Findings Of Fact Based on my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following findings of fact: By letter dated August 11, 1986, the Respondent advised the Petitioner that her application for supervisor license under the Florida Clinical Laboratory Law, Chapter 483, Florida Statutes, was denied. The letter provided that the application was denied because the Petitioner does "not have a B.S. degree required under Section 10D-41.68(3), Florida Administrative Code." By letter dated September 9, 1986, the Petitioner requested a formal administrative hearing. The Petitioner took and passed the proficiency examination for clinical laboratory technologists given by the U.S. Office of Health and Human Services (formerly Department of Health, Education and Welfare) in 1977. Based in part on the Petitioner's satisfactory grade on the federal examination, she was licensed in the State of Florida as a clinical laboratory technologist in microbiology, clinical chemistry, hematology and histology. The Petitioner has over six years of pertinent clinical laboratory experience. The Petitioner does not have a bachelor's degree.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Charlotte Holton's application for supervisor license under the Florida Clinical Laboratory Law, Chapter 483, Florida Statutes, be DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 11th day of May, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-4067 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1 and 2. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 5. Rejected as argument. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 4. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Rejected as legal argument. Rejected as legal argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Charlotte Holton 4200 Northwest 76th Avenue Pompano Beach, Florida 33065 Leonard T. Helfand, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 401 Northwest Second Avenue, Suite 790 Miami, Florida 33128 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Conclusions Having reviewed the Administrative Complaint, and all other matters of record, the Agency for Health Care Administration finds and concludes as follows: 1. The Agency has jurisdiction over the above-named Respondent pursuant to Chapter 408, Part II, and Chapter 400, Part X, Florida Statutes, and the applicable authorizing statutes and administrative code provisions. 2. The Agency issued the attached Administrative Complaint and Election of Rights form to the Respondent. (Ex. 1) The parties have since entered into the attached Settlement Agreement, (Ex. 2). Based upon the foregoing, it is ORDERED: 1. The Settlement Agreement is adopted and incorporated by reference into this Final Order. The parties shall comply with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. 2. The facility’s Certificate of Exemption is deemed surrendered and is cancelled and of no further effect. 3. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorney’s fees. Any requests for administrative hearings are dismissed and the above-styled case is hereby closed. 4. In accordance with Florida law, the Respondent is responsible for retaining and appropriately distributing all client records within the timeframes prescribed in the authorizing statutes and applicable administrative code provisions. The Respondent is advised of Section 408.810, Florida Statutes. 5. In accordance with Florida law, the Respondent is responsible for any refunds that may have to be made to the clients. Filed December 24, 2014 3:10 PM Division of Aadniinistrative Hearings 6. The Respondent is given notice of Florida law regarding unlicensed activity. The Respondent is advised of Section 408.804 and Section 408.812, Florida Statutes. The Respondent should also consult the applicable authorizing statutes and administrative code provisions. The Respondent is notified that the cancellation of an Agency license may have ramifications potentially affecting accrediting, third party billing including but not limited to the Florida Medicaid program, and private contracts. ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on this 7D day of Le cop ple-en 2014. MOS where Elizabeth Dudek, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review, which shall be instituted by filing one copy of a notice of appeal with the Agency Clerk of AHCA, and a second copy, along with filing fee as prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal in the appellate district where the Agency maintains its headquarters or where a party resides. Review of proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Florida appellate rules. The Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I CERTIFY that a true and core oes Final es was served on the below-named persons by the method designated on this LE lay of Z 2 Ly , 2014. Richard J. Sax Agency Cler Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg. #3, Mail Stop #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Telephone: (850) 412-3630 Jan Mills Thomas Jones, Unit Manager Facilities Intake Unit Licensure Unit Agency for Health Care Administration Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) (Electronic Mail) Katrina Derico-Harris Arlene Mayo—Davis, Field Office Manager Medicaid Accounts Receivable Local Field Office Agency for Health Care Administration Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) (Electronic Mail) Shawn McCauley Daniel A. Johnson, Senior Attorney Medicaid Contract Management Office of the General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) (Electronic Mail) Division of Administrative Hearings Dagmar Llaudy, Esquire (Electronic Mail) Law Office of Dagmar Llaudy, P.A. 814 Ponce De Leon Blvd, Suite 513 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 (U.S. Mail) NOTICE OF FLORIDA LAW 408.804 License required; display.-- (1) It is unlawful to provide services that require licensure, or operate or maintain a provider that offers or provides services that require licensure, without first obtaining from the agency a license authorizing the provision of such services or the operation or maintenance of such provider. (2) A license must be displayed in a conspicuous place readily visible to clients who enter at the address that appears on the license and is valid only in the hands of the licensee to whom it is issued and may not be sold, assigned, or otherwise transferred, voluntarily or involuntarily. The license is valid only for the licensee, provider, and location for which the license is issued. 408.812 Unlicensed activity. -- (1) A person or entity may not offer or advertise services that require licensure as defined by this part, authorizing statutes, or applicable rules to the public without obtaining a valid license from the agency. A licenseholder may not advertise or hold out to the public that he or she holds a license for other than that for which he or she actually holds the license. (2) The operation or maintenance of an unlicensed provider or the performance of any services that require licensure without proper licensure is a violation of this part and authorizing statutes. Unlicensed activity constitutes harm that materially affects the health, safety, and welfare of clients. The agency or any state attorney may, in addition to other remedies provided in this part, bring an action for an injunction to restrain such violation, or to enjoin the future operation or maintenance of the unlicensed provider or the performance of any services in violation of this part and authorizing statutes, until compliance with this part, authorizing statutes, and agency rules has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the agency. (3) It is unlawful for any person or entity to own, operate, or maintain an unlicensed provider. If after receiving notification from the agency, such person or entity fails to cease operation and apply for a license under this part and authorizing statutes, the person or entity shall be subject to penalties as prescribed by authorizing statutes and applicable rules. Each day of continued operation is a separate offense. (4) Any person or entity that fails to cease operation after agency notification may be fined $1,000 for each day of noncompliance. (5) When a controlling interest or licensee has an interest in more than one provider and fails to license a provider rendering services that require licensure, the agency may revoke all licenses and impose actions under s. 408.814 and a fine of $1,000 per day, unless otherwise specified by authorizing statutes, against each licensee until such time as the appropriate license is obtained for the unlicensed operation. (6) In addition to granting injunctive relief pursuant to subsection (2), if the agency determines that a person or entity is operating or maintaining a provider without obtaining a license and determines that a condition exists that poses a threat to the health, safety, or welfare of a client of the provider, the person or entity is subject to the same actions and fines