The Issue The issue is whether the renewal application for a family day care home license filed by Petitioner should be denied based upon alleged violations of Florida Administrative Code Rule 65C-20.10(1)(f), stated in Respondent's letter of proposed denial dated August 3, 2005.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the observation of and the demeanor of the witnesses while testifying, documentary materials in evidence, stipulations of the parties, and evidentiary rulings during the hearing, the following relevant, material, and substantial facts are determined: Petitioner was initially granted her first family day care home license to operate a family day care home at 2829 Kathryn Drive, Lakeland, Florida 33805, on August 3, 2003, and her family day care home license was renewed by Respondent for operation at the above address for one additional year on August 3, 2004. At the time of the 2004 family day care home license renewal, Petitioner was in compliance, with no noncompliant items noted in her record from 2003 through 2004 that would have justified denial of the license renewal. On an unspecified date prior to August 3, 2005, Petitioner made an application to renew her family day care home license. On August 3, 2005, Respondent notified Petitioner by letter of the proposal to deny her application for renewal of her family day care home license. Petitioner contested the proposed denial resulting in this administrative hearing on November 7, 2005. The denial letter of Respondent indicated that the decision was based upon, "[y]our inability to ensure the safety of children in your care." The letter continued stating: "Your Family Day Care Home was found to be out of compliance in regards to the fencing requirements as stated in 65C-20.10(1)(f), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), on 07/28/03, 03/22/04, 01/12/05, 01/20/05, and 06/10/05." Petitioner acknowledged that the fence was missing a few boards during the above period. It is undisputed that the January 12, 2005, inspection by Timothy Graddy, child care licensing inspector, found numerous violations. Upon reinspection by Mr. Graddy on January 20, 2005, the violations noted during his January 12, 2005, inspection were corrected, but for repair of the fence around the home and the undated fire extinguisher inspection certification. Mr. Graddy was not called to testify regarding the severity of the noncompliance violations, the probability of harm to health or safety of the children nor actions taken by Petitioner to correct the cited violations. No other witness testified regarding these mandatory items. It is likewise undisputed that Respondent imposed an administrative fine on Petitioner for noncompliance items identified during an undated inspection in 2004. Petitioner, without requesting a Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, hearing, paid the administrative fine of $100 on December 9, 2004, for violations noted in compliance inspections that occurred between January and December of 2004. It is likewise undisputed that the Department imposed a second administrative fine on Petitioner for those violations noted from inspections that occurred between January 1, 2005, and June 21, 2005. Again, and without requesting a Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, hearing, Petitioner paid the administrative fine of $250 on June 1, 2005. William Wright, child care licensing inspector and a member of the license application review committee, reviewed the relicensing application filed by Petitioner, voiced as his primary concern a July 2005 central abuse hotline report of an incident that occurred July 11, 2005. In the abuse report, a two-year-old male child was reported to have had bruises on both facial cheeks. The allegations narrative reflected the child received the bruises by falling/tripping over his shoes. Petitioner called the father of the child, who came by, observed the bruise on his child's cheeks, signed an incident statement prepared by Petitioner, and took his child home. The father did not return his child to Petitioner's family day care home. During the subsequent investigation of the abuse incident, bruises were found on the child's thigh(s). Two or three days after the July 11, 2005, incident report, a subsequent investigation by local law enforcement and follow-up investigation by Respondent's personnel resulted in conflicting and unresolved accounts of how the child received the bruises, where the child received the bruises, and who was at fault for the bruises. It was unclear to the investigators where and how the child received the bruises on his thighs. What is clear is that the child did not receive thigh bruises while in Petitioner's family day care home. Respondent closed the abuse report with "[S]ome indicator of bruises, welts and marks. No intervention services were needed." There is insufficient evidence to conclude, infer or establish that while in Petitioner's care the child sustained bruises on his thighs that were discovered several days after the July 11, 2005, abuse report and, thus, to conclude the child's safety was at risk while in Petitioner's family day care home. Another review committee member, Patricia Hamilton, child care licensing supervisor, opined the proposed denial was based upon "the Department's belief" that Petitioner was not able to operate a day care without violating one or more Florida Administrative Code rules. It is her belief that children in Petitioner's family day care home would not be safe because the historical inspection record compiled by Respondent, in her opinion, demonstrated Petitioner could not consistently comply with the rules of operating a safe family day care home. This is a reasonable inference drawn from a historical review of Petitioner's family day care home inspection record. Petitioner, as of November 28, 2005, filed a Notice of Change of Address. Petitioner now resides at 7354 Beaumont Drive, Lakeland, Florida. By moving to a new residence, Petitioner effectively withdrew the family day care home license application for license of the residence at 2829 Kathryn Avenue, Lakeland, Florida 33805, the subject of this case.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law hereinabove, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order dismissing the petition filed by Tarsha Seay, d/b/a Seay Family Day Care Home. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of February, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRED L. BUCKINE 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 24th day of February, 2006.