The Issue Whether the Palm Beach Health Department (Respondent) committed an unlawful employment practice by failing to reasonably accommodate the alleged disabilities of DeLores Boatwright (Petitioner). Whether Respondent committed an unlawful employment practice by discriminating against Petitioner based on Petitioner’s age.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent has been an agency of the State of Florida pursuant to section 20.43, Florida Statutes, and an employer within the meaning of section 760.02(7), Florida Statutes (2012). Petitioner was employed by Respondent between January 3, 2002, and January 31, 2013. On January 31, 2013, Respondent terminated Petitioner’s employment for cause. Petitioner worked as an HIV counselor, which required her to provide both pre-test and post-test counseling to clients interested in HIV testing. Counseling performed by Petitioner involved her sitting in an office setting with the door closed to discuss with clients risks for contracting HIV and methods to reduce those risks. HIV counseling sessions are typically conducted face to face. There was a dispute in the record as to how much computer input is necessary while conducting a counseling session. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that any notes would typically be taken by hand and that any computer input would typically be made after the counseling session had been completed. Counseling sessions typically lasted approximately 15 to 20 minutes. Due to privacy and HIPPA considerations, counseling sessions were conducted in a private office with the door closed. Petitioner was directly supervised by Robert Scott from 2005 until December 2011. In October 2009, Petitioner was rear-ended in a car accident while working. This accident prompted a workers’ compensation claim. Petitioner advised Mr. Scott that she had hurt her neck, upper back, and right shoulder. Initially, Petitioner had work restrictions of no lifting, no driving for the job, and no bending. As of October 27, 2009, Petitioner’s work restrictions were lifted, and no other work restrictions were placed on Petitioner. On January 28, 2010, Petitioner was referred to Dr. Edward Chung, an orthopedic specialist. Dr. Chung placed no work restrictions on Petitioner. On February 3, 2010, Dr. Chung determined Petitioner had reached maximum medical improvement and gave her an impairment rating of zero percent. During the remainder of her employment, Petitioner had no on-going impairment rating or work restrictions as a result of her automobile accident. Petitioner worked at the West Palm Beach Health Center, which is Respondent’s primary care medical clinic. This clinic, located on 45th Street in West Palm Beach, is generally known as the 45th Street Clinic. The majority of the rooms in the 45th Street Clinic are examination rooms with an examination table, a small sink, and a small desk for use by the nurse or doctor. The 45th Street Clinic has a limited number of consultation rooms, which are typically small interior offices with a desk that separates the counselor and client with counter space behind or to the side of the counselor for computer work. For a year and a half between 2004 and 2005, Petitioner conducted her counseling sessions in Room 104 of the 45th Street Clinic. Room 104 is a relatively small office with no windows. At the end of 2005, Petitioner’s office assignment changed to Room 102, which is also an interior office with no windows. This move was at Petitioner’s request when the room became available due to the retirement of a colleague. Room 102 is slightly larger than Room 104. Petitioner remained in Room 102 until the beginning of 2010. While she was assigned Room 102 and Room 104, Petitioner kept her door closed, even when she was not seeing clients. This practice was problematic because other staff members were unable to determine when Petitioner was available to counsel patients. Mr. Scott discussed with Petitioner on numerous occasions the need for her to keep her office door open when she was not with a client. Petitioner informed Mr. Scott that she kept the door closed because of a sinus problem that felt better when the door was closed. Petitioner never provided medical documentation of her alleged sinus problem, and there was no credible explanation why keeping her office door closed would improve a sinus condition. In early 2010, Petitioner’s room assignment was changed from Room 102 to Room 107. This reassignment was necessary because Respondent needed to make Room 102 available for another, legitimate business use. Room 107 was an exterior office with a window. Its furniture was in an “L” shape attached to a wall. The office contained a desk and a counter for a computer. During counseling sessions, the counselor and client would sit face-to-face on opposite sides of the desk. The computer was to the counselor’s side, which required the counselor to turn or swivel her chair away from the client to access the computer. In December 2010, Petitioner complained to Mr. Scott that the furniture arrangement in her office was causing her neck and back pain. Petitioner attributed that pain to turning to access her computer or turning to talk to a client while on the computer. In response to Petitioner’s complaint of pain, Mr. Scott requested that Michial Swank, Respondent’s risk manager, perform an ergonomic evaluation of the furniture in Room 107. Such an evaluation is a service that requires no medical documentation and is offered by Risk Management to any employee. Mr. Swank determined that if the furniture could be reconfigured, it should be so that Petitioner did not have to twist to look from a client to the computer or vice versa. Mr. Swank provided his assessment to Respondent’s General Services Department to determine whether the furniture could be reconfigured. Respondent’s General Services Department determined the furniture could not be reconfigured because it was modular furniture custom-made for the office and bolted together. Around March 2011, Dr. Cook, the director of the 45th Street Clinic, proposed that Petitioner change rooms with another HIV counselor located in Room 104. Mr. Swank performed an ergonomic assessment on Room 104 and determined the furniture and computer location to be ergonomically correct for counseling a patient while on the computer. Respondent offered Petitioner the option of moving from Room 107 into Room 104, but she refused that offer and opted to remain in Room 107. Petitioner cited her sinus problems as the reason she did not want to move back to Room 104. Despite her decision to remain in Room 107, Petitioner attempted to persuade Helen Bonner, a nurse, to switch offices with her. This attempt was without the knowledge or permission of Mr. Scott or any other administrator. Ms. Bonner’s room was set up for clinical use for patients with seizure disorders. When Yankick Gribikoff, the nursing supervisor, heard of Petitioner’s effort to have Ms. Bonner swap offices, Ms. Gribicoff immediately squelched the idea. Ms. Bonner’s office had specialized equipment, including specialized telephone equipment and refrigerators. Ms. Gribicoff had valid reasons to end Petitioner’s efforts to swap rooms with Ms. Bonner. In the fall of 2011, two of Respondent’s clinics were closed due to budgetary constraints. Certain personnel were moved from those closed clinics into the 45th Street Clinic. At that time, Rooms 104 and 107 were the only two rooms in the 45th Street Clinic available for HIV counseling. It became necessary to use Room 107 for both HIV and STD (sexually transmitted disease) counseling. Because of its location and proximity to other services, Respondent had a valid reason to select Room 107 over Room 104 as the room for HIV and STD counseling. While Petitioner had had some training in STD counseling, she had difficulty with that type of counseling. An expert in STD counseling was among the personnel being moved from one of the closed clinics to the 45th Street Clinic. Respondent had a valid reason to select the expert to occupy Room 107. Respondent reassigned Petitioner to Room 104. Petitioner