imposed against a licensee as specified in this part, authorizing statutes, and agency rules. (7) Any person aware of the operation of an unlicensed provider must report that provider to the agency. STATE OF FLORIDA AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION STATE OF FLORIDA, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, Petitioner, vs. AHCA No.: 2014008789 Exemption No.: HCC10956 MAGIC HANDS REHABILITATION CENTER, INC., Respondent. / ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT COMES NOW, the Petitioner, State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration (“the Agency”), by and through its undersigned counsel, and files this Administrative Complaint ‘ against the Respondent, Magic Hands Rehabilitation Center, Inc. (“the Respondent”), pursuant to Section 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes (2014), and alleges: NATURE OF THE ACTION This is an action to revoke the Respondent’s health care clinic Certificate of Exemption. PARTIES 1. The Agency is the state agency that oversees the licensure and regulation of _ health care clinics in Florida pursuant to Chapters 408, Part Il, and 400, Part X, Florida Statutes (2014); and Chapter 59A-33, Florida Administrative Code. “The Legislature finds that the regulation of health care clinics must be strengthened to prevent significant cost and harm to consumers. The purpose of this part is to provide for the licensure, establishment, and enforcement of basic standards for health care clinics and to provide administrative oversight by the Agency for Health Care Administration.” § 400.990(2), Fla. Stat. (2014). 2. The Respondent applied for and was issued a Certificate of Exemption to operate a health care clinic located at 7392 NW 35" Terrace, Unit 310, Miami, Florida 33122. FYHIRIT 1 Certificate of Exemption from Licensure for Health Care Clinics 3. Under Florida law, “clinic” means an entity where health care services are provided to individuals and which tenders charges for reimbursement for such services, including a mobile clinic and a portable equipment provider. Fla. Stat. § 400.9905(4) (2014). 4. Under Florida law, the term “clinic” does not apply to a sole proprietorship, group practice, partnership, or corporation that provides health care services by licensed health care practitioners under chapter 457, chapter 458, chapter 459, chapter 460, chapter 461, chapter 462, chapter 463, chapter 466, chapter 467, chapter 480, chapter 484, chapter 486, chapter 490, chapter 491, or part I, part III, part X, part XIII, or part XIV of chapter 468, or s. 464.012, and that is wholly owned by one or more licensed health care practitioners, or the licensed health care practitioners set forth in this paragraph and the spouse, parent, child, or sibling of a licensed health care practitioner if one of the owners who is a licensed health care practitioner is supervising the business activities and is legally responsible for the entity's compliance with all federal and state laws. However, a health care practitioner may not supervise services beyond the scope of the practitioner's license, except that, for the purposes of this part, a clinic owned bya licensee in s. 456.053(3)(b) which provides only services authorized pursuant to s. 456.053(3)(b) may be supervised by a licensee specified in s. 456.053(3)(b). Fla. Stat. § 400.9905(4)(g) (2014). Such an entity may claim to be exempt from licensure and may be eligible for a Certificate of Exemption from the Agency. 5. Under Florida law, a facility becomes a “clinic” when it does not qualify for an exemption, provides health care services to individuals and bills third party payers for those services. F.A.C. 59A-33.006(4). Facts 6. On December 19, 2013, Respondent was issued a Certificate of Exemption from licensure, number HCC10956, based upon Respondent identifying itself as solely owned by 2 Peter J. Maffetone, a licensed health care practitioner. 7. On August 22, 2014, Peter J. Maffetone gave testimony during a recorded sworn statement. 8. On that date, under oath, Peter J. Maffetone testified that he does not now, nor has he ever owned or had a financial interest in Respondent, Magic Hands Rehabilitation Center, Inc. 9. Respondent does not qualify for a Certificate of Exemption due to the fact that Peter J. Maffetone does not possess ownership. Sanction 10. Under Florida Law, any person or entity providing health care services which is not a clinic, as defined under Section 400.9905, may voluntarily apply for a certificate of exemption from licensure under its exempt status with the agency on a form that sets forth its name or names and addresses, a statement of the reasons why it cannot be defined as a clinic, and other information deemed necessary by the agency. § 400.9935(6), Fla. Stat. (2014). 11, Under Florida Law, the applicant for a certificate of exemption must affirm, without reservation, the exemption sought pursuant to Section 400.9905(4), F.S., and the qualifying requirements for obtaining and maintaining an exempt status; the current existence of applicable exemption-qualifying health care practitioner licenses; qualified ownership, qualified certifications or registration of the facility or owners; federal employer identification number; services provided; proof of legal existence and fictitious name, when the entity and name are required to be filed with the Division of Corporations, Department of State; plus other satisfactory proof required by form adopted by this rule. F.A.C. 59A-33.006(6). 12. Under Florida Law, facilities that claim an exemption, either by filing an application for a certificate of exemption with the Agency and receiving a certificate of exemption, or self-determining, must maintain an exempt status at all times the facility is in operation. F.A.C. 59A-33.006(2). 13. Under Florida Law, when a change to the exempt status occurs to an exempt facility or entity that causes it to no longer qualify for an exemption, any exempt status claimed or reflected in a certificate of exemption ceases on the date the facility or entity no longer qualifies for a certificate of exemption. In such case, the health care clinic must file with the Agency a license application under the Act within 5 days of becoming a health care clinic and shall be subject to all provisions of the Act applicable to unlicensed health care clinics. Failure to timely file an application for licensure within 5 days of becoming a health care clinic will render the health care clinic unlicensed and subject the owners, medical or clinic directors and the health care clinic to sanctions under the Act. F.A.C. 59A-33.006(3). 14. As demonstrated by the facts outlined herein, Respondent no longer qualifies for a Certificate of Exemption pursuant to § 400.9905(4)(g), Fla. Stat. (2014). 15. Therefore, Respondent is now required to be licensed as a clinic pursuant to F.A.C. 59A-33.006 and Chapters 408, Part II, and 400, Part X, Fla. Stat, 16. Under Section 400.995, Florida Statutes, in addition to the requirements of Part II of Chapter 408, the Agency may deny the application for a license renewal, revoke and suspend the license, and impose administrative fines of up to $5,000 per violation for violations of the requirements of this part or rules of the agency. § 400.995(1), Fla. Stat. (2014). Each day of continuing violation after the date fixed for termination of the violation, as ordered by the agency, constitutes an additional, separate, and distinct violation. § 400.995(2), Fla. Stat. (2014). 17. Under Section 400.9915(2), Florida Statutes, in addition to any administrative fines imposed pursuant to this part or Part IT of Chapter 408, the Agency may assess a fee equal to the cost of conducting a complaint investigation. § 400.9915(2), Fla. Stat. (2014). WHEREFORE, the Agency seeks to revoke the Respondent's health care clinic Certificate of Exemption. CLAIM FOR RELIEF The Petitioner, State of Florida, Agency for Health Care Administration, respectfully seeks a final order that: A. Makes findings of fact and conclusions of law in favor of the Agency as set forth above. B. Imposing the sanctions and relief as set forth above. Gj RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED on this / / day of September, 2014. Florida Bar No. 0091175 Office pt the General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Telephone: (850) 412-3658 Facsimile: (850) 922-6484 Daniel. Johnson@ahca.myflorida.com
