The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner should be allowed to take the examination for licensure as a life and health insurance agent in the state of Florida despite the fact that Petitioner conducted business in this state as a life and health agent under a nonresident license when in fact he was a resident of Florida, and after his Virginia resident license had been canceled.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner filed an application with Respondent for examination and licensure as an ordinary life and health insurance agent on or about February 24, 1986. His application indicates he is a resident of Florida, and had been a resident for one year and three months at the time he filed his application. In response to a question about licensure in other states, the application states, "License in Virginia 1976 to present." From November, 1984 until April 25, 1986, Petitioner conducted business as an ordinary life and health insurance agent in the State of Florida under a nonresident license issued to him in November, 1984. During this time, he sold one hundred and twenty-five insurance policies in the State of Florida on a full- time basis, and there is no evidence he sold any policies in Virginia. On his application for nonresident licensure in October, 1984, Petitioner indicated he was licensed in Virginia, and would be active in the insurance business in Florida for two months per year. Petitioner was licensed as a life and health insurance agent in Virginia from April 13, 1979 to July 9, 1985, at which time his license was canceled without prejudice for nonpayment of required annual renewal fees. Since November, 1984 Petitioner has resided permanently in the Tampa area, although when he initially arrived in Florida he did not know if he would remain permanently. At all times material hereto, Petitioner has worked as an insurance agent for Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company. From November 24, 1984, he worked out of the company's Tampa office, and prior to that time he worked out of their office in Roanoke, Virginia. Mutual of Omaha transferred company records regarding Petitioner to Tampa on November 24, 1984. According to Petitioner, it was his understanding that the Roanoke office of Mutual of Omaha would take care of paying his annual license renewal fees in Virginia. Ken Boulden, Assistant Vice President for Licensing at Mutual of Omaha, confirmed that some of the company's local offices pay their agents' license fees, but this is not a general company policy, and he could not confirm whether this was the policy of the Roanoke office. It does not appear that Petitioner intentionally falsified his application of February 24, 1986 regarding his license status in Virginia. He first learned of the cancellation of his Virginia license on April 25, 1986, and up to that time assumed that Mutual of Omaha's Roanoke office was taking care of the payment of his annual renewal fees. Petitioner correctly completed his February 24, 1986 application by indicating he had been a resident of Florida for one year and three months. In view of this, however, Petitioner did not timely file his application for examination and licensure since he worked exclusively, and on a full-time basis, in Florida from November, 1984 to April 25, 1986 under a nonresident license. He has not conducted insurance business in Florida since April 25, 1986, pending the determination of this case. On or about August 5, 1986, Respondent notified Petitioner of its intent to deny his application for examination and licensure based upon the facts set forth above, and Petitioner timely filed his request for a hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order approving Petition's application for examination and licensure filed on or about February 24, 1986. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of December, 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32381 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of December, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-3723 Rulings on Respondent's Findings of Fact: 1,2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary, and outweighed by other competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2,4,5. COPIES FURNISHED: George Jesse Bailey 5505 Pine Forest Ct. #101 Tampa, Florida 33615 David G. Poucher, Esquire Department of Insurance and Treasurer Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable William Gunter State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Don Dowdell, Esquire General Counsel The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue Whether the Petitioner is barred by the doctrine of res judicata from maintaining its challenge to rule 59A-4.128, Florida Administrative Code, which governs the evaluation and rating of nursing homes, as an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Based on the representations of counsel at the hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Advantage Therapy and Nursing Center (Beverly Health and Rehabilitative Services, Inc.) is the licensee of a nursing home in Fort Pierce, Florida. Rule 59A-4.128, Florida Administrative Code, governs the evaluation and rating of nursing homes in Florida. The rule provides: 59A-4.128 Evaluation of Nursing Homes and Rating System. The agency shall, at least every 15 months, evaluate and assign a rating to every nursing home facility. The evaluation and rating shall be based on the facility's compliance with the requirements contained in Sections 59A-4.100 through 59A-4.128, of this rule, Chapter 400, Part II and the requirements contained in the regulations adopted under the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1987 (Pub. L. No. 100-203) (December 22, 1987), Title IV (Medicare, Medicaid, and Other Health Related Programs), Subtitle C (Nursing Home Reform), as amended and incorporated by reference. The evaluation shall be based on the most recent licensure survey report, investigations conducted by the AHCA and those persons authorized to inspect nursing homes under Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes. The rating assigned to the nursing home facility will be either conditional, standard or superior. The rating is based on the compliance with the standards contained in this rule and the standards contained in the OBRA regulations. Non-compliance will be stated as deficiencies measured in terms of severity. For rating purposes, the following deficiencies are considered equal in severity: Class I deficiencies; Class II deficiencies; and those Substandard Quality of Care deficiencies which constitute either immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety or a pattern of or widespread actual harm that is not immediate jeopardy. Further for rating purposes, the following deficiencies are considered equal in severity: Class III deficiencies; and those Substandard Quality of Care deficiencies which constitute a widespread potential for more than minimal harm to resident health or safety, but less than immediate jeopardy with no actual harm. Class I deficiencies are those which present either an imminent danger, a substantial probability of death or serious physical harm and require immediate correction. Class II deficiencies are those deficiencies that present an immediate threat to the health, safety, or security of the residents of the facility and the AHCA establishes a fixed period of time for the elimination and correction of the deficiency. Substandard Quality of Care deficiencies are deficiencies which constitute either: immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety; a