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent properly revoked Petitioner's license to operate a family day care home.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is the owner and operator of a family day care home and, until the revocation which is the subject of this action, held license number 07C696L. In response to a parent's complaint that she had arrived at the family day care home to find her child crying in a room in which an unidentified man was sleeping, the Department's investigator, Brandi Blanchard, made an unscheduled visit to Petitioner's family day care home immediately following receipt of the complaint. The only evidence that this event occurred as portrayed by the complaining parent is contained in the Department reports and testimony by Department employees who were not present when the event occurred. When questioned regarding the parent's complaint, Petitioner advised that she had left the children for about 15 to 20 minutes in the care of Sibyl Dexter, an authorized substitute caregiver. In addition, there was some discussion about the identity of an adult male sleeping in the family day care home who had been reported by the complaining parent. Other than the hearsay report of the complaining parent, no corroborative evidence was received regarding the identify of this adult male, nor did any witness testify as to having seen this adult male. It was suggested that the "adult male" was Petitioner's husband; this was denied by Petitioner. In her investigative report, Ms. Blanchard indicates that the substitute caregiver stated that she had not been at the family day care home on the particular day in question; however, Mrs. Dexter, the substitute caregiver, did not testify, and, therefore, this hearsay statement by Ms. Blanchard is not being considered. In her testimony, as in her letter contesting the license revocation and requesting this hearing, Petitioner maintained that the substitute caregiver, Mrs. Dexter, was present. In the absence of testimony by the complaining parent or the substitute caregiver, Petitioner's testimony is credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered reinstating Petitioner's license to operate a family day care home. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 1st day of April, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Kozette King 3914 Travati Street Orlando, Florida 32839 Beryl Thompson-McClary, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 400 West Robinson Street, S-1106 Orlando, Florida 32801 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issues are whether the alleged actions of the respondents demonstrate a lack of fitness or trustworthiness to engage in the business of insurance within the meaning of Subsection 626.611(7), Florida Statutes (2004), and, if so, what penalty should be imposed. (All statutory references are to Florida Statutes (2004) unless otherwise stated.)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating insurance agents in Florida. The respondents, Crain and Carll, are licensed as Life and Health insurance agents pursuant to respective license numbers A056967 and A040734. The respondents have known each other for approximately 13 years. During that time, the two engaged in the business of selling health insurance. Mr. Carll was an independent contractor, but Mr. Crain was Mr. Carll's only boss. Mr. Crain wholly owns two Florida corporations that he operates as insurance agencies. The two corporations are identified in the record as International Life and Health Services of Manatee County, Inc. (Manatee), and International Life and Health Services of Sarasota County, Inc. (Sarasota). Mr. Crain owns two other Florida corporations. They are identified in the record as Independent Living Home Care Agency, Inc. (Home Care Agency), and Independent Living Home Care Membership Association, Inc. (Home Care). Home Care promises in a plan written by Mr. Crain to provide plan purchasers with access to discounted in-home care (the plan). Approximately 44 Florida residents purchased the plan in 2005 and 2006 from insurance agents, including Mr. Carll, who, as agents for Mr. Crain, Manatee, or Sarasota, previously sold health insurance to some of the plan purchasers. Mr. Crain is personally and fully liable for the acts of the selling insurance agents within the meaning of Section 626.839. Mr. Crain is a health insurance agent who is the president and sole shareholder of a health insurance agency. Mr. Crain directly supervised and controlled the insurance agents who sold the plan in Florida. Mr. Crain wrote the plan and trained the insurance agents in the content of the plan, sales techniques, how to exclude impaired customers, and how to determine whether a customer was an appropriate candidate to purchase a plan. Mr. Crain did not obtain a legal opinion concerning his final version of the plan. The plan satisfies the statutory definition of insurance. However, the plan is not health insurance that the legislature has expressed its intent to regulate.1 The plan promises Home Care will provide a purchaser of a membership with access to in-home care from a third-party provider, denominated as a "caregiver," at a cost substantially less than the market rate caregivers normally charge for such services (discounted home care services). The plan promises to refund 120 percent of the membership fee if Home Care were unable to provide access to discounted home care services. The plan excludes medical care from the definition of home care services. Home care services include companion and homemaker services; housekeeping and laundry services; transportation services for doctor visits, groceries, and visits with friends; meal preparation; assistance with dressing and undressing; organizing files and bills; not burdening loved ones; protecting assets and heir's inheritance; gaining respect; and preserving one's legacy while gaining respect and dignity. The plan offers memberships for four, six, and eight years. Only four and six-year memberships are pertinent to this proceeding. The respective cost for each four and six-year membership is $2,475 and $3,475. Home Care promises each member will have access to discounted home care services for respective benefit periods of 1.5 and 2.5 years. The cost of membership does not apply toward the cost of discounted home care services. Services are not available at the discounted rate for the first 90 days after the date a purchaser requests services (the elimination period).2 The elimination period is 180 days "for pre-existing