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Constance M. Liccione, is a licensed clinical laboratory technician, having received said license in October, 1979 from respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). In the summer of 1983, petitioner began making inquiry with HRS concerning the requirements to take the clinical laboratory supervisor examination. Because of either a communication's breakdown, or a failure of the agency to promptly reply to her request, she was not told of the specific requirements until 1984, and it was only in April, 1985 that she was able to get confirmation from HRS that she had nine years and one month of clinical experience, and when coupled with her 90 semester hours of academic study in the science field, she was eligible to sit on the supervisor examination. For some unexplained reason, she also was unable to obtain an application form from HRS and finally she had to obtain one from a local junior college. On April 5, 1985, Liccione filed her application to take the October, 1985 supervisor examination. At that time, the examination consisted of two parts: (a) administration and supervision, and (b) technical specialties for which the applicant wished to be licensed. In June, 1985, HRS adopted a sweeping change in its rules (Chapter lOD-41) governing eligibility for all supervisor examinations taken after October, 1985. Under the new rules, HRS requires an applicant for licensure as a supervisor to meet all new requirements for a clinical technologist. This will require Liccione to either have a bachelor's degree in science, or to have completed 90 semester hours or equivalent and to have completed a one-year internship in an approved school of Medical Technology. In addition, in view of the more stringent eligibility requirements, the examination no longer includes testing on the technical specialties, but only has testing in the administration and supervision area. Liccione meets neither of the two new requirements. Therefore, she is barred from taking any examination after the October 1985 examination until she either obtains a college degree in science or completes a one-year internship. Liccione is understandably upset because it took almost two years to learn from HRS if she was qualified under the old rules to take the supervisor examination, and therefore she missed 3 or 4 opportunities to take the examination under the old criteria. Because of the new rules, it is now an all or nothing proposition on the October, 1985 examination. When Liccione became aware of the impending rule change, she contacted HRS to determine if she could get a waiver of the old rule which required her to take an examination in various technical specialties. The old rules required supervisor candidates to pass an examination in each of the specialties or subspecialties for which the license is sought. Based upon her nine plus years of experience, Liccione desired a waiver in the five technical specialties of microbiology, serology, chemistry, hematology and immunohematology for which she is already licensed as a technologist. After considerable give and take between the two, HRS agreed to present her request for a waiver to the Clinical Laboratory Advisory Council (Council). The Council considered the same on October 3, 1985 and denied her request. That prompted the instant proceeding. As a result of HRS's decision, she was required to take both parts of the old examination. Her results are not of record. There have been no waivers of the technical specialty part of the examination granted since HRS began regulating clinical laboratories in 1967. However, under the provisions of Rule 10D-41.27, Florida Administrative Code, as they existed prior to June, 1985, examination in each of the specialties area was permissive, and not mandatory since the rule merely required that ". . . supervisors. . . may be required to pass an examination given by (HRS) in each of the specialties. . . for which the license is sought." (Emphasis added.) Liccione presently has an HRS issued temporary supervisor license which expires after she receives the results of the October, 1985 examination. She is acting as the supervisor of a clinical laboratory for a medical doctor in Port St. Lucie, Florida and as such is in charge of all technical aspects of the operation. She has written the procedures manual for the laboratory which was approved by HRS inspectors, and is active in all five specialties for which she seeks a waiver. As noted above, by this time she has almost ten years of practical experience, and has worked in hospitals and laboratories in both a technician and supervisor capacity. These qualifications were not disputed. At final hearing HRS did not question the above qualifications but relied instead upon statistics which reflected that candidates with qualifications comparable to Liccione had done poorly on the examination. It also pointed out that when Liccione took the specialties examination for a technician, her scores were "never. . . more than 4% higher than minimum established competency in any technical specialty." From this, HRS opined that Liccione's chance of success on the examination was not good, and that she was not entitled to the requested waiver. It also fears that a bad precedent will be set if Liccione's request for a waiver is approved. However, the undersigned finds the uncontradicted practical experience, education and training to be the more persuasive and credible evidence on the issue of whether such training, education and experience is adequate to warrant a waiver of the five technical specialties on the examination. In this regard, it is noted that there was no evidence to show that such experience, education, and training was not comparable to the new requirements in Rule 10D-41.69(2), Florida Administrative Code, or that such experience, education and training was not adequate to demonstrate competence in the five specialties in question.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner's request for a waiver of the technical specialty part of the October, 1985 examination be GRANTED, and if petitioner receives a passing grade on the administration and supervision portion of the examination, she be issued a clinical laboratory supervisor license. All other requests for relief should be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of January, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, 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 2Oth day of January, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: James A Liccione 168 S.W. Selva Court Port St. Lucie, Florida 33452 K. C. Collette, Esquire 111 Georgia Ave., Third Floor West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
The Issue Whether Petitioner's request that she be reissued a medical technologist license without taking an examination should be approved.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In this proceeding, Petitioner, Norma Howell, seeks to have her medical technologist license reactivated after it was rendered "null" by operation of law on June 30, 1996. A Notice of Intent to Deny Application for Licensure was entered by respondent, Board of Clinical Laboratory Personnel (Board), on March 21, 1997. Because Petitioner requested that the Board grant a variance or waiver of the rule requiring her to take an examination in order to be relicensed, the Board reconsidered the matter at its April 3, 1997, meeting. On April 11, 1997, the Board entered its Notice of Intent to Deny Variance or Waiver on the ground Petitioner had not demonstrated that she would suffer a substantial hardship or that the application of the rule would affect her in a manner significantly different from other applicants for licensure. On May 9, 1997, Petitioner filed a request for a hearing in which she contended that the statute relied upon by the Board for denying her request "did not apply to her case" and that the Board "did not comply with the 90-day notification requirement of the statute which it relied upon to nullify her license." Petitioner has been practicing in the field of medical technology for some thirty years and she has practiced in Florida for at least nine years. Until this controversy arose, she held medical technologist supervisor license number JC-0026722. Prior to July 1, 1994, medical technogist licenses were subject to the regulatory authority of the former Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS). At that time, licenses were issued for two-year periods, and if not renewed, they "automatically" reverted to an inactive status. Section 483.819, Florida Statutes (1993), provided that if a license was inactive for less than one year, it could be reactivated by payment of a late renewal penalty. If the license was inactive for more than one year but less than five, it could be reactivated "upon application" to HRS and proof that the licensee had completed 15 hours of continuing education requirements for each year the license was inactive, but not more than a total of 65 hours. If a license was inactive for more than five years, it was automatically suspended, but one year prior to the date the suspension took effect, HRS was required to give written notice to the licensee. Once suspended, a license could not be reactivated unless a licensee met all "requirements for reinstatement." Among other things, HRS possessed the discretionary authority to require reexamination before reinstatement. Effective July 1, 1994, Section 483.819, Florida Statutes (1993), was repealed, and regulatory authority over medical technologist licensees was transferred from HRS