Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the matters under consideration here, Respondent was licensed by the State of Florida as a practical nurse, under license #0692631. Cynthia J. Pagonis entered University Hospital in Jacksonville, Florida, on April 11, 1983, for a routine laparoscopy to be performed the following morning. Early on the morning of the day of her surgery, April 12, 1983, Respondent, who was one of her nurses, came into her room with two other nurses, one of whom gave her a shot. While this was done, Respondent stood back and observed. Somewhat later, he again came back into her room with a rolling table onto which he told her to climb so he could take her down to the operating room. By this time she was somewhat drowsy from the shot. She asked Respondent what was in it and he told her, whereupon he wheeled her to surgery. After the procedure, that afternoon, Ms. Pagonis recalls him entering her room several times. One time, he checked her I.V. bottle--other times, he did nothing for her and, sleepy as she was, this concerned her because she wanted to sleep and Respondent's visits disturbed her. During this period, other nurses also came in to check her blood pressure or do something else, but Respondent never did anything--just looked. On the final visit, he came in and said he wanted to check her bandage. With this, he lowered her blanket to below her waist to the extent that her pelvic area was exposed. She was wearing a short hospital gown and nothing else. By this time, several hours after surgery, the anesthetic had worn off so that she knew exactly what was happening. After looking at her bandage, in this case no more than a Band-Aid, he pulled the cover back up and, without warning, bent over and kissed her on the cheek. She was upset when he pulled the blanket down because she felt it was inappropriate for him to do it when her dressing had been checked by another nurse shortly before. She also did not think it was appropriate for a male to be in her room without a chaperone. When Respondent kissed Mrs. Pagonis, he told her he would be off for a few days and for her to take care of herself. Then he left. When Respondent kissed Mrs. Pagonis, she got angry. She had said nothing to him to lead him on. She had asked him what cologne he was wearing and when he told her, she said it smelled nice, but nothing more. Mr. Pagonis entered his wife's room on the morning of her surgery, both before and after the operation. When he was there before she was taken to the operating room, he saw Respondent in the room and Respondent asked him to leave so they could get his wife ready for the operation. When he came back later, after this incident, he found her nervous and upset. She looked to him as if she had been frightened. When she told him what had happened, that this "black male nurse had repeatedly come into her room and was doing nothing" for her, and that he had pulled down her covers and "got his eyes full," Mr. Pagonis became angry and went out to look for Respondent. He could not find Mills, however, and went through the nursing chain of command until he got to Mrs. Davis, the Director of Medical Nursing, to whom he told the story. Mrs. Davis found Mr. Pagonis to be upset, but rational and controlled. He was, in her words, restrained, gentlemanly, and "quite heroic" about the whole situation. Mrs. Davis was first contacted about the incident, while in her office, by a call from the floor nurse on Mrs. Pagonis' floor. The nurse alerted her that Respondent had made advances to a patient. She immediately went up to that floor and met with Mr. Pagonis, whom she then took downstairs to her office where he told her what his wife had related. She then went back up to Mrs. Pagonis' room, in an effort to be fair to everyone, to see how alert Mrs. Pagonis was and how accurate her observations were. Mrs. Davis found her alert, and a clearheaded woman who, in her opinion, had been free of the effects of anesthesia for quite awhile. Mrs. Pagonis told her what had happened, that Respondent had made an unnecessary check of her I.V., since another nurse had just checked her, and then checked her dressing, as described. Mrs. Davis verified that another nurse had recently checked on Mrs. Pagonis and, after checking the incision, concluded that because it was so minor, there was no legitimate need for Respondent to have done so also. In her professional opinion, based on service as a licensed practical nurse since 1971 and as a registered nurse since 1974, the way in which Respondent checked Mrs. Pagonis was inappropriate. The incision and dressing here were so small, it was not necessary to expose the patient all the way to the mons pubis, as Respondent did. In addition, a male nurse should always have a witness present in a situation such as this. As for the kiss, it is a rare situation when it is appropriate for a nurse to kiss a patient. This may be done only in the care of a very old, very young, very sick, long-term patient, where the parties had a long-standing relationship, and the action would be therapeutic. Under the circumstances here, Respondent's kiss of Mrs. Pagonis was inappropriate and unprofessional, notwithstanding Respondent's claim he did it, "but only as a friendly gesture." Mrs. Davis requested Mr. Pagonis to make a written statement. When this was done and signed, Mrs. Davis called for Respondent, who, she found, had signed off his regular shift, but was working overtime. She located him and took him back to her office, where she questioned him about the incident. At first he denied it, but subsequently admitted he had kissed Mrs. Pagonis and pulled down her covers, although he claimed he did this in an appropriate manner. She then sent him back to work and thought about the situation for a while. Having made her decision to discharge the Respondent, she prepared the appropriate paperwork, called him back to her office, and did so. The next day, Mills called her and told her he understood why she had done what she did, told her he loved her, and thanked her. During the period he worked at that hospital, she never had