conditions".3 An additional payment of $1,395 reduces the normal elimination period from 90 to 60 days, extends the membership period an additional two years, and extends the respective benefit periods by one year. The plan charges an additional 25 percent if a purchaser elects installment payments. The plan promises home care services at substantial discounts below the market rate. The discounted plan rates are $94 for 24 hours of service; $72 for eight hours of service; and $36 for four hours of service. Market rates in the community range from $204 to $480 for 24 hours of service and from $16 to $18 an hour for shorter periods.4 The 44 plans sold in Florida generated approximately $192,000 in membership fees for Home Care. Mr. Crain deposited the fees into a bank account he created for Home Care and for which Mr. Crain is the sole authorized signatory. Home Care paid commissions to insurance agents ranging from 50 and 60 percent of the sale proceeds. The allegations in this proceeding pertain to four of the 44 plan purchasers. Ms. Janet McClurkin purchased the plan in April 2005 in two installments totaling $2,112. Ms. Ruth Frakes purchased the plan in February 2005 in two installments totaling $4,870. Ms. Carin Clareus purchased the plan in February 2005 for one payment of $1,953. Ms. Eva Muller purchased the plan in March 2005 for one payment of $3,475.5 A finding of guilt requires proof of one or more of five essential allegations, the first of which alleges the four plan purchasers are elderly women who, at the time of purchase, were "disabled" and suffered from "diminished mental capacity." The four sales allegedly violated the plan prohibition against sales to anyone "not of sound mind or body." The four plan purchasers are clearly elderly women. At the time of the hearing, Ms. McClurkin was 94 years old.6 Ms. McClurkin is Canadian, has been widowed for approximately 35 years, has no children or nearby family, and lives alone. Her nephew had power of attorney at the time of the hearing. Ms. McClurkin suffered from hearing and memory loss. She had worn two hearing aids for about a year, was recovering from surgery for breast cancer two years earlier, and had functioned for over 15 years with two artificial hips. Ms. Frakes was 90 years old at the time of the hearing.7 Ms. Frakes had been widowed for approximately 26 years and had no children and no surviving relatives. Ms. Frakes wore a Life Alert alarm, had been wearing two hearing aids for approximately seven years, had been reading through a magnifying glass for approximately five years, was taking medication for high blood pressure, and suffered from arthritis. Ms. Clareus was 97 years old at the time of the hearing and resided in a community of about 200 senior citizens.8 She immigrated to the United States in 1928, had been widowed for approximately four years at the time of the hearing, and had no children and no nearby relatives. Ms. Clareus had been legally blind for approximately eight years but was able to read through an assistive device in her residence. Ms. Muller was approximately 85 years old at the time of the hearing. She immigrated from Germany and then became a U.S. citizen, all in a time frame not disclosed in the record. Ms. Muller had been divorced early in her life and lived alone in a mobile home community. She had no nearby relatives and experienced memory problems. Ms. Muller owns an automobile but does not drive. Friends drive for her. After purchasing the plan, Ms. Muller executed a power of attorney naming Ms. Ingrid Eglsaer as her general power of attorney. At the time of the hearing, the four witnesses demonstrated confusion and difficulty in recalling specific facts. However, their confusion and impaired memory at the hearing was not clear and convincing evidence that the witnesses were incompetent when they purchased the plan. The allegation of incompetence at the time of purchase may be supported by inference or surmise, but inference and surmise do not satisfy the requirement for clear and convincing evidence.9 Petitioner submitted no expert testimony concerning the mental capacity of a purchaser at the time of the purchase. Petitioner next alleges the respondents misrepresented that Home Care would provide home care services and home medical care without further charge. Each Administrative Complaint admits the alleged misrepresentation conflicts with the terms of the plan.10 The plan promises access to discounted home care services and states that the membership fee does not apply toward charges for discounted home care services.11 The evidence is less than clear and convincing that the respondents misrepresented the contents of the plan in a manner that led purchasers to believe they would receive home care services or home medical care without additional charge. Testimony of the four purchasers concerning verbal representations by insurance agents during sales transactions is confused, is not precise and explicit, and is less than clear and convincing. Each purchaser may have inferred that she was purchasing insurance for either home care services or home medical care without an additional charge. Some purchasers had previously purchased such insurance from the same insurance agent. Each sale included a consultation in which the insurance agent reviewed other insurance held by the purchaser. The plan included terms that sounded to elderly women like familiar insurance terms. For example, the plan requires the purchaser to apply for coverage and employs terms such as "Eligible Persons," "Effective Date," "Elimination Period," "Limitations and Exclusions," and "Benefit Discount Period." The plan extends the elimination period when "pre- existing conditions" exist, describes home care providers as "caregivers," and discusses "co-payments." The plan includes a disclosure form and a medical release form. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that the respondents made promises or representations, other than those in the plan, to induce a purchaser to infer that the plan entitled her to discounted home care or medical care at no additional charge. Rather, the terms of the plan were purposefully confusing and induced the four elderly women to draw the desired inference. Petitioner also alleges the respondents made false and worthless promises that defrauded the purchasers. However, it is unnecessary to resolve the allegations of fraud in this case.12 This case can be resolved if the evidence supports one of two remaining allegations. First, the respondents allegedly misrepresented the access to discounted caregiver services that a purchaser acquired upon payment of a membership fee. Second, the promises of access to discounted caregiver services that the respondents made to each of the four plan purchasers were false and worthless.13 The plan misrepresented the access to caregivers that a purchaser acquired upon payment of a membership fee. The plan provides, in relevant part: If a member joins the association they are guaranteed the homecare discounts provided for in the contractual agreement. Respondent Crain, Exhibit 1, at 4. The plan does not name or otherwise identify a caregiver responsible for supplying the discounted caregiver services "guaranteed" in the plan. In that regard, the plan is factually distinguishable from a home care plan that passed judicial scrutiny in an unrelated proceeding.14 Neither Mr. Crain nor Home Care possessed a legal right to require a caregiver to provide discounted services in accordance with the terms of the plan. Neither Mr. Crain nor Home Care possessed the practical ability to ensure that a caregiver would provide home care services at any price, much less the discounted prices promised in the plan.15 The absence of either a legally enforceable right or practical ability to ensure that a caregiver would provide the discounted home care services promised in the plan were material facts that Mr. Crain did not disclose to purchasers. The failure to disclose material facts was willful and misrepresented the access to discounted caregiver services that a purchaser acquired upon payment of a membership fee. Testimony from Mr. Crain concerning his practical ability to ensure delivery of discounted caregiver services was neither credible nor persuasive to the fact-finder. Mr. Crain discussed home care services with a number of caregivers. Based on those conversations, Mr. Crain developed a list of caregivers he said he could call in the future to request discounted caregiver services promised in the plan if and when one of the 44 purchasers requested services (the list).16 The list evolved between January 2005 and September 2006. Mr. Crain advertised for caregivers in local newspapers. The collective responses numbered between 100 and 200. Mr. Crain or a staff-member collected the contact information for each responder and questioned each responder concerning, among other things, their qualifications and experience. The final list identified 15 caregivers. Mr. Crain described the list of 15 in answers to questions from the fact-finder: [Q] Well, I want to make sure I understand clearly. So, you ran an ad. People called in, you took down their contact information, and did you run [abuse registry] screens on these people? [A] Yes, I did. [Q] Okay. You mentioned earlier 200 responded. Did all 200 make the list? [A] The list? . . . [Q] . . . The list I'm referring to is the list referred to in testimony of . . . [insurance] agents of yours that said you maintained a list of contract individuals . . . Did you maintain a list? [A] I had a list of potential caregivers from the original ad, yes. * * * [Q] So you ran two ads. You had some responses to the first ad, and overwhelming responses to the second ad, and when you talked to the person, what did [you] do . . . ? [A] They call in -- I briefly qualify them. * * * [Q] And what kind of information do you collect? [A] Name, address, phone number, work history, educational history ethical behavior . . . . [and abuse] screening . . . . [I]f the agency they work for currently or in the past could not fax me a copy of . . . screening . . . by AHCA [Agency for Health Care Administration], then I could then screen them myself. [Q] [H]ow many of these people did you actually either screen or get faxes of their screen? [A] About seven. [Q] Out of how many? [A] Altogether, I had spoken to no less than a hundred people. [Q] From both ads? [A] Correct. . . . [Q] How many of the seven did you screen yourself? [A] Three. . . . [Q] Okay. Now, you talked to a hundred. Did you compile a resource list? [A] Yes, I did. [Q] And how many . . . , of the hundred, made the resource list? [A] I had at least 15 potentially eligible people that could work for me, but I had seven that could go at any moment. Or not at any moment but that were available, already screened with experience and ready to go. Or around seven. Transcript (TR) at 581-585. Mr. Crain did not bond or insure any of the 15 potentially eligible caregivers. Mr. Crain explained the bonding procedure in the following testimony: [Q] [The plan] . . . talks about having people bonded, insured, and fully screened, correct? [A] Yes. [Q] Now, we've already talked about screening. How would you make arrangements to bond and insure someone? [A] If they were employed, to bond a person is a one-page form . . . [y]ou deliver to this insurance agency . . . down the road from my office . . . and putting a hundred dollars for every ten thousand dollars of bonding you want. . . . [Q] So, when in the process would you bond and insure someone? [A] The day or the day before they went out to the actual care. [Q] So actually, prior to having a request for services and actually arranging for somebody to go out, you wouldn't have gone through the trouble or expense of bonding or insuring, correct? [A] Correct. [Q] Who actually bears the expense of bonding and insuring? [A] The provider. [Q] You mean the worker? [A] Yeah. . . . TR at 585-586. The plan promised that access to discounted services included a guaranteed refund equal to 120 percent of membership if Home Care were unable to provide access to the discounted caregiver services promised in the plan. Mr. Crain wrote the refund language to state: 17. 