The Issue Whether Petitioner’s applications for a Florida Educator’s Certificate (teaching certificate) should be denied on the grounds set forth in the Notice of Reasons issued by Respondent on April 20, 2005.
Findings Of Fact At times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner was employed as a behavioral specialist by Tri-County, an entity that provided certain employees to the School Board. Pursuant to his employment with Tri-County during the 2003-04 school year, Petitioner worked at Port St. Lucie High School (PSLHS) in a classroom for students who had been identified by the School Board’s Exceptional Student Education (ESE) Program as being severely emotionally disturbed (SED). Petitioner has never been employed directly by the School Board. Petitioner’s position with Tri-County did not require that he have a teaching certificate. Likewise, the work Petitioner did in the SED class pursuant to the contract between Tri-County and the School Board did not require that he have a teaching certificate. For reasons that were not revealed at the formal hearing, the SED teacher with whom Petitioner worked left his or her employment during the school year. As a result of the teacher’s absence, Petitioner took over the SED for a short period of time. There was no evidence that Petitioner’s continued employment was dependent on his having a teaching certificate. The school administration of PSLHS was required to annually check the certification of each teacher at the school and to submit to the School Board a report listing any educator who was teaching outside of his or her certified field. This report is called an “out of field” report. For the school year 2003–04, Ms. Brooks, the assistant principal of PSLHS, was required to prepare the out-of-field report for the school. Ms. Brooks initially listed Petitioner as teaching out of field. However, while preparing the out of field report, Ms. Brooks discovered what appeared to be a temporary teaching certificate bearing Petitioner’s name (the subject certificate). The subject certificate reflected that Petitioner was certified in ESE for grades K-12 for the period July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2005. Ms. Brooks located the subject certificate in a binder that contained photocopies of teaching certificates for all of the PSLHS instructional personnel. The subject certificate looked suspicious to Ms. Brooks because it had no certification number on it and because Petitioner’s name was written in a different font than the font that is typically used on teacher’s certificates. Ms. Brooks promptly reported the suspicious certificate to Ms. Thompson at the School Board office. Ms. Thompson immediately called Ms. White at the Florida Department of Education (FDOE) offices in Tallahassee. Upon investigation with the FDOE, it was discovered that the subject certificate was fraudulent. The FDOE has never issued a teaching certificate to Petitioner of any kind. Ms. Brooks testified that photocopies of teaching certificates are provided to the school by teachers and that as far as she knew, no one other than the teacher would have a copy of the teacher’s teaching certificate. It is clear from her testimony that Ms. Brooks was referring to certified teachers with properly-issued teaching certificates. It is also clear from her testimony that Ms. Brooks had no first-hand knowledge as to how or when the subject certificate was placed in the binder. Petitioner testified that he did not provide the school the subject certificate. Petitioner testified that he did not know who would have provided the subject fraudulent teaching certificate to the PSLHS and offered no other explanation as to its existence. The undersigned concludes that the evidence presented by Respondent is insufficient to establish that Petitioner furnished the subject certificate to the administration of PSLHS.3 Petitioner applied to FDOE for a teaching certificate on two occasions. Neither application has been processed to completion. On December 19, 2001, Petitioner applied for a teaching certificate in the field of athletic coaching. On December 22, 2003, Petitioner applied for a teaching certificate in the field of physical education. Those teaching certificates were never issued because Petitioner’s prior criminal history caused Professional Practices Services (PPS) to place a hold on his applications4 and because Petitioner has not provided an official transcript documenting his college degree.5 Those reasons were in addition to the reasons set forth in the Notice of Reasons dated April 20, 2005.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order deny Petitioner’s applications for teaching certificates. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of June, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 9th day of June, 2006.
The Issue The issue is whether the Petitioner is entitled to receive a Florida Educator's Certificate, or whether he should be denied a certificate based on the allegations in the Amended Notice of Reasons dated January 30, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Allen Dubois, (Petitioner or Mr. Dubois) received his bachelor's degree in physical sciences and chemistry, with a minor in mathematics in 1972. From 1972 to 1992, he worked for the United States Postal Service and as a tennis instructor. In 1992, Mr. Dubois received his master's degree in health education and nutrition, and began teaching in New York City high schools. Mr. Dubois was licensed to teach in New York with a certificate of qualification (CQ), the equivalent of a provisional or temporary teaching certificate. In New York, the CQ differs from other types of temporary teaching certificates only because it allows someone who may not be teaching full-time to have additional time to meet the requirements to secure a permanent teaching certificate. In April 1994, Mr. Dubois filed an application with New York State Education Department for a permanent certificate to teach biology and general sciences in grades 7-12. In March 1994, a sixteen-year old female student alleged Petitioner had engaged her in an inappropriate relationship and forced her to have sexual intercourse with him. Mr. Dubois was placed on paid leave through the end of the school year, June 1994. Mr. Dubois denied the allegations, and continues to maintain the allegations are false. He does admit to having had several conversations with the student that made him feel "uncomfortable," that included information about her mother's boyfriend and her showing him pictures of her baby. He concedes that, on a Friday evening following a sports event at the school, she walked with him some distance from the school to his parked car and that he offered her a ride. Mr. Dubois said that as she was getting in the car, "[w]e saw the bus coming and then she decided to take the bus." Mr. Dubois admitted calling the girl's house a day or two after he offered her a ride, but stated that she was not there and he talked to her grandmother. After that, Mr. Dubois continued to have conversations with a member of the girl’s family. The allegations were investigated and presented to a grand jury that, in October or November 1994, failed to indict Mr. Dubois. After he was fired from his job as a teacher by the Board of Education of New York City, Mr. Dubois apparently did not pursue the matter at a hearing, as he could have, but instead moved to Florida in December 1994, where he has lived since then. When he first came to Florida, Mr. Dubois was employed with the State Department of Labor and Employment Security. Among other duties, Mr. Dubois provided seminars and workshops on how individuals could file applications for employment with the State of Florida. Since that time, he has gone on to work for another state agency and, at some time, also taught at a community college in St. Lucie County. On July 22, 2003, Mr. Dubois filed an application for a Florida