Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order dismissing the charges against respondent, R. Hughes, Inc. d/b/a The Odyssey, contained in the Notice To Show Cause in this case. RECOMMENDED this 6th day of December, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9673 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of December, 1984.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner's application for a Pari-Mutuel Wagering occupational license and request for a waiver should be granted or denied for the reasons set forth in the Respondent's letter dated August 20, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Division is the state agency responsible for issuing occupational licenses to employees of pari-mutuel facilities in Florida. See § 550.105(1), Fla. Stat. On or about April 2, 2009, Ms. Jennings submitted an application for a pari-mutuel wagering license, specifically for a cardroom license that would allow her to be a dealer in the poker room of a pari-mutuel facility. Ms. Jennings indicated on the application form that she had never held a pari-mutuel license in Florida. In the section of the license application entitled "To Be Completed by Cardroom Applicants Only," Ms. Jennings answered "no" to the following question: "Have you ever been convicted of, or had adjudication of guilt withheld for, a felony or misdemeanor involving forgery, larceny, extortion or conspiracy to defraud or filing false reports to government agency, racing or gaming commission or authority, in this state or any other stated under the laws of the United States?" In the section of the application entitled "Background Information", Ms. Jennings answered "no" to the following question: "Have you ever been convicted of or had adjudication withheld for any crime, or pled guilty or nolo contendere to any criminal charges against you? If yes, give details in the space provided below." In the space provided, Ms. Jennings wrote: "Had adjudication; As part of a prosecution of someone else, I cooperated and gave testimony. However, I was personally not convicted of any wrongdoing." Upon investigation, the Division learned that Ms. Jennings had been adjudicated guilty of one count of grand theft in the third degree on January 26, 1995, in Brevard County, Florida. She was sentenced to two years' probation and required to report monthly to her probation officer. Ms. Jennings spent approximately three months in jail prior to her conviction because she could not pay for her bail. On April 22, 2009, Ms. Jennings submitted a request for a waiver from the Division so she could obtain her pari-mutuel wagering license. A waiver must be obtained by, among others, any new applicant for a Florida pari-mutuel license who has been convicted of any felony. Ms. Jennings was 27 years of age when she was convicted of grand theft. She explained that, at the time of the offense, she was involved with a boyfriend who had threatened to kill her and her family when she first became involved with him. She stated that she became "brainwashed and co-dependent on him and basically scared for my life."2 As a result, Ms. Jennings did whatever her boyfriend wanted her to do. According to Ms. Jennings, she was charged with grand theft because, at her boyfriend's direction, she obtained a cell phone under a false name. Ms. Jennings testified that she answered "no" to the question asking if she had been convicted of a crime because she was told by a federal prosecutor named Larry Turner that she would "have a clean record" if she testified against her boyfriend, who had been charged with murder.3 Ms. Jennings testified, and her boyfriend was convicted. Ms. Jennings assumed, therefore, that she would not have "anything in [her] background as a criminal record."4 Ms. Jennings gave the following testimony at the final hearing: She told the Division's investigators about the circumstances of her criminal conviction but did not tell them that she believed her criminal record had been sealed. She was shocked when the Division's investigators told her they had found records of her conviction: "I was like, Huh?"5 She had to go look up the records of the conviction and then her recollection of the arrest and conviction "came back to [her] . . . eventually."6 She was shocked when the Division's investigators told her they had found this conviction because she thought the conviction had been erased. Ms. Jennings has a high school education. After her conviction, Ms. Jennings tried to go to school, but she did not finish. For a time, she worked at a restaurant as a waitress; she had a part-time job doing promotional work for night clubs; and she also worked as a blackjack dealer at a nightclub where blackjack was played for entertainment. When asked what she had done with her life, Ms. Jennings responded: "I had boyfriends and long-term relationships and basically I was taking care of them."7 Ms. Jennings's current boyfriend, her sister, and her best friend testified that Ms. Jennings had always been honest with them. The totality of the evidence presented by Ms. Jennings is insufficient to establish she is rehabilitated and possesses good moral character: She failed to disclose her conviction for grand theft in her application for licensure; her explanations of the reasons for failing to disclose the conviction are inconsistent; her explanation of the act underlying her conviction of grand theft, procuring a cell phone under a false name, is unconvincing; and her vague description of her life since the conviction fails to demonstrate any accomplishments or any positive change in her circumstances since her conviction.