120% money back guarantee. If [Home Care] cannot provide homemaker and companion services at the discounted rate as governed by this contract, the company shall pay the member all the fees paid plus an additional 20%. Due to severe, unprecedented, skyrocketing costs for caregivers, or an unforeseen increase in the demand for personnel, the company will make this refund. [Home Care] has a big responsibility to provide quality home care services to all of it's [sic] members. Even though management owners and outside professionals have thoroughly though [sic] out almost every variable in making this contract both beneficial to the customers and profitable for [Home Care], no one can predict the future. Therefore it is agreed by both parties that by entering into this contract that the legal remedy for [Home Care's] possible inability to provide the service at the discounted rate, is for [Home Care] to refund 120% of the member's fee after reviewing the case with legal counsel as provided for by [Home Care] regarding the unusual circumstances of the said member. Respondent Crain, Exhibit 1, at 7. The promise that access to discounted caregiver services includes a guaranteed refund of 120 percent of the membership fee is a false promise. The promise is not conditioned on any discernable legal standard or any other standard capable of objective measurement. Rather, the applicable standard is a subjective standard to be interpreted at the sole discretion of Mr. Crain. Mr. Crain willfully included the false refund promise in the plan. As Mr. Crain explained: The right to get a refund? After five days, they don't have a right to get a refund. [Q] Do you or have you, on behalf of the company, given refunds to persons beyond the five-day period? [A] Yes. [Q] Is that at your discretion? [A] Yes. [Q] Is there any particular policy or plan regarding when and how to give a refund and how much? [A] No. TR at 614. Mr. Crain is the sole arbiter of the entitlement to a refund and the amount of the refund to be paid. For example, Mr. Crain paid Ms. Muller 120 percent of her membership fee but paid only a prorated amount to Ms. Clareus.17 The promise to refund 120 percent of the membership fee is worthless. Mr. Crain willfully included the worthless promise in the plan. The refund obligation is owed solely by Home Care, and Home Care has not retained sufficient reserves to fund its contractual obligation.18 Mr. Crain withdrew virtually all of the $192,000 in membership fees to pay commissions, operating costs, and similar expenses. On June 19, 2006, Home Care had $946 in its bank account. The last refund obligation Home Care owes to the two unpaid purchasers in this proceeding will not expire until sometime in 2011. The corporate promise to refund 120 percent of the membership fee is worthless because it is an unfunded obligation to pay refunds from non-existent reserves. Mr. Carll did not exercise ordinary diligence, much less the reasonable skill and diligence required of an insurance agent, to examine the plan for misrepresentations and false promises. Mr. Carll willfully failed to independently examine the plan. As Mr. Carll explained during his testimony: Jim was constantly on the phone interviewing people, prospective caregivers, talking to -- even to home health care agencies that provide homemaker services, and it's my understanding that he had compiled a list of people who could be called in the event if someone requested for [sic] service. * * * [Q] When you had meetings with Mr. Crain, did you ask him questions? [A] Yes. [Q] What questions did you ask about the plan? [A] Oh, how does the elimination period work. You know, when do services begin? What do people have to do to get services? Questions of that nature. [Q] Anything else? [A] Just questions about, you know, well how to talk to these people and, you know, what to look for when you walk into a house. [Q] Did you ask Mr. Crain what ability he had to ensure that these third party contractors would provide their services for the fees he guaranteed in the plan? [A] Yes. [Q] Okay. What did you ask him? [A] I said, Well, how can we be sure that these people will get the services that they need when they ask for them? [Q] And? [A] He said that he had interviewed numerous people. He had a list of people that he could call . . . to provide [discounted services]. . . . [Q] Did you ask Mr. Crain what ability he had to . . . enforce that representation from them if, at some future time, he asked them to provide that service, and they said they no longer would? [A] I didn't ask him that question. [Q] So you didn't ask him if he had these people under legal contract for the term of the plan? [A] No. . . . I have a lot of faith in Jim Crain. TR at 358 and 422-424. Mr. Carll knew, or should have known, that the plan he sold included misrepresentations. Mr. Carll knew, or should have known, from the language of the plan that the refund promise is false. Each of the respondents is an insurance agent who enjoyed a fiduciary relationship which arose from previous sales of health insurance. Mr. Carll also enjoyed a fiduciary relationship that arose during the previously discussed consultative role he performed when he reviewed with plan purchasers their existing insurance. As Mr. Carll explained during his testimony: Well, a lot them, some of them were referrals, some of them were people we already knew. [Q] How did you know them? [A] That they had purchased insurance with us before. You know, a lot of them called the office. [Q] For what purpose did they call? [A] Well, they called the office looking for the agent that sold them insurance. TR at 360-361.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding the respondents guilty of violating Subsection 626.611(7), for the reasons stated herein, and suspending their licenses for 24 months from the date the proposed agency action becomes final. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2007, 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 31st day of January, 2007.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's license to operate a family day care home should be renewed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, the following findings are made: The Parties Respondent is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating child care facilities, including family day care homes. Respondent routinely conducts inspections of licensed family day care homes to determine whether the homes are in compliance with the applicable statutes and rules. Any problems found during the inspections are noted on a report, which is provided to the home's operator immediately following the inspection. When appropriate, the inspection report provides a time frame within which the problems must be corrected. Regular inspections are conducted approximately twice a year. More frequent inspections--monthly or every six weeks-- are conducted on family day care homes which have a provisional license rather than a standard license. Respondent also conducts inspections in response to complaints it receives, and it has the authority to inspect family day care homes at any time with or without notice. Petitioner is the owner and operator of a licensed family day care home located at 1502 North Kettles Avenue, Lakeland, Florida (hereinafter "Petitioner's facility" or "the facility"). Petitioner resides at that address as well. Petitioner has operated a day care home at the above address for approximately three years. Petitioner has taken all