The Issue Whether Petitioner, Dr. Herbert R. Slavin, is entitled to an award of attorney's fees and costs in an amount not exceeding $50,000 pursuant to section 57.111, Florida Statutes (2011).
Findings Of Fact Dr. Slavin, a licensed physician who specializes in internal medicine, has practiced in the state of Florida since 1981. In or around 2008, Dr. Slavin formed, and is the sole shareholder of, "Ageless Medicine Associates," a subchapter S corporation1/ under which he practices medicine. On October 31, 2011, the Department filed an Administrative Complaint that charged Dr. Slavin with two statutory violations, both of which were ultimately dismissed by the Board of Medicine. In connection with that proceeding, Dr. Slavin now seeks an award of attorney's fees and costs pursuant to section 57.111. As explained later in this Final Order, a party seeking fees and costs pursuant to section 57.111 must demonstrate that he or she was a "small business party" at the time the underlying action was initiated by the state——in this instance, October 31, 2011. Section 57.111(3)(d) contemplates that a small business party can take four alternative forms, only two of which require discussion here: a partnership or corporation, including a professional practice, that, during the relevant timeframe, had 25 or fewer full-time employees or a net worth of not more than $2,000,000 (section 57.111(3)(d)1.b.); or an individual whose net worth did not exceed $2,000,000 during the relevant period (section 57.111(3)(d)1.c.). The evidence establishes that, as of October 2011, Ageless Medicine Associates had fewer than 25 employees and a net worth that did not exceed $2,000,000. The problem, though, and as discussed elsewhere in this Order, is that section 57.111(3)(d)1.b. has no application where, as in this case, the underlying complaint was filed against a licensee individually, rather than the partnership or corporation under which the licensee conducts business. As for Dr. Slavin's personal finances, his 2011 tax return reflects income of $171,810, virtually all of which comprises wages and business income derived from Ageless Medicine Associates, and an adjusted gross income of $161,400. The remainder of Dr. Slavin's financial picture (including, for example, any assets on hand that did not generate taxable income) during October 2011 is nebulous, however, for nearly all of his testimony focused incorrectly on his finances at the time of the final hearing: Q. Are you, doctor, currently worth $2,000,000? A. No. * * * Q. Dr. Slavin, do you own a home? A. Yes. Q. How much, if you know, is that home worth? A. Probably around $300,000 to $350,000. Q. And do you have a mortgage on that home? A. Yes. Q. How much is the mortgage; do you know? A. $145,000. Q. And do you have any cash in the bank? A. Yes. Q. How much? A. Around $10,000 . . . . * * * Q. Do you own any boats? A. No. Q. Do you own any vacation homes? A. No. Q. Do you own any interest in any other businesses? A. No. Q. Do you have a lot of stock accounts? A. No. * * * Q. Okay. Is there any other asset that you have that has not been mentioned; your home, your business? Do you own your vehicles? A. No, they're leased. Q. Do you own any other stocks or bonds that provide you with an income or that are worth money, that you know of? A. No. * * * Q. Dr. Slavin, you testified that -- You were asked by counsel whether or not you had a lot of stocks or bonds as assets and you stated no. Do you -- what does a lot mean? A. Well, I have -- I don't have any direct ownership of stocks or bonds. There are some annuities I have that have, I guess, investments and mutual funds or something. You know, I'm not -– * * * Q. Dr. Slavin, have you presented any information or any documentation as to what items are within your home? A. Not that I'm aware of. I have a television, -- Q. Do you have -- A. -- a refrigerator and -- Q. Do you have furniture in your home? A. Yeah. I have furniture, a refrigerator, stove, microwave. I have -- Q. Do you have computer equipment in your home? A. I have laptop computers in the home. Q. Do you have any personal items; jewelry, watches in your home? A. I have -– Yes, I have watches. Final Hearing Transcript, pp. 23; 25-28; 30-31 (emphasis added). Even assuming, arguendo, that Dr. Slavin's testimony had been properly oriented to the relevant time period (which it was not, in nearly all instances), his overall evidentiary presentation was simply too fragmentary to permit the undersigned to independently determine the value of his net worth——a figure derived2/ by subtracting total liabilities from total assets. For example, Dr. Slavin provided: no information concerning his annuities and mutual funds, the value of which could be non- trivial due to the remunerative nature his profession and his length of time in practice; no details regarding the value of his household assets; and no credible evidence regarding the value of his home.3/ In light of these gaping holes in the evidence, which preclude anything more than rank speculation concerning the value of Dr. Slavin's personal net worth, it is determined that status as a small business party has not been proven.4/ Because Dr. Slavin's failure to establish his status as a small business party is fatal to his application for attorney's fees, it is unnecessary to determine whether the underlying proceeding was substantially justified.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, Conval-Care, Inc., is entitled to the payment of attorney fees and costs pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, from the Agency for Health Care Administration, the successor in interest to the Respondent, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services.
