submitted to the interdisciplinary team. Ms. Gilbert left Sunland in approximately November of 2009, and began working for the Department as a unit supervisor for a vocational rehabilitation services unit in Marianna, Florida. Vocational rehabilitation assists people by providing them with services that enable them to obtain and maintain gainful employment. During the time period relevant to the instant case, the Marianna unit had 10 staff members and served five counties. Of those 10 staff members, five were counselors and one was the unit supervisor. At some point after Ms. Gilbert left Sunland, Ms. Spradlin saw an advertisement for an entry level vocational rehabilitation counselor position at the Marianna unit. Ms. Spradlin applied for the position and was hired in 2010. In March or April of 2011, Ms. Gilbert invited all of her coworkers to a special event at her church. Ms. Gilbert asked her coworkers with children if their child would like to participate in a program that was to be part of the festivities. Ms. Spradlin said that her daughter was willing to participate, and Ms. Gilbert typed out the words that Ms. Spradlin’s daughter was to recite during the program. When it was time for Ms. Spradlin’s daughter to recite her part, she became nervous, and her grandmother read the part. Following this event, Ms. Spradlin asserts that Ms. Gilbert’s attitude toward her changed and that the unlawful employment practices alleged in her Charge of Discrimination began. Findings Regarding Ms. Spradlin’s Interviews for Senior Counselor Positions There were two openings for senior vocational rehabilitation counselors at the Marianna unit in October of 2012.1/ When the Department is considering applicants for a particular position, it utilizes a three-person panel to conduct interviews and score the applicants. After the interviews, the three-person panel reaches a consensus as to each applicant’s scores, and the Department uses a standardized matrix to rank each applicant. The panel for the two senior vocational rehabilitation counselor openings consisted of Allison Gill, the Department’s area supervisor; Michael Nobles, the former supervisor of the Marianna unit; and Ms. Gilbert. Ms. Gill and Mr. Nobles are Caucasian. Of the five people who interviewed for the two openings, Ramonia Robinson earned the highest score, a 72. With regard to Ms. Robinson’s qualifications, Ms. Gilbert testified as follows: Ms. Robinson, she was a current employee there. She was an entry-level counselor, had been for many, many years. She was there prior to my hiring with VR, so I was familiar with her work history. And she was very thorough, very detailed, very flexible, and very unemotionally involved with her cases. So she, in conducting her cases and case management, was awesome. And she was very knowledgeable about the questions that were being asked. She had had a long history of experience with case management, providing services to individuals with disabilities, and just adequately managing her caseload. She did very well on her interview. Ms. Spradlin received the second highest score, a 56. Keith Sutton, an outside applicant, received a score of 55. When two applicants’ scores are within one point of each other, the Department bases the ultimate hiring decision on reference checks. Ms. Gilbert contacted Mr. Sutton’s references and received positive feedback about him. As for Mr. Sutton’s qualifications, Ms. Gilbert provided the following testimony: Q: What about Mr. Sutton’s experience, resume was notable to you in the interview process? A: Well, he had his degree. It’s directly related to the field of counseling. He had a wealth of experience in the counseling field. He came to us from the Agency for Persons with Disabilities, which is Sunland, where he had a year there, and he met at least the minimum qualifications. He was very – his application was very detailed, and it identified precisely his experience based on his ability to – or his experience with providing counseling, providing services for those with disabilities. And he had a long history from where he had previously worked in the field of counseling. Q: Okay, so Mr. Sutton achieved a Master’s in Counseling in 2011, is that correct, according to his application? A: Yes. Q: And that’s directly related to the position; is that correct? A: Yes, that’s correct. Q: And he had experience as a master’s level therapist? A: Yes. Q: Is that accurate, according to the application? A: Yes. He worked for Florida Therapy as a master’s level therapist, where he was expected to provide counseling, psychotherapy to children, adults and their families, but doing so on an independent basis. That demonstrated he was very flexible, detailed oriented and [had] the ability to function independently. Because she was Ms. Spradlin’s supervisor at the time, Ms. Gilbert acted as her reference and did not recommend her for a senior counselor position. In explaining her reasoning, Ms. Gilbert testified that: Ms. Spradlin was difficult to work with and she was very negative. She had several participant complaints during