pattern of or widespread actual harm that is not immediate jeopardy; or a widespread potential for more than minimal harm, but less than immediate jeopardy, with no actual harm. Class III deficiencies are those which present an indirect or potential relationship to the health, safety, or security of the nursing home facility residents, other than Class I or Class II deficiencies. A conditional rating shall be assigned to the facility: if at the time of relicensure survey, the facility has one or more of the following deficiencies: Class I; Class II; or Substandard Quality of Care deficiencies which constitute either immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety or a pattern of or widespread actual harm that is not immediate jeopardy; or if at the time of the relicensure survey, the facility has Class III deficiencies, or Substandard Quality of Care deficiencies which constitute a widespread potential for more than minimal harm to resident health or safety, but less than immediate jeopardy, with no actual harm and at the time of the follow-up survey, such deficiencies are not substantially corrected within the time frame specified by the agency and continue to exist, or new Class I or Class II or Substandard Quality of Care deficiencies which constitute either immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety or a pattern of or widespread actual harm that is not immediate jeopardy are found at the time of the follow- up survey. A facility receiving a conditional rating at the time of the relicensure survey shall be eligible for a standard rating if: all Class I deficiencies, Class II deficiencies, and those Substandard Quality of Care deficiencies which constitute either immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety or a pattern of or widespread actual harm that is not immediate jeopardy are corrected within the time frame established by the AHCA and all Class III deficiencies and those Substandard Quality of Care deficiencies which constitute a widespread potential for more than minimal harm to resident health or safety, but less than immediate jeopardy, with no actual harm are substantially corrected at the time of the follow-up survey. A facility receiving a conditional rating at the time of the relicensure survey shall not be eligible for a superior rating until the next relicensure survey. A standard rating shall be assigned to a facility, if at the time of the relicensure survey, the facility has: No Class I or Class II deficiencies and no Substandard Quality of Care deficiencies which constitute either immediate jeopardy to resident health or safety or a pattern of or widespread actual harm that is not immediate jeopardy, and Corrects all Class III deficiencies and those Substandard Quality of Care deficiencies which constitute a widespread potential for more than minimal harm to resident health or safety, but less than immediate jeopardy, with no actual harm within the time frame established by the AHCA. A superior rating shall be assigned to a facility, if at the time of the relicensure survey, the facility has received a standard rating and meets criteria for a superior rating through enhanced programs and services as contained in (7) of this Section. In order to qualify for a superior rating, the nursing facility must provide at least three enhanced programs or services which encompass the following areas: Nursing services. Dietary or nutritional services. Physical environment. Housekeeping and maintenance. Restorative therapies and self help activities. Social services. Activities and recreational therapy. In order to facilitate the development of special programs or facility wide initiatives and promote creativity, these areas may be grouped or addressed individually. In establishing the facility's qualification for a superior rating, the AHCA survey team will use the Rating Survey and Scoring Sheet, Form No. AHCA 3110-6007, Nov., 1994, incorporated by reference, and may be obtained from the Agency for Health Care Administration. Upon initial licensure, a licensee can receive no higher than a standard license. After six months of operation, the new licensee may request that the agency evaluate the facility to make a determination as to the degree of compliance with minimum requirements under Chapter 400, Part II, F.S., and this rule to determine if the facility can be assigned a higher rating. Nursing facilities will be surveyed on this Section of the rule beginning March 1, 1995. Advantage Therapy filed a petition pursuant to Section 120.56(1) and (3), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996), challenging the validity of existing rule 59A-4.128 and asserting in paragraph five of the petition: Rule 59A-4.128, F. A. C., as applied to the issuance of conditional licenses, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority in that it is vague, fails to establish adequate standards for agency decisions, and vests unbridled discretion in employees of the agency, and violates . . . [Section] 400.23(8)(h) which requires that the agency have uniform procedures in place for the evaluation of nursing homes. Advantage Therapy focuses its challenge on the Agency's alleged failure to interpret or apply the rule in a manner consistent with the federal rules relating to nursing homes adopted pursuant to the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 and on alleged inconsistencies in the interpretation and application of the provisions of the rule by the Agency and by the various Agency survey teams which are responsible for identifying and classifying deficiencies in nursing homes. In a Final Order entered July 16, 1996, Administrative Law Judge David M. Maloney concluded that proposed rule 59A-4.128 was not an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority in a challenge brought by the Florida Health Care Association, Inc. Florida Health Care Association, Inc. v. Agency for Health Care Administration, DOAH Case Number 95-4367RP (1996). No appeal was taken from this Final Order. The Florida Health Care Association's challenge to proposed rule 59A-4.128 was brought pursuant to Section 120.54(4), Florida Statutes (1995), which provided in subsection (a) that "any substantially affected person may seek an administrative determination of the invalidity of any proposed rule on the ground that the proposed rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority." "Invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority" was defined in Section 120.52, Florida Statutes (1995), as follows: "Invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority" means action which goes beyond the powers, functions, and duties delegated by the Legislature. A proposed or existing rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority if any one or more of the following apply: The agency has materially failed to follow the applicable rulemaking procedures set forth in s. 120.54; The agency has exceeded its grant of rulemaking authority, citation to which is required by s. 120.54(7); The rule enlarges, modifies, or contravenes the specific provisions of law implemented, citation to which is required by s. 120.54(7); The rule is vague, fails to establish adequate standards for agency decisions, or vests unbridled discretion in the agency; or The rule is arbitrary or capricious. Florida Health Care Association's challenge to proposed rule 59A- 4.128 was brought pursuant to this 1995 definition of "invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority." Advantage Therapy's challenge to existing rule 59A-4.128 was brought pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996), which provides that "[a]ny person substantially affected by a rule or a proposed rule may seek an administrative determination of the invalidity of the rule on the ground that the rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority." Section 120.56(1)(a), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996). Sections 120.56(2) and (3), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996), include special provisions which apply to challenges of proposed rules and to challenges of existing rules, respectively. In Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996), the legislature added to the five bases included in Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes (1995), two new bases for finding that a proposed or existing rule constitutes an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority : The rule is not supported by competent substantial evidence; or The rule imposes regulatory costs on the regulated person, county, or city which could be reduced by the adoption of less costly alternatives that substantially accomplish the statutory objectives. Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996). Advantage Therapy's rule challenge does not implicate either of these two new bases for finding that a proposed or existing rule is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority; rather, it asserts that "[t]he rule is vague, fails to establish adequate standards for agency decisions, or vests unbridled discretion in the agency." Section 120.52(8)(d), Florida Statutes (1995 and Supp. 1996).2 The party challenging either a proposed or an existing rule pursuant to Sections 120.54(4) or 120.56, Florida Statutes (1995), was required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the proposed rule was an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Agrico Chemical Co. v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 365 So. 2d 759, 762 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978). In Section 120.56(2)(a), the legislature changed the allocation of the burden of proof in challenges to proposed rules, but no change in the allocation of the burden of proof is included in Section 120.56(3) with respect to challenges to existing rules. Beverly Health and Rehabilitation Services, Inc., which does business as Advantage Therapy, is, and was at the time of the challenge to proposed rule 59A-4.128, a member of the Florida Health Care Association, Inc. The language in proposed rule 59A-4.128 is identical to the language in existing rule 59A-4.128.
The Issue The issue in this case is how the Board of Nursing (Board) should discipline the Respondent’s registered nurse license for: pleading guilty to two counts of larceny-grand theft of a controlled substance, which were third degree felonies under section 812.014(2)(c)13., Florida Statutes1/; pleading nolo contendere to possession or use of narcotic equipment, a first degree misdemeanor under section 893.147(1), Florida Statutes; pleading nolo contendere to larceny-petit theft, a second degree misdemeanor under section 812.014(3)(a), Florida Statutes; and failing to report the criminal violations to the Board within 30 days.
Findings Of Fact In April 2014, the Respondent became licensed to practice as a registered nurse in Florida. He holds license RN 9381249. He also has a certified nursing assistant license, which he has held since 2009. From November 2014 until January 2015, the Respondent was working as a registered nurse at Sarasota Memorial Hospital. While working there, he diverted controlled substances for his own use. Specifically, he was putting Percocet pills prescribed for, but not used by, patients in his pocket and taking them later himself for pain. The Respondent was found out, fired, arrested, and charged with criminal violations. In August 2015, the Respondent entered pleas of: guilty to two counts of larceny-grand theft of a controlled substance, third degree felonies in violation of section 812.014(2)(c)13.; nolo contendere to possession or use of narcotic equipment, a first degree misdemeanor in violation of section 893.147(1); and nolo contendere to larceny-petit theft, a second degree misdemeanor in violation of section 812.014(3)(a). The Respondent was sentenced to a 14 month-long drug court program (which included random drug sampling), probation, fees and costs, and was prohibited from practicing as a nurse while he was on probation. Adjudication was withheld. The Respondent did not report his pleas and convictions to the Board in writing. He testified that he thought the Board had sufficient notice because an unidentified representative of the Board was present at the plea hearing and asked the judge to have the Respondent repeat the pleas so they could be properly and clearly recorded for use in a license discipline proceeding, and because he telephoned the Board soon after the incident and was told to stop practicing nursing. The Respondent successfully completed the drug court program and probation, and fulfilled all other conditions of his pleas and sentences. The Respondent acknowledged that his diversion of controlled substances from his place of employment was wrong, a mistake, and showed poor judgement.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Nursing enter a final order: finding the Respondent guilty of violating sections 456.072(1)(x) and 464.018(1)(e); reprimanding him; fining him $500; requiring IPN evaluation and treatment, if necessary; and assessing the costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of February, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 6th day of February, 2017.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found: By an administrative complaint dated December 15, 1978, respondent was charged with unprofessional conduct in violation of Florida Statutes, Section 464.21(1)(b). The respondent timely requested an administrative hearing which was granted. The envelope which contained the request for hearing was mailed from Buffalo, New York, but the return address was 717 Breakers Avenue #3, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, with the notation "Note: Address Change." All future correspondence was sent to this address, including the notice of hearing dated May 16, 1979. The hearing was scheduled to commence at 9:30 a.m. At approximately 9:50 a.m., the hearing proceeded without the appearance of the respondent. On July 20 and 21, 1978, the respondent Miller was employed as a registered nurse on the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift at Cypress Community Hospital in Pompano Beach, Florida. At 3:55 a.m. on July 21, 1978, respondent signed out for 75 milligrams of injectable Meperidine (Demerol), a Class II controlled substance, for patient Frank Mantovi, and then walked into the patient's room with the substance. Another registered nurse on duty, Oletta Jones, observed that the patient was sleeping at the time. Nurse Jones called her supervisor, Anita Johnston, and they awakened the patient and inquired whether he had requested or received any medication for pain. He replied in the negative. The patient appeared oriented and alert, and his vital signs were stable and not indicative of receiving 75 milligrams of Demerol. The administration of Demerol was not charted on the patient's medication record, as it should have been had it been administered. Nurses Jones and Johnston then confronted respondent Miller in the nurses' lounge. At first respondent told them that she had administered the Demerol intermuscularly, but then said she had given it by I.V. push. The doctor's order sheet for patient Mantovi contained a notation for 75 milligrams of Demerol administered intermuscularly as needed for pain every three hours. There is nothing to authorize an I.V. introduction of this medication. It is not acceptable or prevailing nursing practice for a nurse to alter the mode of administration prescribed by the physician. After talking with respondent, patient Mantovi's vital signs were again checked. There was no indication that he had received Demerol. Respondent was then asked to leave the hospital. The pupils of her eyes were observed by Nurse Johnston to be of pinpoint size.