The Issue Whether sufficient grounds exist to justify denial of Petitioner's license renewal application to operate a child care facility.
Findings Of Fact Based on the persuasive and credible evidence presented, the undersigned concludes that: The Department proved that the violations outlined in the September 25, 2015, "Checklist" (Department's Exhibit 3) existed on September 25, 2015. Further, that on October 1, 2015, it was clear under section 402.308 that all standards required by sections 402.301 through 402.319 and chapter 65C-22 had not been met. Petitioner had not corrected any of the Checklist violations as of October 1, 2015, and several material violations, which justify disciplinary action, existed and were still not corrected by October 9, 2015. Based on the credible and persuasive evidence, the undersigned finds that the Class I violation under section 14-04 of the "Checklist" was not brought into compliance by October 9, 2015. Nonetheless, the undersigned is constrained by the explicit and clear provisions of rule 65C-22.010, which sets forth a mandatory progressive disciplinary scheme that the Department was obligated to follow. This rule was created by and must be read in pari materia with the enabling statute, section 402.310(1)(c), which provides: The department shall adopt rules to: 1. Establish the grounds under which the department may deny, suspend, or revoke a license or registration or place a licensee or registrant on probation status for violations of ss. 402.301-402.319. (Emphasis added). The rule adopted to implement this provision, 65C-22, expressly provides that a license may only be revoked or denied for a Class I violation for the third or fourth violation in a two-year period.19/ Since this was the first Class I violation for Petitioner in a two-year period, the mandatory progressive disciplinary sanctions of rule 65C-22.010(2)(e)1.a. applied and had to be followed. The Department was entitled to impose a fine of not less than $100, nor more than $500 per day, for each violation and had the discretion to impose other disciplinary sanctions in addition to the fine.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the undersigned is constrained by the progressive disciplinary standards mandated by rule 65C-22.010(2)(e)1.a. to recommend the following: Children's Academy Preschool Inc., d/b/a Children's Academy Preschool I, be issued its renewal license converted to probation status as permitted by section 402.310(1)(a)2. See Dep't of Child. & Fams. v. Davis Fam. Day Care, Case No. 11-0916 (Fla. DOAH Oct. 25, 2011; Fla. DCF Feb. 8, 2012). As conditions of the probation status, unannounced periodic inspections by the Department should be made, requiring strict compliance with licensing standards. Furthermore, as a condition of probation, adequate monthly pest control and cleaning services must be provided to the extent reasonably necessary to control the problem and eliminate the exposure of children and staff to health or safety concerns. Conversion to probation status should be imposed for a minimum of six (6) months from the date of the Department's final order. Children's Academy Preschool Inc., d/b/a Children's Academy Preschool I, should be assessed a daily administrative fine of $100 for the period from September 25 through October 9, 2015, for a total amount of $1,400, to be paid as a condition of probation within 60 days. In closing, this recommendation comports with the progressive discipline required by rule 65C-22.010. It also strikes the best balance of respecting the legislative intent to provide child care services to the economically disadvantaged, while at the same time protecting the safety and welfare of the children using a child care facility which had been used by the local community for over 15 years. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of March, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE 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 8th day of March, 2016.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Department of Children and Families’ (the Department), intended action to cite Respondent, Kids Village Early Learning Center, with a Class I violation and impose a fine in the amount of $500, is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact The Department is responsible for licensing and monitoring “child care facilities,” as that term is defined in section 402.302(2), Florida Statutes. Kids Village is a child care facility licensed by the Department. Kids Village is operated by Angela Mitchell and is located at 1000 West Tharpe Street, Suite 24, Tallahassee, Florida. Kids Village is located in a shopping area commonly referred to as a “strip mall,” a series of retail and office establishments located along a sidewalk with exterior entrances. A Dollar General store is located across the parking lot from the strip mall. On November 2, 2017, L.C., a two-year-old child enrolled at Kids Village, exited the facility unaccompanied and on his own volition. A stranger spotted the child in the parking lot near the Dollar General store and left her vehicle to pick up the child. A parent of a former student at Kids Village, who works in the strip mall, recognized L.C. and returned him to the facility. L.C. was absent from the facility for approximately four minutes. Teresa Walker, a teacher at Kids Village, who was working on the day of the incident, called and reported the incident to Ms. Mitchell, who was not working at the facility that day. Both Ms. Walker and Ms. Mitchell completed required incident reports and filed them with the Department. The incident was also the subject of an anonymous complaint received by the Department’s child abuse hotline the same day. Elizabeth Provost, a Department family services counselor, received both the incident