The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent failed to maintain good moral character and thereby violated section 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes (2008),1/ and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent has been a certified law enforcement officer, issued law enforcement certificate 233642. At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was employed as an officer by the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office (JSO). As such, he was subject to random drug screenings as a condition of his employment. On April 23, 2009, Respondent was selected for a random drug screen. He reported to Baptist Occupational Health Clinic (Baptist) in Jacksonville to provide a urine specimen for testing. Respondent gave the specimen by urinating in a previously unused specimen cup provided to him by Heather Walizer, a medical assistant employed by Baptist. Respondent delivered the cup containing his urine to Ms. Walizer, who divided the specimen into two vials. She then capped and sealed the vials, and had Respondent initial each vial and sign the chain of custody form. Ms. Walizer labeled Respondent's specimen with his social security number, and assigned to the specimen a unique specimen number, in this case number 6228701, which would not be used for any other specimen. The vials containing Respondent's urine specimen were sealed with a label that prevented the vials from being opened without breaking the seal. Ms. Walizer packaged the two vials with Respondent's urine specimens in a bag which was also sealed and labeled. Ms. Walizer put the bag with Respondent's urine samples in a refrigerator at Baptist for pick up by a courier to be delivered to Quest Diagnostics (Quest) laboratories in Tucker, Georgia. Upon arrival at Quest, the specimen was assigned a unique laboratory accession number, 842481F, for purposes of drug testing. There is no dispute that the urine sample supplied by Respondent was received by and analyzed by Quest, and that the report generated is for the sample provided by Respondent. Quest maintained the required chain of custody procedures in handling Respondent's specimen. The package received by Quest was unsealed by laboratory personnel qualified to receive it and the specimen was subjected to screening and confirmatory analysis for evidence of the presence of controlled substances in the urine. The initial test performed by Quest is an immunoassay test used to screen all samples. Any sample that is positive by that screening method is then tested by a confirmatory method, i.e., gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Respondent's urine sample tested positive for the cocaine metabolite benzoylecgonine, and was reported at a concentration of 556 nanograms per milliliter. The confirmatory test results were consistent with those obtained for the screening test. The cutoff for a positive result in the immunoassay screening test is 300 nanograms per milliliter. The cutoff for the confirmatory test is 150 nanograms per milliliter. The test results were reviewed by Dr. Liberto Columbo, M.D., the Medical Review Officer for Baptist, who called Respondent and discussed the results of the testing with him. Dr. Columbo reported the results of both tests to Nurse Gerald Shaw of the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office as positive for cocaine. Nurse Shaw notified the JSO Internal Affairs Office of the drug test results, and Respondent was interviewed on April 30, 2009. Respondent vehemently denied, as he did at hearing, the illicit use of cocaine. Respondent was terminated from his position as a law enforcement officer by the JSO. Respondent testified that he did not take cocaine and would not do so. He had taken off work in the days immediately preceding the test to care for his grandchildren while his daughter was delivering her third child. His daughter testified credibly that she would never have left her children in Respondent's care if she believed he was under the influence of cocaine. Respondent suffers from cluster headaches and has done so for several years. He believes that some honey given to him by his daughter, which was purchased overseas, contained coca leaves, and his ingestion of this honey in the weeks before the drug test may have been the basis of finding the benzoylecgonine metabolite in his system. Advertisements for the honey located on the internet represent that it contains coca oil and powdered coca leaves. Respondent went so far as to have the substance analyzed for cocaine metabolites. He also subjected himself to further drug testing, including a fingernail analysis. While the results of the testing and the information related to the product Respondent believes was the source of the positive drug test was not admissible in this proceeding,2/ the undersigned has considered the efforts Respondent undertook to determine whether there could be a source for the positive result other than his illicit use of cocaine. Dr. Columbo acknowledged that there are several commercially-available food products, produced primarily in South America, that contain coca. He testified that those food products include tea and a honey that contains coca oil and powder. Even assuming that Respondent could demonstrate that the honey he ingested would produce a positive result for benzoylecgonine, however, there was no evidence as to what amount of honey he would have to ingest in order to cause a positive drug test, or whether he in fact he did ingest that amount. There was no evidence presented indicating that Respondent has ever been disciplined previously, either by his employer or by the Commission. Further, there is no evidence presented of any impaired behavior by Respondent, or any history of substance abuse. To the contrary, Respondent credibly testified that he has prescriptions for Scheduled II controlled substances to treat his cluster headaches that he has chosen not to fill.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order finding Respondent in violation of section 943.1395(7), as defined in Florida Administrative Law Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(d). It is further recommended that Respondent's certification as a law enforcement officer be suspended for a period of 60 days, followed by probation for a period of two years. As condition of probation, it is recommended that the Commission require random drug testing and substance abuse counseling, as contemplated by Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B-27.005(7)(c). DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of February, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of February, 2011.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Tedd B. Williams (Williams), was certified by Petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Commission), on March 13, 1985, and was issued Corrections Certificate Number 03-85-502-01. Williams' social security number is 128-50-2456. In September, 1992, Williams was employed by the Broward County Sheriff's Office (Sheriff's Office) as a correctional officer. Each employee of the Sheriff's Office is assigned an employee identification number. Williams' employee identification number was 3973. The Sheriff's Office had implemented a drug testing policy by which a computer would randomly select employees to be tested for drug use. The employees selected would be given notice and would be required to give a urine sample, which would be analyzed by a laboratory. The Sheriff's Office contracted with Sunshine Medical Center (Sunshine) for the collection and testing of the urine samples. Williams was selected by the computer for drug testing. On September 30, 1992, Williams gave a urine sample for testing. The specimen identification number assigned to Williams' sample was 1052539-4. Williams' specimen number, employee number, and social security number were placed on a collector's form which accompanied the specimen to the laboratory. Williams certified on the collector's form that the label on the bottle in which the specimen was placed bore the identification number of 1052539-4 and the bottle was sealed in his presence with tamper evident tape. Williams indicated on the collector's form that he had taken the following medications within the previous 30 days: Tylenol, Penicillin, vitamins, amino acids and yohimbe bark. Sunshine sent Williams' specimen to National Health Laboratories (National) for forensic testing. The specimen bottle arrived on October 2, 1992, at National in a sealed bag with the bottle seal intact and bearing specimen identification number 1052539-4. Williams' specimen was tested at National. The test results were positive for cocaine metabolite. The gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) cutoff for cocaine metabolite was 150 nanograms per milliliter (NG/ML). Williams' specimen tested at 205 NG/ML. The GC/MS test used to analyze Williams' specimen is 100 percent accurate for the detection of cocaine metabolite. National conducted a second analysis which confirmed the positive result. National reported the test results to Sunshine. Dr. James Byrnes, who was Medical Review Officer at Sunshine, met with Williams on October 9, 1992, to discuss the positive test results and to ascertain whether any medications Williams had taken prior to the testing could have caused the test results to be positive. Williams advised Dr. Byrnes that he did take some products related to his weight lifting program and he showed the products to the doctor. Based on a review of the labels on the bottles, Dr. Byrnes could not document that the use of the products would cause the test results to be positive for cocaine metabolite and concluded that there was no reason for the positive drug test for cocaine, other than Williams' own use of cocaine. On October 15, 1992, Sergeant William Robshaw, who was assigned to Internal Affairs at the Sheriff's Office, met with Williams, who provided Sergeant Robshaw with samples of supplements and vitamins that he had been taking. Sergeant Robshaw received the following from Williams: a bottle of "Fast Mass," a bottle of "Super Yohimbe Gold," a bottle of Siberian Ginseng Root," a bottle of "Xtla Boost," a bottle of Whild American Gold Seal Herb," a bottle of "Sports Pep," and a plastic bag containing eleven capsules and pills. The samples were submitted to the Sheriff's Office crime laboratory, where they were analyzed by Allen Greenspan. The samples tested negative for the presence of cocaine. Mr. Greenspan prepared a report of his analysis, which was forwarded to Dr. Byrnes and received by Dr. Howard Taylor, the Laboratory Director at National. It was the opinion of Dr. Byrnes and Dr. Taylor that the samples would not produce a positive test result for cocaine metabolite. Dr. Taylor, who was qualified as an expert in forensic toxicologist, opined that only the ingestion of cocaine could have resulted in Williams' test results of 205 NG/ML of cocaine metabolite. Dr. Taylor further opined that the presence of cocaine will remain in the body two to three days after ingestion. Williams did not contest the presence of cocaine in his body, only whether he willfully ingested cocaine. Williams offered no plausible explanation of how he came to ingest cocaine, other than willfully. Accordingly, I find that Williams did willfully ingest cocaine within at least two to three days prior to giving a urine sample for testing on September 30, 1992.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice and Standards and Training Commission enter a final order (1) finding Tedd B. Williams guilty of having failed to maintain "good moral character," in violation of Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, by his unlawful use of cocaine and (2) revoking his certification based on such a finding. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of August, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 19th day of August, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-0238 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraphs 2-25: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 26: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. COPIES FURNISHED: Dawn P. Whitehurst, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Mr. Tedd B. Williams 466 East Evanston Circle Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage General Counsel Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Subsections 943.1395(7) and 943.13(7), Florida Statutes (2007),1 and Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(d), and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Valderrama was certified as a law enforcement officer in the State of Florida by the Commission on September 29, 2004, and was issued Law Enforcement Certificate No. 243605. From September 27, 2004, to November 9, 2007, Ms. Valderrama was employed by the Osceola County Sheriff's Office. On or about October 17, 2007, at approximately 1:00 p.m., Ms. Valderrama reported to the Osceola County Sheriff's Office Administration Building for random drug testing pursuant to the terms of her employment and provided a urine sample under controlled conditions. A lab technician was the only other person in the restroom with Ms. Valderrama during the collection process. Ms. Valderrama provided the specimen by urinating in a sterile, previously unused specimen cup, which she subsequently provided to a lab technician who immediately sealed the sample. Neither the sample cup, nor the urine sample it contained, had been tampered with, altered, or adulterated since the initial collection of the urine sample and had remained sealed and maintained in the chain of custody until unsealed by a qualified laboratory personnel at Total Compliance Network, a licensed drug testing laboratory contracted by Florida Hospital Centra Care to conduct random employee drug screens for the Osceola County Sheriff's Office. The laboratory analysis of Ms. Valderrama's urine specimen was found by qualified Quest Diagnostic's laboratory personnel and a Total Compliance Network medical review officer to be positive for Cocaine metabolites in a concentration of 2046 nanograms per milliliter. The minimum level of detection for Cocaine is 150 nanograms per milliliter. On October 27, 2007, Ms. Valderrama discussed her test results with Dr. Seth Portnoy, the licensed medical review officer for Total Compliance Network. Ms. Valderrama could not provide Dr. Portnoy with any medical reason for the positive test result and did not challenge the positive test results. The procedures and methods employed in the handling and analysis of Ms. Valderrama's urine specimen provided reliable safeguards against contamination, a reliable chain-of-custody, and produced, through gas chromatography/mass spectrometry, a reliable, scientifically-accepted measure of the concentration of Cocaine metabolite in the body. The laboratory standards and practices observed in conjunction with the collection, preservation, shipment, handling and analysis of Ms. Valderrama's urine specimen, for the purpose of testing for drugs, were in conformance with the applicable provisions of Florida Administrative Code Chapter 59A-24 and consistent with the requirements for reliability and integrity of the testing process pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B-27.00225. Cocaine is rapidly metabolized by the body and can be usually detected for two to three days after ingestion. Because the minimum detection level for Cocaine is 150 nanograms per milliliter and Ms. Valderrama's test results showed a level of 2046 nanograms per milliliter, it was Dr. Portnoy's expert opinion that the tests results were indicative of ingestion of Cocaine. Dr. Portnoy's opinion is credited. Ms. Valderrama had drunk some herbal tea prior to giving her urine sample. She feels that the ingestion of the herbal tea could have resulted in the positive test for Cocaine. There was no expert testimony to establish that the ingestion of the herbal tea would result in the positive drug test. Additionally, based on Dr. Portnoy's credible expert opinion, the metabolite detected in Ms. Valderama's urine could only result from Cocaine. Cocaine is listed as a Schedule II controlled substance in Chapter 893, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Vivian Valderrama violated Subsections 943.13(7) and 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(d), and revoking her certification. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of December, 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 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of December, 2008.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues contained herein, Respondent, Lois E. Anderson Bailey, was a licensed practical nurse in the State of Florida under license number 12519-1. During the period between July, 1982 and January, 1983, and for an unknown period both before and after that time, Dr. Allan R. Varraux was a pulmonary specialist who, as a part of his practice, performed bronchoscopies at ORMC. As a routine part of this practice, Dr. Varraux utilized a cocaine solution to spray the back of the throat of his patients as an anesthetic prior to inserting the bronchoscope. Cocaine is also used as an anesthetic after the bronchoscope is inserted because it lasts between one-half an hour to forty-five minutes as opposed to xylocaine which lasts only fifteen minutes or so. Dr. Varraux also prefers to use cocaine over xylocaine because the latter often causes spasms in the patient. During this period, Dr. Varraux knew the Respondent, who was nursing supervisor of the Endoscopy section at the time, and discussed with her the controls for the use of cocaine for this purpose because cocaine is a controlled substance. At no time did Dr. Varraux ever discuss with Respondent the potential for the substitution of xylocaine for cocaine in this procedure nor did he ever approve its substitution. On or about January 18, 1983, Dr. Varraux wrote a letter to Mr. Holton, Director of the hospital pharmacy, asking for a survey of cocaine use at ORMC. He did this because of a survey done at another hospital at which he also practiced with which he was familiar to be sure that the amount of cocaine he was using was reasonable. The audit revealed that at the time in issue here, no cocaine was dispensed by the pharmacy for the Endoscopy section. Dr. Varraux considered this odd because he was ordering cocaine solution for the bronchoscopies he was performing and as a result, some cocaine should have been issued. He subsequently found out that xylocaine was being substituted for cocaine. He had not authorized the substitution and was greatly concerned because of the potentially serious impact the substitution might have on a patient if the patient were allergic to xylocaine and the physician did not know that the substitution had been made. In his opinion, it is not good medical practice to substitute xylocaine for cocaine without the doctor's orders and without informing the physician of the change. In practice, the cocaine is injected with a syringe into the apparatus being utilized during the bronchoscopy. At that point, the order for the use of cocaine is a verbal order which is, thereafter recorded in the nurse's notes and in the doctor's dictated report concerning the procedure. Since there is no standard procedure for this operation, Dr. Varraux established, in discussions with the Respondent, his general procedures which in all cases included the use of cocaine as an anesthetic. Respondent actually assisted in very few of Dr. Varraux procedures. Eighty-five percent of his procedures were done with Ken Rosenau assisting and Mary Ann Hinds assisted in others. However, Respondent was the supervisor of the endoscopy section and if there was a problem, Dr. Varraux would go to her first. Lynn W. Capraun, an instructor of respiratory therapy at Valencia Community College, and an advisor in that area to ORMC, was asked by Mr. Rogers to audit the endoscopy section records for bronchoscopies performed from July, 1982 through January, 1983. His audit was limited to only those on a list of procedures given him by Mr. Rogers and he is not aware of what percentage of the total bronchoscopy load this list consisted of. However, as a part of this audit, he reviewed for each specific case the doctor's clinical resume' and the nurse's notes to see what the doctor called for and what was in fact done. Based on his audit, it appeared that during the period in question, more than 203 ml of cocaine had been ordered by physicians but there was no supporting documentation in the nurse's notes to indicate that the cocaine had been administered even though there was documentation for the use of other drugs. Here, it should be noted that Mr. Capraun is also the partner of Mr. Rogers in a private respiratory therapy business. The records of the pharmacy at ORMC revealed that the last issue of cocaine too the endoscopy section prior to the audit was made in July, 1982. Prior to that time, as far back as 1981, records indicated that the pharmacy had issued 60 ml of cocaine solution every three or four weeks. All issues are reflected as such issues are logged and the name of the individual to whom the drug is issued, who must be licensed, is retained. In addition, pharmacy records reflected no issue of any controlled drug, not only cocaine, to the endoscopy section between late October, 1982 and January 3, 1983. After Respondent was suspended on January 19, 1983, Mr. Holton examined the drug sheets kept in the endoscopy section and the drugs kept on the floor. He found three bottles of cocaine solution, one of which contained 60 ml and the other two contained 40 ml. Analysis of the contents of one bottle reflected the solution at 3.9 percent cocaine which is acceptable. The other two bottles, however, were at a lower strength - one at .5 percent and the other at 1.4 percent cocaine. Though there were three bottles of solution, only two records to support these bottles were found. One was dated May 21, 1982 and the other, June 23, 1982. Cocaine is issued by the pharmacy only upon the presentment of a proof of use sheet which reflects the fact that the previous issue has been used up and it is the practice of the pharmacy, according to Mr. Holton, not to issue new supplies of a controlled substance without a proof of use sheet to show the use of the previous issue. The records of the hospital reflect that the Endoscopy section is a small user of any controlled drug. From the above, an inference can be drawn that cocaine was improperly removed from the Endoscopy section. However, from review of the evidence as a whole, not only that already discussed but that to be discussed as well, it is impossible to determine for certain that there was a loss and if so, who was responsible for it. It certainly cannot be said with any degree of certainty that the Respondent either took it or knew who did. When Mr. Rogers received the letter from Dr. Varraux regarding the use of cocaine in the Endoscopy section of his department, he went to look for the Respondent to discuss the problem with her. He found that she had gone for the day and so he discussed the situation with Mrs. Williams, one of Respondent's assistants, who advised that Respondent had, at times, asked her to substitute xylocaine for cocaine. The following day, he looked into the situation further and after talking with his supervisor, called in Respondent and showed her Dr. Varraux's letter. He says Respondent first indicated she was aware of the situation - then changed her position. She again changed her position, indicating that she was aware of only one incident and that she had discussed with the employees of the section the illegality of the practice advising them not to do it. Mr. Rogers was told by his employers that he could suspend the Respondent if he felt it to be necessary. As a part of his inquiry, he discussed the matter with Mr. Holton and other employees of the department whom he asked to make statements regarding the alleged substitution. His requests were for specifics of the incidents - if they knew of the practice, who had asked them to do it, and things of that nature. When he got the employees' statements back, he reviewed them and took them to the personnel office for advice. Thereafter, he notified Respondent by mail of her termination. Mary Ann Hinds worked at the Endoscopy section as an LPN during the period July, 1982 through September, 1983 assisting physicians, including Dr. Varraux, in bronchoscopy procedures. She contends that at some time during October or November, 1982, Respondent called her into the office and advised that cocaine would no longer be used in bronchoscopy procedures and xylocaine would be substituted. She says she was told to chart the initial 4 percent xylocaine solution but not the 10 percent xylocaine solution