Findings Of Fact William L. McCallister was the Respondent in Dept. of State, Division of Licensing vs. William L. McCallister, DOAH Case No. 86-1480. The Department of State, Division of Licensing, initiated Case No. 86- 1480. In that action, the Department of State sought to revoke the detection of deception examiner's license of William L. McCallister. It also entered an emergency order of suspension. William L. McCallister was the prevailing party in DOAH Case No. 86- 1480. The total value of reasonable attorney's fees and costs in this proceeding is $15,000. The Department of State was not a nominal party in these proceedings. During 1985, William L. McCallister was the sole owner of McCallister Polygraph Service, Inc. During 1985, he was employed by the Polk County Sheriff's office as a sworn officer serving as Staff Polygraphist. When he conducted the polygraph examinations of the three complaining witnesses in DOAH Case No. 86-1480, he did so in fulfillment of his duties as Staff Polygraphist. McCallister Polygraph Service, Inc. was not a party in DOAH Case No. 86-1480. Prior to initiating proceedings in DOAH Case No. 86-1480, the Department of State conducted an adequate factual investigation of the allegations by Phyllis Langdale, Rose Giannotti, and Joanne Meyer. The evidence presented at final hearing regarding standards applied by the Department to detection of deception examiners in disciplinary proceedings describes the standards in effect at the time the complaint was filed.
Findings Of Fact Union Trucking is a Florida corporation engaged in the business of trucking. Its net worth is less than $2,000,000.00 In DOAH Case NO. 87-4007, the Department sent Petitioner a letter dated August 6, 1987, denying Petitioner's request for certification as a minority business enterprise pursuant to the Department's Rule 14-78.005, Florida Administrative Code. The reason stated in the letter was that Petitioner was not actually under the control of a minority person. On August 25, 1987, Petitioner timely requested a hearing and the case was sent to the Division Of Administrative Hearings on September 11, 1987. By Notice of Hearing dated September 23, 1987, hearing was scheduled for November 16, 1987 and later continued until February 10, 1988. Rule 14-78.002, Florida Administrative Code, was amended on September 21, 1987. The amendment effectively removed DOT's reason-for denial of Petitioner's certification. However, on February 11, 1988, well after the rule change came into effect, DOT formally decided to certify Petitioner. Petitioner was therefore forced to proceed for several months in preparation for an action which Respondent admits it had no basis for after the rule change took effect. Respondent's initial decision occurred on August 6, 1987, when Respondent notified Petitioner of its denial of minority business status. At some point in time, Respondent had filed its proposed rule change. Petitioner failed to demonstrate the time of the proposed change. Depending on the facts surrounding the rule change as to its likelihood of adoption at the time Respondent initiated this action, no findings regarding substantial justification can be made at the time of the agency's initial action on August Most certainly after September 21, 1987, the date the MBE rule was amended, Respondent lacked any substantial justification to continue to litigate this matter. The Final Order of the Department recognized the earlier certification of Petitioner and dismissed the action. However, the Final Order of Respondent did not dispose of the attorney's fees issue which had also been raised during the principal action. The order, therefore, did not dispose of substantially all the issues raised in the principal action. Additionally, there was no settlement of this case since a written settlement agreement was drafted and signed by Petitioner, but refused by Respondent. Respondent's unilateral certification is not enough to force a settlement on Petitioner, especially since Respondent elected to enter a Final Order in this case. Petitioner, therefore, became a prevailing party when Respondent entered its Final Order on April 18, 1988. Section 57.111(4)(b)(2) , Florida Statutes. The application and affidavit which initiated this action were filed on May 23, 1988. The application substantially meets the requirements of Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, and Rule 22I-6.035, Florida Administrative Code, in that it fairly put Respondent on notice of Petitioner's claim. The application and affidavit were timely, having been filed within 60 days after the date on which Petitioner became a prevailing small business party. According to the affidavit of Frank M. Gafford, Petitioner incurred legal fees of $3,572.86. These fees and costs are found to be reasonable. The Department does not dispute the reasonableness of the fees in this case.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner is entitled to be reimbursed for his attorney's fees and costs incurred in defending the underlying proceeding.
Findings Of Fact On July 2, 1992, the Department of Professional Regulation filed an Administrative Complaint against Petitioner, alleging that Petitioner had used the letters "D.D.S." following his name on letterhead and had testified as an expert in the field of dentistry in a case involving a Florida licensed dentist. The Administrative Complaint alleged that such conduct by Petitioner constituted the unlicensed practice of dentistry. Petitioner requested a formal hearing regarding those allegations. That cause was thereafter transferred to the Division of Administrative Hearings to conduct the formal proceeding and was assigned DOAH Case No. 92-4570. On January 27, 1993, a Recommended Order was entered in DOAH Case No. 92-4570, holding that Petitioner's use of the letters "D.D.S." did not represent that he was licensed to practice dentistry in the State of Florida, but merely reflected Petitioner's educational background, and that Petitioner was not required by the Florida Evidence Code or any other law to be licensed in the State of Florida in order to testify as an expert in an administrative or judicial proceeding. The Recommended Order concluded that Petitioner should be found not guilty of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint. The Department of Professional Regulation entered a Final Order rejecting findings of fact and conclusions of law in that Recommended Order and found Petitioner guilty of the unauthorized practice of dentistry. Petitioner appealed that Final Order to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. The appellate court reversed the Department's Final Order and remanded the cause for entry of an order consistent with the Recommended Order. The attorney for the Department who prosecuted the underlying proceeding reviewed the investigative file and then discussed his recommendation with his supervisor. He recommended that Petitioner be prosecuted criminally, not administratively, because he believed that Petitioner was committing a criminal offense and not an administrative violation by holding himself out to be a dentist licensed in the State of Florida. No evidence was offered to show who made the decision to initiate the underlying proceeding on behalf of the Department, and, therefore, no evidence was offered to show what was considered by that person or persons when the decision was made to initiate the underlying proceeding against Petitioner. There is, accordingly, no evidence to show the factual basis for the Department's determination to issue an Administrative Complaint against Petitioner. No evidence was offered to show that anyone on behalf of the Department determined that there was a legal basis for initiating a proceeding against Petitioner for disclosing his educational credentials on letterhead or testifying as an expert witness without being licensed in the state where that testimony was given. In 1990 (the year during which Petitioner testified as an expert witness) and in 1991 (the year during which Petitioner wrote an opinion on the letterhead which concerned the Department), Petitioner performed his services as a legal-dental consultant as a sole proprietor of an unincorporated business, under his own name, although some other services were performed through Dental-Legal Advisors, Inc. Petitioner's principal office was located in Florida, he was domiciled in Florida, he had no employees, and Petitioner's net worth was less than $2,000,000, including both personal and business investments. The Department was not substantially justified in initiating the underlying proceeding against Petitioner. Petitioner qualified as a small business party when the underlying proceeding was brought against him. Petitioner is entitled to recover $15,000 from the Department for his costs and attorney's fees in defending the underlying proceeding.