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Nursing find respondent guilty of unprofessional conduct within the meaning of Florida Statutes, 464.21(1)(b), and suspend her registered nursing license for a period of three (3) months. Respectfully submitted and entered this 14th day of August, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jane M. Miller 717 Breakers Avenue #3 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33304 Julius Finegold Esquire 1107 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Geraldine Johnson, R.N. Coordinator of Investigation and Licensing 111 East Coastline Drive Suite 504 Jacksonville, Florida 32304 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA BOARD OF NURSING IN THE MATTER OF: Jane Marie Miller 717 Breakers Avenue No. 3 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33304 CASE NO. 79-212 As Registered Nurse License Number 66021-2 /
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent's license as a registered nurse in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department of Health, Board of Nursing, was the state agency in Florida responsible for the licensing of nurses and the regulation of the nursing profession in this state. Respondent was a registered nurse licensed in Florida with license number RN 2561322, which she obtained by endorsement in 1991. Respondent, using the name Michele Draper, applied for licensure as a registered nurse by endorsement by application filed on October 7, 1991. On that application, she listed 340-22-0150 as her social security number and June 22, 1954, as her date of birth. Attached to the licensure application was a copy of Respondent's Illinois driver's license which reflected her date of birth as June 22, 1951. The application form reflects that at some point, the name "Draper" was struck through and the name "Jackson" written in, but Respondent's signature on the application form reflects Michele Draper Jackson. This same application form reflects that Respondent answered "No" to the question, "Have you ever been convicted or have you a no-contest or guilty plea-regardless of adjudication-for any offense other than a minor traffic violation." Respondent had been arrested and, on June 8, 1988, convicted of a felony charge of "Deceptive Practices over $150" in McLean County, Illinois, and on July 1, 1988, was convicted of three misdemeanor charges of "Deceptive Practices under $150" in the same county. On the felony charge she was sentenced to serve 10 days in the McLean County Jail, to pay a fine of $300 plus court costs, and to serve 30 months' probation. On the misdemeanor charges, she was sentenced to 12 months' conditional discharge and to pay court costs. She was ordered to make restitution in both cases. No reference was made to this conviction by Respondent on her application for a Florida nurse's license. In 1993, Respondent was again arrested and indicted, tried, and convicted in Sarasota County on a third-degree felony charge of grand theft. She was sentenced to imprisonment for that offense, but the sentence was suspended and she was placed on probation for four years. The evidence reflects that as a part of the offense with which Respondent was charged was her use of three different social security numbers, to-wit: 344-33-4188; 360-22-0150; and 310-22-0150; and a date of birth of June 22, 1951. Respondent has a Florida driver's license number D616-540-57-722, bearing a Social Security Number 310-22-0150. She also has a Florida driver's license which bears the Social Security Number 360-40-8146. Both driver's licenses reflect Respondent's date of birth as June 22, 1957, yet the records of the Florida Division of Motor Vehicles reflect Respondent's date of birth as June 22, 1951. Respondent at one time also used an Illinois driver's license which bore the Social Security Number 360-42-4186, and a date of birth of June 24, 1954. In 1995, Respondent was charged in Sarasota County with a second-degree felony of scheme to defraud by using false pretenses, representations, or promises with a credit card to defraud a credit union, several banks, and an individual, of between $20,000 and $50,000 in July of that year. The court records relative to that incident indicate that Respondent stole the identity and social security number of her employer and used that number to secure a credit card and loans used to purchase two vehicles on which she failed to make the appropriate payments. Respondent was found guilty of this charge and of violation of her previously imposed probation and was, in March 1996, sentenced to five years in prison, which she served at the North Florida Reception Center beginning on March 8, 1996. Both felony convictions and the misdemeanor conviction were violations of Chapter 817, Florida Statutes, which deals with fraudulent practices. Before going to prison, between August 21, 1995, and February 28, 1996, Respondent was employed as a registered nurse at Hospice. When asked on her application for employment if she had ever been convicted of a felony, Respondent answered "No" when, in fact, she had been so convicted in 1988 and in 1993. On the application for employment, Respondent listed Social Security Number 306-44- 4186 and a driver's license bearing number D616-540-57-177. She also indicated on her résumé which she had submitted with the application that she held a bachelor of science degree from Northwestern University from which she had allegedly graduated with a 3.1 grade point average. Respondent did not hold a degree of any sort from Northwestern, having attended that institution's school of journalism for only a short period in 1972-1974. Respondent's résumé also reflected she had received a nursing diploma from Lewis University through the On Site Little Company of Mary Hospital in 1980, earning a grade point average of 3.0. In fact, Respondent did not earn a degree of any sort from that institution, having attended for only one year. Her grade point average when she left was 1.77. Her résumé also reflects she was employed in increasingly responsible nursing positions at Cook County Hospital in Illinois from 1980 to 1987. In fact, she did not receive her nursing license until 1984 and was never employed by Cook County Hospital. Respondent was sentenced to prison on March 1, 1996. That day she was scheduled to work at Hospice, but she did not appear for work as scheduled. Later that day she called in to advise she had been called away on a family emergency. Thereafter, she resigned her position with Hospice with no advance notice, and gave false reasons for leaving. Once Respondent was released from prison, on June 1, 1998, she filed an application for employment with Hospice on which she again denied ever having been convicted of a felony, and reiterated her false educational claims. In addition, she gave a false driver's license number and date of birth. There are several other inconsistencies running throughout Respondent's employment history. On her Florida nursing license application she was asked to list