The Issue Whether the Respondent's license to practice nursing should be disciplined based upon the allegations that Respondent was guilty of unprofessional conduct, in violation of Section 464.018(1)(h),Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Department of Health (Petitioner) is a state government licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute Administrative Complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular Chapters 20, 120, 455 and 464, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Bonnie Fay Baker Palmer (Respondent), is now and was at all times material hereto a Licensed Practical Nurse (L.P.N.) in the State of Florida having been issued license no. PN 0448611 in accordance with Chapter 464, Florida Statutes. Respondent was employed at Imperial Village Care Center as a L.P.N. for approximately three and one-half years prior to February 21, 1996. Sometime in December 1995 or January 1996, while working the day shift as the floor nurse on Canterbury Hall of the Care Center, Respondent was assigned to care for patient, G. C. Patient, G. C., was an elderly patient who suffered from dementia and other ailments and was not ambulatory. G. C. had contractions of her left leg and left arm and any movement of those extremities caused her pain. G. C. was transported in a wheelchair and screamed, kicked, yelled, hit,and pinched anyone who tried to move her or give her treatment. On the date of the alleged incident, Respondent was ordered to medicate G. C., because she suffered from decubites (bed sores) on the heel of her foot. Respondent was assisted by a C.N.A. who picked up G. C. and placed her on her bed. G. C. became very agitated and began to scream, yell, scratch, hit and pinch Respondent and the C.N.A. Respondent attempted to apply medication to the affected area. While doing so, Respondent wore a protective mitten, used to protect staff from aggressive patients. During this time, the mitten was seen by the C.N.A. in the patient's mouth. The testimony is unclear if Respondent was wiping the saliva from patient's mouth with it, or if Respondent stuffed it in her mouth. The hearsay statement signed by Respondent, but prepared by the Director of Nursing, who did not testify, is not helpful in clarifying what happened. The statement was prepared approximately two months after the alleged incident by a person not present during the incident, and contained matters extraneous to this matter. Respondent has no prior criminal or disciplinary history and denies that she abused the patient in any way. No qualified testimony was offered to prove that Respondent failed to meet the minimum standard of acceptable nursing practice in the treatment of patient, G. C.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Nursing find the Respondent not guilty of the charge in the Administrative Complaint, dated September 20, 1996, and that the Administrative Complaint be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 30th day of June, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: John O. Williams, Esquire Maureen L. Holz, Esquire Boyd, Lindsey, Williams, & Branch, P.A. 1407 Piedmont Drive East Tallahassee, Florida 32312 Bonnie Fay Baker Palmer Route 2, Box 810 Waynesville, Georgia 31566 Pete Peterson Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6, Room 102-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6, Room 136 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Marilyn Bloss, Executive Director Board of Nursing Department of Health 4080 Woodcock Drive, Suite 202 Jacksonville, Florida 32207
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Bonnie Jean Hutcheson, is a licensed practical nurse, who holds License No. 19002-1. In June and July of 1978, the Respondent was employed at The Abbey Nursing Home in St. Petersburg, Florida. On July 4, 1978, the Respondent was terminated from her employment at The Abbey Nursing Home by the Director of Nursing. Respondent Hutcheson was employed as a licensed practical nurse at North Horizon Convalorium in St. Petersburg, Florida in April, 1979. On February 16, 1979, an Administrative Complaint was filed alleging that Respondent Hutcheson was guilty of unprofessional conduct. The Respondent requested an administrative hearing in May of 1979, and a hearing was scheduled for July 25, 1979, but was continued by Motion of the Petitioner. Thereafter, the Administrative Complaint was amended on August 12, 1979, to add additional charges. On June 17, 23 and 24, 1978, while employed at The Abbey, Respondent Hutcheson signed out for Dalmane, a controlled substance, for a patient, Josephine Miracky, and failed to chart the administration of same on the patient's medication record. On July 2, 1978, Respondent reported to work at The Abbey for the 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. shift. Alice Henderson, a registered nurse who was going off duty at 3:00 p.m., noticed the Respondent and reported to the nursing office that Respondent's speech seemed slurred, that she seemed unsteady on her feet and slow to respond, and that she had counted medications very slowly. On July 4, 1978, the Director of Nursing terminated the employment of Respondent Hutcheson for the reason that she felt the Respondent's performance was unsafe as a practitioner. In April of 1979, while employed at North Horizon Convalarium, Respondent Hutcheson signed out for Tylenol No. 3, a narcotic and controlled substance, at an interval of one hour for a patient, Emma Jackson, when the physician's order for this medication was that it be administered no more frequently than every four (4) hours. On three (3) or four (4) occasions during the month of April, 1979, the Respondent took from the patients' medication stock three (3) or four (4) Tylenol No. 3 tablets and left the facility with them to give to her son at home. Respondent Hutcheson did not deny the allegations in the Administrative Complaint. In defense of her actions she testified that she knew Alice Anderson, the witness for Petitioner, but that she had not worked with her and did not work with her on the same shift. (Ms. Anderson's report is contained in Paragraph 2) Respondent Hutcheson acknowledged that she knew Eris J. Frye, the Director of Nursing at The Abbey Nursing Home, and admitted that she might have made a "common error" by failing in June of 1978, to chart medication on a patient's medication record. She did not know she had been terminated as "an unsafe practitioner." Respondent Hutcheson recalled the day of July 2, 1978, when she came to work, and she stated she had developed a back problem, having a chronic type of arthritis. She stated that she had taken a pain medication prescribed for her by her physician, Dr. Spatapora, which was a medication called Anexsia-D. Respondent stated that at that time she had just learned that her daughter, who was fifteen (15) years of age and unmarried, was pregnant, and that she in fact was exceedingly disturbed over her daughter's condition and could not sleep, and had taken the medication prescribed for her by her physician. She said she had not taken any of the medication at work, but that she was so over-whelmed by her problems she was ready to resign her position at The Abbey at the time she was terminated on July 4, 1978. Respondent Hutcheson stated that in April of 1979, while working at North Horizon Convalarium, she took several tablets of Tylenol No. 3 from the medication supplies to give to her son, who had recently come out of the hospital after having been seriously injured in an automobile accident. She testified that her son was in a great deal of pain, that she had to leave him alone in the house, and that she used the tablets to help him get to sleep for a few nights because she could not get in touch with his physician and could not afford to take him to another physician. She said her son used the nine (9) to eleven (11) tablets only, and was not and is not addicted to drugs. Respondent Hutcheson is not addicted to drugs. Witnesses for the Petitioner Board stated that it was contrary to acceptable and prevailing nursing practice for the Respondent to fail to accurately chart all medications signed out by her, and that it is contrary to acceptable and prevailing nursing practice to take Tylenol No. 3 tablets from the patients' medication supplies. Witnesses for the Respondent testified that she is a good neighbor and a hard-working, conscientious nurse, and that she is a devoted mother to her son and daughter. They stated Respondent is divorced and has the responsibility for her children. Petitioner and Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact and recommended orders. These instruments were considered in the writing of this Order. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been adopted in, or are inconsistent with, factual findings in this Order they have been specifically rejected as being irrelevant or not having been supported by the evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Respondent, Bonnie Jean Hutcheson, be placed on probation for a period of two (2) years from the date hereof. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of November, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold, Esquire 1107 Blackstone Building 233 East Bay Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Jean M. Flanagan, Esquire Gulfcoast Legal Services, Inc. 641 First Street, South Post Office Box 358 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731 Geraldine B. Johnson, R. N. Board of Nursing 111 Coastline Drive East, Suite 504 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner was discriminated against because of her race (African-American) in not being selected for promotions and whether she was not selected because of her handicap (back injury).