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent Three Rivers Legal Services engaged in unlawful employment practices with regard to Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner Attorney Kaimowitz was born on May 5, 1935. He attended the University of Wisconsin, served in the U. S. Army, and was a journalist early in his career. He worked to obtain voting rights for African-Americans in the Deep South as a volunteer for the Congress of Racial Equality in the summer of 1964. He attended law school at New York University and while attending law school worked for the New York Civil Liberties Union as an investigator. Upon graduating from law school in 1967, he applied for membership in the New York State Bar Association and was eventually admitted. He was employed as a staff attorney with the Center on Social Welfare Policy and Law in New York City. He was suspended from that position. In 1970 he was awarded a Reginald Heber Smith Fellowship which took him to Michigan Legal Services in Detroit, Michigan. He remained there until he took a sabbatical so that he could complete a Legal Services Corporation Research Fellowship in 1979 and 1980, which was located at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He could have returned to his employment at Michigan Legal Services but instead sued that entity. He also sued Pennsylvania Legal Services, Legal Services of North Carolina, and the Mental Health Law Project of the District of Columbia for alleged age discrimination in hiring. From December 1980 until 1984 he was employed as associate counsel for the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund in New York and Connecticut. He left there because of a "labor dispute." In March of 1985 he was hired as director of the Greater Orlando Area Legal Services (GOALS). He was fired in 1986. He sued GOALS, and obtained a financial settlement. Subsequently he applied for jobs with Broward County Legal Services and Central Florida Legal Services. When he was turned down for those jobs, he sued both entities based on age discrimination. The action against Central Florida Legal Services ended in 1999 or 2000 with a confidential settlement involving the payment of money to Attorney Kaimowitz. At some point he also entered into a confidential settlement with Broward County Legal Services. Attorney Kaimowitz claims that the suits he filed against various legal services programs were based on his personal mission to reform the hiring practices of legal services programs, and he avers that he has been on that mission since 1980. Although he claims to have instituted these suits for altruistic motives, many of them resulted in monetary settlements that benefited him personally. None of these suits were tried to the point that a verdict resulted. After being fired by GOALS he obtained a master's in communications from the University of Central Florida in 1988. While attending school he worked as a journalist for the "Orlando Weekly," a publication targeted to African-Americans in the Orlando area. Subsequently Attorney Kaimowitz represented African- Americans in civil rights actions, including employment discrimination in the Orlando area. He was in private practice of law at that time although he had no office. In 1989 or 1990 a court assessed fees against him for engaging in frivolous litigation. Attorney Kaimowitz moved to Gainesville because his domestic partner was seeking a Ph.D. at the University of Florida. From May 14, 1999, until February 7, 2002, he worked for Alachua County as an investigator into citizen complaints of discrimination in housing and public accommodation. He was terminated from that job because of accusations of "serious misconduct." He claimed his discharge from this job was in retaliation for whistle blowing. He sued, and received a monetary settlement. He subsequently and unsuccessfully sought employment with the City of Gainesville, the University of Florida, and with the State of Florida. He had a dispute with the University of Florida based on the University's failure to publish written material that he submitted. He filed suits pro se based on age discrimination against Gainesville for failing to hire him and against the University of Florida and the Florida Board of Regents because of the publication dispute and because they refused to hire him. The suit against the Board of Regents was settled by a monetary payment to him of a confidential sum, according to Attorney Kaimowitz. In 1997, Judge Maurice Paul, a U. S. District Judge, entered an order forbidding Attorney Kaimowitz from filing pro se lawsuits in his court. Prior to 2003, Attorney Kaimowitz was disciplined by the Florida Supreme Court on two occasions. A Florida Bar report dated January 29, 2002, reported a finding on January 3, 2002, of professional misconduct. He was reprimanded for making a statement he knew to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the integrity of a judge. He had been previously reprimanded by the Florida Supreme Court in 1998. Attorney Kaimowitz is proud that he has filed countless motions to disqualify judges. He claims he has succeeded in disqualifying, at one time or another, every judge in the Middle District of Florida, and several in the Eighth Judicial Circuit, which includes the Gainesville area. Attorney Kaimowitz agrees with the notion that he is, "the most well-known offensive personality in the Eighth Judicial Circuit," but asserts that this reputation was not fully achieved until 2004. This self-characterization is accepted based on the evidence adduced in this case. Attorney Kaimowitz suffered a hearing loss and began using hearing aids in 1992. It is found as a fact that he hears well enough to try a case, which was demonstrated in this case. At his request, counsel table was moved close to the bench. He subsequently announced that this accommodated his hearing deficiency. Attorney Kaimowitz was arrested for causing a disturbance in a Gainesville City Commission meeting in 2002. He is very proud of being arrested. On November 16, 2004, Eighth Judicial Circuit Judge Larry Gibbs Turner entered an order entitled Sentence on Judgment of Guilty of Direct and In-Direct Criminal Contempt, following a Judgment of Guilty of eight separate allegations of direct and indirect criminal contempt on October 13, 2004. This Order recited the following language: A review of the fifteen (15) volumes of the record in this cause clearly demonstrates that throughout these proceedings Mr. Kaimowitz carefully, willfully, and with calculation and premeditation abused his status as a lawyer/pro se litigant in filing repetitious and frivolous pleadings including, but not limited to, his repeated motions to recuse every judge associated with this case. Mr. Kaimowitz's most recent effort to recuse this undersigned judge was framed by his GABE KAIMOWITZ'S APPLICATION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE LARRY G. TURNER, FROM TAKING ANY FURTHER ACTION IN THIS MATTER - LAWFUL OR UNLAWFUL - BECAUSE THE JURIST HAS BEEN AND CURRENTLY APPARENTLY IS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE FLORIDA BOARD OF REGENTS, AND/OR ITS SUCCESSOR RESPONSIBLE FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA AND AFFIDAVIT/CERTIFICATE WITH GABE KAIMOWITZ'S APPLICATION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE LARRY G. TURNER, FROM TAKING ANY FURTHER ACTION IN THIS MATTER - LAWFUL OR UNLAWFUL - BECAUSE THE JURIST HAS BEEN AND CURRENTLY APPARENTLY IS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE FLORIDA BOARD OF REGENTS, AN/OR ITS SUCCESSOR RESPONSIBLE FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA. The motions/applications seeking recusal of each of the judges in this cause provide ample evidence of Mr. Kaimowitz's "style" of litigation in which he intentionally confuses, obfuscates, insults, defames, and makes scurrilous and unsubstantiated claims against parties, judges, witnesses, and others related and unrelated to the litigation. Further evidence is found in his VERIFIED MOTION FOR ARREST OF JUDGMENT BASED ON FRAUD COMMITTED UPON THIS COURT. Beginning at page 10 of that motion Mr. Kaimowitz claims that he ". . . has learned that repeated motions for recusal as evidence pours in eventually tends to work in his favor. For instance, after Judge Jopling finally recused himself, Kaimowitz had little difficulty resolving at mediation the underlying cases. They were assigned to Judge Turner at the time, but all he did was agree to the parties' stipulated willingness