any other difficulty with Respondent. He was cooperative and would come in for extra duty when called. She bad received no direct complaints about his relationship with other patients; and though she was not his immediate supervisor, she understood that his performance of his nursing duties was satisfactory. Somewhat later in the year, in June 1983, Respondent was employed as a Float Nurse at the Jacksonville Convalescent Center, specifically on June 19 and 20, 1983. On those days it was, according to Carol R. Hadnot, Director of Nursing at the Center, his responsibility to change the dressings on certain patients. Respondent was present for duty on those dates. During this period, Fay K.F. Bennett, also a nurse at the Center, as a part of her duties, checked the dressing on several of the patients whose dressings were due to be changed. She found that the dressings had not been changed and that the Patients' charts bore initials and date for the last change, a day or two before. The initials on the charts were D.M., which could have been Respondent or Doris Minard. That initial is not significant, however. What is significant is that there was no note on the chart showing that Respondent had changed the dressings during his duty period as he was required to do. This information was reported to Mrs. Hadnot. It is the general policy at Jacksonville Convalescent Center to counsel an employee before taking discharge action here. This was not done here because before Respondent could be counseled, allegations that Respondent had made sexual advances to three nurses' aids were reported to her. She then discussed the situation with the faculty administrator. They decided that because he was still a probationary employee, the allegations described were sufficient to discharge Respondent without counseling, and this was done.
Recommendation That Respondent's license as a licensed practical nurse be revoked.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Miracle Hill was and is a skilled nursing home licensed by the Petitioner herein. During the three-week period prior to November 10, 1980, three of the full-time registered nurses employed by Miracle Hill resigned in order to commence employment with the State of Florida, since the State had substantially increased pay for nurses employed by the State. On October 29, 1980, Mary Jane Fears, the regular registered nurse on the morning shift at Miracle Hill, submitted her resignation effective November 15, 1980. Accordingly, on November 1, 1980, Miracle Hill began advertising in the Tallahassee Democrat its registered nurse vacancies. Although the ad appeared on ten consecutive days, no response was received to the advertisement. Nurse Fears was scheduled to work on November 10, 1980. On that morning, she called in to say she was ill and would not be coming to work. Bernardine Blackshear, the Director of Nursing at Miracle Hill, attempted to replace Nurse Fears but was unable to obtain the services of a substitute registered nurse. She did obtain a substitute licensed practical nurse for that morning shift. Nurse Blackshear maintains a list of substitute nurses for use in emergency situations. These persons were contacted in order to obtain sufficient staffing during November, but Miracle Hill was unable to locate enough substitute help to have a registered nurse on the morning shift each day. In addition to contacting all persons on the "substitute list" and advertising in the Tallahassee Democrat, the administrators at Miracle Hill also contacted Upjohn and Quality Care two nursing employment agencies, but the agencies were unable to obtain the services of anyone for Miracle Hill's morning shift. At the time, there was a severe nursing shortage in the Tallahassee area where Miracle Hill is located. Despite the efforts made to avoid the situation, Miracle Hill had no registered nurse on duty on its morning shift on November 10, 18, 22, and 23, 1980. There were on duty, however, several licensed practical nurses. Additionally, Nurse Blackshear was on call at her home located one-and-a-half miles from Miracle Hill; and the two licensed physicians employed by Miracle Hill were also accessible. As a result of an anonymous phone call, Petitioner sent one of its consultants, James L. Myrah, to Miracle Hill on November 25, 1980, to investigate the alleged nursing staff shortage. Upon speaking with Freddie L. Franklin, the licensed administrator of Miracle Hill, an upon reviewing Miracle Hill's records, Myrah determined that Miracle Hill had no registered nurse on duty at the facility on the four mornings in question. Additionally, Franklin told Myrah there might be a problem within the next few days since he had not been able to locate anyone willing to work Thanksgiving weekend. Subsequent to Myrah's visit to the facility, Miracle Hill hired Mary Jefferson, a registered nurse, to provide nursing coverage at the facility over the Thanksgiving weekend. Nurse Jefferson worked the morning shift on November 29, 1980, but called in on the morning of November 30 to say she would not work that day. Once again, Blackshear attempted to find a replacement registered nurse but was unable to do so. A licensed practical nurse was called in to replace the registered nurse. On December 1, 1980, Myrah revisited the facility to evaluate the registered nurse staffing over the Thanksgiving weekend. He, of course, discovered that no registered nurse was on duty during the morning shift on Sunday, November 30, 1980. At Miracle Hill, the morning shift normally is staffed by three nurses and six nurse's aides. On the afternoon shifts, only four aides are on duty with two nurses, including a registered nurse. Petitioner assessed a maximum fine of $500 per day against Miracle Hill for all five days on which no registered nurse was present at the facility during the morning shift, for a total administrative fine of $2,500. Dorothy Stratton, an employee in Petitioner's Jacksonville Office of Licensure & Certification, recommended to her superiors that the maximum fine be assessed since she considers it a serious deficiency for a nursing home