The Issue Case Number 91-8116EC: Whether the Respondent, Fred Peel, violated Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes: (1) by failing to have complaint review procedures in place in his office as required by Section 112.533(1), Florida Statutes; (2) by attempting to intimidate the complainant into leaving the Washington County Sheriff's offices without receiving a copy of his arrest report; and (3) by attempting to charge $5.00 for copy of the arrest report? Case Number 91-8323EC: Whether the Respondent, John Jenkins, violated Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, by attempting to intimidate the complainant into leaving the Washington County Sheriff's offices without receiving a copy of his arrest report?
Findings Of Fact The Respondents. The Respondent, Fred Peel, is the Sheriff of Washington County, Florida. (Stipulated Fact). Sheriff Peel has continuously served as the Sheriff of Washington County for the past fifteen years. (Stipulated Fact). Sheriff Peel is an elected official. (Stipulated Fact). At all times relevant to this proceeding, Sheriff Peel served as a public officer subject to Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes. The Respondent, John Jenkins, is a captain with the Washington County Sheriff's Department. (Stipulated Fact). Captain Jenkins has continuously served with the Sheriff's Department for ten years. (Stipulated Fact). Captain Jenkins was appointed by Sheriff Peel pursuant to Chapter 30, Florida Statutes. (Stipulated Fact). At all times relevant to this proceeding, Captain Jenkins served as a public officer subject to Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes. The Arrest of the Complainant. The complainant, Timothy Hinson, was arrested by a deputy of the Washington County Sheriff's Office on November 26, 1990. Mr. Hinson was charged with driving under the influence, driving while license suspended or revoked and refusal to sign citation. (Stipulated Fact). At the time of his arrest, Mr. Hinson was intoxicated. Mr. Hinson's speech was slurred, his appearance was disheveled and his ability to understand verbal communication was poor. After being arrested and transported to the Washington County jail, Mr. Hinson made profane and abusive threats addressed to the arresting deputy and the "Sheriff". Mr. Hinson threatened to have the "Sheriff" removed. Mr. Hinson did not know who the Sheriff was at the time. Mr. Hinson's actions, failed to prove, as suggested by the Respondents, that Mr. Hinson had a vendetta against the Respondents or law enforcement personnel in general. This evidence merely proved that Mr. Hinson was drunk. The parties stipulated that, prior to his arrest on November 26, 1990, Mr. Hinson had been arrested six times since 1983. This evidence failed to prove, however, the Respondents' contention that Mr. Hinson had a grudge or vendetta against the Respondents or law enforcement personnel in general. This evidence suggests that Mr. Hinson has a drinking problem. Mr. Hinson's Effort to Obtain a Copy of His Arrest Record. Just prior to noon on December 28, 1990, Mr. Hinson went to the Washington County Sheriff's offices. Mr. Hinson went to the Sheriff's offices with the intent to obtain a copy of the records related to his arrest on November 26, 1990. (Stipulated Fact). Mr. Hinson was met in the lobby of the Sheriff's offices by Sharon Bellamy, an employee of Sheriff Peel. Mr. Hinson informed Ms. Bellamy that he wanted a copy of his arrest record. Mr. Hinson informed Ms. Bellamy that he needed a copy of the documents for his defense. Ms. Bellamy retrieved Mr. Hinson's file from the office where records were kept and brought it to the lobby to make the copies requested at a copy machine located in the lobby. There were two documents in the file that Mr. Hinson requested: the complaint and the arresting report. As Ms. Bellamy began to make a copy of the documents Mr. Hinson had requested, she found a copy of another document that had been mailed to Mr. Hinson that he had not requested. The document was a notice to Mr. Hinson that his Florida drivers' license had been suspended for refusing to take a breath test. Ms. Bellamy began quizzing Mr. Hinson about whether he had received the document. Although Mr. Hinson had in fact received the notice Ms. Bellamy asked him about, he told her he had not and requested a copy of it. Ms. Bellamy continued to ask Mr. Hinson about the notice. The conversation between Mr. Hinson and Ms. Bellamy became more agitated, although the evidence failed to prove why. Pam Miner, the Sheriff's secretary, was in an office next to the lobby. The door opening into the lobby was open and Ms. Miner overheard Ms. Bellamy and Mr. Hinson. Sheriff Peel was sitting in his office, which adjoined Ms. Miner's office. The door opening into Ms. Miner's office was also open and he could also hear the discussion. At some time after Ms. Bellamy began discussing the notice concerning Mr. Hinson's driver's license with him, Ms. Miner went to the door of Sheriff Peel's office and gave him a look which she described as intended to convey to Sheriff Peel that "you need to do something". After Ms. Miner looked into Sheriff Peel's office, he went out into the lobby. Sheriff Peel initially watched what was going on. At some point shortly after Sheriff Peel went into the lobby he asked Mr. Hinson some questions about Mr. Hinson's driver's license. Mr. Hinson informed Sheriff Peel that he had a Maryland driver's license. At some point during the discussion between Sheriff Peel and Mr. Hinson, Mr. Hinson indicated that he was seeking a copy of the documents in his file for his attorney. Sheriff Peel suggested that Mr. Hinson have his attorney get the copies. The discussion between Mr. Hinson and Sheriff Peel became more heated and argumentative. Eventually Sheriff Peel told Ms. Bellamy to "charge him $5.00" and started to leave. Mr. Hinson