to proceed to mediation." Over the following several pages, Mr. Kaimowitz recites his history of recusal litigation in other state and federal cases. Judge Turner permanently enjoined Attorney Kaimowitz from filing further pro se litigation in the county and circuit courts of the Eighth Judicial Circuit. Although Judge Turner based his finding on Kaimowitz v. The Florida Board of Regents, Eighth Circuit Case No. 01-1996-CA-3260, he noted a number of cases involving Attorney Kaimowitz going back to 1996, including Eighth Judicial Circuit Case No. 01-2003-CA-2400-A, Gabe Kaimowitz v. Gainesville, Florida, and the Gainesville Sun, in which Judge Toby S. Monaco outlined abuses as a basis for his dismissal of Attorney Kaimowitz's Complaint with prejudice. The Respondent and Its Executive Director, Allison Thompson TRLS exists pursuant to Title 42 U. S. Code, § 2996 et seq. It is governed, inter alia, by Title 45, Code of Federal Regulations, § 1600.1, et seq. Its mission is to provide equal access to the system of justice so that those who are otherwise unable to afford adequate counsel may have high quality legal assistance to seek redress of grievances. It receives funding from the Legal Services Corporation in Washington, D.C., the Florida Bar Foundation, United Way, and other local and national government sources. TRLS is headquartered in Gainesville, Florida, and serves eleven mostly rural counties surrounding Alachua County, as well as Alachua County. It works with other volunteer agencies and with pro bono attorneys. It is essential to the success of TRLS that it maintain cordial relations with the community and the bar. Ms. Thompson hires all of the TRLS management team. TRLS does not use an application form when seeking applicants for jobs. Advertisements for positions solicit resumes. TRLS does not maintain a "pool" of applicants for any particular job. The number of employees at TRLS fluctuates depending on funding. The racial, age, and gender composition of TRLS personnel from May 2003 to May 2004, was as follows: Whites 20 Blacks 19 Asian 2 Hispanic 2 Male 11 Female 32 Of the above, the oldest was born in 1947. Three of the above were born in that year. Since 2003, new attorney hires, (including law school graduates not admitted) were as follows: Whites 10 Blacks 6 Asian 0 Hispanic 1 Male 4 Female 13 Of these, the oldest was born in 1958. TRLS has hired, since Ms. Thompson has been Executive Director, at least one person who was over the age of 70. TRLS does not have quotas or a diversity plan that requires certain races, genders, or ages to be given preference in hiring. TRLS is guided in this regard by Title 45, Code of Federal Regulations, § 1616.1, et seq. Specifically, Title 45, Code of Federal Regulations, § 1616.6 requires that TRLS adopt, "employment qualifications, procedures, and policies that meet the requirements of applicable laws prohibiting discrimination in employment, and shall take affirmative action to insure equal employment opportunity." The hiring record of TRLS, taken as a whole, demonstrates compliance with this requirement and does not indicate any pattern of discrimination. Ms. Thompson has been the executive director of TRLS since 1996. She is an African-American. She graduated from the University of Florida Law School and was admitted to the Florida Bar in 1974. She has extensive experience in the delivery of legal services to the poor. She worked for Tampa Legal Services beginning in 1973. It became a Legal Services Corporation program while she was employed there. She began working for Rhode Island Legal Services in 1976, practicing primarily family law. Ms. Thompson worked for Philadelphia Legal Services for five years and then, beginning in 1982, worked for a number of years in the U. S. Virgin Islands where she was litigation director. She was appointed Executive Director of TRLS in December of 1996. Job applications with TRLS in 2003 and earlier Attorney Kaimowitz applied for a managing attorney position with TRLS in 1997. Ms. Thompson interviewed him and determined that he was an "interesting person" but was not the type of person who would work well with others. She concluded he would be difficult to manage. She noted that if she had a job which did not require working well with others, she might wish to hire him in the future. Attorney Kaimowitz applied for a job as a staff attorney in 2001. He received a letter dated May 13, 2001, from Ms. Thompson, advising him that he was not selected and that she would keep his resume on file. Attorney Kaimowitz responded to this letter with a letter dated August 15, 2001, that pointed out two settlements he had received from legal services programs in Florida based on their alleged discrimination against him because of his age. He also discussed his whistle blowing with regard to GOALS and stated, "I include this information to indicate that when there really is a will, there is a way." Ms. Thompson took this as a threat. Attorney Kaimowitz applied for a job as a managing attorney in the TRLS Lake City office in 2002. He was not interviewed for that position. TRLS advertised for a fair housing attorney and a fair housing testing coordinator in various publications during April 2003. Attorney Kaimowitz applied for both of these jobs. He interviewed with Ms. Thompson and Mary O'Rourke, a staff attorney with TRLS, on May 30, 2003. Ms. Thompson asked Ms. O'Rourke to sit in as a witness to the interview because she was concerned that Attorney Kaimowitz would sue TRLS if she did not hire him. Initially, Attorney Kaimowitz expressed an interest in both the fair housing attorney job and the fair housing testing coordinator job. However, during the interview Attorney Kaimowitz stated that he did not wish to apply for the fair housing attorney position, but wished to be considered only as an applicant for the fair housing testing coordinator position. The occupant of this position was expected to supervise individuals who would determine if discrimination in housing was occurring. Attorney Kaimowitz claimed during his testimony that he told Ms. Thompson and Ms. O'Rourke that his ability to hear was impaired. He claimed he told them he required an accommodation for his hearing loss. He stated that he had a discussion with Ms. O'Rourke during the interview about an electronic system where a court reporter would record words spoken, and the words would be displayed on a monitor so that he could read what was being said. Attorney Kaimowitz appeared at the interview wearing one hearing aid. Ms. Thompson said that Attorney Kaimowitz said that one of his hearing aids was "in the shop." Ms. Thompson testified that he announced during the interview that his hearing loss was corrected by his hearing aids. Ms. Thompson said it was clear that he had no difficulty in understanding her with only one hearing aid. In no event did she perceive him as being hearing impaired. Ms. O'Rourke stated that the conversation claimed by Attorney Kaimowitz regarding an electronic monitor system to aid hearing never occurred. Based on Ms. O'Rourke's testimony, Ms. Thompson's testimony, and Attorney Kaimowitz's credibility, which is addressed in detail below, it is found that at the time of this interview Attorney Kaimowitz did not claim the need for an accommodation based on an alleged hearing impairment and he was not perceived as being hearing impaired. Ms. Thompson wanted employees at TRLS who would maintain a good relationship with the local bar. Even though the housing testing coordinator position was not a job requiring the incumbent to be a licensed attorney, it is not helpful for TRLS to have employees who are at odds with the local bar or community. She was looking for an employee who was a team player, who could get along with the other employees at TRLS, the local bar, and with persons in the community. She also wanted someone with good references. The fair housing testing coordinator required training in Jacksonville. Ms. Thompson believed Attorney Kaimowitz could not be trained because, "He already knew everything." She believed he couldn't take orders. She was troubled because he had no references from people who had supervised him. Although attorneys who have their own practice cannot give references of supervisors, they usually can give a judge or judges as a reference, but Attorney Kaimowitz did not provide any judges as references. Attorney Kaimowitz provided a co-plaintiff in a lawsuit and a professor named Joe Little as references. Ms. Thompson called Professor Little but did not feel it would be worthwhile calling his co-plaintiff, who was embroiled in a lawsuit at the time. She was concerned because Attorney Kaimowitz told her, with regard