the names she has used during her lifetime and the name under which she received her nursing education. Respondent did not list the name Shepard in either response. The records of the Little Company of Mary Hospital Nursing School reflect that at no time was there a student at that school with the name Michele Nash, Michele Jackson or Michele Draper. At one point there was a student with the name Michele Shepard, but no social security number is on file for her. The former registrar of the nursing school testified that she received a telephone call from someone purporting to be Ms. Michele Shepard who requested a certification of graduation be issued in the name of Michele Jackson, which was supposed to be her new name. The registrar at no time saw any documentation to indicate Ms. Draper and Ms. Jackson were one and the same person, and she cannot say with any certainty that Respondent is a graduate of Little Company of Mary Hospital Nursing School. Nonetheless, she issued the letter of certification in June 1984, and that letter was forward to the Florida Board of Nursing in support of Respondent's application for licensure. Respondent submitted an Illinois nursing license as support for her application for licensure by endorsement in Florida. The application for the Illinois license is in the name of Michele Nash, and bears the Social Security Number 366-42-4116 as well as a birth date of June 22, 1954. The application also shows a date of graduation from the Little Company of Mary Nursing School of June 16, 1984. In her application for licensure by endorsement to Florida, Respondent used the Social Security Number 340-22- 0152, a birth date of June 22, 1954, a high school graduation date of 1965, a nursing school graduation date of May 1984, and a date of May 1982 as the date she took the nursing licensure examination in Illinois. She also used the names Draper, Jackson, and Nash, and she provided a copy of her Illinois driver's license showing a birth date of June 22, 1951. Because of the myriad contradictions in her application history, it is impossible to tell whether Respondent is the individual who graduated from Little Company of Mary Nursing School in June 1984. Respondent filed an application for employment with LifePath Hospice in Tampa on June 25, 1998, using the name Michele R. Draper, a Social Security Number of 261-40-6814, and a Florida Driver's license number D616-5154-671772. Neither that social security number nor a driver's license bearing that number was issued to Respondent. She also indicated she had not been convicted of a crime within the past seven years. That answer was false. Respondent also indicated in her employment application that she held a bachelor of science degree in education from Northwestern University with an earned grade point average of 3.5, and a degree in nursing from Lewis University/Little Company of Mary Hospital with an earned grade point average of 3.0. Both representations are false. Ms. Draper also outlined an employment history in this application which was false in many respects. She did not work for Nurse, Inc. from May 1993 to January 1996, as claimed; she did not work for Cook County Hospital from February 1980 to August 1983, as claimed; and she did not even hold a nursing license until 1984. When LifePath attempted to verify the information submitted by Respondent, it determined that the social security number she had given was incorrect; a second social security card presented in place thereof was false; and she provided a Florida driver's license which, though the number is correct, bears an incorrect and altered date of birth. Nonetheless, Respondent was hired by LifePath. Sometime after being hired by LifePath, Respondent presented them with a new social security card bearing the name Michele Ann Draper, and the number 570-83-2297. She said that she had married and the Social Security Administration had given her a new number. This is untrue. Respondent has been married to Al Draper since before 1978, and the Social Security Administration ordinarily does not issue a new social security number to a woman when she marries. When LifePath learned of Respondent's concealed criminal record, the numerous misrepresentations as to her education, experiences, and references, and of the numerous different social security numbers, they terminated her employment on July 2, 1999. This was approximately one year after she had been hired and placed in patient's homes by the company. Commencing in the Fall of 1980, while a student at Lewis University, until 1998, Respondent used fourteen different social security numbers and six different birth dates in her dealings with educational institutions, licensing officials, and employers. Records of the Social Security Administration indicate that only two Social Security Numbers, 360-42-4186, used at Lewis University in 1980, and 590-83- 2297, used in the last LifePath application in 1998, were issued to Respondent. None of the other numbers she used was ever issued to her under any of the names she used. By the same token, Respondent has used various dates of birth in her educational career, on driver's licenses, and on applications for licensure and employment. Birth records of the state of Illinois indicate that Michele Ann Jackson, Respondent herein, was born in Illinois on June 22, 1951. Until just recently, Respondent appears to have continued to show evidence of dishonesty and misrepresentation in her dealing with authorities. Significant among these are, for example, in her response to a complaint against her license filed in Illinois, she falsely asserted she had been cleared of any wrongdoing in Florida, and that the allegations of criminal convictions are incorrect. Further, during the Florida investigation into the instant allegations, Respondent advised the investigator she had resigned from Hospice in 1996 with proper notice and that she had not had any legal problems prior to her employment by Hospice in 1995. No evidence was presented that Respondent has ever physically harmed or neglected a patient in her care or stolen from a patient.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Nursing enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint and revoking her license to practice nursing in Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of January, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of January, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Diane K. Kiesling, Esquire Agency for health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building Three Room 3231A Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Michele Jackson Draper 4645 Flatbush Avenue Sarasota, Florida 34233 Ometrias Deon Long, Esquire Long & Perkins, P.A. 390 North Orange Avenue Suite 2180 Orlando, Florida 32801 Ruth R. Stiehl, Ph.D. R.N. Executive director Board of Nursing Department of Health 4080 Woodcock Drive, Suite 202 Jacksonville, Florida 32207-2714 Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times pertinent to these proceedings, respondent was a licensed practical nurse holding license number 26892-1. The designation of "-1" in the license number is the Board's designation for a licensed practical nurse, and the designation "-2" is for a registered nurse. Respondent is not now and has never been a licensed registered nurse in the State of Florida. In June of 1974, respondent went to the nursing director's office of the Bryan Cameron Community Hospital in Bryan, Ohio, and applied for a position as a registered nurse in the operating room. Respondent could not substantiate that he was a licensed registered