perceived this comment to mean that he was to be charged $5.00 per page or document. Prior to coming to the Sheriff's office to obtain copies of the documents in his file, Mr. Hinson had telephoned the Sheriff's office and had been told that there was a $2.00 copying charge. Two dollars is, in fact, what the Sheriff's office normally charges for copying documents. Mr. Hinson believed, therefore, that he would be charged $2.00 per document or a total of $4.00 for the documents he had requested. When Mr. Hinson heard the Sheriff indicate that he was to be charged $5.00, he became angry because he believed that Sheriff Peel was suggesting that he be charged $5.00 per copy or $5.00 per page. Such a charge was inconsistent with what he had been previously told about copying charges. Mr. Hinson incorrectly believed that Sheriff Peel was going to charge him the higher rate for copying because he had a Maryland drivers' license and was, therefore, apparently not from Washington County. Mr. Hinson confronted Sheriff Peel by stating that he had been told that the copying charge was only $2.00 a copy. Sheriff Peel, if he had meant to charge Mr. Hinson a total of $5.00 as suggested during the final hearing, did not clarify that he was only going to charge him a total of $5.00 instead of $5.00 per copy as Mr. Hinson apparently believed. The failure to clarify what he meant, and the fact that Sheriff Peel did not know how many documents were actually involved, support the conclusion that Sheriff Peel did not intend that Ms. Bellamy merely charge Mr. Hinson a total of $5.00. Of greater importance, these facts explain Mr. Hinson's confusion and anger. He reasonably believed he was going to be overcharged. Some time after Mr. Hinson confronted Sheriff Peel about the $5.00 charge, Sheriff Peel told Ms. Bellamy not to give Mr. Hinson anything. Mr. Hinson confronted Sheriff Peel, although he did not know at the time that he was the Sheriff, and asked him "what's the problem." Mr. Hinson also asked for the person in charge of "internal affairs", stating that he wanted to file a complaint against Sheriff Peel. Sheriff Peel informed Mr. Hinson that the Sheriff's Office did not have an "internal affairs" department, that he was the Sheriff, and that he would not take a complaint against himself. The Washington County Sheriff's Office has no written policy for handling complaints against personnel. The Washington County Sheriff's Office has an informal, unwritten policy for handling complaints. Sheriff Peel makes the final decision concerning complaints. At some time shortly after Sheriff Peel and Mr. Hinson began to argue, Captain Jenkins came to the door opening to the lobby from the room that he had been in. Initially, Captain Jenkins stood watching the discussion. Because of the smallness of the room, Captain Jenkins was relatively close to Mr. Hinson. After Sheriff Peel informed Mr. Hinson that there was no internal affairs department and that he would not take a complaint against himself, Captain Jenkins stated "I'm internal affairs this week. What's the problem?" or a statement to that effect. Although Captain Jenkins testified that he made the comment to try to diffuse the situation by injecting some humor into the situation, the weight of the evidence does not support this explanation. The weight of the evidence supports a conclusion that the comment was made in a snide and sarcastic manner. Mr. Hinson was being rude and confrontational. Sheriff Peel and Mr. Hinson were engaged in a somewhat heated argument. Mr. Hinson was obviously angry. To make such a statement to a person in this type situation evidenced a failure to exercise good judgement. The statement was intended to rebuke and insult Mr. Hinson. Mr. Hinson demanded that Captain Jenkins identify himself, which he did. Mr. Hinson told Captain Jenkins that he wanted to file a complaint against Sheriff Peel. Captain Jenkins told him that he would not take a complaint against the Sheriff. Captain Jenkins told Mr. Hinson that it would be better if he left the office. It was apparent to Mr. Hinson that nothing more could come of the confrontation with Sheriff Peel and Captain Jenkins. Sheriff Peel had ordered that nothing be given to Mr. Hinson. Sheriff Peel and Captain Jenkins had refused to take a complaint. It had been suggested that he leave. Mr. Hinson felt intimidated. Captain Jenkins is 6'1" and weighs approximately 225 pounds while Mr. Hinson is slightly built in comparison. There was nothing to be gained by continued argument and, therefore, Mr. Hinson left. Mr. Hinson was not intoxicated or taking medication at the time of his visit to the Sheriff's offices. Mr. Hinson's attitude and demeanor with Ms. Bellamy was defensive and confrontational. Mr. Hinson's displeasure over his arrest and his attitude were perceived as rudeness by Ms. Bellamy. Although Mr. Hinson did not yell or use profanity, as described by Ms. Bellamy, Mr. Hinson "had an attitude". These findings are based in large part upon the testimony of Ms. Bellamy, Pam Miner (the Sheriff's secretary) and David Corbin, the Director of Washington County Parks and Recreation. Mr. Corbin was in the lobby during the confrontation. Although Ms. Bellamy and Ms. Miner are employed by Sheriff Peel, and the fact that Ms. Bellamy was not totally candid in her testimony, the crucial elements of the testimony of the Respondents and these witnesses were consistent. It is difficult to categorize the degree of Mr. Hinson's rudeness. All of the witnesses agreed Mr. Hinson was rude and confrontational. His rudeness and attitude were not, however, so severe that Ms. Bellamy did not believe that she could handle Mr. Hinson. Nor did Ms. Bellamy ever feel threatened by Mr. Hinson. She did not request any assistance from Sheriff Peel or Captain Jenkins, both of whom were in adjoining offices. Nor was Mr. Hinson's attitude and treatment