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, enter a final order denying the application of Soon Young P. Jennings for a pari-mutuel wagering license. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of June, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA M. HART 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 28th day of June, 2010.
The Issue This is a license discipline case in which the Respondent has been charged by Administrative Complaint with violation of Section 464.018(1)(f), (g), and (h), Florida Statutes, on the basis of allegations regarding the improper use of drugs, narcotics, or chemicals.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence received at the hearing, the following facts are found: At all times material hereto, the Respondent has been a licensed registered nurse in the State of Florida, having been issued license number RN 83300-2. At all times material hereto, the Respondent was employed by A Visiting Redi-Nurse and Redi-Nurse of West Palm Beach, Florida (hereinafter "Redi-Nurse") Prior to the events that gave rise to the charges in this case, the Respondent suffered a broken hip in an automobile accident. The hip did not heal properly and it was ultimately necessary for the Respondent to undergo surgery a second time to correct problems with her fractured hip. During the time between the original hip surgery and the second hip surgery, the Respondent's physician prescribed, and the Respondent used, several drugs to relieve pain and stress. Those drugs included Percocet, Valium, Darvocet, and Tranxene. During June of 1987, after the Respondent had returned to work following her automobile accident, her employer became concerned because the Respondent seemed to be lethargic, tended to talk louder than usual, and tended to repeat herself. Because of these concerns, the Respondent was given two weeks leave with pay and a suggestion that she get some counseling. Following the two weeks of leave, the Respondent-returned to work and, apparently, nothing eventful occurred until early in September of 1987. During the week beginning September 7, 1987, the Director of Professional Services for Redi-Nurse, a Ms. Mary Lynn Dunne, was relieving the regular supervisor at the Redi-Nurse office in Palm Beach Gardens, where the Respondent was working at that time. During that week several other employees expressed concerns to Ms. Dunne regarding the ability of the Respondent to safely drive a car. These employees described behavior by the Respondent that included hand tremors, lethargy, taking loud, and being repetitive. As a result of these comments by other employees, the management at Redi-Nurse decided to ask the Respondent to provide a urine specimen. Ms. Dunne discussed this decision with the Respondent and the Respondent readily agreed to provide a urine specimen. The Respondent collected a urine specimen in the presence of Ms. Dunne and gave the specimen to Ms. Dunne. Ms. Dunne, in her own words, "sent the urine specimen out to be picked up by the laboratory." After obtaining the urine specimen from the Respondent, Ms. Dunne asked the Respondent to prepare a list of the medications she was taking. Later she asked the Respondent to write down how recently she had taken each of the medications. The Respondent complied with this request. The list of medications apparently explained the Respondent's behavior, because Ms. Dunne voiced the opinion that if she had known what medications the Respondent had been taking, she would probably not have requested the urine specimen. A couple of days later the management of Redi-Nurse received a report from National Health Laboratories that purported to be a report of the testing of the Respondent1s urine specimen. That report stated that the specimen was positive for cannabinoids (marijuana) and benzodiazepines. Upon receipt of that report, the management of Redi-Nurse called the Respondent into the main office at West Palm Beach, told her what the lab report stated, and told her she was fired. The Respondent told the Redi-Nurse management that she did not use marijuana and she offered to give another urine specimen. The Respondent has never used marijuana. Specifically, the Respondent did not use marijuana at any time material to the facts in this case.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the Board of Nursing enter a final order in this case dismissing all charges against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29 day of May, 1990. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, 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 29 day of May, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 89-0324 The following are my specific rulings on all proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. Findings submitted by Petitioner: Paragraphs 1 and 2: Accepted. Paragraph 3: Accepted in substance, with some clarification and additional findings. Paragraph 4: Accepted, with some additional findings for clarification. Paragraph 5: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence and as not supported by clear and convincing evidence. (For the reasons discussed in the Conclusions of Law, I have serious doubts as to the probative value of the lab report, Petitioner's Exhibit 7.) Paragraph 6: Rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. (On this issue, I have found the Respondent's denials to be more persuasive than the testimony of Petitioner's witnesses.) Paragraph 7: Rejected as irrelevant in view of the absence of persuasive evidence that the Respondent used marijuana. Findings submitted b Respondent: (The Respondent did not submit any proposed findings of fact.) COPIES FURNISHED: Michael A. Mone', Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Sandra D. Bruce, R.N. 155 E. Hampton Way Jupiter, FL 33478 Julie Ritter, Executive Director Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire Florida Board of Nursing General Counsel, Department 504 Daniel Building of Professional Regulation 111 East Coastline Drive 1940 North Monroe Street Jacksonville, FL 32202 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue The issue is whether the medical license held by Respondent, Louis C. Alaia, M.D., should be revoked or otherwise penalized based on the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Louis C. Alaia, M.D., was issued Florida medical license ME 0008062 on August 14, 1958. Dr. Alaia placed his Florida license on voluntary inactive status on December 31, 1979. Dr. Alaia's last known address is 18890 Santa Clara Circle, Fountain Valley, California. The Board of Medical Quality Assurance, the licensing authority for the State of California, revoked Dr. Alaia's license to practice medicine in California on May 15, 1987. The revocation was based on Dr. Alaia's conviction for manslaughter for the murder of his former wife and her boyfriend, on his inability to safely practice as a result of impairment from narcolepsy and cataplexy, and on his failure to show rehabilitation following the convictions and incarceration for the killings.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that The Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine, enter a Final Order and therein revoke the license of Louis C. Alaia, M.D., to practice medicine in the State of Florida. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of February, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of February, 1989. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-4659 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine 1. Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1), 2(2), and 3(2). COPIES FURNISHED: JONATHAN KING STAFF ATTORNEY DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750 LOUIS C. ALAIA 18890 SANTA CLARA CIRCLE FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708 KENNETH EASLEY GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750 DOROTHY FAIRCLOTH EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BOARD OF MEDICINE 130 NORTH MONROE STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation (Department), is a state governmental licensing and regulatory agency charged with the duty and responsibility to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, Chapters 120, 455 and 458, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent, Amador A. Cabrera, is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0026024. Respondent was licensed to practice medicine in the State of Florida in August 1975, and thereafter operated a private practice until on or about April 15, 1985. During such period, respondent was a member of the medical staff at the following hospitals: Coral Gables Hospital, Cedars of Lebanon Hospital, Larkin General Hospital, Hialeah Hospital, and International Hospital. On May 16, 1984, respondent was indicted in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky, for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute, and to aid and abet others in the distribution of cocaine, a Schedule II controlled substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sections 841(a)(1) and 846, and interstate and foreign travel in aid of a racketeering enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sections 1952(a)(1)(3) and 2. The overt acts which formed the basis of the indictment were alleged to have occurred in August 1983. In April 1985, respondent was found guilty of the aforesaid charges, and on July 8, 1985, was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment and fined $45,000. Respondent served a term of his sentence in the federal prison system, and on September 18, 1990, was paroled, with a termination date of April 14, 1995. While imprisoned, as well as while on parole, respondent did not pose any supervision