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a black female. At times pertinent hereto, she was employed by the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (now known as Department of Children and Family Services), at Florida State Hospital in Chattahoochee, Florida. She has a disability or handicap involving a back injury. She was first employed by the Respondent in July 1976, as a Registered Nurse II and initially supervised two or three wards. The Petitioner also worked for Apalachee Community Mental Health Service in Quincy as a Team Leader during 1977-1978. She was a part-time relief nursing supervisor at Tallahassee Memorial Hospital between 1978 and 1979. She became a Registered Nurse III in March 1978 at Florida State Hospital (FSH) and became a full-time nurse there in 1979. She supervised an entire unit after that time and worked in several different units of the Forensic/Corrections Department as a Senior Registered Nurse beginning in November 1982 and lasting until March 1987. Between March and December 1987, she served as a Senior Registered Nurse Supervisor until her current assignment. She has been employed since December 1987 as a Registered Nurse Specialist Coordinator and remained in that position until her resignation due to disability retirement on January 25, 1994. She has a good employment record, earning consistent above satisfactory or "exceeds" performance standards ratings during her career. The Petitioner earned her Bachelor of Science Degree in Nursing (BSN) from Florida A & M University in 1976. She has since earned 21 hours toward a Masters Degree and took continuing nursing education courses at a time when the continuing education course work was not yet required. She is licensed by the State of Florida as a Registered Nurse. Petitioner's Disability On August 25, 1992, the Petitioner suffered a job- related injury to her back. The Petitioner was absent from work for some months, apparently receiving worker's compensation during this time. On January 27, 1993, she was cleared to return to light duty work at the hospital by her treating physician. The Respondent provided her with an appropriate light duty job assignment at which she remained through the balance of her employment with FSH. On June 18, 1993, the Petitioner was determined to have reached maximum medical improvement by her treating physician. She was thereupon discharged from further medical care by Capital Health Plan. On July 26, 1993, she filed an application for 100 percent "line of duty" retirement from the Florida State Retirement System. The State Office of Worker's Compensation thereafter approved her application for "permanent total disability" worker's compensation benefits, effective June 16, 1993, resulting from the injuries suffered on August 25, 1992. The Petitioner was absent from employment from June 4, 1993 through January 27, 1994, inclusive, claiming 34 weeks of worker's compensation benefits for this time. Ultimately, and as part of her effort to obtain disability retirement, the Petitioner resigned from her employment with the Respondent on January 25, 1994. At the time of the Petitioner's resignation, the Department had an action pending to involuntarily terminate her from employment allegedly because of her inability to discharge her assigned job duties and responsibilities. Vacant Positions During the fall of 1992, a vacancy occurred in the position of Registered Nurse Supervisor, Forensic/Corrections at Florida State Hospital. This was in the facility known as the Corrections Mental Health Institute (CMHI). A career service system position description existed for this job which was developed by the State of Florida, Department of Administration. That position description required, among other things, that the incumbent hold a license as a registered nurse (RN) with the appropriate experience, education, licensure and nursing abilities. The position called for a minimum of 75 percent of the time expended in the job being involved with direct patient contact with forensic patients. The FSH advertised this position as position number 46392 in the HRS Job Bulletin. The application deadline was January 21, 1993. The minimum requirements for the job were licensure as an RN with three years of nursing experience. A bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university could substitute for one of the three years experience required. A bachelor's degree in nursing was not required for the job, however. For this and the other positions a "knowledge, skills and ability" instrument (KSA) was prepared, as required by applicable law, to provide for numbered items consisting of the knowledge, skills or competencies a person hired for each position would be expected to have. Position number 46392 included a KSA requirement of budget experience as being essential, since the position required the development, allocation and administration of that unit's nursing service budget. The job advertisement involving this position complied with existing HRS and FSH rules, policies and procedures. There was no evidence offered to show that it discriminated against any person as to race, national origin, or handicap and no person or class or persons was encouraged or discouraged from applying for the position. Neither employment with the Department nor FSH were prerequisites to application or acceptance of the position. Twenty-six applications were received for this position. The procedure for hiring a person in the state system and the FSH involves various tasks. First, the hiring authority must request the personnel office to fill the position. The hiring authority, from a class specification developed by the Department of Management Services (DMS), creates this specific position description which includes the specific duties of the position and the minimum qualifications established at DMS. The class specification contains generic KSAs and from the class specification and position description the hiring authority develops a KSA examination module. This module is created in three steps: (1) job analysis, where the position description is compared to the KSAs for choosing which KSAs will be searched- for when hiring the position; (2) development of a rating scale where the applicant's KSAs are compared against those developed for the position, to determine the applicant's relative qualifications; and (3) the development of KSA interview questions. According to the pertinent rule, KSAs must not reflect "easily learned" material or skills which can be rapidly learned on the job. The KSAs must also be job related. The scoring on the KSA application rankings form and on the interview questions, was 50 for a "superior level," 33 for "satisfactory level," and 17 for "acceptable level." The interview questions are the only ones which can be asked of applicants during the interview. The KSA examination module is transmitted to the personnel office, prior to the job being advertised. After the job announcement is disclosed, the applications are screened against the minimum qualifications for the position by the personnel office and those that are qualified are submitted to the hiring authority for screening against the developed KSAs for the position. This step is a paper review of the applications which is documented on the application review form filled out on each applicant. The application rankings are normally used to reduce the applicant pool to a smaller number, usually