The Issue The primary issue for determination is whether Dr. Jones violated provisions of Chapter 458, F.S. by violating terms of his probation, more specifically, those terms requiring attendance at Grand Rounds and monitoring by a local, Board certified pediatrician. If those violations occurred, an appropriate disciplinary action must be determined.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Dr. Jones, is now, and has been at all relevant periods, a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME0017104. His practice is located in Seminole, Florida. On April 21, 1986, a Final Order was entered by the Board of Medical Examiners, resolving by an amended stipulation, a twenty-count Administrative Complaint that had been filed against Dr. Jones on December 1, 1983. Pertinent provisions of the Final order included: Placement on probation for a period of five years commencing with the effective date of the order; Attendance at Grand Rounds weekly during probation at both All Children's Hospital in St. Petersburg, Florida and the University of South Florida in Tampa, Florida; and, Monitoring by a local Board-certified pediatrician, John H. Cordes, Jr., M.D., who was to make visits to Dr. Jones' office every two weeks and to randomly select 15 percent of Dr. Jones' medical charts to verify appropriateness of care and thoroughness of record-keeping. Dr. Jones was out of the country, in Antigua, when the order arrived, and it was in his office when he returned on May 4, 1986. Approximately two weeks later, around May 19th, Dr. Jones tried to call Dr. Cordes, the designated monitoring physician, and was told he was out of town. When he reached Dr. Cordes in early June, Dr. Cordes told him that under no circumstances would he serve as his monitoring physician and that he had written a letter to DPR advising them of such. After making some unspecified and unsuccessful efforts to locate a substitute, Dr. Jones contacted Lewis A. Barness, M.D., Chairman of the Department of Pediatrics at the University of South Florida. In a letter to Dr. Jones dated July 11, 1986, Dr. Barness agreed to review "about ten or fifteen percent of your charts on a biweekly basis." (Petitioner's exhibit #4) Dr. Jones was out of the country again the last two weeks of July, and the monitoring by Dr. Barness began on August 15, 1986. Dr. Barness was approved by the Board of Medical Examiners as a substitute on August 2, 1986. Dr. Jones continues to be monitored by Dr. Barness at Dr. Barness' office at the University. Dr. Jones brings his appointment book (although Dr. Barness never reviews it) and his charts, and Dr. Barness pulls, at random, fifteen to twenty percent of the charts and reviews them. Grand Rounds, lectures on pediatric medical topics, are held at 8:00 A.M. on Fridays at the University of South Florida Medical Center, and at 12:30 P.M. on Fridays at All Children's Hospital. Between his receipt of the Final Order and June 15, 1986, (the date specified in the amended complaint) Dr. Jones never attended Grand Rounds at the University of South Florida. He attended once, June 6th, during this period at All Children's Hospital. The basis for non-attendance is specified for each Friday session during the relevant period as follows: May 9, 1986 (the first Friday after Dr. Jones returned and saw the Final Order)--Dr. Jones' van was broken. His wife, a part-time employee at an interior design shop, was called in for work that day, so he did not have transportation. Further, he met with the mother of one of his patients at noon on this date. May 16 and 23, 1986--Dr. Jones' recently-widowed mother was visiting, and since she was also quite ill, he spent time with her. Further, Grand Rounds were cancelled at the University of South Florida on May 16th. May 30, 1986--Dr. Jones' van was again broken and his wife was called to work leaving him without transportation. June 6, 1986--Dr. Jones awoke with gastroenteritis, so he did not attend the morning session at the University of South Florida; he did attend the session at All Children's Hospital. June 13, 1986--Grand Rounds were cancelled at the University of South Florida on this date. Dr. Jones decided to take his children to Disney World as they lived out of state and were leaving the next day. June 15, 1986 was the close of the relevant period regarding attendance at Grand Rounds, according to the Administrative Complaint, as amended. From the testimony and evidence, I am unable to determine conclusively whether Dr. Jones has attended regularly since that date. Except for weekends and the trips out of country, Dr. Jones continued to practice medicine as a pediatrician between April 21, 1986 and July 1986, the date of the Administrative Complaint. He stipulated that he understood the terms and conditions of the Board's Order regarding probation. His testimony at the hearing revealed that he was thoroughly familiar with the details of the order. Nevertheless, he violated the terms of probation. Although he knew that the Board had approved the Stipulation in January 1986, and that the stipulation specified Dr. Cordes as the monitoring physician, he waited until the last minute (two weeks after he received the order) to contact Dr. Cordes about commencing the monitoring. While Dr. Cordes' refusal to participate