she would give to the doctor without telling him of the substitution even though the doctor might ask for cocaine. She says that Ms. Bailey told her this would be done because during a prior procedure when the assistant used xylocaine instead of cocaine, Dr. Varraux did not know the difference and Bailey concluded that they would use the xylocaine instead of cocaine thereafter. Ms. Hinds did not question this because Respondent was the head of the department. Ms. Bailey was, in her opinion, difficult to talk to and as a result of these instructions, she followed this new procedure from the time of the instruction on through January, 1983. During this period, she saw Mr. Rosenau and Mr. Hooper also do the same thing. Although Ms. Hinds was quite definite in her testimony regarding the conversation with Ms. Bailey, she is significantly less sure of her testimony regarding control of drugs on the ward. For example, she cannot recall ever signing any proof of use forms. She contends that the LPNs and technicians did not sign off on the drug book. They would tell the Respondent what was used and she made the entries. When cocaine was to be used, she got it from a bottle in the Respondent's office. Helen Williams also worked under Respondent in the endoscopy section until January, 1983 assisting doctors with bronchoscopy procedures. When she first came to work in this section, she did not know that cocaine was being used. She recalls that in a conversation shortly after she came to work, Respondent told her they were using 4 percent xylocaine solution in place of a cocaine solution because they had done it one time with Dr. Varraux and he did not notice and as a result, they continued to follow this procedure. However, Ms. Williams, though she subsequently heard from Rosenau that substitutions were being made, never saw it done nor did she ever substitute. Though she says she advised Respondent she didn't think this substitution was a good idea, Respondent is supposed to have replied that this is the way it was done. Ms. Williams accepted Ms. Bailey's word when told that there was no cocaine on the unit and that cocaine was not being used even though the drug book at the time showed 27 cc of cocaine solution unused and on the unit. She discussed this with Ms. Bailey and concluded that if her supervisor knew about it, that was sufficient, and she did not report this to anyone else. She also did not report her knowledge of the substitutions being made to anyone else because she did not feel it was her place to do so since Respondent was the section head and knew about it. Ted Hooper, also an endoscopy technician, did bronchoscopies with Dr. Varraux for several years and toward the end, substituted xylocaine for cocaine in these procedures without telling the doctor what he was doing. He had seen Rosenau substitute xylocaine while he was watching procedures to learn how to do them before becoming a technician. When he asked Bailey about this, he says, she responded that it was done, for one reason, because it was cheaper for the patient. She also told him it was all right to do this as it had already been taken care of. She did not tell him, outright, to make the substitution but because she had said it was taken care of, he thought it was permissible. However, he also contends that he observed cocaine being used by Hinds and others in Dr. Varraux' cases after he became a technician in July, 1982. James E. Hardy, in October, 1982, employed as a transporter in the Endoscopy section of ORMC, also assisted in bronchoscopies, working at times with Dr. Varraux and he was aware of the practice of substituting xylocaine for cocaine in these procedures. When he first went to work in the section, he says, he was asked to substitute by Respondent who told him it was being done because it was cheaper for the patient but refused to do so. To his knowledge, however, he does not recall seeing the substitution actually performed. On one bronchoscopy he recalls, which he set up, cocaine was used which he got from Respondent. Mr. Rosenau testified at the March, 1985 hearing. He clearly indicated that xylocaine was substituted for cocaine in the procedures performed by Dr. Varraux and the cocaine they had on hand was rarely taken from the drug locker. He absolutely denies that during all the period of time he was working with Respondent, he ever discussed with her or admitted to her that he had substituted xylocaine for cocaine nor did Respondent ever tell him to do this. In fact, he cannot recall how this practice got started. Here it should be noted that Rosenau, Hardy, and Hooper were all friends of Mr. Rogers and at least Rosenau and Hardy owed their employment at the time to him. Respondent was recognized by Dr. Bone as partially responsible for the growth of the Endoscopy section at ORMC. He recalls her as being an exceptional nurse: reliable, dependable, and proficient - a perfectionist who did an excellent job. He had complete confidence in her ability and in her honesty and integrity. If he asked her to do something, she did it more reliably than others. Because of her perfectionist nature, however, she may have alienated people and turned them away, but he never had any doubts about her nor did he ever have any reports from other doctors that she did not do her job well. He worked with her until she left the hospital. She was a "take charge" person but never exceeded her authority or deviated from prescribed procedures or doctors' orders. This opinion of Respondent is shared by Christina Stephens who worked under Respondent for a period of time. She found the Respondent to be stern, regimented as to order of procedures, and very organized, but she never saw any irregularities by the Respondent in carrying out doctor's orders. As to Mr. Rosenau, however, of whom she also had some knowledge, she found him to be somewhat unprofessional in his patient care and actions and brought this to the attention of the supervisor by written report on several occasions. This was, however, several years prior to the time in issue here and she has not worked with him since 1976 nor does she have any knowledge of his performance since that time. Respondent began work at ORMC after she was a student in the respiratory therapy program there at the request of Mr. Rogers. She started as a pulmonary rehabilitation technician part time. At that time, there were only two employees in the section. When, after a few months, the supervisor left, Respondent took over. Over a period of time, new procedures were introduced including gastroenterology and Respondent was trained in them as she went. She began doing more of the latter than pulmonary rehabilitation even though she remained head of that section. She was then asked to help set up an Endoscopy section and started doing those procedures as well. Rosenau was working on the floor in the respiratory therapy section and was having trouble with his supervisor. As a result he wanted to come to work in the Endoscopy section and Respondent arranged a transfer for him even though he had little experience in endoscopy and none in gastroenterology. When she first started working with gastroenterology, the patient and his medication were brought into the section. When the procedure was finished, the unused medication was sent back with the patient. As the section got bigger however, and more procedures were accomplished, this practice began to hold things up. The physicians requested that medications be kept in the section for their use. Respondent resisted this because she did not feel there were sufficient safeguards available to maintain proper control. Nonetheless, the physicians pushed for it but the change did not happen until Dr. Varraux became insistent that the medications be kept there. He worked through Rogers and Holton to get a narcotics box installed on the section. When this was done Mr. Holton gave two sets of keys to the box to Mr. Rogers who immediately turned one set over to the Respondent and gave one set to Rosenau. When Dr. Varraux decided to use cocaine for anesthesia he discussed it with Rogers and Holton since Respondent did not have the authority to request it. As a result, the pharmacy began dispensing 60 ml bottles of cocaine solution for use in bronchoscopies with a control sheet accompanying it to be kept in the locked portion of the bronchoscopy cart. Again, Respondent and Rosenau both had access to this cart. In fact, Rosenau had access to every key that Respondent had except the one to her desk. According to the Respondent, she had difficulty with Rosenau regarding drugs on several occasions when he would draw narcotics into syringes, a procedure he was neither trained nor authorized to do. In the Spring of 1982, bronchoscopies were done by nurses who would give valium but cocaine was administered by Rosenau only. However, when cocaine was used, Respondent would sign off on the sheets along with others whose names appeared on the form as administers of the drug. In mid-1982 bronchoscopies were transferred to the respiratory therapy section, by then headed by Rosenau, but this did not seem to work out and after a short period, the procedure was returned back to the endoscopy section, with Rosenau still doing them under the overall supervision of Respondent. Respondent contends that she did not train people to do the bronchoscopy procedures. Rosenau had been doing this for months before all of this took place. Ms. Hinds came to work in late July, 1982, and Respondent had no control over bronchoscopies at that point as they were in Rosenau's section. As to Hardy, she characterized him as an errand boy who was never trained to do bronchoscopies and with whom she never discussed them. She did, however, have a discussion with Rosenau on one occasion about cocaine. She relates that on this particular instance, Rosenau advised her in confidence that he had substituted Xylocaine for cocaine by mistake on a bronchoscopy performed by Dr. Varraux and wanted to get it off his chest. He assured her that if she would give him another chance, he would never let it happen again. Here, even though Rosenau had a previous disciplinary record which she had discussed with Rogers, she decided to take no action because she felt it would be fruitless. Rogers had taken no corrective action against Rosenau in the past and she had no reason to believe he would do so now. Rosenau, as was seen above, denies this conversation but no doubt it did occur. Respondent does not know why she was terminated and was shocked by the action. Rogers had mentioned something about cocaine and had given her an opportunity to resign but she refused. She claims to know nothing about the dilution of the cocaine solution. She claims to know nothing of the substitutions of xylocaine for cocaine other than that reported to her by Rosenau. She categorically denies ever telling Hinds, Williams, or anyone else to substitute xylocaine for cocaine. Counsel for Respondent spent considerable time attempting to establish that the charges against her are the result of a plot by Rogers, Rosenau and others at the hospital to remove her from her position. At best, the evidence shows a lack of control within the respiratory therapy section. There does appear to be a decided relationship between Mr. Rogers and Mr. Rosenau but Respondent has failed to establish that this relationship manifested itself in a plan to bring about her unjustified separation. The evidence establishes that xylocaine was substituted for cocaine and there is some substantial evidence to indicate the Respondent had some knowledge or information indicating that this was being done. There is no credible evidence, however, to establish that Respondent herself substituted xylocaine for cocaine or instructed or directed anyone else to do so. At worst hers is a sin of omission rather than commission.
