Findings Of Fact Respondent, Sowell, is currently a licensed funeral director and embalmer in the State of Florida. Respondent, Sowell's Funeral Home, is a licensed funeral establishment in the State of Florida. Sowell is the licensed funeral director and embalmer in charge of Sowell's Funeral Home. On April 19, 1978, Mr. Eston Singletary died in Jacksonville, Florida. His divorced wife, Gussie Wright Singletary, called the Reverend Charles James Crosby to come to her former husband's death bed. Reverend Crosby is minister of the New Trinity Baptist Church in Jacksonville, and, while never a licensed funeral director and embalmer, he worked for the Sowell Funeral Home from 1949 to 1952 and from 1960 to 1968. Reverend Crosby has no financial interest in Sowell Funeral Home. Mrs. Singletary claims that Reverend Crosby represented to her that he owned Sowell's Funeral Home. It was for this reason, says Mrs. Singletary, that she contacted Reverend Crosby and agreed to turn her former husband's body over to Sowell's. However, there is no evidence to establish that Sowell either authorized or knew about such a representation on the part of Reverend Crosby, if it in fact occurred. Upon the advice of Reverend Crosby, Mrs. Singletary released her former husband's body to Sowell at the hospital. Mrs. Singletary did not have adequate funds to cover the expense of the funeral preparations so Reverend Crosby paid for the funeral and Mrs. Singletary agreed to reimburse him. Mrs. Singletary asked Reverend Crosby to handle the details of the funeral for her. Thereafter, Sowell handled the body of Eston Singletary, embalmed it and signed the required death certificate as funeral director. The evidence shows that in connection with Singletary's death, the Reverend Charles Crosby met with the family of the deceased, including Mrs. Singletary; assisted the deceased's family in planning the details of the funeral; advised the family regarding the release of the body to Sowell; arranged for flowers for the funeral; accompanied the family to a local casket company for its selection of a casket in which to inter the deceased; met with members of the family to collect information for completion of the required death certificate; and received case and checks from family members and other sources in an amount exceeding Sowell's charges by $142.76. When Sowell was contacted by Reverend Crosby, Crosby represented that he was acting on behalf of the deceased's family. It was to Reverend Crosby and not to the family that Sowell delivered the receipt for the services he rendered. On April 27, 1978, Reverend Crosby, on behalf of the family and Sowell, on behalf of the funeral home, entered into a contract for services to be provided in connection with the funeral of Eston Singletary. Reverend Crosby obtained personal information regarding the deceased from the family for Sowell. Sowell then arranged for the obituary notice. The night before the funeral there was a viewing of the deceased at the funeral home. Reverend Crosby was there escorting the widow. The following day, Reverend Crosby served as master of ceremonies at deceased's funeral which was conducted at a church other than the one with which the Reverend Crosby was associated. Sowell was in attendance at the deceased's funeral. While the widow testified that she had not seen Sowell at the funeral, such testimony is insufficient to overcome Sowell's testimony that he did attend the funeral since the widow, having never met Sowell, would not have recognized him if she had seen him. Sometime subsequent to the funeral, the widow went to the funeral home to get a receipt. Since the funeral home was closed at the time, she called Sowell at his home. Sowell informed her that the receipt had been given to Reverend Crosby. With regard to the remaining charge, the evidence was incontrovertible that the funeral directors and embalmers licenses of Sowell were suspended pursuant to section 470.10(1), Florida Statutes, when he performed the duties of a funeral director in connection with the death and funeral of Willy D. Whitehead on or about September 15, 1978. The suspension was occasioned by the timely payment of the annual license fee. Payment was made of renewal on October 19, 1978, at which time the licenses were reinstated.
The Issue Whether the licenses issued to Jimmie F. Prevatt, George W. Ammen, Richard Miller and the Brevard Funeral Home North and the Brevard Funeral Home South should be revoked or suspended for violation of Chapter 470, Florida Statutes, particularly Sections 470.12(1)(k), 470.12(1)(h), 470.12(2)(d), 470.12(2)(i), 470.12(2)(p) and 470.12(4)(a) and Rule 21J-7.10 of the Rules of the State Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact By Administrative Complaint, Respondents, Jimmie F. Prevatt and George W. Ammen, were charged by the State Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers with violations of subsections 470.12(1)(h), 470.12(1)(k), 470.12(2)(d), 470.12(2)(i), and 470.12(2)(p), Florida Statutes, and Rule 21J-7.10 of the Rules of State Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers in that as licensed embalmers and licensed funeral directors, they paid or caused to be paid valuable consideration