Findings Of Fact By letter dated November 4, 1991, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), notified Conval-Care, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Conval-Care"), that it intended to impose an administrative fine on Conval-Care pursuant to Section 409.913(9)(c), Florida Statutes. Conval-Care contested the proposed fine and requested a formal administrative hearing, including a request that it be awarded attorney fees and costs pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. The matter was designated case number 92-0126 and was assigned to the Honorable Judge Robert T. Benton, then Hearing Officer Benton. On June 30, 1993, following a formal hearing held on March 24, 1993, Hearing Officer Benton entered a Recommended Order recommending dismissal of the sanctions letter of November 4, 1991. The findings of fact made by Hearing Officer Benton, in Conval-Care, Inc. v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, DOAH Case No. 92-0126, are hereby adopted to the extent relevant to this proceeding. On September 19, 1993, the Department entered a Final Order. The Department accepted and incorporated into its Final Order the findings of fact made by Hearing Officer Benton. The Department, however, rejected Hearing Officer Benton's conclusions of law to the extent that he not had concluded that Conval-Care lacked authority to reject the demand for its records which was the subject of the proceedings. The Department concluded that, in light of the fact that Conval-Care had acted on the advice of counsel, it would reduce the fine from $25,000.00 to $5,000.00. The Department's decision was appealed by Conval-Care. On December 16, 1994, the District Court of Appeal, First District, filed an opinion reversing the Department's Final Order. Mandate from the First District was entered January 3, 1995. On February 14, 1995, Conval-Care filed a Petition for Attorneys Fees and Costs in this case. Conval-Care requested an award of $15,000.00 as a small business party pursuant to the provisions of Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. Attached to the Petition were the Final Order entered by the Department, the Recommended Order, the First District's Opinion and Mandate, an Attorney's Affidavit stating the nature, extent and monetary value of the services rendered and costs incurred in the proceedings, the Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing filed by Conval-Care in 1991 and the Department's November 4, 1991 sanctions letter. On March 2, 1995, the Agency for Health Care Administration, the successor in interest of the Department (hereinafter referred to as "AHCA"), filed a Response in Opposition to Petition for Attorney's Fees and Costs. 10 In its Response, AHCA admitted all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 6 and 8 through 9 of the Petition. AHCA denied the allegations of paragraph 7 of the Petition. Paragraph 7 of the Petition alleged the following: 7. The action of DHRS, in filing the admini- strative complaint against CCI, was not sub- stantially justified because there was no reasonable basis in law or fact to support the issuance of its letter seeking to impose an administrative fine upon CCI. Attached to the Response was an Affidavit from John M. Whiddon in support of its position that its actions were substantially justified. The Affidavit does not add any alleged credible justification not presented to Hearing Officer Benton or the First District Court of Appeal. AHCA did not assert in it Response the following: that the costs and attorney's fees claimed in Conval-Care's affidavit were unreasonable; that Conval-Care is not a prevailing small business party; that circumstances exist that would make an award unjust; or that AHCA was a nominal party only. AHCA also did not "either admit to the reasonableness of the fees and costs claimed or file a counter affidavit [specifying each item of costs and fee in dispute] along with its response." Finally, AHCA did not request an evidentiary hearing in its Response. The only issue which AHCA asserted in its Response was at issue in this proceeding is whether AHCA's actions were substantially justified. On April 6, 1995, an Order to Provide Information was entered. Although the parties had not requested an evidentiary hearing, the undersigned entered the Order soliciting input from the parties before the undersigned decided whether a hearing was necessary on the one issue raised by the Department. In the Order, the parties were given an opportunity to provide input concerning the procedures they believed should be followed to resolve this matter. The parties were specifically requested to answer certain specified questions, including the following: 1. Do the parties believe that an [sic] hearing is necessary to resolve any factual disputes and/or for purposes of oral argument before a decision is rendered? * * * 5. Do the parties agree that the documents attached to the Petition and the Response should be considered in rendering a decision in this case? . . ." Conval-Care filed a response to the April 6, 1995 Order indicating that there was no need for a hearing. Conval-Care asserted