The Issue The issues are as follows: (a) whether Respondent violated Section 470.036(1)(t), Florida Statutes, by embalming a deceased human body without obtaining permission from a legally authorized person; (b) whether Respondent violated Section 470.036(1)(p), Florida Statutes, by refusing to promptly surrender custody of a dead human body upon the express order of the legally authorized person; and if so, (c) what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the licensed funeral director in charge for Marion Graham Mortuaries in Jacksonville, Florida. Catherine Gillis died at her home in Jacksonville, Florida, on August 6, 2000. Ms. Gillis was 70 years old at the time of her death. Patricia Stokes, Ms. Gillis's daughter, called 911 when she found her mother on the kitchen floor. Deputy Michael Williams from the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office responded to the call. Deputy Williams was unable to contact Ms. Gillis's doctor, Dr. David Badolato. The on-call physician in Dr. Badolato's office refused to sign off on the death certificate. Therefore, Deputy Williams called the Duval County Medical Examiner's Office, making contact with Deanna Webber, a forensic investigator. After Ms. Webber spoke to the medical examiner, she called Deputy Williams back. She told him that Ms. Gillis's body could be transferred to the funeral home of the family's choice but the body must be held until the personal physician made a commitment to sign the death certificate or the medical examiner inspected the body and signed the death certificate. Ms. Stokes, in consultation with her church sister, Ms. Theresa Williams, chose Respondent's funeral home to receive the body on the evening of August 6, 2000. Deputy Williams then contacted Respondent's funeral home, specifically stating that the body was to be held for inspection by the medical examiner in case the personal physician did not agree to sign the death certificate. River City Removal Service transported Ms. Gillis's body to Respondent's funeral home at approximately 7:30 p.m. on August 6, 2000. Even though Ms. Stokes had approved this transfer, she mistakenly believed that the medical examiner's office had taken the body to the morgue. On Monday, August 7, 2000, Ms. Stokes called the medical examiner's office to inquire about an autopsy on her mother's body and to instruct its removal to an establishment other than Respondent's funeral home. After the call, Ms. Stokes understood that an autopsy would not be performed at public expense and that Ms. Gillis's body was already at Respondent's funeral home. In the meantime, Willie Mae Albany arrived for work at Respondent's funeral home at approximately 9:00 a.m., on August 7, 2000. At that time, Ms. Albany's job included performing clerical duties. Respondent arrived at the funeral home about 10:30 a.m., on August 7, 2000. He knew there were three bodies that needed to be embalmed that day: (a) Dorothy Green, whose body had been received on Sunday, August 6; (b) Leonard Hopkins, whose family had signed a release and permission to embalm on Saturday, August 5; and (c) Jimmie Simpson, whose body had been received on Monday, August 7. Respondent was aware when he arrived at the office that there was no authorization to embalm Ms. Gillis. He instructed Ms. Albany to contact Eric Fleming, a freelance trade embalmer, to come in to embalm Ms. Green, Mr. Hopkins, and Mr. Simpson. Mr. Fleming was not an employee of Respondent's funeral home. Instead, he was paid by the case. Ms. Albany left several telephone messages for Mr. Fleming advising him about the three bodies that needed to be embalmed. She did not know exactly when he came to work, but she transferred a telephone call to Mr. Fleming in the embalming room at the funeral home about 11:30 a.m. Ms. Albany also contacted Dr. Badolato's office on the morning of August 7, 2000. After that telephone call, Ms. Albany understood that Dr. Joedrecka Brown would sign the death certification for Ms. Gillis. Ms. Albany then typed an Application for Burial-Transit Permit for Ms. Gillis. This form advises the county health department that someone has died and that a death certificate is forthcoming. Ms. Albany placed the burial-transit permit application on the counter where Respondent usually picks up the typed forms. Respondent signed the form on August 7, 2000, even though his signature on the form was dated August 9, 2000. Because her mother's body was already at Respondent's funeral home, Ms. Stokes decided to make funeral arrangements with Respondent instead of removing the body to another establishment. Thus, Ms. Stokes and her church sister, Ms. Williams, went to Respondent's funeral home around 4:00 p.m., on April 7, 2000, for an appointment with Respondent. Ms. Albany greeted Ms. Stokes when she arrived at Respondent's funeral home. Ms. Albany advised Ms. Stokes that Respondent was delayed and that he wanted her to begin filling out the paperwork. Ms. Albany then took Ms. Stokes and Ms. Williams to a conference room. Ms. Albany had a file containing the necessary paperwork. Ms. Albany sat with Ms. Stokes, identifying the documents in the file as she handed them to Ms Stokes. One of the documents in the file was an Authorization to Embalm form. After Ms. Albany explained the purpose of the form, Ms. Stokes signed it without asking any questions. Ms. Albany also presented Ms. Stokes with a Disclosure/Disclaimer form, a death certificate application, an arrangements form, and a newspaper release form. Ms. Stokes filed out these forms and signed each one that required her signature except for the funeral purchase contract. Ms. Albany did not discuss the funeral purchase contract with Ms. Stokes. Ms. Albany stayed with Ms. Stokes and Ms. Williams in the conference room for about 15-20 minutes. After leaving the conference room, Ms. Albany noticed that Respondent had arrived at the funeral home. Respondent arrived at the funeral home sometime before 4:40 p.m. Respondent first checked the reception counter where he found the completed burial-transit permit for Ms. Gillis. At that point, he knew that Ms. Gillis's body could be embalmed and that the family could proceed with the funeral service arrangements. Respondent began his meeting with Ms. Stokes and Ms. Williams at approximately 4:40 p.m. During the conference, Respondent reviewed all of the forms with Ms. Stokes, including her signed Authorization to Embalm form. In discussing the funeral arrangements, Ms. Stokes informed Respondent that she definitely wanted a formal visitation for her mother. Respondent knew that the embalming process needed to begin as soon as possible in order for the body to be presentable for formal visitation. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Respondent, and not Ms. Albany, escorted Ms. Stokes and Ms. Williams to the selection room to view caskets at approximately 5:00 p.m. Respondent left Ms. Stokes and Ms. Williams in the selection room and went next door to the embalming room to speak to Mr. Fleming. Mr. Fleming had just completed the embalming process of Mr. Hopkins. Respondent directed Mr. Fleming to begin embalming Ms. Gillis because her daughter had given permission. Respondent returned to the selection room 30 seconds later. Respondent proceeded with the embalming while Ms. Stokes was in the funeral home. He made this decision based on his knowledge that Dr. Brown would sign the death certificate, thereby releasing the medical examiner's hold on the body. He also had a written authorization from Ms. Stokes to embalm. The majority of Respondent's cases are embalmed before he obtains a signed funeral purchase agreement. Respondent, Ms. Stokes, and Ms. Williams returned to the conference room to discuss the funeral purchase contract, showing the prices for a graveside service and a church service. This discussion lasted another 30 to 45 minutes. Ms. Stokes did not sign the funeral purchase contract, in part, due to her concern about the quoted prices. She advised Respondent that she would have to consult with a relative regarding the costs of a graveside service or a church service. Before she left the funeral home, Ms. Stokes asked Respondent if he had done anything to her mother's body. Respondent replied that he had embalmed Ms. Gillis because by that time, the embalming process was more than half complete. It takes an average of one hour to one and one half hours to embalm a body. For a worst case scenario, it would take approximately three hours to embalm a body. Leonard Hopkins would have taken longer than average to embalm because he had been the subject of an autopsy. Ms. Stokes consulted with relatives upon returning home on the evening of August 7, 2000. The family decided that Respondent's prices were too high. Ms. Stokes contacted Respondent by telephone around 9:00 p.m. She instructed Respondent not to do anything else to her mother's body because she intended to retain the services of another funeral home. Ms. Stokes also wanted to know what she owed Respondent. Respondent replied that he did not have the papers in front of him but that the expenses were approximately $850 for transporting, embalming, and paperwork. Respondent did not overtly state or imply that he would not release the body until he was paid. The next morning, Tuesday, August 8, 2000, Ms. Stokes made arrangements with Toston-LaFrans Funeral Home to handle her mother's funeral. Ms. Stokes then went to Respondent's funeral home where Respondent's staff informed her that the expenses were $860. Respondent was not at the funeral home on the morning of August 8, 2000. He was not there when Ms. Stokes returned to the funeral home around 1:00 p.m. Ms. Stokes then made arrangements with Toston-LaFrans Funeral Home to have Ms. Gillis's remains removed to their facility and to pay Respondent. In the meantime, Ms. Albany advised Respondent that Ms. Stokes wanted the body moved to Toston-LaFrans Funeral Home. When Respondent could not reach Ms. Stokes by telephone, he contacted Mrs. Walker of Toston-LaFrans Funeral Home, informing her that he needed a signed release prior to the removal of the body. After that telephone call on August 8, 2000, Respondent understood that Ms. Stokes would sign a release at Toston- LaFrans Funeral Home before the body was transported. Sometime before 2:00 p.m., on August 8, 2000, the medical examiner's office confirmed that Dr. Brown would sign Ms. Gillis's death certificate. The medical examiner's office then contacted Respondent's funeral home to let them know that the hold on the body was lifted. On Wednesday, August 9, 2000, around 4:30 or 5:00 p.m., Toston-LaFrans Funeral Home called to advise Respondent that Ms. Stokes had signed a release. Respondent informed Toston-LaFrans Funeral Home that the body could be picked up anytime before the office closed at 6:00 p.m., or after that time if need be because Respondent would be working late that evening. Ms. Gillis's body was removed to Toston- LaFrans Funeral Home that evening after 6:00 p.m. Respondent paid Mr. Fleming by check on August 12, 2000, for embalming four bodies, including Ms. Gillis, on August 7, 2000.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 20th day of December, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles J. Pellegrini, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Miriam S. Wilkinson, Esquire McConnaughhay, Duffy, Coonrod, Pope & Weaver, P.A. 101 North Monroe Street, Suite 900 Post Office Drawer 229 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Sherry Landrum, Executive Director Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
Findings Of Fact Robert L. Brown is licensed as a funeral director and embalmer and Brown's Paradise Memorial, Chapel is licensed as a funeral establishment, and both were so licensed at all times here relevant. Vincent Foster was involved in an industrial accident at approximately 4:30 p.m. on Friday, August 13, 1982, while working on a building which collapsed. He was taken to Central Florida Regional Hospital, Sanford, Florida, where he was pronounced dead shortly after 6:00 p.m. The deceased was survived by his common-law wife of ten years, three children, mother and father, and several brothers and sisters. Vincent's brother, James Foster, resides in Sanford, Florida, as do his parents. James learned of the accident around 5:30 p.m., went to the construction site where he found the body had been taken to the hospital. He proceeded to the hospital, where his mother, Armetta Foster, had already arrived, and learned his brother was dead. He discussed funeral arrangements with his mother and they agreed they preferred Wilson-Eichelberger Funeral Home. That evening James called Eunice Wilson and left the message for her to call back. The following morning James went to his mother's house while awaiting the arrival of Vincent's common-law wife, Lelia May Dellafield. James and his mother agreed Lelia should make the decision about which funeral home to use. Lelia was the beneficiary of Vincent's insurance policy and was expected to pay for the funeral. Lelia tended towards Respondent's services and wanted to talk to Respondent about providing services. James then contacted Brown's assistant, Howard LaFair, and told him Lelia wanted to talk to Brown about picking up the body and conducting funeral services. James then went to the hospital where he was told an autopsy was in progress and it would be at least two hours before the body could be picked up. Leaving the hospital, he encountered LaFair in Brown's hearse and told him pickup of the body was delayed at least two hours due to the autopsy. The hospital subsequently released the body to Respondent without obtaining a release to do so from Vincent's surviving relatives. Saturday afternoon Brown came over to Lelia's apartment where James, his wife, and his mother were waiting. Upon his arrival Brown led them in prayer, following which he inquired who would be paying for the funeral services, and a general discussion followed. No specific terms were agreed upon. During this discussion Respondent told Lelia she should call him when the insurance agent arrived. Before leaving Brown advised them he would pick them up Monday to visit the casket house in Orlando to pick out a casket. Monday morning the insurance agent, who had recently sold Vincent a $5,000 life insurance policy with triple benefits for accidental death, came to Lelia's apartment and she called Brown, who came over. Brown asked questions about the policy and wanted the insurance agent to hand the policy to him. The latter refused to do so, saying the only one who could give him the policy