The Issue The Administrative complaint dated September 19, 1994, alleges that Respondent, a licensed class "D" security officer, violated section 493.6118(1)(j), F.S. by committing a battery on or about January 28, 1994. The issue is whether that violation occurred and, if so, what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this action, Respondent, Ivan Machiz, was licensed as a class "D" security officer, license number D91-19035, by the Department of State, Division of Licensing, pursuant to chapter 493, F.S. The proceeding at issue is the only disciplinary action in evidence against Mr. Machiz' license. On January 28, 1994, Mr. Machiz visited Jameryl Curley at her apartment in Tampa, Florida. Mr. Machiz and Ms. Curley had been roommates. Mr. Machiz sought to recover his claimed possessions, including some chairs and a French racing bicycle. Ms. Curley told Mr. Machiz she had sold the items as payment for some delinquent bills and that he was not entitled to take them. He moved to take the bicycle and she hung on to it. The couple argued and struggled over the bicycle. In the struggle Mr. Machiz grabbed Ms. Curley and pinned her left arm behind her back, twisting it and causing her to cry for help. Benjamin Dobrin, who lived with his brother in the next door apartment and shared a back porch with Ms. Curley, answered the call and found Mr. Machiz on top of Ms. Curley, forcing her face-first into a couch or futon, and twisting her arm behind her back. Mr. Dobrin immediately returned to his apartment and called "911" for help. He then went back to Ms. Curley's apartment. By then, she was up and was holding on to the bicycle and Mr. Machiz was dragging it with her. She was crying and yelling, "Help, you're hurting me. Stop!" Mr. Dobrin and his brother stopped the bicycle and Mr. Machiz left. Deputy Chris Williams arrived shortly thereafter and found Ms. Curley upset and hyperventilating. After interviewing the Dobrins, Ms. Curley, and then Mr. Machiz (at his apartment in the next building), Deputy Williams arrested Mr. Machiz. He admitted that he put Ms. Curley in a wristlock because she was struggling against his attempts to recover what he claimed was his. He was not protecting himself or another from physical harm. At the criminal trial on one count of a battery charge, on March 24, 2994, County Judge Cynthia A. Holloway heard the testimony of the Deputy, Mr. Dobrin, Ms. Curley, and Mr. Machiz, and admonished that Mr. Machiz had no right to "self-help" recovery of his property, to go to someone's apartment to remove property over objection, and to "pulverize anybody to get that property back". (Respondent's exhibit #1, p. 20) The court withheld adjudication of guilt, and placed Mr. Machiz on six months probation, with the provision for termination after four months on the condition that he perform 25 hours of community service, pay court costs and write a letter of apology to Ms. Curley.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the agency enter its Final Order finding that Ivan Drew Machiz violated section 493.6118(1)(j), F.S., and imposing a penalty of $500 fine. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 13th day of March, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of March, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Don Bell, Esquire General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Richard R. Whidden, Jr., Esquire Dept. of State/Division of Licensing The Capitol MS-4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Ivan Drew Machiz 481 Hardendorf Avenue Atlanta, Georgia 30307
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto Respondent was a licensed dentist in Florida holding license number DN 0001025. Respondent graduated from Emory University Dental School in 1945, thereafter served two years apprenticeship with a practicing orthodontist before opening his own office in Coral Gables, Florida, where he practiced orthodontics for some 25 years before selling his practice and moving to the Tampa Bay area. Respondent is eligible for board certification. In November 1981 Respondent was working as an orthodontist at the Sheppard Dental Clinic in Seminole, Florida. On November 23, 1981, Valarie Rosenfeld went to Respondent to discuss orthodontic treatment to correct a deep overbite and severe overjet. At the time of this visit Miss Rosenfeld was 17 years old and had a severe Class II skeletal discrepancy with a 9.5 degree discrepancy between upper and lower jaws and an overjet of 12 mm. Respondent took some seven photographs of Miss Rosenfeld (Exhibit 2) showing generally the condition of her teeth and her facial profile. Be also took a cephalometric x-ray (Exhibit 3) and a panoramic x-ray (Exhibit 4) of Miss Rosenfeld. Respondent advised Miss Rosenfeld that it would be necessary to extract one tooth in her upper jaw and maybe a second tooth in order to improve her appearance. The purpose of this extraction was to make room in which to move the upper teeth to reduce the overjet. Respondent did not discuss surgery with Rosenfeld or fully explain to her the options available and the probable consequences of each of the options she may elect. Miss Rosenfeld has a thin maxillary bone which does not show up very well on the cephalometric x-ray taken due to a burnout in this x-ray at the location this fact could be determined. Absent adequate bone in which to move teeth it becomes very difficult to obtain much movement. In accordance with orders issued by Respondent Miss Rosenfeld's tooth number 12 was extracted by another dentist at a subsequent visit to the clinic. Respondent next saw Rosenfeld on December 16, 1981, when he put separators between her teeth to make room for bonds. Respondent intended first to install light wire braces to better level the teeth before this was replaced by heavier wire which would be tightened from time to time to move the upper teeth back and