of Ms. Bellamy sufficiently troublesome to cause Captain Jenkins, who could hear the discussion between Ms. Bellamy and Mr. Hinson, to come out to assist Ms. Bellamy until after Sheriff Peel had intervened. Finally, Ms. Bellamy left the lobby during the confrontation to prepare to go to lunch, not something that would be expected of someone witnessing an overly serious confrontation. Sheriff Peel and Captain Jenkins did not yell at Mr. Hinson. Nor did they laugh at Mr. Hinson. Sheriff Peel did, however, become angry and argumentative with Mr. Hinson. The situation could have been ended by simply allowing Ms. Bellamy to provide the copies of the documents Mr. Hinson had requested, which had already been made. Captain Jenkins was sarcastic with Mr. Hinson and, to some degree, because of his size, intimidating to Mr. Hinson. Captain Jenkins' comment to Mr. Hinson, although sarcastic, was not threatening. Mr. Hinson, based upon 20-20 hindsight, was not a threat to anybody in the Sheriff's offices. This is not to say, however, that Mr. Hinson should have been taken lightly or that Mr. Hinson's conduct should have been totally accepted and tolerated by Sheriff Peel. Nor can it be concluded that Captain Jenkins should have totally ignored what was going on. Effort to Secure a Special Privilege, Benefit, or Exemption. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that the failure to have a written complaint procedure in place in the Washington County Sheriff's Office was intended by Sheriff Peel to secure a special privilege, benefit or exemption. Mr. Hinson, after telephoning the Florida Sheriff's Association, was informed that he could pick up a copy of the documents he wanted at the Sheriff's offices. Mr. Hinson also could have obtained a copy of the documents he wanted by having someone else, including his attorney, pick them up or by requesting a copy of the documents from the clerk of court's office. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that Sheriff Peel was attempting to intimidate Mr. Hinson into leaving the Sheriff's offices without obtaining a copy of the documents he had requested in order to secure a special privilege, benefit or exemption. Any funds collected for copying by the Sheriff's Office are funds of Washington County. Sheriff Peel has no control or direct use of those funds. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that Sheriff Peel was attempting to charge $5.00 for the copies in an effort to secure a special privilege, benefit or exemption. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that Captain Jenkins' actions were intended to intimidate Mr. Hinson into leaving the Sheriff's offices in order to secure a special privilege, benefit or exemption. At worst, the evidence proved that Sheriff Peel, arguably, could have exercised a little more patience and that Captain Jenkins made a smart remark at an inappropriate time. These actions, in light of Mr. Hinson's attitude and demeanor, do not support a conclusion that Sheriff Peel or Captain Jenkins were attempting to secure a special privilege, benefit or exemption for themselves or others. The actions of all those involved in this situation were emotional reactions to the situation and were not calculated to achieve any particular result.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission on Ethics enter a Final Order and Public Report dismissing Complaint No. 91-42 and Complaint No. 91-43. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of May, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Advocate's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection A. 1 1-2. 2 3. 3 5. 4 6. 5 7. B. 1 9. 2 10. C. 1 23. Hereby accepted. Conclusion of law. D. 1 28-30. 2 29. 3 30. E. 1 13. 2 36. 3 14 and 23. 4 14-15. 5 14. 6 17 and hereby accepted. 7 See 37. 8 See 37-38 and 40. Ms. Bellamy's relationship to the Respondents has been considered. While it is true that Ms. Bellamy was not totally candid, the weight of the evidence failed to prove that Ms. Bellamy's testimony was materially flawed, especially in light of the testimony of other witnesses. 9-10 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 11 See 41. The evidence failed to prove that "no reasonable person could have perceived Mr. Hinson as posing such a danger." Such a conclusion can only be made with 20-20 hindsight. 11a-b 38. 11c 19. 11c 31 and 38. 12 20-21 13 21 and see 26. 14 27. 15 28. 16 Not relevant. 17 22. 18 22-24. 19 25. 20 See 31. 21-22 32. The last sentence of proposed finding of fact 22 is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 23 33. 24 34. 25 35. See 35. See 37-40. The last three sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 25. The Respondents' Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 9. 2 See 11. 3 13-14. 4 15 and 17-19. 19, 21 and 37-38. The allegations concerning whether Mr. Hinson became "loud" are rejected as not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 27. The evidence failed to prove that Sheriff Peel "explained to Hinson that he had a small office" in an effort to explain why he did not have an internal affairs department. The Respondents' suggestion that Mr. Hinson was out of control is not supported by the weight of the evidence. See 31 and 33. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that Captain Jenkins suggested that Mr. Hinson go to the State Attorney's office if he wanted to file a complaint. See 22. The weight of the evidence failed to prove that Sheriff Peel was aware of how many pages were to be copied, that Mr. Hinson left after being told that the charge was $5.00 or that Mr. Hinson was not told to leave. 23 and hereby accepted. 10 16, 18 and 23. 11 45. 12 28-30. See 31. Hereby accepted. See 47. The last two sentences are not relevant. 16 See 24-25, 38-39 and 48. 17 42. 18 See 12. The last sentence is not supported by the weight of the evidence. 19-24 Although portions of these proposed findings of fact are true, the ultimate findings of fact suggested by these proposed facts are not supported by the weight of the evidence. For example, although it is true that Mr. Hinson admitted that he had a bad memory, the essential elements of his testimony were credible. 25 41-47. The last two sentences are not supported by the weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Virlindia Doss Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 101 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 William E. Powers, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 12186 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-2186 Bonnie J. Williams Executive Director Commission On Ethics The Capitol Room 2105 Post Office Box 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0006