reports and the complaint and began an investigation. As part of her investigation, Ms. Provost interviewed the child protective investigator who received the complaint from the abuse hotline, as well as Ms. Mitchell and Ms. Walker. Ms. Provost also viewed the facility’s security camera footage from the day of the incident. Based on her investigation, Ms. Provost determined that L.C.’s mother arrived at the facility on the morning of November 6, 2017, signed the child in at the reception desk, engaged in conversation with another employee of the facility, looked around the corner where a gate separates the reception area from a hallway leading to classrooms, then exited the facility. Afterward, security video shows L.C. exiting the facility without supervision. Based upon her investigation, Ms. Provost concluded that the facility was in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-22.001(5), which reads, in pertinent part, as follows: Direct supervision means actively watching and directing children’s activities within the same room or designated outdoor play area, and responding to the needs of the child. Child care personnel at a facility must be assigned to provide direct supervision to a specific group of children at all times. Ms. Provost also determined the violation was a Class I violation of Department rules, which is described as “the most serious in nature, [which] pose[s] an imminent threat to a child including abuse or neglect and which could or does result in death or serious harm to the health, safety or well- being of a child.” Fla. Admin. Code R. 65C-22.010(1)(d)1. At hearing, Ms. Mitchell admitted that, on November 2, 2016, L.C. was indeed faced with a serious or imminent threat to his safety which could have resulted in injury or death. As such, Ms. Mitchell admitted the Department properly determined the incident was a Class I violation of rule 65C-22.001(5). Ms. Mitchell’s contention was that Kids Village was not completely at fault, and that the penalty assessed should be reduced to account for the mother’s negligence. L.C. was known to the staff at Kids Village as a “runner.” He experienced separation anxiety and would frequently try to follow his mother when she left the facility after dropping him off for school. Ms. Mitchell testified that L.C.’s mother had been instructed to walk L.C. to his classroom and hand him over to his teacher before leaving the facility. Ms. Mitchell faults the mother for having signed the child in on the morning of the incident, but leaving the facility without walking the child all the way to his classroom. The evidence adduced at hearing did not support that version of the facts. Ms. Walker was the only witness who testified at the final hearing who was actually at the facility on the day in question. Her recollection of the events was clear and her testimony was credible. Ms. Walker works in the “baby room,” which is located to the left of the reception area past the reception desk. The gate separating the reception area from the hallway to the classrooms is to the right of the reception desk. Ms. Walker testified that after his mother signs L.C. and his older brother in on most mornings, L.C. comes to stay with her in the baby room. Ms. Walker gives him hugs and extra attention to help overcome his anxiety, then walks him to his classroom when he is calm. On the morning in question, L.C.’s mother came into the facility and signed the children in at the reception desk. Signing a child in requires both completing a physical sign-in sheet, and an electronic interface with a computer system. While his mother was signing in the children, L.C. went to the baby room where Ms. Walker greeted him and hugged him. L.C.’s mother finished signing in the children and talking to the staff, then she turned to find both children gone. The mother “hollered out” to Ms. Walker something to the effect of “Where did the children go?” Ms. Walker replied that they had gone “to the back.” L.C.’s mother walked over to the gate separating the reception area from the classroom hallway and peered around it down the hallway. She then exited the facility. Shortly thereafter, L.C. came back through the gate, into the reception area, and exited the facility through the front door unaccompanied. L.C. was alone outside the facility in a crowded parking lot of a retail strip mall for almost five minutes. He had crossed the parking lot during morning traffic to almost reach the Dollar General store. L.C. was spotted by a stranger who got out of their own vehicle to pick up the child. L.C. was recognized, and returned to the facility, by someone who worked at a nearby store. One does not need an overactive imagination to list the dangers that could have befallen the child during that brief time period. Kids Village has taken corrective action since the incident and installed a security system on the front door which requires a person to push a button on a panel next to the door in order to exit the facility. There was no testimony regarding any prior citations against Kids Village for violation of child care licensing standards. The investigative summary prepared by Ms. Provost states, “Kid’s Village has one prior with the Department earlier in 2016[;] there were no indicators of inadequate supervision.” Rule 65C-22.010(2)(e) provides appropriate disciplinary sanctions to be imposed for Class I violations, as follows: For the first and second violation of a Class I standard, the department shall, upon applying the factors in Section 402.310(1), F.S., issue an administrative complaint imposing a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $500 per day for each violation, and may impose other disciplinary sanctions in addition to the fine. Section 402.310(1)(b) provides: In determining the appropriate disciplinary