is not attributable to Dr. Jones, the delay in obtaining a substitute could clearly have been eliminated with better planning by Dr. Jones. Technically, the monitoring conducted by Dr. Barness does not comply with the terms of the probation order, as Dr. Jones brings the charts to him for review. Dr. Barness has impressive credentials and is understandably unable to visit Dr. Jones' office every two weeks. However, Dr. Jones admitted that he never asked the Board to modify the terms of his probation in that regard. Dr. Jones' lack of judgment regarding the terms of probation is also reflected in his uncontroverted excuses for non-attendance at Grand Rounds. With the obvious exception of the cancellation of the lectures, the excuses fail to mitigate the violations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Medicine enter a final order: Finding that Respondent, Archbold M. Jones, M.D. violated subsections 458.331(1)(h) and (x) F.S.. Suspending Dr. Jones' license for three months (conforming to the approximate period that he practiced without supervision). Requiring Dr. Jones to appear before the Board with Dr. Barness to outline the details of the monitoring process and insure that proper review can be made at Dr. Barness' office, rather than Dr. Jones' office. Providing for Dr. Jones' immediate notification to the Board in the event Dr. Barness is unable to continue with monitoring consistent with the Board's direction. Outlining specific guidelines for excused non-attendance at Grand Rounds and providing for notification by Dr. Jones to the Board each time he fails to attend, and the reason for such failure. Providing that future violations will result in nullification of the stipulation and immediate proceeding on the original multi-count complaint. Providing that all other terms and conditions of the April 21, 1986 Order remain in full force and effect. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 6th day of July, 1987 in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of July, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 86-3920 The following constitute my specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1. Adopted in paragraph #1. 2. Rejected as unnecessary. 3. Adopted in substance in paragraph #2. 4. Rejected as unnecessary. 5-6. Adopted in substance in paragraph #2. 7-8. Adopted in paragraph #7. 9. Adopted in substance in paragraph #4. 10-11. Adopted in paragraph #9. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1. Adopted in paragraph #1. 2-3. Adopted in substance in paragraph #2. The closing date is addressed in paragraph #7, however the June 15, 1986, date relates only to attendance at Grand Rounds and not to the period during which monitoring did not occur. (See motions to amend complaint.) Adopted in paragraph #3. Adopted in paragraph #6. 7-15. Adopted in substance in paragraph #7. However, the characterization of a "medical emergency" in paragraph #9 is unsupported by the record, as are the characterizations, "justification" for not attending Grand Rounds and "legitimately prevented" from attendance. Respondent was not unable to attend Ground Rounds, except when the rounds were cancelled. He chose rather not to attend for various reasons which to him were more important than his attendance. Adopted in paragraph #4. Adopted in paragraph #5, except however the "diligence" of the search was not established by competent credible evidence. Adopted in substance in paragraph #5. 19-27. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as unsupported by competent, substantial evidence. Rejected as immaterial. Rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. Adopted in paragraph 9. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. The "diligence" is unsupported by competent credible evidence. Rejected as immaterial. COPIES FURNISHED: Dorothy Faircloth, Executive Director Board of Medical Examiners Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Michael I. Schwartz, Esquire Suite 100, Capitol Office Center 119 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The central issues in this case are whether the Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was certified by the Petitioner as a law enforcement officer on April 1, 1997, and was issued certificate number 170935. At all times material to the issues raised in the Administrative Complaint, the Respondent was employed by the Martin County Sheriff’s Office as a deputy sheriff. On June 1, 2004, at approximately 11:30 a.m., the Respondent was on-duty and drove to an address in Martin County to respond to a trespassing complaint. The Respondent met with Jack Moore, the property manager for a parcel of land that included a lake. Mr. Moore complained that trespassers were fishing in the lake. The Respondent and Mr. Moore went to the area adjacent to the lake in Respondent’s assigned Martin County Sheriff’s Office vehicle, and made contact with Maxwell Boley and Frank Preston, who were fishing in the lake. The Respondent told Mr. Preston and Mr. Boley that they were trespassing on the property and if they wanted to “leave without handcuffs” they would have to give the Respondent some of their property. Mr. Preston understood the Respondent to mean that, if he and Mr. Boley did not give the Respondent some of their fishing