in the form of the use of the name and services of the licensed funeral establishments of which they were the licensed funeral directors in charge for use by Florida Memorial Gardens, a cemetery, in order to secure business from or through said cemetery, its affiliate organizations, its agents, and its employees, for the benefit of themselves and their respective funeral establishments; in that as licensed funeral directors in charge of licensed funeral establishments, they employed, retained or otherwise engaged Florida Memorial Gardens and its employees and agents to solicit business for their respective funeral establishments; in that they, as licensed funeral directors in charge of licensed funeral establishments, offered an inducement to Florida Memorial Gardens and its employees and agents as solicitors, agents, or canvassers for the purpose of securing or attempting to secure business for their respective funeral establishments by engaging in a marketing scheme involving the issuance of funeral service certificates in the form of a business-getting plan, scheme, or device not fully recognized and approved by the funeral profession as a standard funeral practice; and in that they violated the provisions of Chapter 470, Florida Statutes. By Administrative Complaint, Respondent Richard K. Miller, was charged by the State Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers with a violation of Rule 21J-7.10, Rules of State Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers, enacted pursuant to subsection 470.04(2), Florida Statutes, in that as a licensed embalmer and licensed funeral director he engaged in a marketing scheme involving the issuance of funeral service certificates in the form of a business-getting plan, scheme, or device not fully recognized and approved by the funeral profession as a standard funeral practice. By Administrative Complaint, Respondents, Brevard Funeral Home North and Brevard Funeral Home South, were charged by the State Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers with violations of subsection 470.12(4)(a), Florida Statutes, in that Jimmie F. Prevatt and George W. Ammen, respectively, as funeral directors in charge, and Robert G. Weld, as owner of said funeral homes, have been guilty of acts provided as grounds for revocation of an embalmer's license as provided in Section 470.12, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner, State Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers, seek to revoke the licenses of Respondents and impose on them the cost of these proceedings. The Complaint was dated June 9, 1976, and a copy was furnished to the Respondents herein. At the time of the filing of the Complaint, Robert G. Weld was the owner of Brevard Funeral Home North and Brevard Funeral Home South. Subsequent to the filing of the Complaint Mr. Weld sold the Brevard Funeral Home North to Respondent, Jimmie F. Prevatt and to Mr. Alan P. Meindertsma. Brevard Funeral Home South was sold by Mr. Weld to Respondent, George W. Ammen, Jr. The sales were effective September 20, 1976. The sale consisted of the furnishings, equipment and funeral service business but not the land, building and fixtures of Brevard Funeral Home North and Brevard Funeral Home South. Subsequent to the sale, the State Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers upon application reissued the funeral establishment licenses to Brevard Funeral Home North and Brevard Funeral Home South to reflect the new owners, with the same license number tags existing at the time of the ownership by Mr. Weld, reflecting that Mr. Prevatt and Mr. Ammen were the same funeral directors in charge. There was no new licensing inspection. A motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of Brevard Funeral Home North and Brevard Funeral Home South. The movants contended that the change of ownership from Mr. Weld to the new owners rendered the Complaint moot as against those establishments. The motion was denied for the reason that the parties are the same, there had been adequate notice, and the parties had an opportunity to be heard at the administrative hearing. The, Petitioner Board and this Hearing Officer has jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter. A motion to dismiss was filed for failure of the State Board of Funeral Directors to comply with Section 120.60(4), Florida Statutes, in that the agency had not given the licensees an opportunity to show that they had complied with all lawful requirements for retention of their licenses but were obligated to come immediately to a formal hearing. The motion was denied. A motion to dismiss was filed stating that the Petitioners contend the act complained of a violation of Section 470.12, Florida Statutes. Respondents contended this is a violation of the rights of Respondents under the Florida Constitution. Motion was denied. The Hearing Officer has jurisdiction. Prior to September 20, 1976, at which time Respondents Prevatt and Ammen purchased an ownership interest in Brevard Funeral Home North and Brevard Funeral Home South, Robert G. Weld, owner of said funeral homes, entered into an agreement with Gene Crowe, owner of Florida Memorial Gardens also known as Florida Memorial Cemetery. The