Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues heard at this hearing, Respondent was licensed to practice medicine in the State of Florida under License No. ME- 0022000 and was in practice in Orlando. Respondent is Dr. Mario Vega. Dr. James J. Schoeck, a physician practicing in Orlando, was, during 1980, Chairman of the Board of Censors of the Orange County Medical Society (OCMS). In that capacity, he had occasion to contact Respondent based on a letter from Dr. Alberto Herran, Chairman of the Patient Review Committee, founded on a grievance letter from a former patient of Respondent, Debra Mitchell. Ms. Mitchell had complained that she had gone to see Respondent on a medical matter and he had given her a 20-minute pelvic examination without wearing a surgical glove and without a nurse present. Since this was the Respondent's first reported offense allegation, Dr. Schoeck merely discussed the situation with him and got his side of the story, to the effect that a female employee was just down the hall during the examination and nothing out of the ordinary was done. No further action was taken by the OCMS as a result of this. It is not a unique type of complaint for the OCMS which, upon investigation, finds most to be unfounded. Debra Hall Mitchell saw Respondent in his office on September 19, 1980, because she was having a pain in her lower abdominal area, thought she might have an infection of some kind, and wanted it checked. When she got to the office, the only people there were Respondent and his wife, who after weighing her and doing the preliminary activities, took her into an examining room and asked her to disrobe and don a paper examining gown. When Respondent came in, he asked her to lie down on the examining table and asked what her problem was. Ms. Mitchell told him about the pain she was having. At that point, she thought it odd that there was no nurse present in the room with them, but because she had a strong trust in doctors, she did not worry about it. The pelvic examination took approximately 20 minutes with Respondent having the fingers on one hand in her vagina while he pushed on her abdomen with the other hand. When he was finished, he had her stand in front of him with her back to him and examined her vagina with her standing up, again using his other hand to push on her stomach, from time to time asking her if what he was doing hurt her. During the course of the examination, because it took as long as it did, Ms. Mitchell became alarmed and asked Respondent if anything was wrong. He replied that one of her ovaries was enlarged, but not to worry about it. When she got off the table, it was then she noticed that Respondent was not wearing any surgical gloves. She is not sure if he began the pelvic examination by using any type of instrument. After completing the examination, Respondent told Ms. Mitchell to get dressed and left the room. After she was dressed, he came back in, told her he did not find anything except for a slightly enlarged ovary, gave her a prescription for an antibiotic, and requested she come back in a week. When she stopped at the front desk, she did not say anything to the lady there, the Respondent's wife, because she was embarrassed. She merely did the necessary administrative things, including making another appointment and arranging for payment by Medicaid and left. However, as she began telling her friend about what happened on the way home, she got more and more upset; and when she arrived home, she called a female doctor friend of hers who advised her to write to the Medical Society, which she did, but not until two months later. Also, she discussed the situation with a couple of her very closest friends during this period to get advice on what to do about this situation. She neither had the prescription given her by Respondent filled, nor went back to see him again. Several weeks later, when her condition had worsened, she went to see another physician. On April 16, 1982, Georgia S. Fields, 17, went to the Respondent's office to get her birth control pills. She had been to see him four or five times previously, having been taken there initially by her mother, who was also Respondent's patient. When she entered his examining room, Respondent asked her to sit down and asked how her mother was. Then, according to the witness, he had her stand up, and, sitting to the side of her, unzipped her dress and checked her breasts. He then ostensibly pulled her underpants down below her knees and massaged her clitoris for about 10 minutes, during which time he said nothing to her. He then reportedly examined her vagina and told her she was dry. After these activities went on for a while, according to the witness, he then moved her chair behind her and brushed his lips, like a light kiss, across her shoulder. With that, the witness called an immediate halt, at which point the Respondent pulled her panties back up, wrote out her prescription and returned to his office while she went up to the desk. According to the witness, this was unusual, as he usually would accompany her to the desk. Ms. Fields, feeling quite upset about this situation, told the lady at the desk what had happened and refused to pay the bill. When she got home that day, Ms. Fields told her mother what ostensibly had happened and, on the next morning, reported it at the police department. Ms. Fields, as was stated above, has seen Respondent on several different occasions going back to early 1981. Though she denies having had any type of vaginal discharge, she admits to several infections, and her medical records indicate she was treated on various occasions for vaginal discharge. Ms. Fields also states she came in on the day in question only to get a refill on her birth control pills, yet both Respondent's testimony and his patient notes clearly reflect that she complained about low back pain resulting from an injury at work and requested information about a possible disability. Catherine Lynn Griffin, Ms. Fields' cousin, recalled a conversation she had with her shortly after Ms. Fields' last visit to Respondent. At that time, Ms. Fields stated she was angry with Dr. Vega because he would not give her a statement regarding her work. Ms. Fields indicated at the time that she had filed a complaint against the doctor, although she would not say why. She was heard to state at that time words to the effect that "I'll either get some money from him, or he'll lose his license." Coincidentally, Ms. Fields' medical records on file at her work place, Disneyworld, reflect that on June 1, 1982, somewhat over a month after her last visit to Dr. Vega's office, she was seen in the Disney doctor's office complaining of pain in the low back area resulting from pushing a wheelbarrow up a hill while at work in the landscaping department on May 28, 1982. At that time, the doctor put her on light duty for one week. She was seen again in follow up on June 8 and June 22. There is no evidence of any permanent injury. About three weeks after the alleged incident, on April 16, 1982, Ms. Fields' mother came into Respondent's office and apologized to Mrs. Vega, who was working there at the time, saying that she knew her daughter's allegations were not true. Mrs. Fields is still currently a patient of Respondent. Respondent denies any impropriety with Ms. Fields on this or any other occasion. While admitting he did not have a witness in the room while examining Ms. Fields, he states there was no need to do so because there was no pelvic examination conducted. He contends that the visit concerned itself with the birth control pills he prescribed, discussion of resolved prior vaginal discharge problems and continuation of discussion regarding a certification