to not have a registered nurse on duty in the morning. Although Stratton is aware that Miracle Hill is regarded by Petitioner as a model for nursing home operating procedures and usually obtains a perfect rating during inspections by the State, she has no knowledge regarding the circumstances causing Miracle Hill to violate the nursing requirements on the five days in question and has no interest in learning these circumstances. Stratton does not know who made the decision to assess the maximum fine allowable, and no testimony was presented by the Petitioner regarding who made that decision or regarding the circumstances considered in that decision. Petitioner has no written guidelines for determining whether a fine should be assessed or the severity of such a fine. During the three-and-a-half years that Freddie Franklin has been the administrator at Miracle Hill, there have been no other citations for nursing staff shortage, except those which are the subject of this Administrative Complaint. Additionally, there have been no major violations of any of Petitioner's requirements during Franklin's tenure.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED THAT: A final order be entered finding Respondent in violation of staffing requirements by failing to have a registered nurse on duty on the A.M. shift on November 10, 18, 22, 23, and 30, 1980, and further finding that the assessment of a fine for that violation to be unwarranted under the circumstances of this cause only. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of December, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of December, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: John L. Pearce, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2639 North Monroe Street Suite 200-A Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Robert I. Scanlan, Esquire Post Office Box 10311 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Henry C. Hunter, Esquire Suite 320 Lewis State Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. David Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Petitioner, CASE NO.: 81-991 vs. MIRACLE HILL NURSING AND CONVALESCENT HOME, INC., Respondent. /
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner was harassed because of her race during employment as a registered nurse at Shands at Lakeshore, Inc. (Shands), and whether the Respondent terminated her because of race or for retaliation concerning alleged complaints of harassment.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Valeria Thompkins, was employed as an RN on the medical-surgical unit on the third floor of Shands Lakeshore Hospital in Lake City, Florida, at times pertinent hereto. Each of the Petitioner's shifts began at 7 p.m. and ended at 7 a.m. The Petitioner reported to a "Charge Nurse" who supervised each shift and reported to the Nurse Manager for the unit. The Nurse Manager reported to the hospital’s Director of Nursing. Julia Woods was the Nurse Manager for the Petitioner's unit and Mattie Jones was the Director of Nursing, when the Petitioner was hired in August 2004. Julia Woods was removed by the Nursing Director, Ms. Jones, in September 2005 for performance issues. Jodi Wood replaced her as Nurse Manager for the Petitioner's unit. Julia Woods was removed by Ms. Jones because Ms. Woods had focused too heavily on staffing the unit and failed to properly supervise quality of patient care. When Ms. Jones promoted Jodi Wood, she specifically instructed Ms. Wood to improve the quality of patient care. Ms. Wood verbally counseled the Petitioner for failing to follow doctor's orders concerning administering intravenous antibiotics to a newly-admitted patient, who was suffering from sepsis. This verbal reprimand occurred on September 26, 2005. The failure to administer antibiotics to that patient harmed the patient's care and could have allowed the sepsis, a systemic infection, to become more severe. When the sepsis worsened as a result of failure to administer antibiotics timely, the Respondent was required to transfer that patient to the Intensive Care Unit. The Petitioner admits that she did not administer the ordered antibiotics, but claims that she did not administer them because the Respondent did not provide training explaining when to administer medications ordered to be administered twice per day. This explanation, however, does not raise any issue concerning disparate treatment for racial or other reasons and does not question the imposition of the verbal reprimand. All the nurses hired in August 2004 received the same training from the Respondent, including the Petitioner. The immediate administration of antibiotics is a standard nursing protocol for a patient with sepsis and the Respondent could reasonably presume that it did not need to train a registered nurse in such basic nursing care. It was reasonable for the Respondent to presume that the Petitioner was aware of that standard nursing practice. The Respondent's failure to raise any issue about the Petitioner's training, or orientation training, does not indicate that the verbal discipline was motivated by any illicit purpose, but rather was based upon the inadequate care provided the patient. The Respondent could fairly expect the Petitioner, hired as an RN, to have had adequate training in such standard nursing care or procedure before she was ever employed. The Petitioner ignored a doctor's order to monitor a patient's heart rate with a telemetry unit on October 14, 2005. This was less than a month after the previous verbal warning referenced above. The Petitioner admitted the patient to her unit and signed the patient's chart, noting that all orders above her signature, including the order for telemetry monitoring, had been executed, that is, performed. The Petitioner, however, failed to ensure that a telemetry unit was connected to the patient and did not take any telemetry readings while treating that patient. Ms. Wood presented this incident to Nursing Director Jones, who made an independent review of the events, including a review of the patient's chart. Ms. Jones decided to issue a First Written