the lower teeth forward. Although he testified he planned to reduce the malocclusion using intrusion mechanics Respondent did not discuss with Miss Rosenfeld the headgear which she would have to wear at night during this process or fully explain the procedure to her. Following her December 16 visit, Rosenfeld was seen by a Dr. Bryant, an orthodontist who was replacing Respondent at the Sheppard Dental Clinic. Bryant saw Rosenfeld on December 22, 1981, when he fitted and cemented bonds on the teeth and put in the flexwire to level the teeth. She was next seen at the clinic on January 23 when Bryant religated the flexwire. The next visit on February 15, 1981, Bryant again religated the braces. Rosenfeld was last seen by Respondent on March 20, 1982, when he religated upper arch and observed lower arch. Rosenfeld was seen on April 24, 1982, by Bryant who advised her that three additional extractions would be required to correct the malocclusion. Rosenfeld then decided to obtain a second opinion before losing anymore teeth and went to see another orthodontist, John Harrison. When Dr. Harrison examined Rosenfeld he explained the three options available to her to wit: (1) do nothing, (2) attempt some movement of the teeth to reduce the overjet and overbite and (3) surgery. Dr. Harrison took additional x-rays and attempted to obtain the dental records from Sheppard's Dental Clinic but without much success. By this time Respondent no longer worked at Sheppard's and Harrison became quite frustrated by the lack of cooperation he got in attempting to obtain Rosenfeld's records. He received only the panoramic x-ray. Harrison made models of Rosenfeld's mouth, took cephalometric x-rays, made intra and extra-oral photographs and did quite a number of tracings from the cephalometric x-rays to better ascertain the misalignment of the upper and lower jaws. He discussed the various options with Rosenfeld and, at her request, commenced the mechanical intrusion needed to move the upper teeth back and the lower teeth forward. Harrison would not have extracted tooth number 12 because there is insufficient maxillary bone to allow much movement of the upper teeth or to fill the void created by the extraction. Harrison further opined that the orthodontic problem faced by Rosenfeld is wholly in the lower jaw and this can be fully corrected only by risky and expensive surgery. Attempting to correct the problem by retracting the upper teeth is, in his opinion, the wrong approach. He considers the entire problem is in the lower arch and retracting the upper teeth, which are satisfactory, to obtain a better alignment between the upper and lower teeth, simply creates another problem, viz. changing the existing good profile of the upper lip. Furthermore the thin maxillary bone in which the upper teeth are being moved is not adequate to accomplish much movement of the teeth and when the bonds are removed the upper teeth will likely return to their original position or close thereto. The cephalometric x-ray taken by Respondent on November 23, 1981, was overexposed in the part of the x-ray which would best show Rosenfeld's maxillary bone and thereby alert Respondent to the problem of moving the upper teeth. Dr. Harrison formed his opinion that Respondent's diagnosis and treatment of Rosenfeld was below minimum acceptable standards on his initial assumption (from the records he obtained from Sheppard's Dental Clinic) that the diagnosis and course of treatment were made with panoramic x-rays only. When he learned the day before the hearing that Respondent also had the benefit of the cephalometric x-ray, Harrison hedged his opinion and ultimately concluded that Respondent's diagnosis and course of treatment did reach minimal acceptable standards. Petitioner also called Dr. DeDominico, an orthodontist, who, at the request of Petitioner, examined Rosenfeld and her dental records. DeDominico concurred with Harrison that extraction of tooth number 12 was not indicated and it is unlikely the space vacated by the removal of that tooth can be closed by the movement of the other teeth on the upper jaw. DeDominico further opined that and adequate diagnosis could not be made from the x-rays taken by Respondent due to the "burnout" in this critical area of the cephalometric x-ray which concealed the thinness of Rosenfeld's maxillary bone. Failure to retake this x-ray before embarking on a plan of treatment that required an adequate maxillary bone for success, and that included an unnecessary extraction was, in his opinion, below the minimal acceptable standards for the dental profession. Respondent testified that his more than 20 years experience in orthodontics qualified him to properly diagnose Rosenfeld's problem without doing tracings from the cephalometric x-ray, and that he considered the cephalometric x-ray adequate for the diagnosis that was made. Further, extraction of tooth number 12 was necessary to provide space into which the upper could be moved to accomplish the retraction of the upper teeth desired. He did not explain the available options to Rosenfeld and never considered surgery as a viable option for the orthodontic problem presented by Rosenfeld. He also failed to apprise her of the full implications of the treatment he planned, such as headgear, for the mechanical intrusion or of the limited success to be expected from this procedure. Respondent's expert witnesses, whose depositions were received into evidence as Exhibits 9 and 10, both opined that the diagnosis and treatment of Rosenfeld by Respondent met minimum acceptable standards of the dental profession. One of these witness' credibility is somewhat tarnished by his testimony that the mandible can be induced to grow in an adult. Not only was this testimony deemed incredible by other expert witnesses but also even a layman generally understands that the skeletal structure does not continue to grow after maturity.