about five, who are then interviewed. The interview questions developed previously are asked of each interviewee, and their answers are rated against the 50-33-17 scale for their scores from each interviewer. The interview scores are aggregated, and the applicant with the highest interview score is selected for the job. A selection form is completed then which lists the top applicant, in the order of their scores, after the interview process. Each application for position 46392 was screened using the KSA instrument prepared in advanced, as required by applicable law, to determine which of the applicants was qualified for the job. The KSA criteria and the interview questions utilized were reviewed by the personnel office at FSH in advance of their use, to ensure compliance with HRS rules, regulations and policies, and EEOC guidelines. Points were then awarded to each of the applicants by the KSA examining committee. Applicant Z. Thompson, a white female nurse, was awarded a total of 233 points. The Petitioner, Jean Spear, was awarded a total of 165 points. Other black and white applicants ranked lower in point award amounts and some ranked higher, including black applicant Bethea, with 199 points. Based upon those scores, three applicants were selected to be interviewed for this position: Z. Thompson; D. Breeden, a white female Registered Nurse; and C. Bethea, an African-American female Registered Nurse. Applicants Thompson and Breeden had associate science degrees in nursing while applicant Bethea had a bachelor of science degree. The bachelor of science degree is a higher degree than an associate science degree and can offset a year of the experience requirement for this and the other positions. However, the bachelor of science degree does not automatically mean that the holder thereof has a higher level of qualification for the position when all the applicants' qualification attributes are weighed against the position requirements and considered together. The Petitioner was not selected for an interview for this position because she finished ninth in the overall KSA rankings for the position. The interview committee for this position consisted of three FSH employees: Joel Devolentine, the administrator in charge of the program; Alva Martin, the chief nursing consultant at FSH; and Harry Moody, Jr., an administrator at the Department of Corrections, Corrections Mental Health Institution (CMHI). Interviewers Devolentine and Martin are white and Mr. Moody is black. The interview were conducted on February 11, 1993. During the interview process, Mr. Devolentine asked the candidates questions which were prepared in advance. Each interviewed person was asked the same questions, in the same sequence. Each member of the interviewing committee scored the responses on forms provided using the scoring system designated and implemented for that purpose. Each member of the committee scored the interviewees independently and did not discuss the points awarded to those persons with the other members of the committee. Each made his or her entries on the interview form separate and apart from the other members of the interview committee, contemporaneously with the responses given by the applicants. Upon conclusion of the interviews, the score sheets were given to Mr. Devolentine by each member of the committee for tabulation. There is no evidence that points awarded were changed or modified in any way once they were awarded. The total numerical scores for each of the candidates interviewed, showed that Z. Thompson had the highest score. Black candidate C. Bethea had the next highest score, and white candidate D. Breeden had the lowest score. The preponderant evidence shows that the KSA's experience in budget issues and the KSA's requiring certification in behavior analysis were both directly related to the job in question and both KSA competencies or certifications were possessed by Z. Thompson and not by the other candidates interviewed nor by the Petitioner, who had not received enough qualification points for the position to be interviewed. Because she received the highest total number of points and met all the minimum requirements set forth in the position description in the HRS job bulletin, because she possessed more experience in budget issues and was certified in behavior analysis, Z. Thompson was selected to be awarded the job. The preponderant evidence shows that the hiring process as to this position was conducted in accordance with existing HRS and FSH rules, regulations, policies, and procedures. There was no persuasive evidence that any of the hiring and selection process was designed or used to favor one class of persons or one person over another by reason of race, ethnicity or handicap. Although there was testimony concerning comments made by various supervisory personnel at FSH to the effect that Z. Thompson should apply for this position or that it was intended in advance that she get this position, there was no persuasive evidence of such pre-selection of Z. Thompson by the hiring decision-maker. It is somewhat noteworthy that white interview committee member Alva Martin gave black candidate Bethea 380 points and white candidate Breeden 347 points, while black interview committee member Moody gave black candidate Bethea 448 points, and white and winning candidate Thompson 465 points. Committee member Devolentine gave winning candidate Thompson 516 points; next highest candidate D. Breedan, a white female, 482 points; and black candidate Bethea 448 points, the same number of points that black committee member Moody had given candidate Bethea. There is no definitive, persuasive evidence that race was a determining factor in the award of the job to candidate Thompson. There was no persuasive evidence as to this position that handicap was a factor in determining that the Petitioner did not get selected for an interview for the position nor selected for the position. Position number 34563 involved a vacancy occurring during 1992. The application deadline for the position was October 22, 1992. The minimum requirements for the job were licensure as a Registered Nurse and four years of nursing experience with one year of that experience requirement offset if a candidate had a bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university. The position description indicates that approximately 75% of the time expended in the job required direct patient conduct with forensic clients. This is the position known as Executive Nursing Director, Forensic/Corrections at Florida State Hospital. The position was advertised in the HRS Job Bulletin. The advertisement complied in all respects with existing HRS and FSH rules, policies, and procedures, and no person, or class of persons, was either encouraged to apply or discouraged from applying as to race, handicap or other status. Thirteen applications were received, and the screening and interview process described above was employed once again in accordance with HRS rules, regulations, and policies and EEOC guidelines. The screening used the KSA instrument prepared in advance for the position, as required by applicable law to determine which applicants were qualified for the job. That resulted in points being awarded and twelve out of the thirteen applicants being interviewed for the position. The interview committee consisted of four FSH employees: Robert Alcorn, the administrator in charge of the program; Alva Martin, chief nursing consultant at FSH; Richard Taylor, a unit director in the Forensic Services at FSH; and R. W. Myers, an administrator in the Forensic Services. Alcorn and Myers are white males. Ms. Martin is a white female and Mr. Taylor is an African-American male. The interviews were conducted on November 23, 1992, with interviewer Robert Alcorn asking all questions of all candidates. The questions were prepared in advance and the interview process included the private and independent deliberation and evaluation by each committee member, conducted as described above. There is no evidence that any points awarded were changed or modified in any way once they were assigned by each committee member. Upon conclusion of the interview process, Mr. Alcorn recommended the following persons for the position of Executive Nursing Director, Forensic/Corrections, as being most qualified for the job, by order of preference: (1) G. Cook with 82.1 points; (2) Z. Thompson with 80.6 points; (3) B. Weems with 74.6 points; (4) L. McMullian with 64.1 points; and (5) J. Spear, the Petitioner, with 61.0 points. Candidate Gwen Cook met all of the requirements of the position description in the HRS Job