agreed to the reassignment and moved into Room 104 on October 3, 2011. Petitioner kept the door to her office closed even when she was not counseling clients. In early November 2011, Mr. Scott received a complaint about the physical condition of Room 104 from someone who used that office while Petitioner was away. The complaint centered on the room’s lack of cleanliness. On November 18, 2011, Mr. Scott met with Petitioner to discuss certain concerns he had. It was during that meeting that Petitioner told Mr. Scott, for the first time, that she was claustrophobic in Room 104. Petitioner referred to Room 104 as being a “closet” and stated that she could not stay in that room. Petitioner brought to Mr. Scott a doctor’s note dated November 23, 2011, that reflected that Petitioner was experiencing claustrophobic symptoms and could not stay in a small, closed space for 15 to 20 minutes. Upon receiving the doctor’s note, Mr. Scott notified Human Resources of the doctor’s note. Arrangements were made to provide Petitioner a larger room in another clinic. Due to the merger of the two closed clinics with the 45th Street Clinic, no room at the 45th Street Clinic, other than Room 104, was available for Petitioner’s use as an HIV counselor. A larger office was found in the Lantana Clinic. The targeted Lantana office was being used by another HIV counselor. To accommodate Petitioner, Respondent arranged to have the Lantana counselor transferred to the 45th Street Clinic and Petitioner transferred to the Lantana Clinic. Petitioner was advised of this change in location and agreed to move around December 18, 2011. She never advised or stated she could not drive to the Lantana Clinic. Petitioner called in sick on December 18, the day she was scheduled to move to the Lantana Clinic. On December 19, 2011, Petitioner reported for work at the 45th Street Clinic instead of the Lantana Clinic. Petitioner stayed at work at the 45th Street Clinic for a few hours, but left because she was not feeling well. On December 19, 2011, Petitioner suffered a stroke1/ and went on medical leave. In May 2012, Petitioner told Mr. Scott that she was ready to return to work. For legitimate business reasons, the Lantana Clinic office was no longer available. Jacqueline Lester is the equal opportunity manager for the Florida Department of Health. Ms. Lester reviews requests for reasonable accommodations with the authority to approve or reject a request. Ms. Lester first became aware of Petitioner as a result of Petitioner’s accommodation request dated December 15, 2011. Petitioner asked to stay at the 45th Street Clinic in a larger office with a furniture arrangement not requiring her to turn her neck. That request was not processed because Petitioner soon thereafter went on medical leave for an extended period. On June 19, 2012, a second request for accommodation was received from Petitioner. In this request, Petitioner asked for a reasonably-sized office, which Petitioner described as being at least 10’ x 10’, with a window. She also asked that the office be within close distance to her home in Palm Beach Gardens due to her inability to drive or sit for “any great length of time.” Petitioner also requested that she start back to work on a part-time basis. Petitioner’s request included notes from two doctors. This medical documentation did not state that Petitioner could not drive due to a neck and back disability. After reviewing the request and medical documentation, Ms. Lester, whose office is in Tallahassee, talked with Respondent’s personnel in Palm Beach County. Ms. Lester decided to accommodate Petitioner’s request. The accommodation was an office located in Respondent’s clinic in Delray Beach. The office was 10’ x 10’ with a window. Although the Delray Beach Clinic was a substantial commute from Petitioner’s home in Palm Beach Gardens, the accommodation included permission for Petitioner to stop as needed while traveling to work without being penalized for late arrival at work.2/ The accommodation also provided that Petitioner could return to full-time schedule at the Delray Beach Clinic “upon release from her medical providers.” Petitioner refused the offer of the office at the Delray Beach Clinic. On January 31, 2013, Respondent terminated Petitioner’s employment for cause based on Petitioner’s refusal to return to work. Petitioner presented no meaningful evidence that Respondent discriminated against her based on age or because of her perceived disabilities. Petitioner filed her Complaint of Discrimination with the FCHR on September 5, 2012. FCHR issued its “Notice of Determination: No Cause” and “Determination: No Cause” on May 21, 2013. Petitioner filed her Petition for Relief on June 12, 2013.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in this Recommended Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order dismiss the Petition for Relief with prejudice. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of August, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 1st day of August, 2014.
Conclusions THE PARTIES resolved all disputed issues and executed a Settlement Agreement. The parties are directed to comply with the terms of the attached Settlement Agreement. Based on the foregoing, this file is CLOSED. DONE AND ORDERED this / %y of 7abuary , 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LL. Yet foc! ELIZABETH DUDEK, SECKETARY Agency for Health Care Administration Page 1 of 3 Filed February 14, 2014 11:45 AM Division of Administrative Hearings Cc. I. No. 12-1696-000 A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO A JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH SHALL BE INSTITUTED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF AHCA, AND A SECOND COPY ALONG WITH FILING FEE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE AGENCY MAINTAINS ITS HEADQUARTERS OR WHERE A PARTY RESIDES. REVIEW PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED. Copies furnished to: Robert Rappel, D.O., J.D. Rappel Health Law Group, P.L., Bridgewater 1515 Indian River Blvd., Suite A210 Vero Beach, Florida 32960-4230 (U.S. Mail) Agency for Health Care Administration Douglas J. Lomonico, Assistant General Counsel, MS #3 (Electronic Mail) Agency for Health Care Administration Division of Health Quality Assurance Agency for Health Care Administration Home Care Unit, MS #34 Agency for Health Care Administration Bureau of Finance and Accounting, MS #14 Agency for Health Care Administration Bureau of Medicaid Program Integrity, MS#6 ATTN: Rick Zenuch, Bureau Chief Florida Department of Health Finance and Accounting Page 2 of 3 C.1I. No. 12-1696-000 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Final Order was furnished by United States Mail, interoffice mail, or email transmission to the above-referenced ——— addressees this /3 day of 7 tiene , 2014. RICHARD J. SHOOP, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, MS #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Telephone No. (850)-412-3630 Facsimile No. (850)-921-0158 Page 3 of 3
