The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding is whether Petitioner, a family day care center owner/operator, committed violations of the Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code, as alleged by Respondent, sufficient to justify Respondent's imposition of civil penalties upon Petitioner's license.
Findings Of Fact On October 26, 2000, Petitioner was notified by Respondent's representative that she was in violation of Section 402.302(7)(d), Florida Statutes, by "being over ratio" by having more than ten children in her care. Petitioner signed an acknowledgement of the notification. On October 30, 2000, Petitioner was formally notified by mail that she was over ratio. In the letter, Petitioner was notified that another violation would result in the imposition of an administrative fine. On July 16, 2002, Clark Henning, a day care licensing counselor for Respondent, made a routine inspection of Petitioner’s facility and determined that 13 children were present. On July 22, 2002, Respondent sent a certified letter to Petitioner advising her that she continued to be over ratio and that any future violations would result in the imposition of an administrative fine. Petitioner signed the certified mail receipt. On August 22, 2002, Henning made an unannounced inspection of Petitioner’s facility and observed that 14 children were in the facility. In accordance with requirements of Section 402.302(7), Petitioner is licensed to provide care to children solely in her home. During the course of his July 16, 2002 inspection, Henning observed that Petitioner was providing day care services in an out-building unattached to her home. At that time, Petitioner signed an acknowledgement of notification that Petitioner was prohibited from rendering care in an out- building. On July 18, 2002, Henning made an unannounced inspection of Petitioner's facility and noted that day care services continued to be provided in the out-building. On July 22, 2002, Respondent sent a certified letter to Petitioner advising her that if she continued to render day care services in the out-building, future violations would result in the imposition of an administrative fine. Petitioner signed the certified mail receipt. On August 22, 2002, Henning made an unannounced inspection of Petitioner’s facility and saw that the out-building was continuing to be used for day care. Section 402.302(3), Florida Statutes, requires that any person providing child care must first be properly background screened. On July 16, 2002, during his routine inspection of Petitioner’s facility, Henning observed an adult female, Molly Hilbert, providing care for the children. On July 16, 2002, Petitioner signed an acknowledgement of notification that Molly Hilbert had not been background screened. On July 22, 2002, Respondent sent a certified letter to Petitioner advising her that having Molly Hilbert in her employ without a background screening would, in the event of any future violations, result in the imposition of an administrative fine. Petitioner signed the certified mail receipt. In the course of his August 22, 2002 unannounced inspection of Petitioner’s facility, Henning observed Hilbert working with three children.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered imposing an administrative penalty of $100 upon Petitioner's license for each of the three violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint for a total of $300. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of January, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of January, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward T. Cox, Jr., Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 1601 West Gulf Atlantic Highway Wildwood, Florida 34785-8158 Lillie Shells Shell's Family Day Care Home 9340 County Road 231 Wildwood, Florida 34785 Paul F. Flounlacker, Jr., Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is qualified to take the examination for licensure as a mental health counselor.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner executed an application for licensure as a mental health counselor on June 13, 1989. He filed the application with the Board of Clinical Social Workers, Marriage & Family Therapists, and Mental Health Counselors on July 6, 1989. The application was accompanied by the appropriate fee and disclosed that Petitioner satisfied all of the educational requirements for taking the examination. However, Respondent determined that the application was incomplete because Petitioner failed to show that he had had the requisite clinical experience under the supervision of a qualified person. By letter dated July 17, 1989, Respondent informed Petitioner that his application was incomplete pending receipt of, among other things, documentation of the requisite clinical experience under the supervision of a qualified person. A second letter dated January 17, 1990, from Respondent to Petitioner restated that the application was still missing the items set forth in the prior letter. By Order of Intent to Deny filed April 12, 1990, Respondent informed Petitioner that it was denying his application on the grounds set forth above. Petitioner obtained a master's degree in clinical psychology from the University of Central Florida on December 20, 1985. From October 4, 1985, through October 20, 1988, Petitioner worked full- time as a psychological specialist at the Polk Correctional Institution under the supervision of Gerd Garkisch, Ph.D., who was head of the mental health department at the prison. Petitioner's work qualifies as clinical experience in mental health counseling. Dr. Garkisch does not hold any Florida professional licenses, such as a mental health counselor or psychologist. He is not so licensed in any other state, although he is licensed as a psychologist in Puerto Rico. Dr. Garkisch does not meet the education criteria required for licensure as a mental health counselor. Dr. Garkisch earned a master's degree in clinical psychology, which would otherwise satisfy the educational requirement for licensure as a mental health counselor. However, he received his degree from the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul, Institute of Psychology, which is located in Brazil. The school is not accredited by an accrediting agency approved by the U.S. Department of Education, Council on Postsecondary Accreditation, or Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation deny Petitioner's application for licensure as a mental health counselor. ENTERED this 11th day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of October, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Linda Biederman, Executive Director Board of Mental Health Counseling 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Vytas J. Urba, Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Suresh Paul Pushkarna, pro se 309 Hidden Hollow Court Sanford, FL 32773