Corrective Action to the Petitioner because of this incident. The Petitioner's failure to place a telemetry unit on the patient made it impossible for the medical staff to monitor the patient's heart, thereby negatively affecting patient care. The Petitioner admitted that she was to blame for failing to ensure that the telemetry monitoring unit was on the patient. The Petitioner, however, attempted to dispute the First Written Corrective Action by claiming that other nurses, specifically those who had treated the patient in the Intensive Care Unit, were also at fault for failing to place a telemetry monitor on the patient. The Petitioner conceded, however, that Ms. Wood did not supervise any of those unidentified comparator nursing staff and could not therefore recommend discipline of them. Therefore, no question was raised concerning comparative discipline between the Petitioner and the nurses who had treated the patient in the Intensive Care Unit. Further, Ms. Jones is African-American. There is no evidence indicating that she would discipline the Petitioner concerning this mistake because of her race, while allowing employees outside the Petitioner's protected class to escape without discipline, if indeed they had done anything blame- worthy. The Petitioner has thus not provided credible evidence that any similarly-situated employees received disparate treatment with regard to any issue about responsibility for the referenced mistake in the care of this patient. On October 19, 2005, Terry Wayne, a Patient Care Coordinator at Shands, discovered that the Petitioner had administered an intravenous antibiotic, Gentamicin, to a patient who did not have an order for that antibiotic. Ms. Wayne determined that the antibiotic had actually been ordered for the other patient in the same room, but was carelessly administered to the wrong patient by the Petitioner. The Petitioner's error exposed the patient to potentially severe side effects. The error compromised the care of both patients by risking side effects for the patient who received the antibiotic in error, and by allowing the patient who should have received it to thus go untreated. The Petitioner denies administering the Gentamicin to that patient. The Petitioner claims that Jay Nash, the evening charge nurse, had come into the room and administered the antibiotic in an effort to “frame” the Petitioner as a sub- standard nurse. The Petitioner's explanation is not plausible. There is no credible evidence that Mr. Nash would be motivated to engage in such conspiratorial behavior to try to falsely blame the Petitioner. That theory relies heavily on the Petitioner's erroneous belief that Mr. Nash, not Terry Wayne, discovered the medication error. The Petitioner's explanation is simply not credible. It is undisputed that the Patient Care Coordinators, such as Ms. Wayne, were responsible for auditing patient charts to confirm that patients were receiving proper patient care. The Petitioner concedes that she does not know Terry Wayne or what her capacity is with Shands. Thus, there is no way she could know of Terry Wayne's holding any improper motivation to fabricate a medical error and blame it on the Petitioner. Ms. Wayne completed a Medical Error Report when she discovered the improperly administered Gentamicin. This was in accordance with routine Shands protocol. A copy of that report was delivered to the Nurse Manager, by routine policy. When the Nurse Manager, Ms. Wood, received the report, she forwarded it to the Nursing Director, Ms. Jones, and she recommended additional disciplinary action for the Petitioner. Ms. Jones made an independent review of the incident that included a review of the patient's chart and the incident report. Based upon this, Ms. Jones issued a Second Written Corrective Action to the Petitioner. Ms. Wood and Ms. Jones subsequently met with the Petitioner to prepare a development plan to try to improve the Petitioner's repeated patient-care problems. The Respondent routinely prepares development plans for employees who have two Written Corrective Actions, because a third Written Corrective Action in a 12-month period would result in termination. Ms. Wood met with the Petitioner once each week for the first two weeks after the development plan was presented to the Petitioner. Ms. Wood did not meet with the Petitioner the following two weeks because she took a vacation during the holiday season. The Petitioner caused several patient-care problems during the period Ms. Wood was unavailable to meet with her. Between December 13, 2005, and December 27, 2005, the Petitioner provided sub-standard care on at least eleven occasions. Two of these incidents were more serious patient-care problems than the others, because they resulted in a direct injury to one patient and exposed another patient to the risk of very serious infection. The first of the two incidents came to light when the Shands administration received a complaint from a patient, in the third floor medical-surgical unit, that his nurse had roughly removed a dressing for his IV and tore his skin. This complaint was passed on to Ms. Jones and Ms. Wood. Ms. Jones reviewed the patient’s chart and determined that the Petitioner had discontinued the IV on the patient in question. The discontinuation of an IV is the only reason to remove the dressing, so Ms. Jones reasonably concluded that the Petitioner was the nurse who tore the patient's skin. The Petitioner admitted treating the patient but denied tearing his skin. She claimed that she removed the first IV and replaced it with a new IV, only to have some other nurse come and discontinue the IV and tear the patient's skin. At the final hearing, however, the Petitioner conceded that she had to discontinue the original IV in order to replace it and that the patient's chart then would show that the Petitioner had discontinued the patient's IV. Therefore, even if the Petitioner was not the nurse who tore the patient's skin, the Petitioner's admission that the patient chart showed that she had discontinued at least one of the patient's I.V.'s creates a non-discriminatory explanation