The Issue Whether Respondent violated Subsections 464.018(1)(c), (h), and (i), Florida Statutes, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Health, Board of Nursing (Department), is the agency charged with the regulation of the practice of nursing pursuant to Chapters 20, 456 and 464, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Marion Morris Morrow (Morrow), is a licensed practical nurse in the State of Florida, having been issued license number PN 0801791. Morrow met George Davison (Davison) when his wife was a patient at Green Briar Nursing Home, where Morrow was the charge nurse. In 1997, Davison was involved in an automobile accident, resulting in the loss of his driver's license. After Davison was no longer able to drive, Morrow took Davison to the grocery store to buy groceries. She also took him to the bank to cash checks. Morrow came to Davison's house on a regular basis to see him. If he was not feeling well, she checked on him, and if he needed anything she went and got it for him. Davison sold his automobile to Morrow for $2,500. She was to pay a little on the car as she had the money, but the total $2,500 has not been paid. At least two times after he sold the car to Morrow, he gave her money to pay the insurance on the car. He gave Morrow a few hundred dollars to pay her eldest son's college tuition. Davison gave Morrow money from time to time as she needed it. Morrow spent some of the money to support her cocaine habit. Davison was unaware that Morrow used any of the money to buy crack cocaine. On March 28, 1999, the Coral Gables Police Department received a 911 call from Davison, who was having delusions about people being in his house. Responding to the call, the police went to Davison's home. Morrow was at the home when the police arrived. On March 28, 1999, the Department of Children and Family Services' Adult Protective Services Unit received a complaint from the Coral Gables Police Department, alleging that possibly Davison, who was born in 1913, was being abused by his caregiver. Protective Services Investigator John Steinhilber was assigned the case and went to Davison's residence on March 29, 1999, to investigate. When Mr. Steinhilber arrived at Davison's home, he spoke with Morrow but was not admitted into the residence. On March 29, 1999, Davison was admitted to the South Miami Hospital. Morrow took Davison to the hospital at his request. Mr. Steinhilber contacted the Coral Gables Police Department for assistance in gaining admittance to Davison's home. On March 30, 1999, Mr. Steinhilber returned to Davison's residence with two police detectives, Kathleen Williams and Terry Drinkut. Morrow answered the door and let them in the house. Morrow had been on the telephone with Davison when the police arrived. She gave the telephone to Ms. Williams to talk to Davison, who gave the police permission to look around his home. Ms. Williams asked for Morrow's identification. Morrow proceeded to the back bedroom with the detectives following her. Morrow ran to the bed and grabbed something off of the bed. Thinking that Morrow may have a weapon, the detectives subdued her and found a crack pipe in one of her hands. There was debris on the bed, which appeared to be crack cocaine. Morrow was advised of her rights and taken to the police station. While the detectives were at Davison's residence, they inspected the interior of the house. There was rotting food on the kitchen counter, in the oven, and in the refrigerator, which was not working. One of the bathrooms had worms living in the toilet. There was feces in a lavatory, on Davison's bedroom floor, and in Davison's sheets. Dirty clothes with feces were piled in a corner of the bedroom. Empty medication bottles, dating back to 1998, were in the kitchen. There were piles of garbage throughout the house. Morrow was advised of her constitutional rights again at the police station. She told the police officers that she had begun taking care of Davison after he had an automobile accident in 1997, checking on him almost daily and occasionally staying overnight. She admitted that she was addicted to crack cocaine, and that since she had been a caregiver to Davison that she had received between $100,000 and $180,000 from Davison. She stated that she would go to the bank with Davison, who would negotiate checks made out to cash and turn the money over to Morrow. Additionally, she confessed that the majority of the money had been spent by Morrow for crack cocaine. From November 21, 1998, to February 18, 1999, Davison had written 62 checks for cash, totaling $16,114. At times more than one check would be cashed on the same day. Two of the checks for cash had been endorsed by Morrow. During the same time period, two checks were made payable to Morrow for a total of $323. Davison does not know what happened to the cash. He does not believe that he gave the cash to Morrow, but he has no explanation for where the cash went or what he