of Ms. Fields' mother as an alcoholic, which he refused to do. The main purpose of the visit related to an examination of her back concerning her request for a disability certificate for work. He also refused to give her the certificate. Dr. Vega also referred to his admitted failure to use gloves, which other evidence showed is sometimes the case with other doctors as well. Both the presence of a witness and the use of gloves are protection for the physician, not the patient. The first protects against unwarranted allegations of improper conduct, and the second, while admittedly protecting the patient from possible infection by the hands of the doctor, equally as important and more likely, protects the doctor from contamination by his patient. Ms. Fields was, at the time of the alleged incident, under 18 years old. She dropped out of school in the ninth grade. She has been described in her medical records as having acne, unpleasant odors from the vaginal area, cervical and vaginal discharges secondary to poor hygiene habits, oily seborrhea and halitosis. Considering the inherent probabilities and improbabilities of the evidence presented, and the permissible influences to be drawn therefrom, the evidence fails to establish sufficiently that this Respondent conducted a vaginal examination on this occasion or made any sexual advances toward Ms. Field by kissing her shoulders.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner dismiss the Administrative Complaint herein. RECOMMENDED this 17th day of August, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of August, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Charlie L. Adams, Esquire Ms. Dorothy Faircloth Department of Professional Executive Director Regulation Board of Medical Examiners 130 North Monroe Street Department of Professional Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Michael Sigman, Esquire Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Post Office Box 1786 Orlando, Florida 32801 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue to be presented is whether Respondent failed to maintain good moral character as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, in violation of Section 943.1395(7), Florida Statutes, and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was certified as a law enforcement officer by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, having been issued certificate number 281123. Respondent was employed by the City of Madison Police Department from December 2008 through July 2009. At the beginning of 2009, Respondent was 23 years old. Sometime in late December 2008 or early in 2009, Respondent received the telephone number for E.B.H. from Paige Bell, a friend of E.B.H.'s. At the time Ms. Bell gave Respondent E.B.H.'s number, E.B.H. was 16 years old. Respondent knew that E.B.H. was under the age of 18. Although the exact time-frame of the communications is unclear, in approximately January or February of 2009, Respondent and E.B.H. texted and called each for a one to two-week period. They never met in person. During their short period of communication, the two sent each other pictures of themselves so that each knew what the other looked like. E.B.H. testified that the first pictures sent were normal photos where she was clothed. After receiving those, she testified that Respondent asked her for "sexy" photos of herself wearing no underclothing. In response, E.B.H. sent him two pictures of herself, either nude or partially nude. The communication between Respondent and E.B.H. was brief, lasting no more than a few weeks. Once E.B.H. learned that Respondent was a law enforcement officer, she stopped texting him because she did not want either of them to get in trouble. Sometime after the texting stopped, the police chief for City of Madison Police Department received an anonymous complaint alleging that Respondent had possession of nude pictures of a minor female. On July 7, 2009, Sergeant Benton Ebberson was assigned to conduct an internal investigation in response to the complaint. As part of his investigation, Sergeant Ebberson spoke to several individuals who did not testify at hearing. What those individuals told him during the investigation is clearly hearsay. However, from these interviews, Sergeant Ebberson was able to gather enough information to get descriptions of the photos and identify E.B.H. as the subject of the photos. As a consequence, Sergeant Ebberson located and, with the permission of her parents, interviewed E.B.H. She admitted sending the photos to Respondent, but no longer had possession of the phone from which the texts were sent or copies of the pictures. Her father had discovered her actions and the pictures earlier in the year, and had deleted the photos and confiscated her telephone. Respondent also was interviewed as a consequence of the internal investigation. Consistent with the information he gave during his interview, he denies asking for the photos and claims E.B.H. sent them to him on her own volition. Whether he asked for the pictures is not particularly relevant. There is no dispute that E.B.H. sent and Respondent received at least two pictures of E.B.H. in which E.B.H. was wearing little or no clothing. Respondent claims that, while he received the pictures and looked at them, he did not know they were pictures of E.B.H., and therefore a minor, because the pictures did not include her face. However, he knew that the pictures were received from E.B.H.'s telephone number. Respondent did not report receiving the pictures to either his supervisors or to E.B.H.'s parents. Respondent also claims that upon receiving the pictures, he simply deleted them. His testimony to this effect is not credible. E.B.H. testified credibly that while she had sent inappropriate photographs to a former boyfriend on a separate occasion, she had sent these photographs to Respondent only. Regardless of the possible motives involved for complaining, it makes no sense that anyone would be able to complain to the police department and that the photos could be described in sufficient detail for Sergeant Ebberson to be able to locate E.B.H. unless Respondent either talked about receiving the photos or showed the photos to someone else. The photos, however, are not in evidence. E.B.H. knew she was either completely nude or only partially dressed, but could provide very little other information about the photos. No evidence was presented to indicate that the photos included a depiction of sexual conduct.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 14th day of December, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Kerra A. Smith, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Ernest M. Page, IV, Esquire Post Office Box 167 Perry, Florida 32348 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Crews, Program Director Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent committed the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Department of Health has regulatory jurisdiction over licensed osteopathic physicians such as Respondent. In particular, Petitioner is authorized to file and prosecute an administrative complaint, as it has done in this instance, when a panel of the Board of Osteopathic Medicine has found probable cause to suspect that the licensee has committed one or more disciplinable offenses. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed to practice osteopathic medicine in the State of Florida, having been issued license number OS 10658. Background On February 3, 2012, T.S., a 26-year-old single mother, presented to Respondent's medical office as a new obstetrical patient. At that time, T.S. was carrying her third child. For the next five months, T.S. and Respondent enjoyed what was, by all appearances, a productive and appropriate physician-patient relationship. However, as discussed below, Respondent would transgress the bounds of that relationship during an office visit on the evening of July 11, 2012. First, though, it is necessary to sketch the relevant background. On the morning of July 11, 2012, T.S.