Findings Of Fact By information dated March 30, 1979, respondent gas accused of forging a prescription for 20 tablets of Biphetamine and of "feloniously acquir[ing] or obtain[ing], or attempt[ing] to acquire or obtain possession of a controlled substance, to-wit: Amphetamine" by means of the forged prescription, on or about December 13, 1978. Respondent's exhibit No. 1. On June 20, 1979, respondent was convicted, on the basis of his guilty plea, of forgery and of obtaining a controlled substance by fraud; concurrent sentences of two years' imprisonment for each offense were imposed, but respondent was placed on probation. Department's exhibits Nos. 2 and 3.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner dismiss the administrative complaint. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of May, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Michael I. Schwartz, Esquire Raymond LaPorte, Esquire Suite 201, Ellis Building 408 Madison Street 1311 Executive Center Drive Tampa, Florida 33602 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Nancy Kelley Wittenberg, Geraldine B. Johnson, R.N. Secretary Investigation & Licensing. Department of Professional Regulation Coordinator 2009 Apalachee Parkway Board of Nursing Tallahassee, Florida 32301 111 Coast Line Drive East Suite 504 Paul I. Perez, LPN. Jacksonville, Florida 32202 2301 W. Kirby Tampa, Florida 33804
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaints are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged, pursuant to Chapter 465, Florida Statutes (2006), with regulation of the practice of pharmacy. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was a licensed pharmacist in the State of Florida, holding license number PS 26142. On May 3, 2005, a Final Order (DOH-05-0782-S-MQA) was filed based on the stipulated resolution of disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Respondent by the Petitioner in DOH Case Nos. 2002-27092 and 2002-25746. The Final Order imposed a suspension of the Respondent's license as follows: Respondent's license to practice pharmacy shall be suspended until such time as Respondent petitions and appears before the Board and can demonstrate that he is able to practice pharmacy with skill and safety to patients. Proof of his ability to practice safely shall include an evaluation of respondent by the Professional Resources Network (PRN) and a recommendation from PRN to the Board that Respondent can practice pharmacy with reasonable skill and safety to patients. The Final Order imposed a probationary period as follows: Upon the termination of suspension of Respondent's license, Respondent's license shall be placed on probation concurrent with the PRN contract or three (3) years whichever is longer. If, after completing an evaluation of Respondent, the PRN deems it necessary for Respondent to execute a contract for supervision and/or treatment, the three-year probationary period shall run concurrent with the PRN's contract. During the period or probation Respondent shall be subject to the following terms and conditions: Respondent or his employer shall submit written reports to the Compliance Officer at the Board office. The written reports shall contain Respondent licensee's name, license number, current address and phone number; current name, address and phone number of each pharmacy in which Respondent is engaged in the practice of pharmacy; the names of all pharmacists, pharmacy interns, pharmacy technicians, relief pharmacists, and prescription department managers working with the Respondent. These reports shall be submitted to the Compliance Officer every three (3) months in a manner as directed by the Compliance Officer. * * * Respondent shall submit documentation evidencing that his employer, or if employed as a relief pharmacist, his supervision pharmacists(s) and the relief agency, have been provided with a copy of the Final Order describing these probationary terms within ten (10) days of the entry of the Final Order or upon initiation of employment. Respondent shall ensure that his employer or, if employed as a relief pharmacist, the supervising pharmacist at each pharmacy at which the Respondent works, submits written reports to the Compliance Officer for the Board of Pharmacy. These reports shall contain: the name, current address, license number, and telephone number of each pharmacy intern, pharmacy technician, relief pharmacist, and prescription department manager working with the Respondent in the prescription department; a brief description of Respondent's duties and responsibilities; and Respondent's work schedule. These reports shall be submitted by the employer to the Compliance Officer every three (3) months in a manner directed by the Board. The Final Order imposed an administrative fine of $2,000. In the stipulation for settlement of the disciplinary cases, the assessment of costs was addressed as follows: Respondent agrees to reimburse the Department for any administrative costs incurred in the investigation, prosecution, and preparation of this