was Lelia. When James Foster, who had left before the agent arrived, returned around 10:00 a.m., the agent had departed but Brown was still there and had possession of the policy. That afternoon Brown and his secretary took James, Lelia, and her brother to the Orange County Casket Company. Lelia was too upset to stay in the room with the caskets and remained outside while the other three looked at caskets. James testified that Brown selected the wood-grained casket stating he "wanted my boy [Vincent] to go out in style." Respondent testified that James picked out the casket and they told Lelia which one was selected and she agreed. They then returned to Sanford to Respondent funeral home where arrangements for the funeral were discussed. No contract was signed at this time. Exhibit 1, which is a contract for funeral services, preparation of body, supplies, etc., indicates it was approved by Lela[sic] Dellafield, However, Lelia testified that was not her signature. The signature on Exhibit 5, a subsequent contract with Wilson-Eichelberger funeral home was identified by Lelia as her signature. On Exhibit 5 the signature is "Lelia Dellafield." On Exhibit 1 the signature is "Lela Dellafield." Exhibit 1 first appeared when James, Lelia, and her brother returned to the funeral home from the casket house. The contract was first seen by James when he returned to the room after briefly leaving to go to the bathroom. Lelia was upset because Brown had not returned her insurance policy. When they returned to Lelia's apartment from the funeral home, Lelia told James that Brown still had her insurance policy and she wanted it back. Later that evening she told James she did not want Brown to handle the services. He advised her to so advise Brown on Tuesday. On Tuesday Brown received the word that Lelia wanted another funeral home to handle the funeral. His assistant, LaFair, telephoned Lelia to berate her for not using Brown. Respondent was out of town Wednesday when James went to the funeral home to get Lelia's insurance policy. However, Brown's secretary got Brown on the phone and James talked to him. He told Brown he wanted the policy back and he did not intend to allow Brown to take anything away from his brother's kids. Wilson-Eichelberger funeral establishment sent a car to Respondent's funeral home Wednesday to pick up Vincent's body, but LaFair would not let them have the body. He told them the funeral home was locked, Brown was out of town, and he, LaFair, would not release the body. By Wednesday evening Vincent's brothers and sisters had arrived, were told the events that had transpired, and all proceeded to the funeral home to find out why the body had not been released. Upon their arrival Brown was out of town and LaFair said he did not have a key to get in the funeral home. On Thursday the Fosters proceeded to the State Attorney's Office to instigate charges against Brown for refusing to release Vincent's body. Also on Thursday morning, Brown had returned to Sanford and telephoned Susan Foster, a Department of Professional Regulation Complaint Analyst, in Tallahassee, to inquire about his right to hold a body until he had received payment far his services. He was told by Ms. Foster that he was entitled to fees for services he had performed if such services had been authorized in writing but that he had no right to hold the body. Later that afternoon James Foster called Susan Foster requesting Petitioner's assistance in getting his brother's body released. After leaving the State Attorney's Office, the Fosters, accompanied by a TV news cameraman, proceeded to Respondent's establishment. Brown was present, as was James Golden, Brown's lawyer, who Brown testified he did not hire and did not know why he was at the funeral home on Thursday. Upon the arrival of the Fosters, Golden came out and told them Brown would only talk to Lelia Dellafield. However, the family was allowed in. During this time Lelia's policy was returned. Brown told them he wanted $3,400 for services he had performed before he would release the body. After some heated discussion Brown got up and went into his office. The others present, including Golden, thought Brown was going for a weapon and ran. Shortly thereafter Brown turned himself into the hospital with a nervous breakdown. Brown testified he called Wilson- Eichelberger on Thursday to come pick up the body but they told him they would not touch it because the state had become involved. Friday morning Brown called Winfred Burrell, a licensed funeral director. Burrell was not at home but his wife could get in touch with him and have him call Brown at the hospital. Burrell called Brown who asked Burrell to go to the funeral home and take over the job of getting the body released and to have the Fosters agree to pay for the services Brown had rendered. He gave Burrell full authority to act for Brown. Burrell arrived at the funeral home late Friday afternoon, met with the Fosters, and entered into an agreement with them to pay Respondent $300 for embalming the body and $45.00 each for two trips with the body, one from the hospital to the funeral home and one to the other funeral home. The body was delivered to Wilson-Eichelberger Friday night and the funeral was held Saturday. Lelia Dellafield has little recall of what took place immediately following Vincent's death. She does not recall specifically what she did and did not do. The only reason she maintained she did not sign Exhibit 1 is because that is not her signature on that document. In addition to the insurance policy, Lelia and her children are the beneficiaries of Vincent's worker's compensation. This is a $100,000 benefit which Lelia receives in biweekly installments from her lawyer and trustee. She has no idea how long these payments will continue. In addition to the triple indemnity insurance policy and the survivor's benefit from worker's compensation, the worker's compensation coverage also provided $2,500 for funeral services. The insurance carrier for the construction company for whom Vincent worked is Florida Farm Bureau Insurance Company (FFB). FFB paid the bill for services in the amount of $2,366.50 to Wilson-Eichelberger. Later FFB received a letter from the attorney for Lelia asking for payment of the $390 paid to Brown and FFB wrote to Brown asking if that amount was correct. FFB then paid the balance of the $2,500 (less the $2,366.50 paid to Wilson-Eichelberger) or $133.50 to Lelia. Upon receipt of the inquiry from FFB Brown prepared a bill for services performed for Vincent Foster in the amount of $1,170 and forwarded it to FFB for reimbursement (Exhibit 4). Brown testified he did not expect to get paid for the services listed in the bill, which included arranging, supervising, and conducting a funeral, but sent it in because FFB "asked him to."