equipment, they would be arrested and be taken to jail. Mr. Preston readily turned over his rod and reel. He estimated that it was valued at $50 to $60 dollars. Mr. Boley was hesitant to turn over his fishing equipment because it was more valuable than Mr. Preston’s. Mr. Boley estimated that his two rods and reels were worth $250 dollars each. The Respondent told Mr. Boley that he was “stupid” because giving up his fishing gear was a lot better than going to jail. The Respondent told Mr. Boley that, if he were arrested, his fines and court costs would likely exceed $1,000 dollars and Mr. Boley would have to serve a term of probation. The Respondent told Mr. Boley that he would be “better off” to simply give the Respondent half of his fishing gear and “be done with it.” When Mr. Boley still hesitated to comply, the Respondent told Mr. Boley he was going to jail, to give his car keys to his friend (Mr. Preston), and to turn around. The Respondent then reached for a set of handcuffs. When it became apparent to Mr. Boley that the Respondent meant to make good on his threat, Mr. Boley relented and gave the Respondent one of his rods and reels. Subsequent to the contact with the Respondent and Mr. Moore, Mr. Boley and Mr. Preston turned over a total of two fishing rods and reels. After both Mr. Boley and Mr. Preston turned over their fishing equipment to the Respondent, the Respondent did not arrest or charge either of them with an offense and permitted them to leave. A short time after meeting with Mr. Boley and Mr. Preston, the Respondent and Mr. Moore made contact with Melvin Oliver and Joseph Crawford. Mr. Oliver and Mr. Crawford were also fishing at the same lake. The Respondent told Mr. Oliver and Mr. Crawford that they were trespassing on the property. Mr. Oliver told the Respondent that he, Oliver, would take his stuff, leave, and never come back. The Respondent then suggested that perhaps Mr. Oliver could “work something out” with Mr. Moore in exchange for not being arrested. The Respondent stated that Mr. Moore wanted to “press charges.” The Respondent and Mr. Moore discussed, in Mr. Oliver’s presence, the comparative costs to Mr. Oliver if he were arrested in contrast to the value of his fishing equipment. When Mr. Oliver rejected the idea of such a trade, the Respondent persisted with the proposal of Mr. Oliver and Mr. Crawford giving up their property to avoid going to jail. While the Respondent continued to discuss the matter with Mr. Oliver and Mr. Crawford, Mr. Moore walked over to Mr. Oliver’s boat and retrieved the trolling motor and fishing poles from the boat. Seeing this, Mr. Oliver verbally protested and repeatedly pleaded with the Respondent not to take his property and to simply allow himself and Mr. Crawford to leave. Mr. Moore and the Respondent did not return the property and instead loaded the motor and the fishing poles into the Respondent’s patrol car. The Respondent then told Mr. Oliver never to return to the lake. Once the fishing gear was loaded in the patrol car, the Respondent and Mr. Moore got into the Respondent's patrol car and drove away. The Respondent did not arrest or charge Mr. Oliver or Mr. Crawford with an offense. Instead, he permitted them to leave. As a result of the contact with the Respondent and Mr. Moore, Mr. Oliver and Mr. Crawford turned over a total of four fishing rods and reels and one electric trolling motor. Three of these fishing rods and reels as well as the trolling motor belonged to Mr. Oliver. One fishing rod and reel belonged to Mr. Crawford. After returning Mr. Moore back to his residence, the Respondent set aside one fishing rod and reel and stated that he was keeping it for himself. The Respondent said he had been working a great deal of late and had not had the time to go and purchase a rod and reel. Although the Respondent had initially kept only one fishing rod and reel, Mr. Moore told him to take some more because he (Moore) had plenty. The Respondent agreed and took two more of the fishing rods and reels, remarking that he would give them to his buddies. The Respondent then left Mr. Moore at his residence and drove away. Of the total of six fishing rods and reels and one electric trolling motor turned over by the four fishermen on June 1, 2004, three of the fishing rods and reels were retained in the Respondent’s Martin County Sheriff’s Office vehicle, and Mr. Moore retained the other three fishing rods and reels and the electric trolling motor. Later, on the evening of June 1, 2004, Mr. Boley encountered a Palm Beach County deputy sheriff at a convenience store. Mr. Boley told the deputy about the incident with the Respondent earlier in the day and asked the deputy if it was “right." Based on his conversation with the Palm Beach County deputy, Mr. Boley reported the incident with the Respondent to the Martin County Sheriff’s Office the following day. On June 2, 2004, the Respondent’s supervisor, Lieutenant Glenn Zirkle, contacted the Respondent and instructed him to bring the fishing equipment to Lieutenant Zirkle’s office at the Martin County Sheriff’s Office. In response to Lieutenant Zirkle’s question to the Respondent as to what had occurred, the Respondent told Lieutenant Zirkle that in lieu of arresting the trespassing fishermen, their fishing rods had been taken