to references, "everyone in Gainesville was suspect." Moreover, he did not provide any references from his time as director of GOALS, which was a job where he had a supervisor who could comment on his work. Ms. Thompson was aware of Attorney Kaimowitz's arrest during a Gainesville City Commission meeting, and was aware of at least one of his Florida Supreme Court reprimands at the time she decided not to hire him. She was also aware that he would occasionally write in "black English," and she found that offensive. She believed him to be a disruptive force. She stated she would not hire him if he was "the last man on earth." She stated that an equally obnoxious black man would often apply for positions at TRLS, and she would not hire him for the same general reasons that she would not hire Attorney Kaimowitz. Ms. Thompson thought Attorney Kaimowitz would be a liability to her organization. She noted that, "He makes comments without any basis. He makes sweeping comments when he knows nothing. He doesn't even check." Brenda Scafadi was eventually hired for the housing testing coordinator. She was, at the time, a 50-year-old white woman who had a disability in the form of fibromyalgia. She was not an attorney. She was hired because she was perceived to be a team player and she had good references. Ms. Scafadi resigned after about eight months and was replaced by Steve Malu, a 50-year-old Nigerian, who also was not an attorney. Attorney Kaimowitz was a person Ms. Thompson had personally known for about six years at the time of the interview. She also knew about him from his letters to the "Gainesville Sun" and numerous e-mails he sent to her and to others. She was aware of his reputation in the community. She refused to hire him because she did not believe he would be a good employee. Neither his age, nor his race, nor his claimed hearing loss was a factor in her decision. Attorney Kaimowitz received a letter from Ms. Thompson dated July 22, 2003, advising him that she had, "decided to offer the position to different applicants who I thought would be more appropriate for our needs." The Americorps positions On August 1, 2004, Americorps positions in Gainesville and Jacksonville were advertised. These jobs were targeted at inexperienced attorneys and paid "living expenses" and a promise of scholarship help rather than a salary. During the evening of August 2, 2004, Ms. Thompson offered testimony before the Gainesville City Commission. After her testimony she departed, although the meeting continued. After exiting the building, she heard footsteps behind her and turned to see Attorney Kaimowitz following her. There were no other people in the area. He stated that he wanted to "mediate our situation" but was informed by Ms. Thompson that there was nothing to mediate because she did not discriminate. She told him she was tired of him making disparaging comments about her program and her staff. Attorney Kaimowitz expressed an interest in the Americorps positions in an e-mail to Ms. Thompson dated August 5, 2004, which was in the nature of a resume. In this letter he said, "I certainly will refrain from any action I suggested I might take through this month of August, so that we can see if we can reach an accommodation in that time." Ms. Thompson regarded this as a threat. Ms. Thompson did not interview him for the Americorps positions because the "resume" e-mail of August 5, 2004, did not match the requirements of the job. Three of the positions were designed for attorneys TRLS could train so that they could recruit students from the law school to assist in the delivery of services. The other two positions required no litigation skills and were designed to provide limited legal services over the telephone to a large volume of clients. Another reason Ms. Thompson found Attorney Kaimowitz to be unsuitable for this job were statements he made to her, such as claiming she hired an "incompetent black male." She had seen, and was familiar with, another widely circulated writing in which he stated, "The real 'piece of work' is Three Rivers Legal Services, and their foolish young attorney of color Glorimil Walker, everyone's favorite minority attorney since she speaks her mind--even if it is against the adults and children at University Centre." The Americorps attorneys hired during this period, instead of Attorney Kaimowitz, included Shelly E. Beach, who was a 26-year-old white female, Melissa B. Long, a 29-year-old black female, and Julie A. Santioni, a 26-year-old white female. Ms. Thompson, and TRLS did not discriminate or retaliate against Mr. Kaimowitz in refusing him an Americorps position. He was not hired because the job was unsuitable for him and because he was unsuitable for employment at TRLS. Retaliation Attorney Kaimowitz's original claim of retaliation was based on his view that TRLS would not hire him because he had sued Central Florida Legal Services and that Ms. Thompson knew and would not hire him because of that lawsuit. Ms. Thompson denied this. Attorney Kaimowitz's second claim of retaliation was based on the complaint to the Commission concerning the refusal of TRLS to hire him for the fair housing testing coordinator position. For reasons that are abundantly clear herein, there were numerous reasons for not hiring him other than retaliation. Attorney Kaimowitz's Credibility Attorney Kaimowitz claims that he applied for the fair housing attorney position as well as the fair housing testing coordinator. Both Ms. Thompson and Ms. O'Rourke stated that at his interview he said he wished to apply only for the fair housing testing coordinator. Attorney Kaimowitz also claims that he informed Ms. Thompson and Ms. O'Rourke at his interview that he was hard of hearing and required an accommodation. Ms. Thompson and Ms. O'Rourke both said that during the interview he asserted that any hearing problems he had were resolved by hearing aids. Attorney Kaimowitz has demonstrated through his pleadings and actions in court, and before this Administrative Law Judge, that he has a low regard for the truth. As an example, he claims to believe in the equality of mankind, but during his examination of Ms. Thompson, he threw a document at her and stated that, "And then you could never find discrimination unless I don't want a nigger in here." As a consequence all issues involving credibility are resolved against Attorney Kaimowitz. That being the case, it is found by a preponderance of the evidence that he did not seek the fair housing attorney position in 2003 and that he did not assert during the interview that he was hard of hearing and thus required an accommodation.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Gabe H. Kaimowitz, Esquire, pro se Post Office Box 140119 Gainesville, Florida 32614-0119 For Respondent: Carla D. Franklin, Esquire 4809 Southwest 91st Terrace Gainesville, Florida 32608
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the petitions be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of June, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER 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 1st day of June, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Carla D. Franklin, Esquire 4809 Southwest 91st Terrace Gainesville, Florida 32608 Gabe H. Kaimowitz, Esquire Post Office Box 140119 Gainesville, Florida 32614-0119 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Patricia Smithwick Valz, is entitled to an award of attorney's fees as a "prevailing small business party" in the underlying administrative proceeding.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, the Department of Insurance (the Department), has an unpromulgated agency rule not to reimburse routine defense fees at more than $85 per hour when providing for the defense of civil actions against state employees.