required training in order to be licensed. As a result, she is, or should be, familiar with the rules regulating family day care homes. Petitioner keeps children in her home, and children also play in Petitioner's backyard. This area is enclosed by a fence. Inspections and Resulting Actions by Respondent Petitioner's facility was inspected on February 4, 2003, by Respondent's inspector, Timothy Graddy, who found Petitioner caring for children. Several areas of noncompliance were identified during this inspection. Violations noted included unsafe and unsecured storage of materials dangerous to children, namely, bleach and other household cleaning chemicals were left out in the kitchen and a bathroom cleaning product was observed in the tub; paper and trash were littered around the home's back door which leads to the playground area; water that had collected in the sandbox, which presented a drowning hazard; no written evidence of a fire drill having been conducted on a monthly basis; and some of the children's immunization records were found to be out-of-date, which presented a health safety issue. A re-inspection was conducted on February 6, 2003, all violations had been corrected, and no fine or other penalty was imposed at that time. On August 26, 2004, Respondent's inspector, Tricia Step, went to Petitioner's family day care home to carry out a routine inspection, and she observed five children in the home at that time. Several areas of noncompliance were identified. The lock on a kitchen cabinet did not catch, allowing children access to household cleaning products stored there; the children's play area contained litter (empty chip bags and soda cans); an extension cord was lying on the ground in the playground area; the play areas in the home were not clean and stacked against a wall were toys and "stuff," which could fall on the children; at the time of the inspection, children were observed sleeping on blankets with no mats under them, which is in violation of the requirement that each child be provided with a mat, at least one inch thick, covered with an impermeable surface; Petitioner could not provide a record of fire drills being conducted within the previous six months; and an up-to- date and age-appropriate immunization record was missing for a child in her care. After Ms. Step completed her inspection, she discussed the results with Petitioner and provided Petitioner a copy of the inspection report. Petitioner made the corrections required prior to the due date listed on the report. Petitioner's premises were inspected for re-licensure by Mr. Graddy on January 15, 2004, and several areas of noncompliance were identified. Mr. Graddy observed a hammer, motor oil, and a plastic garbage bag on the front stoop area, which are hazardous and dangerous to children; litter, including aluminum cans and paper, was observed in areas where children play; a gap in the required 4-foot fence was observed, which would permit children in the outdoor play area access to a trafficked street; a written record of fire drills for the months of December 2003 and January 2004 were not provided; Petitioner was unable to produce a student health examination file on two children in her care; and the current enrollment information was incomplete on four children. The results of the inspection were discussed with Petitioner, and she was given a copy of the report. Graddy then went back to his office and discussed the results of the inspection with his supervisor, Patricia Hamilton. Based upon the results of the January 15, 2004, inspection and the prior incidents of noncompliance at Petitioner's facility, Ms. Hamilton determined that Petitioner's license should not be renewed. Although Petitioner attempted to do so, Respondent did not give Petitioner an opportunity to bring her home into compliance with the minimum standards in Respondent's licensing rules and standards before deciding to issue a letter of denial. Thereafter, on March 2, 2004, Mr. Graddy sent a letter to Petitioner informing her that her license was not being renewed and advising Petitioner of her right to "appeal" that decision through the administrative process. At the hearing, Ms. Hamilton testified that she was particularly concerned about Petitioner's repeat violations, namely Petitioner allowing the children access to toxic and other dangerous materials, repeated failure to conduct fire drills, and to keep health and enrollment records current. She characterized these as serious child safety violations. These were the primary reasons she recommended that Petitioner's child care license not be renewed. Petitioner, in her testimony, did not deny committing the violations noted in the inspections of February 4, 2003, August 26, 2003, and January 15, 2004. However, she did demonstrate that a re-inspection of her facility listed her to be in compliance with all violations listed in the report. Petitioner's testimony is credible, especially when bolstered by her friends, family, and client's testimonials, that she is a loving and caring person who goes out of her way to care for the children she keeps in her home. The evidence is clear and convincing that Petitioner violated several code provisions, including repeated violations of the rules regarding toxic and hazardous materials; trash and dangerous conditions in the children's play area; failure to conduct fire drills; and failure to have current health and enrollment records on file for each child. Respondent withdrew its allegation that Petitioner was not a person of good moral character. Petitioner has shown mitigating evidence that she is a concerned and loving caregiver and has demonstrated that her license for a family day care home should not be denied or revoked but that a lesser penalty should be imposed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Family Services issue a final order as follows: Finding Petitioner guilty of violating the provisions of Florida Administrative Code Rules 65C-20.010(1)(b) (three counts), 65C-20.010(1(e) (three counts), and 65C-20.010(3)(b)4. (three counts). Finding Petitioner not guilty of violating the provisions of Section 402.301, Florida Statutes. Issuing Petitioner a provisional license. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of July, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of July, 2004.