——who was then nine months pregnant——appeared at Respondent's office for a routine examination. During the visit, T.S. advised Respondent that she was experiencing substantial cramping and discomfort. In response to these complaints, Respondent performed a pelvic examination and a sonogram, both of which yielded normal results. Later that day, at approximately 4:00 or 4:30 p.m., T.S. telephoned Respondent's office and informed his staff of a new symptom: namely, that significant pain was making it difficult to lift her right arm. Although a member of the staff advised T.S. that she could be seen immediately, logistical constraints made it impossible for her to report to Respondent's office prior to the close of business. Over the course of the next several hours, T.S. communicated with Respondent by phone and text (his cell number was available to all patients) concerning the new symptom and her preference to be seen that evening. Ultimately, Respondent informed T.S., via a text message sent at approximately 6:15 p.m., that she could meet him at his office for an examination. The Misconduct T.S. arrived at the office at 6:30 p.m., whereupon Respondent unlocked the front door and invited T.S. inside. Upon entering the lobby area, which was only partially illuminated, T.S. saw no sign of Respondent's office staff. At that point, Respondent asked T.S. to sign a form that read as follows: I give consent to be seen at Dr. Miller's office, by Dr. Miller, without an assistant present, at my request, in order to have a medically urgent need addressed. The foregoing document, although signed by T.S., is of dubious propriety, as obstetrical treatment without a chaperone present is rarely, if ever, appropriate.3/ This issue is of no moment, however, for most of what occurred next——as established by the credible testimony of T.S. and Petitioner's expert witness——was not a legitimate medical examination but, rather, nonconsensual sexual contact perpetrated under the guise of an examination. Upon the execution of the "consent" document, Respondent directed T.S. to an examination room and informed her that the likely cause of her arm pain was either a clogged milk duct or the positioning of the fetus. Respondent then requested that T.S. disrobe her upper body, at which point he left the room for a few moments. Upon his return, Respondent asked T.S. to recline on the examination table, purportedly so he could examine her right breast to rule out the possibility of a clogged duct. T.S. complied and, for the next 30 to 45 seconds, Respondent squeezed her breast in a manner quite dissimilar to examinations she had undergone in the past. In particular, T.S. thought it peculiar that Respondent "cupped" her entire breast with his hand——as opposed to examining the breast from the outside in with the pads of his fingers.4/ Even more troublingly, Respondent asked T.S., while his hand was still in contact with her breast, whether "it felt good."5/ After removing his hand from T.S.'s breast, Respondent remarked to T.S. that her arm pain was not the result of a clogged milk duct. Respondent further stated that her symptoms would be assuaged upon the baby's delivery, an event which, according to him, could be facilitated by sexual activity. Before proceeding further, it is important to note that T.S.'s symptoms of arm pain arguably warranted, at most, a legitimate breast examination. In other words, there were no symptoms or aspects of T.S.'s history that justified a pelvic examination at that time,6/ particularly since Respondent had performed such a procedure (along with a sonogram) earlier in the day. Nevertheless, Respondent informed T.S. that he "needed" to measure the dilation of her cervix; then, in a disturbing and conspicuous departure from accepted obstetrical practice,7/ Respondent applied lubricant to one of his ungloved hands. Moments later, Respondent inserted two fingers into T.S.'s vagina and, for the next 30 seconds or so, positioned his penetrating hand in such a manner that his thumb was in continuous contact with T.S.'s clitoris——something that would never occur during a proper examination.8/ Tellingly, this was not the only physical contact incongruous with a legitimate pelvic examination, for at one point Respondent used his free hand to pull on one of T.S.'s nipples.9/ By now suspicious of Respondent's conduct, T.S. attempted to maneuver her body toward the head of the examination table. As she did so, Respondent began to remove his fingers from T.S.'s vagina while stating that she "needed to have sex" in order to induce labor. This could be accomplished, Respondent further suggested, by having sex with him, an invitation T.S. sensibly declined.10/ On the heels of this rejection, Respondent told T.S. that the only other means of inducing labor would be to "strip her membranes." Owing perhaps to an urgent desire to give birth——the reader should recall that she was nine months pregnant and in significant discomfort——T.S. acceded to Respondent's suggestion. Respondent then penetrated T.S.'s vagina with his (ungloved) hand for a second time and, prior to the removal of his fingers, repeatedly implored T.S. to engage in sexual intercourse with him.11/ When T.S. refused and tried to move to the other end of the table, Respondent grabbed her by the hips and pulled his midsection into her exposed vaginal area. By virtue of this aggression, T.S. could feel that Respondent's penis, albeit clothed, was erect.12/ Wishing to extricate herself from this situation, T.S. pushed Respondent away, at which point he attempted to "laugh off" his abhorrent behavior. T.S. dressed herself and, a short time later, drove to the home of an acquaintance to seek advice. Later that evening, T.S. made a report of the incident to the appropriate authorities,13/ which ultimately resulted in the filing of the Complaint at issue in this proceeding. Ultimate Factual Determinations It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent is guilty of violating section 459.015(1)(l), as charged in Count I of the Complaint. It is further determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent is guilty of violating section 456.072(1)(v) and, in turn, section 459.015(1)(pp), as alleged in Count II of the complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Board of Osteopathic Medicine finding Respondent guilty of Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint; revoking Respondent's license to practice osteopathic medicine; and imposing a fine of $10,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of July, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S EDWARD T. BAUER 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 30th day of July, 2014.