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, John L. Eifert (Respondent) was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (Petitioner). Respondent was certified on July 17, 1981, being issued Certificate Number 74043. On or about June 14, 1984, Officer Goodwin of the Miami Beach Police Department (Miami Beach P.D.) was involved in an automobile accident. Officer Goodwin was off-duty at the time. The officers dispatched to the accident scene found, among other things, on the driver's side of Officer Goodwin's vehicle, evidence bags from the Miami Beach P.D. and a clear plastic bag. The evidence bags were clearly marked as Miami Beach P.D. evidence bags. The clear bag and one of the evidence bags contained a white substance that the officers suspected was cocaine. Officer Goodwin was arrested for driving under the influence of alcoholic beverages and/or narcotics. All the bags found in Officer Goodwin's vehicle at the accident scene were seized and placed into evidence. The white substance in the bags was subsequently tested. The tests revealed that the white substance was cocaine. The cocaine found in Officer Goodwin's vehicle was the same cocaine that he had seized in a narcotic's case. He had obtained the cocaine from the evidence room under false pretenses, indicating that he was going to testify in court and needed the cocaine for his testimony. There was no court hearing. Officer Goodwin obtained the cocaine for his own personal use; he intended to consume the cocaine himself. Officer Goodwin was Respondent's fellow officer with the Miami Beach P.D. and friend. They had gone through the police academy together in 1981, and they were motorcycle officers together. Prior to the accident, at approximately 9:30 a.m. on June 14, 1984, Officer Goodwin had visited Respondent at Respondent's off-duty job. Respondent was moonlighting as a security guard at a bank. Officer Goodwin had been ingesting cocaine prior to the visit, had not slept in approximately 24 hours, and was paranoid. Officer Goodwin wanted to use Respondent's residence to consume more cocaine. Because of his paranoid behavior and because he was a friend, Respondent agreed for Officer Goodwin to go to his residence and convinced Officer Goodwin to wait for him there. When Officer Goodwin arrived at Respondent's residence, he continued to ingest cocaine. Also, he placed some of the cocaine in individual plastic bags. Officer Goodwin hid the cocaine filled plastic bags in Respondent's residence. When Respondent came to his residence at approximately 4:45 p.m. that same day, he found Officer Goodwin more paranoid than before. Officer Goodwin refused to remain at Respondent's residence and left shortly before 5:00 p.m. Before leaving, Respondent agreed for Officer Goodwin to leave the cocaine filled plastic bags in his residence. Officer Goodwin informed Respondent where he had hid the bags. Respondent located the cocaine filled bags. Without getting any sleep, Respondent continued with his social activities planned for the remainder of the evening. At approximately 10:00 p.m., Respondent went to his second moonlighting job. On June 15, 1984, around 3:30 a.m., Officer Goodwin called Respondent at his second moonlighting job. Officer Goodwin informed Respondent that he had been arrested and requested that Respondent dispose of the cocaine and told him where to leave it. Unbeknownst to Respondent, Officer Goodwin was calling from police headquarters and was attempting to return the remaining cocaine to the Miami Beach P.D. Instead of following Officer Goodwin's instructions, Respondent went home around 3:50 a.m. and disposed of the cocaine by dumping it into the bay behind his residence. Respondent believed that he was helping Officer Goodwin, a friend. Subsequently, around 6:00 a.m., Respondent received another telephone call from Officer Goodwin. Respondent informed him what he had done with the cocaine. Officer Goodwin was upset about what Respondent had done. Goodwin admitted at hearing that, due to the quantity of cocaine that he had ingested, beginning June 13, 1984, and continuing into June 14, 1984, he had very little independent recollection of what happened that day. His information, as to what happened that day, is mostly from reading his statements that he had made regarding the incident, police reports, and transcripts of depositions. Further, Goodwin also admits that his recall prior to going to Respondent's residence is fair. Officer Goodwin entered into a plea agreement regarding the accident and the cocaine. The plea agreement provided, among other things, that he give testimony, regarding the incident, forever in whatever the forum may be and that he relinquish his certification from Petitioner. Presently, Goodwin is in charge of a drug treatment center for Metro- Dade County. He has been in this position for five years. In June 1984, Respondent resigned from the Miami Beach P.D. Consistent with the policy of the Miami Beach P.D. at that time, no investigation was instituted against Respondent by Internal Affairs of the Metro-Dade Police Department due to his resignation. Respondent does not deny that he permitted Goodwin to take the cocaine to his residence, that he permitted Goodwin to leave some of the cocaine at his residence, and that Goodwin left some of the cocaine at his residence. Furthermore, Respondent does not deny that the cocaine remained at his residence after Goodwin left and that he disposed of the cocaine by dumping it into the bay. At the time of his resignation, Respondent and the Miami Beach P.D. agreed that, whenever inquiries were made regarding Respondent, the Miami Beach P.D. would make neither negative nor positive comments about Respondent. The intent of this agreement was to allow Respondent to keep his record clean. However, the reverse occurred. He was effectively prevented from getting jobs in law enforcement. Subsequently, Respondent and the Miami Beach P.D. agreed to full disclosure regarding Respondent and the cocaine incident. In 1987, Respondent began to obtain employment in law enforcement. From September 1987 to January 1989, Respondent was employed as a police officer with the Indian Creek Village Police Department. From February 1989 to May 1989, he was employed as a police officer with the Florida City Police Department. Respondent resigned from both positions. In January 1990, Respondent was rehired by the Florida City Police Department (Florida City P.D.). At the time of hearing, he was still employed with the Florida City P.D. Respondent's personnel file reflects that, during his tenure as a police officer, Respondent has had one reprimand. The reprimand occurred after his resignation from the Miami Beach P.D. However, Respondent's personnel file also reflects that, during his tenure as a police officer, Respondent has had numerous commendations and letters commending his performance. He has been subjected to pressure and dangerous encounters and has performed in an exemplary manner. At hearing, several individuals, law enforcement and non-law enforcement, supported Respondent either through testimony or letters. Respondent's former pastor and the Mayor of the City of Florida City testified in support of him. Both regarded Respondent as having high moral character. Moreover, the Mayor's position was that the incident in June 1984 would have no effect on his opinion of Respondent. Additionally, the former Police Chief of the City of Miami Beach at the time of the incident in June 1984 did not find it odd or unusual for Respondent to still be in law enforcement. To him, Respondent had made a mistake, paid for the mistake, and had turned his life around. By letter, Respondent's immediate supervisor of five years with the Florida City P.D. supported him. Also, a special agent with the Florida East Coast Railway Police, who has known Respondent both personally and professionally for approximately nine years, supported Respondent. Petitioner filed the administrative complaint against Respondent on August 9, 1993. Respondent has no prior disciplinary action against him by Petitioner.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission enter a final order Reprimanding Respondent; and Placing Respondent on probation for one (1) year under terms and conditions that the Commission deems appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED in this 2nd day of January, 1997 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of January, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard D. Courtemanche, Jr. Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Braverman, Esquire Braverman and Grossman, P.A. 2780 Douglas Road, Suite 300 Miami, Florida 33133-2749 A. Leon Lowry, II, Director Division of Criminal Justice Standards and Training Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