agreement authorized the use of the names of the two funeral homes and authorized sales presentations to be made by salesmen employed by Mr. Crowe and his business organization to the general public to sell a product known as the "Eternal Rest Vault." Mr. Weld agreed to execute funeral service certificates for issuance by Mr. Crowe's organizations to purchasers of the Eternal Rest Vault in which Brevard Funeral Home North and Brevard Funeral Home South guaranteed to perform services constituting a complete funeral to be performed by one of said funeral homes at the time of need for a fixed price to be paid at the time of need. During the first half of 1976 Mr. Crowe's salesmen did in fact use the names and reputations of Brevard Funeral Home North and Brevard Funeral Home South in their sales presentations to the general public and their direct sales campaign. Mr. Weld executed funeral service certificates which were delivered to Mr. Crowe's customers by Mr. Crowe's business organizations. Mr. Weld and Brevard Funeral Home North and Brevard Funeral Home South performed funeral services pursuant to said funeral service certificates. Respondents Jimmie F. Prevatt and George W. Ammen are two of the current owners and are licensed funeral directors in charge of Brevard Funeral Home North and Brevard Funeral Home South. They did not negotiate the aforesaid agreement between Mr. Weld and Mr. Crowe but they had full knowledge of the agreement including the name of the respective funeral homes in the sales presentation of Mr. Crowe's salesmen and the use of the names of the funeral homes on the funeral service certificates. Respondents Prevatt and Ammen performed the duties of funeral directors pursuant to the agreement between Mr. Weld and Mr. Crowe. Respondent Richard K. Miller is employed as a funeral director of the Brevard Funeral Home South and was a consultant by Mr. Crowe to his business organizations prior to the filing of the Complaint by the Petitioner. Mr. Miller consulted with Mr. Crowe and Mr. Weld regarding the sales presentation used by Mr. Crowe's salesmen in the marketing of the Eternal Rest Vault. He reviewed the form of the funeral certificates that were to be issued pursuant to said sales and at least once accompanied the salesmen during a sales presentation to a customer. Prior to the institution of the Complaint, Mr. Gene Crowe had acquired a distributorship for a product known as "Eternal Rest Vault." The sales concept used in marketing the Eternal Rest Vault is based upon the representation that the total cost of an entire funeral can be reduced by using the Eternal Rest Vault to serve as both the casket and a burial vault. Sale of the vault is directly to the public based on a preneed sale. Telephone solicitation and sales calls are made in the homes of prospective customers by Mr. Crowe's team of salesmen. The Eternal Rest Vault is intended to serve as both a casket and a vault and requires special arrangements in connection with the funeral services involved. The base of the Eternal Rest Vault incorporates a slumber bed upon which the dead human body lies. The sides and top of the vault are not used during the funeral services itself. A catafalque, a bottomless casket, is set on the base of the vault around the slumber bed and during the funeral service the body is lying in the catafalque on the slumber bed. After the funeral service is over, the catafalque is removed and the sides and top of the vault are then placed upon the base of the base of the vault and sealed. The vault is then buried in the grave. This system requires special equipment and services to be performed by the funeral home performing the funeral services. In order to be sure of a funeral home willing to perform the special services required of the Eternal Rest Vault and in order to assure potential customers of a fixed price at the time of need of a funeral service involving Eternal Rest Vault, the total funeral concept is an important integral part of the overall marketing package included in the sale of the product and the agreement between Mr. Crowe and Mr. Weld. The terms of the agreement entered into between Mr. Crowe and Mr. Weld included an arrangement whereby Mr. Crowe's salesmen would be authorized to include in their sales presentation, an assurance to their potential customers of the Eternal Rest Vault that Brevard Funeral Home North and Brevard Funeral Home South would provide funeral services involving use of the Eternal Rest Vault. The sales presentation described in the sales kit used by Mr. Crowe's salesmen during the first part of 1976 includes the language that was used by the salesmen who describe Brevard Funeral Home North and Brevard Funeral Home South as the finest funeral homes in the community with very fine reputations. The presentation included a copy of a funeral service certificate naming Brevard Funeral Home North and Brevard Funeral Home South as funeral homes in the community that were guaranteed to service the Eternal Rest Vault, a funeral service certificate was executed by Mr. Weld and mailed by Mr. Crowe's staff to the purchaser. The funeral service certificate stated a fixed price for which Brevard Funeral Home North and Brevard Funeral Home South