The Issue The issues are whether Respondent should grant Petitioner an exemption from disqualification to be licensed to operate a family day care home pursuant to Subsection 402.310(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2004).
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the agency responsible for licensing and regulating day care homes in the state. Petitioner seeks a license to operate a family day care home. Respondent is statutorily required to complete a background screening clearance for Petitioner as a condition of license approval. The background screening revealed an arrest on September 19, 1997, for a misdemeanor charge of simple battery defined in Section 784.03, Florida Statutes (1997). The arrest arose from an incident of domestic violence in which Petitioner struck her partner (spouse) with a wet floor mop. The solution included bleach. No serious injury resulted from the incident. The county court withheld adjudication and fined Petitioner $193. Petitioner eventually paid the fine.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order withdrawing the disqualification of Petitioner and proceed with the application for license. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of March, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 14th day of March, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack Emory Farley, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 4720 Old Highway 37 Lakeland, Florida 33813-2030 L. W. (Address of record) Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Respondent Nina Diamond has taken care of other people's children at least since 1961. As long as the law has required such registration, her residences have been registered as home day care centers. In addition, she has taken care of more than 150 foster children. Five or six years ago she obtained an emergency shelter family home license for the first time. After routine annual renewals, the question arose whether one Thomas Floyd Mash was sharing the licensed premises, a house at 2139 Faulk Drive in Tallahassee, with her. Mr. Mash, who was convicted in 1987 of armed robbery and kidnapping, Respondent's Exhibits Nos. 7, 8 and 9, spent time in prison and is now on probation. On March 29, 1991 Mr. Mash and Ms. Diamond purchased the house at 2139 Faulk Drive, taking title and giving a mortgage together in both their names. Respondent's Exhibits Nos. 5 and 6. Ms. Diamond and her family furnished the down payment, but her income was (and remains) too low to borrow the money secured by the mortgage by herself. At least until November of 1991, Mr. Mash helped with mortgage payments. When they bought the house, Mr. Mash, Ms. Diamond and her son, a middle schooler, moved in. In late November of 1991, Mr. Mash rented a room in Beth Edwards' home, and Ms. Diamond told HRS personnel that he had moved out. Until recently, petitioner told probation officers that Mr. Mash, who receives his mail at 2139 Faulk Drive, lived with her, while assuring HRS that he did not. Since November of 1991, Cathy Asbell has seen Mr. Mash at 2139 Faulk Drive with some frequency, including on or about September 4, 1993, in the late afternoon. Martha Salas assumed he lived there, so often did she see him when she dropped off three-year-old Esmerelda between eight and ten o'clock evenings, on her way to work. She last saw him at the house two to three weeks before the hearing. Ms. Diamond herself testified that he was wont to come for one- to three-hour visits afternoons, straight from driving the dump truck he is hired to operate. HRS counsellors Rosina Roberts Butler and Irene Ruth Adams (who has since taken other employment) saw Mr. Mash at 2139 Faulk Drive toward the end of 1991 and the beginning of 1992. He was at the house every Saturday morning Ms. Adams came by. Mid-day January 28, 1993, Ms. Butler saw Mr. Mash enter the house and make sandwiches for five or six children Ms. Diamond was caring for at the time. Among Mr. Mash's obligations as a probationer has been a duty to keep the authorities apprised of a current address. He has consistently given 2139 Faulk Drive as his address, before and after December 9, 1991, the only pertinent date on which he gave any other address. Probation officers found him at the house on several occasions. On July 22, 1993, a probation officer saw him driving away from the house at quarter past six o'clock in the morning.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That HRS deny petitioner's application for relicensure as an emergency shelter family home. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of December, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 6th day of December, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-2035 Petitioner's proposed finding of fact No. 1 has been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to petitioner's proposed findings of fact Nos. 2 and 3, it was not clear how long the room was rented for or that Mr. Mash ceased to reside at 2139 Faulk Drive while the room was rented. Respondent's proposed findings of fact Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 have been adopted, in substance, insofar as material. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 5, it was not proven that petitioner represented herself as Mr. Mash's wife. Respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 7 pertains to a subordinate matter. With respect to respondent's proposed finding of fact No. 10, it was not clear how long the room was rented for or that Mr. Mash ceased to reside at 2139 Faulk Drive while the room was rented. COPIES FURNISHED: Marc E. Tapps, Esquire Legal Services of North Florida, Inc. 2119 Delta Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4220 Charles A. Finkle, Esquire District Legal Counsel 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2949 Robert Powell, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Kim Tucker, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issues in this case concern whether the Respondent is entitled to renewal of her license to provide residential services for persons who are developmentally disabled.