action to be taken for a violation as provided in paragraph (a), the following factors shall be considered: The severity of the violation, including the probability that death or serious harm to the health or safety of any person will result or has resulted, the severity of the actual or potential harm, and the extent to which the provisions of ss. 401.301-402.319 have been violated. Actions taken by the licensee or registrant to correct the violation or remedy complaints. Any previous violations of the licensee or registrant. In determining to impose a $500 penalty, Ms. Provost considered the subsequent remedial action taken by Kids Village to prevent future escapes by children in its care. She also considered the serious threat of harm or death posed to L.C. due to inadequate supervision by Kids Village. Imposition of the maximum fine for the Class I violation is supported by the record in this case. Neither the statute nor the rule direct the Department to consider the negligence of persons other than the licensee in determining the appropriate penalty to be imposed for a Class I violation.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the evidence presented at final hearing, and based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Respondent, Department of Children and Families, finding Kids Village Early Learning Center committed a Class I violation of child care facility licensing standards and imposing a monetary sanction of $500. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of August, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 1st day of August, 2017. COPIES FURNISHED: Lisa M. Eilertsen, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed) Camille Larson, Esquire Department of Children and Families 2383 Phillips Road, Room 231 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Angela Mitchell Kids Village Early Learning Center Suite 24 1000 West Tharpe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 (eServed) Michael Andrew Lee, Esquire Department of Children and Families 2383 Phillips Road, Room 231 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Mike Carroll, Secretary Department of Children and Families Building 1, Room 202 1317 Windwood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed) Rebecca Kapusta, General Counsel Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact Respondent's facility is a duly licensed child care facility. Rule Section 10M-12.002(5), Florida Administrative Code, requires direct supervision of groups of children by specified numbers of a child care facility's staff personnel. The number of staff personnel required for supervision is generated by the age and number of children to be supervised. Children three years of age must be supervised by at least one staff member for each group of 15 or less children. On June 12, 1990, two of Respondent's staff members were assigned to oversee 16 three-year-old children. The children were taken by the two staff members to the facility's outdoor play ground. While on the playground, one staff member left for a period of time not exceeding two minutes to retrieve snacks for the children. The 16 children were left to the supervision of another staff member while the one staff member walked alone approximately seventy-six (76) feet from the playground to an area inside a building where the snacks are kept. During the brief time she was inside the building, she could not see or observe children on the playground. During the staff member's absence, one of the children became entangled in playground equipment. Upon her return with the snacks, the staff member spotted the child. The child appeared to be unconscious. Mouth-to-mouth resuscitation was administered by the staff member and another Respondent employee telephoned emergency medical personnel. Immediately after the incident, Respondent's facility manager reported the matter by telephone to an investigator employed by Petitioner's licensing division. One week later, the investigator visited Respondent's facility, conducted a review of the premises and found no violations at that time. However, based upon the momentary absence of the one staff worker at the time of the incident the previous week, Petitioner's investigator determined that Respondent had violated provisions of Chapter 10M-12.002(5), Florida Administrative Code, relating to the number of staff members required to provide direct supervision of the children in Respondent's facility at that time. Petitioner's investigator interpreted the "ratio" provision of Rule Section 10M-12.002(5), Florida Administrative Code, to require issuance of a citation for a violation at any time an assigned worker left the exact area in which children were at the time such children were playing. Petitioner has cited other child care providers for staffing ratio violations, even when the absence of a facility's supervising staff member was temporary. Petitioner's interpretation of the requirements of Rule Section 10M- 12.002(5), Florida Administrative Code, does not exclude a facility from the exercise of reasonable alternatives which would prevent a citation for staffing ratio violations. Such an alternative would include having another facility employee temporarily provide supervision when one of the staff supervisors is required to leave the children.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered imposing an administrative fine of $75 against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of January, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1500 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of January, 1991. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. RESPONDENT'S PROPOSED FINDINGS 1.-12. Adopted in substance, but not verbatim. 13.-18. Rejected as unnecessary to result. PETITIONER'S PROPOSED FINDINGS 1.-15. Adopted in substance, though not verbatim. COPIES FURNISHED: Scott D. Leemis, Esq. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services P.O. Box 2417 Jacksonville, FL 32231-0083 Mary S. Kearsey, Esq. 13000 Sawgrass Village Circle Suite 16 Ponte Vedra Beach, FL 32082 General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Sam Power Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