the span of [] that year. In her first year coming in, she was very challenging, she did not want to accept constructive criticism from me as the unit supervisor. She did not want very – she wanted very little feedback from me based on her performance. Several participant complaints, calling me directly, contacting the ombudsman, faxing me complaints based on their interaction with Ms. Spradlin, how they felt that they were being treated unfairly, they did not agree with her tone from time to time. She was not at all culturally sensitive to some of our participants. She was insubordinate. She would – there were times she would just leave the unit because things – conditions were unfavorable to her. Ms. Gilbert submitted her recommendation to the Department’s area director, and Mr. Sutton was ultimately offered a senior counselor position. Mr. Sutton is currently the supervisor of the Marianna unit. There is no persuasive evidence that Ms. Spradlin was not promoted because of her race or any animus from Ms. Gilbert. The interview panel, consisting of two Caucasians, had legitimate, nondiscriminatory grounds for concluding that Ms. Robinson and Mr. Sutton were more qualified for the openings. In short, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that there was no unlawful employment practice associated with the Department’s selection of applicants for the two openings discussed above. In May of 2016, Ms. Spradlin applied for another senior counselor position in the Marianna unit. The interview panel for this opening consisted of Ms. Gilbert and two other Department employees, Evelyn Langmaid and Rebecca Stevens. Ms. Langmaid and Ms. Stevens are Caucasian. Ms. Gilbert did not supervise Ms. Langmaid or Ms. Stevens, and she did not attempt to influence their decision-making. Georgia Britt received the highest score from the interview panel and was offered the senior counselor position. Ms. Langmaid described Ms. Britt’s interview as follows: She just came in and every answer we’d or every question that we gave her she was just right on with the answers and [was] hitting the points on the – because we have sort of like a little sheet that we can look for certain points that we’re looking for answers, and she was just right on every point, and was very, very knowledgeable of what was going on. Ms. Spradlin had obtained a certified rehabilitation counseling certification in October of 2014, and Ms. Britt lacked that certification. However, Ms. Britt’s other credentials bolstered her application. For instance, she has a bachelor’s degree in elementary and special education and a master’s degree in counseling. Ms. Britt also had relevant work experience. When she applied for the senior counselor position, Ms. Britt was employed at Sunland as a behavior specialist working with adults with developmental disabilities. Ms. Britt wrote in her application that she had been able to “work with all different types of individuals at all intellectual levels” via her position at Sunland. Prior to working at Sunland, Ms. Britt had worked in a children’s psychiatric hospital in Dothan, Alabama. That position also gave her an opportunity to work with individuals from diverse backgrounds. Ms. Britt wrote on her application that her position at the hospital required her to engage in some counseling and that she had to use counseling skills in order to obtain psychiatric histories and other information. Ms. Britt’s interview bolstered her application. According to Ms. Langmaid, Ms. Britt “blew it out of the water. She was fantastic on the interview.” Ms. Gilbert was also very complimentary of Ms. Britt’s interview: Q: What about Ms. Britt stood out to you and the panel? A: Her ability to respond to the questions as they were being asked. At that time, we were transitioning to where we were asking more emotional [intelligence] questions where – to identify a counselor’s ability to emotionally manage cases and refrain from being emotionally involved with that case. So she answered the questions. It’s on ones that can give a thorough answer based on the circumstance that occurred, the actions that took place and the results of the question. Q: Okay. A: She was really, really thorough with her answers. There is no persuasive evidence that Ms. Spradlin did not receive the promotion because of her race or due to any animus from Ms. Gilbert. The interview panel, consisting of two Caucasians, had legitimate, nondiscriminatory grounds for concluding Ms. Britt was more qualified for the opening. In short, the greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that there was no unlawful employment practice associated with the Department’s selection of Ms. Britt. Findings Regarding Ms. Spradlin’s Hostile Work Environment Allegations Ms. Spradlin made several allegations during the final hearing that she was subjected to a hostile work environment during her time with the Marianna unit.2/ For example, in October of 2010, Ms. Spradlin exposed at least part of her posterior to a coworker in the Marianna unit in order to demonstrate the severity of a sunburn. Ms. Gilbert