Findings Of Fact Dale Woodward, the Respondent, holds Funeral Director's License No. 671 and Embalmer's License No. 536 at the present time, and during the times pertinent to 1978 and January through 1979. The Respondent Dale Woodward is the owner of the Dale Woodward Funeral Home of Holly Hill, Florida. The Dale Woodward Funeral Home holds an establishment operating License No. 123. During all times relevant to the allegations in the complaint, Ricky Charles Vyse and Richard G. McCafferty were employees of Dale Woodward and the Dale Woodward Funeral Home. In early 1978, one Howard McMurray made arrangements with Dale Woodward for his own funeral seven to eight months prior to his death. Mr. McMurray stated that he would prefer to have his funeral similar to that of his wife, which arrangements had earlier been handled by the Dale Woodward Funeral Home. On December 19, 1978, Howard McMurray passed away and his body was delivered to the Dale Woodward Funeral Home. On the morning of December 20, Violet Eggleston, his executrix, and her husband Raymond, came to the funeral home. Mrs. Eggleston was met by Mr. Woodward and Mr. McCafferty and introduced to Mr. McCafferty by Mr. Woodward. Although Mrs. Eggleston stated in her deposition (Exhibit 12) that she did not meet Mr. Woodward upon coming into the funeral home, she did state that he might have been painting or hanging wallpaper and that she would not have recognized him with painting clothes on and in fact Mr. Woodward's testimony establishes that he was painting the funeral home that day and was dressed in old clothes and his presence at the funeral home on that morning is corroborated by Mrs. Eggleston's later statement that Mr. Woodward introduced her to Mr. McCafferty at the time they began to discuss funeral arrangements. Mr. McCafferty was introduced to Mrs. Eggleston and obtained some information for the preparation of death certificates as well as for Mrs. Eggleston's desires regarding arrangements for funeral services. Mr. McCafferty also assisted Mrs. Eggleston on behalf of the family in making funeral selections from the Respondent's stock of caskets and urns. Mrs. Eggleston was not the person considered in sole charge of arranging for Mr. McMurray's funeral in that she was not the next of kin, rather the deceased's daughter Diana Keeley apparently had some responsibility in arranging for the funeral, although Mrs. Eggleston was primarily responsible for making the subject arrangements and indeed paid for the Respondent's services herself. Mr. McCafferty did not complete a sale of a casket or urn to Mrs. Eggleston, although she did select a salix casket that day. These preliminary negotiations and discussions of the funeral arrangements and the obtaining of a casket engaged in by Mr. McCafferty with Mrs. Eggleston were at the direction of Respondent Dale Woodward, the subject licensed funeral director, and Mr. McCafferty himself was not present at the funeral. On or about December 22, 1978, the same day, Mrs. Eggleston signed an authorization for the cremation of the body of Howard McMurray and he was subsequently cremated at the Cedar Hill Crematory in Daytona Beach, Florida. The body was removed from the casket in which it had been placed for viewing and was cremated in a cardboard cremation container, The value of that cremation container or the sales price, was substantially less than that of the $865 casket. Neither Mrs. Eggleston nor Diana Keeley, the decedent's daughter, ever gave any written instructions regarding the manner of cremation of the body of Howard McMurray as to the container which should be used, nor does the record reflect that any written instructions or understandings passed between these two ladies and Mr. Woodward or his employees. Mrs. Eggleston's instructions regarding the cremation were verbal and made no provision for the type container to be used in the cremation process. Ricky Charles Vyse was employed by the Dale Woodward Funeral Home on or about June, 1978. At that time, and at times subsequent thereto, he represented that he was qualified to embalm human bodies as an apprentice or intern embalmer in that he had submitted papers registering him for such internship to the Florida Board of Funeral Directors. Dale Woodward and Dale Woodward Funeral Home believed and relied upon that representation, thus permitting Ricky Vyse to assist or participate in embalming procedures. The Respondent Dale Woodward supervised any embalming procedures in which Ricky Vyse participated. Particularly, Dale Woodward did virtually all cosmetic work, including that in the cases involving the decedent, Howard McMurray, as well as with regard to the funeral and embalming of Mary Salvonge. Further, evidence adduced at the hearing revealed that Ricky Vyse had never actually been registered as an intern embalmer with the Board of Funeral Directors and the testimony of four of Respondent's witnesses revealed that Ricky Vyse had been detected on a number of occasions stealing office records and various items of property from the funeral home, including an embalming machine, a Beethoven bust, a desk globe, and other items. After repeated warnings, the Respondent Dale Woodward through his employees Franklin Muffley and Richard McCafferty terminated Ricky Vyse's employment. It was evident from the demeanor of Ricky Vyse on the witness stand that he was a disgruntled employee and hostile former employee of the Respondents, and that be approached the State Attorney in January, 1979 with accusations against Dale Woodward and the Dale Woodward Funeral Home involving violations such as those involved herein. The record reflects that no prosecution was initiated by the State Attorney's office. Franklin Muffley is the internal auditor and bookkeeper for the Dale Woodward Funeral Home. As such he is responsible for the billing in cases such as the McMurray case. It is his practice and custom to gather all figures and data regarding funeral arrangements, verify them and routinely mail a statement within approximately two weeks following a funeral service. In the McMurray case however, the executrix, Mrs. Eggleston, made payment on the day the funeral arrangements were made before any written itemization for funeral services to be rendered was finalized or verified by Muffley. As a result, after having been shown the salix casket priced at $865, she proceeded to pay for the casket, as well as for the other arrangements for a total of $1,785. The record is not clear whether Franklin Muffley or Richard McCafferty who were privy to the discussions of arrangements and price with Mrs. Eggleston that morning knew that the decedent would be cremated in a cardboard container. Dale Woodward, the Respondent in this case, did not learn of the fact that Mrs. Eggleston had been billed for the casket which was not used in the ultimate disposition of the body of Mr. McMurray until approximately three months later, in about March of 1979, when, as it was his regular custom and practice, he instituted his quarterly review of his business's billing and receipts. Having been closely acquainted with the McMurray family and being aware of the arrangements Mrs. Eggleston had requested for Mr. McMurray's funeral (i.e., cremation), Mr. Woodward detected an error in billing due to the charge for the casket which was not ultimately used except for display purposes. Mr. Woodward thereupon immediately made a refund to Mrs. Eggleston of $805 representing the price charged her for the casket less the $60 charge legitimately due and owing for the cardboard cremation container. Dale Woodward and Dale Woodward Funeral Home have been in operation and licensed approximately 25 years and have never been the subject of such complaints and charges heretofore. The Respondents Dale Woodward and Dale Woodward Funeral Home, as established by the four "character witnesses," enjoy a good reputation for truth and veracity in the community