for a good faith belief by Nursing Director Jones that the Petitioner was the nurse who injured the patient. The second serious incident was discovered on December 24, 2005. Dayshift nurse Darlene Hewitt, who had taken over care of patients treated by the Petitioner during the preceding evening, noticed that one of the patients had dark stool dried over the site of his “femoral central line.” Ms. Hewitt had received a report from the Petitioner, only ten minutes before discovering the feces, but the Petitioner had not informed her of the patient's condition. Ms. Hewitt reported the incident to Ms. Wood, who reviewed the patient’s chart and determined that the Petitioner returned to the chart, after the presence of the feces had been discovered, and added false entries, effective 6 a.m. that morning, claiming to have discovered and reported the stool to the succeeding nurse at the shift change. A femoral central line is an I.V. line inserted into the femoral artery in the groin of the patient. It is used to administer prescription medication directly to a patient's heart. A dressing is used to cover the central line insertion point, because any bacteria that contaminate the site could potentially go directly to a patient's heart. A contaminated femoral central line is a serious patient-care issue and exposes the patient to potentially serious health consequences. Ms. Wood reported the incident to Director Jones, along with the other ten incidents of sub-standard patient-care occurring between December 13, 2005, and December 27, 2005. Ms. Jones reviewed each incident independently, and made an examination of each patient chart at issue. She determined that the Petitioner's patient-care practices had not improved. She therefore decided to issue the Petitioner a Third Written Corrective Action. Ms. Woods and Ms. Jones met with the Petitioner on December 28, 2005, to discuss the issues underlying the Third Written Corrective Action. Ms. Jones explained to the Petitioner that the Third Written Corrective Action would result in automatic termination. Ms. Jones offered the Petitioner the opportunity to resign, in lieu of termination, before the Third Written Corrective Action was completed. The Petitioner left the meeting and never responded to Ms. Jones’ offer. The Petitioner maintains that she was terminated. Whether she was terminated or resigned in lieu of termination, or was constructively terminated, is not material to resolution of the issues at hand. In fact, the Petitioner was effectively terminated for providing sub-standard patient care. There is no evidence to suggest that Ms. Jones’ decision to discipline and terminate the Petitioner was based upon race, retaliation for any alleged complaints of harassment, or engaging in any statutorily protected conduct. The Petitioner did not identify any employees outside her protected class that were not disciplined for providing similar sub-standard patient care. The Respondent, however, identified several employees outside the Petitioner's protected class who were disciplined by Ms. Wood for providing poor patient care. When faced with that evidence at hearing, the Petitioner conceded that the Respondent did not terminate her for any improper purpose. The Petitioner also claims to have been harassed by several white co-workers. Co-workers Shannon Poppel, Kim Morris, and Darlene Hewitt were purported by the Petitioner to have harassed her. Those three persons, however, all work on the day shift. The Petitioner worked on the 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift. Jay Nash was the only night-shift employee who had been alleged to have mistreated the Petitioner. At hearing, however, the Petitioner conceded that Mr. Nash was not harassing her; rather, she contends he was assigning her more difficult patients than he was assigning other employees. The Petitioner maintains that Poppel, Morris, and Hewitt were very friendly with Nursing Director Wood. The Petitioner suspects they had a social relationship outside the hospital. The Petitioner contends that Poppel, Morris, and Hewitt ignored her and interrupted her when she was attempting to give her report at shift changes. Finally, the Petitioner claims that the three people would stop all conversation whenever she entered a room and, on one occasion, she overheard Director Wood and one of the alleged harassers laughing in Ms. Woods's office when discussing the Petitioner. The Petitioner concedes, however, that none of the alleged harassers ever used any racially derogatory language or made any reference to the Petitioner's race. In fact, she offered no evidence relating the behavior of the three alleged harassers to the Petitioner's race, aside from the fact that the alleged harassers are Caucasian and the Petitioner is African- American. The Petitioner's contention that this behavior was based on race is the Petitioner's own bare, unsupported opinion and is un-persuasive. The Petitioner even concedes that the harassers were friends away from the hospital. Their social relationship, which was not shared with the Petitioner, is a more plausible explanation for any behavior of the alleged harassers than is the race of the Petitioner. This is especially so, given the fact that Nursing Director Wood herself is African-American. The Petitioner has also exaggerated the severity of the alleged harassment, because there was an insufficient temporal opportunity for the alleged harassers to engage in that conduct. The day-shift nurses, including the three alleged harassers, must "punch in" between 6:45 a.m. and 6:52 a.m. for their 12-hour shift, which runs from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Generally, the night-shift nurses finish giving reports to the day-shift nurses and leave the hospital by 7:15 a.m. Therefore, at most, Ms. Poppel, Morris, or Hewitt could have interacted with the Petitioner only for a total of about 30 minutes per day. Thus any harassment, if it occurred, would have occurred for only a very short period of time. Moreover, there is no proof that any harassment, based upon race, occurred at all. The Petitioner contends that she complained to Nursing Director Jones about the harassment, but Ms. Jones denies this. Ms. Jones is well-trained in the anti-harassment policy followed by Shands. She had conducted several other investigations into harassment allegations during her tenure as Nursing Director. Her thorough response to those other allegations concerning harassment makes it very unlikely that Ms. Jones would have ignored the Petitioner's alleged complaint, had she made one. Ms. Jones is an African-American woman and, if she had a history, as she does, of actively investigating any allegations of harassment, it is unlikely that she would have disregarded an allegation that an employee felt that she was being harassed because of her race. Therefore, the Petitioner's self-serving opinion that she was being harassed, and her allegation that she had complained about the harassment, lacks credibility and persuasiveness.