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Richard L. Windsor (Windsor), was an attorney employed by the Department of Environmental Regulation (DER, now called the Department of Environmental Protection, or DEP) when he and another DER employee were named along with the DER as defendants in a counterclaim filed in 1995 in a lawsuit (the Coxwell case) that had been brought by DER, through Windsor as its attorney of record, in state circuit court in Okaloosa County to remedy alleged intentional violations of state environmental laws and regulations. The "counterclaim" initially was not served on Windsor, and DER declined Windsor's request to defend him at that time. Instead, it was decided to ignore the "counterclaim" against Windsor until it was served on him. In 1996, after Windsor terminated his employment with DEP, the "counterclaim" was served on him. Windsor requested that DEP defend him, and DEP agreed to refer the matter to Risk Management. Risk Management agreed to defend Windsor and in September 1996 assigned the defense to an Okaloosa County attorney named Jim Barth, who agreed to an hourly rate of $75. Barth telephoned Windsor to discuss the case, and Windsor suggested that Barth investigate an out-of-state property rights organization Windsor said was sponsoring and financing the claim against him and the other DEP employee. Barth rejected Windsor's suggestion. Windsor was discomforted from Barth's decision but decided not to press the issue. In a subsequent meeting with Barth, Windsor suggested that Barth should assert the government employee defense of qualified immunity from suit. It seemed to Windsor that Barth accepted the idea. In May 1997, with trial set for July, Barth telephoned Windsor to tell him that trial was set for July 1997, and a court-ordered mediation conference was scheduled for June 1997. Windsor asked about the immunity defense and felt that Barth tried to avoid answering the question. At the mediation conference in June 1997, Barth and Risk Management made a nominal settlement offer, while DEP's lawyer refused to make any offer of settlement on the ground that the counterclaim was frivolous. Although Barth's settlement offer was rejected, Windsor became very concerned about the quality of Barth's representation. He also established through conversation during the course of the day that Barth had not asserted the immunity defense on his behalf. With trial set for July 1997, Windsor decided that he no longer could rely on Barth but would have to raise the defense on his own. Windsor consulted Davisson F. Dunlap, Jr., a Tallahassee attorney with the Carlton Fields law firm. Windsor knew Dunlap from Dunlap's representation of another DER employee who had been named along with DER as a defendant in a counterclaim filed in a previous lawsuit that had been brought by DER, through Windsor as its attorney of record (the Dockery case). Windsor was impressed with Dunlap's work on the Dockery case, including his filing of a motion for summary judgment on behalf of his client on the defense of qualified governmental immunity. Dunlap explained that his hourly rate at Carlton Fields was $175, and Windsor agreed to hire Dunlap at that rate to help get Windsor's defense where Windsor and Dunlap thought it should be. Based on this understanding, Dunlap immediately began preparing a motion for summary judgment. At Windsor's request, Dunlap presented his work product to Barth, who agreed to use it to file a motion for summary judgment. When Windsor learned that Barth missed the court's deadline for filing motions, Windsor became completely dissatisfied with Barth and eventually requested that Risk Management reassign his case from Barth to Dunlap. Risk Management agreed, contacted Dunlap, and entered into a Legal Services Contract with Dunlap's new law firm at the same $85 hourly rate in the Pennington law firm's contract. At some point (probably before Dunlap and the Carlton firm actually entered into the Legal Services Contract with Risk Management), Dunlap reported to Windsor that the contract would be for $85 an hour and that the Carlton firm would not allow Dunlap to undertake representation at that rate of pay. Windsor, who was happy just to have gotten Dunlap substituted for Barth, assured Dunlap that Dunlap would receive his full $175 an hour, as initially agreed between them, and that Windsor would pay Dunlap the difference of $90 an hour after payment of $85 an hour from Risk Management under the Legal Services Contract. Neither Dunlap nor Windsor advised Risk Management of the agreement for the payment of Dunlap's full $175-an-hour fee after Risk Management's Legal Services Contract with the Carlton firm at $85 an hour. However, Windsor had in mind that, at some point in the future, he would raise the issue and be able to persuade Risk Management to contribute more towards the payment of Dunlap's $175-an-hour fee. In October 1997, Windsor began an exchange of correspondence with Risk Management that went on for several months. While touching on a number of different topics, Windsor's primary initial concern in this correspondence was the payment of Dunlap's fees for work done on Windsor's case before Dunlap's Legal Services Contract with Risk Management. Risk Management agreed without much question (notwithstanding Windsor having retained Dunlap without notice to Risk Management), since Risk Management determined that Dunlap's work did not duplicate much of Barth's. When Risk Management indicated its intent to pay Dunlap for the work at the contract rate of $85 an hour, Windsor advised Risk Management for the first time that Windsor was obligated to pay Dunlap for the work at the rate of $175 an hour; Windsor requested that Risk Management "make him whole" by paying Dunlap's full fee of $175 an hour. However, Windsor did not make it clear to Risk Management in this correspondence that he also wanted Risk Management to pay Dunlap $175 an hour for work done after Dunlap's Legal Services Contract with Risk Management. Neither Windsor nor Dunlap made it clear to Risk Management either that Dunlap also had a contract with Windsor, in addition to the Legal Services Contract, for work done by Dunlap after Dunlap's Legal Services Contract with Risk Management, or that the additional contract was for $175 an hour, which obligated Windsor to pay Dunlap the difference of $90 an hour after payment of $85 an hour from Risk Management under the Legal Services Contract. By letter dated July 1, 1998, Risk Management's Director, R.J. Castellanos, advised Windsor that Risk Management would not pay Dunlap more than $85 an hour for the work done before the Legal Services Contract. The letter explained that review did not disclose support for Windsor's contention in correspondence that Risk Management was negligent, requiring Windsor to retain Dunlap at $175 an hour prior to the Legal Services Contract. It pointed out that Windsor retained Dunlap at the time without any notice to Risk Management and that Risk Management was "deprived of any opportunity to contract with a firm at a negotiated rate" for those services (as it was able to do for subsequent services when it entered into the Legal Services Contract with Dunlap's firm). For those reasons, the letter explained, Risk Management "reimbursed you at an $85.00 rate, which is the maximum amount we pay as routine defense fees." Windsor contends that the latter quotation is, or is evidence of, an unpromulgated Division rule. The intent of the statement in Castellanos' letter was to explain why, under the circumstances, Risk Management would not reimburse Windsor more than $85 an hour for the fees he incurred for work Dunlap did before the Legal Services Contract; it was not intended to even address Dunlap's fees after the Legal Services Contract. At the time the statement was made, Castellanos did not realize there was any issue as to payment of Dunlap's fees for work done after the Legal Services Contract. The statement in Castellanos' letter was not a statement of general applicability. Risk Management generally does not reimburse defense fees; rather, it negotiates contracts directly with lawyers to provide those services and pays the fees directly to the lawyer under contract. Rather, the statement in Castellanos' letter was intended to explain that, under the circumstances, Risk Management was not going to reimburse more than maximum amount it pays attorneys with whom Risk Management contracts directly. As a matter of fact, Risk Management has approximately 250 open-ended contracts for legal services with law firms all over Florida. (It is not clear from the evidence when these contracts were negotiated, or which are still in use.) The hourly rates for those contracts range from a low of $65 an hour to a high (in approximately five or six of the 250 contracts) of $85 an hour for routine defense cases. (Hourly rates for trademark and copyright specialties are $150 an hour.) These included the $85-an-hour legal services contracts with Dunlap, once as a member of the Pennington firm and again as a member of the Carlton Fields firm. The evidence also did not prove that Risk Management has an unpromulgated rule not to exceed a fee of $85 an hour in negotiating directly with attorneys for legal services contracts for routine defense cases. The evidence was that Risk Management considers itself to be bound by Section 287.059(7), Florida Statutes (1997), and Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 2- 37 when contracting with attorneys for legal services. The maximum fees allowed by the statute and those rules exceed $85 an hour