did not learn of that incident until another incident was reported to her on May 2, 2011. That day, Ms. Spradlin was seated in an office within the Marianna unit when a female coworker got very close to Ms. Spradlin and “twerked” in her face. Ms. Spradlin states that she placed her hands on the coworkers posterior and playfully pushed her away. However, the coworker reported to Ms. Gilbert that Ms. Spradlin had pinched her posterior. Upon learning of both incidents, Ms. Gilbert discussed them with Ms. Spradlin and conferred with the Department’s labor relations unit on formulating a proper course of action. With input from the labor relations unit, Ms. Gilbert issued a counseling memorandum to Ms. Spradlin on October 4, 2011.3/ The counseling memorandum4/ read in pertinent part as follows: You are being issued a Counseling Memorandum for your violation of Rule 60L- 36.005(2)(f)(1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), Conduct unbecoming a public employee. On October 12, 2010, you signed the Department’s Acknowledgement Form stating you received copies of the policies and rules of the Department. Please be aware that you are expected to abide by all Standards of Conduct as stated in 60L- 36.005, F.A.C. On May 2, 2011, you violated the following rule and policy: Rule 60L-36.005(2)(f)(1), F.A.C., requires that “Employees shall conduct themselves, on and off the job, in a manner that will not bring discredit or embarrassment to the state. Employees shall be courteous, considerate, respectful, and prompt in dealing with and serving the public and co-workers.” On May 2, 2011, it was reported by one employee that you pulled your pants down exposing your buttocks and “mooned” that employee. Another employee informed me that on that same day you pinched her on her buttocks. After I was told about these incidents that day, I counseled you and informed you that this was inappropriate behavior and it was explained that your actions were unacceptable. This type of conduct is not conducive to a satisfactory work environment. Your conduct has adversely impacted the morale and efficiency of your unit and the Department, is detrimental to the best interests of the state and Department, and adversely affects your effectiveness with the Department, as well as your ability to continue to perform your job. This behavior must cease immediately. Should you continue conduct unbecoming a public employee, disciplinary actions, up to and including dismissal may be taken. Ms. Spradlin signed the counseling memorandum on October 4, 2011, and added the following comments: These two incidents happened on [sic] different persons. The incident w/ “mooning” was with [a] coworker after I incurred a severe sunburn. It was done only to show my burns not to offend her. She sobbed – I was not wearing pants – skirt instead. On the second occasion w/co-worker E.R. she put her buttocks in my face, playing around, & I pinched it as if to express my willingness to play as well. It was provoked – not done in an offensive manner. I understand that this type of behavior is not accepted in my work environment. They were done in a playful uplifting manner, not intentional. However, I will refrain from this behavior as I have obviously offended my colleagues. Another allegation of disparate treatment concerned an incident with a Department client named B.H., who Ms. Spradlin assisted with enrolling in nursing school. B.H. arrived at the Marianna unit one day without an appointment and reported that he wanted to do something other than nursing. Ms. Spradlin asserts that B.H. got aggressive when his requested changes could not be accomplished immediately. Ms. Spradlin further asserts that she became afraid, threatened to call 9-1-1, and managed to get past B.H. and into the hallway outside her office. Ms. Gilbert heard the commotion and called the police. By the time the police arrived at the Marianna unit, B.H. was very calm, and Ms. Gilbert concluded there had been no need to call law enforcement. While Ms. Spradlin asserts that she became an object of ridicule in the Marianna office for overreacting, Ms. Gilbert asserts that she was ridiculed for failing to give the address of the Marianna office when she called 9-1-1. As another example of disparate treatment, Ms. Spradlin cites an incident on November 14, 2013, involving a cigarette butt. Ms. Spradlin was in Ms. Gilbert’s office and dropped a cigarette butt into a trashcan. According to Ms. Spradlin, Ms. Gilbert demanded that she remove the cigarette butt and forced Ms. Spradlin to search through used tissues for the cigarette butt. Ms. Gilbert acknowledged that she asked Ms. Spradlin to remove the cigarette butt from the trashcan, but she credibly denied berating Ms. Spradlin or yelling at her. According to Ms. Gilbert, Ms. Spradlin was able to quickly remove the butt from the trashcan and was not upset about having to do so. Ms. Spradlin made several other allegations about how Ms. Gilbert gave African-American employees in the Marianna unit preferential treatment. For example, Ms. Spradlin alleges that she