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's license no. 15-02311, 4COP, based on the violations of Sections 893.13, 561.29, and 823.13, Florida Statutes, as charged in the Second Amended Notice to Show Cause filed against Respondent in this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the State of Florida, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco (DABT). Respondent is Manos, Inc., d/b/a Sea Port Restaurant and Lighthouse Lounge. Respondent holds Beverage License No. 15-02311, 4COP, and is located at 680 George King Boulevard, Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920. Raymond J. Cascella is the president, vice-president and secretary of Respondent. Cascella indicated that his wife, Eileen Cascella, was the manager of Respondent's restaurant and lounge during the period of June through August 2001. A customer going by the name of "Red" had been at the establishment three or four times a week for a couple of years. Mahatha Brownlee is the individual who goes by the nickname "Red" and frequents Respondent's establishment. An individual going by the name of "Diamond" had been at the establishment frequently over a period of six months. Ronald Carlson, caretaker of the premises during the relevant time-period of June through August 2001, became aware that drug usage was occurring on the licensed premises when two bartenders of Respondent complained to him. Carlson also observed that whenever uniformed officers came into the establishment, many of the customers would get up and leave. Deputy Thomas D. Rodgers made two arrests on drug warrants inside the licensed premises during 2001, both of whom were employees of Respondent. On July 31, 2001, Special Agent Bethany Driggers, DABT, while in the licensed premises overheard a conversation whereby a customer asked a bartender about the availability of crack cocaine at the licensed premises. Stephanie Farrington, a bartender employed by Respondent, gave a statement to law enforcement under oath, which Special Agent Richard Waters, DABT, signed as a witness. The sworn statement of Stephanie Farrington was introduced as a business record exception. Respondent's qualified representative waived any objection to its introduction. Sometime in July 2002, Farrington confronted Cascella about the drug abuse in his business and the obvious drug dealing going on in the establishment. Cascella told her to go speak to the suspect known as "Red" to let "Red" handle it. Farrington had spoken with the manager, Eileen Cascella, as well, who indicated that she was aware that drug dealing was going on in the premises. Richard Hurlburt is a Special Agent with DABT. He is an 18-year veteran agent and has prior law enforcement experience. Agent Hurlburt was found, without objection, to be an expert in conducting undercover operations. Agent Hurlburt, based on his training and experience, believed that there was rampant drug dealing going on at the licensed premises, during the months of June through August 2001. Agent Hurlburt began his investigation during the daytime hours in June 2001, so that he could have more of a one- on-one contact with the employees. As a result of the violations he observed occurring during the day, Agent Hurlburt was able to conduct the investigation during the day and avoid the violence that frequently occurred at the premises in the later hours. Agent Hurlburt indicated that a suspect's exchange of a wad of money with an employee and receiving a large bill in return is consistent with the actions of drug dealers. In June 2001, Agent Hurlburt observed suspect "Red" exchange a wad of money with Cascella and receive a large bill in return. On June 27, 2001, Agent Hurlburt was served a beer by suspect "Red" while on the subject premises. On June 27, 2001, Agent Hurlburt purchased drugs twice from suspect "Big Mama," a person not further identified. Agent Hurlburt turned both samples of suspected crack cocaine over to Special Agent Roy Dotson, DABT. Agent Dotson is a ten-year law enforcement veteran with over 1,500 hours of specialized training. Agent Dotson has field-tested suspected crack cocaine over 500 times and has never had a field test result invalidated by later testing. Agent Dotson field-tested the suspected crack cocaine turned over to him by Agent Hurlburt on June 27, 2001, and the results were positive for the presence of cocaine. Special Agent Gregory Aliberti, DABT, secured the suspected crack cocaine purchased by Agent Hurlburt on July 11, 2001. Kim Poon, employed by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) as a crime laboratory analyst, was recognized, without objection as an expert drug analyst. Poon used two separate instrument tests, the mass spectrometer, as well as a gas chromatograph. Poon indicated that when the instruments are used correctly and in conjunction, the instruments are foolproof, there is no room for error. None of the drugs in this case that were in Poon's possession were tampered with to his knowledge. The three exhibits were tested and came back positive for cocaine, using the aforementioned two tests. The drugs purchased by Agent Hurlburt on June 27, 2001, were tested and the results came back positive for cocaine. On June 29, 2001, Agent Hurlburt purchased $20 of crack cocaine from suspect "Big Mama" and turned these drugs over to Agent Aliberti. These drugs were subsequently tested positive for cocaine. On or about July 2001, Agent Hurlburt, DABT, while in the licensed premises overheard a conversation between a bartender, Elaine, and another bartender, Jason, in which they indicated that Farrington had come into the establishment and named the names of people who were dealing drugs. They went on to say that Farrington named specific individuals "Moo-Moo," "Red" and "Diamond" as drug dealers. Farrington stated that there is a black male known as "Red" who hangs-out in the bar five out of seven days a week and she believed he was selling crack cocaine. Suspect Ray Charles was observed exiting the kitchen on numerous occasions. Agent Hurlburt asked suspect Ray Charles if he was an employee and he indicated that he cleaned up or did whatever Ray wanted him to do on the premises. On July 10, 2001, the agent made three separate drug purchases from suspect Ray Charles. The suspected crack cocaine was turned over to Agent Dotson who subsequently conducted a field test. It rendered a positive result for the presence of cocaine. The three separate samples of suspected crack cocaine purchased from suspect Ray Charles by Agent Hurlburt were subsequently tested positive for cocaine. Agent Hurlburt established that after meeting with support personnel the packages in which the suspect crack cocaine was stored in were marked with the date of the purchase, Agent Hurlburt's initials, which purchase it was for that day, and the suspect's name. On July 11, 2001, Agent Hurlburt purchased a $100 piece of crack cocaine from suspect Ray Charles. Ray Charles is the same individual as Ray Charles Mitchell, who is a felon on probation for possession of cocaine at the time of the formal hearing in this matter. Agent Hurlburt made a second purchase from Ray Charles on July 11, 2001. The suspected crack cocaine purchased from suspect Ray Charles on July 11 by Agent Hurlburt was subsequently tested positive by Poon of the FDLE. Agent Hurlburt also purchased crack cocaine on July 11 from the suspect known as "Red." The suspected crack cocaine purchased from suspect "Red" by Agent Hurlburt subsequently tested positive after analysis by Poon. On July 13, 2001, Agent Hurlburt purchased a $20 piece of crack cocaine from suspect "Red." On July 13, 2001, Agent Hurlburt made a second purchase of suspected crack cocaine from "Red." The suspected crack cocaine subsequently tested positive for cocaine. On July 17, 2001, Agent Hurlburt made two purchases of suspected crack cocaine from suspect "Red" and both subsequently tested positive for presence of cocaine. On July 20, 2001, Agent Hurlburt returned to the premises and purchased suspected crack cocaine from suspect "Red." Poon tested the crack cocaine purchased from "Red" on July 20 and it tested positive for cocaine. On July 24, Agent Hurlburt purchased suspected crack cocaine from suspect "Red" on two occasions and turned over the drugs to support personnel. The drugs purchased by Agent Hurlburt on July 24, 2001, subsequently tested positive for the presence of cocaine. Agent Dotson field-tested the drugs purchased from suspect "Red" on July 24 with a positive result for cocaine. During some of the drug purchases from suspect "Red" on July 24, 2001, Cascella was in the bar area. On July 25, Agent Hurlburt purchased suspected crack cocaine from a suspect known only as Rudy and turned the substances over to Agent Dotson, who subsequently field-tested it with a positive result. The drugs purchased by Agent Hurlburt on July 25, 2001, were subsequently tested positive for the presence of cocaine. Cascella was in the bar area on July 25, 2001. On July 27, 2001, Agent Hurlburt purchased two pieces of suspected crack cocaine. The drugs purchased by Agent Hurlburt were subsequently tested by Poon with the FDLE and tested positive for cocaine. On July 31, 2001, Agent Hurlburt overheard a conversation between two suspected narcotic dealers talking about a sale of crack cocaine to an individual bartender named Jason. On July 31, 2001, Agent Hurlburt purchased suspected crack cocaine from an individual on the licensed premises. The drugs purchased subsequently tested positive for the presence of cocaine. Agent Scott Behringer of the Brevard County Sheriff's Office (BCSO), Special Investigation Unit, secured the suspected crack cocaine purchased by Agent Hurlburt on July 31, 2001. Agent Behringer has been employed by the BCSO for approximately 13 years. He has been involved in several hundred investigations and has specialized training in narcotic identification schools including DEA basic and DEA advanced. Agent Behringer observed drug transactions occurring at the licensed premises. Agent Behringer subsequently tested the narcotics purchased by Agent Hurlburt on July 31, 2002, and the field test results were positive. Agent Behringer never had an occasion where he had field-tested a substance and was later disproved by drug analysis. This is despite having conducted approximately 1,000 field tests. On August 2, 2001, Agent Hurlburt and Agent Driggers were sitting at the bar at the licensed premises when they observed suspect "Red" sitting in a booth in the premises as well. Visible from the bar, placed on the suspect's calf was a stack of crack cocaine. Agent Hurlburt proceeded to measure the distance from the bar to a spot parallel to the suspect in order to determine the distance. The distance was estimated to be 155 inches. On August 2, 2001, Agent Hurlburt purchased $100 worth of crack cocaine from suspect "Red." On August 3, Agent Hurlburt purchased $50 worth of crack cocaine from suspect Rudy. The contraband was turned over to support personnel. Agent Behringer secured evidence on August 2, 2001; he field-tested the substance and it was positive for cocaine. It had the appearance of crack cocaine as well. All the evidence that Agent Behringer maintained was kept in a security area until being forwarded to Agent Dotson. Agent Behringer never had drugs in his possession that had been tampered with in any way. Agent Behringer saw Cascella observing drug sales during the relevant time-period late July and early August 2001. Agent Driggers indicated that even though she didn't have a great deal of training, she was able to observe numerous individuals making hand drug transactions in the licensed premises. The crack cocaine purchased on August 2 by Agent Hurlburt from suspect "Red" was tested by Poon and the result was positive for the presence of cocaine. Agent Driggers purchased suspected crack cocaine from suspect "Red" on August 8. The suspected crack cocaine purchased by Agent Driggers on July 31 and August 8, 2001, from suspect "Red" subsequently tested positive for cocaine. On August 10, 2001, Agent Hurlburt entered the establishment, made a purchase and departed the premises. He then went to the staging area where they were subsequently transported and tested by Kimberly Hampton-Sheley of the FDLE crime lab with a positive result for cocaine. FDLE Analyst Kimberly Hampton-Sheley indicated that the two tests that she ran on the substance resulted in a positive reading for cocaine. Further, the accuracy of combined testing in terms of chemistry is 100 percent accurate. Agent Driggers purchased $20 worth of suspected crack cocaine from an employee of the licensed premises, Jason, August 10, 2001. The drugs subsequently tested positive for the presence of cocaine. Shortly thereafter, Agents from the combined task force from the DABT and BCSO reentered the licensed premises in order to arrest those engaging in illegal activity. Agent Dotson searched bartender, Jason Gilroy, on August 10, 2001, at the time of the raid on the licensed premises. Agent Dotson discovered a small