to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR). In addition, a new Section 455.271, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1994), was created to provide new requirements relative to the inactive and delinquent status of all professional licenses, including those for medical technologists. Section (5) provided that the "[f]ailure of a licensee to renew before the license expires shall cause the license to become delinquent in the license cycle following expiration." Section (6) provided that: a delinquent status licensee must affirmatively apply with a complete application, as defined by rule of the board, or the department when there is no board, for active or inactive status during the licensure cycle in which a licensee becomes delinquent. Failure by a delinquent status licensee to become active or inactive before the expiration of the current licensure cycle shall render the license null without any further action by the board or the department. (Emphasis added) The same subsection provided that once a license was rendered "null," any subsequent licensure "shall be as a result of applying for and meeting all requirements imposed on an applicant for new licensure." In other words, a licensee would have to retake the examination in order to be relicensed. As a safeguard to automatic cancellation of a delinquent license, however, new Section 455.273 (Supp. 1994), provided that "[a]t least 90 days before the end of a licensure cycle, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation shall . . . [f]orward a notice of pending cancellation of licensure to a delinquent status licensee at the licensee's last known address of record with the department." Against this statutory backdrop, Petitioner's license was due for renewal on June 30, 1994, when her latest biennial cycle ended. Because the license was not renewed, it became delinquent under the terms of Section 455.271(5). Therefore, it was incumbent on Petitioner to seek active or inactive status before the end of the next licensure cycle, or by June 30, 1996, or have her license rendered "null" by operation of law. It is noted that Petitioner was one of approximately 2,000 licensees whose license was not renewed at the end of the June 30, 1994, licensure cycle and thus became delinquent. In January 1992 Petitioner relocated from Florida to Mississippi in order to care for her elderly mother. She continued working as a medical technologist in Mississippi. When her license came up for renewal on June 30, 1994, Petitioner had no need for an active Florida license and therefore did not renew it. She assumed, however, that she could keep it in an inactive, delinquent status for up to five years under the terms of Section 483.819, Florida Statutes (1993). Petitioner acknowledges that she became aware of the new law in general terms, but not in specifics, in June 1995. This occurred when the Board her sent a Notice to Delinquent and Inactive Licensees advising that changes in the law had been made and that "the changes affected the manner in which licensees regulated under Chapter 483, F.S., clinical laboratory personnel, may reactivate a license or request to be placed on inactive status." The notice further provided that if Petitioner "would like to receive an application to reactivate (her) license or to be placed on inactive status," she should fill out a form at the bottom of the Notice and return it to the Board. There was no mention in the Notice that Petitioner's license would become "null" by operation of law if she did not take affirmative action by June 30, 1996. In response to the Notice, on June 16, 1995, Petitioner filed the Notice and form with the Board requesting that she be sent an application to place her license in an inactive status. The Board says that the Notice described in finding of fact 8 was a part of a packet of information attached to a form letter sent to all delinquent status licensees on May 27, 1995. According to a Board representative, the form letter contained an admonition to licensees that unless they reactivated their licenses by June 30, 1996, their licenses would be null and void. However, the actual contents of the letter are not of record. This is because the letter was not identified by Respondent's counsel as an exhibit in the prehearing stipulation; it was not a part of the Board's official file pertaining to Petitioner; opposing counsel had no notice that such a letter existed or would be used as evidence at hearing; and thus it was not received in evidence. Even though the form letter was sent some thirteen months before the licensure cycle ended, the Board takes the position that it constituted the statutory notice of pending cancellation required by Section 455.273(1)(b) to be sent to each delinquent status licensee "at least 90 days before the end of the licensure cycle." Board records do not establish that Petitioner received the form letter, and she denies having received any statutory notice of pending cancellation. Approximately two thousand (out of eighteen thousand) licenses under the Board's jurisdiction became delinquent because they were not renewed by June 30, 1994. While the number that were automatically cancelled on June 30, 1996, by operation of law is not of record, only four licensees, including Petitioner, have asked that their licenses be reinstated because of cancellation. Given this unusual circumstance, it is reasonable to accept Petitioner's testimony that she did not receive a notice of cancellation as required by law. This omission by the Board, while unintentional, constituted a material error in procedure which occasioned serious prejudice to Petitioner. In addition to filing the form on June 16, 1995, Petitioner also sent a letter to the Board on June 23, 1995. The letter stated, in pertinent part, as follows: Please place my Medical Technologist Supervisor's Lic # JC 0026722 on inactive status until further notice. I am presently residing in Mississippi. Enclosed is the required fee of $25.00 plus copies of Continuing Education certificates; 39 hrs. The letter provided her most current address in Mississippi, and it contained a postscript that "[i]f an additional form is necessary please advise." By letter dated June 28, 1995, the Board acknowledged receiving Petitioner's letter and check. In the letter, a Board representative advised petitioner that her "request for inactivation of licensure . . . cannot be processed" because she had sent an incorrect fee and a formal application had to be completed. The letter indicated that an application to reactivate her license was also enclosed. Apparently in response to the June 16, 1995, request for an application form, on July 14, 1995, the Board sent Petitioner another reactivation application. Because Petitioner did not want to reactivate her license, but she only wanted to place her license in an inactive status, she did not complete the application at that time. Again, however, she assumed that her license could remain inactive for up to five years after June 30, 1994, without placing it in jeopardy. Petitioner received no further advice, oral or written, from the Board until after she filed a Reactivation Application with the Board on December 19, 1996, together with a $470.00 fee and proof of 39 hours of continuing education. She did so at that time since she had been offered a job in Florida and intended to relocate to this state. On December 20, 1996, Petitioner and the Board's administrator spoke by telephone regarding Petitioner's application. Among other things, Petitioner was told that her license was null and void by operation of law since she failed to reactivate her license by June 30, 1996. On December 27, 1996, the administrator sent Petitioner a letter in which she reconfirmed this fact, but advised that the matter would be taken up by the Board. Petitioner asked that an exception be made since she lived out-of-state and had never received notice of cancellation. The Board later denied her request. Rule 59O-7.001(2), Florida Administrative Code, prescribes the examination requirements for licensure as a supervisor. The purpose of the underlying statute is to ensure minimum competency of all persons engaging in the profession. Petitioner has satisfied this purpose by having successfully practiced in the field for some thirty years and being certified in five specialties. In addition, during the period of time in which her license was delinquent, she successfully completed all necessary continuing education courses. If the request for a variance or waiver is denied, Petitioner will suffer economic hardship since she will be unable to practice her profession in Florida until she passes an examination. More specifically, she will be unable to accept a pending job offer as a medical technologist supervisor. Unusual circumstances are present here. Of the two thousand licensees in a delinquent status after June 30, 1994, only Petitioner has contended that she failed to receive the statutory notice of cancellation. To her detriment, the license was subsequently cancelled by operation of law. The literal application of the rule requiring an examination would unintentionally penalize Petitioner's good faith efforts to reactivate her license. Because it is presumed that all other licensees in a delinquent status received notice of pending cancellation, Petitioner will be treated in a manner significantly different from the way the rule affects other similarly situated persons seeking licensure. That is to say, any other persons requesting relief from the rule because of automatic cancellation on June 30, 1996, would have been on notice that unless they renewed their license by that date, they would be subject to the terms of the rule. Petitioner had no such notice. Therefore, fairness requires an exception. Petitioner has paid all filing fees and completed all continuing education courses necessary for reactivation. If her request is ultimately denied, she is entitled to a refund of her fees.