was required to handle more cases and incur more travel than her African-American coworkers. With regard to her travel reimbursements, Ms. Spradlin alleged that Ms. Gilbert refused to account for all the miles she traveled. Ms. Spradlin further asserts that Ms. Gilbert subjected her to disparate treatment by requiring her to maintain more documentation of her daily activities, inundating her with e-mails inquiring about the status of her work, and being less lenient regarding Ms. Spradlin’s use of flex and leave time. Ms. Gilbert testified that she has never denied a request for annual leave and that she approved the majority of Ms. Spradlin’s requests for flex time, even though Ms. Spradlin did not follow the proper procedure for making such requests. As for the other allegations mentioned above, Ms. Gilbert credibly testified that she did not subject Ms. Spradlin to any disparate treatment. Finally, Ms. Spradlin alleges that Ms. Gilbert unfairly administered a system by which counselors within the Marianna unit shared their successful cases with African- American counselors who had fewer successful cases. This system was implemented because counselors within the Marianna unit were expected to have a certain number of successful cases. Ms. Gilbert credibly denied that the system was administered unfairly: Q: Ms. Gilbert, do you ever ask counselors to donate their successful cases or case numbers to other counselor? A: I never asked counselors specifically to do that. I did discuss it with the unit, with our team as an option. Q: Okay, and why would that be an option they may want to do? A: Well, the way Vocational Rehabilitation operates is a person has to be on their job a minimum – a minimum of three months, okay, 90 days, to consider that person as successfully rehabilitated. And that was a measurement. That was an expectation on each counselor’s performance evaluation, that they had to get so many successful rehabs within one year. So someone that’s being hired and coming to Vocational Rehabilitation in the middle of the year, they don’t have that opportunity to monitor that person for 90 days, if they don’t already have someone that’s in that employment status ready to begin monitoring. So it’s difficult. But I did not want that to be a negative reflection of a counselor that’s really trying and that’s working their caseload and trying to get their successful rehabs. So I would ask counselors once they’ve received all of their rehabs and they close enough people successfully that allows them to get the most maximum score that they can get on their evaluation, I would ask them if they wanted to, share those rehabs with someone that’s probably a new counselor or that’s just having a difficult time with obtaining their successful rehabs. Q: Okay. And so Mr. Sutton’s first year, might he have received some successful numbers donated to him from other counselors? A: That is a possibility. Q: Okay. Did Ms. Spradlin ever receive any successful numbers donated to her when she had a lower number? A: Yes. * * * Q: Okay. And so that number of successes or successful rehabilitations is important to counselors? A: Absolutely. Q: Because they are – are they evaluated on that each year in their yearly performance evaluation? A: Yes. Each level of counselor, if you’re an entry-level counselor, your first year you may be expected to get five. Those numbers are prorated. So the cutoff period is last business day of June, so if you have a new counselor that starts in February or March, they’re at a disadvantage, they don’t have the time. Time works against them. But if they are involved with their cases and they are trying to work their cases, I felt that it was only reasonable to assist them. * * * Q: Okay, so you said that Ms. Spradlin would have received a donation of successful cases maybe early on in her career? A: Yes. Q: Did she donate cases once she became a more proficient counselor? A: I’m pretty sure she did. Q: And did you specifically ask her to donate cases to any particular employee? A: No. Ms. Spradlin resigned from the Department on August 10, 2016. There is no sufficiently persuasive evidence to support Ms. Spradlin’s disparate treatment claims. The greater weight of the evidence demonstrates that Ms. Spradlin was not subjected to any disparate treatment during her tenure in the Marianna unit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order dismissing Petitioner’s Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of July 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G. W. CHISENHALL 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 24th day of July 2018.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent's employment on grounds alleged in the Civil Service Notice of Disciplinary Action of May 10, 2000.