napkin with some cocaine in one of his pants' pockets. The drugs discovered on employee Gilroy on August 10, 2001, subsequently tested positive for the presence of cocaine. Another Manos employee, a bartender named Mike, was apprehended with a crack pipe in his manual possession on the night of the raid. Evidence Agents Aliberti and Waters, DABT, secured in this investigation was stored in the trunk of their state vehicle or at the Florida Highway Patrol unit where they have an evidence storage locker until it is forwarded to the BCSO or whatever agency is going to be responsible for the evidence. Agent Waters indicated that at the location of the Florida Highway Patrol is a locker which has their own personal key and they are the only ones with that key. Both Waters and Aliberti indicated that they have never had any evidence that was in their possession tampered with in this case or any other to their knowledge. Agent Aliberti was involved in transporting drugs from the BCSO to the FDLE. Agent Dotson testified that he secured the evidence in an evidence bag. He would initial them and they would be put into an evidence locker in one of their precincts to be forwarded to the Evidence Unit. Agent Dotson has never had any drugs tampered with in any of his cases, including the case at hand. The evidence is clear and convincing that on numerous occasions between June and August 2001, on the licensed premises, agents and employees, while in the scope of their employment, sold or permitted to be sold controlled substances, to wit: cocaine, in violation of Florida law. The evidence is clear and convincing that on numerous occasions between June and August 2001, the licensee, Raymond J. Cascella, permitted others, while on the licensed premises, to violate the laws of this state and of this United States by selling controlled substances, to wit: cocaine. The evidence is clear and convincing that the licensed premises was used for the illegal keeping, selling and delivery of controlled substances and is a public nuisance. The evidence is clear and convincing that the licensee, Raymond J. Cascella, maintained the licensed premises for the illegal keeping, selling and delivery of controlled substances.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered as follows: Finding Respondent guilty of having violated Section 893.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Counts 1-18 of the Second Amended Administrative Complaint, and imposing a penalty therefor of Revocation of Respondent's license number 15-02311, 4-COP, SRX. Finding Respondent guilty of having violated Section 893.13(7)(a)5, Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count 19 of the Second Amended Administrative Complaint, and imposing as a penalty therefor of Revocation of Respondent's license number 15-02311, 4-COP, SRX. Finding Respondent guilty of having violated Section 823.10, Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count 20 of the Second Amended Administrative Complaint, and imposing as a penalty therefor of an administrative fine in the amount of $250. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 2002, 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of May, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Raymond Cascella Manos Inc., d/b/a Sea Port Restaurant 680 George J. King Boulevard Port Canaveral, Florida 32920 Richard J. Dempsey Qualified Representative 223 Columbia Drive, No. 221 Cape Canaveral, Florida 32920 Michael Martinez, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Richard Turner, Director Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated section 464.204(1)(b), Florida Statutes, by intentionally violating section 456.072(1)(z), Florida Statutes, due to being unable to practice as a nursing assistant with reasonable skill and safety to patients by reason of illness or use of alcohol, drugs, narcotics, or chemicals or any other type of material or as a result of any mental or physical condition; and, if so, what penalty shall be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of nursing assistants, pursuant to section 20.43, and chapters 456, and 464, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was a certified nursing assistant (C.N.A.) in the State of Florida, having been issued Certificate No. CNA 165217. Respondent is a convicted felon, having been convicted in 1988 of the felony offenses of grand theft and forgery. The conviction constitutes a crime of dishonesty. In 1989, Respondent was convicted of felony possession of cocaine and sale of cocaine. In 1992, Respondent was convicted of robbery, a felony. In 1998, Respondent was convicted of possession of cocaine, a felony. Respondent was sentenced and incarcerated in 2003 to a term of three-and-a-half years. In addition to the numerous felony charges, Respondent committed multiple misdemeanors over the past 30 years. In 2007, Respondent applied to be a C.N.A. in Florida. Respondent explained her criminal history in her application to become a C.N.A., as follows: The charges that were committed happen [sic] at a time in my life when I was living on the streets. I stole out of stores in order to get clothes to wear and sell to support my addiction. I use [sic] drugs and alcohol to escape. I hung around a lot of wrong people who did drugs and stole for a living. To me this was normal. I did everything under the sun in order to get high. My life was very unmanageable. I wrote checks out of my mother’s checking account to purchase drugs and alcohol. I unchanging [sic] sex for drugs, so before long the relationships that I got involved in boyfriend’s would dealt [sic] drugs. I would sell drugs in order to get the drugs to [sic] and get enough money to make whomever I was dating at the time happy [sic]. I have been drug free since 2000. I have maintained steady employment, and stable housing. I attend A.A. meeting [sic] on a regular basis. I have successfully completed Parenting, and Behavioral Healthcare Technical training classes given by the Operation PAR Incorporation. I am currently in my second year of school at St. Petersburg College in the Human Service Program. With hopes [sic] of earning a [sic] associate degree in Substance Abuse Counseling. I have positive friends and role models that do not indulge in any criminal activities or drugs. I also attend church services, and participate in church functions. Also, I have been raising two children as a single parent. In conclusion, I have successfully completed probation and as well have not committed any new offenses. Respondent was first licensed as a C.N.A. in the State of Florida in April 2008. On April 24, 2015, Respondent attended a party where she consumed alcohol. Early the next morning, SPPD Officer Daniel L’Esperance observed a vehicle parked at an odd angle in the parking lot of a closed gas station. Respondent was asleep behind the wheel of the vehicle with the keys in the ignition. The officer noticed a strong odor of alcohol coming from her breath, slurred speech, unsteadiness on her feet, and watery, bloodshot eyes. Officer L’Esperance told Respondent to call a friend to come pick her up because he believed she was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Respondent could not find her phone and gave Officer L’Esperance consent to look for her phone in the vehicle. While searching for Respondent’s phone, Officer L’Esperance found a crumpled up dollar bill in the driver’s seat containing what he believed to be cocaine residue. The officer arrested Respondent for the felony offense of cocaine possession. On or about April 26, 2016, at approximately 11:15 p.m., SPPD officers responded to a car accident involving two motor vehicles. Respondent was one of the drivers involved. She had consumed alcohol prior to the accident. Respondent was wearing black scrubs at the time of the car accident. She had slurred speech; glassy, watery, and bloodshot eyes; and alcohol on her breath. She was unsteady on her feet and was disoriented. She exhibited further signs of impairment while participating in the field sobriety exercises. SPPD Officer Michael Karayianes arrested Respondent for driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Respondent refused to provide a breath sample for alcohol testing. On August 3, 2016, Lawrence S. Wilson, M.D., a physician specializing in addiction medicine, and hereby found to be an expert in this field, evaluated Respondent pursuant to Department order. Respondent admitted she first consumed alcohol at age 15. She reported that in her past she would consume 12 beers in one drinking session, and she would consume approximately 750ml of liquor every weekend. She consumed alcohol approximately once or twice per month in the two to three months leading up to the evaluation. Respondent reported consuming a maximum of four alcoholic drinks in one sitting during this time period. She stated she had most recently consumed alcohol two days prior to her evaluation. Respondent acknowledged to Dr. Wilson that she is an alcoholic. Respondent acknowledged she first used cocaine at age 15. She most recently used cocaine two days prior to the evaluation. Respondent stated that, other than the use of cocaine two days prior to the evaluation, she had not used cocaine in approximately 20 to 30 years. She acknowledged she has a problem with cocaine. Respondent told Dr. Wilson that she had not admitted herself nor been admitted to any detox facilities, any inpatient treatment, or any outpatient treatment programs. During the evaluation and in her testimony at hearing, Respondent claimed to be in active recovery, attending Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings three to five times per week for the past year. Respondent claimed to have a sponsor and home group. Respondent chaired meetings, but had never told her story as a speaker. On August 3, 2016, Respondent submitted to toxicology tests at Dr. Wilson’s request. The tests were positive for both cocaine and alcohol. These results, which were professionally obtained and are deemed credible, were inconsistent with Respondent’s reported use of alcohol and cocaine. The toxicology results indicated repetitive and frequent use of cocaine in the past two to three months. The toxicology results indicated heavy repeated alcohol use or binging. Respondent’s participation in AA has not prevented her from continuing both alcohol and cocaine use. Her “participation” in AA, at best, can be described as passive and, at worst, as embellished or untrue. Dr. Wilson agrees with the latter assessment, calling Respondent’s reporting of her alcohol and drug abuse “dishonest and deceptive.” He further concluded that Respondent’s minimization and deceptive reporting of her drug and alcohol use indicated that she was in denial of her alcohol and cocaine use disorders. Not surprisingly, Dr. Wilson diagnosed Respondent with severe alcohol use disorder and severe cocaine use disorder. Dr. Wilson recommended Respondent participate in an Intervention Project for Nurses (IPN) monitoring agreement and complete an inpatient treatment program for her cocaine use disorder and alcohol use disorder. Due to Respondent’s current addictions, Dr. Wilson concluded that Respondent is not able to practice as a nursing assistant with the necessary skill and safety to adequately serve patients. Dr. Wilson stated that his opinion would not change even if Respondent participated in AA meetings multiple times a week because the Respondent’s participation in AA is not effectively treating her addiction disorders. He believes she needs more intensive treatment due to her disease and addiction being active. The undersigned finds Dr. Wilson’s opinions and ultimate findings credible and well-substantiated. Respondent has not actively entered into an IPN monitoring agreement nor has she entered or completed an inpatient treatment program for her cocaine use disorder and alcohol use disorder. As recently as August 9, 2016, Respondent submitted a urine sample for a drug screening as a condition of her criminal probation. The sample returned positive for cocaine. In order to have a positive result, the individual tested must have consumed cocaine within 48 to 72 hours of submitting the sample. Even the witnesses called by Respondent to testify at hearing confirmed her alcohol abuse issues. Her sister, Candace Thomas testified that she had last drunk alcohol with Respondent a month or two prior to the hearing, and recalled having drinks with Respondent at least once a week. Another witness called by Respondent, Jakayla Hudson, testified that Respondent’s drinking habits were about the same as they had been years earlier, before she had been incarcerated. Respondent denied the allegations of alcohol and drug abuse. She claims that Dr. Wilson and Officers Karayianes and L’Esperance fabricated their testimony to exaggerate the extent of her impairment. Respondent claims to have last consumed alcohol on or about August 1, 2016, which is inconsistent with her sister’s testimony at the hearing. She testified that she is not an alcoholic and does not have a problem with alcohol. Respondent’s testimony was inconsistent with her statement that alcohol is her drug of choice, her history of alcohol abuse, her regular attendance at AA meetings since 2007, and her own previous statements. When asked if she still used cocaine, Respondent testified that alcohol is her drug of choice. She testified she had not used cocaine in many years, yet a drug test showed she had ingested cocaine within the past year. When these conflicting statements are viewed with her history of alcohol and cocaine abuse, her regular hosting of AA meetings, regardless of her active participation in them, since 2007, and her own previous statements about the frequency of her drinking and cocaine abuse, the evidence clearly and convincingly strongly supports her being both an alcohol and cocaine abuser. Respondent’s criminal history, combined with the established fact that she has been and continues to suffer from severe alcohol use disorder and severe cocaine use disorder, both of which appear to be voluntary, prove she is unable to practice as a nursing assistant with reasonable skill and safety to patients.