Educator's Certificate. On the application, he listed his teaching experience in New York City. Question #29 on the application is titled "Revocation" and requires a yes or no response to the following question: "Have you ever had a teaching certificate revoked, suspended or denied by any state, or is there any action pending against your certificate or application? If YES, you must give the state, reason, and year in which your certificate was revoked, suspended, denied, or in which action is pending against your certification or application." Petitioner answered "no" to the question. A letter, dated October 3, 1995, from New York City investigators to the New York State Commissioner of Education indicated that Mr. Dubois was “. . . currently suspended from service.” There is no evidence that the City had the authority to suspend his certificate. In fact, the letter was intended to give notice to the State so that it could take disciplinary action against the certificate. On June 12, 1996, the Commissioner of Education of the State of New York filed a Notice of Substantial Question as to Moral Character, charging Mr. Dubois with having sexual intercourse with the sixteen-year old female student on or about March 25, 1994. The Notice offered an opportunity for a hearing, if requested within 30 days. Mr. Dubois received the Notice, but testified that he did not recall responding to it. He did recognize a letter, in his hand writing, that he must have written on or about September 26, 1996, ". . . acknowledging that New York is questioning my moral character" and asking the New York authorities to contact the attorney who handled the criminal charges against him. Mr. Dubois testified that he had a telephone conversation, in 1998, with an attorney for the New York State Department of Education, who indicated that he had been unable to contact the criminal attorney who previously represented Mr. Dubois. Mr. Dubois testified that, ". . . it was not my intention to pursue a teaching license in New York. At that point in 1998 I was not inclined to want to become a public school teacher." As a result of the telephone discussion, Mr. Dubois entered into an agreement with the New York State Education Department that provides as follows: This is written confirmation of the fact that the parties have agreed to settle this matter and not proceed to a hearing under the provisions of Part 83 of the regulations of the Commissioner of Education. The Education Department will withdraw the Part 83 charges now pending against Allen J. DuBois in return for the surrender of his certificate of qualification of a teacher of biology and general science 7-12 and the withdrawal of his pending application for permanent certificate in the same areas. Allen J. DuBois, by this agreement, neither admits nor denies the allegations in the Notice of Substantial Question dated June 12, 1996, but acknowledges that he is unable to defend against them at this time. Upon surrender, the Department will notify all licensing and credentialing agencies and jurisdictions who participate in the National Association of State Directors of Teacher Education and Certification (NASDTEC) and advise them of the surrender and withdrawal but will not otherwise disclose nor make public the contents of this agreement or the charges contained in the Notice unless required by law or upon an order of a court of competent jurisdiction. Allen J. DuBois reserves his right in the future to apply to the Education Department for certification as a teacher in biology and general science 7-12 or any other area and will be held harmless from any changes in the educational requirements subsequent to the date of this agreement. However, in the event he makes application for certification in the future, the Education Department reserves its rights under Part 83 of the Regulations including the right to hold a hearing on the issues raise in the Notice. In furtherance of this agreement, Mr. DuBois, shall forward the original certification document to the education department within thirty (30) days or, if said document cannot be located, then he will provide a written statement to that effect. As provided in the agreement, the State of New York filed a form with NASDTEC, reporting that the nature of its action on the CQ was a denial. There is no evidence that Mr. Dubois received a copy of the document. Concerning the agreement, Mr. Dubois said, in his deposition, that he felt “railroaded” into signing it without legal advice, and that (although explicit in the agreement) he did not know that there would be a report to some national network that might keep him from ever getting a teaching job any place in the United States. The NASDTEC document that appeared to contradict the information on his application was received by Respondent, prompting a further investigation of his Florida application. Mr. Dubois testified that he answered "no" to Question 29 on the application because he never had a permanent teaching certificate in New York. He denied that he thought his "provisional status" constituted a certificate. He claimed not to ". . . know that New York City passed something on to New York State," although the agreement he signed was with state authorities. In any event, based on the fact that the CQ was surrendered and the application for a permanent teaching certificate was withdrawn, Mr. Dubois maintains that he did not have to respond affirmatively to the question that was so narrowly worded as to only ask about certificates that were "revoked, suspended or denied" and suggested that "[m]aybe the State of Florida . . . needs to reword the questions on the application. " In an Amended Notice of Reasons dated January 30, 2006, Respondent notified Mr. Dubois that the Department of Education intended to deny his application for a Florida Educator's Certificate. The Amended Notice of Reasons cited six statutory violations and four rule violations as grounds for the denial: Statute Violations Count 1: The Applicant is in violation of Section 1012.56 (2) (e), Florida Statutes, which requires that the holder of a Florida Educator's Certificate be of good moral character. Count 2: The Applicant is in violation of Section 1012.56(12)(a), Florida Statutes, which provides that the Department of Education may deny an Applicant a certificate if the department possesses evidence satisfactory to it that the Applicant has committed an act or acts, or that a situation exists, for which the Education Practices Commission would be authorized to revoke a teaching certificate. Count 3: The Applicant is in violation of Section 1012.795 (1)(a), Florida Statutes, in that he obtained or attempted to obtain an educator's certificate by fraudulent means. Count 4: The Applicant is in violation of Section 1012.795 (1)(c), Florida Statutes, in that he has been guilty of gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude. Count 5: The Applicant is in violation of Section 1012.795(1)(f), Florida Statutes, in that he has been found guilty of personal conduct which seriously reduces his effectiveness as an employee of the school board. Count 6: The Applicant is in violation of Section 1012.795 (1)(I) [sic], Florida Statutes, in that he has violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession prescribed by State Board of Education rules. Rule Violations Count 7: The allegations of misconduct set forth herein are in violation of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, in that Applicant has failed to make reasonable effort to protect the student from conditions harmful to learning and/or to the student's mental health and/or physical health and/or safety. Count 8: The allegations of misconduct set forth herein are in violation of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(e), Florida Administrative Code, in that Applicant has intentionally exposed a student to unnecessary embarrassment or disparagement. Count 9: The allegations