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Clinical Laboratory Personnel enter a final order granting Petitioner's request for a waiver or variance from Rule 59O-7.001(2), Florida Administrative Code, and reinstating her license number JC-0026722. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of July, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675, SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of July, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Eric G. Walker, Executive Director Board of Clinical Laboratory Personnel 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2200 Lynda L. Goodgame, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Michelle L. Proctor, Esquire 7637 State Road 52 Bayonet Point, Florida 34667 Edwin A. Bayo, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has licensed Respondent to operate the James E. Holmes Regional Medical Center located at 1350 South Hickory Street, Melbourne, Florida ("Hospital"). Petitioner's Office of Licensure & Certification performed a license- renewal inspection of the Hospital on April 7, 1987. Petitioner discovered during this inspection that Schilling tests and blood volume tests were performed in the nuclear medicine laboratory. These tests have been performed continuously since 1962 by Respondent in its nuclear medicine laboratory without previous criticism from Petitioner. On April 8, 1987, Petitioner notified Respondent that its nuclear medicine laboratory was not licensed as required by Section 483.091, Florida Statutes, to perform Schilling and blood volume tests and that the performance of laboratory procedures by "an unlicensed laboratory" must cease immediately. The letter further advised Respondent that failure to cease could subject "your laboratory/hospital" to legal action. The Schilling test is a diagnostic procedure to determine if the patient has an absence of B-12 factor in his body. The test is performed by having the patient ingest radioactive B-12 orally at the same time that he receives an injection of nonradioactive B-12. Over the next 24 to 48 hours, urine samples are then collected from the patient, who may remain at the hospital or go home. The urine is then analyzed in order to count the radioactivity and thereby determine the rate of absorption of B-12 by the patient. The blood volume test is a diagnostic procedure to determine the volume of blood in the patient. There are two forms of the test. In one, radioactive material is injected into the patient's blood. A sample of blood drawn from the patient is analyzed for radioactivity and dilution of the radioactive material. The blood volume can then be calculated. In the other form of the blood volume test, red blood cells are drawn from the patient and tagged with a radioactive material. They are then re-injected into the patient and their dilution is tracked, again to determine the patient's blood volume. Respondent performs both types of blood volume tests. In vivo means "in the living body." In vitro means "outside the living body and in an artificial environment." The Schilling test is in vitro to the extent of the urinalysis, although the ingesting of B-12 is an in vivo procedure. The blood volume test in which the radioactive material is injected directly into the patient is in vitro, insofar that blood is drawn from the patient for analysis, and in vivo, insofar as radioactive material is injected into the patient's blood. The blood volume test in which the blood is removed, tagged with a radioactive tracer, and then returned to the body is exclusively in vivo because the analysis takes place while the blood is in the patient's body. The Hospital contains a clinical laboratory and a nuclear medicine laboratory, which are on different floors in the same building. By letter dated June 25, 1987, Petitioner informed Respondent that in vitro analyses of patient specimens could only be performed in its clinical laboratory. By letter dated August 21, 1987, Petitioner elaborated by stating that licensure by its Office of Radiation Control Radiologic Technologist Program did not authorize individuals to perform in vitro analyses. Respondent is licensed by Petitioner's Office of Radiation Control "to receive, acquire, possess and transfer [certain] radioactive materials ... and to use such radioactive material[s] for the purpose[s] and at the place[s] designated below." The location designated is the street address of the Hospital. Paragraph 9 of the license expressly authorizes Respondent to perform "in vitro studies" and diagnostic procedures as described in Groups I, II, and III of Schedule C, Part III, Chapter 10D-91, Florida Administrative Code. The Schilling test and blood volume tests are described within Groups I and II above. Paragraph 12 of the license also states that the licensed radioactive material described in Groups I and II may be used "by, or under the supervision of," among others, Dr. Laudie McHenry. The clinical laboratory license held by Respondent for the Hospital was not produced at the hearing. At all relevant times, the clinical laboratory license authorized Respondent to conduct, maintain, or operate a clinical laboratory at the Hospital and to perform the Schilling test and blood volume tests. Dr. McHenry is the director of the clinical laboratory, as well as the nuclear medicine laboratory. At all relevant times, all personnel of the nuclear medicine laboratory, with possibly one exception, held certification as nuclear medicine technicians and clinical laboratory technicians. The qualifications of the personnel in the two laboratories are identical in terms of conducting the Schilling test and blood volume tests. Respondent's performance of the Schilling test and blood volume tests in the nuclear medicine laboratory did not and could not result in death or serious harm to the health or safety of any person. Respondent had no previous violations and received no financial benefit from the conducting of the Schilling test and blood volume tests in its nuclear medicine laboratory rather than its clinical laboratory.
The Issue Did Respondent engage in unlawful employment practices against Petitioner in violation of Section 760.10(1) and (7), Florida Statutes, in effect at the time of the alleged acts, contrary to the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992 (the Act)?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner as an "aggrieved person" filed a complaint with FCHR. § 760.02(10), Fla. Stat. (2005). Given the posture of this case, Respondent is an "employer" employing 15 or more employees in each of 20 or more calendar weeks within the period contemplated by Petitioner's complaint. It is so inferred. § 760.02(7), Fla. Stat. (2005) Petitioner's race as he describes it, and it is found, is Black. In October 2003 Petitioner began employment with Respondent in its Bureau of Laboratory Services, Jacksonville, Florida, as a Medical Laboratory Scientist III (Scientist III). His status was as a probationary employee. He remained in that status throughout his employment with Respondent. Before beginning employment with Respondent, Petitioner had earned a bachelor of science in microbiology in 1982 from the University of Alabama. In 1989 he earned a master's of science in microbiology from that same institution. In 1996 he was awarded a Ph.D. in microbiology from the University of Alabama. Upon achieving his master's degree, Petitioner served as a research assistant for the University of Alabama at Birmingham from September 1, 1989 through December 31, 1992. Part of that employment overlapped his employment as a graduate researcher from September 1, 1992 through May 29, 1996, at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. There was overlapping service at the University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa in the period of September 2, 1992 through April 29, 1996, when Petitioner had a position as a teaching assistant. Between September 5, 1996 and February 25, 2000, Petitioner worked as a research fellow for the National Institute of Health at the University of