nurse. On the day that respondent was to report to work, the hospital administrator, Mr. Rusty O. Brunicardi, told respondent that he was having a problem verifying his registry and asked respondent if he would fill out a form saying that he was a registered nurse. Respondent then filled out and signed a form, witnessed by two persons, certifying that he was a licensed registered nurse in the State of Florida and that, his license number is 26892-1. Mr. Brunicardi also informed respondent that he should contact the Florida State Board of Nursing and have them call him and that, upon Brunicardi's receipt of a call from the Board, respondent could start to work. Respondent indicated to Brunicardi that there was some kind of mixup in the Board's files and that he would straighten it out. Respondent then left and Brunicardi never heard from him again. Respondent began his employment with the Manhattan Convalescent Center in Tampa, Florida, on October 17, 1975. As a part of the orientation procedure for new employees, respondent was made aware of the Center's policy or procedure with respect to patient trust funds. The policy was that when patients with money in their possession are admitted to the Center, the money was to be taken by the admitting nurse to the business office and put into a trust fund account for the patient. After the money had been turned in, the nurse would give the patient a receipt. The business office kept a ledger card for each patient. when a patient requested money, the nurse was to write it down in the trust fund book on the station, take it to the office and deliver the money requested to the patient on the following day. On or about November 20, 1975, Gloria Elizabeth Adams was admitted as a patient to the Manhattan Convalescent Center having in her possession $44.00 in cash. She gave $35.00 of this amount to her admitting nurse, respondent herein, for the purpose of putting it into a trust fund for her. Respondent wrote in his nursing notes on Adams' admission that she had brought money in and that it had been put in her trust fund. A day or two thereafter, respondent asked her to write a check for the trust fund. She asked respondent what had happened to the $35.00 she had previously given him and, not receiving a satisfactory answer, she refused to give him a check. Ms. Adams then went to the desk and asked to withdraw $5.00 from her account. She was told she would receive it the following day. She then saw respondent, who again asked her to write a check for $35.00 for the trust fund. She again refused and told him she had asked to withdraw $5.00 from her account. He then brought her $5.00, and she never saw him again. About a week after Ms. Adams was admitted, the Director of Nursing at the Center, Phyllis Hereford, learned that there was a problem with Ms. Adams' trust fund. Since respondent was Adams' admitting nurse, Ms. Hereford spoke to him about it. He at first told her that he had put the money in an envelope and put the envelope in a narcotic book for Sister Edna Mae, the next nurse coming on duty. Ms. Hereford suggested that he call Sister to see if she remembered. He did so and Sister was very adamant that she did not receive an envelope with money in it in the narcotic book, and that, had the envelope been there, she would have seen it when she was counting drugs. Director Hereford told respondent that since he had mishandled Ms. Adams' money, he was responsible for it and should pay it back. He indicated that he would do so, but he did not return to work more than one day thereafter. The administrator of the Center determined that the missing $30.00 would be deducted from respondent's pay check and placed into the Adams' trust fund. The ledger card for Ms. Adams reveals that on December 9, 1975, a deposit was made for $30.00 "to cover mishandled monies on Station 2." There was nothing on the ledger to indicate that an earlier deposit had ever been made. Ms. Hereford learned that another patient, Doris Clark, had $10.00 mishandled by respondent and the Center deducted $10.00 from respondent's paycheck and reimbursed Clark's trust fund by such amount. No objection or complaint was received by the Center from respondent concerning the $40.00 deduction from his salary.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that the Board dismiss that charge relating to the monies of Doris Clark; find respondent guilty of unprofessional conduct in his actions surrounding the monies of Ms. Adams; and find respondent guilty of willfully violating F.S. ss. 464.081(1) and 464.24(1)(d) in his actions surrounding his attempt at employment with the Bryan Cameron Community Hospital. It is further recommended that, for such offenses, the Board suspend respondent's license number 26892-1 for a period of one (1) year. Respectfully submitted and entered this 5th day of August, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Danny L. Pressler 3 Seashore Drive Ormand Beach, Florida Mr. Danny L. Pressler 307 Southeast Avenue Montpelier, Ohio 43543 Ms. Geraldine Johnson Florida State Board of Nursing 6501 Arlington Expressway Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Julius Finegold 1130 American Heritage Life Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that respondent's application for reinstatement of her practical nursing license be DENIED. Done and Entered this 10th day of January, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold, Esquire 1007 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Paul W. Ferrell, Esquire Legal Aid Society of St. Petersburg, Florida 440 Second Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Mrs. Geraldine Johnson, R.N. State Board of Nursing 6501 Arlington Expressway, Bldg B Jacksonville, Florida 32211
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner’s application for licensure as a registered nurse should be granted.
Findings Of Fact On or about December 6, 1988, Ms. Melegrito was convicted of two counts of fraud in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1395 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1341 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. On or about January 6, 1989, Ms. Melegrito was convicted of four counts of Medicaid fraud in violation of Sections 32.1-314 and 18.2-95 of the Code of Virginia. Both convictions involved the same set of facts. On or about August 3, 1989, the Florida Department of Professional Regulation and/or the Board filed an Administrative Complaint, Case No. 0107472 against Ms. Melegrito’s license as a registered nurse, charging a violation of Subsection 464.018(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1988), for the convictions set forth in paragraph one above. On or about October 27, 1989, the Virginia Board of Nursing revoked Ms. Melegrito’s nursing license as a result of the convictions set forth in paragraph 1 above. On or about December 21, 1990, the Board filed its Final Order in Case No. 0107472, placing Ms. Melegrito’s license on probation for a term concurrent with the probation imposed by the federal court and requiring her to comply with the terms of her federal probation. On or about June 25, 1993, Ms. Melegrito’s license to practice nursing in New York was revoked. On or about July 19, 1994, the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation and/or the Board filed an Administrative Complaint against Ms. Melegrito’s license in Case No. 92-11440, alleging a violation of Subsection 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes (1994), for unprofessional conduct including a departure from or failure to conform to the minimal standards of acceptable