Conclusions THIS MATTER came before the Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers (hereinafter referred to as the “Board”) pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(j), Florida Statutes, on March 11, 1997, in Miami, Florida, for consideration of the Recommended Order (a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference). The Petitioner was represented by Leon M. Biegalski, Esquire. The Respondent was duly notified of the hearing but was neither present nor represented by counsel at the Board meeting. Upon consideration of the Administrative Law Judge's Recommended Order, and the arguments of the parties and after a review of the complete record in this matter, the Board makes the following findings: EINDINGS OF FACT 14. The Administrative Law Judge’s Findings of Fact are hereby approved and adopted and incorporated herein by reference. 2. There is competent, substantial evidence to support the Administrative Law Judge’s Findings of Fact.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a funeral director and embalmer should be denied on the grounds set forth in the Board of Funeral, Cemetery and Consumer Services' March 1, 2019, Notice of Intent to Deny.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner, Charles Williams, born on February 12, 1976, attended Gumpton-Jones College of Funeral Service in Atlanta, Georgia, graduating in February 1998. Mr. Williams received his embalmer license in March 1999 and became a licensed funeral director on April 12, 1999. Mr. Williams was working as a licensed funeral director and embalmer at George H. Hewell and Son Funeral Home in Jacksonville when he was arrested in 2004 and charged with sexual battery under section 794.011(2)(a), Florida Statutes (2004), which makes a capital felony of an adult’s committing sexual battery upon, or in an attempt to commit sexual battery injuring the sexual organs of, a person less than 12 years of age. The facts alleged in the charging affidavit were that Mr. Williams committed the violation by putting his mouth on the penis of a person less than 12 years of age. Mr. Williams stipulated that his victim was an 11-year-old boy. On March 6, 2006, Mr. Williams entered a plea of nolo contendere to a charge of lewd and lascivious molestation against a victim less than 12 years of age, a life felony under section 800.04(5)(b), Florida Statutes (2006). The court adjudicated him guilty and sentenced him to 12 years in prison followed by 13 years of probation/community control upon release. His conviction under section 800.04 means that Mr. Williams is designated a sexual predator under section 775.21(4)(a), Florida Statutes. Mr. Williams testified on his own behalf via deposition. He described going to work part-time for Masters Funeral Home in Palatka in 1993, while he was still in high school. He washed cars, dug graves, and removed bodies for Masters Funeral Home while learning about the funeral business. He graduated high school in 1994, the same year he served a one-year apprenticeship at Masters Funeral Home. In 1995, Mr. Williams obtained an intern license for embalming. He served a one-year internship at Masters Funeral Home and then began his studies at Gupton-Jones College of Funeral Service in September 1996. He graduated with an associate of science degree on February 27, 1998. Mr. Williams returned to Palatka and applied for his funeral director intern license. In his deposition, Mr. Williams explained that the internship lasts one year. He performed the bulk of his internship at Masters Funeral Home. Mr. Williams also spent about one month at Hardage-Giddens Funeral Home in Jacksonville, part of the Service Corporation International chain of funeral homes. Mr. Williams described Hardage-Gibbons as an “assembly line.” He quit the job because he did not wish to employ his training working in a “factory.” He came back to Masters Funeral Home to complete his internship. Mr. Williams obtained his embalmer license in March 1999 and his funeral director license on April 12, 1999. For a time after receiving his funeral director license, Mr. Williams left the profession to work as a uniformed security guard at the Clay County Courthouse. In October 1999, Mr. Williams decided to join the United States Air Force because jobs were scarce in the funeral industry at that time. His initial enlistment was for four years but he lasted only six months. Mr. Williams testified that he did not disclose his homosexuality when he enlisted, but that word eventually got around that he was gay. Because this was during the period of the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, Mr. Williams was granted an entry level separation from the Air Force after completing basic and security forces training. From 2000 until late 2003, Mr. Williams worked at Moring Funeral Home in Melrose. He described it as a small, family-run funeral home at which he performed every conceivable service that a licensee could, including meeting with families, embalming, digging graves, and transporting bodies. He did whatever needed doing. In December 2003, Mr. Williams went to work for George H. Hewell and Son Funeral Home in Jacksonville, another family-owned funeral home. They had two funeral homes and were very busy, going out on over 400 calls per year. Mr. Williams worked there until November 2004, when he was arrested. Mr. Williams testified that he was sentenced in 2006 and served 10 years and three months of his 12-year sentence. Mr. Williams credibly testified that he was a model prisoner. He was released on November 15, 2015. Since his release, Mr. Williams has been on sex offender probation, and will remain so until November 15, 2028. The terms of sex offender probation are fully described at section 948.30, Florida Statutes. Mr. Williams wears a monitoring bracelet on his ankle, is required to participate in a sex offender treatment program, reports regularly to his probation officer, and is restricted in terms of his proximity to children and places where children regularly congregate. Mr. Williams is required to disclose his status to prospective employers. The evidence established that Mr. Williams has abided by all terms of his sex offender probation. Mr. Williams testified that his first job upon release was at Gator Communications Service in Gainesville, where he worked answering phones for several months. He next went to work for Kirkland Enterprises, a landscape company in Green Cove Springs. Mr. Williams worked for about 10 months at Kirkland Enterprises, then took a job with Roller Die + Forming, a metal fabrication plant in Green Cove Springs. Since mid-2016, Mr. Williams has worked as a receiver and forklift operator at KeHE Distributors, a distributor of organic foods. While he was incarcerated, Mr. Williams allowed his funeral director and embalmer licenses to lapse. On May 31, 2018, Mr. Williams submitted to the Board his application for a “Combination Funeral Director and Embalmer License by Florida Internship and Examination.” The Board deemed his application complete on June 27, 2018. On March 1, 2019, the Board denied the application for the reasons set forth in the extended quotation in the Preliminary Statement, supra. At the hearing