The Issue The issue for consideration in this matter is whether Respondent’s Extended Congregate Care (ECC) license for the facility at 302 11th Avenue, Northeast, in St. Petersburg, Florida, should be renewed, and whether her license to operate that assisted living facility should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the denial letter dated April 16, 1998, and in the Administrative Complaint filed herein on December 15, 1998. Ms. Berthelot requested formal hearing on those issues, and this hearing ensued.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Agency for Health Care Administration (Agency) was the state agency in Florida responsible for the licensing and regulation of assisted living facilities in this state. Respondent Marlene C. Berthelot operated Four Palms Manor, a licensed assisted living facility located at 302 11th Avenue, Northeast, in St. Petersburg, Florida. Ann DaSilva had been a surveyor of assisted living facilities for the Agency for at least five years at the time of the initial survey in this matter that took place in December 1997. On that occasion, Ms. DaSilva, in the company of another surveyor, Mr. Kelly, inspected the facility in issue on a routine basis. At that time, Ms. DaSilva noted that with regard to at least one resident, there was no health assessment by the resident’s physician in the resident’s file. A health assessment should contain the physician’s evaluation of the resident’s capabilities and needs, as well as his or her initial status upon admission. In this case, Ms. DaSilva found that the health care provider had not addressed the skin integrity of the resident at the time of admission as should have been done. This is important because if the resident had had a skin problem or some other health problem, the resident might well not have been eligible to reside in the facility because facilities of this kind normally do not have the capability of treating pressure sore ulcers. Ms. DaSilva also found that the health assessment did not accurately reflect the resident’s status at the time of the survey. She found the resident was far less capable of doing what the health assessment said she could do, and the assessment was neither current nor accurate. The resident required assistance in all activities of daily living, and it was reported the resident fell out of bed because she could not stand. This situation was written up as Tag A-403. Tag A-403 was re-cited in a follow-up survey conducted on March 26, 1998. At that time the surveyor found that the health assessment did not address the resident’s method of medication administration. On admission, the resident was receiving no medications at all. After she began taking medications, the facility failed to get an order from her physician to indicate how the medications were to be administered, self or with help of staff administration. Tag A- 403 was cited for a third time in the October 1998 survey where the same deficiency, as cited in the March survey, the failure of the file to reflect how the resident’s medications were to be administered, was again cited. The record still did not indicate how the resident was to receive her medications. This tag was classified as a Class III deficiency and that classification appears to be appropriate. Tag A-406, which deals with the facility’s need for an evaluation of the resident’s ability to self-preserve in case of emergency, was also cited as a deficiency in the December 30, 1997, survey. There was no evidence in the file that such an evaluation was accomplished during the first 30 days after admission regarding this resident as is required by rule. Ms. DaSilva observed the resident in bed at 9:30 a.m., and the nurses’ notes reflected she was totally dependent and needed help with locomotion. The resident suffered from cerebral palsy with severe paresis (weakness) on one side. This situation raised the surveyor’s concern as to whether the resident could get out of the facility in the event of an emergency. No indication appeared in the records or documentation regarding this resident, and no supplement was provided upon the request of the surveyor. Ms. DaSilva also heard the resident call out for assistance, a call which remained unanswered because the one staff member on duty at the time was not in the immediate area. Ms. DaSilva observed that the resident was not able to stand without assistance but the facility’s paper-work indicated the resident could self-ambulate. This was obviously incorrect. When the facility administrator, Ms. Berthelot, was called by her staff manager, she came to the facility to assist in finding the requested paperwork, but was unable to locate in the file any evaluation of the resident’s capability to self-preserve. Tag A-406 was re-cited in the March 1998 survey because again there were two residents who had been in the facility for over 30 days without any evaluation of their ability to self- preserve. It was cited for a third time during the October 1998 survey when the surveyor found two other residents who had been in the facility for over 30 days but who had not been evaluated for their ability to self-preserve, and notwithstanding a request for such documentation, none was found or produced. This resulted in Tag 406 being classified as a Class III deficiency. At the March 26, 1998, survey, Ms. DaSilva