nursing practice. On or about September 14, 1994, Ms. Melegrito was found guilty of violating federal probation and sentenced to four years in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Ms. Melegrito failed to make restitution as required by the terms of her probation. On or about November 28, 1995, the Division of Administrative Hearings issued a Recommended Order in Case No. 92-11440, finding that Ms. Melegrito violated Subsection 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes, and recommending suspension for three years followed by three years of probation and a $1,000.00 fine. On or about April 30, 1996, the Board filed a Final Order in Case No. 92-11440, imposing suspension for three years followed by three years of probation and a $1,000.00 fine. On or about December 13, 1996, the Agency for Health Care Administration and/or the Board filed an Administrative Complaint, Case No. 95-00886, against Ms. Melegrito’s license, charging Ms. Melegrito with a violation of Subsection 464.018(1)(l), Florida Statutes, for violating the Final Order in Case No. 0107472 by violating the terms of the federal probation. On or about September 4, 1998, the Board filed a Final Order in Case No. 95-00886, revoking Ms. Melegrito’s license for seven years. If Ms. Melegrito desired to reapply for licensure at the end of her revocation period, she was required to demonstrate her safety to practice as well as proof of completing continuing education courses and paying a $250.00 fine and $251.12 in costs. On or about February 24, 1999, Ms. Melegrito was convicted of felony criminal mischief and trespass in the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit in Broward County, Florida. On or about August 18, 2000; July 27, 2001; and December 9, 2004, the Virginia Board of Nursing denied Ms. Melegrito’s petitions for reinstatement of her nursing license. The denial by the Virginia Board of Nursing in 2004 was based in part on Ms. Melegrito’s misrepresentations concerning her licensure status at two job interviews, engaging in the unlicensed practice of nursing in 2003, and misrepresentations on her application for reinstatement by failing to disclose her previous disciplinary history and criminal history.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying Ms. Melegrito’s application for licensure as a registered nurse. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of March, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 18th day of March, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald D. Siebens, Esquire Office of the Attorney General One Mack Center 501 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602 Lee Ann Gustafson, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Maria C. Melegrito 3137 Honeymoon Lane Holiday, Florida 34691 Josefina M. Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Rick Garcia, MS, RN, CCM, Executive Director Board of Nursing Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Patricia Dittman, Ph.D(C), RN, CDE, Board Chair Board of Nursing Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue Whether Respondent properly denied Petitioner's application for a multi-state nursing license based upon his criminal and disciplinary history.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of nursing on behalf of the State of Florida, pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 464, Florida Statutes. The Board is charged with final agency action with respect to nurses licensed pursuant to chapter 464. Petitioner was previously licensed in South Carolina and Maryland as a Registered Nurse ("RN").1/ Petitioner also previously held a conditional license as an RN in Florida. Petitioner applied for a multi-state RN license with the Board on December 31, 2018. Section 464.0095, Article III (3)(g), prohibits a state from issuing a multi-state license to a person who has been convicted or found guilty, or has entered into an agreed disposition other than a nolle prosequi, of a felony offense. In his application, Petitioner disclosed a variety of crimes including: exploitation of a vulnerable adult; credit card fraud; assault/battery of high and aggravated nature (misdemeanor), concurrent with a second credit card theft/probation violation; attempted identity theft; and petty theft. All applicants are required to submit fingerprints with the application and the Board receives criminal history background reports. In addition to the crimes disclosed by Petitioner, his background screen revealed additional charges of: driving under the influence; defrauding hotel, inn, cafe, etc.; obtaining property by false pretenses; reckless driving; driving under suspension; and receiving stolen goods. Petitioner also disclosed that his South Carolina RN license was suspended in 2004 and then voluntarily surrendered in 2011. His Maryland RN license was revoked in 2009. Petitioner applied for an RN license in Florida in 2012 and was approved for a license conditioned upon entering into a five-year contract with the Intervention Project for Nurses ("IPN"), meeting the terms of the program, including frequent drug–testing, and completing a board approved remedial course. Petitioner voluntarily relinquished his conditional license in September 2013 due to his inability to participate in the IPN due to financial reasons. Petitioner applied for reinstatement of his conditional license in 2015 and his application was rejected by the Board based on prior discipline and his criminal history. Petitioner contends that his criminal history is unrelated to the practice of nursing. He argues that his crimes are directly related to his previous crack cocaine addiction. Petitioner has maintained long periods of sobriety and believes that his crimes, committed prior to his 2012 grant of a conditional license by the Board, should not be considered in weighing his current application. Petitioner's Prior Crimes and Licensing History On May 21, 2003, the South Carolina State Board of Nursing entered an Order of Temporary Suspension of Petitioner's license to practice as a registered nurse. The Order was based on Petitioner's: criminal charges of exploitation of a vulnerable adult and swindling; denial that he had been charged with a crime on his renewal application for reinstatement of a lapsed license; administering an antibiotic four hours late and falsely entered the time of administration in the medical record; and being arrested for Financial Transaction Card Theft. This Order of Temporary Suspension was superseded by a Final Order rendered by the Board on August 12, 2004. By this Final Order, the South Carolina Board of Nursing indefinitely suspended Petitioner's license. On March 9, 2009, the South Carolina Board of Nursing entered another Final Order against Petitioner that indefinitely suspended his license to practice nursing. This Final Order cited as grounds that: his prior license had been suspended and lapsed; he failed to disclose a criminal conviction on his August 2004 license application; he entered a South Carolina hospital, impersonated a plastic surgeon, asked a technician for $60, and manipulated her breast with his hand after a discussion of breast augmentation, which resulted in an arrest for Assault and Battery of a High and Aggravated Nature for which he was incarcerated for three years; after this release from prison, he was incarcerated in North Carolina for obtaining money by false pretenses; and he was then convicted of Attempted Identity Theft. The March 2009 South Carolina Final Order incorporated a Memorandum of Agreement between Petitioner and the State of South Carolina and outlined