Findings Of Fact Introductory and background facts At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent provided, and was licensed to provide, residential services for persons who are developmentally disabled. The Respondent provided these services in a group home where she had from 4 to 6 clients at any one time. From time to time representatives of the Department would identify deficiencies in the way the Respondent was providing the residential services. Typically, the Department would advise the Respondent of specific deficiencies following a visit to the Respondent's group home. The Respondent would often take steps to correct the identified deficiencies, but some deficiencies tended to occur again and again. The Department attempted to work with the Respondent to help her remedy deficiencies and to help her prevent future deficiencies. Eventually, on February 25, 1999, the Department advised the Respondent by letter that it did not intend to renew her license to provide residential services for persons who are developmentally disabled. The Department's letter of February 25, 1999, advised the Respondent that the "quality of care by your facility does not meet the minimum licensure standard[s] as specified in Chapter 10F-6," and went on to list a number of specific concerns under the major categories of "Administration" and "Health and Safety." The concerns itemized in the letter were as follows: Administration Records of expenditure from individual residents' accounts are not maintained. Lack of accountability of client's personal allowances. Inappropriate use of client's personal allowance. Inadequate receipts for client's expenditures. Incomplete employee files. Employees without personnel files. Health and Safety Clients locked inside the house without supervision. Gate/Entrance chained. Lack of evidence of all night supervision. Clients left unsupervised during a week- end. Inadequate food supply. Clients' lack of access to food. Food prepared away from residence. Menus not posted. The letter also advised the Respondent of her right to request an administrative hearing if she wished to contest the Department's proposed course of action. After some initial difficulties complying with the Department's requirements, the Respondent's group home (which had been moved from its original location without sufficient notice to the Department) was issued a conditional license on January 1, 1998, followed by a standard license issued on March 1, 1998. The standard license was valid for one year from the date of issuance. In March of 1998 when the standard license was issued, conditions at the Respondent's group home appeared to be satisfactory. For the first few months following the issuance of the standard license, the Department did not have any significant concerns about the manner in which the Respondent's group home was being operated. The Respondent appeared to be responsive to suggestions by Department personnel and appeared to be trying to work with Department personnel to operate her group home in a proper manner. From March through most of June of 1998, there were no major problems at the Respondent's group home. The incident on June 27, 19982 On June 27, 1998, an incident occurred at the Respondent's group home that caused the Department a great deal of concern. On that day, at approximately 4:30 p.m., Mr. L. N. arrived at the Respondent's group home, in Boynton Beach, Florida, to visit his son who is mentally retarded. He was unable to enter because the gate to the fence surrounding the home was chained and locked. He observed some of the group home residents in the front yard and others in the house. Still unable to enter the gate later when he returned, Mr. L. N. telephoned police. Road Patrol Officer Susan Gitto responded. At approximately 6:45 p.m., Officer Susan Gitto arrived at the group home and climbed the fence. One of the men at the group home kept pointing to the house next door, north of the group home. Officer Gitto found no one on the premises other than the six mentally handicapped men who were in their pajamas and inside watching television. Based on information from Mr. L. N., Officer Gitto telephoned the responsible agency, the Department of Children and Family Services (DCF). A DCF case worker supervisor, Anna Glowala, arrived at the group home at approximately 9:00 p.m. She described the residents as nervous. Most of them were functioning at a level below the ability to respond to emergencies, that is, unable to telephone 911 or to evacuate in case of a fire. Ms. Glowala prepared a preliminary report on her findings at the group home. Sometime after 9:00 p.m., a woman who identified herself as Elvira Brown arrived with a key to the group home. She intended