for routine defense cases. In addition, the statute and rules allow agencies such as Risk Management to exceed the maximum standard fees under certain circumstances. See Conclusion of Law 21, infra. Risk Management interprets Section 287.059(7), Florida Statutes (1997), and Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 2- 37 to require it to negotiate fees below the maximum standard fees. Id. When negotiating with a lawyer or law firm, Risk Management attempts to utilize the leverage it enjoys from the ability to offer lawyers an open-ended contract with the possibility of volume business contract to negotiate for the lowest possible fee for quality services. To date, these legal services contracts have been for $85-an-hour or less for routine defense cases. But it was not proven that Risk Management has established an $85-an-hour maximum for routine defense in conflict with the maximum standard fees established in Rule Chapter 2-37. Windsor seems to make a vague argument that Section 111.07, Florida Statutes (1997), which requires an agency such as Risk Management to reimburse a prevailing employee a "reasonable" attorney fee when the agency declines to provide legal representation to defend the employee, and common law (which Windsor does not elaborate), requires Risk Management to reimburse him for Dunlap's services and that such reimbursement is not limited by Section 287.059(7), Florida Statutes (1997), and Florida Administrative Code Rule Chapter 2-37. Windsor seems to further argue that the statement in Castellanos' letter was generally applicable to establish the amount of reasonable attorney fees reimbursable under Windsor's legal arguments. But it was not apparent that Windsor was making these arguments until post-hearing submissions in this case. Clearly, Risk Management does not agree with Windsor's arguments (the merits of which are not subject to determination in this proceeding); more germane to this proceeding, Risk Management never understood or considered such arguments at the time of the statement in Castellanos' letter, and Castellanos clearly did not intend the statement in his letter to be generally applicable to establish the amount of reasonable attorney fees reimbursable under Windsor's legal arguments.
Findings Of Fact This cause originated in a disciplinary action resulting from an administrative complaint filed by the Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate against the Petitioners herein, Malcolm Lewis Hardy and Aquatic Realty, Inc. The Petitioners herein were the Respondents in the licensure disciplinary proceeding. That proceeding was resolved in their favor by the Recommended Order of the Hearing Officer and by the Final Order filed April 15, 1988 by the Department of Professional Regulation. They have accordingly filed a request for attorney's fees and costs on the ground that the prosecution involved in the underlying case was not "substantially justified." The cause came on for a brief hearing. The parties elected to dispense with calling witnesses at the hearing because they entered into a factual stipulation whereby all germane facts were placed of record. It was thus established that Petitioners Malcolm Lewis Hardy and Aquatic Realty, Inc. (hereafter Hardy) were the Respondents in a licensure disciplinary action brought against them by the above-named Respondent. That disciplinary action was resolved by Final Order filed April 15, 1988 by the Department of Professional Regulation. The Respondents in that case, the Petitioners herein, were totally absolved of any wrongdoing with regard to the charges in the administrative complaint in that proceeding. A copy of that Final Order was mailed by the agency to "Diane Cleavinger, Esquire, 300 East 15th Street, Panama City, Florida 32405." Ms. Jan Nelson, a secretary at that address, and employed by Ms. Cleavinger's former law firm, received a copy of that order and executed the return receipt appearing on the envelope on April 18, 1988. Ms. Nelson was not Ms. Cleavinger's secretary, but rather the secretary of Ms. Fitzpatrick, one of Ms. Cleavinger's former law partners. In any event, Ms. Nelson executed the return receipt on April 18, 1988, but Ms. Cleavinger never received the Final Order nor notification of its filing or receipt by Ms. Nelson. Mr. Hardy never became aware of or received a copy of the Final Order either, until the agency sent another copy to him on September 12, 1988. The affidavit and request for attorney's fees was filed within sixty days of that date. Ms. Cleavinger had left her law firm on January 1, 1988 to become a Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings. Mr. Hardy only learned of the Order when he made a direct contact with the Department of Professional Regulation and they learned that he had not received the Final Order. It was thus mailed to him on September 12, 1988 and received on September 14, 1988. That Order dismissed all claims against Hardy and Aquatic Realty, Inc. and thus those parties are in fact "prevailing, small business parties," within the meaning of Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. It was stipulated at hearing, as well, that these Petitioners are small business, prevailing parties and that they incurred attorney's fees in the amount of $1,642.04 for services rendered by Ms. Cleavinger when she represented them in the underlying case-in-chief and that costs amount to $333.71. Additionally, Mr. Hardy further incurred attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $500 in connection with the pursuit of this fee claim by attorney Whitton. It was stipulated that that amount is reasonable. Additionally, the Department accepted its burden of establishing that its action was "substantially justified," within the meaning of Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, and have stipulated that they have not done so. Thus the only issue for resolution concerns whether the claim of Hardy was time-barred.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent was substantially justified, within the meaning of Section 57.111, Florida Statutes (2002), in initiating disciplinary proceedings against Petitioner, a licensed dentist, in Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) Case Number 01-3509PL (the underlying case). (All statutory references are to Florida Statutes (2002) unless otherwise stated.)
Findings Of Fact 1. Petitioner is a licensed dentist in the State of Florida pursuant to license number DN9676. Respondent is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of dentistry pursuant to Section 20.43, Chapter 456, and Chapter 466. 2. Several facts are not disputed by the parties. Petitioner filed this proceeding pursuant to Section 57.111. Respondent initiated the underlying case. Respondent is not a nominal party. Petitioner is a "prevailing small business party." The attorney's fees sought by Petitioner are reasonable in an amount up to $15,000.00. The statutory cap of $15,000.00 applies in this case. 3. At the Probable Cause meeting of June 12, 2001, the members of the Probable Cause Panel had probable cause to believe that Petitioner violated applicable law by failing to refer his patient to a specialist for lingual nerve damage suffered by the patient when Petitioner extracted the patient's wisdom teeth. At the Probable Cause meeting, the Panel received the entire investigative file, including all medical records, a statement and expert opinion submitted on the behalf of Petitioner by his attorney, and the expert opinion of Nidal Elias, D.D.S. M.S., submitted by Respondent. 4. Dr. Elias reviewed the medical records and rendered an expert opinion that the medical records submitted by Petitioner did not contain an indication that Petitioner referred his patient to a specialist. The medical records failed to reveal that the Petitioner referred the patient to a specialist. 5S. The medical records did not contain an express notation that Petitioner referred the patient to a specialist and did not contain a referral form. The Probable Cause Panel correctly determined probable cause existed for initiating disciplinary action against Petitioner. 6. The Administrative Complaint filed in the underlying case alleged that Petitioner failed to refer his patient to a specialist. However, counsel for Respondent attempted to prove that Petitioner failed to refer his patient in a timely manner. The ALJ excluded any evidence of the untimely nature of a referral to a specialist because the Administrative Complaint did not allege that Petitioner failed to refer his patient ina timely manner. The ALJ found the evidence to be less than clear and convincing that Petitioner failed to refer his patient to a specialist.