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued finding that Respondent violated sections 464.204(1)(b) and 456.072(1)(z); imposing a suspension of her license until such time as Respondent personally appears before the Board and can demonstrate the present ability to engage in the safe practice of a nursing assistant, and the demonstration shall include at least one IPN evaluation, in which the evaluator finds Respondent is presently able to engage in the safe practice of a nursing assistant or recommend the conditions under which safe practice could be attained; requiring compliance with IPN recommendations and contract conditions, if any; requiring the payment of an administrative fine in the amount of $150; and awarding costs incurred in the prosecution of this case to the Department. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 18th day of May, 2017. COPIES FURNISHED: Rob F. Summers, Esquire Prosecution Services Unit Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 (eServed) Lannette Thompson, C.N.A. 4718 9th Avenue South St. Petersburg, Florida 33711 Lindsey H. Frost, Esquire Prosecution Services Unit Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 (eServed) Joe Baker, Jr., Executive Director Board of Nursing Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3252 (eServed) Nichole C. Geary, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 (eServed) Jody Bryant Newman, EdD, EdS, Chair Board of Nursing Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin D-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is a certified correctional officer in the State of Florida having been issued certificate # 84145 on April 23, 1991. Respondent was employed as a correctional officer with the Metro-Dade Corrections and Rehabilitation Department ("M-D CR") beginning in April 1991. Prior to obtaining her certification as a correctional officer, Respondent worked for the State Corrections Department for approximately seven (7) years as a clerk and later as a technician. No evidence has been presented in this case as to any prior disciplinary action taken against Respondent or any other job related problems. By memorandum dated July 9, 1993, Respondent was notified of her biannual physical which was to include a drug/alcohol screening. The scheduled date for the physical and screening was August 5, 1993 at 9:00 a.m. On August 5, 1993, Respondent presented at Mount Sinai Medical Center for her physical. She filled out and signed a Consent & Release Form and a Specimen Collection Checklist & Chain of Custody Form. She then submitted a urine sample for testing. Respondent's urine sample was handled in accordance with a standard set of procedures for dividing, labelling and sealing the specimen. Respondent had an opportunity to observe the splitting of the sample and she initialed the containers after they were sealed. Respondent's urine specimens were transported by courier to Toxicology Testing Service ("TTS") for routine screening. The evidence established that TTS has adopted adequate procedures to track the chain of custody of the urine samples it receives and protect the integrity of the samples. There is no evidence in this case that there are any gaps or breaks in the chain of custody for Respondent's samples, that the integrity of the samples was ever compromised, that the testing procedures were not followed and/or that the equipment was contaminated or not working properly. After Respondent's samples were received at TTS, an immunoassay screening test was performed on a portion of one of the samples. That screening test was positive for the presence of cocaine at a level that was barely over the minimum threshold level of 50 Nanograms per milliliter. 1/ After the initial screening test was determined to be positive, Respondent's sample was analyzed with a confirmatory testing procedure which utilized gas chromatography/mass spectrometry ("GCMS"). 2/ On or about August 10, 1993, Dr. Terry Hall, Director of TTS, issued a final report indicating that Respondent's urine had tested positive for cocaine. Specifically, the Report stated that, upon analysis, the urine sample provided by Respondent tested positive for the presence of the cocaine metabolite, benzoylecgonine, in a concentration of 71 Nanograms per milliliter. The TTS test results of Respondent's urine are consistent with the ingestion of cocaine because cocaine is the only drug commonly available that, when ingested into the human body, produces the cocaine metabolite, benzoylecgonine. While the testing by TTS demonstrated the presence of cocaine metabolite in Respondent's system, it does not establish how ingestion occurred. Absent proof that the drug was possessed or administered under the authority of a prescription issued by a physician or that the presence of cocaine metabolite could otherwise be lawfully explained, unlawful ingestion is a reasonable inference. However, it is also possible that the ingestion was involuntary and/or unknowing. 3/ M-D CR and Respondent were notified on August 11, 1993 that the urine sample Respondent provided on August 5, 1993 tested positive for cocaine. Respondent has not worked as a correctional officer since that date. Upon notification of the test results, Respondent vehemently denied using drugs. She took immediate steps to try to prove her innocence. Respondent contacted the Dade County Police Benevolent Association (the "PBA") which arranged for Consulab of Cedars of Lebanon Hospital to do a drug screen at the 50 Nanogram per milliliter level on a urine sample provided by Respondent. On August 12, 1993, Respondent provided a urine sample to Consulab. Respondent claims that the results of that test did not reveal the presence of cocaine or cocaine metabolite in her urine. 4/ The Consulab test result reported by Respondent is not necessarily inconsistent with the results reported by TTS because the levels detected by TTS were relatively small and any cocaine in Respondent's system could have been fully metabolized during the time between the two tests. On September 2, 1993, the PBA, on behalf of Respondent, requested a retest of Respondent's August 5, 1995 urine sample. Prior to the retest, Respondent was present and able to inspect the seal on the container from the split sample of her August 5, 1993 urine specimen. On or about September 9, 1993, Dr. Terry Hall issued a final report on the retest of Respondent's August 5 urine sample. The retest was positive for cocaine metabolite at a level of 67 Nanograms per milliliter. This result is consistent with the earlier GC/MS test result. On or about August 19, 1993, Respondent's employer, the M-D CR, issued a Disciplinary Action Report to Respondent based on the TTS reports. The Report advised Respondent that proceedings were being initiated to dismiss her from employment. On or about November 5, 1993, Director Charles A. Felton of the M-D CR dismissed Respondent from her employment with the M-D CR. By letter dated November 9, 1993, Commander Miriam Carames, Employee Discipline Coordinator for the M-D CR advised the Florida Department of Law Enforcement ("FDLE") of Respondent's termination. On or about November 22, 1993, Respondent wrote a personal letter to Director Felton explaining her side of the events leading to her termination and proclaiming her innocence. In accordance with the PBA's collective bargaining agreement, Respondent requested an arbitration hearing on her dismissal. The arbitration hearing on Respondent's termination was conducted on December 21, 1993. The decision of Arbitrator Charles A. Hall of the American Arbitration Association was rendered on February 1, 1994 and issued by letter dated February 9, 1994. That decision found that Respondent should be returned to full duty, without loss of pay, providing she agreed to six months of random drug testing. By letter dated May 3, 1994, Metro-Dade County Manager Joaquin Avino overturned the decision of Arbitrator Charles A. Hall and ordered Respondent dismissed from her employment with the M-D CR. That decision is currently being appealed. There is no evidence that Respondent has had any problems or difficulties in carrying out her responsibilities as a correctional officer. From Respondent's initial employment as a clerk with the state corrections department through her employment as a correctional officer beginning in 1991, Respondent has consistently been recognized as a professional, loyal and dedicated employee. Her job evaluations have always been satisfactory or better. Respondent received the State of Florida Department of Corrections, Circuit 11, Employee of the Year Award for 1988. She has further demonstrated dedication to her profession through continued training in the law enforcement field. Respondent's coworkers and supervisors testified that Respondent has a reputation for integrity, honesty and fairness in the treatment of inmates and coworkers. They also testified that she respects the rights of others, respects the law and has a reputation for overall good moral character and has never been observed to be impaired, or known to use drugs. Respondent is the mother of 3 teenage girls and has been very active in her Church. She has devoted substantial personal time and resources to community service. Respondent strongly denies taking or ingesting cocaine. Respondent provided no explanations at hearing for the positive test results. She was at a loss to provide a plausible explanation for what she perceives to be an aberration. Respondent presented the testimony of a number of witnesses who know her well to lend credence to her denial. Those witnesses testified credibly that Respondent is a person of good moral character who, among other qualities, has the ability to differentiate between right and wrong and the character to observe the difference, has respect for the rights of others, has respect for the law, and can be relied upon in a position of trust and confidence. Those witnesses, who have known Respondent for an extended period of time commencing well before the incident in question, believe it is the antithesis of Respondent's character to have ingested or used cocaine. In summary, the results of the urinalysis create a suspicion of unlawful drug use. However, the test results alone do not conclusively establish unlawful use. The results could have been due to some unknown test failure or inadvertent ingestion. After considering the nominal amount of cocaine metabolite disclosed by testing, the evidence presented regarding Respondent's character, as well as her employment record, the evidence is not clear and convincing that Respondent has unlawfully ingested cocaine. While no conclusion can be reached, with any degree of certainty, as to the reason for the positive test results, the test results cannot and should not be ignored. Without a plausible explanation for the test results, those results do raise some unanswered questions and doubts as to Respondent's character which do provide a basis for action by the Commission under its rules.