Florida in Gainesville, Florida, where, as he indicated in an employment application, "Petitioner was responsible for developing new recombinant Interferon Gamma ligands and receptors for the treatment of viral disease and cancer (accomplished). Responsible for supervision [sic] (two) graduate students in molecular techniques." Following the work with the National Institute of Health, Petitioner took a position with ELISA Technologies, Inc., in Gainesville, Florida, as a laboratory director for the period March 1, 2000 through February 5, 2003, in which his application for a job position indicated that Petitioner was: "Responsible for directing laboratory testing of customer samples and supervising a five-member staff. Responsible for developing, performing, and directing new test development for the CDC and WHO (accomplished). All other research and development projects (accomplished)." Petitioner next worked at Jacksonville University in Jacksonville, Florida, as a adjunct assistant professor from what is perceived the date of January 6, 2003 through his employment with Respondent in its Bureau of Laboratory Services. While serving as an adjunct assistant professor Petitioner in his job application recounts that he was: "Responsible for teaching nursing and biology majors microbiology courses. Responsible for teaching general-clinical laboratory techniques." In his role as Scientist III with Respondent, Petitioner was expected to meet the following expectations: Will learn DNA fingerprinting methods for salmonella and tuberculosis as well as 16S sequencing. Will learn techniques sufficiently to act as a back-up as needed. Timeframe: November - January Will oversee development of universal procedural manual for all testing in molecular section. Will produce master copy by end of February. Timeframe: November - February Will oversee the development and documentation of quality control, quality assurance and proficiency testing procedures in the molecular section. Will incorporate all into a single document by the end of March. Timeframe: November - March Will eventually be responsible for the ordering of all equipment and reagents for the molecular section. Duties to include monthly reconciliation reports. Timeframe: November - April Will represent the molecular section in the development of BOLIMS. Will become familiar with reporting and date management of all reports generated in the molecular section. Timeframe: November - Ongoing Will act as back-up for BT testing. Will learn all procedures once security clearance has been granted. Timeframe: January - Ongoing Will assist in implementation of VNTR-MIRU and PCR testing for malaria. Timeframe: January - Ongoing The months reflected in this statement of expectations began in November 2003 and extended into 2004. In his role as a Scientist III Petitioner had no supervisory duties. He was given projects to do. He was provided an appraisal task form in relation to his responsibilities. Petitioner also worked on a QA/QC manual (quality assurance and quality control). Initially Petitioner was supervised by Dennis Nolan. Mr. Nolan left his employment with Respondent to take another position. Dr. Dean Willis, who has a doctorate in public health, became Petitioner's supervisor with Mr. Nolan's departure. The interaction between Petitioner and other members of the laboratory at Jacksonville is reflected in the Petitioner's Exhibits numbered 4, 5, 6, 11, 19, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31 and 45. This series of e-mails are an indication of Petitioner's participation in the organization and inclusion in the efforts of that organization in carrying forward its duties. Petitioner during his employment in the Scientist III position worked on a malaria project. In addition he worked on a whooping cough test. Earlier in his employment Petitioner underwent a performance appraisal or review of his work. In February 2004 when Mr. Nolan resigned from the laboratory in Jacksonville, his position as BA II, an SES- classified position in the personnel system in Florida government, came open. In that month Respondent advertised to fill the position. In that solicitation Petitioner was the only applicant to replace Mr. Nolan. As a consequence the position was re- advertised. The initial advertisement for BA II position closed on February 16, 2004. The second advertisement for that position closed on March 15, 2004. The information concerning the position was the same in both instances. Dr. Willis as the responsible person at the Jacksonville laboratory, decided to re-advertise the position to try and attract additional applicants. The position was re-advertised and more candidates expressed an interest by applying for the position. Petitioner was among the applicants applying during the re- advertisement. Unlike the circumstance in the first advertisement, on this occasion there was the expectation that someone would be hired for the BA II position. Ultimately Dr. Ming S. Chan, Chief of Laboratory Services, also referred to as a Bureau Chief for Respondent at its Jacksonville office, condoned the re- advertisement. Dr. Chan holds a Ph.D. in chemistry. Among the candidates for the BA II position, four had their applications considered and were interviewed for the position. Petitioner was among the candidates whose applications were reviewed and who underwent an interview. The applications were considered and interviews conducted by Dr. Willis and by Susanne Crowe, another BA II at the Jacksonville laboratory. She holds a master's in health and an undergraduate degree in biology. Ms. Crowe was chosen to interview candidates for the available BA II position as a person who was in a similar position within the organization. The result of the process for ranking the candidates whose applications were considered and who underwent an interview for the job placement was that Dr. David Stuart Beall, a non- Hispanic white male, was selected to fill the BA II position as the top ranked candidate, with Petitioner placing second among the four finalist. The other two persons interviewed for the BA II were interviewed by phone. It is not perceived that any advantage was created for those persons interviewed by phone compared to the live interviews afforded Petitioner and Dr. Beall, given the ranking of the candidates. When Dr. Beall applied for the BA II position he was working for the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and was housed in the offices of the Bureau of Laboratory Services in Jacksonville, Florida. Dr. Beall decided to apply for the BA II position without prompting from anyone employed by Respondent. He was not given any special training to allow him to gain the BA II position nor allowed any other form of preference that could be considered discriminatory when compared to the opportunities made available to Petitioner. The office that Dr. Beall was placed in before he became an employee with Respondent in the BA II position, was based upon space available and not in furtherance of a preference that aided Dr. Beall in gaining the BA II position. By comparison to Petitioner in the application process, the details within the Petitioner's application, which have already been described as to education and work history, the following information was provided by Dr. Beall in his application for the BA II position. He graduated from the University of Florida in 1986 with a bachelor of science in microbiology and cell science. He received a masters in microbiology and cell science from that institution in 1992. He earned a Ph.D. in microbiology and cell science in 1995 from the University of Florida. Dr. Beall served as a graduate assistant at the University of Florida from June 1, 1989, through August 1, 1995. During that time, as he indicated in his application he: Executed several lab projects including the study of ethanol fermentation by recombinant Escherichia coli expressing Zymomonas mobilis pdc and adhb genes for the conversion of xylose and other biomass carbohydrates to fuel ethanol. Also isolated and genetically engineered several novel strengths of Erwinia for the production of fuel ethanol from waste plant biomass. From November 1, 1996, through March 31, 1999, Dr. Beall worked as a post-doctorial research associate with the CDC. During that time as the application described he: Designed and executed experiments that resulted in the identification of several differentially expressed gene products that are associated with the induction of latency in Mycobacterium . Incorporated design improvements to the shift-down model for MTB growth. Part of this with TB lead to the issuance of a U.S. for an assay to detect antigens associated with latent tuberculosis infections. Attempted to identify Mycobacterium tuberculosis virulence factors using RNA subtractive hybridization. Trained new laboratory technicians how to work safely inside a BSL-3 containment facility. From April 5, 1999, through April 30, 2000, Dr. Beall worked as a guest researcher for the CDC, during which time