would at the time of need provide a funeral service to the named certificate holder. The results of the arrangement included in the agreement between Mr. Weld and Mr. Crowe have been the sale of some twenty-six hundred (2,600) Eternal Rest Vaults in Brevard County and several funeral services provided by Brevard Funeral Home North and Brevard Funeral Home South pursuant to previously issued funeral service certificates for services for purchasers of the Eternal Rest Vaults. Respondents Jimmie F. Prevatt and George W. Ammen, the funeral directors in the home then owned by Mr. Weld, were told that they would be participating in the marketing arrangements included in said agreement. Mr. Prevatt and Mr. Ammen as funeral directors performed services consistent with the agreement between Mr. Weld and Mr. Crowe. Respondent Richard K. Miller was employed during the first half of 1976 by Mr. Crowe, Florida Memorial Gardens, and Mr. Weld, Brevard Funeral Home South. He performed full time duties as a funeral director for Brevard Funeral Home South and at the same time was a paid consultant, with Florida Memorial Gardens. He participated in the business organization of Mr. Crowe as a consultant and at least on one occasion accompanied one of Mr. Crowe's salesmen on a sales call and observed the entire sales presentation made to a potential Eternal Rest Vault customer. The names Brevard Funeral Home North and Brevard Funeral Home South, Respondent's establishments, were used on the certificates issued to various individuals as a result of the marketing of the Eternal Rest Vault. The Hearing Officer further finds: The agreement to allow the use of the names Brevard Funeral Home North and Brevard Funeral Home South is a valuable consideration and the use of the names was meant to secure business for the funeral homes and for the Florida Memorial Gardens, a cemetery, in the promotion of sales of the new type of vault. The valuable consideration is apparent because the new type of vault requires a funeral home and the funeral directors prepared to render special service not necessary with the traditional type of funeral arrangements. To service the product, the participating funeral home must also have a catafalque in which the vault fits. It is a valuable consideration to agree to perform a service in a particular manner with a specified product. The agreement between the then owner of the funeral homes, Mr. Weld, and Florida Memorial Gardens was strictly a business transaction and his object was to solicit more business for his funeral homes. The advice to the holder of the certificate that the two Respondent funeral homes would service the product they bought leads them directly to those funeral homes to perform the service for which they will pay at the prearranged price. The Respondents Prevatt and Ammen were fully advised of the agreement which involved the funeral homes in which they were the licensed funeral directors. Both Respondents benefited monetarily by the business thus secured and as new owners benefit from these business efforts and solicitations of the former owner, Mr. Weld. The continuation of the servicing of the product provided for in the certificates is a continuation of the solicitation effort started by Mr. Weld at the time of the original agreement. The printed certificate is entitled "Funeral Service Warrant" and states "The basis or legal representatives of the holder of the warrant shall be entitled to receive a unit of service from their choice of Brevard Funeral Home South, Brevard Funeral Home North or Florida Memorial Mortuary for:" and the name of the customers is then inserted after the sale is made. The ultimate emoluments of the sale go both to the Florida Memorial Mortuary and later, at the tire of death, to the participating funeral homes. Certificates are not presently being issued. On at least two contracts, after the Respondent funeral homes had been sold to Respondent Prevatt and Respondent Ammen, to wit December 2, 1976, the customers were advised by letter from the President of Florida Memorial Gardens, Gene Crowe: "If you will take your Funeral Service Certificate to Brevard Funeral Home North, 1450 Norwood Avenue, Titusville, I am sure they will fully explain all services and make arrangements to accept whatever monies you may wish to pay against the final funeral costs of which your certificate calls for. If there is any further questions after you have contacted Brevard Funeral Home North, please do not hesitate to call us." It is self evident that the purpose of the Funeral Service Warrant or certificate was to solicit business for the Respondent funeral homes as well as Florida Memorial Gardens. Respondent Miller was fully advised of the agreement executed by Mr. Weld and Florida Memorial Gardens and as an employee of Florida Memorial Gardens consulted with and advised those engaged in selling the said vault to be serviced by the funeral home, Brevard Funeral Home South, in which he was also employed as a funeral director. His activities were attempts to secure business.