to take care of the clients that evening, but was sent away by Officer Gitto, who also left the home soon after that. At approximately 12:45 a.m., on June 28, 1998, Ms. Glowala's supervisor, William D. Shea, arrived at the group home. Mr. Shea relieved Ms. Glowala and stayed with the residents for the rest of the night. The six adult residents, according to Mr. Shea, were lower functioning and non-verbal. At 6:15 a.m., a woman who identified herself as Sharon Butler arrived to cook breakfast and supervise the residents. She assured Mr. Shea that she was an employee of the group home and would remain at the group home until the licensed operator returned from an out-of-town trip. After he left, Mr. Shea asked Ms. Glowala to continue to monitor the group home by telephone until the operator returned. Mr. Shea did not check the woman's identity or determine whether she was, in fact, a qualified employee, as required by DCF. Mr. Shea testified that a group home operator may leave properly screened employees to relieve them when they are absent. The screening includes fingerprinting for police background checks. DCF witness, Sue Pearlman Eaton, received the report of the incident on June 30, 1998. On July 1, 1998, she initiated an investigation by visiting the group home. When she arrived, she found one resident in the front yard sleeping on a lawn chair, and others inside watching television. One resident took her to a room in response to her request for help finding the owner/operator, but no one was there. She noticed where five of the six residents of the home were located, and what they were doing. After approximately twenty minutes to a half hour, Ms. Pearlman-Eaton observed the operator coming into the house. She was angry and said she had been in the backyard with the sixth resident feeding her dogs. She told Ms. Pearlman-Eaton that she hired Ms. Butler to stay at the group home during her previous weekend trip to Tampa. The operator reported that she left at approximately 12 o'clock noon on Saturday, and that Ms. Butler was present when she left. Ms. Pearlman-Eaton also questioned Ms. Butler, as a part of her investigation. As she apparently confirmed, Elvira Brown, Ms. Butler's cousin, was supposed to stay at the group home from 2:00 p.m. until 10:00 p.m., while Ms. Butler worked at another job. According to Ms. Pearlman-Eaton's report, Ms. Brown telephoned Ms. Butler and told her that her work at the group home was completed between 6:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m., and that the residents were in bed. The report indicated that Ms. Brown stated that Ms. Butler asked her to help by feeding the residents and getting them ready for bed. Then she was to lock the gate and leave. Based on Ms. Butler's statement to Ms. Pearlman-Eaton that the group home owner/operator Mrs. V. R. T. approved Ms. Butler's plan to have Ms. Brown serve as an interim caretaker, the investigators concluded that both of them were perpetrators of abuse by neglecting clients who require 24-hour supervision. DCF failed to present the testimony of either Ms. Brown or Ms. Butler at the hearing. Therefore, the testimony of Mrs. V. R. T. and her credibility could not be weighed against that of any other person with direct knowledge of the incident on June 27, 1998. Ms. Pearlman-Eaton's report noted that the group home clients and facility were neat and clean, with no clients "acting out" or appearing to be in distress. Prior to the time that the group home owner/operator came in from the backyard on July 1, 1998, Ms. Pearlman-Eaton did not look in the backyard or hear a car arrive. She also did not determine whether or not there were dogs in the yard. During Ms. Pearlman-Eaton's questioning of Ms. Butler, Ms. Butler told her that she also worked at the Flamingo Clusters, another facility licensed by the State to provide developmental services. Clients of Flamingo Clusters are more severely handicapped than those at the V. R. T. group home. Ms. Pearlman-Eaton was initially investigating Ms. Butler and Ms. Brown. She added the group home operator to the neglect report, after she waited for her for up to a half an hour after arriving, on July 1, 1998, to conduct her investigation. While she was waiting to find Mrs. V. R. T., her report indicates that Mrs. Pearlman-Eaton telephoned Anna Glowala, the case work supervisor. She was advised by Ms. Glowala that ". . . it was not necessary for residents to be in eye range of the supervisor continually and its [sic] okay for them to be left alone for no more than 1/4 hr." Anna Glowala also noted the condition of the group home when she stayed with the clients. She remembered there were two large dogs, one a Rottweiler, in the backyard. She also saw a pathway between the two adjacent houses, the group home and the house next door, which is owned by the owner/operator's husband. Ms. Glowala also saw laundry and other items on a sofa in the garage where the owner/operator claims that she sleeps. The garage area also included a refrigerator, washer and dryer. Kay Oglesby, a DCF senior case manager, testified that she had previously warned the owner/operator that the gate to the fence should not be locked and that the residents needed constant supervision. She believed that during her first year supervising the facility, the owner/operator and her husband occupied a master bedroom in the group home. After DCF requested that they take in two additional