cited Tag A-504, which deals with the requirement for direct care staff to receive training in patient care within 30 days of being hired. The Agency requires documentation of such training, and surveyors look at the files of the staff members on duty to see if the employee’s file contains certification of the proper training, appropriate application information, references, and like material. This information is needed to ensure that the employee is qualified to do the job. Here, examination of the facility’s files failed to show that the one staff person on the premises during the evening shift Monday through Friday, Employee No. 1, had had the proper training. It also appeared that Employee No. 3, who was hired to work alone on Thursday and Friday evenings and Saturday and Sunday day shifts, also did not have any record of required training. This subject matter was again cited during the October 1998 survey. When Ms. DaSilva requested the file of the individual on duty, there was nothing contained therein to reflect the individual had had the required training. This was properly classified as a Class III deficiency. Tag A-505 was also cited as a result of the March 1998 survey. This tag deals with the requirement for staff who provide personal services to residents to be trained in providing those services. Ms. DaSilva asked for and was given the facility’s files but could find no evidence of proper training having been given. This subject matter was again cited as a result of the October 1998 survey. At the hearing, Respondent presented certificates of training in personal hygiene, medication policy and training, and direct care 2-hour staff training, given to all employees of all Respondent’s facilities. These certificates reflect, however, that the training was administered on April 22, 1998, after the March 1998 survey but before the October 1998 survey, though that survey report reflects the item was again tagged because of employees scheduled to work alone who did not have documentation of appropriate training. This was a Class III deficiency. As a result of the December 1997 survey, Ms. DaSilva also cited the facility under Tag A-602, which deals with medication administration, and requires staff who administer medications to be trained in appropriate methods. At the time of the survey, Ms. DaSilva observed a staff member pour medications from prescription bottles into her hand, take the medications to the resident, and give them to her. This staff member was not a licensed person and only licensed staff may administer medications. At the time, when asked by Ms. DaSilva, the staff member admitted she was not licensed and had not received any training in medication administration. Tag A-602 was again cited as a result of the March 1998 survey because at that time Ms. DaSilva observed a staff member assist a resident correctly, but when she looked at the records, she found the member had not received the required training. This has, she contends, a potential for improper medications being given which could result in possible harm to the resident. This Tag was again cited as a result of the October 1998 survey. On this occasion, Ms. DaSilva’s review of records or employees who had indicated they had assisted with medications revealed no evidence of appropriate training. Here again, the training was certified as having been given in April 1998, and Respondent contends that by the time of the October 1998 survey, the certificates were in the records. They were not found by the surveyors, however, and it is the operator’s responsibility to make the records available. This constitutes a Class III violation. Under the rules supporting citation Tag A-703, a facility must have an ongoing activities program into which the residents have input. On December 30, 1997, Ms. DaSilva interviewed the residents who indicated there was no activities program at Four Palms. Ms. DaSilva observed no planned activities taking place over the six to seven hours she was there. This deficiency was re-cited during the March 1998 survey. Again, Ms. DaSilva interviewed the residents who indicated they watched TV or walked. A calendar of activities was posted, but there was no indication any were taking place, and upon inquiry, a staff member indicated none were being done that day. The activities calendar provided by the staff member merely listed potential activities, but did not indicate when or where they would take place. Ms. DaSilva again cited the facility for a deficiency in its activities program as a result of the October 1998 survey. At this time, she observed no activities during the time she was at the facility. The staff member on duty reported that the planned activity was not done because she did not have time to do it. At that time, residents were observed to be lying on their beds or watching TV. The one staff person on duty was cooking, cleaning, or helping residents with care issues. This is a Class III deficiency.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order granting Respondent renewal of a license to operate Four Palm Manor, an assisted living facility at 302 11th Avenue, Northeast in St. Petersburg, Florida; granting renewal of the ECC license for the same facility; and finding Respondent guilty of Class III deficiencies for Tags 403, 406, 504, 505, 602, and 703 on the surveys done on December 30, 1997, and March 26, 1998. An administrative fine of $100 should be imposed for each of Tags 403, 404, 504, and 505. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of December, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Karel L. Baarslag, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2295 Victoria Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Renee H. Gordon, Esquire Gay and Gordon, P.A. Post Office Box 265 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Julie Gallagher, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issue for determination in this case is whether Petitioner should be granted an exemption from disqualification for purposes of the re-issuance of his wife's license as a family day care home operator.