Recommendation Suspend the license of Brevard Funeral Home North and Brevard Funeral Home South and Respondents Prevatt, Ammen and Miller for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days and levy a fine on each of the Respondent licensees not to exceed Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) each. DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of April, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530,Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jarold W. Regier, Esquire Rogers, Towers, Bailey, Jones & Gay 1300 Florida Title Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Philip F. Nohrr, Esquire J. Wesley Howze, Jr., Esquire Nohrr & Nohrr Post Office Box 369 Melbourne, Florida 32901 Joe T. Caruso, Esquire Wolfe, Kirschenbaum & Caruso Post Office Box 1271 Merritt Island, Florida W. Ford Duane, Esquire Robertson, Williams, Duane & Lewis 538 East Washington Street Orlando, Florida 32801
Conclusions THIS MATTER came before the Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers (hereinafter referred to as the “Board”) pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(j), Florida Statutes, on March 11, 1997, in Miami, Florida, for consideration of the Recommended Order (a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference). The Petitioner was represented by Leon M. Biegalski, Esquire. The Respondent was duly notified of the hearing but was neither present nor represented by counsel at the Board meeting. Upon consideration of the Administrative Law Judge's Recommended Order, and the arguments of the parties and after a review of the complete record in this matter, the Board makes the following findings: EINDINGS OF FACT 14. The Administrative Law Judge’s Findings of Fact are hereby approved and adopted and incorporated herein by reference. 2. There is competent, substantial evidence to support the Administrative Law Judge’s Findings of Fact.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed against him, and, if so, what action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent Michael W. Thomas has been a licensed funeral director and embalmer in the state of Florida, having been issued license number FE0003256. In November of 1993, Richard Hector was extremely ill and dying at A Better Way in Christ Mission in Ft. Pierce, Florida, a homeless shelter for men where he had lived and worked. In his final days, he was attended by a hospice agency. The Mission employees summoned Lena Cohens, Hector's sister, to travel from New York where she lived to Ft. Pierce to be with her brother. The St. Lucie County Department of Human Services maintains a rotation list for the funeral homes in the area to be responsible to care for the remains of indigents. Respondent was the designated business for the month of November, 1993. Under local ordinances, if there is no next of kin or if the next of kin files for indigency, the County will determine if the death is a County case and eligible for payment of burial expenses by the County. On November 15, 1993, at 2:40 p.m., Hector died at the Mission. The hospice employees advised the Mission employees that hospice would make arrangements to have his remains transported to a funeral home, and a Mission employee went to the motel where Cohens was staying to bring her back to the Mission. Someone contacted Respondent who dispatched a removal service, Tri- County Mortuary Services, to pick up the body of Hector at the Mission and transport it to Thomas & Sons Funeral Home. On November 16, 1993, Lena Cohens, Hector's sister, and Libby Piersall, one of the directors of the Mission and a friend of Hector, went to Thomas & Sons Funeral Home to make funeral arrangements. They took with them clothes for Hector to be used for his viewing and his burial. Respondent's mother, Eliza Thomas, was present at the funeral home when they arrived, and Respondent was not. Cohens and Piersall identified themselves to Respondent's mother and told her why they had come. They said they wanted a viewing of Hector for family and friends. Eliza Thomas told them that Hector would not need any clothes because they would just dig a hole, put the body in a box, and put the box in the ground. Cohens and Piersall became very upset at Respondent's mother's explanation of how the body would be handled and left the funeral home without authorizing Thomas & Sons Funeral Home to perform any services. Specifically, there was no discussion regarding embalming the body. Cohens and Piersall returned to the Mission and told Chuck Kramer, a Mission employee, what had happened at Thomas & Sons Funeral Home. Cohens told Kramer she wanted a different funeral home to care for her brother's remains. Kramer contacted Buddy Hobbs at Haisley-Hobbs Funeral Home and requested that he take over the arrangements so they could be handled in a better manner and so the family could have a viewing. Based upon what he was told, Hobbs advised Kramer that he could not do anything because the County would take over the arrangements. Hobbs explained to Kramer about the County's rotation list and that Thomas & Sons Funeral Home was on the list for November. The following morning, Piersall and Cohens went to the County's Department of Human Services to apply for County benefits for an indigent funeral. While they were there, Kramer began going through Hector's belongings at the Mission. Kramer found a bank