Bulletin and had more experience in forensic and emergency nursing than did the Petitioner. She received the highest total points and was offered and accepted the job. The KSA at issue as to this position required hospital emergency room experience, including certification in advanced cardiac life support. The position was executive nursing director in a medical-surgical psychiatric ward. Therefore, it was relevant to require, in a KSA for the position, that applicants have extensive knowledge of emergency medical procedures including management of airway obstructions, intubation defibrillator operation, etc., as well as the certification for advanced cardiac life support. It was a legitimate KSA requirement to specify hospital emergency room type experience, which Gwen Cook had in better degree than the Petitioner. The Petitioner did have psychiatric emergency care experience which was relevant, but the higher level of emergency and advanced cardiac life support experience possessed by Gwen Cook coupled with her additional forensic experience justified her selection for the position. The Petitioner was certainly qualified for the position, but Ms. Cook was more qualified, and there is no showing that the point rankings referenced above were improperly arrived at in violation of any rules, policies or statutes. There was no persuasive evidence that they were arrived at to the Petitioner's detriment for reasons of racial preference, ethnicity, or improper discriminatory consideration of the Petitioner's handicap. It was not persuasively demonstrated by the evidence that the advanced cardiac life support certification was a certificate that could be earned in a very short period of time, and thus it was not shown that it was an invalid KSA criterion. In 1992, a vacancy occurred in position number 04877. The FSH advertised this position in the HRS Job Bulletin. It was the position of Registered Nursing Consultant. The position application deadline was July 1, 1992. The position description for this position, which had been developed by the Department of Administration, required that the incumbent have appropriate knowledge, experience, education, and abilities in nursing principles, especially in the area of infection control. The description called for approximately 75 percent of the time expended by the holder of this position to be in direct patient contact with forensic clients. The minimum requirements for the job were licensure as a registered nurse with four years of nursing experience. A bachelors degree from an accredited college or university could substitute for one of the four years of experience required. Specific experience in infection control and epidemeology was essential. The job advertisement complied in all respects with existing HRS and FSH rules, policies, and procedures. Employment with the Department or with the Florida State Hospital was not a prerequisite to attainment of the position. Fourteen applications were received and each application was screened using the KSA instrument prepared in advance for that purpose, as required by law. This was used to determine which of the applicants were qualified for the job. Both the KSA criteria and the interview questions used were prepared and reviewed in advance of their use to ensure compliance with relevant law, in the manner delineated more particularly above. Points were awarded to the persons who applied for the job by the KSA examining committee in such a manner that the Petitioner received 232 points, with only applicant, Nora Howell, who received 300 points, being ranked higher. The Petitioner, was tied for second place in point awards with black applicant C. Bethea and applicant S. Harris. The remainder of the fourteen applicants all scored lower. Based upon those scores determined by the KSA examining committee, the six highest ranking applicants were selected to be interviewed for the position, including the Petitioner. The interview committee consisted of two FSH nursing professional employees: Kathy Wheeler, the administrator in charge of the program and Sue Calloway, a practicing registered nurse at FSH. The interviews were conducted on July 9, 1992. During the interview process, committee member Kathy Wheeler asked the candidates questions, which had been prepared in advance. Each person interviewed was asked the same questions by the designated interviewer, Ms. Wheeler. They were asked in the same sequence. Each member of the interviewing committee scored his or her responses to the questions on forms that had been provided using the scoring system designated and implemented for that purpose. There is no evidence that any member of the committee discussed the points he or she awarded to the interviewees with other members of the committee and no evidence that the entries on the interview forms were made other than separate and independently from each other member of the committee. There is no evidence that points awarded were changed or modified in any way once they were awarded. Upon conclusion of the interviews, all the scoring sheets were given to Ms. Wheeler for tabulation. The total numerical scoring for each of the applicants interviewed was: Nora Howell, 128.4 points; Jean Spear, 119.9 points; C. Bethea, 111.4 points; V. Ramsey, 122.9 points; J. Collins, 118.8 points; and S. Harris, 111.4 points. One of the KSAs applicable to this position called for the person to be hired to have significant expertise in the area of infection control and epidemiology for this nurse consultant position. While the Petitioner remonstrates that this is not a legitimate KSA requirement because it is not directed related to the job and is an area easily learned on the job, the preponderant evidence reveals that indeed, it is directly relevant to this position and it is of significant importance. It is not a field or area of expertise which can be rapidly learned after hiring. Thus, the preponderant evidence shows that this KSA item or criterion is a legitimate one. The preponderant evidence shows also that successful applicant Nora Howell possessed this expertise to a greater extent than did the Petitioner. Thus, although the Petitioner was well qualified for the job in most respects, the qualifications of Nora Howell in this area exceeded those of the Petitioners according to the preponderant, credible evidence. This justified her being awarded a higher level of points in the screening and interviewing process than the Petitioner. Since she met or exceeded all the other position criteria which had been duly and legally adopted, it was justifiable for her to be offered and to accept the position instead of the Petitioner on these qualification-related bases. The application, screening, and interview process and ranking and scoring of points followed the procedure delineated by statute and rules and described in more detail above. There is no credible evidence that the hiring decision as to this position was made for any reason motivated by racial discriminatory intent or discrimination because of any handicap of any applicant. There is no clear evidence that "pre- selection" occurred as the Petitioner contends, but even if Nora Howell had informally been pre-selected for this position, there is no credible evidence that it had anything to do with racial or handicap discrimination against the Petitioner. During the fall of 1992, Florida State Hospital advertised the position of Senior Registered Nurse Supervisor for the Forensic/Corrections Department, position number 09671, in the HRS Job Bulletin. The position application deadline was January 21, 1993. The minimum requirements for the job were licensure as a registered professional nurse and three years of nursing experience. Here again, a Bachelor's Degree from an accredited college or university could substitute for one of the three years experience required. Experience dealing with forensically-committed patients was essential. The evidence shows that the job advertisement complied in all respects with existing HRS and FSH rules, polices, and procedures. The advertisement did not discriminate against any person or group or class of persons on the basis of race, handicaps, or other reasons. No person, or class of persons, was either encouraged or discouraged from applying by the advertisement. Neither was employment with the Department nor the hospital a prerequisite. Twenty-four applications were received. Each application was screened using the KSA instrument prepared in advance for that purpose by the procedure delineated above. In the KSA screening or examining process, applicant Patricia Powell scored 266 