case, not to exceed eleven thousand dollars ($11,000). The total amount of the costs will be assessed at the time the stipulation is presented to the Board. The fine and costs are to be paid by the Respondent . . . within sixty (60) days of the filing of a Final Order accepting and incorporating this Agreement. The copy of the stipulation admitted into evidence at the hearing included a handwritten notation related to the time for payment of the fine and costs and appears to indicate that the 60-day deadline for payment was extended to six months. The source of the handwriting was unclear; but in any event, the Final Order adopted the agreed stipulation and assessed costs of $10,852.66. The Final Order extended the deadline for payment of the costs to six months from the date of the Final Order, but did not specifically reference the deadline for payment of the administrative fine. The evidence establishes that both the fine and the assessed costs were to be paid within six months of the date of the Final Order, or by November 2, 2005. The evidence establishes that the Respondent paid neither the fine nor the assessed costs by the November 2, 2005, deadline. There is no evidence that the Respondent has made any attempt to pay any portion of the financial penalty, and the $12,852.66 remained unpaid at the time of the administrative hearing. The Respondent's suspension was lifted pursuant to an Order of Reinstatement filed June 28, 2005, at which time the probationary period began. According to the Respondent's Responses to the Petitioner's First Request for Admissions, the Respondent was placed by "Healthcare Consultants" to work in relief status at the Winn-Dixie #736 pharmacy and at the Winn-Dixie #741 pharmacy for a total of five days during the month of August 2005. According to the terms of the stipulation as adopted by the Final Order, the Respondent's first quarterly report was due three months following the beginning of the probationary period, or approximately September, 28, 2005. Cheryl Sellers, a compliance officer for the Petitioner, was assigned the responsibility of monitoring the Respondent's compliance with his obligations under the May 3, 2005, Final Order. The Respondent had several extended telephone conversations with Ms. Sellers shortly after the Respondent's probationary period began. During the conversations, the specific disciplinary requirements of the stipulation and Final Order were discussed at length. Additionally, in 1997, the Petitioner had incurred a substantially similar penalty, including a suspension, a fine, and compliance with quarterly reporting requirements. It is reasonable to presume that the Respondent was aware of, and understood, his obligations under the May 3, 2005, Final Order. As was her standard practice, Ms. Sellers sent a package of information to licensees with disciplinary restrictions, including various forms, related to compliance with requirements set forth by Final Orders. The package was mailed by regular mail to the Petitioner on August 4, 2005; but for reasons unknown, the information was not delivered to the Respondent and was returned to the Petitioner by the postal service. The package was not re-mailed to the Respondent until October 12, 2005. The Respondent filed his quarterly reports on October 19, 2005, several weeks after the deadline had passed. Apparently the first Employer's Quarterly Report was completed by an individual identified as Robert Miller, presumably employed by Healthcare Consultants, an otherwise unidentified entity which supposedly placed the Respondent in the Winn-Dixie pharmacies for the August 2005 employment. Mr. Miller was not the pharmacist in charge of the Winn-Dixie units where the Respondent had been employed. By letter dated October 21, 2005, Compliance Officer Cheryl Sellers notified the Respondent that he was "not in compliance" with the May 3, 2005, Final Order and stated as follows: Guidelines for submitting Employer Quarterly Reports were sent to you on October 12, 2005, the Employer's Quarterly Report from Robert Miller received on October 19, 2005, is not acceptable. Efren Rivera the PDM at the Winn Dixie store #736 is the appropriate person to complete this form. [sic] The Employer's Quarterly Report subsequently submitted by Efren Rivera was dated and notarized on November 1, 2005, and was filed thereafter. The Respondent filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in late 2005 and was discharged from debt on January 31, 2006. The Respondent has asserted that his obligation to pay the administrative fine and assessed costs was discharged through the bankruptcy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Board of Pharmacy, enter a final order directing that the Respondent pay a total of $16,352.66, to the Petitioner. The total reflects the $12,852.66 imposed by the May 3, 2005, Final Order and the additional $3,500 penalty related to the violations set forth herein. Additionally, the final order should extend the Respondent's current probationary period by 18 months to be served consecutively to the current probationary period. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of August, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 10th day of August, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Patrick L. Butler, Esquire Billie Jo Owens, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Denis R. Bousquet 5125 Cedar Springs Drive, Unit 203 Naples, Florida 34110 Josefina M. Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Rebecca Poston, R.Ph., Executive Director Board of Pharmacy Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C04 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue Whether the Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction to hear this cause, alleging that Respondent Employer has committed an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Following a July 28, 2003, "Notice of Determination: No Jurisdiction," by the Florida Commission on Human Relations, Petitioner filed a Petition for Relief as more fully described below. On or about September 3, 2003, the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings. It appearing on the face of the referral package that Respondent did not regularly employ 15 persons and that therefore Respondent did not qualify as an "employer" under Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, a September 12, 2003, Order was entered scheduling a telephonic hearing for October 1, 2003, and permitting the filing of any documents in support of the parties' respective positions. Respondent's "Submission of Materials in Support of Dismissal of Petition and Supporting Memorandum of Law" was served by United States Mail on September 25, 2003. It contained a prayer for dismissal. Pursuant to Rule 28-106.204, Florida Administrative Code, Petitioner was entitled to respond in writing by October 6, 2003. Petitioner did not respond. Respondent's "Supplemental Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction" was served upon Petitioner by hand-delivery, by United States Mail, and by "e-mail" on September 26, 2003. Per Rule, Petitioner was entitled to file a written response by October 8, 2003. Petitioner did not respond. A Corrected Order entered September 26, 2003, permitted the parties until October 7, 2003, to submit any documents tending to support or refute jurisdiction by the Division of Administrative Hearings over this cause. This Order also rescheduled the telephonic hearing for October 9, 2003. Petitioner filed nothing in response to either the September 12, 2003, Order or the September 26, 2003, Corrected Order. At the October 9, 2003, telephonic conference call, Respondent appeared through counsel. The opening of hearing was delayed five minutes, but Petitioner did not appear. Thereafter, oral argument upon all Motions proceeded without Petitioner. Petitioner still had not called in to the meet-me telephone number after 15 minutes, and the telephonic hearing was concluded. In an abundance of caution, an Order to Show Cause was entered on October 10, 2003, giving Petitioner 10 days in which to show cause, in writing, filed with the Division, why this cause should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner has filed nothing. Therefore, Respondent's documentation, including but not limited to: Respondent's accountants’ affidavits and its payroll journals, unemployment tax returns, and a payroll schedule, may be presumed true and accurate. All the documentation supports a finding that Respondent never employed more than 14 people for any one week in the year 2001 and employed 15 or more employees for only one week (December 21-28, 2002) in the year 2002.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing this cause for lack of jurisdiction. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Truman Jeffery Mayfield 902 Phillips Street Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Robert G. Riegel, Jr., Esquire Ryan R. Fuller, Esquire Coffman, Coleman, Andrews & Grogan, P.A. Post Office Box 40089 Jacksonville, Florida 32203
The Issue Whether pursuant to section 120.595, Florida Statutes (2015),1/ Petitioner, Randall B. Johnson (Johnson), should be awarded reasonable costs and attorney’s fees incurred in defense of an administrative proceeding initiated by Respondent.
Findings Of Fact The procedural history of the underlying action is set forth in the PERC Order, and includes a majority of the relevant facts, which are not in dispute. Findings of Fact 2 through 9 below are taken directly from the PERC Order. On September 19, 2014, the Department of Corrections (Agency) dismissed Randall B. Johnson pursuant to the extraordinary dismissal procedure in section 110.227(5)(b), Florida Statutes. The final action letter (September 19 Letter) alleged that, four years earlier, on or about September 19, 2010, Johnson inappropriately participated in a use of force incident that resulted in the death of an inmate. Johnson was also informed that a copy of the investigation upon which the charge was based would be available when it was completed. On September 24, 2014, Franklin Correctional Institution Warden, Christopher G. Atkins, contacted Johnson and informed him that the September 19 Letter was inaccurate and the Agency needed to send him a corrected final action letter (September 24 Letter). Atkins did not read the letter to Johnson or tell him the substance of the allegations against him. The amended final action letter was sent to Johnson by certified mail. On September 29, 2014, Johnson filed an appeal with the Commission challenging his dismissal, based on the September 19 Letter. Johnson stated in his appeal: "I was not involved in a use of force incident that resulted in the death of an inmate, as I was not working on September 19, 2010." A hearing officer was appointed and a hearing was scheduled. On October 1, 2014, the Agency filed a Notice of Corrected Final Action Letter with the Commission asserting "that due to a clerical error, certain information contained in the letter issued to the Employee on September 19, 2014, was incorrect . . . ." The amended final action letter, dated September 24, 2014, deleted the factual allegations from the September 19 Letter and substituted the following: Specifically, on or about June 6, 2013, the Office of the Inspector General received information alleging improper conduct of some of its officers. Further investigation into the allegation revealed that you submitted an inaccurate or untruthful report, introduced contraband into Franklin Correctional Institution, and engaged in an unprofessional relationship with former inmate and current supervised offender, Luke Gruver/U01117. The basis for these charges is contained in an on-going investigation by the