Findings Of Fact Some time before May 15, 1992, the Petitioner, Executive I & II, Inc., applied for licensure to operate as an adult congregate living facility (ACLF). (It had been, and is still, operating as a licensed boarding home.) The exact date of the application, or how long before May 15, 1992, the application was made, is not clear from the evidence. The facility operated by the Petitioner is the same facility that was the subject of Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) Case Nos. 90-3356 and 90-3791. Before and during the pendency of those proceedings, the facility was owned and operated by Kriscour, Inc., d/b/a Executive I & II. Kriscour, Inc., is a separate legal entity from the Petitioner. The sole owner and operator of the Petitioner was the sole owner and operator of Kriscour, Inc., until October 10, 1989, when he became a 49% owner of Kriscour and ceased all involvement in the operation of the facility. Throughout, however, he owned the real property operated by Kriscour and by the Petitioner. In DOAH Case No. 90-3356, HRS sought to revoke Kriscour's conditional ACLF license. While it was pending, Kriscour applied for renewal of the license, and HRS denied renewal. Kriscour initiated formal administrative proceedings, which became DOAH Case No. 90-3791. The two cases were consolidated at DOAH. Ultimately, they resulted in an HRS Final Order denying the renewal application and "cancelling" the conditional license. Kriscour appealed the Final Order to the District Court of Appeal, Second District of Florida, where it was given Case No. 91-00751. Kriscour obtained a stay of the Final Order and continued to operate the facility as an ACLF during the appellate proceedings. Meanwhile, on or about November 26, 1991, the Petitioner, Executive I & II, Inc., was formed and became licensed to operate the facility as a boarding home. The Petitioner made extensive renovations and improvements to the physical plant. At the same time, Kriscour continued to operate the facility as an ACLF. Ultimately, the appellate court upheld the Final Order. The court's Mandate, which operated to dissolve the stay, was entered on January 2, 1992. On or about that date, Kriscour ceased to operate the facility as an ACLF and began operating the facility as a boarding home. To date, the Petitioner has operated the facility exclusively as a boarding home.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order denying the application of the Petitioner, Executive I & II, Inc., for licensure to operate as an ACLF. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of October, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of October, 1992.
The Issue Whether Respondent's insurance license should be suspended or revoked because Respondent failed to disclose his criminal history on his insurance license application.
Findings Of Fact The Department has authority over licensing insurance agents pursuant to Chapter 626, Florida Statutes. At times pertinent Mr. Arleo was a resident of Pensacola, Florida. He holds a 220 General Lines (Property and Casualty) Agent license issued on February 27, 2001. The license he received was based on a license application he filed with the Florida Department of Insurance on January 30, 2001. Question three of the licensure and screening questions portion of the January 30, 2001, application inquired, "Have you ever been convicted, found guilty, or pleaded guilty or nolo contendere (no contest) to a felony under the laws of any municipality, county, state, territory, or country, whether or not adjudication was withheld or a judgment of conviction was entered?" Respondent answered this question in the negative. Question four of the licensure and screening questions portion of the application inquired, "Have you ever been convicted, found guilty, or pleaded guilty or nolo contendere (no contest) to a crime punishable by imprisonment of one (1) year or more under the laws of any municipality, county, state, territory, or country, whether or not adjudication was withheld or a judgment of conviction was entered?" Respondent answered this question also in the negative. Following the aforementioned answers, Mr. Arleo signed his name beneath a statement that reads as follows: "Under penalty of perjury, I declare that all answers to the forgoing questions are true. I understand that misrepresentation of any fact required to be disclosed through this application is a violation of the Florida Insurance and Administrative Codes and may result in the denial of my application and or the revocation of my insurance license(s)." Notwithstanding his responses on the application, the evidence indicated that Mr. Arleo, on September 30, 1986, pleaded nolo contendere to, and was adjudicated guilty of, one count of theft of property worth $100 or more, but less than $20,000, and one count of burglary of a structure or conveyance, in the Circuit Court of Escambia County, Case No. 86-2796. Both of the listed offenses are felonies in the State of Florida. Mr. Arleo was adjudicated guilty of the offenses. However, on January 6, 1987, pursuant to an Order of Modification, adjudication was withheld.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department revoke Mr. Arleo's license. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of November, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of November, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Steve Arleo 704 North 80th Avenue Pensacola, Florida 32506 Dana M. Wiehle, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to renewal of its standard license as a group home for the developmentally disabled.