Conclusions For Petitioner: William M. Powell, Esquire Powell & Steinberg, P.A. 3515 Del Prado Boulevard Waterside Plaza, Suite 101 Cape Coral, Florida 33904 For Respondent: Trisha D. Bowles, Esquire Prosecution Services Unit Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes. Review proceedings are governed by the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Such proceedings are commenced by filing the original notice of appeal with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings and a copy, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal, First District, or with the District Court of Appeal in the Appellate District where the party resides. The notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed.
The Issue Is Petitioner entitled to attorney's fees and costs pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, The Florida Equal Access to Justice Act, and Rule 22I- 6.035, Florida Administrative Code?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner herein, Jules G. Minkes was the Respondent in a license disciplinary proceeding styled Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners, DOAH Case No. 88-3749. That underlying case was resolved by a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal served by the Department of Professional Regulation attorney on December 9, 1988. It was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on the same date. On December 16, 1988, the undersigned entered an Order providing in pertinent part, "This cause came on for consideration upon Petitioner's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, which, by operation of law, dismisses this cause and the file of the Division of Administrative Hearings is accordingly CLOSED." On February 13, 1989 the Petition and Affidavit for attorney's fees, together with supporting documents and a Memorandum in support of the petition were filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings. The Petition was served by mail on February 10, 1989. It does not specifically request an evidentiary hearing. This fees and cost cause was subsequently styled as Minkes v. Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medical Examiners, DOAH Case No. 89-0792F. On February 28, 1989, Respondent filed an Answer which was "sworn and subscribed" by the DPR attorney. The Answer constitutes a general denial of all allegations and demands "strict proof" of the attorney's fees and costs set forth by Petitioner's pleadings, but contains no itemized counter-affidavit challenging the reasonableness of the attorney's fees and costs claimed by Petitioner as contemplated by Rule 22I-6.035(4) and (5)(a), Florida Administrative Code. The answer also alleges substantial justification for the underlying action and "special circumstances" which would render unjust any award of fees and costs. These latter two allegations are made without any particularity as to what constitutes the "justification" or the "special circumstances." The Answer makes no specific request for evidentiary hearing beyond the demand for "strict proof" of "whether and/or to what extent" fees and costs were incurred by Petitioner. No counter-affidavit or request for evidentiary hearing has been filed to date. See, Rule 22I-6.035(4), (5) Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Psychological Examiners initiated an Administrative Complaint in Department of Professional Regulation Case No. 81809, DOAH Case No. 89-0599, against Petitioner, Frank A. Brown, Ph.D., on January 13, 1989. Petitioner is the owner and proprietor of a professional service business engaged in the practice of psychology. At the time of the filing of the Administrative Complaint, Petitioner's business employed less than twenty- five (25) full-time employees and had a net worth under two million dollars. Additionally, Petitioner's residence, business domicile, and principal office were located in Florida, and have been so located since 1976. The Administrative Complaint alleged that the Petitioner was guilty of sexual misconduct in the practice of psychology, that the Petitioner failed to meet the minimum standards of performance in professional activities when measured against generally prevailing peer performance, and that Petitioner was unable to practice the profession for which he is licensed under Chapter 490, Florida Statutes, with reasonable skill or competence as a result of impairment due to a mental or physical condition or by reason of illness, drunkenness, or excessive use of drugs, narcotics, chemicals or any other substance, pursuant to Florida Statutes, 1981-1987. On August 24, 1989, an Amended Administrative Complaint was filed alleging the same violations pursuant to Florida Statutes, 1981-1986. Petitioner disputed these allegations and requested a formal administrative hearing. Prior to hearing in the underlying proceeding, DOAH Case Number 89- 0599, Petitioner moved for dismissal of the Amended Administrative Complaint. Petitioner's motion was denied by the Hearing Officer. A formal hearing was held in this matter on September 12-13, 1989. At the hearing and after presentation of a portion of the testimony, the Department voluntarily dismissed its allegation of sexual misconduct in the practice of psychology. The hearing proceeded on the remaining two charges in the Amended Administrative Complaint. After the close of the evidence and submission of Proposed Recommended Orders by both parties, the Hearing Officer, on May 14, 1990, filed a Recommended Order recommending dismissal of the Amended Administrative Complaint against the Petitioner. On July 2, 1990, the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Psychological Examiners, filed a Final Order adopting the Recommended Order and dismissed the case consistent with the Hearing Officer's Recommended Order. Therefore, Petitioner became the prevailing party in the underlying action. The allegations against Petitioner contained in the Administrative Complaint resulted from a complaint received in 1987 from R.B. and D.B. concerning the care and treatment R.B. received from Petitioner in his capacity as a psychologist which centered on the illicit 7-year love affair between R.B. & Petitioner. It was the turmoil caused by the discovery of this affair by D.B., R.B.'s husband, that caused Petitioner, in April, 1987, to be examined and treated at CPC Parkwood Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia by Psychiatrist Warren A. Hinson, M.D. The Petitioner was advised of the complaint made by R.B. and D.B. around April 14, 1987. Petitioner responded through his attorney on at least two separate occasions with factual and legal arguments regarding the complaint lodged by R.B. and D.B. On November 9, 1987, a Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Psychological Examiners met to review the investigative report and responses from Petitioner. The investigative report consisted of several statements from R.B. and D.B., the responses from Petitioner, an interview with a Dr. Trotter, who had rendered psychological services to both R.B. and Petitioner, together and separately, and various documentary evidence. The investigative report was submitted to the Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Psychological Examiners by the Chief Attorney for Allied Health Services of the Department of Professional Regulation under cover of a memorandum dated October 27, 1987. The memorandum states that the case was being submitted without a recommendation for an administrative complaint or closing order in Petitioner's case. The memorandum states: The attached case is being submitted without a recommended A/C or C/O. There are legal problems with charging sexual misconduct, although a strong argument could be made to support a finding that the subject failed to meet minimum standards of professional per- formance. Another issue, is the subject's fitness to practice by reason of emotional problems. Dr. Brown's attorney has suggested that the probable cause decision be deferred to allow Petitioner to enroll in the Impaired Practitioner's Program. Although there is no statutory provision for a psychologist to participate in the IPP, I see no reason why if couldn't be accomplished (by mutual agreement). The Chief Attorney realized that there was a problem with the allegations against Dr. Brown, in light of the retroactive application of a recent rule of the Board of Psychological Examiners defining the psychologist/client relationship as continuing in perpetuity for purposes of sexual misconduct allegations and in light of the fact that Dr. Brown's conduct could be construed to have