bought with the money. Davison admits giving some money to Morrow over the course of their friendship, but he denies that he gave her between $100,000 and $180,000. On April 23, 1999, a two-count information was filed, alleging that Morrow abused an elderly person by neglecting to adequately provide care, supervision, and services for Davison and/or allowing the living conditions to deteriorate to a point which could reasonably result in physical or psychological injury and alleging that Morrow, while standing in a position of trust and confidence, knowingly obtained funds by deception or intimidation from Davison in an amount more than $20,000 but less than $100,000. On November 5, 1999, Morrow pled guilty to Count I of the information, alleging abuse of an elderly person by neglecting to provide adequate care. Count II of the information was nolle prossed. Adjudication was withheld, and Morrow was placed on probation for 12 months. Morrow attended a substance abuse program as a condition of her probation and was clean from the use of drugs or alcohol for fifteen months at the time of the final hearing. Morrow has not been employed since November 1989.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Marion Morris Morrow did not violate Subsections 464.018(1)(h) and (i), Florida Statutes, finding that Marion Morris Morrow did violate Subsection 464.018(1)(c), Florida Statutes, imposing a fine of $500, and suspending her license for one year, to be followed by an appearance before the Board of Nursing to determine if she is safe to return to practice. If the Board of Nursing so determines, it may reinstate Marion Morris Morrow's license upon such conditions as it deems appropriate to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Susan B. Kirkland 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 5th day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Diane K. Kiesling, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Room 3231A Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Marion Morris Morrow 27920 Southwest 130th Avenue Homestead, Florida 33032 Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Ruth R. Stiehl, Ph.D., R.N. Executive Director Board of Nursing 4080 Woodcock Drive, Suite 202 Jacksonville, Florida 32207-2714
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a licensed registered nurse in the State of Florida holding license number 1091372. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the provisions of Chapter 464 related to the licensure standards for nursing in the State of Florida and the regulation and enforcement of standards of nursing practice. Pursuant to a previous disciplinary proceeding against this Respondent, a Final Order was entered by the Petitioner whereby the Respondent's nursing license number 1091372, which is the subject of this proceeding, was placed on probationary status for a period of one year from August 19, 1985. As a condition of that probation, the Respondent was required to submit to random blood and/or urine tests. Pursuant to the authority of this Order, Charles E. Wheelahan, an investigator with the Investigation Section of the Department of Professional Regulation, attempted to obtain a urine sample from the Respondent, pursuant to the previously entered Final Order, during the period June 13-27, 1986. Mr. Wheelahan first phoned the Respondent on June 13 to set up an appointment and told the Respondent the reason for the appointment. The Respondent appeared to be somewhat incoherent in her conversation by phone that day and so the investigator set up an appointment for another day. He went to her residence on June 25 and asked that she supply a urine sample. She informed him she was unable to do so at that time. He waited approximately one and one-half hours, during which time she made no attempt to furnish him with the requested sample. The following day he requested by phone that she meet him at "University Hospital" on the following day, which would be June 27, 1986. Later that day she called him and cancelled that appointment. He then offered to meet her at any other time on that day and got no cooperation from the Respondent. Thus, after giving the Respondent three opportunities to comply with the requirements of the Order by which her license was placed on probation, Mr. Wheelahan recommended and the Petitioner ultimately instituted the instant prosecution. Witness Elaine Brantley testified and established that she had transcribed the telephone conversation Mr. Wheelahan had with the Respondent on June 27, 1986. That transcript was admitted as Petitioner's Exhibit C, being a transcript of the witness' shorthand notes regarding the telephone conversation. This exhibit, as well as the testimony of Mr. Wheelahan, and the other uncontroverted evidence, establishes that the Respondent evaded and obstructed Mr. Wheelahan's attempts to obtain a urine sample as required by the Final Order which had imposed probation with that random sampling as a condition. Mr. Wheelahan advised the Respondent that her failure to cooperate in arranging to provide the sample would be reported as a refusal to comply with the terms of the probation and he so reported it. She continued her evasiveness and refusal to cooperate in arranging the provision of a urine sample to the Petitioner with this knowledge.