that a hearing would be improper unless Conval-Care consents to one. Conval-Care also asserted that all of the documents attached to petition should be considered. AHCA filed a response to the April 6, 1995 Order indicating that "[t]he Respondent feels a hearing in this matter is essential." AHCA did not provide any explanation of why it believed a hearing was necessary or any discussion of whether a hearing was authorized under the applicable statutes and rules. AHCA also indicated in its response that it "agrees that the documents attached to the Petition and Response should be considered in this case " On May 19, 1995, an Order Concerning Final Order was entered. Based upon a review of the pleadings and the lack of explanation from either party to justify an evidentiary hearing, it was concluded that no evidentiary hearing was necessary. Therefore, the parties were informed in the May 19, 1995 Order that a hearing would not be held in this case. The parties were also informed that they could file proposed final orders on or before May 30, 1995. Conval-Care filed a proposed order. AHCA did not. Neither Conval-Care nor AHCA timely requested an evidentiary hearing in this case. Both parties agreed that the documentation filed with Conval- Care's Petition and AHCA's Response could be relied upon in reaching a decision in this case. Based upon AHCA's failure to contest most of the relevant issues in this proceeding, the only issue which requires a decision if whether the Department's actions against Conval-Care were substantially justified. The documents, including the Mr. Whiddon's Affidavit filed by AHCA with its Response, sufficiently explain why the Department took the actions it took against Conval-Care which led to this proceeding. No evidentiary hearing was, therefore, necessary. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the Department's actions in this matter were substantially justified. The Department could have sought the information it wanted by pursuing available discovery. Counsel for Conval-Care even remained the Department of the availability of discovery. The Department, however, rather than pursuing the information which it indicated it needed, elected to pursue a punitive action against Conval-Care rather than obtaining the information through discovery. The Department's reason for pursuing punitive actions against Conval-Care was not convincing to Hearing Officer Benton. Despite this fact, the Department entered a Final Order upholding its actions and imposing a fine of $5,000.00 for refusing to provide it with information which it could have obtained through other means. The First District Court reversed the Department's Final Order opining that the Department "lacked a legitimate investigatory purpose for demanding the records" which gave rise to its action against Conval-Care. Finally, the entire record in this case failed to indicate that there was any basis in law or fact to substantially justify the actions of the Department.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a "small business party" sole proprietorship domiciled in Tampa, Florida, with less than 25 employees, and a net worth of less than $2 million. The Respondent previously initiated action against Petitioner as a result of a Medicaid audit of Petitioner's pharmacy and identified an overpayment which it then sought to recover from Petitioner. A timely request for hearing was filed by Petitioner, and the matter was transmitted by the Respondent to the Division of Administrative Hearings where it was assigned Case Number 88-1668. The final hearing was held in Tampa, Florida, on June 22, 1988, before Donald D. Conn, Hearing Officer, and thereafter a Recommended Order was filed on August 17, 1988, which recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing its action against Petitioner, refunding any funds which it had withheld, plus interest, and removing all other sanctions. The Respondent approved and adopted this recommendation in its Final Order entered on September 15, 1988, by the terms of which Petitioner prevailed in the prior action initiated by the Respondent. The Respondent was not a nominal party to the prior proceedings, and there is nothing in the record to show that the Respondent was substantially justified in bringing the prior action, or that any special circumstances exist which would make an award of fees and costs unjust. On November 2, 1988, a Petition for Costs and Attorney's Fees was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings by the Petitioner. The Petition is accompanied by an affidavit and supporting documents which are uncontroverted, and which establish that Petitioner incurred legal fees in the amount of $14,587.50 and costs of $1,437.77, as a result of the prior proceedings in Case Number 88-1668. In the Petition for Costs and Fees, the Petitioner specifically indicated that an evidentiary hearing was not requested. No responsive pleading of any kind has been filed on behalf of the Respondent to this Petition for Costs and Fees.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether the Petitioner is a prevailing small business party as defined by law.