Inspector General's Office, Case Number 13-7092; copy available upon completion. On October 6, 2014, Johnson filed a motion for summary judgment and/or judgment on the pleadings and a motion for attorney's fees and costs. On October 22, 2014, the hearing officer issued an order which, among other things, denied the motions filed by Johnson on October 6, 2014. On October 28, 2014, Johnson filed a motion to dismiss and motion for attorney's fees. This pleading was followed on November 4, 2014, by an amended motion to dismiss and motion for attorney's fees. A hearing on Johnson's motions was held on February 2, 2015. On February 4, 2015, the hearing officer issued an order concluding that the September 24 Letter was vague and that Johnson was prejudiced in his ability to defend himself by its vagueness. Therefore, he denied the Agency's attempt to amend the September 19 Letter with the September 24 Letter. The hearing officer also determined that the September 19 Letter was sufficiently detailed to provide Johnson with notice of the charges against him. The Agency was directed to respond and state whether it intended to proceed to a hearing on the allegations in the September 19 Letter. Finally, the hearing officer deferred ruling on whether the Agency violated section 112.532(6), Florida Statutes, the Law Enforcement Officers' and Correctional Officers' Bill of Rights, and whether Johnson was entitled to an award of attorney's fees pursuant to section 120.595. On February 11, 2015, the Agency filed a notice with the Commission that it was rescinding the September 19 Letter, marking it void, and reinstating Johnson on February 13, 2015, to the position of correctional officer at Franklin Correctional Institution. The Agency also requested that the Commission schedule a back-pay hearing. On February 13, 2015, Johnson filed an objection to the Agency's request for a back-pay hearing and renewed his request for an award of attorney's fees and costs. On February 17, 2015, the hearing officer issued his recommended order concluding that Johnson was entitled to reinstatement, back pay, and other benefits, as well as interest at the lawful rate, commencing on September 19, 2014. He also determined that the Commission did not have jurisdiction to consider the issue of attorney's fees pursuant to section 120.595, because that statute only authorizes fee awards to be made by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). However, he recommended two alternative methods for the attorney's fees issue to be referred to an ALJ at DOAH. On February 25, 2015, Johnson filed five exceptions to the recommended order. A transcript of the February 2, 2015, motion hearing was filed. In one of his exceptions to the recommended order, Johnson challenged the hearing officer’s conclusion that PERC does not have jurisdiction to award attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to section 120.595, because such a determination can only be made by an ALJ. The PERC Order sustained the hearing officer’s conclusion that PERC does not have the authority to consider an attorney’s fees request made pursuant to section 120.595. It also adopted the hearing officer’s recommendation that the request for attorney’s fees and costs be referred to DOAH for consideration by an ALJ. Accordingly, the PERC Order “shall serve as the Commission’s referral to DOAH of Johnson’s request for attorney’s fees and costs from the Agency pursuant to Section 120.595, Florida Statutes.” The Notice of Corrected Final Action Letter filed by DOC with PERC dated October 1, 2014, sought to replace the September 19 Letter with the September 24 Letter. The Corrected Final Action Letter stated DOC was filing a “corrected final action” necessitated by a “clerical error.” In fact, the September 24 Letter does not correct clerical errors but rather makes completely different factual allegations and charges against Johnson and references the date of the incident (or incidents) as 2013. The extensive procedural history of this case, which includes a recitation of all the pleadings filed by the parties and the arguments therein, is set forth in the Commission’s Order Vacating Agency Action and Referring Attorney’s Fees Petition to DOAH. As noted, the PERC Order refers this case to DOAH for consideration of the issue of attorney’s fees and costs. All pleadings filed by Johnson in both the disciplinary case and the back-pay case before PERC were prepared and filed on his behalf by the law firm of Flury & Atkins. The billing statements admitted into evidence during the DOAH proceeding reflect the time spent by counsel researching and drafting motions and proposed orders in the discipline and back-pay cases, as well as the time spent reviewing the pleadings of the Agency, and the orders of the PERC hearing officer. Attorney Elizabeth Willis, a former PERC hearing officer, testified that the issues presented in Johnson’s cases before PERC were unique and difficult. Ms. Willis testified she reviewed the pleadings and orders of the underlying cases before PERC, as well as the Billing Statement of Flury & Atkins, LLC. Based upon her review and her knowledge of PERC proceedings and the law in this area, she concluded the hours expended by counsel and the hourly rates charged were reasonable. While DOC asserted in its Proposed Recommended Order that the amount of attorney’s fees and costs being sought by Johnson is excessive, it presented no evidence to support its contention. Rather, the unrebutted evidence of record established that the reasonable attorney’s fees and costs incurred by Johnson in the proceedings before PERC was $12,431.00.