Findings Of Fact On 17 July 1979, a few days after Harry W. Soward and his wife returned from a motor trip vacation and before the date he was to report for duty as Principal of Garden Elementary School in Venice, Florida, Soward left his residence to shop for shelving. Not finding the items desired at stores close to his residence, he proceeded further afield. After lunch he went to his son's place of business for a visit and upon arrival found his son absent. He then decided to go to a nearby beach for some sun enroute home. At this time Respondent was dressed in shorts, T-shirt and shoes. Upon parking the van he was driving, Respondent took off the T-shirt and donned a beach jacket which had been under the front seat of the van, locked his wallet in the van and walked north along the scarcely populated beach away from the area where most people congregate. Under the corduroy shorts Respondent was wearing black bikini briefs. After going some one-half mile or more from the parking area Respondent removed his corduroy shorts to sunbathe, leaving him wearing black bikini briefs and jacket. He then walked away from the water towards the wooded area clearly shown in Exhibit 1, and photographs constituting Exhibits 6 through 13. Officer Meredith of the Sarasota Police Department was assigned to the Lido Beach area on 17 July 1979 and had proceeded to North Lido Beach in response to a report that a nude made had been seen on the beach. Lido Beach is a publicly-owned swimming and sunning area; however, the north end of this beach is reputed to be an area where nude bathing occurs and homosexuals meet. Because of the topography and insects this area is not popular for picnicking. Officer Meredith had requested via radio a back-up when he departed for North Lido Beach and shortly after his arrival he was joined by Sergeant Schott, also of the Sarasota police. They saw no evidence of a nude male but decided to proceed southward inside the tree line from the beach where they would be able to observe activity on the beach without being seen. Meredith had 8 x 50 binoculars with which to detect something that might not be discernible to the naked eye. While walking inside the tree line the officers observed a large group of young boys supervised by older teenagers playing and proceeding southerly near the water's edge. After walking for several minutes inside the tree line the officers observed a white male ahead and a little seaward of them also moving southerly inside the tree line. When he reached a thicker clump of trees this man stopped for several seconds and Meredith focused the binoculars on him. This individual, later identified as Respondent, was facing south with his back to the officers when he stopped approximately 75 feet from the officers and some 500 feet from the water's edge where the young boys had been observed. For approximately one minute he was observed from the location occupied by the officers. Respondent, whose back was toward the officers, appeared to lower his bikini briefs and manipulate his penis in a manner both officers thought was masturbating. Meredith's testimony was that he could see Respondent's right arm moving but could not see his penis. While still under close scrutiny Respondent turned some 90 degrees to his left, placing his back to the water's edge and his profile to the officers. At this time they could see Respondent's briefs had been dropped enough to allow penis and testicles to be over the top of the briefs. At this time Respondent had his penis in his hand. Both officers testified Respondent did not have an erection but they did not believe the penis to be flaccid, nor did they believe he was urinating. Shortly thereafter Respondent turned towards the north, saw the two officers, pulled the briefs back over his privates and started to walk back to the beach. At this time, Officer Meredith yelled for Respondent to stop, which he did. Officer Meredith asked what he was doing in the tree area and Respondent replied "urinating". When asked his name, age and occupation, Respondent replied Soward, 54 years old, and a teacher at Venice. Respondent pronounces his name in one syllable. When Meredith asked if the name was spelled S-o-r-d, Respondent did not reply. When Meredith saw what he thought to be Respondent reaching into a pocket of the jacket he grabbed his hand, reached into the pocket and extracted a tube of K-Y jelly. Respondent extracted a pair of yellow women's briefs from the other pocket. When asked why he had the lubricant Respondent replied he used it occasionally for his hemorrhoids. The yellow bikini Respondent identified as belonging to his wife who also occasionally used the same jacket. After berating Respondent and accusing him of being a deviate Meredith ordered Respondent to get off the beach and warned him not to return "to our city beaches in the future." (Tr. p. 33). The testimony of all witnesses, consisting of the two police officers and Respondent, was essentially the same with respect to the facts noted above. Respondent testified that he went into the wooded area where he could not be seen by anyone on the beach to urinate, that he had a prostate condition which made it difficult at times for him to commence urination, and that massage of the prostate behind he testicles sometimes helped induce urination. He further testified that he was taking diuretics, which caused more frequent urination. The taking of diuretics was confirmed by his physician. Respondent produced at the hearing the jacket and briefs he was wearing, plus the yellow bikini bottom that was in the jacket pocket when he was accosted. This bikini bottom was identified by Mrs. Soward as belonging to her and having been left in the jacket pocket. Respondent identified it as the one removed from the jacket when he was apprehended, while Officer Meredith testified the yellow briefs removed from the jacket pocket had lace around the legs, were women's underpants and not the bottom of a bikini swimsuit presented at the hearing. After being ordered to leave the beach, Respondent donned his corduroy shorts and proceeded back to the parking lot. Meredith also went to the parking lot and after Respondent got in his van, Meredith came up to demand identification partially because he didn't think Respondent to be as old as he had stated. When he saw the name on the driver's license was not spelled Sord, Meredith accused Respondent of giving the wrong name. The driver's license did confirm Respondent's age to be what he had told Meredith. Meredith did not arrest or prefer charges against Respondent. His reason given for not doing so was that Respondent could not be seen from the beach and unless lewd and lascivious behavior was perpetrated in a place from which the perpetrator could be seen by "civilians" (as opposed to police) the judges in the Sarasota courts would not convict those arrested on charges of lewd behavior. Nevertheless, when he returned to the station Meredith prepared a report of his encounter with Respondent which, since a member of the school system was involved, was passed to the Superintendent of Schools of Sarasota County. The Superintendent talked to Meredith and Schott and received a copy of the report prepared by Meredith. The Superintendent advised the Director of Elementary Education, who was the supervisor of principals, of the police report and requested she bring Respondent to his office. When presented with the police report in the presence of the Superintendent, Respondent again denied any wrongdoing, insisted he had entered the wooded area to relieve himself and explained the purpose for which he had the K-Y jelly in the jacket, as a lubricant for hemorrhoids. The Superintendent chose not to believe the explanation offered by Respondent and gave him the option of resigning rather than suffer the unpleasantness of further investigation by Petitioner, to whom the Superintendent would refer the matter, and a possible hearing. Respondent declined to resign. Respondent was relieved of his duties as principal of Garden Elementary School, a position which he had held since the school opened in 1974, and was reassigned temporarily to the administrative staff of the school system. These charges here under consideration were subsequently preferred. A substitute principal was assigned to Garden Elementary School and when the school year began the Superintendent addressed the faculty at Garden Elementary to explain Respondent's absence was due to a report submitted by the police