clients, in May 1998, the owner/operator said she moved to the garage. Ava Kowalczyk, a DCF Human Services Program Specialist, confirmed that only screened and approved employees may work in a group home. The owner/operator has the responsibility for assuring that group home employees are qualified. She expressed concern that the owner/operator may have left the residents with her husband before he was properly trained. Ms. Kowalczyk described the cluttered condition of the sofa in the garage as inconsistent with Mrs. V. R. T.'s assertions that she sleeps in the garage. Finally, DCF employee Martin J. Fortgang confirmed the need for adequate supervision and the DCF's determination that inadequate supervision constitutes neglect. The group home owner/operator, the Respondent, Mrs. V. R. T., testified that two years ago she married her husband, who had lived next door for 18 years. While he lived with her in the group home, her husband's house next door was leased. She knew she was required to live on the premises and testified that she has done so, initially in the master bedroom. After accepting two more clients, on an emergency basis after another group home closed, she moved to the garage. Her husband has apparently moved back to his home next door. In March 1998, Mrs. V. R. T. submitted to DCF, as confirmed by Ava Kowalczyk, the names of her husband, Sharon Butler, and another employee for screening and approval. The document included fingerprints and a police report, which showed that Ms. Butler had a prior arrest for armed burglary. Mrs. V. R. T. denied ever giving permission for Elvira Brown to substitute for Sharon Butler. Although Sharon Butler had numbers to reach Mrs. V. R. T. by pager and cellular phone, and at her hotel in Tampa, Mrs. V. R. T. denied that Ms. Butler ever telephoned her for approval to leave Ms. Brown at the group home. Despite her arrest record, the documents which Mrs. V. R. T. submitted and received from DCF appear to confirm that Ms. Butler was an acceptable employee. One memorandum labeled a "Routing and Transmittal Slip" dated 3/31/98 states: Per your request, I have processed the Transfer of Request Form for Sharon Butler. Please see enclosed printout and Transfer form. Please maintain the [sic] these in your personnel files. The record indicates that Mrs. V. R. T. received written notice that Sharon Butler was not an approved caretaker on July 16, 1998. In contrast to the apparent approval form of March 31, 1998, the notice on July 16, 1998, from Ava Kowalczyk asserted that: This is to document my visits to your house on June 30, 1998 and July 2, 1998. At that time you informed us that for a year you have had an employee Sharon Butler, who acts as caretaker in your absence. This employee did not meet basic standards of licensing requirements. Ms. Butler's file consisted of her fingerprint card and local law enforcement checks completed on her on or about March 31, 1998. This was the first time you brought to our attention that you employed someone other than yourself and your husband. Considering the contents of the Routing and Transmittal Slip attached to the documents dated March 31, 1998, it was reasonable for Mrs. V. R. T. to believe that Sharon Butler was an approved employee. One section on the Request for Transfer of Records indicates that Ms. Butler was approved for dual employment at the group home and another facility, having had her screening originally completed on October 3, 1994. DCF has failed to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Mrs. V. R. T. knew that Sharon Butler was not properly screened and approved on June 27, 1998, when she left her in charge of the group home. DCF has also failed to demonstrate that Mrs. V. R. T. knew or approved of plans for Sharon Butler to leave the group home clients in the care of Elvira Brown while she was out-of-town. Other problems at the Respondent's group home On some occasions the Respondent would lock the doors of the group home while the clients were inside. When she did so, she would leave the door keys on top of the television set inside the group home.3 On some occasions the Respondent would lock the gate in the fence around the group home property while clients were on the property. The Department usually made monthly review visits to the Respondent's group home. Some of the problems noted during these monthly reviews are described in the paragraphs which follow. During the review visit on June 30, 1998, some of the food for the clients was stored away from the group home premises, and was not readily available to the clients. Specifically, no drinks or snacks were readily available for the clients that day. The required 5-day supply of food was not present on the premises, and the food that was present did not correspond to the menu. During the review visit on August 26, 1998, there were errors in the personal allowance logs of the clients. Also, on this date once again the food supplies did not correspond to the menu. During the review visit on September 22, 1998, the personal allowance logs of the clients were not up to date. Specifically, there were no receipts, there was no documentation of the personal allowance received by any of the clients, and there was no documentation of the SSI/SSA benefits received by any of the clients. Once again, the food supplies did not correspond to the menu, and there were inadequate food supplies for a hurricane emergency. During the review