and by deposition, several witnesses testified on behalf of Mr. Williams, attesting to his abilities as a funeral director, and more generally, as to his good character. Charles Miller is a receiving lead at KeHE Distributors, supervising about a dozen stockers. He has known Mr. Williams since May 2018. Mr. Miller is not Mr. Williams’s direct supervisor, but does oversee his work from time to time. Mr. Miller testified that Mr. Williams is conscientious, punctual, helpful, efficient, and diligent. He takes his job seriously and takes direction well. He is a good communicator, a “people person.” Mr. Miller stated that Mr. Williams has a clean work record and is one of the most popular members of the workforce at KeHE Distributors. Mr. Miller testified that he knows Mr. Williams wears an ankle bracelet. Mr. Williams told Mr. Miller that he had been incarcerated for a lewd and lascivious act, but did not say with whom or whether the victim was a minor. Mr. Miller did not press Mr. Williams for details. Mr. Miller’s wife, Ruth Ann Miller, also testified on behalf of Mr. Williams. Ms. Miller met Mr. Williams at the funeral of a person who had worked with her husband and Mr. Williams at KeHE Distributors. She also saw Mr. Williams at the funeral of his sister. On both occasions, she was impressed by his demeanor and helpfulness to the mourners, even at his own sister’s service. Ms. Miller stated that she does not know Mr. Williams well but that she could be his friend. She testified that Mr. Williams is attentive and “bubbly,” and has a way of putting people at their ease. Ms. Miller knew little about Mr. Williams’s criminal past. She knew he had been in prison and wore an ankle bracelet, but she did not know why. Eric Altman is a funeral director at Johnson Overturf Funeral Home in Palatka. He is a few years older than Mr. Williams and has known Mr. Williams since they were both children in the same small town, Bostwick. Mr. Altman did not interact much with Mr. Williams until the latter showed an interest in the funeral business as a teenager. Mr. Williams went to work for the “competition,” Masters Funeral Home in Palatka. They would run into each other and talk about the business. In 2001, Mr. Altman was working at a small funeral home in Green Cove Springs that he was hoping to buy. The home was shorthanded and Mr. Altman arranged for Mr. Williams to come to work there. Mr. Altman and Mr. Williams worked together for a few months. After this stint as a co- worker, Mr. Altman did not see Mr. Williams regularly. Mr. Altman testified that everything Mr. Williams did as a funeral director was appropriate. Mr. Williams showed initiative and ensured that things ran smoothly. Mr. Altman pointed out that a funeral is a bad place to make mistakes because people never forget them. A funeral director must pay close attention to detail, and Mr. Williams did that. Mr. Williams always made a good public appearance and was very compassionate, professional, and respectful. Mr. Altman noted that even now when he sees Mr. Williams in the public eye, he is always wearing a coat and tie, making the proper appearance. Mr. Altman testified that he had been aware that Mr. Williams went to prison for 10 years but did not have any firsthand knowledge of the facts of his case. Mr. Altman stated that he would hire Mr. Williams and would have no problems working with him. Mr. Altman stated that he could see from the beginning that Mr. Williams wanted to succeed in the funeral business. “It’s kind of in our blood . . . . It’s just not for everybody . . . . It has to be in you. You have to have the heart for it. And you want to succeed and do well and be well thought of in the community and the people you serve. And he has that.” Tony Sweat is a self-employed truck driver who met Mr. Williams when they both worked for Kirkland Enterprises in 2015 and 2016. Mr. Sweat was the lead foreman when Mr. Williams was hired as a driver and laborer. Mr. Sweat joked that as landscapers, he and Mr. Williams spent more time with each other than with their families. They became friends. After both men left Kirkland Enterprises, they stayed in touch by telephone but did not see much of each other, which Mr. Sweat attributed to their living in different towns. Mr. Sweat stated that he has only seen Mr. Williams two or three times in the last six months. Mr. Sweat testified that in January 2019, his mother- in-law died. He and his wife Summer had no clue how to even begin arranging for a funeral. Mr. Sweat knew that Mr. Williams had been in the funeral business and called him for advice. Mr. Williams recommended Masters Funeral Home in Palatka and accompanied the Sweats to the funeral home to assist them with the paperwork. He came to the funeral and was a support and comfort to Ms. Sweat. Summer Sweat testified that Mr. Williams was helpful, professional, supportive, and possessed a lot of technical knowledge regarding the funeral industry. He helped select the urn for her mother’s remains, set up a website for friends and family to make gifts in honor of the deceased, and did most of the speaking on behalf of the family at the funeral. Ms. Sweat testified that this was her only real exposure to her husband’s friend but that she was very happy with everything he did. Mr. Sweat testified that he spoke with Mr. Williams about his criminal conviction. Mr. Williams told Mr. Sweat that he had been charged with molesting a little girl. Mr. Williams said that he pled guilty but did not actually commit the crime. Mr. Williams used his homosexuality as an alibi, stating that he was a gay man and would never want to molest a little girl. Mr. Sweat believed Mr. Williams’s story. When counsel for the Board showed him the actual arrest affidavit, Mr. Sweat stated, “That’s crazy.” However, Mr. Sweat then defended Mr. Williams’s lack of candor. Mr. Sweat reasoned that Mr. Williams is gay, had just been released from prison for child molestation, and was going to work with “a bunch of roughnecks” at Kirkland Enterprises. It made sense that Mr. Williams would choose to shade his story in order to avoid ostracism, or worse, from a group of co-workers who are likely homophobic. Mr. Williams was not required to give his employer the full details of his criminal activity and understandably did not volunteer the true gender of his victim. Mr. Sweat concluded his testimony by stating, “I think y’all should give him a chance, maybe . . . I mean, the business side of it--like as far as handling funerals and stuff, I--he seems to thoroughly enjoy that and is pretty decent at comforting people.” Tiffany Desjardins is Mr. Williams’s immediate supervisor at KeHE Distributors. She testified that Mr. Williams is diligent, punctual, attentive to detail, and a hard worker. Ms. Desjardins attended the funeral of Mr. Williams’s sister. Though he was not working in any official capacity, Mr. Williams assisted the funeral director, Quincey Masters, in escorting and seating the family. Ms. Desjardins noted that Mr. Williams conducted himself in a professional manner. Ms. Desjardins stated that she would not hesitate to have Mr. Williams make final arrangements for her loved ones, even in light of his criminal past. She was aware that he went to prison, that his offense involved an 11-year-old boy, and that Mr. Williams is not allowed