which had been turned over to the Petitioner and if the faculty wanted to know more they could read the police report at the police state. Many of them did so. The newspapers were aware of this police report but did not publish any news items relating thereto. After the School Board took action to relieve Respondent from duty and refer the matter to Petitioner, an article appeared in the Sarasota Herald-Tribune on August 2, 1979 and a similar article appeared in the Venice Gondolier, a newspaper whose circulation is limited to the southern part of Sarasota County. These articles reported the reassignment of Respondent pending an investigation of an incident reported by police and stated that no charges had been preferred by the police. Of the 17 witnesses called by Petitioner only two, the police officers, saw Respondent at any time material to these charges. Both of these officers were looking for nudes or perverts when they saw Respondent. Meredith was looking so hard he used 8 x 50 binoculars to observe Respondent from a distance of 75 feet. At that range this magnification should allow resolution of the order of one-fourth to one-eighth inch. A stationary housefly on an appropriate background could be seen at 75 feet with 8-power binoculars. Meredith testified regarding the reputation of North Lido Beach and anytime he saw someone in this section of the beach there was a question in his mind why they were there. (Tr. p. 62). One looking for deviate behavior would be more likely to associate movement that could be manipulation of the penis with masturbation than would an observer not looking for such behavior. Follow this impression with discovery of K-Y jelly in one pocket, ladies' bikini bottoms in the other pocket of the jacket, and a group of young boys in the vicinity (albeit 500 feet distant) and Officer Meredith was quite sure he had encountered a pervert. When Respondent told Meredith that he was a teacher, Meredith undoubtedly commented, as Respondent testified, about perverts working with kids (Tr. p. 352) and told Respondent he would get him out of the school system. Without sufficient evidence to arrest Respondent, Meredith was left to the writing of the report. Most of the witnesses called by Petitioner had read the police report and gathered from this report that Respondent was observed masturbating on North Lido Beach in the vicinity of an in view of children of tender ages and that he had questionable items in his jacket pocket. These witnesses were aware of the reputation of North Lido Beach as a nude and gay beach and many didn't think that was an appropriate place for a principal to go. These factors led them to conclude that Respondent could no longer function effectively in the Sarasota County School System. This conclusion was reached without the benefit of Respondent's explanation of his actions, without full knowledge of the density of the foliage, without realizing that no one but the police could or did see him with penis exposed, and without knowledge that neither K-Y jelly nor bikini bottoms were in use or evidenced until after Respondent started back to the beach. Those witnesses called by Petitioner who had been associated with Respondent at Garden Elementary School acknowledged that prior to this incident they considered Respondent to be an able and effective administrator. Many of these witnesses opined that even if found innocent of any wrongdoing, Respondent's effectiveness in the school system has been seriously reduced. Many of the 33 witnesses called by Respondent knew Respondent socially and professionally as a "fine man". Respondent's church workers think highly of him both in integrity and morality and they did not believe the truth of the police report that Respondent had masturbated on Lido Beach. The pastor of the First Church of Nazarene in Bradenton, an ordained minister, has known Respondent for the past 6-1/2 years as the church's unpaid associate pastor. Respondent has taught Sunday School at this church for many years and the pastor considers Respondent one of the finest men he ever knew. Neighbors know Respondent as a quiet family man and good neighbor who had never shown any indication of questionable morals or conduct. Professional associates found Respondent a competent administrator and teacher. Some found him strict but none ever had cause to question his moral character prior to July 17, 1979.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Palm Beach County is located in Florida Health Service Area Region VII (HSA #7) which also includes Indian River, Martin, Okeechobee, and St. Lucie Counties. The Health Systems Plan (HSP) for Region VII breaks down bed need for Palm Beach County separately from the other four counties. The population of the southern portion of Palm Beach County is growing at a much faster rate than the population of the northern portion of the County. There is a maldistribution of hospital beds between the northern and southern portions of the County. The northern portion of the County has three times as many hospital beds as the southern portion of the County. Palm Beach County presently has 2,752 hospital beds which are either licensed or approved for construction. This figure includes a new 160-bed NME facility in Delray Beach projected to open in the Fall of 1982, a 50-bed expansion at Bethesda Memorial Hospital completed in January of 1982, a 50-bed expansion at Boca Raton Community Hospital and a 48-bed expansion at John F. Kennedy Hospital presently under construction. An additional 80 beds have been approved by HRS for the new Delray facility, but this is presently in litigation and these beds can not be considered in this proceeding. The two hospitals which currently serve the south Palm Beach County area are the Boca Raton Community Hospital (Boca Community) located in Boca Raton and the Bethesda Memorial Hospital (Bethesda) located in Boynton Beach and operated by the District. Both facilities are within a thirty minute driving distance for 95 percent of the population of the southwestern portion of Palm Beach County. According to patient origin studies, Boca Community draws some 7.7 percent of its patients from the southwest portion of Palm Beach County and Bethesda draws only 1.8 percent of its patients from such area. The primary service areas of both facilities are concentrated on the coastal side of the County. Boca Community has a closed medical staff and does not offer obstetrical services. In 1981, Boca Community had an average occupancy level of 91 percent. During the tourist season which runs from November to April of each year, Boca Community was overcrowded, at times operating at a 100 percent occupancy rate. Oftentimes, patients were either turned away or were placed in hallway or holding room beds. There were occasions during the tourist season when the Del Trail Fire Control Tax District, which provides emergency medical rescue service for the residents of southwest Palm Beach County, was advised by Boca Community that they were on a Priority 1 status only. This meant that they could only utilize that facility for the most severe cases of cardiac or respiratory arrest. The Fire Control Tax District's paramedic program anticipates that it will respond to approximately 2,250 medical rescue calls in 1982. A hospital located in the southwestern portion of Palm Beach County would reduce the response time of paramedics, enable them to make more calls and provide better medical service for members of the Fire Control District. In 1981, Bethesda operated at an average occupancy rate of 82.9 percent, with the rate exceeding 90 percent during the tourist season. The HSP utilizes a 75 percent occupancy rate as a guideline for determining the need for additional hospital beds. In health care planning, it is the policy of HRS to utilize county-wide population estimates prepared by the University of Florida's Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR). The most recent population figure promulgated by BEBR for Palm Beach County is a 1981 estimate of 615,165. This figure indicates an increase over its prior projections of almost 