The Issue The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) seeks an administrative fine of $100 from the Wesley Child Development Center (Wesley) for violation of rules related to child supervision. The issues are whether the violation occurred and whether the fine is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Wesley Child Development Center II is a child care facility licensed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) for operation at 42 East Jackson Street, Orlando, Florida. It is a pre-school facility associated with First United Methodist Church. On January 31, 1995, some time between 3:50 and 4:50 p.m., there were approximately seventeen (17) children and four (4) staff on the playground. The playground is confined with a sturdy, four-foot chain link fence. A.N. was a two-year old toddler on the playground; his teacher was Pat Vetter. A.N. had been playing with buckets and cars by himself near the fence and Ms. Vetter could see him through a play tunnel where two other children were playing. After he played alone for about 10-15 minutes, Ms. Vetter needed to start picking up toys. A.N. gave her his bucket. She turned from him and had taken about five steps when she heard him cry out with an angry cry. She turned back and saw him sitting on the ground with his legs out in front; he had been standing at the fence looking out at the parking lot. Ms. Vetter picked up A.N. and he stopped the angry cry, but continued whimpering. She consoled and held him until his mother arrived. There were no visible signs of any injury: no bruises, blood, scratches or swelling. When his mother picked him up, A.N. did not want to walk. She took him to a restaurant for supper, but later took him to the doctor for an examination. X-rays detected a spiral fracture of the child's femur bone. The cause of the injury remains a mystery to the child care facility staff, who were appropriately dismayed, and to the HRS staff who thoroughly investigated the incident. Dr. Seibel, the child protection team physician, conjectured that A.N. must have attempted to climb the fence, hooked his foot and fell, twisting his leg. No one observed the fall. Ms. Vetter was responsible for A.N.'s supervision and that of three other children on the playground. She was near him and aware of what he was doing. The accident occurred in the brief instant that she turned away to put up some toys; she did not leave the playground. The direct supervision staff to child ratio at the facility and on the playground was better than the 1:6 or 1:11 required by HRS' rules. There is no evidence that the staff were gossiping or engaged in any non-supervisory activity. There has never been a problem with supervision at this facility before, according to the HRS inspectors. No one contests that the child was injured at the facility. Ms. Vetter believes that he could not have had the fracture when he came to school that morning. Although other children have climbed on the fence, she has never observed A.N. trying to climb it. Still, the fence is the only plausible explanation for the injury.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter its final order dismissing the administrative complaint. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of October, 1995. MARY W. CLARK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of October, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Sawyer, Jr., Esquire District Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Suite S-827 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Elizabeth Jenkins Director Wesley Child Development Center II 142 East Jackson Street Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue Whether Petitioner committed the violations alleged by Respondent and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent hereto, Petitioner was a licensed day care center located in Dade County, Florida, that was owned and operated by Patrick Beauregard and Yvrose Beauregard, his wife. Respondent is a state agency charged with the duty of inspecting and licensing day care facilities. The licensing division and the health inspection division are two separate divisions of Respondent. The day care license of Petitioner was scheduled to expire on November 3, 1991. On August 29, 1991, the licensing division asked the health inspection division to conduct a health inspection of the Petitioner's facilities located at 7561 N.E. 1st Avenue, Miami, Florida. This request was made in connection with Petitioner's application for renewal of its license. Pursuant to the request made by the licensing division, the health division conducted inspections of Petitioner's facilities at 7561 N.E. 1st Avenue, Miami, Florida, on each of the following days in 1991: September 27, October 11, October 23, October 25, October 28, November 4, and November 15. On November 25, 1991, the licensing division received a copy of each report from the health division pertaining to inspections of Petitioner's facilities. The following reports were received by the licensing division: Child Care Facility Inspection Report dated September 27, 1991; Food Service Inspection Report dated September 27, 1991; Call Back/Re-Inspection Report dated October 7, 1991; Call Back/Re-Inspection Report dated October 11, 1991; Call Back/Re-Inspection Report dated October 23, 1991; Call Back/Re-Inspection Report dated October 25, 1991; Call