Findings Of Fact On or about September 11, 1989, a commercial, dump truck owned by Petitioner, Alamazan Brothers Trucking, Inc., was travelling on State Road 807. Mr. Michael Roberts, Safety and Hazardous Materials Officer for Respondent, Department of Transportation, noticed that the truck did not have the required identification on the door and stopped the truck for further investigation. After the truck stopped, Mr. Roberts noted that the truck possessed an expired temporary license tag, and the driver did not have a valid registration for the truck. Mr. Roberts, then, weighed the truck with his portable scale and calculated a gross weight of 65,900 pounds. Mr. Roberts gave the driver the opportunity to contact the owner of the truck about the registration and, in accordance with policy of the Department, allowed the owner over one hour to produce a valid registration. A representative of the owner appeared and showed Mr. Roberts a duplicate registration certificate purchased the same day as the incident which indicated that the authorized gross weight for the truck was 24,680 pounds. Mr. Roberts made the determination that the registration was not valid at the time of the stop and imposed a fine for overweight of $1,545. The fine was calculated for the amount of the gross weight in excess of 35,000 pounds times five cents per pound. Existent law establishes that, for the purposes of calculation of a penalty such as the one at issue, the authorized gross weight for an unregistered vehicle is 35,000 pounds. An additional $50 was imposed as the fine for not having the required identification on the door of the truck. The total penalty of $1,595 was paid under protest. However, Petitioner did, in fact, have a valid registration on the day of the stbp. Through administrative delay, the registration certificate had not been mailed to Petitioner. On or around September 7, 1989, Petitioner purchased the truck and a temporary tag was issued to Petitioner by the dealer from which he purchased the truck. At that time, an application for registration was made to the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. The application was for a registration authorizing a gross weight of 64,000 pounds. Petitioner had not received the permanent tag or registration by the date the stop occurred. After Petitioner was alerted at the stop, Petitioner obtained a duplicate registration within the time allotted to him by Respondent. This duplicate, the one shown to Mr. Roberts on the day of the stop, indicated an authorized gross weight of 24,680 pounds, an obvious typographical error. The gross weight did not match the gross weight applied for, instead, it duplicated the amount of the empty weight into the gross weight category. On September 13, 1989, Petitioner returned the form to the issuer and requested a corrected duplicate registration. The second duplicate also was in error. This time the form indicated the correct gross weight of 64,000 pounds, but, also, repeated that gross weight amount in the empty weight category. At the hearing, Petitioner also presented the application for registration which indicated it had applied for and was taxed for a gross weight of 64,000 pounds. It was only due to administrative delay that the correct registration was not presented at the time of the stop. However, no competent evidence was received which indicated that the truck did possess the required identification on the door, and Mr. Robert's testimony about the lack of such identification is deemed credible. Although the correct gross weight for which Petitioner is licensed is 64,000, his load at the time of the stop was 65,900 or 1,900 in excess of his 64,000 pound authorized amount. At five cents a pound his penalty for overweight should be $95.00 and not $1,545.00. The $95.00 plus the $50.00 for the failure to display the required identification yields a corrected fee of $145.00 and a refund due to Petitioner of $1,400.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation issue a Final Order correcting the fine imposed on Petitioner, establishing the appropriate fine at $145.00 and refunding $1,400 to Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 5th day of June, 1990. JANE C. HAYMAN 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 5th day of June, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-2088 The following represents the rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. The rulings are by paragraph within the proposed findings of fact and indicate the paragraph in the findings of fact portion of the attached recommended order which addresses the proposed finding of fact, if deemed appropriate. RESPONDENT Adopted in relevant part in paragraphs 1,2 and 3. Adopted in relevant part in paragraphs 4,5 and 9. Adopted in relevant part in paragraphs 6,7,8 and 10. COPIES FURNISHED: Dewey H. Varner, Esquire Varner, Cole & Seaman 2601 Tenth Avenue, North, Suite 410 Lake Worth, Florida 33461 Vernon T. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Attn: Eleanor F. Turner Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Robert Scanlan Interim General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
Findings Of Fact Citizens for Responsible Boating, Inc., the Petitioner, is a not-for- profit corporation organized under the laws of Florida. Its approximately 500 members own, sell and use boats and boat related products on the waters regulated by the State. Their purposes are to promote boating and water sports and to protect the boating public's right to access and use of Florida waters. The Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP") is the state agency with primary responsibility for rulemaking to regulate boat speeds incident to protection of manatees, pursuant to Subsection 370.12(2), Florida Statutes. After a series of public hearings on earlier versions of the rule, the Secretary of DEP approved the rules on August 11, 1993, to be effective on September 9, 1993. Subsection 370.12(2), Florida Statutes, the Florida Manatee Sanctuary Act, was enacted to give DEP the authority to regulate: (f). . . the operation and speed of motorboat traffic, only where manatee sightings are frequent and it can be generally assumed, based on available scientific information, that they inhabit these areas on a regular or continuous basis . . . . The challenged rules enacted pursuant to the Act have the effect of limiting boat speeds in western Volusia County in the Hontoon Dead River, and the parallel St. Johns River, roughly from a point just south of the Beresford Peninsula at Marker 63 extending south to Marker 81; and in eastern Volusia County on the Indian River from the North Bridge in New Smyrna Beach through Ponce Inlet to Rock House Creek, and on the Indian River in Edgewater and Oak Hill from Marker 65 to Marker 9A. The waterways are designated year round slow speed zones. Slow speed zones are, according to the definitions in Rule 16N- 22.002, designated areas . . . "within which it has been established that manatees are known to congregate." Eastern Volusia County (Halifax and Indian River) In the slow speed zone north of New Smyrna Beach, Michael Godfrey, Sr., a boat dealer from Edgewater who formerly water-skied in the area, reported seeing probably 6 manatees over 27 years. His average speed on the water was 45 miles per hour in boats, and in excess of 38 miles per hour on water-skis. The only manatees he is able to see are the ones which have come to the surface of the water to feed. High speed corridors are included in most of the Volusia County waterways. Exemptions from the speed limits are available for boat dealers with service departments, but no application has been made based on Mr. Godfrey's unexplained conclusion that it is not economically feasible. What was a 15 minute demonstration ride for boats from his Edgewater dealership through the Ponce Inlet prior to the enactment of speed restrictions, now takes 45 minutes. Water-skiing is impossible in the slow speed zone, and because he is a professional skier, Mr. Godfrey has to use a freshwater lake in Volusia County to ski at speeds exceeding 35 miles per hour. The nearest available freshwater lake is 35 miles from Edgewater. For nonprofessionals, water-skiing is still available in a 35 mile per hour designated water sports area near a power plant. That area is particularly congested on weekends. The water temperature is usually below 68 degrees in December, January and February. Surface temperatures go as low as 58 degrees. The rule also applies to jet skis and other types of personal watercraft, skies which average 300 pounds in weight, and extend approximately three inches into the water and have no propellers. These watercraft are not equipped with speedometers. Some barges on the St. Johns River extend six feet into the water and have not had the speed at which they operate affected by the rule. The speed allowed for boats depends, in part, on the type of hull. Mr. Godfrey knows how to determine if a boat is operating on a plane, not causing a wake, and coming off plane. A United States Coast Guard licensed ocean master, Edward J. Stupack, Jr., operated commercial fishing, diving and tour boats in Volusia County to see shuttle launches and to tour Tomoka State Park. The speed limits have caused him to eliminate Tomoka State Park tours, because trips that took four hours now take a full day. Shuttle launch tours which previously took 1 1/2 hours to the shuttle, now take 3 to 4 1/2 hours to the shuttle site. Registration for the Greater Daytona Strike and Fish Tournament has fallen from 250 boats to less than 200 in the past two years. At slower speeds, more carbon collects in boat engines, and more maintenance is required. In addition, exhaust fumes and heat make boat rides less comfortable at slow speeds. In eleven years of boating in eastern Volusia County, Mr. Stupack has seen two manatees both hugging the shoreline, one going out Ponce Inlet to sea and another around Rock House Creek. There is undisputed expert testimony in this case, however, that manatees do not always, or as a general rule, travel along the shoreline. Mr. Stupack has not applied for an exemption from the rules because he does not believe his small, part-time business has enough clout. In the 50 miles of Intercoastal Waterway from Flagler to Brevard County, eight of the total ten and a half miles regulated were regulated idle speed areas for boating safety prior to the manatee protection speed limits. The manatee slow speed zone resulted in the addition of two and a half miles of regulated area. There are two designated recreational areas along the 50 miles. DEP relied, in part, on the 1988 report of the Marine Manual Commission to support regulation in Eastern Volusia County. Western Volusia County (St. Johns River) Richard E. Rawlins, the owner and operator of a fish camp in Deland with a 150 boat slip and 59 unit campground, operates guided fishing tours exclusively in the St. Johns River Basin from Lake George at Putnam County to Lake Monroe in Seminole County. Prior to the adoption of the rule, idle zones existed around bridges and marinas on the St. Johns. Mr. Rawlins operated guided fishing tours at speeds of 40 to 45 miles per hour. The camp is close to bankruptcy having gone from 8 to 3 employees, from 80 to 85 percent to 10 percent wet storage occupancy and 30 to 35 percent dry storage occupancy. Having received three tickets and many warnings for exceeding the speed limit, Mr. Rawlins has reduced, by approximately half, his own recreational boating and fishing. Pulling persons on innertubes has also been eliminated by slow speeds, which he estimates equates to 5 to 7 miles per hour, as compared to innertubing at 40 miles per hour prior to the rule. Although, innertubing at 40 miles per hour was probably unsafe. Mr. Rawlins 20 foot boat with a 200 horsepower engine gets up on a plane at approximately 28 miles per hour and maintains a plane at 25 miles per hour. Prior to the rule, water-skiing on the St. Johns occurred primarily between Markers 38 and 20 at Cross Creek. The area now has a 30 mile per hour speed limit above Marker 32 and 25 miles below it. From the fish camp to the lower basin of the Hontoon Dead River takes over four hours, as compared to 45 to 50 minutes by boat prior to the adoption of the rule. The camp's operation of bass fishing tournaments has been eliminated by the inability to cover greater distances in shorter periods of time. In 32 years of St. Johns River boating and fishing, Mr. Rawlins estimates