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of counsel, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the Florida Board of Nursing enter a Final Order suspending the Respondent's license until such time as she appears before the Board and adequately demonstrates her ability to safely engage in the practice of nursing in the State of Florida. DONE and ORDERED this 2nd day of July 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 2nd day of July, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-4770 The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact have all been accepted. The Respondent did not file Proposed Findings of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary D. Beatty, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Delores Eckard 775 Berkley Drive Pensacola, Florida 32503 Judie Ritter, Executive Director Board of Nursing Room 504 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, by engaging in unsolicited and unwanted sexually or romantically oriented behavior toward a subordinate female employee, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Gary D. Latham (Latham), began serving as a member of the Florida Parole Commission (Parole Commission) on July 24, 1992. At the time of the final hearing, he was continuing to serve as a parole commissioner. Claretha Billingslea Walker started to work for the Parole Commission on May 1, 1991, as an administrative secretary to the general counsel's office. At all times pertinent to this Complaint, she was known as Claretha Billingslea and will be referred to in this recommended order as Ms. Billingslea. Effective May 27, 1994, Ms. Billingslea was promoted to the position of executive secretary to Commissioner Judith Wolson. On July 1, 1994, Ms. Wolson became Chairman of the Parole Commission. Ms. Billingslea was promoted to the position of senior executive secretary to the chairman. When a potential opening arose, Latham and Ms. Billingslea discussed the possibility of Ms. Billingslea accepting a position as Latham's executive secretary since Latham had previously interviewed Ms. Billingslea for an executive secretary position in his office approximately two years before. Ms. Billingslea was interested in coming to work for Latham because a number of her duties had been eliminated when Ms. Wolson was made chairman, but she was concerned about making such a move because she had been with Chairman Wolson's office such a short time. Latham discussed with Chairman Wolson and her administrative assistant, Gene Strickland, the possibility of transferring Ms. Billingslea to Latham's open position. Both Chairman Wolson and Mr. Strickland agreed that it would be a good opportunity for Ms. Billingslea to learn more about the duties in a commissioner's office because the work in the chairman's office was more administrative than the work in a commissioner's office. Neither Mr. Strickland nor Chairman Wolson was dissatisfied with Ms. Billingslea's work. Prior to hiring Ms. Billingslea, Latham also discussed the hiring with his future administrative assistant, Brenda Henry, and with his wife. Effective August 5, 1994, Ms. Billinglea was reassigned to the position of executive secretary to Latham. Because there is only one position of senior executive secretary at the Parole Commission (the chairman's secretary), this reassignment was nominally a demotion. It did not act as a demotion, however, because Ms. Billingslea's salary and benefits remained unchanged. In her capacity as Latham's executive secretary, Ms. Billingslea reported directly to Latham. As a career service employee, Ms. Billingslea could not be unilaterally fired by Latham, but as her direct supervisor Latham could set the wheels in motion for her termination. Ms. Billinsglea understood that the chairman would have to approve her termination. Latham had the authority to assign tasks to Ms. Billingslea and to grant or deny her leave or flex time. From the start of Ms. Billingslea's employment in Latham's office, Latham engaged in comments and behavior of questionable propriety. He told her that he would not be able to get any work done with such a pretty secretary. Ms. Billingslea took this as a joke. On another occasion, one of Ms. Billingslea's male friends complained to her that Latham had been rude to him when he called. She thought Latham might have been upset that she was receiving too many personal calls, but when she asked Latham about it, he told her no and said, "I guess I'll just have to get used to guys calling all the time with such a pretty secretary." Latham often