Findings Of Fact For many years, Petitioner was a licensed group home under APD and filed its annual application for renewal of its license. The group home was known as Lindsey’s Group Home and was located in Cantonment, Florida. It was operated by Minnie Lindsey. Around October 1, 2007, Petitioner was again licensed by the Department as a group home caring for developmentally disabled persons. The license issued was Standard license #S- 1031. It expired on September 30, 2008. Petitioner and APD also entered into a Medicaid Waiver Services Agreement to provide services to disabled clients of APD under the Developmental Disabilities Home and Community Based Waiver program or the Family and Supported Living Program. Because of its contract with APD, Petitioner was issued a Medicaid provider number by the Agency for Health Care Administration. The Medicaid provider number permitted Petitioner to be paid for providing Medicaid qualified services to APD’s clients. By letter dated July 30, 2008, Petitioner was notified that APD was terminating the Medicaid Waiver Services Agreement with Petitioner. The effective date of the termination was August 29, 2008. The letter took no action against Petitioners’ license. As a result of APD’s termination of its contract with Petitioner, AHCA cancelled Petitioners’ Medicaid provider number. Both actions are in litigation in the Escambia County Circuit Court and the issues and evidence surrounding those actions are not relevant to this proceeding. On the other hand, the evidence was clear, and Petitioner admitted, that no application for renewal of Petitioners’ license was submitted to APD. Petitioner also admitted that she knew an application was required for license renewal. Given these facts, Petitioner is not entitled to renewal of its license as a group home since it failed to submit an application for renewal of its license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Petitioner is not entitled to renewal of its license and dismissing the Petition for Formal Administrative Hearing. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of August, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 19th day of August, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Jonathan Grabb, Esquire Agency for Persons with Disabilities Office of the General Counsel 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Minnie Lindsey Lamar’s Companion Service Corporation 1792 Terex Circle Cantonment, Florida 32533 John Newton, General Counsel Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 James DeBeaugrine, Executive Director Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950
The Issue The issues are: (1) whether Petitioner is qualified for a pari-mutuel wagering occupational license as a greyhound owner; and, (2) whether Petitioner is entitled to waiver of the provisions in accordance to Chapter 550, Florida Statutes (2004).
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at hearing, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner, Stephen M. Morris, submitted an application for a pari-mutuel wagering occupational license as a greyhound owner on or about February 24, 2005. On his application for a pari-mutuel wagering occupational license, Petitioner accurately reported that he had been convicted of the following three felonies: (1) possession and sale of a controlled substance, (2) trafficking in controlled substance (cannabis) in excess of 100 pounds, and (3) dealing in stolen property. The foregoing felony convictions were in or about 1976, 1984, and 1993, respectively, and were the result of offenses that occurred in Florida. Due to Petitioner's felony convictions, as noted in paragraph 2 above, his application for a pari-mutuel wagering occupational license was subject to denial. Consequently, on February 24, 2005, in addition to his application for a pari-mutuel wagering occupational license, Petitioner also requested that a waiver be granted so that he could obtain the license. Petitioner's application and his request for waiver did not include any information which would establish his rehabilitation or demonstrate that he has good moral character. As part of the Division's review of Petitioner's request for waiver, on or about April 5, 2005, Mr. Toner interviewed Petitioner. During the interview with Mr. Toner, Petitioner had the opportunity to present information that established his rehabilitation and demonstrated his present good moral character, but he did not produce such information. In light of the information regarding Petitioner's felony convictions, which are undisputed and included in Petitioner's application, Petitioner does not meet the eligibility requirements for the license which he seeks. By Petitioner's own admission, he was convicted of the felony offenses noted in paragraph 2 above. The number of felony convictions and the times that the offenses were committed, show a pattern of serious criminal behavior and recidivism. Petitioner may be rehabilitated and may have present good moral character. However, Petitioner did not testify at the final hearing and presented no evidence that he has been rehabilitated and has present good moral character. Absent from the record is any testimony from Petitioner or from Petitioner's friends, relatives, business associates, employers, or church members regarding Petitioner's good conduct and reputation subsequent to the date of his last felony conviction. In absence of any evidence that Petitioner has been rehabilitated and has present good moral character, the Division has no basis to grant Petitioner a waiver.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, enter a final order denying Petitioner, Stephen M. Morris', application for a pari-mutuel wagering occupational license and his request for waiver. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of December, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 30th day of December, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Stefan Thomas Hoffer, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Stephen M. Morris 162 Warren Avenue New Smyrna Beach, Florida 32168 David J. Roberts, Director Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