having seen manatees on one of every 18 to 20 trips, although the waters of the St. Johns River and its tributaries are relatively dark. He recalls one boat related manatee killing near his camp two and a half years ago, and a couple more at the Hontoon Dead River at about the same time. Recently, he has seen manatees outside of the Blue Springs area near Marker 20. Prior to that, he had not seen manatees in the area for 60 to 70 days. Although it varies, generally in December, January and February, the guide sees up to 70 manatees congregating in Blue Springs. When water temperature drops below 68 degrees in the rest of the river basin, the manatees move to Blue Springs because of its constant water temperature of 72 degrees. Mr. Rawlins does not need a speedometer to determine whether his boat is settled in the water. Because different boats settle differently depending on the type of hull, Mr. Rawlins believes Marine Patrol enforcement is not uniform. The speed limits in the areas north of the camp in the Norris Dead River to Lake Woodruff are at least 25 miles per hour, except for areas of idle zones established for marinas and for public safety, but not under the manatee protection rules. Access to southern fishing areas through the Hontoon Dead River have been adversely affected by the rule. Mr. Rawlins has not filed any written application for an exemption from the rule. He claims to have applied and been turned down by telephone. One boat manufacturer in Volusia County has received an exemption to test its boats at higher speeds. William B. Flowers, Sr., is a fishing guide who lives near the Lake Beresford Peninsula, and operates a 14 foot boat powered by a 48-horsepower motor at slower speeds than 300 foot long barges pushed by tugboats with two five foot propellers. It now takes approximately 4 hours to reach the areas of the Wekiva, River which he could reach in 35 minutes prior to the adoption of the rule. He will not apply for an exemption from the rule based on concern for his neighbors who would still have to adhere to the slow speeds. Lake Beresford is too crowded with fishermen to also accommodate water-skiers. Lake Woodruff and Lake Dexter are in a Federal Wildlife Refuge infested with alligators. On the St. Johns River, three miles of idle speed zone is imposed for boating safety and an additional nine-tenths of a mile for manatee protection, seven miles around Blue Springs and south of it, and another four and a quarter miles going into the southern Norris Dead River. The best estimate is that two thousand manatees live in Florida waters. Up to 76 manatees spend some time during the winter months in Blue Springs, particularly when water temperatures elsewhere drop to 20 degrees Centigrade or 68 degrees Fahrenheit. As water temperature approaches 50 degrees, manatees stop feeding and must get to warmer water to survive. Except for times of the most severe cold fronts, manatees in Blue Springs venture out into the St. Johns River system on a daily basis. In general, they venture out 12 kilometers from the springs, but have been known to go to Jacksonville. Mr. Flowers sees manatees around the springs from December to early March, and a few in Lake Beresford when there is grass left in the lake. The Regulations Rule 16N-22.003(6) authorizes exemptions for commercial fishermen and professional fishing guides and adopts, by reference, a written application form. Exemptions may not be granted for speeds in excess of 20 miles per hour nor in "motorboat prohibited" and "no entry" zones. There have been no denials of exemption applications from Volusia County. One exemption has been granted in Volusia County, other applications are pending. DEP relied, in part, on the Bengston study of manatees in the St. Johns River, which shows manatees move from one area to another depending on the availability of grasses for feeding. DEP also relies on the federal Endangered Species Recovery Plan for Manatees, which lists as its first priority reducing boating speeds in order to reduce boating-related accidental manatee deaths. A killing of a manatee by personal watercraft has been reported in Puerto Rico. There are no documented cases of manatees being killed by airboats. The rules apply to personal watercraft and airboats. Although, there was undisputed expert testimony that exemptions are available for airboats in some slow zones. In the last 15 to 20 years, an average of two manatees a year have been killed in Volusia County. There was no evidence of the types of watercraft causing the fatal injuries. Average boating speeds in Broward, Palm Beach and Pinellas Counties are 26 to 28 miles per hour, and lower in the rest of Florida. The majority of smaller recreational boats plane safely at speeds of 25 miles per hour or less. Because of its size and depth of the hull, DEP acknowledges that a barge going 5 miles per hour may pose more danger to manatees than smaller vessels traveling faster. The meaning of slow speed, as taught to Marine Patrol officers, is that a vessel is fully settled and level in the water and the wake does not endanger other vessels operating on the water or tied up along the shore. If an officer approaches a boat which settles into the water after reducing its speed, then the boat has not been operating at a slow speed. The view from a moving boat is a poor vantage point to determine the presence of manatees. Manatees are only able to move at speeds up to 15 miles per hour for short distances. To allow vessels to plane at approximately 20 miles per hour, 25 miles per hour zones have been adopted due to the absence of lower effective boat speeds between slow and 25 miles per hour, at which a boat could plane. The regulations also include 30 and 35 mile per hour speed zones. At 30 miles per hour, virtually all vessels, except the largest cigarette boats, can plane. At 35 miles per hour, innertubing, parasailing and water-skiing are possible if the water is deep and wide enough, except for barefoot and professional water- skiing. Although many boats are not equipped with speedometers, relatively accurate and inexpensive ones are available to determine speeds in excess of 10 miles per hour. Personal watercraft and jet skis cannot be equipped with speedometers. Other methods for determining speed are frequently used by boaters. Some of the higher speed zones in Volusia County decrease to 25 miles per hour at night, although moving boaters are unlikely to see manatees and manatees are unlikely to see boats. Manatees are able to see only two or three feet ahead, depending on water clarity, but there was unrefuted expert testimony that they are more aware of surroundings in daylight and better able to sense where to move to avoid boats.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence presented at final hearing, the following facts are determined: Nature of Complainant's Handicap At all times material hereto, Petitioner, Charles Fenesy ("COMPLAINANT"), suffered from severe coronary heart disease (arteriosclerosis), diabetes, and excess weight. The arteriosclerosis consists of lipid deposits which obstruct and interfere with the flow of blood in all three major arteries to his heart; the diffuseness of the deposits make bypass surgery inadvisable. As a result of this disease, the COMPLAINANT began, in 1972, to experience occasional angina pectoris, which is sharp chest pain associated with activity. (Testimony of Fenesy, Hampton; P.E. 11.) The angina pectoris, however, occurred only when he was engaging in tasks involving physical activity and exertion, such as working in the yard, mowing the lawn, pulling weeds, and walking too fast; he has never experienced angina pectoris because of mental or emotional stress. During his 17 years as a computer analyst and programmer, he never experienced angina attacks in connection with his work environment; neither did his angina attacks ever interfere with his job attendance or performance or require that his work schedule be altered. Because of his heart disease, COMPLAINANT is unable to perform normal physical activity and exertion; his working activities are limited to those found in the office environment. The ability of a person inflicted with severe heart disease to capably function in a working environment is related to his temperament. The COMPLAINANT is a well-controlled, even- tempered person who has demonstrated ability to capably perform computer analyst and programmer duties and effectively cope with the stresses of an office environment. He has never experienced a heart attack. (Testimony of Fenesy; P.E. 11.) In order to control and treat his heart disease (which is incurable, without surgical bypass), and relieve angina pectoris symptoms, COMPLAINANT takes various vasodilators, including nitroglycerin and inderal; he is on a diet and takes diabinese to control his diabetes. If he suffers angina pectoris when mowing the lawn, he quickly takes the prescribed medication, the pain subsides, and he continues mowing. (Testimony of Fenesy; P.E. 11) Complainant's Application for Employment as a Program-Analyst On September 18, 1978, COMPLAINANT filed an application for employment as a program-analyst with the Respondent, GTE Data Services, Inc. ("COMPANY"). Betty Graef, Supervision of the COMPANY's CRB Source Group, had an available program-analyst position in the Customer Master File Unit; after review the COMPLAINANT's application, she concluded that he appeared to be qualified for the position and asked Nancy Fitzpatrick, the COMPANY's Personnel Representative, to arrange an employment interview. (Testimony of Fenesy, Graef, Fitzpatrick; R.E. 4.) Qualifications and Duties of the Available Program-Analyst Position. The program-analyst position which Ms. Graef had available entailed coding computer programs based on specifications prepared by a senior analyst. These programs maintained billing and address information on telephone company customers. There were approximately 22 other program-analysts in that department. The work required knowledge of assembly, also known as BAL or computer language, and typically required meeting deadlines and coping with emergency demands. Occasionally analysts were required to work long and irregular hours, due to emergencies, or in order to correct errors. The frequency of such a requirement would vary: employees who were capable and careful in their work were less likely to experience such demands. Substantial overtime work was not ordinarily required. (Testimony of Fenesy, Gradef.) During the subsequent employment interview conducted by Ms. Graef, COMPLAINANT specifically asked if the position required overtime work: she answered that, except under exceptional conditions, there would be no overtime required unless he fell behind in his work. To the extent Ms. Graef's testimony at hearing tended to describe the position as on regularly requiring excessive or extraordinary hours, it is rejected as at variance with her prior description of the position during the employment interview with COMPLAINANT, and is considered unpersuasive. (Testimony of Fenesy, Graef.) Qualification of Complainant At the time of his application, COMPLAINANT was employed by Pinellas County as an automatic mapping supervisor, at $12,000 per annum. He supervised 23 employees, and was responsible for their hiring, performance, and firing. Generally, he worked a 40-hour work week, although he occasionally worked irregular or overtime hours. During the summer of 1977, he worked 50 hours a week. (Testimony of Fenesy.) COMPLAINANT was knowledgeable and had extensive experience in the area of data processing. He had worked in that field for 17 years, and attended various technical training seminars; moreover, he had previous programming experience using BAL, the particular computer language required for the position. He also held a Bachelor of Science degree in Business Administration. By virtue of his technical knowledge and experience, COMPLAINANT was qualified to carry out the duties of the available program-analyst position in Ms. Graef's department. The only objection raised to his employment was based on his physical condition. (Testimony of Fenesy; R.E. 4.) The Company's Conditional Offers of Employment and Rejection of Complainant. On September 21, 1978, after the COMPLAINANT's employment interview with Ms. Graef and Ms. Fitzpatrick, the COMPANY offered to employ him as a program-analyst, at $16,000 per annum, conditioned upon his passing the standard pre-employment physical. After his rejection of the offer, the COMPANY made a second offer on October 6, 1978, with a salary of $18,000 per annum; this offer was also condition upon passage of the pre-employment physical. COMPLAINANT accepted this offer, and promptly gave notice to his present employer, Pinellas County, effective October 13, 1978. He was scheduled to begin work with the COMPANY on October 16, 1978. (Testimony of Fenesy, Graef, Fitzpatrick; P.E. 1,2,3) On October 10, 1978, the medical doctor ordinarily used by the COMPANY for this purpose, Edward F. Carter, M.D., gave the COMPLAINANT the standard pre- employment physical examination. On the medical questionnaire form, COMPLAINANT disclosed that he had angina pectoris, and was taking inderal for its control; and he also explained the "over exertion may cause angina pain" (R.E. 4), and gave the name of his cardiologist, John Dormois, M.D. Despite this disclosure, no diagnostic tests were administered by Dr. Carter to determine the severity of his heart disease, or the extent to which it might interfere with his performance as a program-analyst. The stated purpose of the examination, as indicated on the COMPANY form is "to determine if . . .