Findings Of Fact The administrative complaint in Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine v. Beltran J. Pages, DOAH Case No. 87-4157, DPR Case No. 30291, was filed on September 23, 1987. This case was consolidated with another case then pending against Dr. Pages, DOAH Case No. 87-1882. On October 15, 1987, an order was entered which denied Dr. Pages' request to dismiss Case No. 87-4157. The hearing for both cases was conducted on January 26-27, 1988. Pertinent to this cause is the following finding of fact reached in the Pages' order: Respondent is a board certified psychiatrist who has practiced in the Palm Beach County area since July, 1981. Respondent left private practice in September, 1985, and is currently employed at the South Florida Evaluation and Treatment Center, an HRS facility for the criminally insane. An exception was not filed to the finding of fact described in paragraph 4.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Raul Romaguera, is a small business party within the meaning of Subsection 57.111(3)(d), Florida Statutes (1985). When the underlying action herein occurred, he was licensed as a medical doctor by respondent, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medical Examiners (Board). On October 27, 1986, respondent filed an administrative complaint against Dr. Romaguera alleging that he had violated Subsection 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes (1985), by committing gross malpractice or failing to practice medicine with that level of care, skill, and treatment which is recognized by a reasonably prudent similar physician as being acceptable under similar conditions and circumstances. The alleged violation related to Dr. Romaguera's inspection and diagnosis of a patient's tissue in December, 1980 while supervising a pathology department at a Lake Worth hospital. After an evidentiary hearing was conducted on March 24 and 25, 1987, a Recommended Order was entered by the undersigned on May 12, 1987, finding that the charge was unsubstantiated and recommending that the complaint be dismissed. The Recommended Order was adopted by the Board in its entirety by Final Order dated June 19, 1987. A timely petition for attorney's fees and costs was thereafter filed by petitioner on August 18, 1987. The parties have stipulated that, as a result of the Board's Final Order, Dr. Romaguera is a prevailing small business party within the meaning of Section 57.111, Florida Statutes (1985). They have also stipulated that, in order to defend against the agency's action, Dr. Romaguera incurred at least $15,000 in attorney's fees and costs. There is no evidence as to what information, oral or written, the probable cause panel had before it when voting to initiate this action. The agency does stipulate that, at some point in the probable cause phase of the proceeding, the panel requested more information on the matter before taking a vote. This is corroborated by an agency memorandum dated April 8, 1986 and introduced into evidence as petitioner's exhibit 1. At the final hearing on the merits of the administrative complaint, the agency presented a number of expert witnesses who concurred in the Board's assessment that Dr. Romaguera had failed to practice medicine with that level of care, skill and treatment required of a reasonably prudent similar practicing physician in the Lake Worth area. Doctor Romaguera also presented the testimony of an expert who disagreed with this assessment. Hence, the validity of the charges turned on the credibility and weight to be given the various experts by the undersigned.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Patricia Smithwick Valz, is entitled to an award of attorney's fees as a "prevailing small business party" in the underlying administrative proceeding.