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Angelo Britton, failed to maintain good moral character required of correctional officers by committing the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, matters subject to official recognition, and the entire record of this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: Findings Regarding the Parties and Events Preceding the Incident at Issue The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing standards applicable to correctional officers, pursuant to section 943.12 and chapter 120, Florida Statutes. The Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission certified Mr. Britton as a corrections officer in the State of Florida on July 1, 2015. He received Corrections Certification Number 325155. Mr. Britton and his ex-wife have been involved in a bitter custody battle over their six-year-old daughter since 2013. According to Mr. Britton, his ex-wife kept him from seeing their daughter after alleging that he sexually abused the child. Mr. Britton also claims that his ex-wife has been stalking him and suspects that she is responsible for initiating approximately 15 child abuse investigations of him by the Department of Children and Families. In February of 2017, Mr. Britton moved to an apartment complex in DeFuniak Springs, Florida, in order to be closer to his daughter. Soon thereafter, he met Larry Howard, who lives next door to him. Mr. Britton told Mr. Howard that he could not afford to pay for WiFi, and Mr. Howard agreed to let Mr. Britton use his WiFi in exchange for at least $10. Mr. Howard did not give his WiFi password to anyone else. Mr. Britton enjoys spending time with children. He babysits for friends and neighbors, and neighborhood children often play in his apartment. Findings Regarding the Incident at Issue and the Resulting Investigation On approximately May 23, 2017, three images of child pornography4/ were uploaded5/ to a Gmail account designated as “mysexyplay69@gmail.com” at an internet protocol (“IP”) address associated with DeFuniak Springs. An IP address is used to identify the location where someone has connected to the internet. That action prompted Google, Inc. to transmit a report to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (“NCMEC”). The report included the aforementioned images and IP address. NCMEC then forwarded that information to the Walton County Sheriff’s Office (“WCSO”). The WCSO’s Special Victims Unit, which investigates online exploitation and abuse of children, subpoenaed Charter Communications in order to determine who owned the IP address from which the pornographic images where uploaded, and Charter Communications reported that Mr. Howard was the owner.6/ WCSO investigators obtained a search warrant and searched Mr. Howard’s apartment on August 8, 2017. They “triaged” several digital devices found on site. Triaging is a process that uses scanning software to document the data stored on digital devices. The investigators found no child pornography or incriminating evidence on any of Mr. Howard’s devices and concluded that he was not responsible for uploading the pornographic images at issue. Mr. Britton observed the search of Mr. Howard’s home. Mr. Howard disclosed to the investigators that he allowed Mr. Britton to use his WiFi and that Mr. Britton was the only other person who knew his password. The investigators then subpoenaed Facebook for records concerning when and where Mr. Britton used his Facebook account. The records produced by Facebook revealed that Mr. Britton had used Mr. Howard’s WiFi to log onto Facebook as late as June 23, 2017. As noted above, the child pornography images at issue were uploaded on approximately May 23, 2017. After obtaining a search warrant, the WCSO Special Victims Unit investigators searched Mr. Britton’s apartment on October 19, 2017. They seized a cellphone, and a subsequent forensics analysis revealed the cellphone contained search terms that had been used in 2015 to search for items pertaining to lactation, sex with pregnant women, and sex with minors. Mr. Britton acknowledges being interested in pornography involving lactation and pregnant women but denies being interested in child pornography. Mr. Britton had disposed of a tablet and a computer at some point prior to the search of his residence. The search terms found on Mr. Britton’s cellphone led the investigators to conclude that Mr. Britton uploaded the pornographic images at issue to the Gmail account. Ultimate Findings Either Mr. Britton or Mr. Howard uploaded the child pornography at issue to the Gmail account designated as “mysexyplay69@gmail.com.” After searching his residence and electronic devices, the WCSO found nothing indicating that Mr. Howard was the responsible party, and Mr. Howard testified that Mr. Britton was the only other person with access to his WiFi. Mr. Howard was a very credible witness and gave no reason for the undersigned to question the veracity of his testimony. In contrast, the substance of Mr. Britton’s testimony and his overall demeanor during the final hearing gave the undersigned considerable cause to question the veracity of his testimony. For instance, Mr. Britton offered two implausible explanations for why the searches for child pornography were found on his cellphone. His first explanation is that the searches were “redirects” from adult porn websites. However, internet searches cannot be redirects.7/ Mr. Britton’s second explanation is that his ex-wife placed the pornographic searches on his cell phone, but Mr. Britton offered no explanation as to how his ex-wife gained access to his phone during the three months in 2015 when the search terms in question were used. Mr. Britton acknowledged having a sexual interest in pregnant women and lactation, and some of the searches pertained to those topics. That undermines any suggestion that someone else initiated the searches in question. In sum, the evidence clearly and convincingly demonstrates that Mr. Britton, rather than Mr. Howard, is responsible for uploading the pornographic images at issue to “mysexyplay69@gmail.com” and thus committed the violations alleged in the Department’s Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order finding that Mr. Britton failed to maintain good moral character as required by law and revoking Mr. Britton’s correctional officer certification. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of December, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S G.W. Chisenhall 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 December, 2019.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent engaged in an unlawful employment practice by discriminating against Petitioner on the basis of race in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, as amended.
Findings Of Fact Facts Stipulated to By the Parties Embry-Riddle is an independent, nonsectarian, not-for- profit, co-educational university. Embry-Riddle serves culturally diverse students seeking careers in aviation, aerospace, engineering, and related fields, with residential campuses in Daytona Beach, Florida, and Prescott, Arizona, and an extended campus (a/k/a Worldwide Campuses) consisting of 156 teaching sites in the United States and Europe. Michael Perry began his employment with Embry-Riddle on November 30, 2001, as a part-time associate center director at Embry-Riddle's Tallahassee teaching site. His job responsibilities were to market Embry-Riddle's programs, enroll students and provide some student services, the timely completion of registration forms and matriculation applications, and basic administrative duties. Petitioner did not have authority to enter into a contract for cellular phone service on behalf of Embry-Riddle that Embry-Riddle would be obligated to pay. Embry-Riddle's Tallahassee teaching site is on the campus of Tallahassee Community College ("TCC"), along with the extended campuses of other higher-education institutions, including Flagler College-Tallahassee and Barry University. In February 2003, Petitioner began to work full-time with the same job title and responsibilities. In February 2004, Petitioner was promoted from assistant center director to associate center director. He received a pay increase, and was given the additional responsibility of supervising an assistant and a Veterans' Affairs ("VA") student employee. At all