by the property owner. The Respondent told Lieutenant Zirkle that he had merely “stood by.” The Respondent also told Lieutenant Zirkle that he would go to Mr. Moore’s residence and retrieve the fishing equipment. The Respondent did not inform Lieutenant Zirkle that the Respondent had retained some of the fishing equipment himself. In response to Lieutenant Zirkle’s order, the Respondent went back to Mr. Moore’s residence and retrieved the other three fishing rods and reels and the electric trolling motor. The Respondent then delivered the six fishing rods and reels and the electric trolling motor to Lieutenant Zirkle’s office at the Martin County Sheriff’s Office on June 2, 2004. Approximately one week after his encounter with the Respondent and Mr. Moore, Mr. Oliver filed a complaint with the Martin County Sheriff’s Office. On August 26, 2004, the Respondent gave a sworn statement to Detective Gary Bach of the Martin County Sheriff’s Office concerning an internal investigation into complaints filed against the Respondent by Mr. Oliver and Mr. Boley concerning the fishing equipment. In his statement, the Respondent denied initiating any “deals” with the trespassing fishermen and stated that any arrangements regarding the fishermen giving up their property were between the fishermen and Mr. Moore. The Respondent also stated in his sworn statement that although he was reluctant to keep any of the fishermen’s property, Mr. Moore persuaded the Respondent to accept three of the rods and reels. The Respondent indicated that he relented and accepted the additional fishing gear from Mr. Moore in an effort to be “polite” to Mr. Moore. The Respondent said in his sworn statement that he took the three rods and reels home in his patrol car. The following day, he loaded them into the bed of Deputy Shawn Green’s personal pickup truck. The Respondent stated that he did so without Deputy Green’s knowledge.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of two violations of Subsection 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, and that Respondent’s certification be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 24th day of March, 2006.
Findings Of Fact By application filed with Respondent on August 20, 1980, Petitioner requested that he be licensed as a real estate salesman. Question number six on the application was answered as follows: 6. Have you ever been arrested for, or charged with, the commission of an offense against the laws of any municipality, state or nation including traffic offenses (but not parking, speeding, inspection or traffic signal violations), without regard to whether convicted, sentenced, pardoned or paroled? Yes If yes, state details including the outcome in full: Possession of Marijuana in Vero (Approx Aug '74) Fined $102. The application form included the instruction that if an answer to question six was in the affirmative, the applicant should attach his complete signed statement of the charges and facts, together with the dates, name and location of the court in which the proceedings were had or are pending. Petitioner attached to his application a statement reading as follows: Approximately August of 1974 I was found guilty of possession of marijuana. The outcome was a fine of $102. I haven't had any dealings with this sort of thing since. (Exhibit 1) By letter of October 31, 1980, Respondent's legal adviser informed Petitioner that the Board of Real Estate had denied his application for licensure based on his answer to question six of the application and his criminal record. (Exhibit 4) On April 20, 1975, Petitioner was arrested by the Vero Beach Police Department on charges of driving while intoxicated and possession of less than five grams of marijuana. On April 22, 1975, Petitioner was convicted of the charges and was fined $302.00 for driving while intoxicated, and his driver's license was suspended for four months. He was fined $102.00 on the charge of possession of marijuana. (Exhibit 2) On February 24, 1979, Petitioner was cited by the Florida State Highway Patrol for having no valid driver's license. (Exhibit 3) The application form filed by Petitioner captions that the applicant must answer every question without evasion and recites the applicant's acknowledgment that every answer to the questions therein "states the truth and full truth concerning the inquiry, so far as known or can be ascertained." The affidavit of the applicant to the application includes the statement that all answers and statements therein are true and correct, "and are as complete as h knowledge, information and records permit, without any evasions or mental reservations whatsoever." (Exhibit 1) Petitioner testified at the hearing and admitted the fact of his 1975 arrest and conviction in Vero Beach, Florida. He also admitted being cited for not having a valid driver's license in 1979, but claimed that this charge was dismissed when he subsequently produced his driver's license to law enforcement authorities. During the course of his testimony, Petitioner also admitted being convicted of driving while intoxicated while in Michigan in 1968 or 1969 for which he was fined $175.00 and received a suspension of his driver's license for a period of six months. He testified that he did not list the DWI convictions on his application form because he believed that they constituted traffic offenses which need not be disclosed. His testimony is not deemed credible in this respect. (Testimony of Respondent)