visit on October 28, 1998, the personal allowance logs for the clients were again incomplete. Receipts for client expenses were missing, and there was inadequate documented information about the expenses. There were no menus posted on this day. Also, the gate to the fence around the Respondent's group home was chained shut when the Department personnel arrived. This condition was of particular concern to the Department personnel, because the chained gate was an obstruction to any emergency evacuation of the group home. During the review visit on November 20, 1998, the personal allowance logs for the clients were again incomplete and inadequate. Again, receipts were missing. Again, the food present at the group home was insufficient to constitute the required 5-day supply of food. Again, no menus were posted. Also, on this occasion the meals for the clients were being prepared next door, rather than in the group home, as required. All of the clients at the Respondent's group home were developmentally disabled adult males. All of the clients functioned at a very low developmental level. Some were just barely verbal. Clients at this level of disability need constant supervision while they are in the group home. They cannot be left unsupervised without exposing them to serious risk of harm to their well-being. Even at night when such clients are sleeping, a responsible, appropriately trained, adult must be present in the group home to provide supervision and assistance if one of the clients wakes up in the night and needs direction or assistance.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services District issue a Final Order in this case denying the renewal of the Respondent's group home license. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 2000
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is entitled to the renewal of his license to operate an adult family-care home.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Petitioner has operated an adult family-care home at 7128 North 50th Street in Tampa. Petitioner owns this home with his cousin. In anticipation of the expiration of his license on September 29, 2006, Petitioner filed with Respondent an application for renewal on May 23, 2006. Renewal applications prompt annual survey inspections, so, after the receipt of Petitioner's renewal application, one of Respondent's surveyors visited the home and performed an annual survey inspection. She noted items that required a follow-up inspection, so, on August 3, 2006, one of Respondent's surveyors returned for the follow-up inspection. Respondent's surveyor was met at the door by Sherille Guider, who stated that she was the caregiver. The surveyor asked to see Petitioner, but she told her that Petitioner did not live at the house, although she showed the surveyor the locked room that belonged to Petitioner. When asked to produce certain routine documents, the caregiver replied that she did not have access to such documents, as they were in the locked room of Petitioner and the caregiver did not have a key. Petitioner appeared a short time after the surveyor's arrival and produced the requested documents. There is some dispute as to whether he offered to show his room to the inspector, but his testimony is unrebutted that he kept a room, with clothes and toiletries, for his exclusive use at the home. He claimed that he resided at the home, although he admitted that did not spend every night there. Subsequent investigation revealed that Petitioner and his wife, from whom he has been separated for two years, claim a different residence within Hillsborough County as their homestead property. Also, Petitioner's driver license currently bears the address of the home, but, at the time of the incident, bore the address of his homestead property. The same appears to be true of the certificate of title to his motor vehicle. Petitioner testified that he originally planned to operate the home as his fulltime job, but was unable to generate enough money doing so. He has since found employment as a certified nursing assistant and often works the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift. Four or five months prior to the follow-up inspection, Petitioner had hired Ms. Guider to serve as a caregiver at the home. In return for her services as a caregiver, Petitioner rented a room in the home to her at reduced rent. Petitioner allowed her boyfriend also to move into a room, but required a background screening on him, as well as on Ms. Guider. After several delays, the boyfriend completed his form, and, after submitting it, Petitioner learned that the boyfriend had a criminal record. Petitioner demanded that the boyfriend move out. Eventually, Petitioner had to summon law enforcement officers to eject the man. This episode preceded the follow-up inspection. Ms. Guider's hearsay statement to Respondent's surveyor appears to be the strongest evidence on which Respondent is relying in this case. However, for the reason noted above, Ms. Guider was unhappy with Petitioner. Even before her boyfriend had been ejected from the home, Ms. Guider had approached Petitioner's two residents with a plan for her to start her own adult family-care home and for them to move into it. Ms. Guider's short period of employment with Petitioner terminated one day when, without notice, she asked a friend of Petitioner to drive her to the airport so she could fly home to Chicago. She did and never