he as the application described: Helped organize and contributed work to several lab projects including the development of novel assays for bacterial meningitis detection in clinical samples using TaqMan and Light Cycler technologies and the sequencing of the variable loop regions of the porA gene from several hundred clinical isolates of Neisseria meningitidis. From August 4, 2000, until March 12, 2004, Dr. Beall acted as a visiting professor of biology at the University of North Florida in Jacksonville, Florida, during which time as his application relates: My duties involve instruction of approximately three to four hundred students in lecture and laboratory sections per semester along with organizing and coordinating the presentation of each courseA, A's materials and tests. Additionally, I provide recommendations for students entering professional programs and mentor students for their senior presentations. Beyond my teaching responsibilities I help administer and the development of the Masters degree program as well as participate search committees to fill vacancies. This past summer semester I developed and instructed the Pathogenic Bacteriology course. The applications for the BA II position executed by Petitioner and Dr. Beall had a section which called upon the applicants to set forth in their own words the knowledge/skills/abilities that they believed they would bring to the position. In that context Petitioner said about himself: Knowledge and skills needed to isolation [sic] and identification [sic] (biochemical and Molecular procedures) pathogenic and medically important bacteria and some viruses. Knowledge and skills needed to identify Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (biochemical and Molecular procedures). Experience in supervising testing staff and directing basic and applied research projects. Working and written knowledge of CLIA, CAP, GMP, and ISO 2000 requirements for QA/QC. Ability to generate, analyze, present and publish (independently and collaboratively) data in referred scientific Journals. Ability to implement, direct, and complete simple and complex projects. In contrast, Dr. Beall related his knowledge/skills/ abilities as being: My formal training has afforded me a wide range of technical skills. My graduate school projects focused on the genetic engineering and development of novel, environmental benign methods of producing fuel ethanol from waste plant material. These studies relied heavily on knowledge of molecular biology, bacterial genetics, and cellular physiology. My postdoctoral training as an ASM/NCID fellow at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta provided me invaluable experience in fields of Public Health and bacterial pathogenesis. This work involved the development of model growth systems and nucleic acid based assays for detecting pathogenic bacteria such as N. meningitides, H. influenzae, and M. tuberculosis. There I adapted traditional assays for use with the latest generation PCR machines TaqmanA, A and Light CyclerA, A. I have also trained and supervised numerous laboratory personnel in the techniques of molecular biology and advanced laboratory safety practices. I managed and supervised the projects of a variety of associates including visiting researchers, lab technicians, and student interns. The occupation profile related to the BA II position, for which the candidates contended, indicated in the way of Examples of Work: Plans laboratory services according to statewide program needs. Consults with county health officers and staff regarding laboratory procedures and program planning related to laboratory testing. Coordinates state and federal laboratory services in outbreaks or situations when testing by specialized laboratory units is required. Consult to physicians and private hospital laboratories. Plans and participates in special research projects. Performs comparative evaluation of new and existing laboratory procedures. Prepares reports and provides information to the director, assistant director and program office. Further, the occupation profile set out examples of job characteristics when it stated: Provide Consultation and Providing consultation and expert Advice to Others advice to management or other groups on technical, systems- related, or process related topics. Communicating With Providing information to Other Workers fellow workers, and subordinates. This information can be exchanged face-to-face, in writing, or via telephone/electronic transfer. Documenting/Recording Entering, transcribing, recording, Information storing, or maintaining information in either written form or by electronic/magnetic recording. Getting Information Needed Observing, receiving, and otherwise To Do The Job obtaining information from all relevant sources. Developing and Encouraging and building mutual Building Teams trust, respect, and cooperation among team members. Analyzing Data Identifying underlying principles, or Information reasons, or facts by breaking down information or data into separate parts. Updating and Using Keeping up-to-date and knowing Job-Relevant Knowledge one's own jobs' and related jobs' and related jobs' functions. Communicating With Persons Communicating with persons outside Outside Organization the organization, representing the organization to customers, the public, government, and other external sources. This information can be exchanged face-to-face, in writing, or via telephone/electronic transfer. Establishing and Developing constructive and Maintaining Relationships cooperative working relationships with others. Developing Objectives Establishing long range objectives and Strategies and specifying the strategies and actions to achieve these objectives. Within BA II position examples of knowledge, skills, and abilities were to the following effect: Coordination Adjusting actions in relation to others' actions Reading Comprehension Understanding written sentences and paragraphs in work related documents Critical Thinking Using logic and analysis to identify the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches Speaking Talking to others to effectively convey information Judgment and Decision Weighing the relative costs and Making benefits of a potential action Time Management Managing one's own time and the time of others Implementation Planning Developing approaches for implementing an idea Management of Personnel Motivating, developing, and directing Resources people as they work, identifying the best people for the job Identification of Identifying the things that must be Key Causes changed to achieve a goal Visioning Developing an image of how a system Should work under ideal conditions Administration Knowledge of principles and processes and Management involved in business and organizational planning, coordination, and execution. This may include strategic planning, resource allocation, manpower modeling, leadership techniques, and production methods. English Language Knowledge of the structure and content of the English language including the meaning and spelling of words, rules of composition, and grammar Mathematics Knowledge of numbers, their operations, and interrelations including one or more of the following: arithmetic, algebra, geometry, calculus, statistics, and their applications Chemistry Knowledge of the composition, structure, and properties of sub- stances and of the chemical processes and transformations that they undergo. This includes uses of chemicals and their inter- actions, danger signs, production techniques, and disposal methods Economics and Accounting Knowledge of economic and accounting principles and practices, the financial markets, banking, and the analysis and reporting of financial data Law, Government Knowledge of laws, legal codes, court and Jurisprudence procedures, precedents, government regulations, executive orders, agency rules, and the democratic political process The job description for BA II stated that the employee "must be licensed or eligible for a clinical/public health laboratory license at the supervisor level." Petitioner held a clinical laboratory technician's license issued by the State of Florida, Department of Health, Division of Medical Quality Assurance. He did not, and neither did Dr. Beall, hold a license as a clinical/public health laboratory licensee at the supervisory level. Both Petitioner and Dr. Beall met the education requirements for BA II that called upon the candidate to have a masters or equivalent work experience. Both candidates had Ph.D.s. The candidates for the BA II position were scored in relation to their applications through a matrix. Within the matrix was the consideration of education, experience, to include years of experience, supervisory experience, and management experience. There was a potential score for veterans' preference. Neither candidate, Petitioner nor Dr. Beall was entitled to veterans' points. There was a score for licensure in a supervisors or directors capacity, as to eligibility as well as licensure. There was a score