of misconduct set forth herein are in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 6B-1.006(3)(h), in that Applicant has harassed or discriminated against a student on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, national or ethnic origin, political beliefs, marital status, handicapping condition, sexual orientation, or social and family background and shall make reasonable effort to assure that each student is protected from harassment of discrimination. Count 10: The allegations of misconduct set forth herein are in violation of Rule 6B-1.006(3)(h), Florida Administrative Code, in that Applicant has exploited a relationship with a student for personal gain or advantage. Respondent offered no competent evidence that Mr. Dubois engaged, as alleged by New York authorities, in any inappropriate relationship with a student and forced her to have sexual intercourse with him. One of Respondent's witnesses testified that she believed the alleged victim has been located and would be available to testify, if needed, but that was not done. Respondent offered no competent evidence that Mr. Dubois' answer to Question 29 was an intentional fraudulent misrepresentation. Mr. Dubois was not credible when he asserted, in a 2006 deposition, (1) that he thought his CQ was not a teaching certificate, (2) that he did not expect New York City to pass information to New York State (although he signed the agreement with the State), or (3) that he was not aware that a report would be sent to a national network. He is correct, however, that the CQ was surrendered and the application was withdrawn, in exchange for not having an action against him proceed to hearing. Because he has no current certificate of application, there is also no action pending against either of these. Without having to answer yes to Question 29, Mr. Dubois did not have to give information concerning the matters that could be the subject of a hearing only if he ever again applies to teach in New York.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner be issued a Florida Educator's Certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of December, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELEANOR M. HUNTER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of December, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Herdman, Esquire Herdman & Sakellarides, P.A. 29605 U.S. Highway 19 North, Suite 110 Clearwater, Florida 33761 Kathleen M. Richards, Executive Director Education Practices Commission Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 224 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Charles T. Whitelock, Esquire Whitelock & Associates, P.A. 300 Southeast 13th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Deborah K. Kearney, General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Marian Lambeth, Bureau Chief Bureau of Professional Practices Services Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 224-E 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact Prior to May 9, 1979, the Respondent held a rank III teacher's certificate issued by the Respondent. The Respondent met, and continues to meet, all requirements for rank III certification. The Respondent was employed in an instructional capacity with the Pinellas County School System from 1970 through June, 1980. The Respondent consistently received excellent evaluations during his tenure with the Pinellas County School System. On February 5, 1979, the Respondent made application to the State Department of Education, Teachers Certification Section, for a rank II teacher's certificate. While it does not appear that the Respondent actually filed the application, it was filed on his behalf and with his knowledge, and he was responsible for its being filed. The application included a transcript of course work which reflected that the Respondent had received a Masters of Education Degree from Florida A&M University on December 15, 1978. The transcript was a forgery. The Respondent had completed some course work toward a Masters Degree, but not nearly sufficient hours of courses to entitle him to a Masters Degree. A friend of the Respondent who was employed at Florida A&M University prepared the false transcript for the Respondent. The Respondent paid this individual $300.00, loaned him $700.00, and provided him with seafood, free lodging and football tickets as compensation for the forged transcript. The Respondent's testimony that the money, loan, and other items were not related to the forged transcript ha been found not credible. The Respondent signed the application, which was supported by the forged transcript. The following statement is set out above his signature: I understand that Florida Statutes provide for revocation of a teacher's certificate if evidence and proof is established that the certificate has been obtained by fraudulent means... I further certify that all information pertaining to this application is true and correct. The signature is notarized as having been sworn to and subscribed. On May 9, 1979, the Department of Education issued a rank II teacher's certificate to the Respondent. The Respondent was not eligible for rank II certification, and he obtained the certificate by fraudulent means. The Respondent filed the rank II certificate with his employer, the Pinellas County School Board, on or about June 13, 1979. As a result, the Respondent obtained an increase in pay retroactive to December 15, 1978. While the Respondent never held any position with the Pinellas County School Board that he would not have been eligible to hold under his rank III certification, he received a total of $1,606.85 in additional compensation based upon the rank II certification. The Respondent would not have received this additional income without submitting the rank II certificate to his employer. During July, 1980, state prosecuting authorities questioned employees of the Pinellas County School Board and the Respondent with respect to his rank II certificate. The Respondent confessed to having received the rank II certificate by fraudulent means. Following the confession the Respondent made full restitution of the $1,606.85 to the Pinellas County School Board. The Respondent was thereafter arrested and charged with grand theft in Pinellas County, Florida, and with forgery and bribery in Leon County, Florida. The charges in Leon County were dropped after the Respondent entered a plea of no contest to the Pinellas County charges. He was adjudicated guilty of the felony of grand theft on October 27, 1980, and placed on three years' probation. The Respondent had been suspended from his employment, and he resigned following his conviction. Several newspaper articles appeared relating to the charges filed against the Respondent and his conviction. The Respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the Pinellas County School System, and as a teacher, has been seriously reduced as a result of his misconduct. The Respondent was cooperative with authorities in connection with the criminal investigation. The Respondent is remorseful, realizes the gravity of his misconduct, and is susceptible of rehabilitation. The Respondent has not been subject to any disciplinary action as a teacher, or through any criminal prosecutions prior to this incident. It does not appear likely that the Respondent will engage in such conduct in the future.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Education Practices Commission enter a final order permanently revoking the rank II teaching certificate that had been issued to the Respondent, Particus B. Blackshear, Jr.; and that the Respondent's eligibility for any teaching certificate be revoked for a period of five years, subject to reinstatement only in accordance with the provisions of Section 231.28(4)(b), Florida Statutes. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of July, 1981 in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: J. David Holder, Esquire MacFarlane, Ferguson, Allison & Kelly 700 Lewis State Bank Building Post Office Box 1548 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Howard P. Rives, Esquire Suite 1000 600 Cleveland Street Clearwater, Florida 33515 Mr. Donald L. Griesheimer Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of July, 1981.