returned. For all these reasons, Ms. Guider does not appear to be a reliable source of information as to Petitioner's place of residence. Petitioner testified that he resides at the home. A friend of 20 years, who also operates an adult family-care home, testified that she visits Petitioner's home regularly and knows that he resides there. Petitioner's claiming of homestead exemption at another address is less evidence of his primary residence and more evidence of his carelessness or fraud in maintaining current information with the Hillsborough County property appraiser's office. The old addresses shown on the driver license and certificate of title are of little importance in determining Petitioner's residence, given the other evidence establishing the home as his residence and his subsequent updating of the addresses in these official records.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order granting Petitioner's application to renew his adult family-care home license. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of April, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 16th day of April, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard J. Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Craig H. Smith, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Dr. Andrew C. Agwunobi, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3116 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Kenneth A. Donaldson 7128 North 50th Street Tampa, Florida 33617 Gerald L. Pickett Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive Sebring Building, 330K St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
The Issue The issues are whether, pursuant to section 393.0673(1), Florida Statutes (2018), Respondent, which holds a license to operate a group home facility, was identified in a verified report by the Department of Children and Families (DCF) as the perpetrator of exploitation of a vulnerable adult, failed to disclose on a renewal application a perpetrator of "the . . . abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult" (Maltreatment),1 and allowed a new employee to begin working at the group home before completing all of the background screening requirements; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed against Respondent's license.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, as authorized by the License, Respondent, a Florida not-for-profit corporation, has provided services to intellectually disabled persons residing at the Group Home. At all material times, Respondent's directors have been Etha Griffith, her daughter Kim Griffith, and Francis Griffith. The record does not disclose if Respondent has any members. Etha Griffith, who is 79 years old, serves as an officer and the onsite manager of the group home, for which Kim Griffith and Francis Griffith serve as the backup managers or supervisors of the Group Home. Petitioner presented no admissible evidence in support of Count I. Prominent among the excluded evidence is the Verified Report, as to which Petitioner failed to demonstrate its relevance, as explained in the Conclusions of Law, or its authenticity, given that it is unsigned and bears other indicia of an investigation that, although closed, was never completed.5 In support of Count II, Petitioner introduced the Application,6 which was filed on November 12, 2018. Etha Griffith7 completed the Application by providing the information requested on Petitioner's application form, which serves a natural person or legal entity who or that is an applicant or licensee seeking the issuance or renewal of a group home facility license (Application Form). Etha Griffith signed the Application as Respondent's designated representative, and her signature was notarized on November 8, 2018. The Application states the answer, "no," to the question posed in Section V, Item 2: "Have you or ownership controlling entity affiliated with this application ever been identified as responsible for the abuse, neglect, or abandonment of a child or the abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a vulnerable adult?" For several reasons, Petitioner failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence the material facts in support of Count II. First, "no" was correct because the question refers to a determination, not allegation, of Maltreatment. The Application Form does not define "identified," whose common meaning is not "alleged," but "established,"8 such as after a completed investigation. As explained in endnote 5, the evidence fails to establish that DCF determined that Etha Griffith is the perpetrator of Maltreatment. Second, even if there had been a determination of Maltreatment in the Verified Report by November 12, 2018, "no" was not a willful or intentional misstatement or a false statement because neither Etha Griffith nor any other agent of Respondent knew about the Verified Report or DCF's determination of Maltreatment--and not for a lack of inquiry. Aware that an investigation had taken place during the summer of 2018, in October 2018, Kim Griffith contacted the DCF protective investigator who had conducted the investigation and asked for any findings. The investigator returned to her, not the Verified Report, but a Notice of Conclusion, stating only that the investigation was "complete" and "closed," and DCF had recommended no additional services. Etha Griffith has never received a copy of the Verified Report. No