[the applicant] meet(s) the physical standards of the position for which . . .[he is] applying." (R.E. 4.) Several days later, COMPLAINANT was notified by Ms. Fitzpatrick that he had "flunked" the physical. Dr. Carter's brief written "Physician's Report" indicated the COMPLAINANT had "angina, on medication", and "diabetes regulated and diet"; the box labeled "unemployable at this time", was checked. (Testimony of Fenesy; R.E. 4.) COMPLAINANT protested to Ms. Fitzpatrick and tried to contact the COMPANY's affirmative action officer. He also asked Dr. Dormois (his cardiologist who was familiar with the nature of his heart disease) to call Dr. Carter to discuss his condition. On October 16, 1978, Ms. Fitzpatrick told him they would try to arrange a second physical with another doctor. Due to his resignation (extended one week), the COMPLAINANT faced unemployment as of October 20, 1978, and was anxious to quickly resolve the matter. A second physical examination was thereafter scheduled for October 20, 1978, with Phillip Hampton, M.D., a practitioner of internal medicine with specialties in both diabetes and cardiology. The COMPANY's representative involved had, at that time, resolved to go along with whatever decision was made by Dr. Hampton. (Testimony of Fenesy, Fitzpatrick, Hampton). On October 20, 1978, Dr. Hampton took the COMPLAINANT's medical history, and conducted a 15-minute physical consisting of x-rays, an electrocardiogram, blood, and urine tests. COMPLAINANT explained that he had experienced angina pectoris for approximately three years, in situations of physical exertion and stress.3 Dr. Hampton was aware that COMPLAINANT was taking vasodilatory medication to alleviate angina pain, as well as diabinese to control his diabetes. The medically recognized diagnostic test to coronary diabetes. The medically recognized diagnostic test for coronary heart disease is a coronary arteriography; however, Dr. Hampton did not administer this test to COMPLAINANT. There is one objective diagnostic test to determine whether an individual suffers from angina pectoris--the stress test. It consists of placing the patient on a treadmill requiring physical exertion; the effects of exertion on blood pressure and production of pain (angina pectoris) are detected, as are changes in the patient's electrocardiogram. However, Dr. Hampton did not perform a stress test upon COMPLAINANT. (Testimony of Fenesy, Hampton.) On October 27, 1978, Dr. Hampton notified the COMPANY of the results of his examination of COMPLAINANT: "Dear Mrs. Fitzpatrick: As a result of my examination of Mr. Charles A. Fenesy on Oct. 1978, I find that he has obesity, diabetes and angina pectoris. He would be largely relieved of diabetes and angina if he would reduce his weight to under 200 lbs. which means a loss of about 70 lbs. If he does not he is not a good risk physically and in danger of a myocardial infarction." (R.E. 3.) Based on Dr. Hampton's letter, Ms. Fitzpatrick notified COMPLAINANT on October 30, 1978, that Dr. Hampton had concurred with Dr. Carter, and that he would not be hired. COMPLAINANT asked for a letter to that effect which the COMPANY never furnished. (Testimony of Fitzpatrick, Fenesy; R.E. 3.) Neither Dr. Carter nor Dr. Hampton recommended to the COMPANY that COMPLAINANT was "employable" if he took medication to control his condition. They both were aware that he was already taking such medication. (Testimony of Hampton, Fenesy; R.E. 4.) However, after COMPLAINANT warned that he would file a grievance because of his rejection, Tannia Yarborough, the COMPANY's Equal Employment Opportunity Administrator, told him that he would be considered for employment if he submitted a letter from his doctor stating that his medical problems were under control and if he would participate in a COMPANY weight reduction program; the weight reduction program requisite was later withdrawn. [The COMPANY did not have a policy to monitor the weight of its employees.] Ms. Yarborough, who was involved in the COMPANY's decisions concerning COMPLAINANT, thought angina pectoris was a cardiac disease, and not a symptom of the disease. (Tr. 213.) She also was not aware at the time of hearing that COMPLAINANT's cardiac disease was progressive--that is could be controlled but not cured. In response to Ms. Yarborough's suggestion, COMPLAINANT's cardiologist, Dr. Dormois, wrote a letter on January 18, 1979, stating that COMPLAINANT's symptoms (angina pectoris) were under control by medication, that COMPLAINANT had shown "absolutely no tendency over the last several years to have any difficulty performing his usual assigned task," and that he had "no reason to think that in the foreseeable future that this will be greatly altered." (P.E. 4.) (Testimony of Fenesy, Yarborough; P.E. 4.) Effect of Complainant's Coronary Heart Disease on His Performance as a Program-Analyst There is insufficient evidence to establish that COMPLAINANT's coronary heart disease would adversely impact or interfere with his performance as a program-analyst with the COMPANY. The two COMPANY doctors who examined him had no awareness of the particular demands of the position for which he applied; they did not even discuss with him his extensive experience in the data processing field (18 years), and whether his disease had interfered with his work in an office environment. (Testimony of Fenesy, Hampton.) The actions of the two doctors supports an inference that the COMPANY had not enunciated, in advance, the purpose of pre-employment physicals, and the standards which apply to determining the medical "employability" of a job applicant. The COMPANY accepted the simple checking of an "unemployable" box on a form by Dr. Carter, and Dr. Hampton's reinforcing conclusion that COMPLAINANT "is not a good risk physically" (R.E.3) if he does not reduce his weight; these documents form the basis of the COMPANY's rejection. Dr. Hampton's conclusions concerning COMPLAINANT's disease were admittedly based on statistical probability, not on an individual assessment of COMPLAINANT's temperament, his defense mechanisms, and his ability to perform data processing work in an office environment. In essence, they concluded that COMPLAINANT's longevity or life expectancy is not good because of the progressive nature of his disease. (Testimony of Fenesy, Hampton; P.E. 11, R.E. 3,4.) Complainant's Lost Wages and Attorney's Fees COMPLAINANT made reasonable and diligent efforts to obtain employment after his rejection by the COMPANY. For 19 weeks he was unemployed; if the COMPANY had fulfilled its offer to employ him on October 39, 1978, he would have earned $6,576.93 during that period. He eventually secured various employment positions in the data processing field, and now works again for Pinellas County. As of the date of hearing, the difference between what he earned in those positions and what he would have earned with the COMPANY (had he been hired at $18,000 per annum) is $3,379.88. (Testimony of Fenesy; P.E. 6.) COMPLAINANT claims lost of fringe benefits which he would have received if he had remained in his job with Pinellas County in 1978; alternatively, he claims loss of fringe benefits which he would have received from the COMPANY if he had been employed since October, 1978. However, the benefits accorded by the two employers, including pensions, vacation, sick leave, and insurance coverage, are markedly dissimilar. Based on the quality of the evidence submitted on this question, any conclusion concerning COMPLAINANT's actual monetary loss in fringe benefits due to the COMPANY's action would be conjecture and unreliable. (Testimony of Fenesy; P.E. 6,9.) Because of the COMPANY's rejection of his employment application, COMPLAINANT applied for and received Social Security Disability Payments from October, 1978 through March, 1979. However, since he subsequently found gainful employment in March, 1979, (i.e., he did not remain disabled for the requisite period) the Social Security Administration retroactively denied his eligibility. He may now be required to reimburse the government for the disability payment which he received. (Testimony of Fenesy; P.E. 5.) The COMPLAINANT testified that he is obligated to pay attorney's fees of $600 in connection with this proceeding. In the absence of the COMPANY contesting this amount, it is concluded that such attorney's fees are reasonable. (Testimony of Fenesy; P.E. 6.)
Conclusions Conclusions: That Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment practice by failing or refusing to hire Petitioner because of his handicap. The Respondent failed to substantiate its asserted defense--that the absence of Petitioner's particular handicap was a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary for the performance of the position for which he applied. Recommendation: That the Commission prohibit the Respondent from engaging in such practice in the future, require it to pay Petitioner lost wages and attorney's fees, and offer him employment in the next available program-analyst position. Background On November 21, 1978, Petitioner, Charles Fenesy ("COMPLAINANT"), filed a complaint of discrimination with the Intervenor, Florida Commission on Human Relations ("COMMISSION"), alleging Respondent, GTE Data Services Inc. ("COMPANY"), denied him employment because of his physical handicap--heart disease. After investigation, the COMMISSION's Executive Director issued a "Determination: Cause" on October 22, 1979, concluding that there was reasonable cause to believe that the COMPANY had committed an unlawful employment practice prohibited by Section 23.167(1), Florida Statutes (1979) [formerly Section 13.261(1), Florida Statutes (1977)]. After the parties failed to conciliate, or informally resolve the dispute, COMPLAINANT filed his Petition for Relief with the COMMISSION on February 29, 1980. Thereafter, the Petition was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment of a hearing officer to conduct a Section 120.57 hearing. Final hearing was then set for May 20, 1980. Subsequently, upon the COMPANY's motion, and without objection, hearing was continued and reset for July 9, 1980. Thereafter, upon COMPLAINANT's motion, and without objection, the hearing was again continued and reset for September 10, 1980. Several pleadings were filed and disposed of prior to final hearing. On April 29, 1980, the COMMISSION's Executive Director moved to intervene as a party in this proceeding, which motion was granted. By way of affirmative defense to COMPLAINANT's Petition for Relief, the COMPANY asserted, among other things, that the Petition was untimely in that the COMMISSION had failed to comply with its own rules, Section 9D-9.05(3), Florida Administrative Code. Specifically, the COMPANY asserted that the above rule requires the service of a "Notice of Failure of Conciliation" 30 days after service of the "Determination: Cause". Records show that the COMMISSION denied the COMPANY's petition for reconsideration of the "Determination: Cause" on December 5, 1979; but the Notice of Failure of Conciliation was not issued until February 21, 180. On May 12, 1980, the COMMISSION moved to dismiss the COMPANY's affirmative defense. The COMPANY responded to the COMMISSION's motions, and moved for summary judgment. By order dated June 30, 1980, the COMMISSION's motion to dismiss the COMPANY's affirmative defense was granted on the grounds that (1) Rule 9D-9.05 does not specify the time period which a Notice of Failure of Conciliation must be issued, (2) COMPLAINANT's Petition for Relief was filed within the requisite time period from the issuance of the Notice, and (3) the COMPANY's actions contributed to the delay in issuance of the Notice. Also, the COMPANY's motion for summary judgment was denied on the ground that the conduct of the parties during settlement negotiations was not germane to the issues to be decided at final hearing. On June 18, 1980, the COMPANY moved to compel COMPLAINANT to answer interrogatories, which motion was granted on July 1, 1980. At final hearing, COMPLAINANT testified in his own behalf and offered Petitioner's Exhibit1 Nos. 3 through 7, each of which was received.2 The COMMISSION presented no witnesses or documentary evidence. At the close of hearing, the parties requested and were granted the opportunity to file proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law by October 21, 1980. Proposed findings were subsequently filed; those filed by the COMMISSION and COMPLAINANT are the subject of a pending motion to strike filed by the COMPANY.