times, Petitioner's assistant was Katrina Alexander, an African-American female. At all times relevant to this claim, Petitioner's VA student employee was Kiesha Moodie, an African-American female. The Tallahassee teaching site was overseen by Center Director Albert Borovich from a remote site in the panhandle of Florida. On or about May 18, 2005, Ms. Alexander reported that Ms. Moodie advised her that she was uncomfortable about some interaction she had with Petitioner in his office. The precise nature of the interaction is in dispute. At some point after May 23, 2005, Mr. Borovich was given certain memoranda by Dr. Barbara Sloan, advising him of the complaints of sexual harassment by certain unnamed employees of TCC. On June 6, 2005, Mr. Borovich received a copy of a memorandum from Maura Freeberg Wilson to Joketra Hall advising of complaints by female employees of Flagler College-Tallahassee about Petitioner. On June 10, 2005, Debbie Wiggins, the Southeast Regional Director of Operations for Embry-Riddle, and the direct supervisor of Mr. Borovich, provided copies of the alleged victim's statements to Petitioner for response. Petitioner responded to the charge by a report, dated June 15, 2005, denying the claims of sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior. Respondent has a human resources department housed in its headquarters in Daytona Beach, Florida. The human resources department is responsible for investigating complaints of sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior by an employee. The human resources department had not started its investigation of the complaints against Petitioner at the time Ms. Wiggins gave the alleged victim's statements to Petitioner. Rick Snodgrass was appointed by Linda Mobley to investigate the claims of sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior on behalf of Respondent's human resources department. Ms. Mobley was a human resource professional in Respondent's human resource department in Daytona Beach, Florida. Mr. Snodgrass was a human resource professional in Respondent's human resources department in Daytona Beach, Florida. On June 20, 2005, a telephone call was received at the Tallahassee teaching site from Nextel Partners Recovery concerning a delinquent account ("the Nextel Account"). On June 20, 2005, Mr. Borovich called Respondent's payroll department and asked whether Petitioner's paycheck could be held, but was advised that it was too late. At this time, Petitioner had made two payments to Nextel Partners on the Nextel Account at issue. The funds used to make this payment came directly from Petitioner and were not Embry-Riddle funds. On June 21, 2005, Mr. Borovich called Petitioner about the Nextel Account. On June 21, 2005, Petitioner was placed on administrative leave without pay. Petitioner told Mr. Borovich that he had opened the account at issue, that it was in his name, and that he had been paying the bills. The Nextel Subscriber Agreement lists "Embry-Riddle" in the section labeled "Full Customer Name." The Nextel Subscriber Agreement lists the address of the Tallahassee teaching site of Embry-Riddle in the section labeled "Mailing Address." The Nextel Subscriber Agreement lists Petitioner's home address in the section labeled "Shipping Address." The Nextel Subscriber Agreement has Petitioner's signature in the section labeled "Customer Signature." The Nextel Subscriber Agreement has "Assist. Dir. Oper." in the section labeled "Title." The Nextel New Customer Checklist lists "Embry- Riddle/TCC" in the section labeled "Customer/Company Name." The Nextel New Customer Checklist lists "Michael" in the section labeled "Contact." The Nextel New Customer Checklist has Petitioner's signature in the section labeled "NEXTEL Customer Signature." Petitioner provided his driver's license to Nextel Partners in conjunction with opening the Nextel Account. Petitioner provided his Embry-Riddle identification card to Nextel Partners in conjunction with opening the Nextel Account. Petitioner provided his Embry-Riddle business card to Nextel Partners in conjunction with opening the Nextel Account. Petitioner provided the address of Embry-Riddle's main campus in Daytona Beach to Nextel Partners in conjunction with opening the Nextel Account. Petitioner provided the address of Embry-Riddle's Tallahassee teaching site for billing purposes in conjunction with opening the Nextel Account. Petitioner directed that the bills be sent to Respondent's Tallahassee teaching site, "Attn: Michael L. Perry," in conjunction with opening the Nextel Account. Petitioner provided Respondent's Consumer Certificate of Exemption (Embry-Riddle's certificate of tax exemption) to Nextel Partners in conjunction with opening the Nextel Account. On June 20, 2005, Nextel Partners asserted that $936.55 was past due and owing on the Nextel Account. The alleged past due balance was sent to collection by Nextel Partners. The debt collection firm of Lamon, Hanley & Assoc., Inc., sought payment of the alleged past due amount from Embry- Riddle. The debt collection firm of J.J. MacIntyre Co., Inc., sought payment of the alleged past due amount from Embry-Riddle. Mr. Snodgrass was charged with investigating the events surrounding the Nextel Account by Ms. Mobley. The investigations of the claims of sexual harassment and the Nextel Account occurred simultaneously. Mr. Snodgrass traveled to Tallahassee on June 23, 2005, during which he met with several individuals regarding the claims of sexual harassment. The complainants from TCC, Flagler College- Tallahassee, and Barry University declined to participate in the investigation on the advice of their legal counsel. Ms. Moodie indicated to Mr. Snodgrass that she had addressed her concerns directly with Petitioner, and she withdrew her complaint. Mr. Snodgrass interviewed Petitioner last, in the presence of Mr. Borovich. Mr. Borovich was not present during the interviews of the female witnesses. At that time, Mr. Borovich found that there was insufficient evidence to make a finding on the claims of sexual harassment, and he recommended no direct discipline of Perry on the claims of sexual harassment. Mr. Snodgrass also discussed the Nextel Account with Petitioner during the meeting of June 23, 2005. Petitioner again asserted that the Nextel Subscriber Agreement was an agreement personal to him, and not an agreement between Nextel Partners and Embry-Riddle. Petitioner was advised that his employment was being terminated because of the actions surrounding the Nextel Account, but he was offered the opportunity to resign instead. Petitioner chose to resign his employment with Embry- Riddle. Petitioner's termination was involuntary. Respondent employs African-Americans in its extended campuses across the United States, including faculty, center directors, and associate center directors. Additional Findings of Fact Not Stipulated to By the Parties Petitioner is a 49-year-old African-American male, who has always lived in the southern United States. Petitioner was qualified for his position and had not been the subject of discipline in connection with his employment until January 2005, when he received a letter of reprimand from his supervisor, Mr. Borovich. In addition to his employment at Embry-Riddle, Petitioner has served as a minister, and has had experience counseling others who have been the victims of racial discrimination. Petitioner testified to his belief that Respondent discriminated against him by automatically concluding that he was guilty of committing fraud by obtaining the Nextel cellular phone because he was an African-American male. Petitioner testified to his experience, and as a minister counseling other victims of discrimination, that African-American