The Issue Whether Respondent's teaching certificate should be revoked, suspended or otherwise disciplined for the violation alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent held a Florida teaching certificate, number 652475, covering the area of substitute teaching, which is valid through June 30, 1993. At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent was an authorized substitute teacher for the Pinellas and Manatee County School Districts. During the spring of 1990 Respondent was employed as a substitute teacher with the Manatee County School District and assigned as a teacher at Southeast High School. Respondent was an authorized substitute teacher for the Pinellas County School District, but after certain allegations arose concerning improper conduct by Respondent toward a student Respondent was not called to substitute. On May 3, 1989, the Respondent was arrested in Pinellas County and charged with soliciting a 14 year old child for sexual activity while in the position of custodial authority to the child. The child was a student in Respondent's class at Baypoint Middle School where Respondent was employed as a teacher by the Pinellas County School District. On May 3, 1989, Respondent was also arrested and charged with unlawfully obtaining a Florida Driver's license. In July 1989, the state attorney filed a two-count Information charging Respondent with procuring a person less than sixteen years for prostitution, and for soliciting for prostitution. Also, in July 1989, the state attorney filed an Information charging Respondent with knowingly making false statements, knowingly concealing a material fact, or otherwise committing fraud in an application for a Florida driver's license. On April 8, 1990, the Respondent was arrested in Pinellas County and charged with driving with a suspended driver's license. On April 27, 1990, the Respondent entered a plea of guilty to the charge of driving with a suspended license and was found guilty. The court withheld adjudication of guilt, and Respondent was ordered to pay $30.00 in costs. On May 4, 1990, Respondent was arrested and charged with petit theft. On June 21, 1990, the state attorney filed an Information charging Respondent with knowingly and unlawfully obtaining or using or endeavoring to obtain to use the property of another, to wit: petit theft, a second degree misdemeanor. On June 30, 1990, the Respondent entered a plea of guilty to the charge of petit theft. The court adjudged the Respondent's guilty and ordered him to pay a fine of $150.00 plus costs. On May 14, 1991, the Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charges of procuring a person less than sixteen years for prostitution, soliciting for prostitution, and making a false application for driver's license. The Respondent was represented by the Public Defender's office. The court withheld adjudication of guilt and imposition of sentence. The Respondent was placed on three years probation which included one year in the Community Control Program. The Respondent did not attempt to refute the above charges at the hearing. The Manatee County School Board became aware of Respondent's arrest in Pinellas County for solicitation of a minor and of certain alleged misconduct toward students at Southeast High School in Manatee County by the Respondent at the end of the 1989-90 school year. However, the Petitioner did not present any competent, substantial evidence of this alleged misconduct. The only evidence presented by the Petitioner was hearsay. There was insufficient evidence to show that Respondent's effectiveness as an employee of the School Board of Manatee County had been seriously reduced as a result of his personal conduct, notwithstanding that the Manatee County School Board would not rehire Respondent as a result of his personal conduct coming to their attention or the fact that his arrest and criminal history was reported in the Bradenton Herald, a daily newspaper circulated generally in Manatee County and the City of Bradenton. On September 4, 1990, in an attempt to secure employment with the District of Columbia Public Schools, Respondent signed a Disclosure Statement under penalty of perjury which included the following statement: I declare or affirm under penalty of perjury that I have not been convicted of, and or/am not the subject of pending charges for, the commission or attempt to commit any of the following offense(s), except as described below: murder; child abuse; rape; a sexual offense involving a minor or non-consenting adult; child pornography; kidnapping or abduction of a child; assault where the victim was a child under the age of sixteen years; illegal use, sale or distribution of controlled substances; illegal possession or use of weapons; or a crime of moral turpitude (i.e., one characterized by behavior or acts that violate moral sentiments accepted moral standards of the community and are of a morally culpable quality). I further certify that I am the applicant whose signature is affixed below. Although the Disclosure Statement provides a place for the description of convictions or pending charges, the Respondent did not list the conviction for petit theft or the pending charges of procuring a person less than sixteen years for prostitution, solicitation for prostitution and making false application for a driver's license that were pending in Pinellas County or the charges pending at the time in Manatee County for solicitation of a child for sexual acts by a person in custodial authority and solicitation of sex.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered finding Respondent, Kenneth K. Long guilty of violating Section 231.28(1)(c)(e) and (h), Florida Statutes and Rule 6B- 1.006(5)(a)(g) and (h), Florida Administrative Code, and for such violation permanently revoke Respondent's Florida teaching certificate No. 652475. It is further recommended that Counts III, VI, VII and VIII of the Administrative Complaint be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of August, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of August, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER In Case No. 92-7879 The following constitutes my specific ruling pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner The following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number is parenthesis is the finding(s) of fact which so adopts the proposed finding(s) of fact: 1(1); 2(2); 3(3); 4(4); 5(5); 6(11); 7(7); 8(8); 9(9); 10(10); 11(12); 13(12); 14(13); 16(13); and 17-18(14). Proposed findings of fact 12 and 15 are rejected as not being supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record. Proposed finding of fact is more of an argument to support proposed finding of fact 18 than a proposed finding of fact. Respondent did not file any proposed findings of fact with the Division of Administrative Hearings. COPIES FURNISHED: Margaret O'Sullivan, Esquire Department of Education 352 Florida Education Center 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Kenneth K. Long 5301 85th Avenue #202 New Carrolton, MD 20784 Karen Barr Wilde, Exec. Dir. 301 Fla. Education Center 325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Sydney H. McKenzie, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Fla. Education Center 325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner, Andrea Latson, should be granted an exemption from disqualification from employment, pursuant to Chapter 435, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Andrea M. Latson, became subject to the screening requirements of Chapter 435, Florida Statutes, by