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations denying the petition in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 19th day of January, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Nancy Toman Baldwin, Esquire Law offices of Nancy Toman Baldwin 309 North East First Street Gainesville, Florida 32601 Marquis W. Heilig, Esquire Thompson, Sizemore, Gonzalez & Hearing, P.A. 201 North Franklin Street, Suite 1600 Tampa, Florida 33602 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of violating Rule 59S-8.005(1)(e)2, Florida Administrative Code, for administering medications or treatments in a negligent manner and subject to discipline for unprofessional conduct under Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes. If so, another issue is what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact In June 1994 Respondent was licensed as a registered nurse, holding license number RN 2740932. Respondent had been licensed as a registered nurse since 1993 and as a licensed practical nurse since 1987. Respondent's license as a registered nurse became inactive June 21, 1995 after she failed to renew it. In the fall of 1993 East Pointe Hospital hired Respondent as a charge nurse in the transitional care unit, which had recently been started. Although Respondent had only recently become licensed as a registered nurse, the hospital hired her based partly on her current licensing and partly on her previous experience as a licensed practical nurse and respiratory therapist. During the weekend of June 24-26, 1994 Respondent worked the 7:00 pm to 7:00 am shift. As a charge nurse Respondent supervised several other nurses, typically licensed practical nurses. The charge nurse and nurses whom the charge nurse supervised sometimes divided up the patients in the unit, but the charge nurse retained supervisory authority over the other nurses and always remained directly responsible for patients with more complex problems. Patient C. P. had recently been transferred to the transitional care unit from the acute care unit. On the evenings in question, C.P. was among the patients for whom Respondent was directly responsible. Several IVs were being administered the evening of June 24 and early morning of June 25. One patient was having problems with an IV pump and his veins. Respondent asked another nurse, who was under Respondent's supervision, to do the accuchecks on the other patients, including C. P. Accuchecks are finger stick glucose monitors. As was the case with C. P., physicians typically order accuchecks every six hours for patients receiving their total nutrition intravenously. The purpose of the accucheck is to ensure that the patient receiving all his nutrition intravenously does not develop low or high blood sugar, which could have very serious implications. The other nurse failed to perform the accuchecks for midnight at the start of June 25 and 6:00 am on June 25. Respondent failed to follow up to ensure that they were done. Respondent's failure to perform the required accuchecks or to check to make sure that the other nurse performed them constitutes the negligent treatment of a patient. A physician had also ordered that C. P. receive antibiotics intravenously every eight hours, at about 6:00 am, 2:00 pm, and 10:00 pm. Petitioner alleges that Respondent failed to administer two consecutive doses. However, nothing in the nurses' notes documents what would have been a material omission, and no one on the nursing staff bothered to contact the physician who had ordered the antibiotics. There is also a reasonable possibility that IV bags bearing dates and times were mixed up so as to preclude a determination of which registered nurse failed to administer IV medication, if in fact two doses of antibiotics were missed. Respondent later admitted not performing the accuchecks, but never admitted failing to administer the IV antibiotics. Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent failed to administer the IV medications as ordered. The hospital terminated Respondent's employment shortly after the incidents involving C. P. Respondent has since held two temporary nursing jobs and has applied unsuccessfully for 12 other nursing jobs. She now lives with her mother in Virginia where she earns $100-$200 weekly in employment unrelated to nursing. C. P. suffered no injury as a result of the failure to conduct ordered accuchecks and the failure, if any, to administer the prescribed IV. Respondent has not previously been disciplined as a licensed practical nurse or registered nurse.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Nursing enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Rule 59S-8.005(1)(e), Florida Administrative Code, and Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes, for her failure to perform two accuchecks or make sure that another nurse had performed them and issuing a reprimand to Respondent. ENTERED on December 21, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 21st day of December, 1995. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-4: adopted or adopted in substance. 5: rejected as irrelevant. 6-12 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 12 (second sentence): rejected as subordinate and irrelevant. 