20,000. For the year 1985, the medium range population estimate for Palm Beach County is projected by the BEBR to be 707,900. This figure does not significantly differ from projections made by various planning experts who testified at the hearing. Some 99 percent of the population growth in the County is attributable to migration. Among the guidelines for determining need for additional hospital beds in an area are occupancy levels of existing hospital facilities, utilization rates and a desired number of beds per thousand people in an area. The HSP for Region VII considers an occupancy rate of 75 percent to be desirable, and utilizes the formula of 4 beds per thousand population in reaching determinations on the question of need. The State Health Plan, in accordance with federal guidelines, takes into consideration the factors of age of the population and utilization, including migration in and out of an area. Persons over age 65 normally utilize hospital beds and facilities four times as much as people under 65. Some 23 percent of the residents of the southwest area of Palm Beach County were 65 years of age or older. This compares with a national average of approximately 11 percent, and a county-wide average of 20 percent. Accordingly, in computing preliminary bed need projections for 1985, the 1981 Florida State Health Plan utilizes a formula of 4.25 beds per thousand population for HSA #7 as its medium estimate and a formula of 4.61 beds per thousand population as its high estimate. Utilizing the 4/1000 formula, and assuming a 1985 population of 707,900, the bed need for Palm Beach County in 1985 would be 2,832. A 4.25/1,000 formula produces a bed need of 3,009, and a 4.61/1,000 formula results in a bed need of 3,263. Given the exsiting licensed and approved 2,752 beds in the County as a whole, there would be a need in 1985 for an additional 80 beds using the 4.0 approach, 257 beds using the 4.25 approach, and 511 beds using the 4.61 approach. Utilizing the University of Florida population figures for Palm Beach County, distributing that population to various areas within the County in accordance with the Area Planning Board estimates, and further distributing ,beds between the facilities in the southwest area of the County based upon anticipated market shares, the District's health care planning expert determined there would be a need for 157 new beds by 1986 in the southwest area. This projection takes into account the new Delray Hospital, the 50-bed additions at Bethesda and Boca Community and utilizes an 80 percent occupancy rate. By allocating County population figures into subregions, NME's planning expert projected the population of the west Boca service area to be 43,598 by 1985. Utilizing two different methodologies -- occupancy levels and bed per thousand population -- NME's expert determined that there would be a minimum additional bed need of 170 to 188 in the west Boca service area in 1985 to 1986. The previous HSA 1980-1984 HSP only showed a need for 40 or 50 beds in Palm Beach County. The 1981-1985 HSP, which now takes into account the recently approved 160 beds at Delray, 50 at Bethesda and 50 at Boca Community, shows a need for an additional 128 beds. John F. Kennedy Hospital, which does not serve the southwest portion of the County, has been granted approval for 48 beds. The Boca Raton City Council and the Board of County Commissioners for Palm Beach County have each adopted resolutions citing the need for a new hospital in the West Boca area. Many physicians practicing in the Boca Raton area are experiencing their greatest growth in numbers of patients from the West Boca area. Several physicians experienced delays in admitting patients to Boca Community in 1981, and do not believe that that facility's expansion by 50 beds will alleviate the overcrowing at that institution. There is community support for a new hospital facility located in the southwest portion of Boca Raton. The approved and existing hospitals which serve residents of the southwest Boca Raton area have expansion capabilities of approximately 300 beds -- 50 at Boca Community, 90 at Bethesda and 160 at Delray. Expansion of an existing facility can result in lower construction and operational costs than the construction of a new facility. This would be dependent upon the existence of adequate ancillary facilities, adequate space, personnel capabilities and the desires of the existing facility to expand. Other than the 80-bed expansion at Delray which is currently in litigation, no evidence was adduced at the hearing that either Boca Community or Bethesda were seeking expansion beyond that which has previously been approved. The Southeastern Palm Beach County Hospital Taxing District was created by Special Act of the Legislature in 1953 to provide hospital services for the people in a specified geographical area. It is operated by an eight- member Board of Commissioners who are appointed by the Governor for staggered four-year terms. The District currently owns and operates a 350-bed full service hospital known as Bethesda Memorial Hospital in Boynton Beach. Its services include gynecological, pediatric and new born nursery services. Bethesda has the capacity to expand to 440 beds. In 1980, Bethesda received approximately $2,000,000 in ad valorem tax revenues. Without these tax revenues, Bethesda would have operated at a deficit in excess of $1,000,000. The District proposes to construct and operate a new hospital to serve the residents of southwest Palm Beach County. The service area for the new hospital appears to include some areas beyond the geographical boundaries of the District. It intends to construct 138 medical/surgical beds and 12 intensive care beds, for a total bed count of 150. The new facility will not have obstetrics or pediatric services. The total estimated cost of the project is $34,007,000, or a cost of $226,713.33 per bed. Its cost per square foot is $162.12. The District did not itemize its predevelopment costs and based its equipment costs as a percentage of construction costs. It is anticipated that the new facility will share many services and be linked closely with Bethesda. The two facilities will utilize the same Directors of Personnel, Purchasing and Finance. Other shared services will be the central computer service, clinical laboratory services, anatomical-pathological services, certain pharmacy services and legal services. A pathologist will be on-site at the new facility during normal working hours and on-call during off hours to perform those pathological services which require an immediate result. Other lab tests will be performed at Bethesda. It is anticipated that the new facility will be financed through the issuance of two series of tax-exempt revenue bonds. The District anticipates that it can secure bond financing at an 11 percent projected interest rate, and that 87 percent of the project will be financed by debt with an equity contribution by the District of $2.2 million. Ad valorem revenue is not expected to be the source-of repaying the debt. The District projects a loss of some $1.9 million during the first year of operation and an income of $99,484 during the second year of operation of the new facility. A 21-month construction period is anticipated. While the District proposes to locate its new facility on 20 acres of land at the northeast corner of Glades Road and Lyons Road, it had no formal interest in that property as of the time of the hearing. The site is presently zoned as agricultural and is owned by a savings and loan institution. Pursuant to a "gentlemen's agreement" between the institution and the Chairman of the District's Board, it is anticipated that the District can purchase this property at an estimated cost of $1,000,000. If the District is unable to purchase this property, it intends to use its power of eminent domain to acquire that site or another suitable site. The proposed District site will not require any major road improvements, though a traffic control signal may be necessary. National Medical Enterprises, Inc. owns and operates about 40 hospitals and 160 nursing homes and