obtaining employment in a day care facility for children. As a result of the screening process, it was discovered that the Petitioner had a criminal history which disqualified her from employment in such a facility. The Petitioner was advised of the disqualification, and was also advised that she could seek an exemption from the disqualification. The Petitioner promptly requested an exemption from disqualification. Following an informal hearing, the Petitioner's request for exemption was denied. The Petitioner timely requested an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner is disqualified by reason of pleading guilty to each of four separate charges of sale of cocaine, in violation of Section 893.13, Florida Statutes. Each of those violations was a felony.3 The Petitioner's guilty pleas were entered on or shortly before October 12, 1994. The criminal offenses to which the Petitioner pled guilty took place during January and February of 1994. The Petitioner provided very little in the way of information about her rehabilitation since the disqualifying crimes to which she pled guilty. She appears to be making progress towards achievement of a high school equivalency certificate, but did not provide any details regarding her efforts to improve her education. She does not appear to appreciate the seriousness of her disqualifying crimes, nor does she appear to be remorseful about them. To the contrary, the Petitioner displays a tendency to minimize her responsibility for those crimes and to attempt to shift the blame for those crimes to the circumstances in which she found herself at the times she committed the disqualifying crimes. None of the information provided by the Petitioner indicated that she had made any significant progress towards rehabilitation. Quite to the contrary, since the disqualifying crimes, the Petitioner, by fraudulent means, obtained at least $3,639.00 in public assistance money to which she was not entitled. On November 22, 1996, the Petitioner was arrested and charged with public assistance fraud in violation of Section 409.325(1), Florida Statutes.4 The Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to the charge. The Petitioner has done very little to pay back the fraudulently received funds.
Recommendation Based on all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order denying the exemption that the Petitioner has requested. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of July, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of July, 1999.
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner has just cause to take adverse job action against Respondent for his involvement in an Oxycontin® diversion scheme and, if so, whether, under the principles of progressive discipline, Petitioner may terminate Respondent's employment.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner initially employed Respondent as a custodian in October 2000. He was promoted to lead custodian four and one-half years later, and he was promoted to head custodian one year after that. He has had no discipline previously imposed against him. By affidavits submitted during the course of the investigation, Respondent admitted that he obtained four prescriptions from Dr. Ronald Eugene Harris and submitted them to two different pharmacies for filling on October 29, 2003, November 28, 2003, January 29, 2004, and February 27, 2004. Each of the prescriptions was for 90, 80-mg Oxycontin® pills. In addition to these prescriptions, Dr. Harris gave Respondent prescriptions, on or about January 29, 2004, for 60, 2-mg Xanax with two refills and, on or about February 23, 2004, for 60, 2-mg Xanax. Respondent filled both of these prescriptions. In filling these prescriptions, Respondent submitted to the pharmacies his school health insurance to absorb most, if not all, of the cost of these medications. The bona fides of the Oxycontin® transactions are called into question by two facts. First, Respondent took an Oxycontin® from the first prescription, found it was too strong for him, and never took another pill from this or the subsequent prescriptions that he filled. He never explained why he filled the next three Oxycontin® prescriptions. Arrested on August 4, 2005, Dr. Harris later cooperated in the investigation of the Oxycontin® diversion scheme, of which he had been a part. He admitted essentially that, without an examination or medical determination of necessity, he issued Oxycontin® prescriptions in return for cash. Specifically in Respondent's case, Dr. Harris identified the four Oxycontin® prescriptions mentioned above and admitted that they were not for legitimate medical reasons, but were given in exchange for cash. At the time, the street value of one Oxycontin® in south Florida was $30-$40. Typically, Dr. Harris received $100-$150 for each prescription. At various times, Respondent tried to explain the prescriptions by claiming pain from an earlier injury. The problem is his admission that he did not take the Oxycontin® after taking one from the first prescription. The only reasonable inference is that he obtained the prescriptions for personal gain. Of relevance to this determination is the fact that his mother, with whom he was living at the time, was an unlawful broker of Oxycontin®, so Respondent had ready means to convert his unlawfully obtained Oxycontin® to cash. Over the course of this investigation into the diversion of Oxycontin®, federal and state law enforcement officers arrested 92 persons, including Respondent. Of the 20- plus persons to enter the pretrial diversion program, all but one, Respondent, admitted guilt as a precondition to participation in the program. For reasons that are unclear, Respondent was allowed to participate in the pretrial diversion program without admitting guilt. However, this fact is irrelevant because Respondent was guilty. Respondent completed the pretrial diversion program successfully, and the charges were dismissed in April 2010. However, two or three dozens of the persons participating in this Oxycontin® diversion scheme were Petitioner's employees, and the local media publicized this fact. Because of the involvement of school insurance, this diversion scheme cost Petitioner substantial sums of money. All of the other school employees, except Petitioner, were dismissed or allowed to retire. Article XI, Section I, Paragraph A of the collective bargaining agreement authorizes discipline for the violation of any rule or policy, but requires progressive discipline among the following measures, in ascending order: verbal warning, written warning, letter of reprimand, suspension/demotion, and dismissal. Paragraph C adds: "disciplinary action(s) . . . shall be consistent with the concept and practice of progressive or corrective discipline and . . . the degree of discipline shall be reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense and the employee's record." Offenses involving drugs, fraud, and financial harm are serious matters for school systems, but, if violence were added, this would nearly describe the universe of felonies. Respondent illegally obtained and sold four prescriptions for Oxycontin®, charging a substantial portion of the cost of these drugs to his school insurance. Without doubt he should be punished. But the question is what is the appropriate discipline. Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards witness was unable to distinguish this case from a case from an equally painful period in school district history--around 2006, the purchase of fraudulent academic credits by teachers and administrators seeking higher pay. In Miami-Dade County School Board v. Cook, DOAH Case No. 08-318 (final order issued on June 18, 2008), Petitioner sought (and obtained) only 30 days' unpaid suspension against a principal who submitted fraudulently obtained credentials that would have entitled him to a doctoral pay supplement of $2500 annually. Petitioner's witness initially focused in the present case on the monetary loss to the school district, but the monetary loss in the credentials case was at least as great. Petitioner's approach to the credential cases militates in favor of a lengthy suspension over dismissal in this case. However, as noted in the Conclusions of Law, a suspension of more than 30 days is not available. The proper measure of the harm posed by Respondent's conduct to the school system and its students, as well as the public at large, suggests that, if a substantial suspension of, say, one year is not available, then the appropriate discipline is dismissal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating rules 6Gx13- 4A-1.21 and 6Gx13-4A-1.213 and dismissing him. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of April, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 27th day of April, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher J. La Piano, Esquire Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132 Jonathan Meltz, Esquire 1900 Southwest Third Avenue Miami, Florida 33129 Alberto M. Carvalho, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School Board 1450 Northeast Second Avenue Miami, Florida 33132-1308 Lois Tepper, Acting General Counsel Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1244 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Eric J. Smith, Commissioner of Education Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact The Respondent holds Florida teaching certificate 190841, covering the areas of elementary education and reading, which is valid through June 30, 1993. The Respondent has applied for renewal of her teaching certificate, and her renewal application is being held pending a resolution of this matter. At all times pertinent hereto, the Respondent was employed as a teacher at Seminole Middle School in the Pinellas County School District. On or about August 19, 1979, the Respondent was arrested in Sylva, North Carolina, and charged with driving while intoxicated. On or about December 20, 1979, the Respondent was convicted and her driver license was revoked for 12 months. The Respondent submitted an Application for Teacher's Certificate to the Department of Education, signed and notarized on September 7, 1982. The application included the question, "Have you ever been convicted of or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation, or are there any criminal charges pending against you other than minor traffic violations?" In her sworn response to the question, the Respondent answered "No." The Respondent's answer was false, in that the Respondent failed to acknowledge that she had been convicted of driving while intoxicated in 1979. The Respondent submitted an Application for Name Change and/or Duplicate Certificate to the Department of Education, signed and notarized on March 2, 1983. The application included the question, "Have you ever been convicted of or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation, or are there any criminal charges pending against you other than minor traffic violations?" In her sworn response to the question, the Respondent answered "No." The Respondent's answer was false, in that the Respondent failed to acknowledge that she had been convicted of driving while intoxicated in 1979. The Respondent submitted an Application for Extension of Certificate to the Department of Education, signed and notarized on March 1, 1984. The application included the question, "Have you ever been convicted of or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation, or are there any criminal charges pending against you other than minor traffic violations?" In her sworn response to the question, the Respondent answered "No." The Respondent's answer was false, in that the Respondent failed to acknowledge that she had convicted of driving while intoxicated in 1979. On or about February 26, 1985, a Madeira Beach Police officer observed the Respondent driving her vehicle in an erratic manner. The Respondent failed several roadside sobriety tests and refused to submit to a breathalyzer test. The Respondent was arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated. On or about April 29, 1985, the Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere in the Pinellas County Court to the charge of driving under the influence. The court adjudicated the Respondent guilty and sentenced her to serve 12 months probation. The court further ordered the Respondent to pay a $500.00 fine, enroll in a DUI school, and revoked the Respondent's driver license for six months. On or about October 30, 1986, a Madeira Beach Police officer observed the Respondent driving her vehicle in an erratic manner. The Respondent failed several roadside sobriety tests. The Respondent's blood alcohol level was found to be in excess of the legal limit. The Respondent was arrested and charged with driving under the influence. On or about March 6, 1987, the Respondent entered a plea of guilty in the Pinellas County Court to the charge of driving under the influence. The court adjudicated the Respondent guilty and sentenced her to serve 10 days in the jail, to be served in the "Weekend/Daywatch Program", to be followed by one year of probation. The court further ordered the Respondent to enroll in DUI school, attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, and revoked the Respondent's driver license for 10 years. The Respondent submitted an Application for Extension of Certificate and Application for Addition and/or Upgrade to the Department of Education, signed and notarized on June 23, 1987. The applications each included the question, "Have you ever been convicted of or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation, or are there any criminal charges pending against you other than minor traffic violations? In her sworn response to each question, the Respondent answered "No." The Respondent's answer was false, in that the Respondent failed to acknowledge that she had been convicted of driving while intoxicated in 1979, and driving under the influence in 1985 and 1987. The Respondent submitted an Application for Educator's Certificate to the Department of Education, signed and notarized on June 13, 1988. The application included the question, "Have you ever been convicted of or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation, or are there any criminal charges pending against you other than minor traffic violations?" In her sworn response to the question, the Respondent answered "No." The Respondent's answer was false, in that the Respondent failed to acknowledge that she had been convicted of driving while intoxicated in 1979, and driving under the influence in 1985 and 1987. The Respondent submitted an Application for Name Change and/or Duplicate Certificate to the Department of Education, signed and notarized on February 24, 1989. The application included the question, "Have you ever been convicted of or had adjudication withheld in a criminal offense other than a minor traffic violation, or are there any criminal charges pending against you other than minor traffic violations?" In her sworn response to the question, the Respondent failed to acknowledge that she had been convicted of driving while intoxicated in 1979, and driving under the influence in 1985 and 1987. On or about January 5, 1993, the Respondent was observed driving a vehicle in Pinellas County, Florida while her driver license was revoked. The Respondent was arrested and charged with driving with a revoked license. On or about February 24, 1993, the Respondent entered a plead of guilty to the charge of driving with a revoked license in Pinellas County Court. The court adjudicated her guilty and ordered her to pay $500.00 in fines and court costs. The Respondent has been an effective classroom teacher for 36 years, mostly teaching sixth grade. The Respondent's evidence was that she resorted to alcohol in response to three successive