stared at Ms. Billingslea, looking her up and down. In describing these looks, Ms. Billingslea stated, "The way he looks at me, it is really weird. And it makes me feel uncomfortable, the way he kind of stares and looks me up and down. It will be almost as if he's going to say something but he never said anything." Once when he was looking at her in this strange way, Ms. Billingslea asked him whether there was something he wanted to say, to which he responded, "No, that was my sexy look." At this time she took it as a joke. One day Latham told Ms. Billingslea that he had been on his way to a friend's house and had gotten lost and ended up on her street. He said that he had gone by her house and that she had a nice place. He asked her why she kept her blinds closed so tightly. When the Parole Commission denies parole, a report referred to as a 947.18 report is completed, justifying the decision not to grant the parole. Procedurally, the Parole Commission will make a decision to grant or deny parole at a meeting. The case is then assigned to a commissioner to prepare a 947.18 report. The report is prepared in the office of the commissioner, and two weeks after the initial consideration the case is placed back on the agenda for review and acceptance. At its meeting on September 21, 1994, the Parole Commission denied parole for an inmate who had been convicted of sexually abusing his daughters. Latham was assigned to prepare the 947.18 report. Ms. Henry drafted the report for Ms. Billingslea to type. The report was very sexually explicit. After the report was typed, Ms. Billingslea took it to Latham for his review. Both Latham and Ms. Billingslea commented that it was an interesting case. Latham closed his eyes and in a low voice began to describe the graphic details of the sexual abuse to Ms. Billingslea. Ms. Billingslea later asked Ms. Henry if the file contained any pictures. On September 27, 1994, Latham went into Ms. Billingslea's office and sat down in front of her desk. He informed her that he had "the hots" for her. He told her that she had done nothing to make him approach her in this way but that he did not know what had come over him lately; he had been attracted to a lot of young pretty women, and she was just "such a doll." He told her that he had nasty thoughts about her while he taught Sunday School. When she told him that she could not work for him if she were to be with him sexually, he responded that she would not be working for him but that he would be working for her. When she told him that she was not interested, he became defensive, stating that he had a lot of political power. His last words to her in that encounter were, "I might not be able to keep my hands to myself." Later that same day, as Ms. Billingslea was preparing to leave work, Latham asked her to stay late. Over and over, he asked her to stay and "be with him," initially standing behind her chair and preventing her from pushing back. Ms. Billingslea took Latham's remarks and actions on September 27 as an invitation to a sexual or romantic relationship, which she had neither solicited nor encouraged. Ms. Billingslea did not misunderstand Latham or his intentions. Ms. Billinsglea was afraid that her rejection of Latham's advances would cost her her job. She believed that Latham could cause her to be fired. On September 28, 1994, Ms. Billingslea was ill. She called her doctor's office and requested that the doctor call in a prescription for her to a local pharmacy. The doctor's office did call in a prescription. Ms. Billingslea advised Latham that she felt ill, to which Latham responded that she had just "better be to work." Ms. Billingslea took this remark as an admonishment not to take sick leave. On October 3, 1994, Ms. Billingslea was late for work. She tried to call the office to advise that she would be late, but no one answered the telephone. On October 3, 1994, Latham expressed concern to Ms. Billingslea that she was abusing or not accurately reporting her leave time. Ms. Billingslea perceived that Latham's attitude toward her became cool after their conversation on September 27. Latham had never said anything to Ms. Billingslea about being tardy or being absent from work prior to September 27 because he did not think that it was a big deal. After Ms. Billingslea spurned his advances, he began to voice his dissatisfaction with her work hours. Ms. Billingslea went to the Parole Commission's personnel officer, Frank Trueblood. She wanted to take time off from work to look for another job and asked Mr. Trueblood if there was any type of leave request that she could make which could not be denied by Latham. Mr. Trueblood questioned Ms. Billingslea about the underlying nature of her problems, and she told him about Latham's actions. Ms. Billingslea did not want to create a problem but wanted to find another job. Mr. Trueblood told Ms. Billingslea that she could file an informal complaint against Latham and that it would