points; William Dixon scored 250 points; and Jean Spear, the Petitioner, scored 249 points. Applicant Zilla Thompson scored 323 points, S. Peoples scored 232 points, and Betty Thames scored 233 points. These six top point winners in the KSA examining process were selected to be interviewed by the interview committee. The interview committee consisted of five employees: Steve Lacy, an administrator in charge of the program; Gwen Cook, a practicing Registered Nurse in the forensic services at FSH; Judy Wester, a direct care supervisor in forensic; Alva Martin, the chief nursing consultant at FSH; and Willie McLeroy, a forensic direct care supervisor at FSH. The interviews were conducted on February 1, 1993. During the interview process, interview committee member Alva Martin was designated to ask the candidates questions which were written, prepared, and approved in advance under the process already delineated above. Each person interviewed was asked the same questions by the same interviewer in the same sequence. Scoring was done independently by each member of the interview committee and the scores submitted to Steve Lacy of the committee for tabulation. There was no evidence that points awarded were changed or modified in any way once they were awarded by each member of the committee. Applicant Dixon was awarded 3127 points and Petitioner Spear was awarded 2276 points. That made the Petitioner rank fifth from the top point earner, Mr. Dixon. Mr. Dixon met all the minimum requirements set forth in the position description in the HRS Job Bulletin for the position. Mr. Dixon had more forensic nursing experience overall than did the Petitioner, having ten years versus the Petitioner's five years. The Petitioner offered no preponderant, persuasive evidence that the hiring decision for this job or for the other three jobs was racially motivated. The Respondent's position in response to the Petitioner's attempted prima facia showing of racial discrimination, to the effect that she is black and that the successful job applicants were all white, is that, in fact, the Respondent hired the persons it believed were most qualified for the job. In fact, the proof shows that as to three of the positions, already treated herein, the winning applicants were indeed the most qualified for the job. The proof shows that the Petitioner was most qualified for the job currently being discussed in the paragraphs next above, that is, position number 09671. Her denial of hiring for that position, however, was not shown to be due to any racially discriminatory intent given the proof culminating in the above findings concerning how the selection process operated in accordance with the rules and policies of the agency. The preponderant, persuasive evidence shows that the Petitioner was actually better qualified than Mr. Dixon, the nurse who was awarded the position. The expert testimony of Dr. Frank, corroborated by the testimony of witness Betty Thames, in particular, shows that the Petitioner was better qualified for this supervisory position number 09671 because of her more extensive educational and work-experience qualifications. She had more varied experience in the nursing profession in areas that were related to this job than Mr. Dixon had, in spite of his longer experience in the forensic department. The Petitioner was shown to have a superior ability in the area of implementing medications and psychiatric nursing treatment procedures because the Petitioner had demonstrated this ability in a broad variety of settings, with different kinds of patients, coupled with her three and three-quarter years of forensic supervisory experience. She is also superior in her skills and expertise regarding working as a contributing member of a multi-disciplinary team, functioning as a team leader and with consulting with families. She also has more experience as a liaison nursing person with jails and community health-related facilities or resources. Additionally, for position number 09671, KSA number one for that position indicated a desire for experience in a tardive dyskinesia clinic. Only Mr. Dixon had this experience of all the applicants for this position, so the Petitioner was not given credit for it in the screening and interview process. In fact, she had many of the same general skills and abilities. The specific emphasis on tardive dyskinesia experience was shown, however, through the testimony of Dr. Frank, as being unnecessary to this type of supervisory position. More importantly, in the interview for this Senior Registered Nurse Supervisor position (09671), there was a written interview question asked the Petitioner concerning her disability. That question was as follows: "6. Do you have any disabilities that would prevent you from lifting or working a 40-hour week or that would prevent you from performing this job? How many days have you missed in the past year due to illness? How many unscheduled absences did you have in the past year? Do you have any responsibilities commitments or activities that would prevent you from doubling on or changing your work days or weekends?" Witness Betty Thames for the Petitioner also stated that during the course of a telephone interview in which the interview committee chairman, Steve Lacy, questioned her, as the Petitioner's supervisor, concerning her attendance that he made a "nonprofessional remark" (in a negative vein) regarding the Petitioner's physical limitations to the effect that "It doesn't matter why she was out to me". This was related to a discussion between the two in the telephone interview concerning the Petitioner's work attendance history and her back injury. Lacy's statement was admitted into evidence as a "party admission exception" to the hearsay rule. He was clearly an agent of the Respondent and a key person in this hiring process. The Respondent was aware of the Petitioner's disability. She had injured her back on the job in August of 1992. She had been off work receiving worker's compensation benefits for the injury and, based upon her doctor's finding that she had reached maximum medical improvement, had been returned to work, apparently in early 1993, and given light duty involving work not requiring lifting more than 15 pounds, prolonged walking, stooping or bending. She reported this disability on her employment application for these positions. Her back injury clearly limited her in a "major life activity," such as lifting, walking, prolonged standing, or her level of mobility and strength in general. All of the positions for which she had applied were less strenuous than the position she had last held before going on retirement. This was testified to by the Petitioner as well as C. J. Brock, the Respondent's personnel director and Betty Thames, the Petitioner's immediate supervisor. Mr. Brock testified that her injuries would not normally be considered a negative factor for supervisory or consulting positions in nursing, which is the position at issue. In fact, after the Petitioner answered on all of her application forms "yes" to the question concerning whether she had a disabling or handicapping condition and had additionally written that her limitations involved lifting, bending, prolonged standing or walking, the personnel office still qualified her for the position at issue in this proceeding. In spite of that, the Respondent's agent in the hiring process still, at least as to position number 09671, formally asked her about her disability and handicap in the context of the above-quoted questions. The Petitioner maintains she was asked about this in each of her interviews for all four positions. Her testimony does not clearly show exactly what the nature of the questions were, if they were asked, and that self- serving testimony cannot serve as evidence of disability discrimination as to the other three positions, as it is not sufficiently preponderant credible and persuasive. The formal written questioning as to position number 09671, however, does show that the employer had a no doubt genuine, but for the reasons delineated below, illegal pre- occupation about the Petitioner's disability or handicap. There is no evidence of malicious intent in the above-quoted inquiry about the Petitioner's physical limitations or even in the statement attributed to Steve Lacy referenced above. The inquiring statement rather reflects a genuine but ill-advised concern by the Respondent about getting an employee in the subject position who might be absent from work excessively or be the source of other personnel problems due to her disability. The Petitioner has raised an issue concerning "pre- selection" by