Findings Of Fact In 1994, Elizabeth Rohr, wife of Petitioner, Claus Rohr, made application to the Pinellas County Licensing Board for a child day care license. Petitioner, as a family member over 12 years of age residing with the operator, was required to undergo a background screening as part of the licensure proceedings. At the time of his wife's initial application for licensure in 1994, Petitioner and his wife disclosed to the Pinellas County Licensing Board that in 1981 Petitioner had been convicted of possession of Diazepam, a controlled substance, which was a disqualifying offense. The background screening conducted by the Pinellas County Licensing Board in 1994 confirmed Petitioner's conviction of possession of Diazepam, a controlled substance in Broward County, Florida, on March 9, 1981. Due to an error in the reporting procedures from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the background screening conducted in 1994 by Respondent, Department of Children and Family Services, the successor agency to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, did not reveal Petitioner's 1981 conviction for possession of a controlled substance. Subsequently, Elizabeth Rohr was mistakenly approved for a child day care license. In 1998 During a routine five-year background re- screening of Elizabeth Rohr's license, Respondent discovered Petitioner's 1981 conviction. Petitioner thereafter made application for exemption from disqualification, which as indicated above, was denied by Respondent. During the pendency of these proceedings, Petitioner's wife has retained her license on the condition that Petitioner could not be present at the times of the operation of the day care center. Respondent's denial of Petitioner's request for exemption is based not only on Petitioner's 1981 conviction for possession of Diazepam, but also on Petitioner's conduct subsequent to his 1981 conviction. Specifically, the letter of denial of exemption cites Petitioner's 1992 adjudication for driving under the influence (DUI), and Petitioner's 1997 adjudication for aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer, fleeing and eluding, reckless driving, and DUI. Petitioner is a recovering alcoholic with a history of substance abuse problems. In addition to his 1981 conviction for possession of Diazepam, law enforcement records indicate that on April 20, 1980, Petitioner was arrested for DUI, possession of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, and resisting arrest. Law enforcement records further reflect that on March 14, 1981, Petitioner was arrested for disorderly conduct, and on May 5, 1981 Petitioner was arrested for DUI and driving while his license was revoked. In March of 1992 Petitioner was arrested and convicted of driving with a suspended license, and on March 22, 1992, Petitioner was arrested and incarcerated for violation of the terms of his probation in the 1981 conviction for possession of Diazepam. On December 4, 1996, Petitioner was arrested by Detective Anthony Russo of the Pinellas Park Police Department for speeding, DUI, aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer, fleeing, and eluding. Detective Russo testified at hearing that Petitioner was stopped for speeding and was observed to be intoxicated. Petitioner attempted to flee, and during the course of flight Petitioner engaged in a high-speed chase, driving without lights, and running a stop sign. At one point during this incident Petitioner made a U-turn and turned his vehicle toward Detective Russo. Petitioner entered pleas of nolo contendere to DUI, reckless driving, fleeing and eluding a law enforcement officer, and aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer. Petitioner was released from probation on these charges in July of 1998. In addition to these incidents, Petitioner was arrested on August 27, 1996, for domestic battery. This arrest arose from what Petitioner's wife described at hearing as a "dry drunk" episode during which Petitioner outwardly manifested signs of alcoholic behavior although he had not consumed any alcohol. At this time Petitioner engaged in an altercation with his seventeen-year-old daughter which escalated into a physical confrontation with his wife. During this incident Petitioner's wife feared for her children's safety and locked them in a room. With the concurrence of his wife, the charges of domestic violence against Petitioner were ultimately dismissed. Subsequent to his arrest in December 1996, Petitioner has made significant rehabilitation efforts. He has regularly attended Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings and has maintained his sobriety for more than eighteen months. Petitioner has also maintained steady employment with an optical lens company and has received a raise in salary in March of 1998. Additionally, Petitioner is enrolled in a Microsoft certification program at St. Petersburg Junior College, and has received a cumulative grade point average of 3.19 on a 4.0 scale. Petitioner and his wife are active members of St. Andrews Lutheran Church and regularly participate in church youth activities. Petitioner's current AA sponsor testified that Petitioner is making progress in his twelve-step program, and she has not observed any relapses on Petitioner's part. Relapses are not uncommon in persons suffering from alcoholism, and Petitioner has experienced relapses several times during his prior attempts to cope with his substance abuse problems. As indicated above Elizabeth Rohr has been licensed, although mistakenly, to operate a child day care center beginning in 1994. There have been no complaints nor any incidents of misconduct on the part of Petitioner and his wife reported to the Respondent during that time. Christopher Witts, who has taken his daughter to Mrs. Rohr's day care center for four years, testified that he was aware of Petitioner's past problems and has no apprehension in utilizing Mrs. Rohr's day care services for his daughter, which he considers excellent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order upholding the denial of Petitioner's request for exemption at this time. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of September, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. RICHARD A. HIXSON 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 22nd day of September, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: James Deakyne, Jr., Esquire Deakyne & James 216 Mirror Lake Drive, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Frank H. Nagatani, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 11351 Ulmerton Road, Suite 100 Largo, Florida 33778 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building Two, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Rachel H. Wooten, a long-standing legal resident of Florida, submitted an application for licensure by exception as a Marriage and Family Therapist, along with the required fee, to Respondent on September 3, 1982. The form and fee were received by Respondent on September 10, 1982. Attached to the application was supporting documentation to establish that Petitioner received her master's degree in teaching from Rollins College in 1966. Subsequent to the award of her master's degree, as stated, she also earned additional graduate level courses in subjects related to marriage and family counseling. Including both the graduate course work leading up to and subsequent to the award of her master's degree, she had a total of 60 credit hours, of which 43 credit hours were all in specialized courses directed to marriage and family counseling. These courses were taken at accredited educational institutions which are accepted by Respondent. They include Rollins College, University of Central Florida, Florida State University, and the University of North Carolina. Petitioner is currently employed by the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, in its Orlando Vocational Rehabilitation Program as a program analyst. As such, she directs and consults with 39 counselors who possess at least a master's degree. Prior to assuming this position in 1970, she was a counselor and supervisor for Vocational Rehabilitation in a position with a counselor case load of 170-175 cases, and a supervisor case load of between 600 and 700 cases. She held that position from 1966 to 1970. She also maintains an active marriage and family counseling private practice which she carries in this area in the evenings. Her patients are primarily professional people. She sees only individuals who are referred to her by other practitioners in one of the professional disciplines such as medicine psychology, the law, or the like. In addition, up through 1980, she was also engaged in a group counseling practice under the supervision of and in conjunction with other counselors and has been engaged in co-practice with another counselor as a part of her continuing practicum. Petitioner is a clinical member of the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapists (AAMFT). A clinical membership is the highest and most professional category of membership is the highest and most professional category of membership available. She has possessed this qualification since June, 1981. In order to be eligible for this type of membership, a candidate must meet the association's academic requirements and undergo 200 hours of supervision by an AAMFT-approved therapist. This supervision is rigid and demanding and includes such elements as continuing education, taped sessions, clinical work, and the like. Respondent does not consider AAMFT's educational requirements as stringent as its own, nor are they comparable. After evaluation by representatives of Respondent, Petitioner's educational background was found not to meet the requirements of the law in effect at the time of Petitioner's application. Respondent's rationale for denying Petitioner's licensure by exception 1/ is based on its contention that pertinent educational requirements include, as an indispensable element, the award of a master's degree in Marriage and Family Counseling or a clearly comparable field of study, and since Petitioner's degree was in teaching, it does not qualify. 2/ Respondent further concludes that since it was not shown Petitioner's relevant undergraduate courses were considered by Rollins College as a part of the course work for the master's degree, these cannot be considered as counting toward the required credits. It was also held by Respondent that since Petitioner's master's degree was not in a specialty recognized by Respondent for licensure by exception, the relevant course work subsequent to the award of the master's degree cannot be counted either. Respondent states as its reason for not considering the course work outside the Master's Degree is that these courses were chosen solely by Petitioner at her discretion and were not required as a part of a formally designed course of study by an educational institution, leading toward a degree in this area of expertise. In that regard, Rule 21U-500.17(1)(c), Florida Administrative Code, requires that the course work leading up to the master's degree in Marriage and Family Counseling or a clearly comparable field of study include 18 semester hours in the specialty area. Here, Respondent gave Petitioner credit only for three courses, totaling nine semester hours, which were ED 544 (Tests and Measurements: Group Testing I), ED 600 (Readings: Adolescent Development), and PSY 549 (Counseling Procedures I). The courses Petitioner took subsequent to the award of her master's degree would meet the requirement for licensure by exception if it has been included in the work leading up to the master's degree. The Respondent concedes that Petitioner is, by training and experience, qualified to be a licensed Marriage and Family Therapist and, were it not for the technical requirements stated above, which Petitioner does not meet, would license her as such.