around children. Kale Cooper is the inbound supervisor at KeHE Distributors. He is Mr. Williams’s ultimate supervisor. Mr. Cooper also was aware of the details of Mr. Williams’s offense and also stated that he would not hesitate to have Mr. Williams assist in the burial or cremation of his loved one. Paul Roach is the head of maintenance at KeHE Distributors. He attended the funeral of Mr. Williams’s sister and was impressed by Mr. Williams’s professional manner under such difficult circumstances. Mr. Roach knew that Mr. Williams had been imprisoned for the sexual molestation of an 11-year-old boy. He nonetheless stated that he would hire Mr. Williams to conduct the funeral services of his wife, son, or daughters. Mr. Roach testified that he had already entrusted Mr. Williams with the remains of a loved one. When Mr. Roach’s mother died about three years ago, everyone in his family was “too brokenhearted” to retrieve her cremated remains from the funeral home in St. Augustine. Mr. Roach asked Mr. Williams to do it. Mr. Williams put on a suit, drove to St. Augustine, and made sure that the mother’s remains were safely delivered to the family. Jennifer Brown testified that in June 2016, her father died in a nursing home in Jacksonville. Ms. Brown’s daughter, Angie Knighten, had known Mr. Williams since childhood. Ms. Knighten immediately suggested to her mother that they call Mr. Williams for assistance in making the arrangements. Mr. Williams rode to Jacksonville with someone from the Masters Funeral Home to remove the body. Ms. Brown was impressed that Mr. Williams arrived wearing a suit and also by his professional manner. Mr. Williams assisted the family through the entire cremation process. Ms. Brown stated that she lacked the words to say how much she appreciated everything Mr. Williams did for her family. Ms. Brown did not know of Mr. Williams’s criminal history at the time of her father’s death. By the time of the hearing, she was aware of the details of Mr. Williams’s offense. Ms. Brown testified that, even knowing what Mr. Williams had done, she would still not hesitate to call on Mr. Williams to handle the final arrangements for her loved one. Angie Knighten, Ms. Brown’s daughter, also testified on behalf of Mr. Williams. She had known Mr. Williams when they were children and they remained friendly through their teen years. Mr. Williams went away for about ten years. Then, in 2016, Ms. Knighten met Mr. Williams while they were both working at Roller Die + Forming. Ms. Knighten asked Mr. Williams about the ankle bracelet he was wearing and he told her where he had been for the past ten years. Mr. Williams told her that he had been convicted of lewd and lascivious assault on a child. Ms. Knighten did not pry into details, but she did ask Mr. Williams if he did it. Mr. Williams told her that he did not, but that he went to prison rather than put the child through the ordeal of a trial. Ms. Knighten stated that this conversation occurred in about 2016 or 2017 and that she had not discussed the matter again with Mr. Williams. She conceded that she had no way of knowing whether Mr. Williams was continuing to deny culpability for his crime. Quincey Masters III is the owner and operator of Masters Funeral Home in Palatka and Interlachen. Mr. Masters is a second-generation funeral director and has been in and around the funeral business for his entire life. Though not formally proffered or accepted as an expert, Mr. Masters is clearly knowledgeable about all aspects of the funeral business. His opinion regarding the appropriateness of Mr. Williams’s re-entry into the profession is deserving of special consideration. Mr. Masters testified that he first saw Mr. Williams when Mr. Williams was about six years old. Mr. Williams’s grandmother had brought him to the Baptist church for a funeral in his little black suit. In about 1993, Mr. Williams approached Mr. Masters about coming to the funeral home to learn about the profession. Mr. Williams went to work for Masters Funeral Home while still in high school and was trained in the business there. Mr. Masters testified that Mr. Williams worked for him for at least two years after graduating from high school and before getting his funeral director license. Mr. Williams was separately licensed as an embalmer and, according to Mr. Masters, was very good at it. Mr. Williams made funeral arrangements and helped conduct funerals. Even after he obtained his funeral director’s license, Mr. Williams was willing to wash cars and answer the phone at the funeral home. Mr. Masters testified that the public never sees the majority of the work done in his profession: the dressing, cosmeticizing, and placement of bodies in caskets. Mr. Masters observed Mr. Williams performing these tasks and testified that he did them well. Mr. Masters stated that Mr. Williams excelled in the public aspects of the funeral director’s job. He was always very professional when working with the public. He was caring and well-dressed. Mr. Masters stated that family members are in a vulnerable state during a time of mourning. It is important that the funeral director show an appropriate degree of concern and understanding, and Mr. Williams never failed in that respect. Mr. Masters testified that Mr. Williams did a lot of body removals when he worked for Masters Funeral Home, even before he was licensed. The removal person goes into the home, nursing home, hospice, or worksite, and assesses the layout. He must determine the best way to remove the body with the proper respect, compassion, and tenderness, whether or not the family is present to witness the removal. Mr. Masters usually sends two people to do the job, but on out-of-town removals he might send only one. He recalled sending Mr. Williams alone to Gainesville at least once. Mr. Williams always showed the proper respect and was always available to go out on removal jobs when called. Mr. Masters was aware of Mr. Williams’s crime and conviction. In fact, Mr. Masters visited Mr. Williams in prison. Mr. Masters testified that he would have no problem working with Mr. Williams in any aspect of the funeral business. Mr. Masters testified as follows, addressing his words to Mr. Williams: I believe, beyond shadow of a doubt, that you should have the opportunity to be a licensed funeral director and embalmer. I believe you have a lot to offer, to give back I don’t believe the State would have to worry one bit about you. The public would be safe. And, in all candor, and as sincere as I can say it, I believe you would be an asset to the profession once again. Teresa Perez is a licensed mental health therapist with ITM Group in Gainesville. She is specifically trained in the treatment of sexual abusers. Ms. Perez has been Mr. Williams’s therapist for sex-offender treatment for the past two years. She testified that he has made progress and is currently in the “maintenance” phase of treatment, which will be completed in March 2020. Ms. Perez stated that only a minority of her clients achieve the maintenance level of treatment. Ms. Perez testified that Mr. Williams’s risk assessments show him to be in the lowest risk category for recidivism for a sexual offense. Mr. Williams has been administered the Rapid Risk Assessment for Sexual Offense Recidivism (“RRASOR”) static risk factor tool, the