Recommendation That Petitioner's application for licensure as a real estate salesman pursuant to Chapter 475, Florida Statutes, be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 10 day of March, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM 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 March, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: R. Jeffrey Miller, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Board of Real Estate The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Philip Chandler Post Office Box 406 2000 Baird Street Roseland, Florida 32957 Department of Professional Regulation Board of Real Estate 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Timothy M. Gray applied for an instructional position with the Pinellas County School Board in May 1984 and accepted an annual contract to teach at Safety Harbor Middle School for the school year starting in the fall of 1984. He taught a course to eighth grade classes called Power and Transportation, which is predominantly a shop course. Gray was certificated to teach industrial arts in 1980. The charges involved in these two cases stem from inappropriate remarks Gray allegedly made to various students in his class or in the school. Gray denies making the improper remarks attributed to him. Specifically, Respondent is alleged to have made inappropriate remarks of a sexual nature to Paul Bartolo and Mark Fulghum while driving them home from a school detention period that caused them to miss their bus. Respondent admits that he gave these 14- and 15- year-old boys a ride home after their detention. He lived in the same direction as the two boys and giving them a ride home was not out of his way. Both of these boys were discipline problems. During the school year Paul served about 15 detentions and was suspended twice. Both were in Respondent's Power and Transportation class and both had been placed on detention by Respondent. During the ride home Paul was in the front seat of Respondent's car and Mark was in the rear seat. Both boys testified that during the ride home an extensive conversation ensued and that Respondent, after answering a question regarding his marital status in the negative, continued with he liked snatch. Respondent admits the conversation and his attempts to reach these boys to improve their attitudes toward school but denies ever using the word "snatch." During discussions with girls on the school bus and at school regarding Respondent and his comments, Paul and Mark told the girls that Respondent said he liked snatch. At this time a lot of rumors were being circulated among the eighth graders in Respondent's classes about the way he looked at them and comments he had made they deemed inappropriate. The prime mover of this group was Dana Shaver, who testified only by deposition in these proceedings. Dana urged Paul and Mark to report Respondent's remarks to the principal. In a deposition (Exhibit 1) Dana testified that Gray had seen her at the beach over the weekend and told her in class Monday that he had seen her at the beach in her bikini and that she did not have much of a tan for a beach girl. This embarrassed Dana and she hung her head and did not hear Respondent say she would look better without it (bikini) on. This was later reported to Dana by an anonymous girlfriend. Respondent admits he saw Dana and another girl at the beach but denies saying anything more to her than she did not have as good a tan as he did. Dana's parents requested she be moved from Respondent's class in Power and Transportation (which she did not like) because of her being "embarrassed" by Respondent. Evidently, no embarrassment was involved discussing use of the word "snatch" with boys in her class. Kera Lampman is a bright 13-year-old who was in Respondent's Power and Transportation class. She testified that Respondent told her she had a nice butt and that she could get straight A's in his class. Respondent denies ever using the word "butt" to Kera but does not deny the remarks about her grades as Kera is a straight-A student. Respondent also testified that he was trying to get Kera moved to a more challenging class when he was suspended. Alissa Lanier, a 14-year-old student at Safety Harbor Middle School, testified that while walking from the bus drop to the entrance door immediately before classes started in the morning she heard someone say, "You've got a nice ass." When she turned around she saw Respondent some 20 feet away. She had never talked to Respondent, was not in his class, and testified Respondent was the only person on the ramp besides her. Respondent not only denies making such a remark but also testified that he frequently has bus ramp duty before school starts and he has never been in the area between the bus stop and school entrance doors shortly before school was due to start when the area was not crowded with students. The testimony that this area would be crowded immediately prior to school starting is deemed more credible. Respondent's denial that he made any comment to any girl he did not even know is more credible than is the testimony that