males are considered guilty regardless of proof, and may still be considered guilty if they stand up for their rights. Petitioner believes that society generally feels that African-American males cannot tell the truth. Petitioner also testified that he was hurt the most by being accused by Respondent of being a thief without the opportunity to provide documents to rebut Respondent's accusation. Petitioner testified to his experience and belief that African-Americans, who have been the victims of racism in the South, have often been put in the position of having no chance to present evidence disproving the charges levied against them. Petitioner testified that he received a telephone call from Mr. Borovich, on May 23, 2005, ordering him to immediately apologize to the three alleged victims of sexual harassment or inappropriate conduct. He believed he was not given an opportunity to dispel Mr. Borovich of any notion that he had acted inappropriately towards the three women, nor had any investigation been performed at that point. Petitioner complied with the order to apologize to the three alleged victims of the sexual harassment, and testified he felt humiliated as a result of the experience. He believes he was "taken back" to a time in our society when he would have been guilty just because a white man said he was guilty. Mr. Borovich testified at the hearing that he did not recall ever speaking with Petitioner on May 23, 2005, nor did he recall "ordering" Petitioner to apologize to the alleged victims. Petitioner testified that he complained about the fact that he was forced to apologize to the three alleged victims of sexual harassment, and that his complaints were ignored by his superiors. Respondent is an equal opportunity employer that regularly trains its employees in seminars about equal opportunity employment, sexual harassment, and disability. Respondent maintains extensive employment policies in a policy manual referred to as both a POM and an APPS. These policies are reviewed with Embry-Riddle personnel at orientation, and made available to all personnel electronically through an intranet site at any time from any computer. Respondent has policies prohibiting sexual harassment and racial discrimination. Respondent's policies and procedures provide that individuals reporting sexual harassment should contact human resources, which would then conduct an investigation. This investigation is then conducted according to Respondent's policies and procedures. At all times relevant to this matter, Respondent had three employees physically located in the administrative offices of the Tallahassee teaching site: Petitioner, Ms. Alexander, and Ms. Moodie. According to Mr. Borovich, Petitioner was a good marketer, but had some difficulty in meeting deadlines. Ms. Alexander determined that her interaction with Petitioner on May 18, 2005, fit within Respondent's definition of sexual harassment. Respondent's policy requires that a supervisor who is made aware of sexual harassment must report the incident. Ms. Alexander attempted to contact Mr. Borovich on May 18, 2005, but he was not in his office. She, thereafter, consulted the policy and procedures manual and determined she was to contact the faculty chair when the center director was unavailable, which she did. Once he received the complaint from Ms. Alexander, Mr. Borovich began gathering information from the people involved, and then he reported the alleged sexual harassment to Respondent's human resources department pursuant to Embry-Riddle policy. Ms. Moodie told Ms. Alexander that she did not believe she was sexually harassed, but that she felt uncomfortable standing on top of a table and writing on a white board while Petitioner and Mr. Deric Mordica, a student, watched her from behind. Petitioner believes that Ms. Moodie's complaint to Ms. Alexander "started this whole thing." Both Ms. Moodie and Ms. Alexander are African-American. Maura Freeberg Williams, during the relevant time period, was employed in a supervisor capacity by Flagler College, whose offices were located in the same building as Embry-Riddle's Tallahassee teaching site. Joketra Hall, during the relevant time period, was employed in a supervisor capacity by TCC on whose campus Respondent is located. Debbie Wiggins, during the relevant time period, was the Southeast Regional Director of Operations for Respondent, and Mr. Borovich's direct supervisor. Her office was not located on the Tallahassee teaching site. When Ms. Wiggins provided Petitioner with copies of the alleged victims' statements on June 10, 2005, she was told by Ms. Mobley that she had breached investigative protocol which dictated that the human resources department was to interview Petitioner prior to him seeing the statements. This is done in order to maintain the anonymity of the victim until human resources has had the opportunity to investigate. Ms. Mobley directed Ms. Wiggins to refrain from involving herself in the investigation, which was to be conducted by the human resources department. These discussions were memorialized in electronic mail between Ms. Mobley and Ms. Wiggins. Mr. Snodgrass testified that this breach in protocol nearly compromised the investigation, but it was caught in time to conduct a proper investigation. Mr. Snodgrass determined how the investigation would be handled, decided whom Respondent would interview, and decided which statements from individuals would be taken. Mr. Snodgrass also determined the outcome of the investigation. Mr. Snodgrass made a trip to Tallahassee on June 23, 2005, during which he met with and questioned several individuals regarding the claims of sexual harassment. Since Ms. Moodie refused to discuss the alleged incident because she had already discussed it with Petitioner and withdrawn her complaint, and since the employees of TCC, Flagler College-Tallahassee, and Barry University declined to speak with Mr. Snodgrass, he concluded the sexual harassment complaints could not be sustained. Mr. Snodgrass met with Petitioner during his June 23 trip to Tallahassee and requested that Mr. Borovich attend the meeting as a witness. Mr. Snodgrass performed the questioning without comment by Mr. Borovich. The first part of the meeting dealt with the sexual harassment claims. Following the questioning, Mr. Snodgrass determined that the evidence was insufficient to make a finding of sexual harassment. He put aside his folder concerning this claim. The second part of the meeting concerned the Nextel cellular phone contract. Mr. Snodgrass asked Petitioner how he came to have two phones in Embry-Riddle's name. Petitioner repeated the information he had given to Mr. Borovich. Mr. Snodgrass presented the documents concerning the Nextel Account to Petitioner. Mr. Snodgrass believed that the Nextel documents were more credible than Petitioner's answers to his questions concerning the Nextel Account. Petitioner testified that he contracted with Nextel to obtain personal cellular telephones for himself and his wife. Petitioner entered into the Nextel contract to receive a discount being offered to public employees and people working for universities which he learned about through a document that was faxed to the machine he shared with others at TCC. Petitioner met with the Nextel representative at his office to complete the paperwork. Petitioner agreed to have his monthly bills sent to his office where he also received other personal bills. Petitioner paid for his cellular telephone usage with his own funds. Petitioner received the benefit of using Respondent's tax exempt certificate on his contract with Nextel. Petitioner entered into a dispute with Nextel over the quality of his telephone service, which led to