for writing ability and a score for public health lab experience. The matrix scores for Dr. Beall and Petitioner respectively are found within Respondent's Exhibits numbered 5 and 6 admitted as evidence. In the last analysis, Dr. Beall received a 68 on his application. Petitioner received a 61. The differences in the scores pertain to a two point difference for ability to communicate in writing, in which Dr. Beall received a score of 8 out of 10 and Petitioner received a score of 6 out of 10 possible points. Dr. Beall received 10 points maximum for having worked at least three years in a public health lab, where as Petitioner did not receive points in that category. Apparently the basis for assigning the points for public health lab experience was in relation to Dr. Beall's experience with the CDC referred to in his application. Petitioner scored 15 points for work experience and Dr. Beall received 10 points. Petitioner and Dr. Beall were interviewed by Dr. Willis and Ms. Crowe, with each interviewer assigning scores for the interview to the respective candidates. Dr. Willis assigned Dr. Beall a score of 73.5 and Petitioner a score of 65 for the interview. Ms. Crowe assigned Dr. Beall a score of 72 and Petitioner a score of 64 for the interview. The scores in relation to the interviews were averaged. That average was added to the score received for the application review, the result being that Dr. Beall received an overall score of 138.25 and Petitioner a score of 125.50 when finally concluded. In fact, the chart reflecting these scores and averages is such that the actual score for Dr. Beall by that process could have been somewhat higher than is reflected in the chart. The chart is Respondent's Exhibit numbered 7 admitted as evidence. Ms. Crowe in her testimony established that Petitioner was disorganized during his interview session to obtain the BA II job. The ranking of the candidates for the BA II position was first assigned on April 13, 2004. Petitioner was not satisfied with the outcome in which he was not offered the job. He refers to an April 14, 2004 discussion pertaining to the interview score he received aside from the assignment of points during the application evaluation. Petitioner's Exhibit numbered 14 admitted as evidence is constituted of an e-mail sent from Petitioner to Dr. Willis, the subject being the April 14, 2004 discussion of the interview score. It also refers to a meeting on the morning May 4, 2004, between Petitioner and Dr. Willis on the decision that had been reached to hire Dr. Beall. The emphasis in this communication related to Petitioner's background and his complaints about the score received in the interview. At the end of this communication Petitioner described how he stood on professional principle and was seeking reciprocation of those principles in what he refers to as "this grievance process and in the future." In the e-mail to Dr. Willis Petitioner referred to, "elimination of a candidate based on race is especially frightening when the minority candidate is more qualified than the individual offered the position." The e-mail was sent from Petitioner to Dr. Willis on May 18, 2004, as amended on that same date by a separate E-mail. On May 24, 2004, Dr. Willis acknowledged receipt of the E-mail. The effect of Petitioner's complaints about the scoring directed to Dr. Willis led to further review by Dr. Willis. The outcome was that 5 points Dr. Beall received for management experience in relation to his application were deducted, while 15 points were added for eligibility for licensure as a director. This adjustment is reflected in the scoring matrix previously described. Petitioner was not assigned any points for management experience and received the same 15 points for eligibility to be licensed as laboratory director that were assigned to Dr. Beall in his application. This outcome is also reflected in the scoring matrix previously described. The decision to hire Dr. Beall for the BA II position was not based upon race or a decision contrary to Petitioner's race. Sometime in the latter part of May 2004, Dr. Beall assumed the BA II position and became Petitioner's supervisor by virtue of being hired in the position. At about the same time Petitioner made an internal complaint, a complaint within the Respondent Agency claiming discrimination on the basis of race, pertaining to the manner in which Dr. Beall was selected for the BA II position to the exclusion of Petitioner. The internal complaint which Petitioner filed was with Respondent's EEOC Office. Petitioner was not satisfied with the internal process for resolving his complaint of discrimination through the Respondent and decided to file a complaint with FCHR, which forms the basis for the present case. After Dr. Beall became Petitioner's supervisor he reviewed Petitioner's work. He observed that Petitioner was aloof, difficult, recalcitrant, obstructive, and had a questionable demeanor. He found Petitioner's work to be unorganized. He met several times with Petitioner to address the question of organization. Responses required from Petitioner to Dr. Beall were not prompt or clear when made. There was a problem about failure to contact Dr. Beall as supervisor when Petitioner decided to take leave. Petitioner claimed to have been at work when he was not at work, as Dr. Beall perceived the situation. Dr. Willis, who supervised Dr. Beall at that time, was aware of Dr. Beall's concerns about Petitioner's performance, in particular, his lack of cooperation and the inability to find Petitioner at the office, in that Petitioner would leave the premises without advising Dr. Beall. By comparison, during the time that Dr. Willis supervised Petitioner there was a situation concerning a county health department and tests for rabies. Petitioner became involved and gave a response to the inquiry by the county health agency that Dr. Willis considered to be inaccurate or misleading. This lead to a situation in which the person within the Bureau of Laboratory Services who properly should have responded to the county agency inquiry, being addressed by Petitioner in a manner that Dr. Willis found troubling, as to Petitioner's ability to work with other persons within Respondent agency. Eventually Dr. Beall recommended that Petitioner be dismissed from his position before completing his probationary period. The reason for this recommendation related to Petitioner's demeanor, to include his willingness to cooperate while undergoing the review of his work. There were issues with reports rendered by Petitioner, considered to be lacking in professionalism, problems with attendance and leave and a lack of progress in the list of expectations that have been referred to earlier. Dr. Willis concurred with the recommendation that Petitioner be dismissed. Linda Boutwell, who was personnel officer within the Bureau of Laboratory Services in Jacksonville, was also consulted concerning the dismissal. Concerning the disposition of Petitioner's employment, Caroll David Fulgher was consulted as an employee of Respondent's Office of Human Resources in Tallahassee. It was explained to Mr. Fulgher that Petitioner tended to ignore his supervisor Dr. Beall and to do what Petitioner preferred, contrary to the wishes of his supervisor. It was explained to Mr. Fulgher that the quality of Petitioner's work was not satisfactory and that difficulties were experienced in relation to Petitioner's attendance and leave. Following discussion with Mr. Fulgher, it was suggested that the matter be considered by the Bureau Chief, Dr. Chan. Mr. Fulgher prepared a letter dismissing Petitioner from his employment. This letter was dated October 13, 2004. It was signed by Dr. Chan indicating his agreement with the choice to dismiss Petitioner. Respondent's Exhibit numbered 10 is a copy of that letter. It was presented to Petitioner, thus terminating his employment with Respondent. The supervision of Petitioner, to include supervision by Dr. Beall, evidenced no discriminatory intent based upon race, nor was the choice to dismiss Petitioner one motivated by any desire to retaliate against Petitioner for his complaint concerning the decision to hire Dr. Beall in preference to Petitioner for the BA II position.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing Petitioner's claims of discrimination and retaliation based upon race. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 March, 2006.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that petitioner's application for a clinical laboratory technologist's license be DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 6th day of September, 1978. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-99775 COPIES FURNISHED: Terry L. Bennett Route 6, Box 249 Lake City, FL 32055 Also mailed to Ms. Bennett at the following address: 1461 Cedar Bay Road Jacksonville, FL 32218 Robert M. Eisenberg District IV Counsel Post Office Box 2417F Jacksonville, FL 32231 William J. Page, Jr. Secretary Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32301