conditions precedent for license reinstatement and probationary terms to be imposed upon reinstatement. Petitioner never met the reinstatement conditions imposed by the March 2009 Final Order and the South Carolina Board of Nursing accepted Petitioner's Agreement of Voluntary Surrender of his nursing license on July 5, 2011. Petitioner contends these crimes were not related to the practice of nursing. He did not divert drugs from patients or medical facilities. However, he entered hospital staff lounges and stole scrubs and lab coats to impersonate medical personnel. He then pretended to be a doctor who lost or forgot his wallet. He would ask other medical professionals for cab fare which he then used to buy crack. While pretending to be a plastic surgeon, Petitioner claims that a young woman from whom he solicited money, asked him to examine her newly augmented breast because she was concerned that something was not right with the implant. Regarding the conviction for exploitation of a vulnerable adult, Petitioner claims that he was arrested while in a car borrowed from a woman with whom he regularly got high. When she was questioned, she told the police that Petitioner stole her car. Petitioner claims he was charged with exploiting a "vulnerable adult" only because the woman was bipolar and on antipsychotic medications. According to Petitioner, "It had nothing to do with nursing. She was basically my accomplice."2/ Petitioner also admitted that while he was on probation, he stole credit cards from hospitals (presumably patients and co-workers) to buy merchandise to give to his drug dealers, and that he pretended to be a doctor by dressing in scrubs to scam restaurants into giving him cash back from fraudulent transactions. By Final Order dated October 27, 2009, the Maryland Board of Nursing revoked Petitioner's license to practice as an RN. The Maryland Board cited as grounds for the revocation that Petitioner: was disciplined by a licensing, military, or disciplinary authority in this State or any other state for an act that would be grounds for disciplinary action in Maryland; knowingly performed an act that exceeds the authorized scope of practice; commits an act that is inconsistent with generally accepted professional standards of practice; is addicted to, or habitually abuses, any narcotic or controlled dangerous substance; and engaged in conduct that violates the professional code of ethics, specifically, knowingly participating in or condoning dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation and patient abandonment. The Board's expert, Barbara Thomason, MSN, APRN, FNP- BD, credibly testified that these crimes all constitute unprofessional conduct that relate directly to the practice of nursing. Nurses are required to adhere to a strict standard of professionalism and honesty so that their vulnerable patients are not victims of opportunity. Nurses are also required to ensure the safety and well-being of their patients. Impersonating medical professionals, committing battery, fraud, theft, and failing to timely disclose these crimes to the licensing board, all relate to one's ability to practice nursing professionally. Petitioner's testimony regarding his crimes was, "I didn't do anything major. So it was wrong."3/ Regarding the young woman whose breast he manipulated, Petitioner speculated that she was coming on to him and claimed that the investigating police officer described the victim as "stupid," "an idiot" and "an airhead." It does not take expert testimony to understand that Petitioner lacks remorse, has no concept of the seriousness of his myriad offenses, and that these directly call into question his ability to practice as a nurse. Petitioner's Florida Licensing History On April 18, 2012, a Notice of Intent to Approve with Conditions was filed with the Department of Health Clerk. Petitioner was approved for licensure as an RN conditioned upon his signing an advocacy contract with the IPN and complying with any and all terms and conditions imposed by the IPN. IPN is the impaired practitioners program of the Board, designated pursuant to section 456.076. IPN monitors the evaluation, care, and treatment of impaired nurses. IPN also provides for the exchange of information between treatment providers and the Department for the protection of the public. Petitioner was also required to complete a remedial course within 12 months. Approximately one year into the IPN program, and after completing the remedial course, Petitioner had two urinalysis drug screens in a month that were suspicious due to excessive temperatures. As a result, he was requested by IPN to undergo a psychiatric evaluation. Petitioner checked prices for such an evaluation in his area and found that the least expensive evaluation would cost $600.00. Petitioner was only working part time earning $400.00 a month and could not afford the evaluation. Petitioner called the Board and was advised by administrator William Spooner to write a letter to the Board asking to voluntarily relinquish his license due to financial reasons. Mr. Spooner allegedly told Petitioner that when Petitioner was able to resume the program, he could ask for reinstatement. Petitioner was under the assumption that his reinstatement would be automatic.4/ Petitioner applied for reinstatement of his license in 2014. On October 8, 2014, a NOID for Petitioner's application for endorsement as an RN was filed with the Department of Health Clerk. The Board based this denial on the grounds that Petitioner: entered a guilty plea to a charge of assault and battery; was convicted of identity theft by impersonating a physician; had his South Carolina RN license suspended; and had his Maryland license revoked. After conducting a hearing not involving disputed issues of material fact in accordance with sections 120.569 and 120.57(2), Florida Statutes, on the allegations contained in the NOID, the Board voted to deny the licensure application. The Final Order was filed on January 14, 2015. Petitioner's Criminal History since 2015 and Rehabilitation After the license denial, Petitioner relapsed and began using drugs again. Between 2015 and June 2017, he pled no contest and was convicted of three more misdemeanor thefts. Prior to this relapse, Petitioner was sober for 9 years and 11 months. Petitioner testified that during 2015 through 2017, he stole to feed himself. Petitioner has been sober again since December 16, 2017. Petitioner has made significant efforts to maintain his sobriety. Petitioner moved into a halfway house, rejoined AA, has a sponsor, serves as clergy and a lay minister to inmates at the Broward County jail and detention center, and is involved in his church. Petitioner works as a telemarketer and his vocational rehabilitation job counselor, Larry Hinton, testified that Petitioner is a reliable worker who is also working hard on his recovery. Petitioner received no fines or orders of restitution related to his crimes. He served his prison time and successfully completed probation and has a full restoration of his voting rights. Petitioner waited for a year of sobriety and after his most recent conviction of theft before reapplying for licensure. On March 15, 2019, the Board issued a NOID on Petitioner's application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Board of Nursing enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's application for a multi-state RN license. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of October, 2019, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY 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 16th day of October, 2019.