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order: Finding the COMPANY engaged in an unlawful employment practice in violation of Section 23.167(1), Florida Statutes (1979), and prohibiting such practice in the future; and Providing COMPLAINANT affirmative relief from the unlawful practice by requiring the COMPANY to (a) pay him lost wages in the amount of $9, 956.81; (b) offer him the next available program-analyst position at a salary and under conditions similar to that which he would have received in October, 1978, but for the COMPANY's unlawful practice; and (c) pay him $600 for attorney's fees incurred in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of December, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Telephone: (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of December, 1980.
The Issue DOAH Case No. 02-0033: Whether Respondent's licensure status should be reduced from standard to conditional. DOAH Case No. 02-1788: Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated March 13, 2002, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: AHCA is the state Agency responsible for licensure and regulation of nursing homes operating in the State of Florida. Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes. Healthpark operates a licensed nursing home at 16131 Roserush Court, Fort Myers, Florida. The standard form used by AHCA to document survey findings, titled "Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction," is commonly referred to as a "2567" form. The individual deficiencies are noted on the form by way of identifying numbers commonly called "Tags." A Tag identifies the applicable regulatory standard that the surveyors believe has been violated and provides a summary of the violation, specific factual allegations that the surveyors believe support the violation, and two ratings which indicate the severity of the deficiency. One of the ratings identified in a Tag is a "scope and severity" rating, which is a letter rating from A to L with A representing the least severe deficiency and L representing the most severe. The second rating is a "class" rating, which is a numerical rating of I, II, or III, with I representing the most severe deficiency and III representing the least severe deficiency. On October 15 through 18, 2001, AHCA conducted an annual licensure and certification survey of Healthpark, to evaluate the facility's compliance with state and federal regulations governing the operation of nursing homes. The survey team alleged three deficiencies during the survey, two of which are at issue in these proceedings. At issue are deficiencies identified as Tag F224 (violation of 42 C.F.R. Section 483.13(c)(1)(i), relating to neglect of residents) and Tag F325 (violation of 42 C.F.R. Section 483.25(i)(l), relating to maintenance of acceptable parameters of nutritional status). Both of the deficiencies alleged in the survey were classified as Class II under the Florida classification system for nursing homes. A class II deficiency is "a deficiency that the agency determines has compromised the resident's ability to maintain or reach his or her highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being, as defined by an accurate and comprehensive resident assessment, plan of care, and provision of services." Section 400.23(8)(b), Florida Statutes. Both of the deficiencies alleged in the survey were cited at a federal scope and severity rating of G, meaning that each deficiency was isolated, caused actual harm that is not immediate jeopardy, and did not involve substandard quality of care. Based on the alleged Class II deficiencies in Tags F224 and F325, AHCA imposed a conditional license on Healthpark, effective October 18, 2001. The license expiration date was September 30, 2002. Tag F224 The survey allegedly found violations of 42 C.F.R. Section 483.13(c)(1)(i), which states: Staff treatment of residents. The facility must develop and implement written policies and procedures that prohibit mistreatment, neglect, and abuse of residents and misappropriation of resident property. The facility must-- (i) Not use verbal, mental, sexual, or physical abuse, corporal punishment, or involuntary seclusion.... In the parlance of the federal Health Care Financing Administration Form 2567 employed by AHCA to report its findings, this requirement is referenced as "Tag F224." The Agency's allegations in this case involved neglect of a resident rather than any form of abusive treatment. The Form 2567 listed two incidents under Tag F224, both involving Resident 10, or "R-10." The surveyor observations read as follows: Based on observations, record review and interviews with a resident and a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), the facility failed to provide toileting needs as care planned for 1 (Resident #10) of 8 sampled residents reviewed for incontinence and toileting programs. The resident was not toileted for more than 5 hours causing multiple creased areas and redness to her left groin, perineum and buttocks. The findings include: On 10/15/2001, Resident #10 was in her room, #141, in bed A at 2:20 P.M. Resident stated she was wet. The call bell cord was clipped to the sheet, but the bell mechanism was off the side of the bed, out of the resident's reach. Surveyor walked to the North nurse's station and continued to observe the resident's room entrance. Record review revealed Resident #10's most recent quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) completed 8/27/2001, assessed her with bladder incontinence at 3 (frequently incontinent), bowel incontinence at 1 (less than once weekly), activity is assessed as bed mobility 3/3 (needs extensive assistance to move in bed), and toilet use at 3/2 (needs extensive assistance). At 4:15 P.M., the resident requested the surveyor to get someone to change her as no one had come in and the call bell was still out of her reach. The resident's request was given to the nurse at 4:20 P.M. On 10/16/01, Resident #10 was observed in her wheelchair in the hall outside her room from 8:55 A.M. until 12:05 P.M., when she was escorted to the main dining room. At 2:20 P.M., resident was still sitting in her wheelchair. After surveyor intervention, the CNA put the resident to bed at 2:30 P.M. When the adult diaper was removed, it revealed the resident to be incontinent of feces and urine. The odor of urine was very strong in the room. The resident's perineum and buttocks were red and moist, with multiple creased areas. The left groin was especially red. During an interview with the CNA, she stated the resident was last toileted before lunch at approximately 11:00 A.M. This was during the time of direct observation by the surveyor of the resident in the hall outside her room. Review of the resident's Care Plan revealed that she was to have the call bell in place at all times and scheduled toileting. Diane Ashworth was the survey team member who recorded the observation of R-10. Ms. Ashworth was assigned the task of observing R-10, and based her findings on a review of the resident's medical records, observations and interviews. R-10 was a 96-year-old diabetic female who had been admitted to Healthpark on March 28, 2000. R-10's most recent Minimum Data Set ("MDS"), completed on August 27, 2001, indicated that R-10 had short and long-term memory difficulties and moderately impaired decision making as to tasks of daily life. R-10 was generally confused as to place and time. She could make herself understood, and had no difficulty understanding what was said to her. She was easily angered and could be physically abusive to staff. R-10 required extensive assistance to move, dress, toilet, and maintain general hygiene. She was confined to her bed or to a wheelchair, and required assistance to move the wheelchair. R-10's MDS indicated a loss of voluntary movement in her hands, including her wrists and fingers. The MDS indicated that R-10 experienced daily incontinence of the bladder, and bowel incontinence once a week on average. The nurse's notes for R-10 indicated that she was able to make her needs known and that she was encouraged by staff to call for assistance as needed. The care plan for R-10 stated that she should have "scheduled toileting," but set forth no firm schedule. Ms. Ashworth testified that she would have expected R-10 to be toileted before meals, before bed, and upon rising, at a minimum. Mona Joseph was the CNA who attended R-10 on a daily basis. Ms. Joseph testified that R-10, like all residents who wore adult diapers, was scheduled for toileting every two hours and whenever necessary. In practice this meant that Ms. Joseph would inquire as to R-10's need for toileting every two hours. Ms. Joseph testified that R-10 would ask her for toileting at least twice a day, and that she never refused the request. She always toileted R-10 before lunch, and testified that on October 16 she toileted R-10 at about 11 a.m. before taking her to lunch. Toileting R-10 required the use of a Hoyer lift to move the resident from her wheelchair to the bed. Ms. Joseph estimated that the entire process of toileting R-10 took seven to eight minutes. Caroline Nicotra, the supervisor of the long-term care unit in which R-10 resided and Ms. Joseph's supervisor, confirmed that Healthpark's CNAs were trained to make rounds every two hours and ask those residents requiring assistance if they needed to be toileted. R-10 was capable of making that decision, and her wishes regarding her need for toileting would be respected by the CNA. Ms. Ashworth's testimony was generally consistent with her written findings. She met R-10 on the afternoon of October 15. R-10 was lying in bed, and told Ms. Ashworth that she was wet. Ms. Ashworth noted that the call bell cord was clipped to R-10's bed, but that the bell mechanism itself was not within R-10's reach. Ms. Ashworth left the room and took a position at the nurses' station, from which she could see the door to R-10's room. She watched to see if any staff person from Healthpark went into R-10's room. She saw no one enter the room between 2:20 p.m. and 4:15 p.m., at which time she asked a CNA to toilet R-10. Ms. Ashworth returned at 8:55 a.m. on October 16, and observed R-10 sitting in her wheelchair in the hallway outside her room. Ms. Ashworth took up her post at the nurses' station and watched R-10 until 12:05 p.m. At no time in the morning did Ms. Ashworth see R-10 being moved or taken for toileting, though Ms. Joseph testified that she toileted R-10 at about 11 a.m. The evidence established that R-10's room was at the opposite end of a corridor from the nurses' station. The corridor was approximately 200 feet long from the nurses' station to R-10's room. The corridor was busy. Medications were passed at 9:00 a.m., meaning that medication carts went up and down the corridor. Staff carried breakfast trays in and out of rooms. Housekeeping and treatment carts were in the hallway. Given the distance of the nurses' station from R-10's room and the constant activity in the corridor, it is unlikely that Ms. Ashworth's view of R-10 was unobstructed at all times. Moreover, the nurses' station itself was a hub of activity. At the end of the nurses' station where Ms. Ashworth stood was the fax machine. The fax machine was kept constantly busy sending physicians' orders to the pharmacy. The unit secretary was stationed in