agent of Respondent knew anything about the Verified Report until preparing for the hearing in this case. On these facts, Etha Griffith and Respondent's other agents had no reason to think, as of November 12, 2018, that DCF had determined that Etha Griffith had perpetrated Maltreatment. Third, even if, by November 12, 2018, Etha Griffith were aware that DCF had determined that she had perpetrated Maltreatment, the failure to disclose this fact or the Verified Report was not material. An audit of the Group Home by Petitioner led to DCF's protective investigation, and the findings of the protective investigation, such as they were,9 implied that any misappropriation involved substantially smaller sums than those specified in the audit.10 Knowledge of the audit findings would thus include knowledge of the protective investigation findings. Fourth, as discussed in the Conclusions of Law, "no" is correct because, in the question posed in Section V, Item 2, "you" refers to the applicant or licensee, and "ownership controlling entity affiliated with this application" does not effectively refer to Etha Griffith. The Application Form does not define these terms. Items 1, 3, and 4 also contain questions posed to "you." The questions in Items 1 and 3 alternatively address a "controlling entity affiliated with this application," so, except for dropping "ownership," the questions in Items 1 and 3 are directed to the same addressee as is the question in Item 2. The question in Item 4 is directed only to "you." All four of these items frame questions seeking potentially important information about past license discipline and adverse action involving the Medicaid and Medicare programs.11 Judging from her testimony at the hearing, Etha Griffith possesses modest language skills. Given the level of analysis required to determine the meaning of "you" and "ownership controlled entity affiliated with this application," Etha Griffith could not possibly have understood that the question in Section V, Item 2 addressed her. The two key issues in Count III are whether Ms. Meliard was an employee or a covered volunteer, as defined in the Conclusions of Law, and, if so, whether she had completed her local screening. Ms. Meliard did not testify, nor did Petitioner direct any questions to Kim Griffith as to Count III. Petitioner's investigator testified that, upon his unannounced arrival at the Group Home at 2:05 p.m. on January 1, 2019, he found Ms. Meliard "seated in a chair by the front window," presumably in a common area of the house, such as a living room. Tr., p. 63. Ms. Meliard was alone in the Group Home, as the residents typically returned from their day programs around 3:00 p.m. Tr., p. 63. On the investigator's arrival, Ms. Meliard called Etha Griffith, who arrived at the Group Home very shortly after the call. Tr., p. 64. On her arrival, Etha Griffith told the investigator that she was "trying to give [Ms. Meliard] a job." Tr., p. 64. The testimony recited in this paragraph is credited. Petitioner's witnesses were in conflict as to the screening that Ms. Meliard had cleared. Petitioner's operations management consultant testified that Ms. Meliard had not cleared level 1 or 2 screening. Tr., p. 44. Petitioner's investigator testified to the same effect, but immediately corrected himself by saying that she had cleared Level 2 screening, but not local screening. Tr., pp. 65-66. Petitioner is unable to produce documentary evidence of screenings because this material is confidential, even in hearings of this type, according to Petitioner's counsel. Tr., p. 46. When asked if Ms. Meliard had cleared her level 2 screening, Etha Griffith testified, "That is the one we got, yeah." Tr., p. 95. No one asked Etha Griffith directly if Ms. Meliard had not yet passed her local screening. In a clear-and-convincing case, no finding is possible based on the negative implication inherent in Etha Griffith's statement. Her modest communication skills and laconic communication style betray a lack of mental acuity, so no inference is possible by Etha Griffin's use of the definite article, "the." A personnel file, which may be opened for a candidate for employment, typically contains evidence of a local screening, which comprises an inquiry to the relevant local law enforcement agency and a response from the agency. Tr., p. 83. Proof of a failure to obtain a local screening thus depends on a negative-- the absence of documentation in the personnel file. Unable to recall clearly whether he had seen evidence of a level 2 screening, Petitioner's investigator testified that he recalled not seeing evidence in Ms. Meliard's personnel file of clearing the local screening. Tr., p. 83. The testimony on the issues of employment and local screening is too vague and uncertain to support findings by clear and convincing evidence that, on January 10, 2019, Ms. Meliard was employed by Respondent and had not passed her local screening. The investigator presented himself as exceptionally capable and articulate, but nothing in the record suggests that he investigated with any diligence the employment or local screening issues involving Ms. Meliard.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Persons with Disabilities enter a final order finding Respondent not guilty of all counts set forth in the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of November, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 26th day of November, 2019.