13-15: rejected as subordinate. 16: rejected as subordinate and irrelevant. 17-18: adopted or adopted in substance. 19-21: rejected as subordinate and recitation of testimony. 22-23: rejected as irrelevant and subordinate. 24: rejected as subordinate. 25: rejected as subordinate and irrelevant. 26-28: adopted or adopted in substance. 29: rejected as irrelevant. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-3 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 3 (first sentence)-4: rejected as subordinate and irrelevant. 5-6: adopted or adopted in substance, although not as to the identify of the other nurse. 7: adopted or adopted in substance, except that the failure either to perform the accuchecks or ensure that the other nurse did is negligence. 8-14: rejected as subordinate. 15-18: adopted or adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Laura P. Gaffney, Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration General Counsel's Office Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Robert E. Tardif, Jr. Duncan & Tardif, P.A. P.O. Drawer 249 Ft. Myers, FL 33902 Linda Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Judie Ritter, Executive Director Board of Nursing Daniel Building, Room 50 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, FL 32202
The Issue The issues in this case are whether, before applying for licensure as a registered nurse in Florida, Petitioner had suffered the denial of an application for licensure as a practical nurse in the state of Virginia, and, if so, whether Petitioner's failure to disclose that fact in her Florida application was a knowing misrepresentation; finally, if either or both of the forgoing questions are answered in the affirmative, whether Respondent has grounds to deny Petitioner's pending application for a nursing license.
Findings Of Fact On October 15, 2012, Petitioner Yolette Tema ("Tema") signed an application for licensure as a registered nurse, which she mailed to the Department of Health for review by Respondent Board of Nursing (the "Board"). Item No. 9 of the application sought information about the applicant's disciplinary history. Four subparts (lettered A through D) asked questions that called for a "yes" or "no" answer, which the applicant was to give by marking the applicable check box. The first question ("9A") was: Have you ever been denied or is there now any proceeding to deny your application for any healthcare license to practice in Florida or any other state, jurisdiction or country? Tema answered, "No." In Item No. 10 of the application, there appeared above the signature line the following declarations: I recognize that providing false information may result in disciplinary action against my license or criminal penalties pursuant to Sections 456.067, 775.083, and 775.084, Florida Statutes. I have carefully read the questions in the foregoing application and have answered them completely, without reservations of any kind. Should I furnish any false information in this application, I hereby agree that such act shall constitute cause for denial, suspension or revocation of my license to practice as a Registered Nurse or Licensed Practical Nurse in the State of Florida. Tema's signature manifested her agreement with the foregoing declarations. Despite having acknowledged the hard consequences of deceit, Tema's negative answer to the question of whether she ever had suffered the denial of an application for licensure was false. In fact, in June 2011, the Virginia Board of Nursing had denied Tema's application for licensure as a practical nurse, on the ground that she had provided false information in an effort to obtain a license by fraud, deceit, or material omission. Tema had received timely, contemporaneous notice of the Virginia Board of Nursing's final decision, and she was fully aware of that disposition at all times relevant to this case. When she completed the Florida application in October 2012, therefore, Tema knew that her response to question 9A was false. Because the information Tema failed to disclose obviously would have hurt her chances of obtaining a license in Florida, the undersigned disbelieves Tema's explanation for the material omission, which was that she simply made a mistake.1/ Instead, the undersigned infers that Tema intentionally omitted the damaging fact of the Virginia denial in hopes that the Board would not discover it.2/ The Board did, however, discover the Virginia decision while reviewing Tema's application. Based on that past denial and Tema's present failure to disclose it, the Board determined that Tema's Florida application should be denied. The Board's preliminary decision was communicated to Tema through a Notice of Intent to Deny dated February 11, 2014. Determinations of Ultimate Fact Tema is guilty of having an application for a license to practice nursing denied by the licensing authority of another state, which is a disciplinable offense under section 464.018(1)(b), Florida Statutes.3/ Tema is guilty of attempting to procure a license to practice nursing by knowing misrepresentation, which is a disciplinable offense under section 464.018(1)(a).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Nursing enter a final order denying Tema's application for licensure as a registered nurse. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of September, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of September, 2014.