this remark was heard from someone 20 feet distant in the bus ramp area immediately prior to school starting. Shelly Evans, a 14-year-old girl in Respondent's class heard Respondent say he had seen Kera and Dana at the beach and they looked great in their bikinis. During the period when others were reporting Respondent's actions she too reported this comment to the principal. One witness testified that Respondent looked at her in a strange way in class; that it appeared to her that he was staring. Such discussion and remarks including comments about bodies were being circulated among students at Safety Harbor Middle School and was brought to the attention of the principal who interrogated some of the students. The principal was told substantially what was testified to at these proceedings. During the investigation which followed Respondent denied using the words "snatch," "butt," or "ass," while talking to any of the students. Respondent, before coming to Safety Harbor Middle School, had worked in a Y conservation program involving young men. This age group was doubtless older than the 13-15 year olds in the eighth grade class Respondent taught at Safety Harbor Middle School and were less impressionable than eighth grade students. Hearing from one of her teachers that rumors were going around the school regarding Gray's language in the presence of students, Mrs. Raymond, Principal of Safety Harbor Middle School obtained the name of one or more students reported to be aware of such language and called them into her office. After obtaining statements from these students, who appeared as witnesses in these proceedings, Mrs. Raymond confronted Gray, who denied making inappropriate comments. Nevertheless, she recommended his immediate suspension with pay pending the next meeting of the School Board, who was authorized to suspend Gray without pay. Upon her recommendation, Gray was immediately suspended.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent abused its discretion in denying Petitioner’s request for an exemption from disqualification for employment in a position of trust.
Findings Of Fact AHCA is the state agency charged with protecting vulnerable persons, such as Medicaid recipients and the Medicaid program, and, in that capacity, it maintains discretion to approve or deny requests for exemption from disqualification. Petitioner is seeking to work as a certified nursing assistant. Petitioner’s employment goals require her to have a Level 2 criminal background screening to ensure she does not have any disqualifying offenses to prohibit her from working with AHCA-regulated facilities. Petitioner’s background screening of February 5, 2020, identified the following five criminal offenses: elder abuse/neglect; trespass (refuse to leave property, peace officer’s request); and three counts of obstructing/resisting executive officer with minor injury. By letter dated February 5, 2020, AHCA notified Petitioner that she was disqualified from employment due to the disqualifying offense of “04/22/2017 Sheriff’s Office San Diego, Obstruct/Resist Exec Off.” The letter also informed Petitioner that she may be eligible to apply for an exemption from disqualification and how to apply. On or around February 7, 2020, Petitioner submitted a request for exemption from disqualification and supporting documentation to AHCA. By letter dated February 18, 2020, AHCA denied Petitioner’s request for exemption. On April 6, 2020, Petitioner submitted a second Application for Exemption (“exemption package”) to AHCA. Petitioner’s exemption package contained documentation including employment history, education/training, a criminal history report, arrest reports, investigation reports, a California Department of Public Health investigation report, and a 12-month suspension of nurse assistant certification. By letter dated April 7, 2020, AHCA denied Petitioner’s request for exemption, stating Petitioner is not eligible for the exemption based on the following grounds: A disqualifying felony offense(s) and you have not been lawfully released from confinement, supervision, or nonmonetary condition imposed by the court for the disqualifying felony 3 years prior to the date you applied for the exemption. Our records indicate you met the above criteria for the following: ELDER/DEP ADULT CRUELTY, Case number CN3772399 Petitioner contested the denial and requested a formal administrative hearing. AHCA acknowledged the disqualifying offense error in the denial letter of April 7, 2020, and corrected its denial letter. The corrected denial letter dated September 8, 2020, deemed Petitioner not eligible for an exemption based on the following grounds: A disqualifying felony offense(s) and you have not been lawfully released from confinement, supervision, or nonmonetary condition imposed by the court for the disqualifying felony 3 years prior to the date you applied for the exemption. Our records indicate you met the above criteria for the following: Corrected Disqualifying Offense: 04/22/2017 SHERIFF’S OFFICE SAN DIEGO, RESISTING AN OFFICER (California Penal Code section 148,) Case Number CN372399. Hearing At hearing, Petitioner testified about the incident that occurred on April 22, 2017, while working at Fallbrook Skilled Nursing (“Fallbrook”) in California. Petitioner