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that there are some doubts regarding Respondent's moral fitness for continued service in accordance with Rule 11B-27.0011(4)(c)4. In view of this finding, Respondent should be placed on probation for two years subject to random drug testing. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 18th day of August, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 18th day of August, 1995.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent failed to maintain the qualifications set forth in Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, which require that a correctional officer in the State of Florida have good moral character.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence received at the formal hearing, the following facts are found: The Respondent, James L. Jackson, was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission as a correctional officer in 1981. At all times relevant and material to these proceedings, the Respondent was a correctional officer sergeant employed by the Broward County Sheriff's Department. In late July or early August of 1989, during the course of investigating illegal conduct by other employees of the Broward County Sheriff's Department, a Detective Dansky, then working in the Internal Affairs Office of the Broward County Sheriff's Department, was told by one of the admitted wrongdoers that he had heard that several employees of the Sheriff's Department, including the Respondent, were involved in criminal activity related to the possession, use, or distribution of controlled substances. Shortly after receiving that information, Detective Dansky contacted the Respondent and requested that he provide a statement in response to the allegation that he had been involved in illegal drug activity. On August 8, 1989, the Respondent reported to the Internal Affairs Office, where he met with Detective Dansky. After being advised of the specific allegations that had been made against him, the Respondent gave a statement to Detective Dansky. The Respondent's statement consisted of a denial of all allegations of misconduct. After taking the Respondent's statement, Detective Dansky offered the Respondent the option of furnishing a urine sample for drug testing in order to resolve the issue. The Respondent voluntarily agreed to provide a urine sample. Detective Dansky initiated the drug testing process by asking the Respondent if he had been using any drugs that might show up on the test. The Respondent stated that he had not used any drugs. Shortly thereafter, the Respondent provided a urine sample. The sample was collected under circumstances which verified that the sample was actually provided by the Respondent and the sample was promptly sealed in a manner which made it highly improbable that the sample could be tampered with without the tampering being obvious. The sample was also given a unique identifying number. The urine sample was properly protected until it was turned over to the forensic laboratory, where it was received in good condition with no evidence of tampering. At the laboratory the Respondent's urine sample was kept in a secure manner during the testing process. At the laboratory, adequate procedures were used to ensure that the Respondent's urine sample was properly identified, that the chain of custody was properly maintained, and that the sample had not been tampered with. A portion of the Respondent's urine sample was submitted to an immunoassay screening analysis. The screen analysis indicated the presumptive presence of benzoyleconine, a unique metabolite of cocaine. Following the screen analysis, a second portion of the Respondent's urine sample was submitted for analysis by means of gas chromatography/mass spectrometry, which is the most reliable and accurate method for confirmatory drug testing. The gas chromatography/mass spectrometry analysis of the Respondent's urine sample was positive for the presence of benzoyleconine in a concentration of 4903.5 nanograms per milliliter. That concentration of benzoyleconine is consistent with, and indicative of, the Respondent's voluntary ingestion of cocaine within a time frame of approximately one to four days prior to the collection of the urine sample. The Respondent's positive drug test results were received by the Internal Affairs Office of the Broward County Sheriff's Department on August 15, 1989. On that date, Detective Dansky again met with the Respondent. Detective Dansky told the Respondent that the Respondent's urine sample had been confirmed positive for cocaine. The Respondent told Detective Dansky that he does not do things like that and that it could not be him. 1/ As a result of the positive drug test results, the Respondent was suspended and ultimately terminated from his position as a correctional officer sergeant with the Broward County Sheriff's Department. At the time of his suspension, the Respondent had worked for the Broward County Sheriff's Department for approximately nine and a half years. Prior to August of 1989, the Respondent had an excellent work record with the Broward County Sheriff's Department.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission issue a final order in this case concluding that the Respondent has failed to maintain good moral character and revoking the Respondent's certification as a correctional officer. DONE AND ENTERED at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 21st day of May, 1991. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 May, 1991.
The Issue Whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner in its employment decisions in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes (2001).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Oscar Jones (Petitioner), is a black male. He began working for Respondent in July 1997, as a longshoreman working on "chicken boats." In that position, Petitioner loaded boxes of frozen chicken into the holds of refrigerated ships. Respondent, Coastal Maritime Services, LLC (Respondent), is engaged in the business of stevedoring and seaport terminal operations, including loading and unloading ships, and receiving cargo. On May 28, 1998, Respondent injured himself when a very heavy box of frozen chicken fell on his ankle. Other than first aid at the worksite, Petitioner declined further medical treatment that day. He was given a medical form authorizing treatment at the medical clinic which provided medical services to injured employees who might be covered under Respondent's workers' compensation insurance. The next day, on May 29, 1998, Petitioner sought medical treatment for his injury at the medical facility which handled Respondent's workers' compensation injuries. As part of that treatment, Petitioner was asked to take a drug test and Petitioner consented. Although no formal written drug test policy was in effect by Respondent at the time of Petitioner's injury, the general policy and practice was that a work-related injury would subject an employee to a voluntary drug test. Petitioner's drug test came back positive for marijuana. As a result of the positive drug test result, Respondent's insurance carrier controverted Petitioner's workers' compensation claim. There was no evidence that Respondent's management had any responsibility or involvement in the carrier's decision to controvert Petitioner's entitlement to workers' compensation benefits. During the 12-month time period of January 1998 through December 1998, Petitioner was not the only employee of Respondent required to take a drug test after a work place injury. In fact, in June 1998 (the same time period as Petitioner's test) seven white employees were required to take a drug test and three black employees were required to take a drug test. For the entire 1998 calendar year, 51 total drug tests were administered, with 31 of those tests administered to non- black employees (for example, white or Hispanic) and only 21 of those tests administered to black employees. Similarly, for the entire 1998 calendar year, a total of 18 employees were not administered drug tests, either because medical attention was refused or because of the severity of the injury. Of those 18 employees, 11 were non-black employees and seven were black employees. Employees who were not required to take a drug test either were those who refused medical attention or who were severely injured and had to seek treatment from hospital emergency rooms where drug tests were not given. Clearly, race played no factor in who was required to take a drug test or who received a drug test. Petitioner did cite the names of two white employees, Jay Chavers and Andy Wiley, who allegedly were treated more favorably than Petitioner, in that those two employees did not take a drug test. However, those two employees were not "similarly situated" to Petitioner. First, the injuries of both Mr. Chavers and Mr. Wiley were much more serious in nature than the contusion (bruise) that Petitioner had suffered and both were taken to emergency rooms for their injuries where drug tests were not routinely administered. Specifically, Mr. Chavers had fallen from a high distance and suffered numerous broken bones, thus, rendering him incapable of giving consent to a drug test at the hospital. As to Mr. Wiley, his injuries were not subject to workers' compensation coverage, unlike Petitioner's. Thus, given the nature of the injuries of Mr. Chavers and Mr. Wiley, those two individuals were not sufficiently "similarly situated" to Petitioner to enable him to establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination. Petitioner's positive drug test result had no other impact on his employment with Respondent, apart from the controversion of his workers' compensation benefits. Indeed, Respondent attempted to get Petitioner to return to work. Shortly thereafter, in early June 1998, Petitioner contacted the chief financial officer of Respondent, Kathleen Wiley, who in 1998 was Respondent's office manager. Petitioner expressed concern to Ms. Wiley about his workers' compensation benefits and his employment status with Respondent. Ms. Wiley informed Petitioner that he was still considered to be employed with Respondent and that he needed to contact Ben Brown for a light duty assignment. Petitioner was expressly informed that light duty work was available that would meet his medical restrictions imposed after his injury. Petitioner never followed-up with Mr. Brown about light duty work. Almost immediately thereafter in June 1998, Respondent hired Bud Underwood as its new safety manager. Mr. Underwood's responsibilities were to oversee workers' compensation cases and follow up on accidents and injured employees. Ms. Wiley informed Mr. Underwood to follow up on the situation of Petitioner to get him to return for a light duty assignment. In late June or early July 1998, Mr. Underwood contacted Petitioner as directed and offered him light duty work within his medical restrictions. Petitioner informed Mr. Underwood in very obscene terms that he was not going to accept any light duty assignments. Petitioner never appeared for any light duty assignments after that conversation. Based upon Petitioner's response to that telephonic offer of light duty employment, Respondent sent Petitioner a letter around July 9, 1998, informing him that based upon his refusal of light duty work, he had been deemed to have abandoned his employment, and thus was no longer employed by Respondent due to self-termination. Thereafter, in September 1998, Petitioner contacted Respondent by telephone seeking employment. However, by that time, opportunities for longshoremen, such as Mr. Jones were extremely limited, as the "chicken boat" operation had all but shut down for financial reasons, and no positions were available at the time. Thus, Respondent sent Petitioner a letter dated September 2, 1998, informing him that no positions were available, but encouraging him to reapply. Despite the invitation to Petitioner that he should reapply, Petitioner never submitted any subsequent inquiry for employment. Respondent's "chicken boat" operation had shut down completely by