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: Respondent, Constance Grant Johnson, was licensed by the Department of Education for the State of Florida, Certificate No. 239817, and was employed by the Dade County School Board for sixteen years. On December 20, 1985, Respondent, after a jury trial, was found guilty of two felonies: possession of cocaine and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine. Respondent was sentenced to a prison term of four and one-half years and fined $25,000. Respondent served the sentence and the convictions are on appeal. On December 26, 1985, Respondent resigned her job as a visiting teacher (truant officer) "for personal reasons." On January 8 1986, the School Board of Dade County accepted Respondent's resignation but required: Formal notification to the Educational Practices Commission for licensure investigation; Prevention of any future employment in any capacity by the Dade County Public Schools; and Retention of the information regarding the dismissal action by the Superintendent of Schools as a matter of official record. There is no record to suggest Respondent contested the requirements of the Board's acceptance. On April 27, 1985, Respondent was visiting her cousin, Lola Thomas, in Jacksonville, Florida. Respondent had traveled from Miami on April 26, 1985, and had checked into the Rodeway Inn, room 117, with her companion, Danielle Valdez Baro. Respondent registered as "Mr and Mrs. D. Johnson." Respondent had rented a car for the purpose of this trip. Sometime prior to noon on April 27, 1985, Lola Thomas arrived at the Rodeway Inn to pick Respondent up to go shopping for a family dinner to be prepared later in the day. The two cousins did not go grocery shopping. Instead, they traveled back to the Thomas home where they picked up Arthur Thomas, Lola's husband. The three then traveled to Yancy Park, an area a few blocks from a Pic N' Save store located on Soutel and Norfolk. An undercover sheriff's officer, R. A. Walsh, had met with one Joseph Mack at this Pic N' Save and had arranged to purchase two ounces of cocaine for $4000.00. Walsh then followed Joseph Mack to Yancy Park to complete the transaction. Walsh observed Mack walk to the vehicle wherein Respondent and the Thomases were seated and obtain a white bundle which Mack placed under his shirt. Mack and Arthur Thomas then walked back to Walsh's vehicle to receive payment. Respondent had handed the bundle, wrapped in a hand towel from the Rodeway, Inn, to Arthur Thomas who had, in turn, handed it to Mack. The bundle contained approximately two ounces of cocaine. Respondent's testimony that she did not know the bundle contained cocaine was not credible. Respondent's testimony that she merely passed the bundle at her cousin Lola's direction was not credible. Respondent and Lola Thomas were seated in the front seat of the Thomas' 1984 Pontiac Bonneville. Lola Thomas was in the driver's seat and her husband, Arthur, was seated directly behind her. Respondent admitted she had removed a hand towel from the Rodeway Inn and that the bundle had been wrapped in a similar towel. Respondent claimed Lola Thomas had also removed a second hand towel from the Rodeway Inn, but such second towel was not located and was not listed on the police reports of the incident. Respondent admitted that only one towel was utilized in the criminal proceedings which resulted in her convictions. Respondent's claim that Lola Thomas had taken a towel was not credible. Respondent's testimony that the Thomas vehicle was parked in a center shopping or strip mall and that she only discussed needed grocery items with Lola Thomas was not credible. The weight of credible evidence established the Thomases and Respondent were apprehended at Yancy Park. Dr. Gray, an expert in professional ethics and personnel management, testified that the proof of either Count I or Count II would warrant permanent revocation of Respondent's teaching certificate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the petitioner enter a Final Order permanently revoking Respondent's teacher's certificate. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of September, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of September, 1987. APPENDIX Rulings on the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by Petitioner: Accepted in Finding of Fact 1. Accepted in Findings of Fact 1 and 3. Rejected as argument. However, point is addressed in conclusions of law 5. See also Finding of Fact 2. Accepted in Finding of Fact 2. Accepted in Finding of Fact 2. Accepted in Finding of Fact 3. Rejected as argument. See relevant Findings of Fact 7 and 8. Accepted but unnecessary and argument. See Finding of Fact 10. Accepted in Finding of Fact 12. Rulings on the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by Respondent. Accepted in Finding of Fact 1. Accepted in Findings of Fact 2 and 11. Accepted in Findings of Fact 6, 9, and 10. But see Findings of Fact 7 and 8. Rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. Accepted to the extent addressed in Findings of Fact 5 and 6 otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of credible evidence. See Findings of Fact 7 and 8. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig Wilson, Esquire 215 Fifth Street, Suite 302 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Hon. Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Marlene T. Greenfield, Administrator Professional Practices Services 319 West Madison Street, Room 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Karen Barr Wilde, Executive Director Education Practices Commission 125 Knott Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact 1. On March 6, 1984, a person named Earl Cole, who is or was also known as Robert E. Cole entered pleas of nolo contendere in the Circuit Court, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, in and for Palm B3each County, Florida, to the following: Case No. Count(s) Crime 82-4836-CF A02 Check 1 Obtaining Property in Return for Worthless 82-7339-CF A02 Check 2 Obtaining Property in Return for Worthless 82-7745-CF A02 1 Uttering a Forgery