citing statements witnesses related at hearing, made by certain supervisory individuals involved to one degree or another in the hiring process for the four positions at issue. These statements purport that a certain person who ultimately got the job in question was the person the declarant involved wished to have apply for the job or a statement to the effect that the Petitioner need not apply because another person, such as, for instance, Nora Howell, was going to get the job. These statements were purportedly made before the hiring process started or was completed, and therefore were offered as evidence of illegal pre-selection, that is, illegal pre-selection in the context of the agency's rules. These statements were admitted as party admission exceptions to the hearsay rule. In terms of their credibility and persuasiveness, however, it is pointed out that they were not subject to cross- examination. Moreover, whether they are credible or not, they did not stand as probative of racial discrimination or disability discrimination because the statements could just as easily have been reflections of preferences based on friendship, which might be distasteful, ill-advised, or even illegal in another context but does not itself show racial animus or intent to discriminate based upon the Petitioner's disability. The statements might equally reflect an innocent statement or statements by these individuals which reflect their genuinely-held belief that the persons they purportedly favored were actually the best qualified for those jobs. It is thus found that these statements, as evidence of pre-selection, are largely immaterial to resolution to the issues in this case because they do not have any significant probative value in fact-finding as to the issues of racial or disability discrimination. The Petitioner was paid $1,544.68 bi-weekly through January 25, 1994, the date she retired. She was making $1,499.69 on a bi-weekly basis prior to September 30, 1993, back through the relevant period at issue. Her salary would have been increased a minimum of 10 percent if she had been hired at any of the four positions involved in this case. Because of the above findings of fact, she should have been hired in position number 09761. Thus, she should have had her pay increased by 10 percent from the hiring date for that position forward to the time when she retired. That hiring date would be shortly after the interview date for that position, of February 1, 1993, so her salary should have been increased 10 percent forward from that time with a cost of living increase of 3 percent beginning October 1, 1993, with such back pay and attendant upward adjustment in retirement benefits being awarded through her retirement date of January 25, 1994. There is no proof of compensatory pay, front pay or attorney's fees and costs in this proceeding.
Recommendation Accordingly, in consideration of the preponderant evidence of record and for the reasons delineated in the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Petitioner was the victim of discrimination because of her handicap as to position number 9671. Because the Petitioner is unable, due to her total and permanent disability to return to work, her remedy is back pay. She should therefore be awarded back pay represented by the salary she would have earned in position number 9671 from the hiring date of that position which occurred shortly after February 1993, the interview date. She should have her attendant retirement benefits adjusted upward by virtue of being denied that job, with an attendant cost of living increase of 3 percent which she would have earned beginning October 1, 1993, with such increased salary and benefits to be awarded terminating as of January 25, 1994, her retirement date. Jurisdiction is reserved on the issue of attorneys' fees and costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of August, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of August, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence F. Kranert, Esquires Florida State Hospital, Building 249 Post Office Box 1000 Chattahoochee, Florida 32324 Jack McLean, Esquire 100 Peachtree Street, Northwest, Suite 600 Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1909 Larry K. White, Esquire John W. Hedrick, Esquire 1311-B Paul Russell Road, Suite 203 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, Esquire Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a licensed practical nurse holding license number 0688681. At all times pertinent to this proceeding the Respondent was employed as a licensed practical nurse at Leesburg Center Health Care and Nursing Home. The Petitioner is an agency of the state of Florida charged with enforcing the professional practice standards for nurses embodied in Chapter 464, Florida Statutes (1981) and with initiating and prosecuting disciplinary actions against nurses for violations of those standards. On February 7, 1983, the Respondent while working as a nurse or medical technician at the Sumter Correctional Institute was involved in a disturbance with some inmates in the course of which the chemical "mace" was used to quell the disturbance. Later that evening at approximately eleven p.m. he reported for his night shift duty at Leesburg Center Health Care and Nursing Home complaining of a migraine headache. His supervisor, Nurse Cavatello informed him that he could lie down and get some sleep during his "break." During breaktimes, nurses are considered to be "off-duty". Such was the policy at that time at Leesburg Center Health Care and Nursing Home. During his breaktime, while on duty early on the morning of February 8, 1983, at approximately 2:00 a.m., Respondent was asleep on a stretcher some ten to twelve feet from his duty station while on his break. At that time he was observed by Nursing Director, Shirley Gooden, to be asleep and she awakened him. She inquired as to why he was sleeping on duty and he informed her that he was on his break. Nurse Gooden informed the Respondent that he was not considered to be "on break" because he had not "punched out" on a time clock or card before going on his break as required by the employer's nurses handbook, therefore she immediately terminated him from employment. It was accepted policy and practice at that facility for nurses to be able to sleep while on break, especially on late-night shifts such as the Respondent was employed on, on the night in question. It was also the accepted policy and practice that nurses did not have to "clock in or out" when they were merely taking their authorized breaktime as the Respondent was doing. The Respondent's immediate supervisor, Nurse Cavatello, authorized him to sleep during his breaktime and did not require him to "punch out" or make a formal record of his breaktime on the evening in question. Thus, the Respondent, who was admittedly asleep at the time in question, was not on duty, but rather was on his breaktime, during which he was permitted by his supervisor to sleep. On January 1, 1983, the Respondent submitted his employment application for the position of Licensed Practical Nurse at Leesburg Center Health Care and Nursing Home. On that employment application he indicated that he left his last employment as a deputy sheriff for Polk County for the reason that he wished to return to school to further his education. In reality, the Respondent was terminated from his position as deputy sheriff by the Polk County Sheriff's Department for falsifying an official department record, and for "conduct unbecoming an employee" of the Sheriff's Department. This is the first occasion in which the Respondent has been subjected to disciplinary action with regard to his licensure status by the Petitioner. His record as a licensed practical nurse is otherwise unblemished and he displays a high level of skill and compassion in his nursing duties and in his relations with patients while performing those duties.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Board of Nursing issuing a formal reprimand to the Respondent, Richard Womack, imposing a period of probation on his licensure status until such time as he completes a continuing education course in the legal aspects of nursing. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of March, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 14th day of March, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Julia P. Forrester, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard J. Womack 1607 Stafford Road Leesburg, Florida 32758 Helen P. Keefe, Executive Director Board of Nursing Dept. of Professional Regulation 111 East Coastline Drive, Room 504 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Respondent, Thelma L. Jones, was licensed as a Licensed Practical Nurse in Florida, holding license number PN 0704471, and Petitioner was the agency responsible for licensing nurses in Florida. On June 2, 1986, Respondent was employed as a LPN by the Glades Health Care Center in Pahokee, Florida, as nurse on the 3-11 p.m. shift. She was assigned to the West Wing of the facility, and was assisted by at least two nursing assistants. Kathy Davis, another LPN, was assigned to the East Wing of the facility with her assistants, and in that location, though not officially identified as such, was the charge nurse for the entire facility. Though licensed as a 120 bed skilled nursing home, GHCC somewhat resembles an acute care facility, since the least seriously ill patient is normally more severely affected than those in most nursing homes. The patient census at that facility at the time was between 45-60 patients, total, in both wings. The facility is a one-story building with the two parallel nursing wings separated by a corridor. While possible, it would be extremely difficult for one nurse to service both wings. At approximately 3:50 p.m., on June 2, 1986, Respondent clocked in for work at the facility, approximately 50 minutes late. She immediately went to the West Wing, where she told Ms. Davis she was quitting and delivered to her the letter of resignation she had prepared that same day. Ms. Jones then returned to her duty station and attempted to contact the Director of Nursing, Mr. Gooley by phone, but was unable to do so. She then went out on the floor and spoke with some of the patients with whom she was most friendly, telling them she was leaving, but assuring them they would be taken care of. She returned to her station and again tried to contact Mr. Gooley by phone without success. After passing out some medications and making the required entries on some medical records, and after making a count of the narcotics as required, but without making an official record of it, she went back to Ms. Davis and told her she could not reach Mr. Gooley. Ms. Jones states that Ms. Davis replied, "Don't worry about it. I'll call him." After going back to the West Wing to collect her belongings, Ms. Jones then went to the front exit, where, over the television security monitor, she again spoke to Ms. Davis, who, for the second time, allegedly said she'd call Mr. Gooley. At this point, Ms. Jones saw a wandering resident trying to run away from the facility. She caught him and turned him over to a nursing assistant and for the third time, called Ms. Davis, who advised her she had reached Mr. Gooley and he was on his way in. Ms. Davis reportedly told Ms. Jones there was no reason she should stay. According to her time clock records, Ms. Jones punched out at approximately 5:40 p.m. She contends, however, she did not leave immediately, but stayed at least an hour after punching out. Mr. Gooley, on the other hand, indicated he arrived at the facility, pursuant to Ms. Davis' call, at approximately 5:50, and though he walked through the whole facility, failed to see Ms. Jones. It is found, therefore, that Ms. Jones left prior to the arrival of Mr. Gooley. After his walk through the facility, Mr. Gooley asked Ms. Davis where Respondent was, at which point, Ms. Davis handed him Respondent's letter of resignation and the key to the narcotics cart on the East Wing. Mr. Gooley immediately went to that wing, where he counted the narcotics with Ms. Davis present. He checked other records and determined that certain medications due to be dispensed at 5:00 p.m. by the Respondent, had apparently not been dispensed. Ms. Jones strongly contends that no patient due medicines failed to receive them prior to her departure and that she noted this in at least one record in each file. She admits, however, and it is so found, that she did not complete all records necessary prior to her departure. To ensure the East Wing was properly covered after Respondent's departure, Mr. Gooley remained on duty until relieved at the 11:00 p.m. shift change. Ms. Jones asserts her departure was justified and was not without authority. She had had some previous discussion with Mr. Gooley about the proposed change in working hours to require 12 hour, 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., shifts. Since her husband went to work at 4:00 a.m. and she had two children to care for, she advised him she could not work those hours. He insisted that she do so, however. On the day before she left, when she came to work, she again spoke with Mr. Gooley about the problem and he is reported to have advised her that her family was of no importance to him and she had to work the new hours. Mr. Gooley denies this. That same day, Respondent's husband told her he was being transferred to Leesburg and she could go up there with him to work. Whether or not the aforementioned colloquy took place is immaterial. Investigation by DPR reveals Ms. Jones did not leave Clewiston right away after she left her position with GHCC, but remained in town for several days. She returned to Clewiston after staying in Leesburg for only a week or so. When hired, each employee of GHCC is given a handbook which contains the facility's policy on resignation. This policy calls for two weeks notice to be given, in the case of nurses, to the Director of Nursing. Ms. Jones failed to give two weeks notice either orally or in writing. Respondent also contends that since Ms. Davis was the nurse in charge, she had authority to release Ms. Jones when Ms. Jones decided to quit. Mr. Gooley contends, and his contention is well taken, that though the East Wing nurse held the more senior position of the two, and had authority to answer the phone, call for fire support, and perform other routine tasks, her authority did not include receiving and approving letters of resignation. Ms. Jones also contends that by notifying Ms. Davis of her intent to leave at least an hour before delivering the letter of resignation, she gave ample notice. She asserts that because the State's staffing rules were not violated by her departure, and because Ms. Davis had her own aides as well as Respondent's after she left, no harm was done by her leaving. She had previously handled the whole facility by herself with only aides, even to the extent of passing medications. When she left, though it was during a shift, she was satisfied that everything that needed to be done was done and that Ms. Davis could handle anything that came up. Mr. Gooley, on the other hand, is of the opinion that her leaving without authority; her departure without dispensing medications; and her failure to sign off on the narcotics register, itself a violation, is not consistent with the fundamental standards of proper nursing practice in Florida. Though one nurse, plus aides, may meet the State staffing requirements, in his opinion, one nurse cannot, in light of the physical layout of this facility, handle all patients in both wings. To leave only one licensed nurse in charge of the whole facility could endanger the patients. For the past two years or so, Respondent has served as the nurse in charge of the medical facility at the Palm Beach County Jail, where she has been observed on a daily basis by Lieutenant William Arthur, under whose administrative supervision she falls. He is most pleased with her work and believes that due to her efforts, the facility has received clean inspection reports since she began working there. This is unusual for jail medical facilities. He has found her to be very conscientious in her work, and an employee who anticipates problems, solving them before they grow out of hand.