Back/Re-Inspection Report dated October 28, 1991; Call Back/Re-Inspection Report dated November 4, 1991; and Call Back/Re-Inspection Report dated November 15, 1991. Petitioner was provided a copy of each of these reports following each inspection. The Child Care Facility Inspection Report dated September 27, 1991, found that Petitioner was in noncompliance with health standards in the following areas: Plumbing problems (clogged toilets and broken float in one toilet) in the north and east side toilets; Rodent infestation; and Personnel disease control problems in that there was a torn pad on the changing table on the east side near the sink. The Child Care Facility Inspection Report dated September 27, 1991, advised Petitioner to correct the deficiencies noted thereon within 72 hours. The Food Service Inspection Report dated September 27, 1991, noted two "major" violations. The first pertained to the presence of rodents in the food storage area near the kitchen. The second pertained to the manner in which soaps and other toxic materials were stored near food. That report also noted the following: Four minor violations under the category Food, Equipment and Utensils; One minor violation under the category Toilet and Handwashing Facilities; and Two minor violations under the category Floors, Walls and Ceilings. The Food Service Inspection Report dated September 27, 1991, advised Petitioner that the major and minor violations noted thereon had to be corrected by October 4, 1991. The Call Back/Re-Inspection Report dated October 7, 1991, reflects that none of the violations from the reports of September 27, 1991, had been corrected. The Call Back/Re-Inspection Report dated October 11, 1991, reflects that Mr. Beauregard had begun an extermination program for the rodent problem, but that the facility still showed evidence of active rodent infestation. The report required that further exterminating and cleaning be done, that an additional pad for the changing table be provided, and that a cracked light bulb be replaced. The October 11 report continued to find Petitioner to be in noncompliance. The time for Petitioner to come into compliance was extended to October 21, 1991. The Call Back/Re-Inspection Report dated October 23, 1991, reflects that the Beauregards were working to alleviate the rodent infestation, but that Petitioner was still in noncompliance with health standards because of the rodent infestation. The time for Petitioner to come into compliance was extended to October 25, 1991. The Call Back/Re-Inspection Report dated October 25, 1991, noted the presence of live rodents and the presence of rodent droppings. The time for compliance was extended through October 28, 1991. The Call Back/Re-Inspection Report dated October 28, 1991, noted the efforts the Beauregards were making to correct the rodent problem, but that Petitioner continued to be in noncompliance with health standards. The time for compliance was extended through November 1, 1991. The Call Back/Re-Inspection Report dated November 4, 1991, noted that the Beauregards continued to make efforts to correct the rodent problem, but that Petitioner continued to be in noncompliance with health standards. The Call Back/Re-Inspection Report dated November 15, 1991, noted that the Beauregards continued to make efforts to correct the rodent problem, but that Petitioner continued to be in noncompliance with health standards. Petitioner was found to be in compliance with health standards on November 25, 1991, and its license was subsequently renewed. Both Mr. and Mrs. Beauregard were aware of the rodent infestation as early as June 1991. They cooperated with the health inspectors and acted in good faith to alleviate the problem. The Beauregards relied on the services of Truly Nolen, who had been their exterminator for five consecutive years in dealing with the rodent infestation. Despite the Beauregard's good faith efforts, Petitioner was in noncompliance with pertinent health standards between September 27, 1991, and November 25, 1991.1/ Louisa Spicer is an experienced supervisor employed by Respondent's child care licensing division. On November 25, 1991, Ms. Spicer received for the first time a copy of each of the inspection reports prepared by the health division. Upon receiving the inspection reports, Ms. Spicer determined that the noncompliance with health conditions denoted in the reports should be considered a Class III violation and that a fine of $10.00 per day should be imposed. A Class III violation is not as serious as a Class I or a Class II violation. Respondent has the authority to impose a fine of between $10 and $30 per day for a Class III violation. The health division inspectors did not advise the Beauregards that Petitioner's noncompliance with health standards could result in the imposition of a fine. Ms. Spicer testified that she computed the fine based on the number of working days between September 27, 1991, (the date of the first inspection finding Petitioner to be in noncompliance) and November 25, 1991 (the date Petitioner was found to be in compliance). For each of the 40 working days between those dates, Petitioner was assessed a fine of $10, which resulted in the fine totaling $400 that is at issue in this proceeding. By the Call Back/ Re-Inspection Report dated October 28, 1991, the inspector from the health division extended the time for Petitioner to come into compliance by correcting the noted deficiencies until November 1, 1991. Petitioner did not come into compliance within the time given for it to do so.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which upholds the assessment against Petitioner by Respondent of the fine in the amount of $400. DONE AND ORDERED this 4 day of June, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4 day of June, 1992.