problems. Moreover, while imprisoned and thereafter, respondent remained current in all continuing education requirements and, following his release from prison, reactivated his medical license in the State of Florida. Respondent has not, however, prescribed, administered or dispensed controlled substances, and is apparently not authorized to hold a DEA number that would authorize him to perform such functions until termination of his probation. Following his release from prison, respondent, who was divorced during his incarceration, sought and obtained custody of his four daughters: Millie, age 20; Kathy, age 19; Belinda, age 17; and Michelle, age 13. Respondent's daughters continue to reside with him, are solely supported by him, and, although aware of his transgression, are supportive of him. In April 1991, respondent opened his own business, the Nutrition and Fitness Center. That business counsels clients regarding proper nutrition and exercise. Respondent sold such business to Joseph M. Samalion, likewise a licensed physician in the State of Florida, in 1992, but continues to work at the center. At hearing, Dr. Samalion offered to supervise respondent in his practice of medicine, should respondent be accorded the opportunity to retain his license. Apart from respondent's conviction, discussed supra, there is no suggestion of record that respondent lacks the requisite skills or is otherwise not capable of safely engaging in the practice of medicine. To the contrary, the proof offered on respondent's behalf demonstrates that, among those who know of him, respondent was considered and, notwithstanding his conviction, is still considered an excellent and respected physician. 2/ Regarding the crimes for which respondent stands convicted, he averred at hearing that his sole involvement in the conspiracy was the laundering of profits derived from the operation, and that he was not personally involved in the sale of cocaine. Here, the proof supports respondent's characterization of his involvement in the conspiracy, but such does not diminish the seriousness of his offense. Cocaine, a narcotic, addictive drug, is potentially lethal and a danger to the public welfare. It is commonly known that the illegal sale and use of such drug has brought misery to the lives of countless people and has inflicted a severe burden on our society. Respondent, who for no apparent reason other than personal gain, laundered the profits derived from the illegal sale of cocaine, and thereby provided support integral to the success of the illegal enterprise. Under such circumstances, his involvement may be considered as offensive as the actual sale of cocaine. Notwithstanding, over nine years have elapsed since the acts which formed the basis for the conviction were committed, and over seven years have elapsed since respondent's conviction. Respondent has served his term of confinement without incident, and has conducted himself in like manner while on probation. He is apparently, again, a productive member of society, enjoys the respect of his peers and clients, and the support of his family. Given the proof regarding respondent's conduct during the years that have intervened since the offenses were committed, there is good reason to believe that, currently, respondent may be relied upon to abide by existent law.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered finding the respondent guilty of violating the provisions of Section 458.331(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1982 Supp.), and imposing the penalties set forth in paragraph 18, supra. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 23rd day of October 1992. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 October 1992.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: By application filed on November 5, 1990, with respondent, Florida Real Estate Commission (Commission), petitioner, Mark E. Smith, sought licensure as a real estate salesman. In response to question seven on the application, which asked whether the applicant had ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of nolo contendere, even if adjudication was withheld, petitioner answered in the affirmative. As is relevant to this proceeding, respondent acknowledged that he had been convicted of driving while intoxicated (DUI) in December 1983 in St. Lucie County, Florida and again in March 1988 in Juanita County, Pennsylvania. 