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Petitioner is entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs in accordance with Section 57.111, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner filed an application for a real estate sales license on January 22, 1991. Respondent denied Petitioner's application on April 25, 1991, thereby initiating agency action. The sole basis for the denial of Petitioner's application was the fact that Petitioner was named as a defendant in multiple civil lawsuits filed in United States District Court. The law suits arose from the failure of Centrust Savings Bank ("Centrust"). Petitioner was President of Centrust from February, 1988, to sometime in July, 1989. He served on the Board of Directors of Centrust from August, 1987, until sometime in July, 1989. Prevailing Party Petitioner was the prevailing party in the underlying proceeding. A Recommended Order was entered on January 23, 1992, recommending that Respondent grant Petitioner's application. Shealy v. Florida Real Estate Commission, DOAH Case No. 91-3147. Respondent entered a Final Order on February 21, 1992, adopting ". . . all Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation . . ." Respondent granted Petitioner's application for license upon successful completion of the written examination. Petitioner successfully completed the written examination and was licensed as a real estate sales agent on March 27, 1992. Since October 7, 1992, Petitioner has been employed as an independent real estate agent with the firm of Real Estate Transactions, Inc., in Miami, Florida ("RET"). Small Business Party Petitioner became self-employed as a financial consultant in January, 1991. From January 17, 1991, through October 6, 1992, Petitioner conducted his financial consulting business in corporate form through WDS Investment, Inc. ("WDS"). WDS was a small business corporation wholly owned by Petitioner and his wife. 1/ Petitioner intended to utilize his real estate license, and a mortgage broker's license he obtained in the Summer of 1991, as an integral part of the financial consulting business he conducted through WDS. In response to a question asking Petitioner to explain his use of the term "self employed," Petitioner stated: I had started WDS Investments. . . . I was unemployed in the tradition[al] sense having been employed for years more as a professional in the financial services field In essence, I was going to try to build a consulting practice. I wanted to get my real estate license and my mortgage brokers license. Transcript at 20. Petitioner and WDS were one and the same entity. Petitioner was the sole managing shareholder and officer in WDS. Petitioner was the only person active in WDS and had exclusive management control of the corporation. Petitioner regarded WDS as his corporation, regarded himself as self employed, and operated WDS as his corporation. Petitioner is the party claiming fees and costs and the prevailing party in the underlying proceeding. After Respondent initiated agency action on April 25, 1991, Petitioner had other business activities in addition to his financial consulting business. Petitioner obtained his mortgage broker license in the Summer of 1991. From that time through October 6, 1992, Petitioner worked as an independent mortgage broker and loan consultant with Financial Monitors, Inc. ("Monitors"). Petitioner was an independent contractor and not an employee of Monitors. Petitioner had no ownership interest in Monitors. Petitioner was employed by Securnet Financial Corporation ("Securnet") from August 1, 1991, to the end of 1991. Petitioner was employed as a manager and had no ownership interest in Securnet. Petitioner's employment with Securnet did not begin until after Respondent initiated agency action on April 25, 1991. His employment with Securnet terminated prior to the commencement of this proceeding on May 26, 1992. Petitioner became employed as an independent sales agent with RET on October 7, 1992. Petitioner's status as an employee with RET began after agency action was initiated on April 25, 1991, and after this proceeding was initiated on May 26, 1992. Petitioner is a small business party within the meaning of Section 57.111(3)(d)1., Florida Statutes. Petitioner is domiciled in Florida and has been so domiciled since before this proceeding began on May 26, 1992. The principal office of WDS has been located in the state since January 17, 1991. Petitioner conducted his financial consulting business in corporate form on April 25, 1991. Since January, 1991, Petitioner has had no more than 25 employees and a net worth of no more than $2 million, including both personal and business investments, either directly or by attribution from his wife, WDS, and his other business activities. Not Substantially Justified Respondent was not substantially justified in denying Petitioner's license application. Respondent had no reasonable basis in law or fact to deny Petitioner's application. Respondent cited no legal authority to support its denial of Petitioner's application solely on the basis of Petitioner's status as a defendant in civil litigation. Respondent presented no evidence that it undertook an independent determination of the truthfulness or credibility of the allegations in the litigation, no independent evidence to support such allegations, and no evidence to support any other factual basis for Respondent's denial of Petitioner's application. Respondent presented no evidence of Petitioner's lack of qualification to be licensed as a real estate sales agent. Petitioner made a full and timely disclosure on his application that he was a defendant in civil litigation. Respondent presented no evidence that the allegations in the civil lawsuits were anything other than allegations against numerous officers and directors of Centrust. Respondent presented no evidence of an adjudication of Petitioner's guilt. Respondent presented no evidence to rebut or refute Petitioner's showing that Petitioner is honest, truthful, trustworthy, of good moral character, and has an impeccable reputation for honesty and fair dealing in the business community. Fees And Costs The attorney fees and costs claimed by Petitioner are reasonable and necessary. Petitioner presented credible and persuasive expert evidence that the attorney fees and costs are reasonable and necessary.