statement and bank book showing that Hector had over $1,300 in the bank. As soon as Piersall and Cohens returned to the Mission, Kramer told them about the bank account. They again telephoned Hobbs, told him how much money Hector had, and Hobbs told them that he would make the arrangements for Hector's funeral for that amount of money. He made an appointment with them for 1:00 that afternoon, November 17. Cohens, Piersall, Kramer, and Reverend Ted Rice from the Mission went to the 1:00 appointment with Hobbs. Hobbs contacted Petitioner for guidance on how to handle the situation and was advised that he should prepare a release to be taken to Thomas & Sons Funeral Home. Hobbs prepared a release directed to Thomas & Sons Funeral Home which read as follows: I, LENA COHENS, sister of RICHARD HECTOR, Deceased, hereby authorize the release of the remains of my brother, RICHARD HECTOR, to Haisley-Hobbs Funeral Home of Ft. Pierce, Florida. The release was signed by Lena Cohens, witnessed by Libby Piersall and Chuck Kramer, and notarized. Cohens, Piersall, Kramer, Rice, Hobbs, and Victor Hankins, an employee of Haisley-Hobbs, then went to Thomas & Sons Funeral Home with the release to pick up the body of Richard Hector. When they arrived there, only Eliza Thomas was present. Hobbs told her who he was and then introduced everyone else. He gave her the release and advised her that they were there to pick up Hector's body. She told him she would not release the body and telephoned Respondent who came to the funeral home. When Respondent arrived, Hobbs gave Respondent the release. Respondent advised Hobbs that he would not release the body until after someone paid him $420 to reimburse him for transporting and embalming the body. Hobbs asked Respondent if Respondent understood what he was saying and that Respondent could not hold the body as ransom. Respondent told Hobbs that Hobbs could call it whatever he wanted but that Respondent would not release the body until after he was paid. Respondent then told the group to leave his place of business. Respondent's refusal and stated reason were heard by Piersall, Rice, and Kramer. Respondent stated no other reason for his refusal to release the body. Specifically, Respondent did not say anything about his belief that Hector was a County case. The group left Thomas & Sons Funeral Home without Hector's remains. On November 18, Hobbs called Petitioner again to advise what had happened. One of Petitioner's attorneys called Hobbs back and advised that the attorney had spoken to Respondent and that Respondent would be calling Hobbs to come and pick up the remains. Instead, Respondent telephoned the Mission and told Kramer to have Haisley-Hobbs come and pick up the body. Kramer then called Hobbs, and Hobbs sent a driver and another employee of Haisley-Hobbs to Thomas & Sons Funeral Home to pick up the body. When they arrived, Respondent refused to give them the body and told them that he would deliver the body to Haisley-Hobbs instead. Hector's body arrived at Haisley-Hobbs later that same day. In a prior administrative proceeding, Petitioner filed an administrative complaint against Respondent on April 4, 1989, alleging, inter alia, that Respondent had refused to promptly surrender the custody of a dead body upon the express order of the legally authorized person, and Respondent requested a formal hearing regarding that administrative complaint. That prior matter was subsequently referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings where the matter was scheduled for formal hearing. After the parties engaged in discovery, that administrative complaint was referred back to the probable cause panel of the Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers for re-consideration. In that prior action, the probable cause panel determined that although Respondent had violated the statutory requirement to surrender properly the custody of a dead human body upon the express order of the legally authorized person, the circumstances surrounding that refusal dictated that that administrative complaint be dismissed with only a letter of guidance issued to Respondent. That letter of guidance, dated November 22, 1989, and sent to Respondent at Thomas & Sons Funeral Home, became a permanent record in Respondent's licensure file. That letter of guidance does not, however, constitute prior disciplinary action.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint and requiring Respondent to pay an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000 by a date certain. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of June, 1995, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 13th day of June, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-14 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 1 has been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 2-4 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Donnette Reid, Qualified Representative Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Victor John E. Vale, II, Esquire 205 South Second Street Ft. Pierce, Florida 34950 Susan Foster, Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0754 Lynda Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The three administrative complaints in these consolidated cases allege various violation of Chapter 470, Florida Statutes and Chapter 61G8-21, Florida Administrative Code, which regulate funeral directors and the operation of funeral establishments. Specifically, these violations are alleged: Section 470.024(2), Florida Statutes: operating a funeral establishment without a license; Sections 470.024(6), 470.036(1)(h), Florida Statutes and rule 61G8-21.00F(1), Florida Administrative Code: not being available to the public during normal business hours; Section 470.036(1)(h), Florida Statutes and rule 61G8- 21.005(3), Florida Administrative Code: not having the funeral director’s photograph with the license; Section 470.036(1)(h), Florida Statutes and rule 61G8- 21.005(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code: not having the latest inspection reports available for inspections upon demand; Section 470.036(l)(h), Florida Statutes and rule 61G8- 21.005(1)(c), Florida Administrative Code: not having a current copy of inspection rules or criteria available for inspection upon demand; Section 470.035(1), Florida Statutes: not having retail price list available upon inquiry; Section 470.036(l)(h), Florida Statutes and rule 61G8- 21.003(6), Florida Administrative Code: not having the name of the establishment and name of the funeral director displayed at the public entrance; Section 470.036(l)(h), Florida Statutes and rule 61G8- 21.003(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code: not having sanitary floors; Section 470.036(1)(h), Florida Statutes and rule 61G8- 21.003(5), Florida Administrative Code: not having prices conspicuously marked on the caskets; Section 470.036(1)(a) and 470.031(l)(f), Florida Statutes: employing an unlicensed person in the practice of funeral directing, embalming or direct disposition; Section 470.036(1)(n), Florida Statutes: aiding and abetting an unlicensed person in any licensed activity; and Section 470.036(l)(h), Florida Statutes and rule 61G8- 21.007(3), Florida Administrative Code: failing to insure that all employees comply with laws and rules of the Board. The issues in this proceeding are whether the alleged violations occurred, and if so, what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent James B. Kerney, Jr. has been a licensed funeral director in the state of Florida for approximately 28 years, having been issued license number FE 0001557. He has been director in charge of Kerney Funeral Home in Sebring, Florida for approximately 27 years. The business is owned by him and his wife, Nancy Kerney, and is a licensed funeral home, having been issued license number FH 000182. Mr. Kerney is confined to a wheelchair as the result of an automobile accident on December 6, 1993, in which his right leg and his neck were broken. His left leg had been amputated in 1986. Mr. Kerney also requires kidney dialysis, and on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays he is transported to a renal center where he spends three hours and fifteen minutes in each session. Nancy Kerney describes her husband as “...medically- termed incomplete quadriplegic, which means that he can use his hands to some extent, but he needs assistance with everyday tasks of using his hands.” (transcript, p. 118) Mrs. Kerney is his sole caregiver; she must bathe and dress him with the assistance of an automated lift. She also has a power of attorney which permits her to sign documents on her husband’s behalf. From January 1989 until August 1995, Frank Paolella was employed as an inspector for the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, conducting inspections of various facilities regulated by that agency, including funeral homes. On February 28, 1995, after calling for an appointment the previous day, Mr. Paolella visited Kerney Funeral Home for a routine inspection. Mrs. Kerney met the inspector at the funeral home and opened the office for him. Mr. Kerney was not present. During the course of the inspection, Mr. Paolella observed that the establishment license had expired on November 30, 1994 and had not been renewed. He also observed other violations which he noted on his inspection form: there was no photograph of the funeral director displayed on the director’s license; there were numerous dead roaches on the floor; and the names of the establishment and funeral director were not displayed at the public entrance (noted as a second-time violation). In addition, when the inspector requested certain documents, neither he nor Mrs. Kerney could find them in the office. These missing documents included a copy of inspection rules or criteria, copies of signed need and pre-need contracts, copies of final bills or written agreements, and an itemized price list of merchandise and services with the establishment’s name, address and telephone number. After the inspection, both Mr. Paolella and Mrs. Kerney signed the inspection form. Mr. Paolella returned for a follow up inspection on March 21, 1995. This time he arranged to meet Mr. Kerney at the Kerney home, a couple of blocks from the funeral home. They met at 9:00 a.m. and made arrangements to meet again at the funeral home in the afternoon after Mr. Kerney finished his dialysis. That same