Recommendation Based on the above, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner's application for licensure by exception as a Marriage and Family Therapist be denied. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 1st day of February, 1984. 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.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Professional Regulation (Department) should grant the application of the Petitioner, Carolyn Raney McCarthy, n/k/a Carolyn Raney Stoia, for licensure as a clinical social worker by examination.
Findings Of Fact On or about October 31, 1989, the Petitioner applied to the Respondent, the Department of Professional Regulation, for licensure as a clinical social worker under the provisions of Chapter 88-392, Laws of Florida (1988), which allows a person to apply to the Department, instead of the Board of Clinical Social Work, for a determination whether the person met the requirements for licensure under Chapter 490, Florida Statutes (1985), that were in effect before Chapter 491, Florida Statutes, went into effect on October 1, 1987. The parties agree that the Petitioner meets all the requirements for licensure by examination except that the Department disagrees with the Petitioner's allegation that she has two years of experience as a provider of behavioral therapy "under the supervision of someone who meets the education and experience requirements for licensure as a clinical social worker under [Chapter 490, Florida Statutes (1985).]" The Department concedes only that the Petitioner has had seven and a half months of experience as a provider of behavioral therapy under the supervision of Anne Kremer, who "meets the education and experience requirements for licensure as a clinical social worker under [Chapter 490, Florida Statutes (1985).]" In addition to her experience under the supervision of Anne Kremer, the Petitioner has had at least 16 and 1/2 months of experience as a provider of behavioral therapy at Tri-County Addictions Rehabilitation Services, Inc., in Winter Haven, Florida, under the supervision of J. William Herchig. Herchig received a Master of Social Work degree from the Florida State University in June, 1979, with a major emphasis in administration. Herchig's graduate field work during the last two quarters of his degree program was at the Lakeland Outpatient Clinic of Tri-County Alcoholism Rehabilition Services, Inc., (later to become Tri-County Addictions Rehabitation Services, Inc.), where he was hired as Clinic Director in approximately August, 1978. As clinic director, approximately half of Herchig's time was spent in the direct service of patient or client health care and about half was spent on supervisory and administrative duties. Herchig was not supervised by anyone as to his provision of direct client services. But, during his first 16 weeks on the job, Herchig was supervised by Patricia Furnival, his counterpart, as Clinic Director, at the Avon Park Outpatient Clinic of Tri-County. Furnival instructed him in supervision techniques, program management, organization pattern, and the like, in the way of on-the-job training for the job of clinic director. As a result of the nature of his job opportunity as Clinic Director of the Lakeland Outpatient Clinic, Herchig declared the major emphasis of his degree program to be in the area of administration, and he participated in the degree program's seminar on administration in conjunction with his graduate field work. Herchig's vague testimony about the course work taken by him and his fellow participants in the masters degree program did not prove that all participants took identical course work (not including the field work, with accompanying seminar.) Herchig's masters degree did not have a major emphasis or specialty in direct patient or client health care services. The Petitioner also did not prove that Patricia Furnival was "someone who meets the education and experience requirements for licensure as a clinical social worker under [Chapter 490, Florida Statutes (1985)]," at the time she supervised Herchig's graduate field work. The Petitioner proved that both Herchig and Furnival have certificates from the Academy of Certified Social Workers (ACSW), but it was not proven that ACSW certification necessarily signifies that the certificate holder has two years of "experience as a provider of behavioral therapy . . . under the supervision of someone who meets the education and experience requirements for licensure as a clinical social worker under [Chapter 490, Florida Statutes (1985).]" ACSW certification requires two years of full-time, paid, supervised, post-master's or post-doctoral experience in social work practice, but "practice" is defined by the requirements to include "supervision, planning, administration, consultation, research, and teaching," and documentation of clinical supervised experience is not required for ACSW certification. For this reason, the Department and the Board of Clinical Social Work properly have not accepted, and do not accept, ACSW certification as conclusive proof of eligibility for licensure.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Clinical Social Work enter a final order denying the Petitioner's application for licensure by examination. RECOMMENDED this 26th day of October, 1990, 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 26th day of October, 1990.