traumatic events in her life: (1) the death of her husband in 1976, which required her to become independent and the sole parent of her son and four daughters and to return to graduate school to enable her to become the sole support for her family; (2) the murder of her son in 1982; and (3) the cancer death of her mother in 1986. Despite her alcohol problem, the Respondent was able to be an effective school teacher through the years and did not allow her personal problems to seriously adversely affect her work. Her last alcohol-related incident was in October, 1986. The Respondent's principal from approximately 1987 through 1992, a man named Bill Mock, had a well-deserved reputation for administering the Respondent's school through intimidation and threat of punishment. Since applications for teacher certificates routinely were processed through the school administration offices, the Respondent was afraid that the principal would learn of her DUI arrests and convictions from reading the Respondent's teacher certificate applications and that he would fire her or impose conditions on her continued employment at the school that would be intolerable for her. In order to protect her job and livelihood, and ultimately her family, the Respondent rationalized to herself that it was not necessary to disclose those arrests and convictions on her teacher certificate applications. When Mock retired at the end of the 1992/1993 school year, the Respondent reported her violations to her new school principal, and on or about March 31, 1993, received a written reprimand, but no suspension or dismissal, for her failure to acknowledge her arrests to the Department of Education. The Respondent has continued to be an effective middle school teacher. The Respondent's arrest and conviction for driving with a revoked driver license may have been "set up." Her ride to school cancelled at the last minute, leaving the Respondent without enough time to walk. She drove herself straight to school, and there was a policeman waiting for her in the school parking lot at the end of the school day. Otherwise, she did not drive with a revoked driver license. The Respondent's driver license is revoked until March, 1997, but she is eligible for a work permit upon completion of a driver education class.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty as charged and suspending her teacher certificate for one year, to be served beginning at the end of the current school year. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of August, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 17th day of August, 1994. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Boyd, Esquire 2121 Killarney Way Suite G Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Lawrence D. Black, Esquire 650 Seminole Boulevard Largo, Florida 34640-3625 (Copies furnished, continued) Karen B. Wilde Executive Director The Florida Education Center, Room 301 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Jerry Moore, Administrator Professional Practices Services 352 Fla. Education Center 325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Barbara J. Staros General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Petitioner demonstrated entitlement to a Florida educator’s certificate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Pam Stewart, as Commissioner of Education, is authorized to issue Florida educator’s certificates to persons seeking certification to become school teachers in the state of Florida. Petitioner, Robert Grimsley, is a high school teacher who teaches liberal arts and algebra. He is in his first year of teaching and currently teaches at Washington High School in Pensacola, Florida. He seeks to obtain an educator’s certificate to continue teaching. On June 6, 2016, Petitioner submitted an on-line application for a Florida Educator’s Certificate in mathematics (grades 6-12). The application included a section for “Criminal offense record(s) (Report any record other than sealed or expunged in this section.)” Under that section, was the following question: “Have you ever entered into a pretrial diversion program or deferred prosecution program related to a criminal offense?” In his application, Petitioner answered affirmatively that he had entered into a pretrial diversion program related to a criminal offense. Based on the fields provided in the application, he disclosed the following criminal offense as indicated below: City Where Arrested State Date of Arrest Charge(s) Disposition Tallahassee FL 1/2015 Less Than 20 Grams Community Service Petitioner did not disclose any other offenses in the application. There was no definition of “arrest date” provided in the application. Mr. Kossec, program director of Professional Practices Services, testified that Petitioner could have included the dates for his Notice to Appear. However, the application did not indicate that such an option was available to applicants. On August 3, 2016, Professional Practices Services sent Petitioner a letter requesting additional information regarding his criminal offenses so it could conduct an investigation of his criminal history. He submitted documents reflecting two offenses for which he completed a pretrial diversion program. The submissions included the “No Information” for each offense, which disclosed the following: Case No. 14-000004MMA (related to January 31, 2013 offense); Disposition: No Information due to completed Misdemeanor Diversion Program (filed on February 24, 2014). Case No. 15MM00158 (related to January 20, 2015 offense); Disposition: No Information due to completed Diversion Program (filed on March 6, 2015). The parties stipulated to the following facts regarding Petitioner’s criminal history and application: On or about December 31, 2013, Applicant illegally possessed marijuana, as a result of the aforementioned conduct, the Applicant was issued a Notice to Appear by law enforcement for a criminal violation. Applicant was charged with Possession of Marijuana and entered into a pre-trial [sic] diversionary program. On or about January 20, 2015, Applicant illegally possessed marijuana, as a result of the aforementioned conduct, law enforcement arrested Applicant for possessing marijuana. Applicant was charged with Possession of Marijuana and entered into a pre-trial [sic] diversionary program. On or about June 6, 2016, Applicant submitted an application for an educator’s certificate. In said application, Applicant was asked the following question: “Have you ever entered into a pretrial diversion program or deferred prosecution program related to a criminal offense?” Applicant failed to disclose the fact that he entered into a pre-trial [sic] diversionary program for the December 31, 2013--Marijuana Possession arrest. There is no dispute that Petitioner had two criminal offenses for which he participated in a pretrial diversion program. At hearing, Petitioner testified that he did not list the December 2013 offense on the application because he received a Notice to Appear for that offense. Petitioner testified that he did not understand that being released with a Notice to Appear1/ was an arrest because he was not physically arrested. The two officers involved in the respective arrests testified at hearing and described their detainment of Petitioner. On December 31, 2013, Lt. King stopped Petitioner’s vehicle for driving in excess of the posted speed limit. He ultimately found marijuana in the vehicle. Lt. King read Petitioner his rights, issued him a Notice to Appear, and released him. Lt. King did not handcuff Petitioner at any point during the traffic stop. Lt. King testified that he explained to Petitioner that although he was not being physically handcuffed and transported to the local jail, he was placed under arrest. Petitioner did not recall any explanation that a Notice to Appear is still an arrest. Lt. King’s offense report, completed on the same date as the incident, did