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offense set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The parties Petitioner, Department of Health, Division of Medical Quality Assurance, Board of Medicine (Department), is a state agency charged with the duty and responsibility for regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Section 20.43 and Chapters 455 and 458, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Pedro Rene Benitez, M.D., is, and was at all times material hereto, a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 53453. On or about November 12, 1997, a true bill was returned by a grand jury in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Case Number 97-574-Cr-LENARD, which charged Respondent, as well as numerous co-defendants, with, inter alia, conspiracy to defraud the United States by making false claims to the United States Department of Health and Human Services in its administration of the Medicare program, contrary to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 371.1 Pertinent to this case, Count I of the Superseding Indictment charged Respondent, together with eighteen other persons or organizations, as follows: COUNT I (CONSPIRACY: 18 U.S.C. § 371) From in or about January 1991, the exact date being unknown to the Grand Jury, and continuing through in or about October 1993, in Dade County, in the Southern District of Florida and elsewhere, the defendants . . . did knowingly and willfully combine, conspire, confederate, agree, and reach a tacit understanding with each other and with persons known and unknown to the Grand Jury, to commit offenses against the United States, as follows: (a) to defraud the United States by impeding, impairing, obstructing, and defeating, through deceitful and dishonest means, the lawful government functions of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in its administration of the Medicare program, in violation of Title 18, Unites States Code, Section 371. . . . GENERAL ALLEGATIONS At all times material to this Indictment: THE MEDICARE PART A PROGRAM AND REGULATIONS The Medicare program was a Federal program that helped pay for health care for the aged, blind and disabled. The Medicare program was administered by HHS, through its agency, the Health Care Financing Administration ("HCFA"). Medicare, through the Medicare "Part A" program, covered certain eligible home health care costs for medical services provided by "home health agencies", commonly referred to as "providers", to persons who qualified for Medicare and who required home health services because of an illness or disability that caused them to be homebound. . . . HCFA contracted with private insurance companies to administer the Medicare Part A program throughout the United States. In the State of Florida, HCFA contracted with Aetna Medicare Administration of Clearwater ("AETNA"). As administrator, AETNA was to receive, adjudicate and pay claims submitted by home health agencies and providers under the Part A program. * * * Under the Medicare Part A program, home health agencies possessing the required CON were reimbursed for reasonable costs and overhead expenses incurred for direct patient care. The Medicare Part A program reimbursed 100% of the allowable charges for participating agencies providing home health care services only if the patient: (a) was confined to the home; (b) was under the care of a physician who determined the need for home health care and set up a written home health plan, known as a Home Health Certification and Plan of Treatment; and (c) was in need of skilled nursing care on an intermittent basis, required physical or speech therapy, or had a continuing need for occupational therapy. Medicare Part A regulations further required home health agencies providing services to Medicare patients to maintain complete and accurate medical records reflecting the medical assessment and diagnoses of their patients, as well as records documenting actual treatment of the patients to whom services were provided and for whom claims for reimbursement were submitted by the home health agency. These medical records were required to be sufficiently complete to permit Medicare, through AETNA, to review the appropriateness of Medicare payments made to the home health agency under the Part A program. Among the written records necessary to document the appropriateness of home health care claims submitted under Part A of Medicare was a Home Health Certification and Plan of Treatment (HCFA Form 485) (hereinafter referred to as "POT"), signed by an attending physician certifying that the patient was confined to his or her home and was in need of the planned home health services. Moreover, any substantial changes to the POT, or the provision of any home health services beyond a two-month (62 days) period from the date of the original certification, required a re-certification by the attending physician of the need for these changed or additional home health services. Additionally, Medicare Part A regulations required home health agencies to maintain medical records of each visit made by a nurse or home health aide to a patient. The record of a nurse's visit was required to describe, among other things, any observed significant signs or symptoms, any treatment and drugs administered, any reactions by the patient, and any changes in the patient's physical or emotional condition. These written medical records generally were created and maintained in the form of "skilled nursing notes" and "home health aide observations." * * * HOME HEALTH AGENCIES INVOLVED Defendant MEDERI OF DADE COUNTY, INC. ("MEDERI DADE COUNTY") was a home health care provider, incorporated in the State of Florida ("Florida") and certified by the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA). Defendant MEDERI DADE COUNTY was located in Coral Gables, Florida and possessed Medicare Provider Number 10-7087. Mederi of Miami Lakes, Inc. ("Mederi Miami Lakes") was a home health care provider, certified by the Florida Division of Health and Quality Assurance. Mederi Miami Lakes, which was a branch of defendant MEDERI DADE COUNTY, was located in the Miami Lakes area of Dade County, Florida and possessed Medicare Provider Number 10-7380. THE DEFENDANTS * * * * * * 43. Defendant PEDRO RENE BENITEZ was a resident of Dade County, Florida and a licensed physician. * * * PURPOSE OF THE CONSPIRACY 53. It was the purpose and object of the conspiracy for the defendants to enrich themselves by fraudulently inducing HHS to pay defendant MEDERI DADE COUNTY and Mederi Miami Lakes millions of dollars in Medicare Part A reimbursements for purportedly legitimate home health care claims and expenses, which claims and expenses the defendants knew to be false, fictitious, fraudulent and otherwise non-reimbursable in that, as the defendants