this location. Nurses passed through this area to retrieve forms from the filing cabinets or to go to the medication room. The likelihood that Ms. Ashworth was unable from her vantage point to view R-10 at all times makes credible Ms. Joseph's testimony that she regularly checked with R-10 to ask whether she required toileting. However, it is unlikely that R-10 was ever out of Ms. Ashworth's sight for the period of seven to eight minutes necessary to actually toilet the resident. Ms. Ashworth's testimony that R-10 was not toileted at 11 a.m. on October 16 is therefore credited. At 12:05 p.m., R-10 was taken to the dining room for lunch. Ms. Ashworth followed and observed R-10 in the dining room. After lunch, R-10 was wheeled back to the outside of her room. Ms. Ashworth observed her from the nurses' station until 2:20 p.m. Ms. Ashworth did not see R-10 being taken for toileting between 12:05 and 2:20 p.m. At 2:30 p.m. on October 16, Ms. Ashworth approached Mona Joseph, the CNA responsible for R-10, and asked her to put R-10 to bed so that Ms. Ashworth could examine her buttocks. Ms. Ashworth asked another AHCA surveyor, Maria Donohue, to accompany her to confirm her observations. There was some delay while Ms. Joseph finished a task for another resident, but eventually Ms. Joseph wheeled R-10 into the room and placed her into bed. Ms. Joseph changed R-10's adult brief in the presence of Ms. Ashworth and Ms. Donohue. Ms. Ashworth testified that there was a strong smell of urine in the room, even before the brief was removed, though she noticed no smell of urine about R- 10 prior to entering the room. When Ms. Joseph removed the adult brief, Ms. Ashworth noted that it was wet and that there was a large amount of feces in the brief and on R-10's buttocks. Ms. Ashworth noted that the skin on R-10's perineum and buttocks was creased and red. The area of R-10's left groin was so red that Ms. Ashworth at first thought there was no skin. Ms. Ashworth stated that this kind of redness is associated with not being toileted as scheduled, though she conceded that such redness can also result from pressure. Ms. Ashworth also conceded that this was her first observation of R-10's buttocks, and thus that she had no baseline to judge how abnormal the redness was at the time Ms. Joseph changed the adult brief. Ms. Donohue also recalled a strong urine smell as soon as they entered the room. She agreed that R-10's buttocks were red in some areas, but recalled no further details. She could not recall if there was feces in the adult brief, but did recall that it was saturated with urine. Mona Joseph, the CNA who changed R-10's adult brief, believed that the urine smell in the room came from the next bed, because she had just changed the adult brief of the person in that bed. Ms. Joseph smelled no odor of urine or feces about R-10. Ms. Joseph testified that R-10's brief was dry, and that she began having a bowel movement while being changed. She noted no redness on R-10's buttocks. Caroline Nicotra was the supervisor of the long-term care unit in which R-10 resided. She knew R-10, and stated that R-10 regularly used her call bell, and would call out for help if she could not reach the call button clipped to her bed. She noted that all of the rooms to which Ms. Joseph was assigned were in the same area of the corridor, so that Ms. Joseph would always be able to hear R-10 call out. There would also be nurses in the area who could hear R-10. Ms. Nicotra knew the surveyors had gone into R-10's room with Ms. Joseph, and she went into the room moments after the surveyors left the room to ascertain whether anything had occurred that she needed to address. Ms. Joseph told Ms. Nicotra what had happened. Ms. Nicotra asked R-10 for permission to examine her body and R-10 assented. Ms. Nicotra removed R-10's adult brief and inspected R-10's buttocks. She observed no creasing or redness of the perineum or the buttocks. R-10's skin was intact and no different than Ms. Nicotra had seen it on other occasions. R-10 told Ms. Nicotra that she was not experiencing pain or discomfort in her buttocks area. Ms. Nicotra stated that R-10 weighed about 180 pounds, and that the creasing and redness observed by the surveyors could have been caused by the pressure of sitting in her wheelchair for a long time. Ms. Nicotra examined the adult brief that had been removed from R-10. She observed that it was slightly damp, which she attributed to sweat, and that it contained a smear of bowel movement. It did not smell strongly of urine. Viewing the evidence in its entirety, and crediting the honesty of the testimony of each witness, it is found that AHCA failed to prove the elements of Tag F224 by a preponderance of the evidence. Ms. Ashworth did not observe R-10 being toileted. However, Ms. Ashworth's observation does not establish that R-10 required toileting or that the facility was negligent in not toileting the resident. After the first meeting on October 15, Ms. Ashworth did not ask R-10 whether she needed to be toileted. Ms. Joseph inquired as to R-10's toileting needs every two hours. R-10 was able to make her needs known to facility staff, and she did so on a daily basis. If her call bell was out of reach, she would call out to staff. Ms. Joseph's testimony that the adult brief was dry of urine and contained only a slight amount of fecal material is supported by that of Ms. Nicotra, the only other witness who actually handled the adult brief, and is therefore credited. The only harm alleged by AHCA was the irritation to R- 10's bottom, claimed to be the result of R-10's sitting in a soiled adult brief for an extended period of time. The surveyors' testimony that R-10's perineum, buttocks, and left groin were creased and red at the time of changing is credited. Also credited, however, is Ms. Nicotra's testimony that R-10's perineum, buttocks and left groin were no longer creased or red a few minutes after the changing. Ms. Nicotra's testimony indicates that the creasing and redness were caused, not by irritation from urine and/or feces in the adult brief, but by an extended period of sitting in her wheelchair. The evidence indicates no neglect of R-10, and that R-10 suffered no harm during the sequence of events described in the Form 2567. II. Tag F325 The survey allegedly found a violation of 42 C.F.R. Section 483.25(i)(1), which states: Nutrition. Based on a resident's comprehensive assessment, the facility must ensure that a resident-- Maintains acceptable parameters of nutritional status, such as body weight and protein levels, unless the resident's clinical condition demonstrates that this is not possible.... This requirement is referenced on Form 2567 as "Tag F325." The survey found one instance in which Healthpark allegedly failed to ensure that a resident maintained acceptable parameters of nutritional status. The surveyor's observation on Form 2567 concerned Resident 17, or "R-17": Based on record review and staff (Unit Manager and Registered Dietician) interviews, the facility failed to adequately assess and revise the care plan to address the significant weight loss of 1 (Resident #17) of 15 from a sample of 21 residents reviewed for nutritional concerns. This is evidenced by: 1) After Resident #17 had a significant weight loss of 6.8% in 4 weeks, the facility did not have an adequate nutritional assessment and did not revise the care plan to prevent the resident from further weight loss. The findings include: 1. Resident #17 was admitted to the facility on 9/6/01 with diagnoses that include Sepsis, S/P Incision and Drainage (I&D) of the Right Knee and GI Bleed. The resident has a history of Coronary Artery Disease (CAD). During the clinical record review, it revealed [sic] that the resident's physician ordered Ancef (antibiotic) 2 grams every 8 hours on 9/6/01, to be given for 25 days. During the review of the resident's initial MDS (Minimum Data Set) completed on 9/19/01, it revealed [sic] he weighed 185 lbs (pounds) and is 72 inches tall. Review of the MDS also revealed the resident is independent with his cognitive skills for daily decision making. Further review of the MDS also revealed he requires set up and supervision during meals. He requires extensive assistance with dressing, bathing, and ambulation. Review of the nutritional assessment revealed the RD assessed the resident on 9/10/01. The assessment stated, "Resident has decreased appetite which may be R/T (related to) current meds (medications); Resident's wife feels he has lost wt (weight) but wt is increased due to edema in feet. Resident's current diet meets assessed needs. Will include food preferences to increase intake." Under "Ethnic/Religious Food Preferences" it stated, "No cultural preferences stated." The nutritional assessment completed by the RD on 9/10/01, stated that the resident weighs 185 lbs. His UBW (usual body weight) is 182 lbs. During an interview with the Unit Manager and Registered Dietician (RD) on 10/18/01 at approximately 11:00 AM, they stated that the resident's weight of 185 lbs., which is documented in the initial MDS, was inaccurate. The resident's accurate weight on admission was 175 lbs. During the review of the weight record, it revealed [sic] the resident remained 175 lbs. on 9/11/01. On 9/18/01, the resident weighed 168 lbs., indicating a weight loss of 7 lbs. in 7 days. During the review of the Resident Assessment Protocol (RAP) completed on 9/19/01, it revealed [sic] she [sic] triggered for "Nutritional Status." The care plan developed on 9/19/01 stated, "Res. (resident) leaves 25% or more of food uneaten at most meals. Weight: 168 lbs; UBW (usual body weight) 182 lbs." The goal stated, "Res will maintain weight up or down within 1-2 lbs. through next quarter: 10/17/01." The following approaches are listed: "Diet as ordered." "Encourage fluids." "Monitor weights." "Food preferences and substitute for uneaten foods." "Assist with tray set-ups, open all packages." Review of the physician's order dated 9/18/01 revealed the resident was started on TwoCal HN (supplements) 60cc's four times a day, ice cream everyday [sic] at 8:00 P.M., fruit everyday [sic] at 10:00 A.M. and peanut butter, cracker, and juice everyday [sic] at 2:00 P.M. During the review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for the months of 9/01 and 10/01, it confirmed [sic] that this additional supplements were given to the resident, however there is no documentation to indicate the resident's consumption of each supplement. Interview with the Unit Manager on 10/18/01 at approximately 11:15 A.M. also confirmed there is no documentation in the clinical record to indicate the resident's consumption of each snack. Review of the CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant) Care Plan for the month of 9/01 revealed no documentation being offered at bedtime and no documentation for the month of 10/01 that the resident received bedtime snacks. Further review of the resident's weight record revealed the resident weighed 163 lbs on 10/2/01. This indicates a significant weight loss of 12 lbs or 6.8 percent of his total body weight in 4 weeks. Review of the nurses' notes revealed that this significant weight loss had been identified on 9/26/01, 20 days after the resident's admission to the facility. The nurse's notes dated 9/26/01 stated that the care plan to address the risk for weight loss was reviewed. Review of the care plan confirmed it was reviewed on 9/26/01 and 10/6/01. The goal stated, "Will lose no more weight, 11/6/01." Added to approaches stated, "Nutritional supplements as ordered." However, further review of the clinical record and the care plan revealed no documentation to indicate that a comprehensive nutritional assessment was done. There is no documentation in the resident's clinical record to indicate that the care plan was revised. During an interview with the Unit Manager on 10/18/01 at approximately 2:15 P.M., she confirmed that after the resident's admission to the facility on 9/6/01, the resident was refusing to eat, but his appetite improved in the beginning of 10/01. He was consuming 75 percent-100 percent of his meals. She also stated that the resident had "pedal (foot and ankle) edema" on admission to the facility. There is no documentation in the resident's clinical record to indicate that this edema was monitored. There is no documentation in the clinical record that the resident was on a diuretic. She further stated that the final report on the blood culture done on the resident, dated 10/1/01, was positive for Candida sp (yeast infection). During the review of the clinical record, it did not have [sic] documentation to indicate that an assessment of the resident's protein intake was assessed at this time. There is no documentation in the resident's clinical record to indicate that the resident's albumin and protein levels were assessed. During an interview with the Unit Manager on 10/18/01, at approximately 2:15 P.M., she stated that the resident's family members were encouraged to visit more often and encourage to bring foods that he likes. She stated that the resident liked Italian food. This is in contrary to [sic] the RD's nutritional assessment completed on 9/10/01. She also stated that the facility staff continued to honor resident's food preferences and provided alternatives. There is no documentation in the resident's clinical record to indicate that an assessment of the resident's nutritional status, based on his current weight of 163 lbs. and current food intake was done. Further review of the resident's weight record revealed he weighed 158 lbs. on 10/9/01. This reveals a weight loss of 5 more lbs. in 12 days. During the interview on 10/18/01 at approximately 2:15 P.M., she did not have an explanation why the resident continued to lose weight despite an improvement in his appetite. Maria Donohue was the survey team member who recorded the observation of R-17. This resident was initially assigned to Ms. Ashworth, who briefly assessed R-17 in his room and commenced a review of his medical records. Ms. Ashworth noted R-17's weight loss and that his situation required further investigation. Because Ms. Ashworth was busy with her observations of R-10, the survey team shifted responsibility for R-17 to Ms. Donohue. Ms. Donohue based her findings on a review of the resident's medical records and interviews with Healthpark staff. She did not speak to or observe R-17. She did not interview R-17's physician, and could not recall speaking to R- 17's family. R-17 was an 84-year-old male with a history of coronary artery disease who was admitted to Healthpark from a hospital. About a year and a half before his admission to Healthpark, R-17 had a total knee replacement. He was admitted to the hospital because of a fever. A medical work-up revealed that he was septic, with infection throughout his body. The infection stemmed from his knee, and an incision and drainage was performed. The infection was severe, requiring the parenteral administration of the cephalosporin Ancef for a period of 25 days, beginning September 6, 2001. Anorexia is a known adverse reaction to Ancef. Upon admission to Healthpark, R-17 was experiencing pain that was controlled by Percocet, an analgesic with the potential to affect appetite. R-17 was prescribed Zanaflex, a muscle relaxant that can affect appetite. R-17 was also diagnosed as prone to constipation and took laxatives. R-17 also had swelling in his feet and ankles that caused discomfort when he walked. On September 9, an attending nurse documented edema from his ankles to his feet. On September 10, R-17's physician prescribed T.E.D. hose (compressive stockings) for the edema. R-17 refused to wear them. On the same date, R-17's pain increased and his physician ordered a low-dosage Duragesic patch in addition to his other medications. The dosage was increased on September 12, when his pain became so severe that he was screaming out and having spasms. By September 13, R-17's spasms were abating. On September 14, the pain had lessened and he was able to move about, though he continued to voice complaints about the pain. On September 18, R-17 was weighed and it was noted that he had lost seven pounds in the week since his admission. This weight loss was attributed to his pain and the combination of drugs R- 17 was taking, as well as some subsidence of the edema. Healthpark's nursing staff reported the weight loss to R-17's physician, who ordered the snacks and the TwoCal protein drinks described in Ms. Donohoe's observation. The physician visited on September 24 because R-17's pain level had increased and he was again experiencing constipation. The physician ordered blood cultures and Methotrexate for his pain. The physician was making continued efforts to determine the cause of R-17's pain. After the blood cultures were performed, R-17 was referred to a rheumotologist. The blood cultures revealed the presence of another organism in R-17's system besides that being treated with Ancef. On October 2, R-17 was also seen by an infectious disease specialist. R-17's condition improved for about a week. By October 10, the physician was preparing to order his discharge from Healthpark. However, in the early morning hours of October 11, R-17 became confused, incontinent, and had greatly increased pain. His physician ordered new lab work, including a total protein array and electrolyte tests. The record shows that on October 12, R-17 was screaming out in pain and his appetite, which had shown some improvement in early October, was very poor. Though R-17's condition and appetite showed some improvement over the next few days, on October 16 his physician decided to admit him to a hospital to determine the cause of R-17's weight loss and why his pain could not be controlled. Ms. Donohue explained the protocol followed by AHCA surveyors assessing a resident's nutritional status. First, the surveyor determines whether the resident has been assessed comprehensively, adequately, and accurately. If the assessment found that the resident was at risk for nutritional problems, then the facility must determine the interventions necessary to prevent the problems. The surveyor next assesses how the facility implemented the interventions. If the interventions do not work, the facility must show that it has re-evaluated the interventions and reassessed the resident to determine why the interventions failed. The facility must demonstrate that it has looked at all relevant factors, including intake of food and supplements and the resident's underlying medical condition. This re-evaluation and reassessment should lead to revisions in the interventions. The essential allegation under Tag F325 was that Healthpark failed to make a nutritional reassessment after finding that R-17 experienced a significant weight loss over a period of four weeks. Ms. Donohue's testimony at the hearing essentially confirmed her observation on the Form 2567, quoted above. R-17 was weighed weekly, and his weight record confirmed that between September 11, 2001 and October 9, 2001, R-17's weight dropped from 175 to 158 pounds. Lori Riddle, AHCA's expert in dietetics and nutrition, was also involved in the decision to cite R-17's treatment as a deficiency. Her review of the records led her to conclude that Healthpark was aware of R-17's weight loss and put in place approaches to counter that weight loss, but that these approaches were not well planned. Healthpark did not adequately monitor R-17's nutritional intake, such that the record indicated amount of food that was offered but not how much R-17 actually consumed. Ms. Riddle found that Healthpark's approaches were "fairly generic." Healthpark added snacks and nutritional supplements to R-17's diet, but did not indicate in its written care plan whether or how these would meet R-17's nutritional needs. After the initial nutritional assessment on September 10, Healthpark did not formally reassess R-17's caloric needs, even after he began losing weight. Ms. Riddle saw indications in the record that Healthpark recognized the weight loss and stated a goal of maintaining R-17's weight, but saw no recalculation of how many calories would be needed to maintain his weight. Alexandria Antoni was the registered dietician at Healthpark and an expert in the field of nutrition. Ms. Antoni performed the initial nutritional assessment of R-17 and monitored his status throughout the relevant period. She testified as to her relationship with R-17 and her efforts to maintain his food intake. R-17 was very alert and oriented, but had adjustment problems because he had always been an independent, relatively healthy person and had never been in a facility like Healthpark. As a result, R-17 was not receptive to staff's offering food. He did not want to be in the facility at all and resented being bothered by staff. Ms. Antoni noted that R-17 was in much pain and had a hard time dealing with it. The pain affected his ability to sit up or be mobile, and he was on many medications for his pain and infection, any or all of which could have affected his appetite. On her initial visit, Ms. Antoni brought R-17 a copy of the Healthpark menu and reviewed it with him and his family. Ms. Antoni credibly testified that R-17 stated no ethnic food preferences at this initial meeting, though he did tell her that he liked soup at lunch, prune juice in the morning, and a banana on his breakfast tray. Ms. Antoni's initial strategy was to increase R-17's intake by offering foods he liked to eat. His family was there with him every day, and she encouraged them to bring in foods that R-17 liked. Ms. Antoni saw R-17 daily. He would wait for her in the hallway and ask her to come in and tell him what was on the menu. R-17 would often directly phone the kitchen staff to discuss his meal preferences. Ms. Antoni disagreed that R-17's caloric needs were not properly documented. In her initial nutritional assessment, she calculated his caloric needs, based on his height, weight and medical condition, at 1,900 to 2,300 calories per day. She relied on the nursing admission assessment, which listed R-17's weight at 185 pounds, rather than his accurate weight of 175 pounds. Thus, Ms. Antoni's calculation resulted in R-17's getting more calories than his actual weight would have indicated. In her later approaches to R-17's situation, Ms. Antoni kept in mind that R-17 was already being offered more calories than his weight required. She opined that if R-17 had consumed what she calculated, his nutritional needs would have been met and he should not have lost weight. Ms. Antoni could not say why R-17 was losing weight. For the most part, he was eating 75 percent of his meals, which provided between 1,800 and 2,000 calories per day. The TwoCal supplement and the snacks ordered by the physician provided an additional 1,000 calories per day, providing a total well in excess of the 1,900 to 2,300 calorie range calculated by Ms. Antoni. Healthpark staff, including Ms. Antoni and R-17's physician, held meetings every week to discuss the residents' weight status. At each of these weight meetings, Ms. Antoni brought up the subject of R-17's weight loss with his doctor. Ms. Antoni disagreed with AHCA's conclusion that no reassessment was performed. She contended that reassessment occurred at the weekly weight meetings. She followed R-17's caloric intake daily. She could think of nothing else she could have done to increase R-17's weight. Any further action, such as ordering further laboratory tests or a feeding tube, would have required a physician's order. Carol Morris, an RN, was Medicare clinical coordinator at Healthpark and an expert in geriatric nursing. She concurred that the diet ordered for R-17 was adequate to meet his needs. He was cognitively aware, responsive, and could not be forced to eat. Ms. Morris confirmed that Healthpark staff tried to encourage R-17 to eat. The staff gave nutritional advice to R-17's family members so that they could assist in offering him foods that might help his appetite. Ms. Morris noted that pain can be a factor in weight loss. She also observed that the edema would have added to his weight on admission, and its resolution would naturally cause some weight loss. Resolution of his constipation also could have affected his weight. Healthpark staff considered all these factors in care planning to deal with R-17's weight loss. Staff communicated with R-17's physician and with his family on a daily basis. The nursing staff was following doctor's orders, and expected to see R-17's weight stabilize at some point. Ms. Morris testified that Healthpark's assessment of R-17's weight loss took into account his edema, constipation, adjustment to the facility, disease process, and the amount he was eating. She did not think there was anything else Healthpark could have done, given that R-17's physician was also perplexed as to why he was losing weight. Ms. Morris attributed the AHCA citation for failure to document R-17's caloric intake to a simple failure to understand Healthpark's method of charting. The nurses did not