STATIC-99 test, and a dynamic risk factors test, all of which indicate a low potential for a repeated offense. Ms. Perez agreed with Board counsel’s statement that the RRASOR tool suggests that Mr. Williams is part of a group having an expected recidivism rate of seven percent within five years, and a recidivism rate of 11 percent over 10 years. Board counsel placed great emphasis on the risk posed by Mr. Williams as expressed by the 11-percent recidivism rate in the RRASOR testing. The undersigned is less troubled by that statistic because of the great confidence Ms. Perez placed in Mr. Williams’s progress in treatment. The undersigned reads the 11-percent recidivism rate not as an expression of Mr. Williams’s personal risk, but as a general statistic about the subjects of the RRASOR testing. The number does not mean that every individual in the group of 100 subjects has an 11-percent risk of relapse. Rather, it indicates that the group includes 11 men who are virtually certain to be repeat offenders, and 89 who in all likelihood will not commit a repeat offense. Based upon her professional qualifications and experience, Ms. Perez seemed sure that Mr. Williams would be one of the 89. The undersigned credits her opinion. Ms. Perez testified that Mr. Williams consistently engages meaningfully in treatment. He is self-disclosing and helpful to other members of his group therapy sessions. Ms. Perez stated that Mr. Williams has consistently acknowledged that he committed a sex offense in the past. She stated that the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Offenders has in recent years questioned the utility of requiring persons receiving treatment for sexual offenses to continue identifying themselves as “sex offenders.” If polygraph tests and continued monitoring during probation prove that the client is not engaging in negative behaviors and if therapy shows the client is addressing the roots of the issues influencing his choices, then it may be counter-therapeutic to insist that the client continue to identify himself as a sex offender. Ms. Perez believes that Mr. Williams meets these criteria. Ms. Perez testified that, in her professional opinion, Mr. Williams would not pose a risk to the health and safety of the public if he were to receive a license to be a funeral director and embalmer. Ms. Perez testified that Mr. Williams has taken full responsibility for his actions in molesting an 11-year-old boy in 2004. She was unaware that Mr. Williams had, outside of the therapeutic setting, denied committing the offense. Ms. Perez stated that she intended to discuss that issue with Mr. Williams and could adjust his course of treatment in light of their discussion. On his own behalf, Mr. Williams testified that he knows a lot more about himself, after 10 years in prison and ongoing therapy, than he did at the time of his offense. He noted that a funeral director deals almost exclusively with adults and that there is almost nothing a funeral director does that is outside of the public eye. He would never be with an unaccompanied minor when performing his duties. He believed there are no triggers in the funeral service profession that might cause him to relapse. Mr. Williams testified that he poses no danger to the public. Counsel for the Board points out that funeral directors meet with families to make funeral arrangements and in the course of performing their services come into contact with family members of all ages during times of extreme vulnerability. Though this point is valid, it does not undermine Mr. Williams’s contention that he would never be alone with a vulnerable child in the course of his duties. Counsel also notes that funeral directors may make contact with family and friends in the removal and transport of the deceased, although the evidence at the hearing established that no license is required to remove and transport a body. In summary, the Board has stipulated that Mr. Williams possesses the skills, knowledge, and technical qualifications for licensure as a funeral director and embalmer. Therefore, the only issues in this proceeding are Mr. Williams’s good character and whether granting him the license he seeks would create a danger to the public. Mr. Williams presented the testimony of friends, acquaintances, co-workers, current and former employers, fellow funeral directors, and his mental health therapist, who all recommended that Mr. Williams be granted licensure as a funeral director and embalmer. Mr. Williams’s entire criminal record consists of one crime, of an especially heinous nature, for which he faultlessly served his sentence and continues to comply with all terms of his probation. Mr. Williams’s personal demeanor at the hearing and his deposition testimony bespeak a man who has acknowledged his transgression, accepted his guilt, and seeks to continue repaying his debt. Twice after his release from prison, out of understandable shame and fear, Mr. Williams did not tell the full truth about his crime, once to an employer and once to an old friend. However, the evidence supports a finding that Mr. Williams has consistently acknowledged his guilt during therapy. Ms. Perez testified that it is not uncommon for an offender’s ability to relate the truth to persons outside the therapeutic setting to evolve over time. At the time of the hearing, Mr. Williams was forthright in stating that he had committed the act of lewd and lascivious molestation of an 11-year-old boy. Mr. Masters was a particularly impressive witness. His time in the industry and his lifelong knowledge of Mr. Williams combined to make his plea on behalf of Mr. Williams’s licensure moving and convincing. However, it was not just Mr. Masters but every testifying character witness who expressed complete confidence in Mr. Williams’s reformation and his ability to skillfully perform the duties of a funeral director. Even knowing that Mr. Williams had committed a terrible crime, witness after witness stated that they would, without hesitation, employ Mr. Williams to make the final arrangements for their loved ones. The undersigned noted how often witnesses told of Mr. Williams dropping whatever he was doing to help a friend with some funeral-related need--helping to arrange and host the service, picking up the body of a recently deceased relative, assuming responsibility for the safe transport of a loved one’s ashes--without thought of remuneration. Mr. Masters and Mr. Altman spoke in terms of the funeral business having to be in one’s blood. It is a calling, a vocation that is not for everyone. The evidence presented at the hearing made clear that Mr. Williams felt this calling from an early age, pursued it with diligence and vigor, and now seeks to resume his career in the funeral industry. Mr. Williams has demonstrated his reformed good character and that his licensure would not create a danger to the public. The undersigned finds that the Board should give him the opportunity to return to his profession.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that: The Board Funeral, Cemetery and Consumer Services enter a final order granting Petitioner's application for licensure as a funeral director and embalmer. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of September, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of September, 2019.