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in unprofessional conduct and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed on her nursing license.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Health is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of nursing pursuant to Chapter 464, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed practical nurse in the State of Florida, holding license no. PN 0986101. Respondent has been so licensed since 1990. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was employed in the office of Dr. David Flick, M.D., an oncologist. On October 17, 1995, Dr. Flick wrote a prescription for Fiorinal for Katherine Filan, who on that date, was an employee of Dr. Flick. The prescription authorized one refill. On or about January 12, 1996, in response to an inquiry from a pharmacy, Respondent approved a refill of the prescription for Fiorinal for Katherine Filan, without first consulting Dr. Flick. According to Dr. Flick, at all times pertinent to this proceeding, the general policy in his office was that he approved all refills. This policy was unwritten and was not effectively communicated to employees. Respondent and one other licensed practical nurse, formerly employed as a nurse in Dr. Flick's office, provided credible testimony that nurses in Dr. Flick's office were allowed to refill prescriptions, except for narcotics. However, when nurses authorized such refills, the policy was that the refills were to be documented and charted. Respondent believed that her action of authorizing the refill of Ms. Filan's prescription was consistent with the practice and policy of Dr. Flick's office. Moreover, Respondent believed that her approval of the refill was permitted because Dr. Flick had expressly authorized one refill on the original prescription he had written. No evidence was presented that Ms. Filan had refilled the prescription prior to January 12, 1996. After Respondent authorized the refill of the prescription for Ms. Filan, she failed to record the refill authorization on the any medical records. Respondent maintains that her failure to document the refill was inadvertent and was the result of her being extremely busy that day. On the day that Respondent authorized the refill, she was the only chemotherapy nurse on duty, was taking care of patients, and taking incoming nurse's calls. Except for this proceeding, Respondent has never been the subject of a disciplinary proceeding related to her nursing license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is REOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Board of Nursing, enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of February, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 17th day of February, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency of Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Paul J. Martin, General Counsel Agency of Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Howard M. Bernstein, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration General Counsel's Office Medical Quality Assistance Allied Health Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Michele L. Schrembs DeGrolier, pro se 1501 Carlos Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33755
The Issue Respondent is charged under Section 464.018(1)(c), Florida Statutes, of being convicted, regardless of adjudication, of a crime which directly relates to the practice of nursing or the ability to practice nursing, and under Section 464.018(1)(d) 5, of being found guilty, regardless of adjudication, of a violation of Chapter 784, Florida Statutes, relating to assault, battery, and culpable negligence.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is, and at all times material hereto has been, a licensed registered nurse in the state of Florida, having been issued license number RN 1931082. She has been licensed in one or more states as a nurse for 25 years. She has been a critical care nurse and worked emergency rooms and ambulances. She has never before been the subject of Florida license discipline. On March 15, 1995, Respondent was charged with the crime of vehicular homicide, a second degree felony, pursuant to Section 782.071, Florida Statutes (1993). (See Exhibit R-5 showing the statutory year.) That statute provided in pertinent part, 782.071 Vehicular homicide. -- "Vehicular homicide" is the killing of a human being by the operation of a motor vehicle by another in a reckless manner likely to cause death of, or great bodily harm to, another. Vehicular homicide is a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. Any person who commits vehicular homicide and willfully fails to stop or comply with the requirements of s. 316.027(1) is guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 774.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084 Respondent pled "not guilty" to the charge of vehicular homicide. On May 30, 1996, Respondent was tried and found guilty by a jury of vehicular homicide, in the Circuit Court in and for Manatee County, Florida under Case No. 94-3739F. A charge against Respondent of leaving the scene of the accident was dropped at trial. On June 27, 1996, Respondent was sentenced to six-and- one-half years of imprisonment followed by eight years of probation. The Second District Court of Appeal affirmed the Respondent's conviction, but her sentence was recalculated in connection with the applicable sentencing guidelines. There have been no other appellate decisions regarding Respondent's conviction. Respondent was due for work release shortly after formal hearing. The Respondent testified that she considered it her obligation as a nurse to stop and render assistance if she knew she hit someone with a motor vehicle; however, Respondent maintained that she did not know that she had hit anyone. The Agency presented no testimony, expert or otherwise, to relate Respondent's second degree felony conviction of vehicular homicide to the practice of nursing or the ability to practice nursing.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Board of Nursing enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of both counts of the Administrative Complaint and dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of May, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of May, 1998.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing facts and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Board take no action against the license of Marie Novak, L.P.N. DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of December, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold, Esquire 218 East Forsyth Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Robert T. Westman, Esquire Post Office Box 1888 Cocoa, Florida 32922