explicitly note the amount eaten by R-17 at every meal or snack. The nurse's initials indicated that R-17 ate 100 percent of the meal or snack. An amount was noted only when R-17 ate less than 100 percent of the food offered. If R-17 declined a meal or snack, it was noted and his physician was informed. Ms. Morris testified that R-17's preference for Italian food came up in a conversation with his family, after the nutritional assessment was done. When Healthpark staff saw that R-17 was losing weight, they to the family about what he might like to eat. Viewing the evidence in its entirety, it is found that AHCA failed to prove the elements of Tag F325 by a preponderance of the evidence. It is unquestioned that R-17 lost a significant amount of weight during the four weeks from September 11, 2001, to October 9, 2001. However, the evidence does not demonstrate that R-17's weight loss was caused by Healthpark's failure to provide adequate nutrition. To the contrary, the record indicates that R-17 was provided more than enough calories through meals to maintain his weight, and that supplements were ordered by his physician when he began to lose weight. While R-17's appetite was diminished, he continued to consume 75 percent of his meals on average and to take the snacks and TwoCal supplement. Healthpark's staff and R-17's physician were perplexed as to the reasons for his weight loss, with the physician ultimately ordering R-17 admitted to a hospital for further testing as to both his persistent pain and his weight loss. AHCA correctly noted that Healthpark failed to perform a nutritional reassessment of R-17, but the evidence indicates that such a reassessment would merely have constituted a written rendition of the actions the facility was taking. Healthpark was fully aware of R-17's weight loss and reacted in a reasonable manner. Staff encouraged R-17 to eat by offering him dietary options and enlisting the aid of his family. AHCA criticized Healthpark for failure to perform follow-up laboratory tests or to consider a feeding tube for R-17. However, only R-17's physician could have ordered laboratory tests or a feeding tube. The record makes it apparent the physician was concerned with the weight loss, but that his primary concern was R-17's multiple infections and his unexplained and intractable pain. R-17's edema subsided during his stay at Healthpark, which could account for some weight loss. His constipation was resolved to some extent, which could also have had some effect on his weight. R-17 was taking multiple medications, including powerful antibiotics and analgesics, that could affect his appetite. R-17 was having emotional difficulty adjusting to the facility and to his physical condition. Finally, R-17 was cognitively alert and within his rights simply to refuse to eat. Aside from the weight loss itself, R-17 showed no indications of a lack of proper nutrition. Healthpark took all these factors into account in its treatment of R-17. A formal nutritional reassessment would have had no substantive effect on R-17's treatment. At most, Healthpark failed adequately to document the steps it took in caring for R-17 and addressing his weight loss.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint in DOAH Case No. 02-1788, and rescinding the notice of intent to assign conditional licensure status to Healthpark Care Center in Doah Case No. 02-0033 and reinstating the facility's standard licensure status. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 6th day of September, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 William Roberts, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Karen L. Goldsmith, Esquire Goldsmith, Grout & Lewis, P.A. 2180 North Park Avenue, Suite 100 Post Office Box 2011 Winter Park, Florida 32790-2011 Jodie C. Page, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Whether or not the July 21, 1991 civil penalty imposed against Respondent's truck for weighing more than the weights posted for the bridge at the St. Mary's River on US-17 (SR 5), Nassau County, was correct and properly assessed pursuant to Sections 316.545 and 316.55, F.S.
Findings Of Fact On July 21, 1991, the bridge at St. Mary's River on US-17 a/k/a SR 5 in Nassau County, Florida was posted on both sides of the river at 32 tons (64,000 pounds) for a combination truck-tractor semi-trailer. (P-1) On that date, and in that place, Weight Inspector Harvey L. Vickers stopped Respondent's combination truck-tractor, semi-trailer and subsequently weighed it at the #2 scale at Yulee, Florida. He then issued Load Report 37553K (P-2) to Respondent's driver. In so doing, Inspector Vickers checked a box on the Load Report showing that the vehicle in question was traveling north. However, his more detailed written narrative Case Report described the vehicle as traveling south. (R-3) Inspector Vickers also filled out the Load Report to show that the vehicle weighed 79,340 pounds and was in excess of the posted legal weight by 15,340 ponds. The appropriate subtraction showing overweight poundage was not originally done by Inspector Vickers in the proper columns or boxes of the Load Report, but Inspector Vickers corrected the Load Report by inserting arrows to show the proper location of the figures. He used the arrows, instead of making erasures, because the Load Report form is on NCR paper which cannot be erased. The weighing and fine were imposed between 7:50 p.m. and 8:25 p.m. on July 21, 1991. The vehicle's weight/overpoundage was calculated out at $.05 per pound for a fine of $767.00. In this instance, the "carrier" technically was Unit Transportation, but the fine was actually paid by Respondent. Respondent's Bill of Lading (R-2) indicated that the vehicle picked up its shipment in Doraville, Georgia. The load was comprised of paper weighing 44,000 pounds, destination Sanford, Florida. (R-2) Sanford Florida is south of the location where Respondent's truck was stopped and weighed by Inspector Vickers. The logical and reasonable inference therefrom is that the truck was traveling south and had crossed the low-weight bridge prior to the time it was stopped by Inspector Vickers. Also, the vehicle would have had to have been traveling south in order to have already crossed the bridge when stopped by the Florida inspector because the north end of the bridge is in Georgia and the south end of the bridge is in Florida. On July 2, 1991, the #2 scale which was used by Inspector Vickers on July 21, 1991 to weigh Respondent's truck had been inspected and certified as weighing "light" by 40 pounds. This certification had been done, pursuant to statutory mandate, by the Florida Department of Agriculture. (P-4) Thus, it is probable that Respondent's vehicle actually weighed 40 pounds more than that recorded by Inspector Vickers on his Load Report. 1/ Respondent presented a Brunswick Georgia weight ticket purportedly showing that the vehicle in question had a gross weight of 76,760 pounds 2/ on July 21, 1991 at 5:42 p.m. However, the truck I.D. number on this weight ticket (R-5) did not match that of the unit number on the Load Report (P-2), and there is no direct evidence as to whether or not any weight was added to either truck after that weighing in Brunswick Georgia and before the truck which was penalized crossed the St. Mary's Bridge. There is, therefore, no competent evidence to show that Respondent's truck weighed less than the 79,340 pounds recorded by Inspector Vickers on the Load Report.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that the penalty of $767.00 was correctly assessed against Respondent pursuant to the provisions of Sections 316.545 and 316.555, F.S. and that since Respondent has already paid his fine, nothing else is owed between the parties. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 17th day of March, 1992. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, 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 March, 1992.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Lillian Gail Slattery, trading as Slattery Realty, was registered as a real estate broker with the Petitioner holding License No. 0081632. On or about February 13, 1978, Roy H. Mueller gave to Respondent in her capacity as a real estate broker a written rental listing and written authority to find a lessee for a house owned by him and located at 805 Peninsula Road, Tarpon Springs, and to act as property manager. Respondent negotiated a written lease dated April 15, 1978, whereby Reginald Richard agreed to lease the subject property at a rental of $210 per month for twelve months commencing on that date. Respondent failed to forward to Mueller any of the rental monies for the subject property until June 12, 1978, when she issued a check in the amount of $210, which check was written on her Slattery Realty Escrow account. Although Mueller twice presented the check for payment, it was not honored, since Respondent's escrow account did not contain sufficient funds for payment. On August 11, 1978, Respondent forwarded to Mueller a second check written on her escrow account in the amount of $610. This check constituted the only rent monies forwarded by Respondent although Respondent, by that date, had collected $945 in rent monies from Richard. Mueller terminated Respondent's authority to act as property manager in August 1978 and instructed Richard to pay his rent monies directly to Mueller. During the term of Mueller's agreement with Respondent, Respondent never rendered an accounting of monies received by her and never communicated to Mueller any reason for her failure to immediately forward to him the monies she collected for him on his behalf. Further, no accounting has been given to Mueller since the termination of that management agreement, and Respondent has never paid Mueller all the monies due him, despite demands made. At all times material hereto, Respondent had, and maintained as a real estate broker, one escrow account, Account No. 1003186 at Ellis Springs Bank in Tarpon Springs, Florida. Between April 6, 1978, and October 2, 1978, twenty- eight checks written on that account were dishonored for "not sufficient funds." Respondent's escrow account bank statements during the term of her management agreement with Mueller do not reflect any deposit attributable to Richard's rental payments. Further, on most dates the balance in Respondent's escrow account was far less than the amount of rent collected by her from Richard even if his rent monies were the only monies being held by her in escrow. Respondent made payable to Stockton, Whatley and Davin the following checks drawn on Respondent's escrow account, for her own use and benefit: Check No. 382 for $389.97 dated June 16, 1978 Check No. 393 for $315.82 dated August 11, 1978 Check No. 439 for $306.54 dated October 16, 1978 Respondent issued checks on her escrow account which were dishonored upon presentment for reasons of insufficient funds and overdrafts, as follows: Check for $35 returned on April 3, 1978 Check for $300 returned on May 16, 1978 Check for $317 returned on June 2, 1978 Check for $61.23 returned on June 13, 1978 Check for $210 returned on July 7, 1978 Check for $210 returned on July 17, 1978 Check for $315.82 returned on August 21, 1978 Check for $100 returned on September 21, 1978 Checks for $65 returned on September 25, 1978 Checks for $371.57 returned on September 27, 1978 Check for $65 returned on September 28, 1978 Check for $50 returned on September 29, 1978 Respondent issued checks on her escrow account which were dishonored for insufficient funds, as follows: Check No. 363 for $300 dated March 20, 1978, to Melvin McKnight Check No. 370 for $264.80 dated May 1, 1978, to George Yucabis Check No. 399 for $100 dated August 24, 1978, to John Williams Check No. 420 for $15 dated September 19, 1978, to C.F.M. 5519, Inc. Check No. 425 for $65 dated September 26, 1978, to Susan Bera Respondent issued on her escrow account the following checks, each payable to "cash," the majority of which bear Respondent's endorsement and were used for her own purposes: Check No. 377 for $225 dated May 30, 1978 Check No. 387 for $220 dated July 24, 1978 Check No. 417 for $200 dated September 15, 1978 Check No. 431 for $150 dated October 6, 1978 Check No. 432 for $314.81 dated October 6, 1978 Check No. 443 for $260 dated October 24, 1978 Respondent issued on her escrow account the following checks to purchase a Cadillac automobile for her own purposes: Check No. 440 for $500 dated October 18, 1978, payable to Robin's Wheels Check No. 442 for $612 dated October 20, 1978, payable to Robin's Wheels Respondent issued on her escrow account the following checks for her own use and benefit: Check No. 379 for $126.29 dated June 5, 1978, payable to General Telephone Check No. 389 for $35 dated July 28, 1978, payable to Sun Market Check No. 397 for $93.59 dated August 16, 1978, payable to Sears Check No. 398 for $50 dated August 17, 1978, payable to Sun Market Check No. 403 for $14.29 dated September 2, 1978, payable to K-Mart Check No. 405 for $15 dated September 5, 1978, payable to C.F.M. 5519, Inc. Check No. 407 for $20 dated September 7, 1978 payable to C.F.M. 5519, Inc. Check No. 408 for $4.45 dated September 9, 1978, payable to Perm City Check No. 416 for $5.06 dated September 14, 1978, payable to K-Mart Check No. 426 for $64 payable to Delta Airlines Check No. 435 for $100.32 payable to General Telephone Respondent failed and refused to present to Petitioner's investigator documents to establish the origin of deposits made to her escrow account although Petitioner issued and served upon Respondent two subpoenas duces tecum for the production of such documentation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered revoking Respondent's real estate broker license. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of July 1981 in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Department of Administration 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of July 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: John Huskins, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ms. Lillian Gail Slattery t/a Slattery Realty Route 2, Box 714-0 Tarpon Springs, Florida 33589 Ms. Nancy Kelley Wittenberg Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. C. B. Stafford Executive Director Board of Real Estate Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