manages another 18 hospitals and 22 nursing homes throughout the United States. Its corporate headquarters are in Los Angeles, California, and it has a regional office in Tampa, Florida. NME has total revenues exceeding $1.4 billion, net income of $70 million and stockholders' equity of $420 million. As of November 30, 1981, NME had over $150 million in the bank and unused commitments from lenders for $170 million. NME has sufficient cash and cash flow to fund a new project without outside financing. If financing were chosen, it would be of a long term (20 year) unsecured nature at a 15 percent interest rate which would cover 65 percent of the project cost. The balance would come from NME's equity contribution. NME proposes to construct and operate a 175-bed hospital to serve the southwest area of Palm Beach County. There are to be 151 medical/surgical beds, 16 intensive care beds and 8 beds for obstetrics, for a total project cost of $30,688,290 or $175,361.65 per bed. The cost per-square foot is $127.00. The new facility will be operated by a local governing board composed of physicians and lay persons originally appointed by NME. The Administrator of the new facility will be appointed by and report to NME's regional office. Hospitals owned and managed by NME share common support services from both the corporate and regional offices. NME employs specialists and experts in the areas of nursing (recruitment and training), energy conservation, administration, communications, architectural and design matters, financial and legal matters, planning and development, management engineering, and purchasing. These professionals are available to NME facilities. National contracts for the procurement of equipment and supplies are available to NME hospitals. NME proposes an opening date of October or November, 1984 and estimates that it will have a net income of $615,000 after its first year of operation and a net income of $917,000 after the second full year of operation. NME proposes to locate its new facility adjacent to the corner of U.S. Highway 441 and Glades Road. It has an option to purchase 20 acres of land at $30,000 per acre. It intends to use 10 of the 20 acres for the hospital site and use the remaining 10 acres for medical office buildings. Site development costs are designated as $800,000. Its total cost of $30,688,290 is broken down into predevelopment costs of $120,000, building and construction costs of $22,646,490 and equipment costs of $7,921,800. NME's projected equipment costs were based upon a room-by-room analysis. The proposed site is presently zoned for agricultural use. Some major roadway improvements would be required, and the cost for these improvements have not been specifically determined or included in NME's projected project costs, other than the $800,000 designated for site development. NME's proposal includes an 8-bed obstetrical unit. Approximately 500 deliveries are expected during the first year of operation. The recognized health planning standard for determining need for an obstetrical unit in an urban area with a population in excess of 100,000 is whether the facility would perform 1,500 births per year. In Florida, some 105 licensed hospitals have obstetrical beds. 74 of those hospitals recorded less than 1,500 births per year. Population statistics broken down by age do not illustrate a significant need for additional obstetrical beds in the southwest area of the County. Obstetrics and pediatrics are currently available at Bethesda. Bethesda recently closed down 9 of its 24 pediatric beds, and, in February of 1982, that unit had a 42 percent occupancy level. Bethesda's nursery had an occupancy rate of 52 percent in 1981, and the 18 post-partum beds had an occupancy rate of 79 percent in 1981. If needed, Bethesda can convert some of its medical/surgical beds to postpartum beds. The Boca Raton Community Hospital has an 11-bed pediatrics unit. Both the District and NME demonstrated that they would have no difficulty in staffing their proposed facilities. Each has vigorous and innovative recruiting program. By comparing data from Bethesda and Palms of Pasadena in St. Petersburg, a facility owned and operated by NME, the District attempted to illustrate that a not-for-profit tax district hospital is able to render services in a more cost-effective manner and at less cost to the patient or charge payors than an investor-owned or proprietary hospital. However, the analysis performed by the District's witness did not include the ad valorem tax income which the District receives and did not consider or compare the types or intensity of services offered or performed by the two different hospitals. It is impossible to infer the cost-effectiveness of a hospital without knowledge of the volume, intensity and mix of services provided. NME's application for a Certificate of Need included a CT scanner at its new proposed facility. No evidence was adduced at the hearing concerning the need for an additional CT scanner in the Palm Beach County area.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by HRS determining that a need for a least a 170-bed hospital exists in the southwest area of Palm Beach County and that NME's application to construct such a hospital be approved, with the exception of that portion which proposes eight obstetrical beds and a CT scanner. It is further recommended that the application of the District to construct a 150-bed hospital be DENIED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 23rd day of August, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, 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 23rd day of August, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred W. Baggett, Esquire and Michael J. Cherniga, Esquire Roberts, Baggett, LaFace, Richards and Wiser 101 East College Avenue Post Office Drawer 1838 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 C. Gary Williams, Esquire Ausley, McMullen, McGehee, Carothers & Proctor Washington Square Building 227 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Eric J. Haugdahl, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Blvd. Building 1, Room 406 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 David Pingree Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary Clarke Deputy Assistant Secretary Health Planning & Development 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
Conclusions Having reviewed the Administrative Complaint, and all other matters of record, the Agency for Health Care Administration finds and concludes as follows: 1. The Agency issued the attached Administrative Complaint and Election of Rights form to the Respondent. (Ex. 1) The Election of Rights form advised of the right to an administrative hearing. The above-styled case involves a revocation of license, a fine, and a survey fee. 2. A previous case was filed against this Respondent also involving the revocation of the license: Agency for Health Care Administration v. Angel Aides Center, Inc. d/b/a Boynton Beach Assisted Living, AHCA No. 2011012687, Case No.: 12-12-246PH. 3. On April 30, 2013, the Agency entered a Final Order in the above described case [AHCA No: 2011012687, Case No.: 12-246PH] adopting the findings of facts and the conclusions of law set forth in the Recommended Order issued by the Agency’s informal hearing officer, which upheld the revocation. 4. The Respondent appealed the Final Order to the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Fourth District Court of Appeal Case No.: 4D 13-1733. 5. On or about June 24, 2013, the parties agreed to place the case in abeyance while the appeal was being reviewed by the Fourth District Court of Appeals. 6. On September 18, 2014, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the Agency’s Final Order revoking the Respondent’s license 7. On November 17, 2014, the Respondent filed a Joint Notice of Dismissing its Request for a Formal Hearing with the DOAH and the Administrative Law Judge issued an order closing the file and relinquishing jurisdiction to the Agency. (Ex. 2) Filed December 24, 2014 3:16 PM Division of Administrative Hearings Based upon the foregoing, it is ORDERED: 8. The assisted living facility license of Respondent is REVOKED. 