explained that three police officers came to her job at Fallbrook while she was working her shift and asked to speak to her outside the facility about allegations of resident abuse. Petitioner testified she refused to leave the facility upon multiple instructions from the police to leave. Petitioner admitted that after an officer told her several times he was going to arrest her, she told the police “you don’t have a right to arrest me.” Petitioner detailed how she did not allow the police to put handcuffs on her because she believed the reports about her were lies. Ultimately, the incident escalated--Petitioner testified that when she did not allow the police to handcuff her, the three police officers put her on the ground, one put his knee on her back, and she was handcuffed. Petitioner weighed approximately 125 pounds when arrested. After the police got Petitioner outside, the three police officers picked her up, put her in the police car, and took her to jail. Petitioner was charged with: elder abuse/neglect; trespass (refuse to leave property, peace officer’s request); and three counts of obstructing/resisting an officer, all stemming from the same April 22, 2017, incident. The elder abuse and trespass charges against Lalanne were dismissed. On January 30, 2018, Petitioner proceeded to a bench trial before a judge on the resisting an officer charge. At trial, Petitioner was found guilty and convicted of “count 1 PC 148 (a)(1), resisting an officer” in case number CN372399. That same day, the judge sentenced Petitioner to three years’ probation2 and community service for the resisting an officer conviction. Subsequently, the County of San Diego, California, probation department provided Petitioner a certificate of completion for completing her three days of public work service on or about September 13, 2018. Petitioner testified that she made a mistake when she did not listen to the officers and it was a lesson for her. She also testified that she believed there was no harm to the police and her offense is a misdemeanor not a felony. Vanessa Risch (“Risch”), AHCA’s operations and management consultant manager in the Background Screening Unit, testified that because Petitioner’s offense occurred in California, AHCA had to evaluate the nature of the offense, what occurred during the incident, and the final outcome of the case to determine the correlating criminal offense in Florida. Risch testified that she contacted the California Clerk of Courts to validate the outcome of Petitioner’s case and probationary status. Risch testified that, through her investigation, she confirmed that Petitioner’s probation started on January 30, 2018, and terminates on January 30, 2021. Risch also detailed how AHCA converted Petitioner’s California resisting an officer charge to a Florida resisting arrest with violence felony offense, after determining the officers in California had to force Petitioner’s body to the ground after Petitioner did not comply with the officers’ repeated instructions. AHCA concluded that Petitioner’s actions of opposing the three 2 The compelling evidence at hearing supports Petitioner’s probationary sentence. The undersigned finds that Petitioner failed to testify honestly and forthright regarding her three-year probationary period. First, Petitioner denied knowledge of any probationary period even though probation was listed on the sentencing documents Petitioner presented as Exhibit 1. Also, Petitioner’s Exhibit 3 is from the probation department. Additionally, Petitioner testified that her lawyer told her she had probation, which confirms Petitioner’s knowledge of her probationary period. officers is equivalent to the criminal offense of resisting arrest with violence in Florida. Risch testified that resisting an officer with violence is a disqualifying felony offense. Risch testified further that AHCA ultimately concluded that Petitioner was not eligible to apply for an exemption. Risch explained that Petitioner’s current probationary status prohibited her from being eligible to apply for an exemption because eligibility starts three years after Petitioner’s probationary period for the disqualifying felony offense is terminated.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration, enter a final order denying Shaddainah Lalanne’s, request for an exemption from disqualification. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of December, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY 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 9th day of December, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Shaddainah Sherly Lalanne Apartment 206 6609 Woods Island Circle Port St. Lucie, Florida 34952 (eServed) Katie Jackson, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 7 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Shena L. Grantham, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Building 3, Room 3407B 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Thomas M. Hoeler, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Bill Roberts, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Shevaun L. Harris, Acting Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 1 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Richard J. Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed)