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Petitioner employed Respondent in Petitioner's maintenance department as a Carpenter I. Respondent was a non-probationary educational support employee as defined in Section 1012.40, Florida Statutes (2003), which is substantially similar to Section 231.3605, Florida Statutes (2001), and its predecessors. In October 1995, Respondent's fishing boat collided with a commercial barge. As a result of the accident, Respondent's father and uncle were killed and Respondent's son suffered serious bodily injury. Respondent had a history of poor attendance at work. Sometime prior to October 1998, Respondent's supervisor counseled him and recommended discipline due to unexcused and excessive absences from work. Respondent was arrested in October 1998 as the result of the boating accident. Respondent initially was charged with one count each of vessel homicide, culpable negligence, and boating under the influence (BUI) severe bodily injury, and two counts of manslaughter. On April 28, 2000, a jury found Respondent guilty as charged. It is undisputed that Respondent was absent from work without authorization or approved leave from April 17, 2000 through May 17, 2000. Petitioner terminated his employment effective May 17, 2000. Respondent was sentenced on August 22, 2000, for the following offenses: causing serious bodily injury to another, culpable negligence in the death of another, vessel homicide, and two counts of BUI manslaughter. On appeal, some of Respondent's felony convictions were discharged. However, the Court affirmed Respondent's BUI manslaughter convictions. See Ronald R. Cardenas, Jr. v. State of Florida, 816 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). The court in Ronald R. Cardenas, Jr. v. State of Florida, 816 So. 2d 724 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), certified a question of great public importance involving a jury instruction to the Florida Supreme Court. See Ronald R. Cardenas, Jr. v. State of Florida, Case No. SC02-1264, Rev.gr. 832 So. 2d 103 (Table) (Fla. November 19, 2002). At the time of the hearing, the Florida Supreme Court continued to have jurisdiction over Respondent's criminal case. Therefore, Respondent's convictions for BUI manslaughter remain in effect. Petitioner's Rule 2.24 provides that personnel absent from work without approved leave shall forfeit compensation and be subject to discipline, including termination. Unavailability for work due to incarceration does not constitute a basis for approved leave and is an unauthorized absence.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of March, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Ron Cardenas Department of Corrections No. 202263 Reception and Medical Center Post Office Box 628 Lake Butler, Florida 32054 Joseph L. Hammons, Esquire Hammons, Longoria & Whittaker, P.A. 17 West Cervantes Street Pensacola, Florida 32501-3125 Jim Paul, Superintendent Escambia County School Board 215 West Garden Street Pensacola, Florida 32502 Honorable Jim Horne Commissioner of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 323299-0400 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 1244 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue May Petitioner terminate vocational rehabilitation services to Respondent, specifically, vocational rehabilitation benefits under Chapter 10, F.A.C., for a two year program to become a newspaper writer? HEARING AND PROCEDURE At hearing, Petitioner presented the oral testimony of Kay Nelson and had admitted two exhibits. Respondent testified on her own behalf and presented the oral testimony of Tom Hawkins. Respondent had no exhibits admitted in evidence. Petitioner filed transcript of the formal hearing but has filed no proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Respondent timely filed, within the extended time limits stipulated by the parties, a five page letter with various exhibits attached. Leave was not sought by motion for the submission of these after-filed exhibits and they have not been considered. A ruling in compliance with Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes is contained within the CONCLUSIONS OF LAW portion of this recommended order.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Marilyn McFadden, is an adult Caucasian female with a history of marital, familial, and emotional problems. Her past work history is unskilled and non-specific except for assisting a former husband who was a pentecostal preacher and evangelist and for working in her own creative jewelry business. In 1983, Respondent was referred by the federal Social Security Administration to Petitioner State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services vocational rehabilitation unit (DHRS), in Sarasota, Florida. On March 14, 1983, Respondent made application for vocational rehabilitation services and funds.1 An extensive "work-up" was prepared by Kay Nelson, a DHRS employee who was a vocational rehabilitation counselor at the time. In the course of this "work-up," medical advisors to Petitioner verified to the satisfaction of Ms. Nelson that Respondent had sufficient physical disability or physical vocational handicap in her neck, shoulders, and upper back2 to qualify for DHRS vocational rehabilitation client services on the basis of a physical handicap and that Respondent would require preparation or