9. The Respondent shall pay the Agency $5,500.00. If full payment has been made, the cancelled check acts as receipt of payment and no further payment is required. If full payment has not been made, payment is due within 30 days of the Final Order. Overdue amounts are subject to statutory interest and may be referred to collections. A check made payable to the “Agency for Health Care Administration” and containing the AHCA ten-digit case number should be sent to: Office of Finance and Accounting Revenue Management Unit Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, MS 14 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on this /7_ day of Drandre 2014. Elizabeth Du , Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to judicial review, which shall be instituted by filing one copy of a notice of appeal with the Agency Clerk of AHCA, and a second copy, along with filing fee as prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal in the appellate district where the Agency maintains its headquarters or where a party resides. Review of proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Florida appellate rules. ‘The Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days of rendition of the order to be reviewed. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I CERTIFY that a true and correct, of this Final er was served on-the below-named persons by the method designated on this 1? fay of et _ 2014. Richard J. Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg. #3, Mail Stop #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Telephone: (850) 412-3630 2 Jan Mills Facilities Intake Unit Agency for Health Care Administration (Interoffice Mail) Catherine Anne Avery, Unit Manager Assisted Living Facility Unit Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) Finance & Accounting Revenue Management Unit Agency for Health Care Administration (Interoffice Mail) | Arlene Mayo Davis, Field Office Manager Local Field Office Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) Katrina Derico-Harris Medicaid Accounts Receivable Agency for Health Care Administration (Interoffice Mail) Lourdes A. Naranjo, Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail Shawn McCauley Medicaid Contract Management Agency for Health Care Administration (Interoffice Mail) Louis V. Martinez, Esq. Louis V. Martinez, P.A. 2333 Brickell Avenue — Suite A-1 Miami, Florida 33129 | (U.S. Mail) John G. Van Laningham Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings (Electronic Mail) _ oe NOTICE OF FLORIDA LAW 408.804 License required; display.-- (1) It is unlawful to provide services that require licensure, or operate or maintain a provider that offers or provides services that require licensure, without first obtaining from the agency a license authorizing the provision of such services or the operation or maintenance of such provider. (2) A license must be displayed in a conspicuous place readily visible to clients who enter at the address that appears on the license and is valid only in the hands of the licensee to whom it is issued and may not be sold, assigned, or otherwise transferred, voluntarily or involuntarily. The license is valid only for the licensee, provider, and location for which the license is issued. 408.812 Unlicensed activity.-- (1) A person or entity may not offer or advertise services that require licensure as defined by this part, authorizing statutes, or applicable rules to the public without obtaining a valid license from the agency. A licenseholder may not advertise or hold out to the public that he or she holds a license for other than that for which he or she actually holds the license. (2) The operation or maintenance of an unlicensed provider or the performance of any services that require licensure without proper licensure is a violation of this part and authorizing statutes. Unlicensed activity constitutes harm that materially affects the health, safety, and welfare of clients. The agency or any state attomey may, in addition to other remedies provided in this part, bring an action for an injunction to restrain such violation, or to enjoin the future operation or maintenance of the unlicensed 4 3 provider or the performance of any services in violation of this part and authorizing statutes, until compliance with this part, authorizing statutes, and agency rules has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the agency. (3) It is unlawful for any person or entity to own, operate, or maintain an unlicensed provider. If after receiving notification from the agency, such person or entity fails to cease operation and apply for a license under this part and authorizing statutes, the person or entity shall be subject to penalties as prescribed by authorizing statutes and applicable rules. Each day of continued operation is a separate offense. (4) Any person or entity that fails to cease operation after agency notification may be fined $1,000 for each day of noncompliance. (5) When a controlling interest or licensee has an interest in more than one provider and fails to license a provider rendering services that require licensure, the agency may revoke all licenses and impose actions under s. 408.814 and a fine of $1,000 per day, unless otherwise specified by authorizing statutes, against each licensee until such time as the appropriate license is obtained for the unlicensed operation. (6) In addition to granting injunctive relief pursuant to subsection (2), if the agency determines that a person or entity is operating or maintaining a provider without obtaining a license and determines that a condition exists that poses a threat to the health, safety, or welfare of a client of the provider, the person or entity is subject to the same actions and fines imposed against a licensee as specified in this part, authorizing statutes, and agency rules. (7) Any person aware of the operation of an unlicensed provider must report that provider to the agency.
Conclusions This matter came before the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (the Commission) at a public meeting on July 11, 1997, in Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. It was alleged by Administrative Complaint that the Respondent had violated specified sections of Chapter 943, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 11B-27, Florida Administrative Code. In accordance with §§ 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1996 Supp.), a formal hearing was held on this matter, and a Recommended Order was submitted by an administrative law judge from the Division of Administrative Hearings to the Commission for consideration. Neither party filed exceptions to the Recommended Order, a copy of which is attached and incorporated herein by reference. The Commission, having reviewed the Administrative Complaint and the Recommended Order, and being otherwise fully advised in the matter, approves and adopts as its own the administrative law judge's findings of fact and conclusions of law as set forth in the Recommended Order. The Commission further approves the administrative law judge's recommendations without modification. It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent in this matter is hereby DISMISSED. This Final Order will become effective upon filing with the Clerk of the Department of Law Enforcement. A, SO ORDERED this 247” day of July, 1997. CRIMINAL JUSTICE STANDARDS AND TRAINING COMMISSION A a] Kb IQUO CHAIRMAN THIS ORDER CONSTITUTES FINAL AGENCY ACTION. ANY PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS ORDER HAS THE RIGHT TO SEEK JUDICIAL REVIEW UNDER SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE CLERK OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, P.O. BOX 1489, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32302- 1489, AND BY FILING A SECOND COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 9.110, FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE. SUCH NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE THIS ORDER IS RENDERED. NOTICE