The Issue Whether a commercial motor vehicle owned by Respondent exceeded the posted weight when it crossed a "low limit" bridge in rural Brevard County, Florida on June 3, 1992, in violation of Section 316.545, Florida Statutes. Whether extenuating circumstances justifies the reduction or elimination of the proposed penalty for the alleged violation.
Findings Of Fact The Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) is the state agency charged with the duty to administer and enforce the provisions of Chapter 316, Florida Statutes, which regulates the weight and load of commercial motor vehicles on the state highway system. State Road 520, in Brevard County, Florida, is a part of the state highway system, and title to the right-of-way for said highway is held in the name of the State. A bridge which crosses over the St. Johns River on State Road 520 (SR520) in Brevard County, Florida, had a weight limit of 80,000 pounds for motor vehicles until October 20, 1991. On that date, the maximum weight for vehicles was reduced to a limit of 56,000 pounds. On May 26, 1992, the weight limit was again reduced, and the Department posted a new weight limit for the bridge of 30,000 pounds. On June 3, 1992, a commercial motor vehicle owned by Respondent was traveling northbound on Interstate 95 (I-95). The vehicle exited I-95, proceeded westbound on SR 520, and crossed the bridge. After the vehicle crossed the bridge, it was stopped by a Department Transportation Officer, and taken to a nearby pit scale. The weight of the vehicle was accurately determined to be 56,140 ponds. The Transportation Officer then imposed a fine of $1,307.00 on the vehicle, based on 5 cents per pound above the posted weight limit of 30,000 pounds. The penalty was paid by M & M Truck Service, and the vehicle was permitted to proceed. M & M Truck Service sought a refund of the penalty from the Commercial Motor Carrier Review Board. The Board authorized a 50 percent refund under its policy providing for a 50 percent refund when vehicles exceed a posted weight limit within 30 days of the date of a posted weight reduction. The following standard weight limit signs, each showing a 30,000 pound weight limit, had been posted by the Department on SR 520, from I-95 to SR 528, on May 26, 1992: Facing Eastbound on SR 520 (in Brevard County): Just east of I-95: "Weight Limit Last Exit" Just west of I-95: "Weight Limit" (no distance to bridge stated) 2 miles east of the bridge and just east of SR 524: "Weight Limit 2 Miles" Just east of the bride: "Weight Limit" Facing Westbound on SR 520 (in Orange County): Just west of SR 528: "Weight Limit 9 Miles" 4.2 miles west of bridge: "Weight Limit Restriction Ahead" (no distance to bridge state) 4 miles west of bridge: "Weight Limit 4 Miles" Just west of SR 532: "Weight Limit Last Exit" 2 miles west of the bridge: "Weight Limit 2 Miles" Just west of the bridge on the St. Johns River: "Weight Limit" The above signs meet current MUTCD standards. MUTCD refers to the Federal Highway Administration Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 1988 Edition, which has been incorporated by reference into Florida Administrative Code Rule 14-15.010. SR 520 was under construction at the time the vehicle crossed the bridge, and the driver did not observe the signs posted by the Department.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that a penalty correctly assessed to M & M Truck Service, Inc., under the provisions of Section 316.545, Florida Statutes, and that no refund of the reduced penalty of $653.00 should be made. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of June, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 8th day of June, 1993. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Accepted in substance by stipulation. Respondent's proposed findings of fact: Consisted of argument directed to the stipulated facts and need not be specifically ruled upon. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul Sexton, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Gary E. Moses, President M & M Truck Service, Inc. 313 Shadow Oak Drive Casselberry, Florida 32707 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Attn: Michelle Arsenault #58 Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Parker Construction d/b/a Robert's Components, was operating a commercial vehicle, traveling north on Interstate Highway 75, on March 27, 1991. The truck stopped at the Department's weight scales located in the area of White Springs, Florida. The Department's Inspector checked the vehicle registration handed to him by the driver. The tag registration was for a valid Georgia tag in the PF category. The PF category allows for a maximum gross vehicle weight of 30,000 pounds. The total weight of Respondent's truck on March 27, 1991, was 72,180 pounds. The total weight exceeded its registered weight by 42,180 pounds. Respondent was assessed a statutory penalty of five cents a pound for all weight over the commercial vehicle's registered gross vehicle weight of 30,000 pounds. At five cents a pound, the penalty assessed was $2,109.00. Robert Parker, president and owner of Parker Construction verified that the truck was registered in the PF category. Respondent was in the process of obtaining an IRP tag which would have allowed him to operate the truck at the weight it was carrying. Mr. Parker had no intent to purposely operate an overloaded truck and this was the first violation he had ever incurred since buying the truck. When Mr. Parker contacted a weight inspector with DOT, he was advised that if he wrote a letter to the Review Board advising them of the above facts, the fine would probably be reduced. Mr. Parker was also told that the decision rested with the Review Board. Mr. Parker followed the officer's advise. However, his fine was not reduced.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that the penalty of $2,109.00 was correctly assessed against Respondent, pursuant to Section 316.545, Florida Statutes, and that Respondent's request for a refund be denied. DONE and ORDERED this 3rd day of March, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 3rd day of March, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Robert Parker Robert's Components P. O. Box 2523 La Grange, Georgia 30241 Ben G. Watts, Secretary ATTN: Eleanor F. Turner, M.S. 58 Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by Respondent from August 26, 1986 to November 6, 1986 as a millworker cutting wood for floor joists used in the manufacture of mobile homes. His employment was terminated by Respondent on November 6, 1986 due to his inability to keep up with production. Petitioner timely filed his request for hearing with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. Respondent is an employer within the terms of the Human Rights Act of 1977, Chapter 760, Florida Statutes, and manufactures mobile homes. Petitioner is handicapped by virtue of the amputation of his left arm above the elbow due to a motorcycle accident in 1977. During the approximately two and one-half month period that Petitioner was employed by Respondent, four mobile homes per day were being produced. However, Respondent determined in late October, 1986 to increase production to five mobile homes per day and implemented this increased level of production in November, after Petitioner was terminated. All employees are evaluated within thirty days of their employment by Respondent. Petitioner's thirty day evaluation was conducted on September 23, 1986. On a five point scale, with one being excellent and five being poor, Petitioner received a rating of four in productivity. This is a low average rating. Comments by his group leader on the evaluation form state that Petitioner "needs to get a system down in order to increase productivity." Petitioner was counsel led about the need to increase his productivity at the time of this evaluation. From September 23 to October 24, 1986 Petitioner's productivity did not improve. His group leader at the time he was terminated, Frederick W. Moulder, testified that it took Petitioner 3 1/2 hours to do a job which it took Moulder 1 1/2 to 3 hours to do. Moulder also helped Petitioner finish his work since Moulder regularly finished early and Petitioner never completed his work early, even though production at the time was four homes per day and had not yet been increased to five. On October 24, 1986 Petitioner's supervisor, Tim Powers, prepared a written warning notice which stated that Petitioner "needs to improve his speed to enable him to keep up with his production . . . ." Petitioner refused to sign this warning notice to acknowledge receipt, and instead stated to Powers that his production was fast enough. Petitioner was assigned to work with Charles Rogers on the last day of his employment to show Rogers how the machines he worked with operated. Rogers replaced Petitioner after his termination. There is no evidence that Petitioner ever asked for a reassignment due to production demands of his millworker position. To the contrary, Petitioner continues to feel that he was working fast enough and was meeting production that he felt was sufficient. In any event, there is no evidence that alternative positions were available. During October and November, 1986 Respondent terminated eleven employees for slow or insufficient production, in addition to Petitioner.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that a Final Order be issued by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing Petitioner's charge of discrimination against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd Day of November, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN 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 23rd day of November, 1987. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 87-3407 Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-3 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 8-9 Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 10-11 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 12 Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. 13-16 Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph Scott Shepherd 108 Flores Way Auburndale, Florida 33823 Jeffrey W. Bell, Esquire 600 Peachtree At The Circle Building 1275 Peachtree Street, N.E. Atlanta, Georgia 30309 Donald A. Griffin Executive Director 325 John Knox Road Bldg. F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Dana Baird, Esquire General Counsel 325 John Knox Road Bldg. F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925 Sherry B. Rice, Clerk 325 John Knox Road Bldg. F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1925