re-training for semi-sedentary work on the basis of her past limited work history and present physical disability/handicap. At that time, Respondent did not confide in Ms. Nelson or the psychological evaluator that she had undergone prior psychiatric treatment with regard to her first divorce. Therefore, Ms. Nelson's initial assessment of Respondent's eligibility for vocational rehabilitation services did not take into account that Respondent might qualify for benefits due to a mental or emotional disability. Likewise, it did not take into consideration that her psychological makeup might present a barrier to successful vocational rehabilitation or future employability. Indeed, Ms. Nelson's assessment concluded that Respondent was then psychologically fit to embark on a two year college course so as to enter the occupational grouping of "Newswriter 131.267-214." In order to achieve the goal of rendering Respondent employable, Respondent on her own behalf and Kay Nelson on behalf of DHRS entered into a written individualized written client services program set out in a three page document-dated July 12, 1983. (P-1) Before entering into the written program, Respondent and Nelson orally agreed that the services set forth in the written program had a reasonable expectation of getting Respondent back to work. In addition to counseling, guidance, assistance with placement, and other services to help Respondent achieve employability, the written program specifically provided for Respondent to pursue a Mass Communications "Journalism) AA [Associate of Arts] degree at Manatee Junior College by completing 60 semester hours at 517.00 per hour for a total of $1,020.00. In the "Counseling and Guidance Goals" portion of the written program it states as goals, "1. To encourage Marilyn's participation in New Option Program. To assist her to see her strong point-- positives. To assist her to view things as a whole and not dwell on detail." Elsewhere in the program the parties agreed, in pertinent part, to "Counselling & Guidance provided by V. R. Counselor, Double Your Opportunity Program at MJC,3 & Displaced Homemaker Programs. N/C to V.R."4 and "Placement Services provided by V.R. 9 Counselor, V.R. Placement Specialist, F.S.E.S.; and M.J.C. n/c to V.R." These services had the extensive objective of emotional support, teaching assertiveness, guiding course selection and vocational choices, and preparing Respondent for return to employment including resume preparation, job interview techniques, and proper vocational attitudes. In the "Statement of Client Agreement and Participation" portion of the written program it is spelled out that: "I, Marilyn J. McFadden; will cooperate in all phases of my Vocational Rehabilitation. I will attend all classes regularly and give my best effort in all classwork. I understand that in order for V.R. to continue at MJC, I must maintain a 2.0 GPA, keeping my counselor advised monthly of my progress at MJC in training and any expected changes in my V.R. plan. Prior to the end of each term, I will provide my counselor a written list of my expected course grades, initialed by the respective professors, as well as a listing of classes and books for the next term. I also understand that I am expected each term to contact the financial aid office and apply for any financial aid that it is determined I may be eligible to receive. Any scholarships or grant moneys I receive in addition to my PELL Grant are to be reimbursed to V.R. unless my counselor deems otherwise. I will be expected to assume financial responsibility for all my medical, therapy, and maintenance expenses. If personal or financial needs arise that would create undue hardship on my completing this training program I-am to advise my counselor prior to initiating any program changes. Any plans to continue on with a Baccalaureate degree in my ma]or field will not be considered until I have completed my two year degree and then will be dependent upon my successful completion of this training, my final G.P.A., and if my counselor and I agree that this prescribed course of action is in my best vocational interest. I understand that at the present time there is no financial obligation on the part of V.R. to fund me in a 4 year training program nor is my counselor or V.R. recommending such a program. Any major changes to my program such as change in vocational goal or additional training will require a supplemental plan. At the completion of my training program, I understand that I will be expected to work closely with those placement resources listed in my plan, keep scheduled job interviews, seek employment myself, and when appropriate employment is offered to me, return to work. "Emphasis supplied) Respondent signed and dated this program agreement. (P-1) From August 1983 until January 1984, DHRS provided Respondent with money for some tuition costs until she received a Pell education grant, provided her with funds for books, transportation, and child care for her daughter, and provided her with on-going guidance and counselling. During this period, Respondent fully