the matter being turned over by Nextel to its collection agents. Petitioner never resolved the matter of his dispute with Nextel over the quality of his telephone service. After Petitioner's termination from employment, Respondent paid the past due amount for Petitioner's phone to Nextel out of funds owed to Petitioner for unused leave time during his employment. Mr. Snodgrass advised Petitioner at the time of termination of his employment that he had violated school policy by entering into the cellular phone contract. Petitioner was informed that his "employment was being terminated due to the fact that he opened [the Nextel] account without proper permission." Petitioner did not have contracting authority to bind Respondent. Respondent provides cellular telephone allowances for some of its employees who travel a great deal. None of Respondent's employees have cellular telephones that are owned or contracted for by Respondent. The decision to terminate Petitioner was made by Ms. Mobley. Mr. Borovich was not involved in the decision to terminate Petitioner. Ms. Mobley was not aware of Petitioner's race until she reviewed the documents regarding the Nextel Account, which included a photocopy of Petitioner's identification card. Ms. Mobley testified that the investigative protocols used concerning Petitioner were the same she would use regardless of the employee's race or gender. Following Petitioner's resignation, Ms. Alexander performed Petitioner's prior duties, and was the only person designated to the Tallahassee teaching site for the next 18 months. At that time, the position formerly held by Petitioner was given to a white female. Petitioner sought unemployment benefits, giving as his reason for his termination a "permanent layoff" due to "reduction in force due to lack of student enrollment." Ms. Alexander testified that she worked closely with Petitioner and Mr. Borovich, and that she socialized outside of work with Mr. Borovich. Ms. Alexander never witnessed Mr. Borovich act in a racially discriminatory manner towards her or Petitioner. Petitioner was not aware of any African-American males employed at his level or higher in the organizational structure of Embry-Riddle. Embry-Riddle employs 190 African-Americans out of 1,500 total employees in its worldwide campuses, including faculty, center directors, and associate center directors. Ninety percent of those African-American individuals were in positions equal to or higher than that held by Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that FCHR enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 15th day of June, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Michael O. Murray, Esquire Embry Riddle Aeronautical University 600 South Clyde Morris Boulevard Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Bill Reeves, Esquire H. Richard Bisbee, P.A. 1882 Capital Circle Northeast, Suite 206 Tallahassee, Florida 32309 Thomas J. Leek, Esquire Cobb & Cole Post Office Box 2491 Daytona Beach, Florida 32115-2491 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue This is a case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the basis of allegations that during the course of a doctor-patient relationship the Respondent violated Sections 458.329 and 458.331(1)(k), Florida Statutes, by engaging in sexual misconduct with a patient. The specific factual allegation is that during the course of the doctor-patient relationship the Respondent fondled the patient's genitals or otherwise engaged in inappropriate sexual contact with the patient.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the exhibit received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at the formal hearing, I make the following findings of fact. The Department of Professional Regulation is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of physicians pursuant to Section 20.30, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 455 and 458, Florida Statutes. (Stipulation, Tr. 5) At all times material hereto, the Respondent, Richard P. Emerson, M.D., has been a licensed physician in the state of Florida, having been issued license number ME 0005011. (Pet. Ex. 1, Tr. 40-41, 137-139, 175, 210)2 At all times material hereto, the Respondent has held himself out as a psychiatrist. (Pet. Ex. 1, Tr. 45, 139, 155, 175, 210). The patient whose treatment forms the gravamen of this case is a 26-year-old male with a long history of emotional problems. The patient has had psychiatric problems since he was two and a half or three years old and was diagnosed as autistic at age five. He has since been diagnosed as schizophrenic and paranoid schizophrenic. He has suffered from acute schizophrenia since early childhood. A paranoid schizophrenic is enormously suspicious; he feels that someone is going to harm him. The patient has been hospitalized at least twelve times for treatment of emotional problems. (Tr. 39, 45, 64, 139, 181, 196-197, 200) The Respondent treated the patient off and on at different times between 1974 and 1984. A patient-physician relationship existed between the Respondent and the patient at all material times. (Tr. 40-41, 137-139) The patient's medical history has been marked by violent outbursts against family members, including choking his sister. His mother expressed concern that someone was going to get killed. The patient has also experienced hallucinations, delusions, sexual preoccupation, sexual concerns, and sexual gender problems. His illness has included fears that people were out to get him and that people whose conversations he could not clearly overhear were talking about him and plotting against him. (Tr. 74-75, 143-144, 196-197) On February 21, 1984, the patient was hospitalized under the care of Dr. Joel Grossman. Dr. Grossman observed psychotic symptoms and diagnosed the patient as acutely schizophrenic. Psychosis is a disturbance of thinking, feeling, and behavior in which the individual may confuse his own inner world with the outer world of reality. Acute schizophrenia is an exacerbation of the psychotic symptoms resulting in a change in one's thoughts, feelings and behavior to the extent that the individual experiences difficulty in distinguishing reality from fantasy. An individual suffering from an acute schizophrenic episode, as was the patient in this case at the time of his hospitalization in February of 1984, is less likely to be able to accurately recount the truth and to accurately distinguish between things that really happened and things that are fantasies. (Tr. 181-183, 189-190, 196-197) The patient, who is the sole accusing witness in this case, is not a credible witness. His illness interferes markedly with his ability to perceive accurately and to accurately recount the truth. The patient contradicted himself on several occasions during the hearing. He was often reluctant to answer questions. He also admitted during the hearing that he had given false answers to some questions during his deposition just to get the deposition over with. The patient has an admitted tendency to give false answers when he is in a stressful situation. The patient was obviously under a great deal of stress during his testimony at the hearing. (The findings in this paragraph are to an extent based on the entirety of the relevant testimony at the hearing. The transcript references which follow are only examples and are not exhaustive. Tr. 55, 57-59, 61-62, 77-85, 89-91, 93, 95, 97-98, 100, 108, 110-111, 113-118, 122, 132, 125, 135, 181-182, 190, 196-197, 199, 200-205, 209, 212, 223, 225, 226) The patient presently suffers from a paranoid type of schizophrenic disorder. He has suffered from this condition for a number of years. The essential features of this disorder include