The Issue An administrative complaint dated March 8, 1990, alleges that Respondent violated Section 464.018(1)(h), F.S. by abandoning her nursing shift without notice. The issue in this proceeding is whether that violation occurred, and if so, what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Rachel Ethel Hibbert, was licensed as a registered nurse in the State of Florida, on March 28, 1988, by examination. Now, and at all relevant times, her license has been current through March 31, 1991. Ms. Hibbert was employed by Largo Medical Center Hospital, Largo, Florida, on December 28, 1988, and was assigned to the Critical Care Unit (CCU). She successfully completed her critical care internship on March 24, 1989. On Saturday, April 1, 1989, Ms. Hibbert was assigned to work a 12-hour shift on the CCU. The unit was overstaffed and another unit, ICVTU, with open heart critical care patients needed help. The practice of "floating" staff between units is common, and each nurse was expected to take his or her turn when the ICVTU needed help. It was Ms. Hibbert's turn on April 1st. However, she told her Supervisor, Danielle Page, that she didn't feel "comfortable" with the ICVTU patients, as she had just finished training. Another nurse was selected to "float". However, Ms. Hibbert was counselled that her turn would come up again soon, and that she was properly trained. The type of patient and care on the ICVTU was explained to her. The following day, April 2, 1989, Ms. Hibbert was again working a 12- hour shift. Around 3:00 p.m., a call came from ICVTU for a "float" nurse. Ms. Hibbert was told it was her turn, and she did not argue or otherwise refuse. She completed her records for the patients on the ICU and left the unit. Danielle Page told the ICVTU Charge Nurse that they had a new nurse coming and she was assured that the patient load would be light, and that experienced nurses could help Ms. Hibbert. About 30-45 minutes later, ICVTU called to ask what happened to the float nurse. A search was made for Ms. Hibbert, and eventually someone checked her time card and found that she had clocked out at 3:12 p.m., shortly after leaving ICU. Jacqueline Tobin, the Nursing Supervisor for Largo Medical Center, attempted to reach Ms. Hibbert by telephone, but was unsuccessful. Ms. Hibbert, or someone on her behalf, called in sick on April 3rd. She was scheduled to be off on the 4th and 5th, and called in sick again on April 6th. Roberta Bischoff, Director of Critical Care Nursing, attempted to reach Ms. Hibbert by phone, but when she identified herself, the person answering the phone hung up. On April 7, 1989, Rachel Hibbert called the personnel office to discuss her check. Roberta Bischoff spoke with her and asked why she left her shift. She replied that she did not feel qualified. Ms. Bischoff explained that this was an extremely serious matter and that she was deemed to have resigned without notice. Ms. Hibbert's employment with Largo Medical Center Hospital was terminated effective April 2, 1989. Diane Gossett, a Medical Quality Assurance Investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation, contacted Ms. Hibbert during the course of her investigation. Ms. Hibbert admitted that she was supposed to go to the ICVTU, but she reiterated that she felt she was not qualified. Notwithstanding Ms. Hibbert's personal misgivings, her abandonment of her shift, leaving without notice, was inexcusable. Petitioner's witnesses, professional women with extensive nursing training and experience, established that such action violates minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED That a Final Order be entered finding Rachel Hibbert guilty of violating Section 464.016(1)(h), F.S., and imposing discipline of one year probation, to commence upon her return to the State of Florida, and requiring the successful completion of an approved continuing education course in legal aspects of nursing. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 29th day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of October, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Judie Ritter, Executive Director DPR-Board of Nursing 504 Daniel Building 111 East Coastline Dr. Jacksonville, FL 32202 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel DPR-Northwood Centre 1940 N. Monroe St., Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Lois B. Lepp Allied Health Legal Section DPR-Northwood Centre 1940 N. Monroe St., Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Rachel Hibbert Route 2, Box 486 Mays Landing, NJ 08330
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner’s application for licensure as a registered nurse should be granted.
Findings Of Fact On or about December 6, 1988, Ms. Melegrito was convicted of two counts of fraud in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1395 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1341 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. On or about January 6, 1989, Ms. Melegrito was convicted of four counts of Medicaid fraud in violation of Sections 32.1-314 and 18.2-95 of the Code of Virginia. Both convictions involved the same set of facts. On or about August 3, 1989, the Florida Department of Professional Regulation and/or the Board filed an Administrative Complaint, Case No. 0107472 against Ms. Melegrito’s license as a registered nurse, charging a violation of Subsection 464.018(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1988), for the convictions set forth in paragraph one above. On or about October 27, 1989, the Virginia Board of Nursing revoked Ms. Melegrito’s nursing license as a result of the convictions set forth in paragraph 1 above. On or about December 21, 1990, the Board filed its Final Order in Case No. 0107472, placing Ms. Melegrito’s license on probation for a term concurrent with the probation imposed by the federal court and requiring her to comply with the terms of her federal probation. On or about June 25, 1993, Ms. Melegrito’s license to practice nursing in New York was revoked. On or about July 19, 1994, the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation and/or the Board filed an Administrative Complaint against Ms. Melegrito’s license in Case No. 92-11440, alleging a violation of Subsection 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes (1994), for unprofessional conduct including a departure from or failure to conform to the minimal standards of acceptable nursing practice. On or about September 14, 1994, Ms. Melegrito was found guilty of violating federal probation and sentenced to four years in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Ms. Melegrito failed to make restitution as required by the terms of her probation. On or about November 28, 1995, the Division of Administrative Hearings issued a Recommended Order in Case No. 92-11440, finding that Ms. Melegrito violated Subsection 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes, and recommending suspension for three years followed by three years of probation and a $1,000.00 fine. On or about April 30, 1996, the Board filed a Final Order in Case No. 92-11440, imposing suspension for three years followed by three years of probation and a $1,000.00 fine. On or about December 13, 1996, the Agency for Health Care Administration and/or the Board filed an Administrative Complaint, Case No. 95-00886, against Ms. Melegrito’s license, charging Ms. Melegrito with a violation of Subsection 464.018(1)(l), Florida Statutes, for violating the Final Order in Case No. 0107472 by violating the terms of the federal probation. On or about September 4, 1998, the Board filed a Final Order in Case No. 95-00886, revoking Ms. Melegrito’s license for seven years. If Ms. Melegrito desired to reapply for licensure at the end of her revocation period, she was required to demonstrate her safety to practice as well as proof of completing continuing education courses and paying a $250.00 fine and $251.12 in costs. On or about February 24, 1999, Ms. Melegrito was convicted of felony criminal mischief and trespass in the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit in Broward County, Florida. On or about August 18, 2000; July 27, 2001; and December 9, 2004, the Virginia Board of Nursing denied Ms. Melegrito’s petitions for reinstatement of her nursing license. The denial by the Virginia Board of Nursing in 2004 was based in part on Ms. Melegrito’s misrepresentations concerning her licensure status at two job interviews, engaging in the unlicensed practice of nursing in 2003, and misrepresentations on her application for reinstatement by failing to disclose her previous disciplinary history and criminal history.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying Ms. Melegrito’s application for licensure as a registered nurse. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of March, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 18th day of March, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald D. Siebens, Esquire Office of the Attorney General One Mack Center 501 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602 Lee Ann Gustafson, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Maria C. Melegrito 3137 Honeymoon Lane Holiday, Florida 34691 Josefina M. Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Rick Garcia, MS, RN, CCM, Executive Director Board of Nursing Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Patricia Dittman, Ph.D(C), RN, CDE, Board Chair Board of Nursing Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