complied with the signed, written program. Respondent took some remedial courses in math and English. It is not clear whether these courses were strictly remedial or are basic to an AA degree which may be used as the basis of a 4 year Baccalaureate degree, but these courses were apparently necessary to allow Respondent to remain in other courses required to qualify for an "AA" toward achieving "newswriter" employment. There is therefore insufficient evidence to support a finding that Respondent deliberately took unauthorized courses at Manatee Junior College during this period or during subsequent grading periods. On January 18, 1984, Ms. Nelson counselled with Respondent and concluded Respondent had severe emotional problems. Except for her formal job title, little information was provided concerning Ms. Nelson. No evidence of education, training or experience of Ms. Nelson was offered as a predicate for her reaching this conclusion, and indeed, Ms. Nelson personally testified that she was "not a doctor". However, upon Ms. Nelson's testimony concerning her direct, personal observations of Respondent on that date and shortly thereafter that Respondent was behaving erratically and talking incoherently and upon Respondent's reference to this period as "the breakdown," it is found that for an unspecified period of time in early 1984 Respondent was unable to comply with the written vocational rehabilitation program due to severe emotional problems. Ms. Nelson and a person named Jeanne Hinton transported Respondent to a psychiatric hospital and attempted to have her commit herself voluntarily. When Ms. McFadden refused to commit herself voluntarily, Ms. Nelson and others appeared in some type of legal proceeding in an attempt to involuntarily commit Respondent for psychiatric care. Inevitably, these incidents resulted in considerable animosity and distrust on Ms. McFadden's part toward Ms. Nelson and toward DHRS. There is no evidence that Ms. McFadden is currently under any court or Division of Administrative Hearing Order of incompetency or involuntary commitment.5 Nonetheless, based on hearsay and her own observations, Ms. Nelson, as counsellor in charge of Ms. McFadden's vocational rehabilitation benefits, determined that Ms. McFadden was ineligible for vocational rehabilitation benefits under the existing program. In large part, Ms. Nelson's decision was based upon Ms. McFadden's expressed belief that God would heal her without counselling by DHRS or a psychologist and Ms. McFadden's refusal of counselling by Ms. Nelson or any other human being. Ms Nelson appears to have concluded that such reliance on God is evidence of emotional instability. Ms. Nelson closed Respondent McFadden's file and terminated her vocational rehabilitation benefits upon grounds Respondent was "ineligible." Ms. Nelson is emphatic that the determination of ineligibility is that of the vocational counsellor and as that counsellor, she does consider Respondent ineligible because of what Ms. Nelson perceives as Respondent's emotional problems interfering with Respondent's ability to complete the agreed program and interfering with Respondent's employability. Ms. Nelson elected not to close the file upon grounds-the Respondent was "uncooperative." Respondent denies any type of mental handicap requiring remediation as of the date of formal hearing. She maintains that although she first signed the contract program which DHRS has now terminated, she thereafter decided unilaterally that her acceptance of the benefits provided thereunder was dishonest within her personal moral code because she had no intention of becoming a newswriter; that she did not intend to ever accept employment in such a field but intended to "piggyback" a four year Baccalaureate degree in journalism and possibly a Master's degree on top of the "AA" degree if she successfully completed the "AA" degree. At hearing, Respondent initially refused to comply with the terms of the program and then offered to comply with the requirements of the program as far as achieving the "AA" degree but refused to progress toward employability as a newswriter and indicated she would still reject counselling. The mutual hostility, mutual mistrust, and lack of respect for each other's point of view of Ms. Nelson and Respondent McFadden was an observable situation clearly evident throughout the entire hearing.
Recommendation That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order affirming the administrative termination of the vocational rehabilitation benefits entered into by the July 12, 1983 written client services program. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of August, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of August, 1986.
Recommendation Based on the evidence presented, the Hearing Officer recommends an award of attorney's fees and costs in the sum of $77,679.80 for the hearing level, and $20,915.20 for attorney's fees and costs incurred on appeal. Respectfully submitted and entered this 30th day of January, 1986. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of January, 1986.