February 1999. Petitioner later applied for unemployment compensation benefits, but those benefits were denied on the ground that Petitioner had abandoned his employment by refusing the light duty work that was offered to him. In fact, in an evidentiary hearing held in his unemployment compensation matter, the Unemployment Appeals Referee found as a fact that Petitioner admitted that he had refused the light duty work offered to him. Petitioner's appeal of that adverse decision was, likewise, denied by the Unemployment Appeals Commission. Petitioner's race played no role in Respondent's determination that Petitioner had abandoned his employment or in Respondent's determination that no position existed for Petitioner in September 1998. Similarly, race played no role in the insurance carrier's decisions regarding Petitioner's workers' compensation benefits. In fact, Petitioner voluntarily settled his workers' compensation claim disputes in a settlement agreement signed by him and his attorney dated March 22, 1999. Petitioner had a family to support and needed the money. Pursuant to that settlement agreement, Petitioner agreed to accept $4,500 in full, final and complete settlement, release and discharge of any and all claims against the employer arising out of Petitioner's alleged accident, injury, and disability in issue, including, but not limited to claims for temporary total, temporary partial, permanent total, and/or permanent partial disability compensation, and past and future medical benefits. Petitioner verified that the settlement was adequate and was not entered into under duress. Rather, Petitioner of his own accord thought that the settlement was in his best interest. The Department of Labor approved the settlement. Petitioner has made no credible showing that there was any relationship between his race and the adverse employment actions of which he has complained.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petition be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 16th day of December, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Peter Reed Corbin, Esquire Richard L. Ruth, Jr., Esquire Ford & Harrison LLP 121 West Forsyth Street Suite 1000 Post Office Box 41566 Jacksonville, Florida 32203 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Oscar Jones 1817 East 27th Street Jacksonville, Florida 32206 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent, a non-instructional employee of Alachua County School Board (School Board), should be dismissed for the reasons stated in the notification letter of November 5, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the governing body of the School District of Alachua County, Florida. It operates 43 public schools and centers in Alachua County and employs approximately 4,000 persons. At all times material, Respondent was employed by Petitioner in the position of maintenance helper. He is a member of Petitioner's career service bargaining unit. Petitioner has a "drug free workplace policy" which is part of the collective bargaining agreement with a non- instructional bargaining unit. The policy was implemented in June 1993. Before that time, Petitioner gave notice to its employees of the drug-free workplace policy. Petitioner's drug-free workplace policy requires that, as a condition of continued employment, employees submit to drug screening when there is reasonable suspicion of substance abuse. Following a positive drug screening, the employee is given an opportunity to participate in a treatment program. The policy also provides that, after completion of the treatment program, the employee may return to work, but if there is a second positive drug test, the employee may be disciplined up to and including termination of employment. Petitioner's Human Resources Division has attempted to be consistent in administering the drug-free workplace policy. Any employee having a second positive drug test has been recommended for termination. Pertinent to this case, Petitioner's drug-free workplace policy provides: It is the intent of the Board to provide a drug-free Workplace. Drug-Free Workplace Guidelines The purpose of these guidelines is to comply with the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988, 34 CFR Part 85, Subpart F, which requires grantees to certify that they will maintain a drug-free workplace. When a reasonable suspicion exists, the Director of Employee Relations shall be contacted. The employee, if a member of a bargaining unit, shall be afforded the opportunity to have ACEA representation. The employee will be provided an opportunity to explain his/her condition. The employee will be provided with information regarding available drug counseling, rehabilitation, assistance program, and leave options. A rehabilitation contract including drug testing may be agreed upon. Failure to participate in a treatment program following a positive drug screening will result in disciplinary action, up to and including termination. Due process will be followed. * * * 12. Employees who return to work after completion of a rehabilitation program shall be subject to follow-up drug testing with twenty-four (24) hour notification. Any employee who refuses the drug test or subsequently tests positive may be disciplined up to and including termination. (Emphasis supplied) Respondent's drug test reported on September 2, 1998, was positive for cannabinoids-THS and cocaine metabolites. Respondent entered into a rehabilitation contract with Petitioner on September 3, 1998. Respondent's entry into a rehabilitation program was not "voluntary," in that Respondent was required to enter a rehabilitation program in order to retain his public employment. The contract Respondent signed provided, in pertinent part, as follows. 2. Following release from the rehabilitation clinic/counselor and for a period of one year from that release, the employee agrees to random breath analysis or blood alcohol test upon notification and/or urine analysis within 24 hours of notification from the Director of Employee Relations. Positive results indicating alcohol and/or illegal mind-altering substances, following the initiation of this contract, is prima facie evidence of violation of this contract. I understand that failure to comply with the terms of this contract may result in termination of my employment with the School Board of Alachua County. (Emphasis supplied) In order to enter the agreed residential drug treatment program, Respondent twice applied for leave, which Petitioner granted. The last date that his leave would run out was October 30, 1998. Ms. Pamela Love-Knerr conducted an initial evaluation/screening of Respondent in September 1998, in preparation for his admission to the residential treatment program at Bridge House, a residential treatment program operated by Meridian Behavioral Health Care, Inc. She was a counselor at Bridge House until November 1998. However, she did not conduct group sessions at Bridge House after January 1998, when, due to her health problems, she was assigned to the night shift. In August 1998, she was assigned to the evening shift. Respondent entered the Sid Martin Bridge House on October 2, 1998, and was discharged or transferred from the residential program on Friday, October 23, 1998. Also on Friday October 23, 1998, Respondent telephoned the office of Catherine L. Birdsong, Petitioner's personnel supervisor, and her secretary made him an appointment to see Ms. Birdsong the following Monday about returning to work. On October 23, 1998, Respondent's Bridge House counselor of record was Larry Faulkner, not Ms. Love-Knerr. However, since the time of her initial evaluation/screening of Respondent, Ms. Love-Knerr had been the only counselor at Bridge House who maintained regular contact with Ms. Birdsong. On October 23, 1998, Ms. Birdsong believed that Ms. Love-Knerr was the counselor assigned to Respondent. While at Bridge House, Respondent had attended therapy meetings every day, and his urine tests had been drug-free. On October 18, 1998, Respondent and his counselor, Larry Faulkner, had agreed upon an "after care" program, to begin on November 1, 1998, consisting of a schedule of meetings of a men's group, an anger management group, Narcotics Anonymous, and Alcoholics Anonymous. It was planned that Respondent would not return to work until a week or two had passed, so that he could "get [himself] together." The period from October 23, 1998, to November 1, 1998, was intended by Respondent and his counselor, Larry Faulkner, as an interim between residential treatment and "after care." Normally, a client of Bridge House would participate in an "after care" program even after he returned to work. On October 23, 1998, after learning that Respondent wanted to return to work, Ms. Birdsong telephoned Bridge House and spoke to Pamela Love-Knerr. Ms. Love-Knerr told Ms. Birdsong that Respondent had completed the Bridge House residential program; that she was recommending an "after care" program for him; and that she was releasing him for work. Mr. Faulkner may not have been aware that Ms. Love- Knerr and Ms. Birdsong had spoken by telephone on October 23, 1998. Ms. Love-Knerr shared office space with Mr. Faulkner at that time, and because Bridge House was under-staffed, Ms. Love- Knerr was assisting him in getting caught up on his paperwork. Ms. Birdsong considered the written continuing care contract for Respondent, together with her October 23, 1998, telephone conversation with Ms. Love-Knerr, and determined that Respondent had completed the residential part of his rehabilitation; that he was in or would be in a "after care" program; and that he would be able to return to work immediately. Petitioner's decision to return an employee to work is normally made by the Petitioner's District Drug Free Workplace Coordinator after discussing it with the returning employee's drug/alcohol counselor. On Monday, October 26, 1998, at approximately 9:00 a.m., Respondent met, in person, with Ms. Birdsong at her office. They discussed his impressions of the Bridge House program and his desire to return to work. Because his leave was only approved through the end of that work-week, October 30, 1998, it was arranged, through a speaker-phone conversation with Respondent's immediate supervisor, that Respondent would return to work on Monday, November 2, 1998. Ms. Birdsong then sent Respondent for a follow-up drug test for return to duty. Ms. Birdsong informed Respondent that he should report for a drug test by 10:00 a.m., that morning, October 26, 1998. It is Petitioner's normal practice to require employees who are returning from a rehabilitation program to take a drug test prior to returning to work. Respondent went to Doctor's Laboratory of Gainesville as instructed, and provided a urine specimen for drug testing at 10:00 a.m. on October 26, 1998. Respondent's specimen was transported by courier to Doctor's Laboratory in Valdosta, Georgia, where it was tested and confirmed positive for cocaine metabolites as benzozlecgonine. Doctor's Laboratory reported the test result to MRO Services, Inc., in Brunswick, Georgia. After a review of the test results and a telephone consultation with Respondent, the Medical Review Officer, Robert H. Miller, M.D., reported to Petitioner that Respondent's drug test was positive for cocaine metabolites.1 On November 2, 1998, Respondent met again with Ms. Birdsong. She explained to him that because of the positive result of his October 26, 1998, drug test, he might be recommended for termination. She gave him written notice to schedule a pre-termination conference within five days. On November 5, 1998, Respondent and his mother met with Synester P. Jones, Petitioner's Assistant Superintendent for Human Resources, in a pre-termination conference. Ms. Jones explained the procedure for drug testing. She also informed Respondent in writing that, based on his second positive drug test, she would recommend suspension and termination. At its regular meeting on November 17, 1998, Petitioner School Board suspended Respondent without pay, effective November 18, 1998, pending disposition of the instant proceeding.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Alachua County School Board enter a final order terminating Respondent for violating its drug-free workplace policy and his rehabilitation contract. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 1999, 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of August, 1999.