1/ After reviewing the application, respondent issued proposed agency action in the form of a letter on May 21, 1991, denying the application because of petitioner's "answer to Question #7 of the licensing application and/or your criminal record". The denial prompted petitioner to request a formal hearing. Smith, who just turned thirty six years of age, admitted that he once had a drinking problem which resulted in the two arrests. However, after his 1988 DUI arrest and conviction in Pennsylvania, Smith attended a twenty-eight day rehabilitation program in that state and thereafter received six months of out-patient counseling. He now regularly attends alcoholic anonymous meetings. Thus, to the extent a DUI can serve as the basis for denying an application, there has been a sufficient lapse of time since the convictions and subsequent good conduct on petitioner's part to demonstrate rehabilitation. Smith is presently employed by the marketing department of Sunrise Bay Resort and Club Condominium, a time sharing resort in Marco Island, Florida. His duties are to solicit prospective customers to visit the resort and hear a sales presentation. Smith desires a real estate license so that he can become involved in the sale of real estate, and if licensed, he intends to work for his present employer. His assertions that (a) he is simply attempting to better himself and (b) he poses no threat to society or the real estate profession, while self-serving to some degree, were not contradicted. Moreover, they are corroborated by a letter received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit 3. Finally, Smith's application file reflects that he was previously licensed in Florida as a real estate salesman from September 1983 until March 1985. There is no evidence that he was disciplined by the Commission during that period of time. Thus, it is found that Smith possesses the necessary attributes for licensure as a salesman.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Mark E. Smith for licensure as a real estate salesman be GRANTED. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of August, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of August, 1991.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Malcolm T. Watkins, violated sections 455.227(1)(t) and 471.033(1)(a) and (d), Florida Statutes (2015),1/ as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Florida Board of Professional Engineers (the Board), is charged with regulating the practice of engineering pursuant to chapter 455, Florida Statutes (2016). The Florida Engineers Management Corporation (the Corporation) is charged with providing administrative, investigative, and prosecutorial services to the Board pursuant to section 471.038, Florida Statutes. The Complaint at issue was filed by the Corporation on behalf of the Board. At all times material hereto, Respondent has been a Florida licensed professional engineer, having been issued license number 64064. On July 17, 2015, Respondent was found guilty on the following criminal counts by the Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit in and for Polk County, Florida, in Case 2011- CF-002890-01: (1) Traveling to meet a Minor for Unlawful Sexual Conduct; (2) Use of Computer for Child Exploitation; (3) Attempted Lewd or Lascivious Battery; and (4) Unlawful Use of a Two-Way Communications Device. Respondent was sentenced to 10 years’ incarceration followed by five years’ probation. On Count 2, Respondent was sentenced as a Sex Offender. The sworn assertions in the April 25, 2011, Polk County Sheriff’s Affidavit (the Affidavit), and the allegations in the 4th and 6th Amended Information (the Informations) filed by the State Attorney in Case 2011-CF-002890-01, set out the facts supporting Respondent’s conviction. The allegations were grounded in Respondent’s having contacted, via the internet, a fictitious 24-year-old person posing as the custodian of a 13-year-old girl. Respondent arranged a meeting with the supposed 13-year-old, through her “custodian,” at which Respondent would have sexual relations with the 13-year-old. Respondent was arrested on April 25, 2011, at a location in Polk County where he had arranged to meet the “custodian” along with the female minor. On December 21, 2015, five months after Respondent’s conviction, Petitioner’s Investigator, Wendy Anderson, received a written complaint from Kyle Cartier, P.E., notifying Petitioner of the fact of Respondent’s conviction. Upon receipt, Petitioner opened Corporation Case Number 2016000255 (the Complaint). On January 4, 2016, Ms. Anderson notified Respondent via U.S. Mail of the opening of the Complaint. On January 21, 2016, Respondent replied to the Complaint and directed Petitioner to Respondent’s counsel. Respondent subsequently sent two letters to Petitioner, both dated March 11, 2016. The letters were provided to Walton Correctional Institution for mailing on March 18, 2016, and were received by Petitioner on March 23, 2016. The first letter notified Petitioner of Respondent’s conviction, and alleged that the conviction was not final because it had been appealed. The second letter claimed that the conviction did not relate to the practice of engineering and reiterated that Respondent’s conviction was not final because it had been appealed. Respondent’s March 11, 2016, letter notifying Petitioner of the conviction was received 238 days after Respondent’s conviction. Following her investigation of the Complaint, which commenced on December 21, 2015, and concluded on July 28, 2016, Ms. Anderson presented her investigative report to the Board. The Board filed the instant two-count Administrative Complaint against Respondent on September 23, 2016. Count I alleges that Respondent violated section 471.033(1)(d), which includes as grounds for disciplinary action, being convicted or found guilty of a crime “which directly relates to the practice of engineering or the ability to practice engineering.” Count II alleges that Respondent violated section 471.033(1)(a), which includes as grounds for disciplinary action, failing to report in writing to the Board within 30 days after the licensee is convicted or found guilty of a crime in any jurisdiction. Pursuant to section 455.227(2), the Board may impose any one in a range of penalties against Respondent for violating the cited provisions, including license suspension or revocation, practice restrictions, administrative fines, reprimand, and probation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order finding that Malcolm Watkins violated sections 455.227(1)(t) and 471.033(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and imposing a fine of $5,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of May, 2017.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent properly denied Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement to practice as a registered nurse in the state of Florida.
Findings Of Fact In June of 1980, Petitioner was vacationing in Escambia County, Florida. While he was there, he was arrested for Driving Under the Influence of Liquor (DUI). After his arrest, Petitioner was taken to a police station where he waived his right to an attorney and submitted to a Breathalyzer test. Petitioner was held at the police station until a family member picked him up several hours later. Petitioner posted a $100 bond to secure his release from police custody. Petitioner pled guilty and was convicted of DUI in July of 1980. Petitioner was ordered to pay a fine in the amount of $167.50. His driver's license was suspended for 90 days. He was nineteen years old at the time. Petitioner was in the United States Navy for 16 years, beginning in November of 1980. Initially, Petitioner received training as a urology technician and an operating room technician. Later he participated in the Medical Enlisted Commissioning Program, which allowed him to complete his bachelor's degree in nursing. Petitioner served as an ensign the last five years of his naval career, during which he received several security clearances. Petitioner routinely disclosed the existence of his previous DUI when questioned by the Navy. Petitioner was medically retired from the armed forces in September of 1996. He filed an application for licensure by endorsement as a nurse with Respondent in August of 1996. At that time, Petitioner was already licensed as a registered nurse in the state of Rhode Island. Since October of 1996, Petitioner has worked as the Director for Risk and Quality Management at Gulf South Health Plans in Louisiana. Petitioner is also licensed to practice nursing in the state of Louisiana. Question 6A of the Florida application for nursing licensure states as follows: 6A. ARREST HISTORY Have you ever been convicted or have you entered a no contest or guilty plea -- regardless of adjudication -- for any offense other than a minor traffic violation? Petitioner answered this question on his application by checking the block marked "NO." Petitioner filed his application with Respondent on August 2, 1996, without disclosing his arrest and conviction for DUI. Respondent's routine check with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement revealed Petitioner's 1980 arrest and conviction for Driving Under the Influence. Respondent subsequently requested additional information from Petitioner relating to his DUI. Respondent furnished Petitioner with all requested information. Petitioner did not knowingly or willfully fail to disclose his arrest and conviction for DUI. At the time he filed his application, Petitioner believed his 1980 DUI conviction constituted a "minor traffic offense." He did not understand the question on the licensure application to require the reporting of a DUI conviction. Question 6A on Petitioner's application does not state whether an applicant should disclose all misdemeanors as well as felonies. The question is confusing and misleading. From February 1992 through June 1997, Respondent denied 392 applicants for nursing licensure because they had a criminal conviction or failed to disclose one or more criminal convictions. Respondent was able to locate the files of 287 of those applicants. Of the 287 applicants, 183 failed to disclose crimes other than DUI or criminal traffic charges. Ninety-four applicants failed to disclose DUI or criminal traffic violations. After Petitioner filed his application, Respondent approved a revision to the language of Question 6A. The revised language for the question reads as follows: Have you ever been found guilty of, or pled guilty or no contest to, any charge other than a minor traffic offense? You must include all misdemeanors and felonies even if adjudication was withheld. Respondent decided to make this change due to the high percentage of applicants who failed to disclose convictions for DUI. Respondent wanted to make the question easier to understand. Respondent has never denied licensure to an applicant solely as a result of an applicant's previous DUI conviction.