the following: prominent persecutory or grandiose delusions or hallucinations with persecutory or grandiose content. In addition, delusional jealousy is present. Associated features include unfocused anxiety, anger, argumentativeness, and violence. In addition, there may be doubts about gender identity or fear of being thought of as a homosexual or being approached by homosexuals. The impairment in functioning may be minimal if the delusional material is not acted upon since gross disorganization of behavior is relatively rare. Similarly, effective responses may be preserved. Often a stilted formal quality or extreme intensity in interpersonal interactions is noted. (Tr. 196-197, 201-203) The patient has exhibited signs of having gender identity doubts, fear of being thought of as homosexual, or of being approached by homosexuals. Since 1980 the patient has had fears of being homosexually attacked. In 1974 the patient masturbated himself against the furniture in the Respondent's waiting room while he was alone. It is in 1974 that the patient alleges that the Respondent rubbed or scratched his back with his shirt on at the patient's request in order to relax him; (Tr. 61, 73, 131-132, 196-197) From approximately January of 1982 until the spring of 1985, the patient and a male friend named Dale engaged in a homosexual relationship. During this three-year period, Dale massaged the patient's back on numerous occasions and fondled the patient's genitals on numerous occasions. The patient exhibited his fear of being thought of as homosexual during his testimony at the hearing. He initially denied having had a sexual relationship with Dale and exhibited some confusion regarding the relationship which was clearly sexual in nature. The patient continued to maintain that his relationship with Dale was not sexual in nature, while at the same time admitting that he permitted Dale to fondle his genitals throughout their three-year relationship. (Tr. 78, 84-85, 151) The patient has also had difficulties with insomnia since 1980 Fears and thoughts of suicide have plagued him. He has had sexual fantasies and fantasies that he was the center of attention. On such occasions, the patient sometimes called the Respondent to talk about his family problems and his concerns and upsets. The patient also called his friend Dale when he was feeling suicidal, fearful, and alone. (Tr. 110-111, 129-130, 148) The relationship between the patient and his friend Dale bears a striking resemblance to the relationship the patient alleges that he had with the Respondent. Dale massaged the patient's back, the patient called Dale when he was feeling fearful, suicidal, and lonely. Dale picked the patient up in his car and took him places. The patient allowed Dale to fondle his genitals on numerous occasions. The patient and Dale also embraced and kissed. (Tr. 85-86, 88-89, 128-130, 151) One of the patient's hospitalizations was from June 29 to July 18, 1983. During his testimony he at first insisted that this hospitalization was because of the Respondent and denied it had anything to do with his having broken up with Dale. Later in his testimony the patient admitted that his break-up with Dale was one of the problems that led to his hospitalization. This incident is another manifestation of the patient's confusion between his friend Dale and the Respondent. (Tr. 113, 118) The patient has a hostile or acrimonious attitude toward both the Respondent and the Respondent's son. He feels that they are both "sick." (Tr. 122-123) The most logical explanation of the basis for the patient's allegations against the Respondent is that the allegations result from the patient's fantasies and delusions about the nature of his relationship with the Respondent. The patient is a severely disturbed schizophrenic who distorts what he perceives. His allegations are fantasies that are nothing more than the ramblings of a very seriously psychotic individual. The patient built up a sexual delusional system about the Respondent which manifested itself as early as the 1974 masturbation incident. There is also a transference situation in which the patient has confused the nature of his relationship with his friend Dale with the nature of his relationship with the Respondent. In sum, the allegations are most likely a fabrication from the patient's insanity. (Tr. 197, 199-203, 204-205, 211-212)
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing it is recommended that the Board of Medical Examiners enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Dr. Richard P. Emerson for failure of proof. DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of December, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of December, 1985.
The Issue At issue is whether Jeffrey Alshin is subject to discipline for violation of Section 490.009(2)(k), Florida Statutes (1983), by committing an act upon a client which would constitute sexual battery or sexual misconduct as defined in Section 490.0111, Florida Statutes (1983). Sexual misconduct in the practice of mental health counseling is prohibited by Section 490.0111, Florida Statutes (1983); that statute states that sexual misconduct shall be defined by rule. According to the Administrative Complaint, Rule 21U-15.04, Florida Administrative Code, defines sexual misconduct. The Administrative Complaint also alleges a violation of Section 490.009(2)(s), Florida Statutes (1983), for failing to meet minimum standards of performance in professional activities when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. The factual basis for these various grounds for discipline is alleged to have been engaging in sexual activity with a client during the period March, 1984, through July 1984, when a counselor-client relationship existed with the client.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Jeffrey R. Alshin, is a mental health counselor who has been licensed by the State of Florida during the times material to the allegations made in the Administrative Complaint. The client with whom Alshin is accused of sexual involvement, J.S., was referred to him by a Dr. Lemberg, who saw J.S. on March 1, 1984 (Tr. 24). J.S. telephoned Alshin's office and made an appointment to see him on Monday, March 5, 1984 (Tr. 24). On March 5, 1984, J.S. went to Alshin's office for a therapy session and met Alshin for the first time. She had another session with him on March 9, 1984 (Tr. 24-25). From March 5, 1984 a counselor-client relationship existed between Alshin and J.S. (Tr. 82). On the morning of Sunday, March 11, 1986, Alshin invited J.S. to his home for a barbecue (Tr. 26). After the barbecue, Alshin and J.S. went to Respondent's apartment and that evening they engaged in sexual intercourse (Tr. 27-28). Alshin engaged in sexual intercourse with his client on five other occasions between March and June, 1984 (Tr. 29). During the period in which Alshin and J.S. were sexually involved, Alshin was counseling J.S. (Tr. 28-29). Alshin was never married to J.S. Expert testimony submitted at the hearing establishes that for a mental health counselor to have a sexual relationship with a client is conduct which falls below the minimum standards of performance in professional activities for a mental health counselor when measured against prevailing peer performance (Tr. 80).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Secretary of the Department of Professional Regulation finding the Respondent guilty of a violation of Sections 490.009(2)(q) and (s), Florida Statutes (1983), and that his license as a mental health counselor be REVOKED. DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of November, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of November, 1986.