afternoon, Mr. Kerney arrived at the funeral home in a handicapped-equipped van driven by his wife. Mr. Kerney was unable to reach the fuse box to turn on the lights, and only with some difficulty, Mrs. Kerney was able to get the lights turned on with instructions from her husband. On this visit, Mr. Paolella again observed many violations. There were still numerous dead roaches on the floor and sheets of plaster that had fallen from the ceiling to the floor. There was no price displayed on the least expensive casket; customers’ written and signed agreements were not available; the latest inspection forms and the copy of inspection rules or criteria were not available; the funeral director’s and establishment licenses were not properly displayed and the director’s and establishment’s names were not displayed at the public entrance. In addition, the funeral home license had still not been renewed. On this, as well as the prior inspection in February, Mr. Paolella noted his concern about whether, as director in charge, Mr. Kerney was reasonably available to the public during normal business hours. On or about April 5, 1995, Mr. Kerney was admitted to Highlands Regional Medical Center and was still in the hospital a month later, on May 2, 1995. (Answer to Administrative Complaint in cases no. 94-07325 and 95-07329.) On April 28, 1995, Mr. Paolella returned to Kerney’s Funeral Home, accompanied by his supervisor, James Potter. The agency had received a complaint that Kerney’s was conducting unlicensed activity. The pair approached the front door of the establishment and found it ajar, with lights on inside. They knocked and shouted out their presence, but there was no answer; they entered and proceeded to the back rooms, thinking that the inhabitant must be in the back, out of hearing range. The last room in the back is the preparation room. There they found a body laid out on the table, but no living person was present. Concerned that there may have been a problem, the inspectors went to the Sebring police station and returned to the Kerney Funeral Home with two policemen, a sergeant and a photographer. There was still no living person on the premises and the photographer took a series of photographs. The photographs accurately reflect what Mr. Paolella observed on the April 28th inspection: many dead roaches on the floor, fallen plaster from the ceiling, opened bottles and jugs of unidentified liquids, a dirty sink, tools and instruments laid out on a dirty linen, hairbrushes and combs with hairs still embedded, and the body laid out, covered except for the head. A photograph of the exterior of the building shows a permanent sign in the lawn, separate from, but in front of the building, with the name “Kerney Funeral Home”. The inspectors called the Kerney residence and Mrs. Kerney came to the funeral home. She opened the office and responded to questions. She said the Mr. Kerney was in the hospital and their son, James Kerney, III, had picked up the body and had embalmed it. The inspectors called another funeral home and arrangements were made to have the body picked up and a service and burial conducted. Mr. Kerney concedes that the funeral home license was allowed to lapse and he sent the check to renew it after the inspection by Mr. Paolella. From the end of November 1994 until the handling of Mr. Johnson (the corpse found by the inspectors) in April 1995, the home did not handle any bodies, according to Mr. Kerney. He submitted monthly affidavits to the agency reflecting this non-activity, but there is no monthly affidavit on file for the month of December 1994. By April, the license was apparently renewed. Mr. Kerney also concedes that there are long periods of time during which he is not able to be at the funeral home. The business phone rings at his residence and he arranges to meet clients at the facility. He sold Mrs. Johnson the casket for her husband by dealing with her by telephone from the hospital. He denies that he told his son to embalm Mr. Johnson, but Mr. Kerney could not explain how the body did get embalmed or why it was at his establishment unattended. Mr. Kerney signed the Johnson death certificate as the funeral service licensee. Mr. Kerney insists that he is able to embalm bodies from his wheelchair. He mixes the fluid and makes the incisions or he directs someone in his presence to perform these tasks. According to Mr. Kerney, he deliberately left roaches on the floors because after he set off aerosol sprays he let the poison keep working before cleaning up the bugs. He attributed the fallen ceiling to a water leak caused by the upstairs tenant. He also claimed that the other violations found by the inspectors were just temporary lapses and that all of the problems were quickly corrected. It is evident that serious violations occurred and that Mr. Kerney has to rely on his family, his son and his wife, to perform functions for which he is responsible. Neither Mrs. Kerney nor James Kerney, III are licensed funeral directors. Mr. Kerney is unable to spend the time at his facility to keep it in compliance with licensing regulations and criteria even if he is able to personally supervise or conduct the embalming of the occasional body handled by the funeral home.