remain confidential. On October 5, 1994, Ms. Billingslea filed an informal complaint against Latham. About 5:00 p.m. that day she met with Chairman Wolson, Mr. Strickland, and Clay Phillips to discuss the situation. Chairman Wolson told Ms. Billingslea that she would be transferred to another section. Ms. Billinglea did not display eagerness to file a formal complaint against Latham. Latham saw Ms. Billingslea in Chairman Wolson's office, and after Ms. Billingslea left, he asked to speak with Chairman Wolson. Latham wanted to know what was going, on but Chairman Wolson would only tell him that Ms. Billingslea was being transferred to Clemency and that Murlene Amison would be transferred to his office as his secretary. At first Latham was upset at the news of the transfer and told Chairman Wolson that it would be setting a dangerous precedent to make the transfer. Latham told Chairman Wolson that he would like to "save face" in the matter and be the one who would offer the transfer to Ms. Amison. Latham then became exuberant about the transfer, closing his fist, punching it up with a victory signal and saying, "Yes." He left Chairman Wolson's office. A few minutes later, Latham returned to Chairman Wolson's office and told her that he thought he had figured out what had happened. He said that Ms. Billingslea had been sexually harassing him and that he had talked with her and explained that he did not want to have an affair with her. This was the first time anyone at the Parole Commission had heard Latham's claim of sexual harassment by Ms. Billingslea. On October 6, 1994, Ms. Billingslea filed a formal complaint against Latham. Latham tried to find out from Mr. Trueblood whether Ms. Billingslea had filed a sexual harassment complaint against him, but Mr. Trueblood would not tell him. Effective October 7, 1994, Ms. Billingslea was transferred to the position of executive secretary in Clemency. On October 7, 1994, Latham called Mr. Strickland to his office and thanked Mr. Strickland for the personnel move, indicating that it had "sav[ed] his butt." Latham asked Mr. Strickland to close the door and then told him that he had been attracted to Ms. Billingslea but nothing had happened, and now, because of the move, nothing would happen. Latham wanted to know what was on the paperwork regarding the transfer. Mr. Strickland told him that it indicated a lateral transfer. Latham knew that it was wrong for a supervisor to invite a subordinate employee into a sexual or romantic relationship. Since she has been at the Parole Commission, Ms. Billingslea has never received formal discipline relevant to any fact or issue in this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Gary D. Latham violated Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, and recommending a civil penalty of $4,000 be imposed, as well as a public censure and reprimand. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of September, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Virlindia Doss, Advocate Florida Commission on Ethics Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of September, 1997. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Gary D. Latham, pro se 4622 The Oaks Drive Marianna, Florida 32446 Mark Herron, Esquire Akerman, Senterfit & Eidson, P.A. 216 South Monroe Street, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-0503 Bonnie Williams, Executive Director Florida Commission on Ethics Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Phil Claypool, General Counsel Florida Commission on Ethics Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Kerrie J. Stillman, Clerk Florida Commission on Ethics Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709
Findings Of Fact Respondent is, and has been at all times material to the allegations of the Administrative Complaint, a registered nurse in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 1553112. Respondent's nursing license is current through March 31, 1987. In April 1984, Respondent applied for a license to practice nursing in the State of Florida. On this application she indicated she had never been arrested for any offense other than a traffic violation. The aforesaid application was signed by Respondent under oath. However, on or about 7 September, 1974, Respondent pleaded guilty to a charge of abduction of a female. Respondent was convicted of the aforesaid crime and sentenced to not less than three (3) nor more than ten (10) years in a state prison with execution of sentence suspended and Respondent placed on probation for a period of three (3) years. Marianne Gauthier and Respondent are one and the same person. Respondent was tried in a county court in West Virginia and never actually served any prison time. Upon successful completion of her probation period, Respondent was released from all provisions of probation. Subsequent to her arrest and conviction in 1974 Respondent completed a four year college curriculum to qualify as a registered nurse and has had no further involvement with any law enforcement authority. RECOMMENDED that Respondent be issued a reprimand for failure to accurately complete her license application and be placed on probation for a period of 6 months. Entered this 11th day of April, 1986 at Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS, 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 11th day of April, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: William M. Furlow, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Marianne E. Abbott 1824 Cadillac Circle Tampa, Florida 33619