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be awarded attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act (the Act), Section 57.111, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact These proceedings arise out of DOAH Case No. 01-2928, Department of Health, Board of Physical Therapy v. Raymond H. Cralle. There, a Recommended Order was entered on November 27, 2001, which recommended entry of a final order dismissing all charges against Petitioner. On February 8, 2002, Respondent filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings a final order of dismissal in that case. Petitioner, the prevailing small business party within the meaning of Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, timely filed his request for fees and costs pursuant to the Act. Respondent does not dispute the reasonableness of the attorney's fees claimed in the total amount of $10,050.00, nor does it dispute that costs in the amount of $2,655.95 were incurred by Cralle in the underlying case. The entire record in this case, which includes a transcript of the probable cause hearing, considered in light of the entire record in Case No. 01-2928, establishes that the total amount of fees and costs claimed here were necessarily and reasonably incurred in the successful defense of the administrative charges. In opposition to Cralle's request for reimbursement pursuant to the provisions of the Act, Respondent argues that the case falls within an exception for proceedings which were "substantially justified" at the time the charges were brought. The crux of Respondent's argument is that "[the] Administrative Law Judge decided the case primarily on the basis that, in her belief, based on the demeanor of the complainant, [Respondent] was more credible than the complainant." Respondent's argument requires that material facts be ignored. In the underlying case, Respondent had the burden to prove the administrative charges by clear and convincing evidence. Yet its factual case was based exclusively upon the testimony of Helen Mesa (Mesa). Mesa's demeanor was just one of several things noted in the Recommended Order which cast doubt upon her credibility. At the time of the probable cause hearing, it was known, or at least knowable, that Mesa fit the profile of the stereotypical "disgruntled former employee." At least a half dozen witnesses could have been expected to corroborate Mesa's testimony, and at the probable cause stage of the proceedings, Respondent's own expert recommended that at least some of these individuals be found and interviewed. With this red flag flying, and Cralle's attorney protesting that Mesa's story should be corroborated in some fashion before the litigation process was set in motion, Respondent elected to proceed on a needlessly thin investigation.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Paul E. Flasher, II, was certified as a certified public accountant by the Florida Board of Accountancy under License No. 4739 in 1975. His license reverted to inactive status on January 1, 1982, for failure to meet continuing professional educational requirements. On May 31, 1979, Respondent was charged under a direct information for fraud license (seven counts) and grand theft in the second degree (seven counts) in the Circuit Court for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit of the State of Florida, alleging his improper taking or using various sums of cash from the Terrace Village Apartments Partnership by which he was employed during the period July 5, 1977, through October 10, 1978. On February 15, 1980, the Direct Information was amended in an action which dismissed the first seven counts (grand larceny) and recharged the seven counts of grand theft in the second degree. Respondent was tried on the remaining seven counts and convicted of four separate counts, which alleged grand theft in the second degree on February 3, 1978; April 10, 1978; June 13, 1978; and October 10, 1978, respectively. He was thereafter sentenced to be imprisoned for the term of five years on each of the four counts of which he was convicted, each count to run concurrently. The conviction was affirmed on appeal to the District Court of Appeal for the Second District in an opinion filed November 25, 1981. A petition for review to the Supreme Court of Florida was dismissed on January 27, 1982. The crimes of which the Respondent was convicted arose out of his use of partnership monies for his personal purposes. Mr. Flasher indicated that the partnership monies he utilized by purchasing items for his personal use and then writing a partnership check in payment were in fact owed to him as payment for his managerial services and that he paid by partnership check to take advantage of the partnership quantity discounts. Mr. Flasher also contended that at the times he converted the monies in question, he was acting as a manager/partner in the organization, and not in the capacity as a certified public accountant. The documents to support this managerial relationship were never drafted, nor was the partnership ever legally constituted, however, Therefore, his relationship to the other principals was not as a partner, but as an employee, the primary entree to which was his certified public accountant status for his former client, Mr. Ed Roseman. On February 4, 1982, Respondent offered to make restitution in the amount of $1,469.74.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found guilty of repeated violations of the statutes cited in the Administrative Complaint. That Respondent's license to practice as a certified public accountant be revoked. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 1st day of February, 1983. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of February, 1983.