occurred after the termination of the professional relationship between Petitioner and R.B. The legal problem created by the fact that Dr. Brown's conduct could be construed to have occurred during a time when the practice of psychology was not regulated did not occur to the Chief Attorney at the time of the 1987 meeting. However, as indicated by both the memorandum and transcript of the comments made at the probable cause meeting there were legal arguments which could be legitimately made which might overcome the problems with this case. 1/ These arguments also could be applied to the legal problem caused by the absence of a statute regulating the practice of psychology. The Probable Cause Panel, in the course of their review, considered the suggestion from Petitioner that a determination of probable cause be deferred pending the entry of the Petitioner into a program for impaired practitioners similar to the Impaired Practitioners Program utilized by other professions regulated by DPR. At that meeting, the Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Psychological Examiners, after reviewing the investigative report and attachments, believed there was sufficient evidence to find probable cause. However, in light of the problems with this case and Petitioner's request to attempt to enter an impaired practitioners program (IPP), the Probable Cause Panel agreed to defer a finding of probable cause on condition that Petitioner develop and present to the Probable Cause Panel a comprehensive treatment and practice plan and possibly undergo a psychological/psychiatric evaluation. Around November 10, 1987, the Chief Attorney for the Department of Professional Regulation, Allied Health Services, notified the Petitioner that the Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Psychology voted to "defer the probable cause decision", and requested that Petitioner initiate action to be accepted into an IPP and further, that Petitioner provide a comprehensive practice and treatment plan for the Probable Cause Panel's consideration at its next meeting. The Chief Attorney also requested that Petitioner's attorney contact the Department when he had the requested documentation prepared. Importantly, neither the transcript nor the letter from the Department's Chief Attorney indicates what the Board or the Probable Cause Panel might do after the deferral period. At best, from a reading of the transcript, it appears that the Panel intended to leave its options open as to whether the Panel might later find probable cause even if Petitioner complied with the Panel's instructions. Clearly, both attorney's involved in the matter hoped the case would be settled. However, such attorney's hopes do not translate into a Board or Panel promise or settlement agreement to forgo action against Petitioner should he comply with the Panel's instructions. Given the transcript of the probable cause panels meeting, deferring a decision cannot be translated into an agreement to not take any action by the Panel. 2/ In any event, the Petitioner initiated action to enroll in an IPP. Around January 1988, Dr. Goetz, Director of the Physician Recovery Network accepted Petitioner into the IPP program. Dr. Brown began participation in the Impaired Practitioners' Program by undergoing a five day inpatient evaluation in Atlanta. There was no judgment reached from this five day review that Petitioner was either incompetent or that he could not return to practice. Since there was no actual impairment of Dr. Brown, he returned to Pensacola to continue quarterly evaluations by psychiatrist Lawrence E. Mobley, M.D., and Pat O'Connell, M.D., and psychotherapy supervision with psychologist Jack Keller, Ph.D. The Department received several generalized reports of Petitioner's status and progress with the IPP program. The reports were dated July 29, August 18, August 16, November 10, and December 1, 1988. The Department also received at least two status reports from Petitioner's attorney. Around October 6, 1988, the Petitioner's attorney requested from the IPP program the information necessary to develop a comprehensive practice and treatment plan as requested by the November, 1987, Probable Cause Panel. The Respondent was never provided a comprehensive treatment and practice plan which was satisfactory to it. However, the Petitioner did make attempts to comply with this requirement. 3/ Believing Petitioner had complied with the Board's instructions, sometime around October 6, 1988, Petitioner's attorney informed the Department the Petitioner was established with an IPP program and that the matter was now ready for the Board's consideration. On December 4, 1988, the Probable Cause Panel reviewed the investigative report which included, in part, the diagnosis and report of Dr. Hinson relating to the Petitioner and his hospitalization at CPC Parkwood, in Atlanta, Georgia; the Petitioner's responses and arguments as presented by his attorney's correspondence with DPR; the Petitioner's letter to R.B., returning professional fees previously collected during treatment; the August 5, November 10, and December 1, 1988, reports from the IPP program regarding Petitioner; the opinions of Patrick Cook, Ph.D., and Deborah Frank, R.N. Ph.D., L.M.F.T.; the interviews of R.B. and D.B.; additional sworn statements of R.B. and D.B., and various documentary evidence associated with the underlying case. Neither Dr. Brown nor his attorney were permitted to attend this Probable Cause Panel's meeting. On the same date, the Probable Cause Panel after reviewing the investigative report, discussing the allegations, and consulting with legal counsel for the Board, Mr. Allen Grossman, Assistant Attorney General, by unanimous vote determined the existence of probable cause and directed the issuance of an Administrative Complaint as outlined in paragraph 3 above. At the time a finding of probable cause was made by the Board, at least two factual issues were considered by the Probable Cause Panel. Those issues were whether the Petitioner built his intimate relationship with R.B. upon an existing professional relationship interrelated with whether there had been a termination of that professional relationship and whether Petitioner's romantic involvement with R.B. occurred during a time when the practice of psychology was a regulated profession. The Probable Cause Panel relied upon the interviews of R.B. and her additional sworn statements regarding her romantic and professional relationship with the Petitioner. These statements as well as other evidence in the investigative file supported a finding of probable cause of sexual misconduct with a patient. Additionally, the Probable Cause Panel reasonably relied upon the statements of R.B. and D.B. and Petitioner's responses to DPR, regarding his relationship with R.B. and her family in finding probable cause of practicing below the prevailing standard for practice. On both these issues, the relevant time periods involved in this case were unclear from the information the Probable Cause Panel had before it. However, there was enough evidence in the investigative file for the Board to reasonably conclude that Petitioner had engaged in actions which would subject him to discipline during a time when the practice of psychology was regulated or cause his later behavior to relate back to a time when the practice of psychology was regulated. Additionally, as noted with the 1987 Probable Cause Panel, there were legitimate legal arguments which could be made in an attempt to overcome the problems due to a lack of rules or statutes incurred in the underlying action. Therefore, given the fact that the Board had a reasonable basis in law and fact to find probable cause against Petitioner for violation of Chapter 490, Florida Statutes, Petitioner is not entitled to an award of attorney's fees. The Probable Cause Panel also, considered the issue of Petitioner's mental health vis a vis Petitioner's ability to safely practice psychology. This latter issue and the resultant charge in the Administrative Complaint appears to be a "throw in" charge for which the Panel had no reasonable legal or factual basis to find probable cause. However, the issue of Petitioner's mental health was never seriously prosecuted by the Department and did not play a significant role in the litigation or the fees expended in the litigation. Additionally, the evidence did not demonstrate what portion of the Petitioner's attorney's fees and costs could be attributed to this single issue. Therefore, Petitioner is not entitled to an apportionment of attorney's fees and costs based on this issue.