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 issues to be determined are whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and if so, what penalties should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating the practice of nursing assistance pursuant to Section 20.43 and Chapters 456 and 464, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to these proceedings, Respondent was a certified nursing assistant, having been issued license number 84961. Her address with the Department of Health is Post Office Box 402, McIntosh, Florida 32664. On June 25, 2007, a Final Order was entered by the Board of Nursing against Respondent. The Final Order required Respondent to pay a fine of $50.00, enroll in and successfully complete courses in Legal Aspects for Nursing Assistants, and placed Respondent on probation for two years. A condition of the two-year probation was “[w]hether employed as a nurse or not, the licensee shall submit written reports to the Nursing Compliance Officer which shall contain the licensee’s name, license number, and current address; the name, address, and phone number of each current employer; and a statement by the licensee describing her employment. This report shall be submitted to the Nursing Compliance Officer every three (3) months in a manner as directed by the Nursing Compliance Officer.” (Emphasis supplied.) Respondent’s probation required that she “be responsible for assuring that reports from nursing supervisors will be furnished to the Nursing Compliance Officer every three (3) months. That report shall describe the licensee’s work assignment, work load, level of performance, and any problems." Quarterly self-reports and reports from her nursing supervisor, if any, were due to the Department on September 24, 2007, December 24, 2007, March 24, 2008, June 24, 2008, September 24, 2008, December 24, 2008, March 24, 2009, and June 24, 2009. Failure to comply with the terms of probation contained in the Final Order without prior written consent from the Board of Nursing was a violation of Respondent’s probation. As part of the Final Order a Notice of Appeal Rights was included, indicating that Respondent had 30 days to file a Notice of Appeal with the clerk of the department pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, if she wanted to challenge the Final Order. Shaila Washington, a compliance officer for the Board of Nursing, was Respondent’s compliance officer. As Respondent’s compliance officer, Ms. Washington mailed Respondent the Board of Nursing's standard information packet on July 18, 2007. The packet outlines the terms imposed by the Board and summarizes what the Respondent needed to do in order to comply, including definite due dates listed above. The letter accompanying the information packet states in bold, "Remember, it is your responsibility to read the final order and ask questions if you do not understand it." Respondent did not contact her compliance officer regarding the information packet mailed to her. She also did not appeal the final order. Ms. Washington testified, and Respondent confirmed, that Respondent failed to submit any of the quarterly reports, by Respondent or any supervisor, as required pursuant to the terms of Respondent’s probation. Respondent stated that she did not file any of the reports because she was not working as a CNA. However, the Final Order was clear that even if Respondent was not employed, she was required to follow the probation terms and submit the reports.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Board of Nursing enter a Final Order finding that Respondent has violated Section 464.204(1)(b) and Section 456.072(1)(q), Florida Statutes. It is further recommended that Respondent’s license to practice nursing assistance be reprimanded and that Respondent’s license be suspended, with the suspension stayed for 60 days to allow Respondent to comply with the terms of the Board’s prior Final Order. If within 60 days Respondent has not complied with the terms of the Board’s prior Final Order, it is recommended that the stay will be lifted and the suspension be imposed. The suspension will be lifted upon Respondent’s compliance with the Board’s prior Final Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of December, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 3rd day of December, 2009.