not reference any explanation to Petitioner that the Notice to Appear was an actual arrest. Petitioner’s testimony is found to be credible. The detainment for the second incident was different from the first. On January 20, 2015, Officer Andre Buckley, a FSU police officer, responded to a complaint of the smell of burnt marijuana coming from a restroom on the campus of FSU. Officer Buckley arrived at the suspected restroom and confirmed the smell of burnt marijuana. After discovering Petitioner in the restroom and in possession of marijuana, Officer Buckley placed Petitioner in handcuffs. Another officer transported Petitioner to the Leon County jail for booking. Despite Petitioner’s mistaken belief regarding the December 2013 arrest, he was indeed arrested. The facts here demonstrate that Petitioner did not understand that he was arrested for the December 2013 offense and, as a result, was confused regarding whether he should include the offense in the application. There was no effort to conceal his participation in the pretrial diversion program for the December 2013 offense because he submitted documents reflecting the information upon request. The undersigned finds that he simply made an error when completing the application. Both misdemeanor criminal offenses occurred while Petitioner was a college student. Since completing the diversion programs, he has earned his Bachelor of Science degree in Statistics. In his letter to the Professional Practice Services dated July 20, 2016, he indicated that he has discontinued using drugs. Further, he has taught for approximately one year without incident. Petitioner’s actions demonstrate that Petitioner had no intent to conceal his record, engaged in no fraudulent conduct in completing the application, and did not fail to maintain honesty in the submission of the application so as to warrant denial of an educator’s certificate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Education Practices Commission enter a final order granting Petitioner, Robert Eugene Grimsley’s, application for a Florida educator’s certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of April, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN 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 20th day of April, 2017.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner Mario Alberto Almeida applied to the Respondent Board of Medical Examiners to sit for the medical licensure examination and paid his application fee in September, 1985. At that time, the Petitioner Almeida was interning in New York and his wife, concerned that a prior application had been untimely filed, assisted the Petitioner in filling out the subject application. When filling out the application, Mrs. Almeida erroneously wrote on the application form that her husband had a "B.S. 1979, University of Miami," which error arose from the fact that she was unaware that the Petitioner had not completed his University of Miami undergraduate degree work despite completing 137 credit hours of courses and being eligible for graduation. Mrs. Almeida believed that her husband graduated from the University of Miami because he had not informed her that he had left prior to graduating and Mrs. Almeida had seen solicitations for funds addressed to her husband as a 1979 University of Miami graduate. Also omitted by the Almeida's was the Petitioner's race (which is caucasian), that he had successfully attended a junior college and that he was a United States citizen who had legally changed his name to reflect his father's name, Alberto. Other than these erroneous statements and omissions, the Petitioner Almeida supplied the Respondent with all information requested, including additional information requested by letter dated November 4, 1985. Thereafter, the Respondent Board issued to the Petitioner Almeida an authorization to sit for the December, 1985, examination which card was inadvertently issued to and returned by the Respondent. In support of his application, the Petitioner was issued a letter which requested that he personally appear in Tampa, Florida, at 4:15 p.m. on November 22, 1985, at a meeting before the Foreign Medical Graduate Committee of the Board of Medical Examiners. Although the Petitioner was put under oath and was questioned at that meeting, he was not represented by legal counsel. The Committee referred his application to the full Board with no recommendation regarding approval. On November 23, 1985, the Board voted to deny the Petitioner's application. The Petitioner did not receive notice of this second meeting and, therefore, did not attend. By order dated September 9, 1986, the Petitioner was notified of the Respondent's denial of his application based upon "material discrepancies between the information stated on the application and the testimony given with regard to the applicant's education," citing Section 458.331(1)(a) and (2), Florida Statutes. The Petitioner's application did misstate his undergraduate, pre- medical school data. He failed to disclose his successful completion of Miami- Dade Community College and his 137 credit hours when he left the University of Miami before attaining the "B.S. 1979, University of Miami." He did however, accurately testify concerning these discrepancies under oath at the November 22, 1985, committee meeting. These discrepancies were unintentional and resulted from the Petitioner's preoccupation with his medical duties and his wife's concern that another application deadline not be missed. No evidence was submitted which would support a finding that fraud or deceit was intended by either of the Almeida's or that any advantage would be gained as a result of any errors or omissions in completing the form. The Respondent's order of September 9, 1986, finds that the Petitioner either has been found guilty of attempting to obtain a license to practice medicine by fraudulent misrepresentation or adjudicates him guilty of attempting to obtain a license to practice medicine by fraudulent misrepresentation. The Petitioner is presently a duly licensed physician in the State of New York.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Board of Medical Examiners approving the application of the Petitioner Mario Alberto Almeida Suarez, to sit for the next scheduled medical license examination. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of May, 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of May, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3996 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted, but not in issue. Accepted. Accepted, but not in issue. Accepted. Rejected, not relevant to this proceeding. Accepted in part, rejected in part. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected, not relevant. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Rejected. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted. Accepted. Accepted, but relevant only insofar as educational background is concerned. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted, but not relevant. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted, but not relevant. Accepted, but not relevant. Accepted insofar as the information is characterized as incomplete. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted insofar as this concerns Mrs. Alemeida's knowledge subsequent to completing the application. Accepted insofar as this concerns Mrs. Alemeida's knowledge subsequent to completing the application. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen Marc Slepin, Esquire SLEPIN & SLEPIN 1114 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Allen Grossman, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs 1601 - The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Van B. Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director Board of Medical Examiners Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 =================================================================