well knew, the services were not actually provided or were provided to persons who the defendants knew were not qualified to receive Medicare home health care benefits. MANNER AND MEANS OF THE CONSPIRACY The manner and means by which the defendants sought to accomplish the purpose and object of the conspiracy included the following: * * * . . . defendants SUSAN REGUEIRO, LEOPOLDO PEREZ, JORGE PEREZ, MANUEL DIAZ, NORA COSTA, JESUS RODRIGUEZ, ERNESTO MONTANER, NILDA MIRANDA and RAUL CABRERA participated in the recruitment of licensed physicians, including defendants EDUARDO CUNI, PEDRO RENE BENITEZ, AGUSTIN GRANDA, JESUS OLIVA and JORGE MORENO, to sign fabricated and fictitious POT forms in exchange for cash and other financial benefits. In addition to directing the fabrication of POT forms, defendants SUSAN REGUEIRO and LEOPOLDO PEREZ, with the knowledge and concurrence of defendants JORGE PEREZ, MANUEL DIAZ, NORA COSTA, JESUS RODRIGUEZ, ERNESTO MONTANER, EDUARDO CUINI, PEDRO RENE BENITEZ, AGUSTIN GRANDA, JESUS OLIVA and JORGE MORENO, used employees of defendant MEDERI DADE COUNTY and Mederi Miami Lakes to generate the following fictitious supporting documentation, including: (a) records necessary to support the payments made to the nursing groups by defendant MEDERI DADE COUNTY and Mederi Miami Lakes for the claimed visits, including billing sheets, final matched itinerary/bill reports, and group batch worksheets; and (b) records necessary to support defendant MEDERI DADE COUNTY's and Mederi Miami Lakes' billing of those visits to Medicare. * * * 68. Defendants SUSAN REGUEIRO and LEOPOLDO PEREZ, with the knowledge and concurrence of defendants JORGE PEREZ, MANUEL DIAZ, NORA COSTA, JESUS RODRIGUEZ, ERNESTO MONTANER, EDUARDO CUNI, PEDRO RENE BENITEZ, AGUSTIN GRANDA, JESUS OLIVA, JORGE MORENO, JESUS PUNALES, ELISA GAVILLA, LYDIA GUADALUPE, JULIA GARCIA and NILDA MIRANDA, used employees of defendant MEDERI DADE COUNTY and Mederi Miami Lakes to process and submit to Medicare the false claims for home health visits originating from the nursing groups. * * * OVERT ACTS In furtherance of the conspiracy, and to accomplish its objects, at least one of the co-conspirators committed or caused to be committed, in the Southern District of Florida, and elsewhere, at least one of the following overt acts, among others: * * * CREATION OF FALSE DOCUMENTATION BY MEDERI EMPLOYEES * * * 48. On or about June 4, 1992, defendant PEDRO RENE BENITEZ caused his signature to be affixed on a POT form for a patient identified by the initials N.J. * * * On or about December 14, 1992, defendants SUSAN REGUEIRO, LEOPOLDO PEREZ, JESUS RODRIGUEZ and PEDRO RENE BENITEZ caused an employee of Mederi Miami Lakes to create a POT for a patient identified by the initials F.D. On or about December 14, 1992, defendants SUSAN REGUEIRO, LEOPOLDO PEREZ, JESUS RODRIGUEZ and PEDRO RENE BENITEZ, caused the signature of a licensed physician, defendant PEDRO RENE BENITEZ, to be affixed to a POT form for F.D. On or about December 14, 1992, defendants SUSAN REGUEIRO, LEOPOLDO PEREZ, JESUS RODRIGUEZ and PEDRO RENE BENITEZ caused employees of Mederi Miami Lakes to complete nineteen (19) false "skilled nursing notes" pertaining to F.D. * * * SUBMISSION OF FALSE CLAIMS * * * 93. On or about October 14, 1992, defendants SUSAN REGUEIRO, LEOPOLDO PEREZ, PEDRO RENE BENITEZ and LYDIA GUADALUPE caused an employee of Mederi Miami Lakes to submit a false home health claim in the amount of $2,700.00 to Medicare, through Aetna, pertaining to a patient identified by the initials M.G. (Emphasis added.) The false documentation Respondent made, presented and filed, or caused to be made, presented and filed, with the United States Department of Health and Human Services, through AETNA, for Medicare reimbursement for home health care visits resulted in a loss to the government with regard to patient N. J. of $500.00, with regard to patient F. D. of $4,600.00, and with regard to patient M. G. of $2,700.00, for a total loss of $7,800.00. For the creation of such false documentation, Respondent averred, at hearing, that he was paid "75.00 per beneficiary." (Transcript, page 22.) On April 27, 1998, consistent with a plea agreement Respondent had entered into with the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida (Petitioner's Exhibit 3), Respondent entered a plea of guilty to Count I of the Superseding Indictment ("Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, by making false claims to the [United States Department of] Health and Human Services in its administration of the Medicare program," contrary to 18 U.S.C. § 371), and on April 19, 1999, Respondent was adjudicated guilty of such offense. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4.) For such offense, given his cooperation with the United States attorney, discussed infra, Respondent was given a split sentence of 14 months, consisting of a term of imprisonment of 7 months, followed by 7 months of participation in the Home Detention Electronic Monitoring Program. Upon release from imprisonment, Respondent was to serve a term of 2 years on supervised release. Special conditions of supervision imposed by the judgement of conviction included the following: Effective immediately, the defendant shall surrender his medical license to the U.S. Probation Office. The U.S. Probation Office shall submit the license to the appropriate regulatory agency. The defendant shall not serve as a doctor or be employed or act in any capacity at any type of medical services, whether it be as a doctor, physician assistant or an administrator. The defendant shall not have any interest, directly or indirectly, in any medical businesses, whether it be medical services or medical supplies. The defendant shall notify the State Board of Medicine of his conviction and sentence in this case, and of the fact that his medical license has been taken by this Court. The defendant shall not participate in any Medicare/Medicaid billing procedures for any medical facility or program. Respondent was also ordered to pay, individually, restitution in the amount of $150,000.00 to the Palmetto Government Benefits Administration.2 The remaining charges (counts) against Respondent were dismissed (consistent with the plea agreement) on motion of the United States Attorney. On May 17, 1999, Respondent surrendered to the United States Marshal for the Southern District of Florida for commitment to the United States Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a term of 7 months. Respondent apparently completed that term in or about December 1999, and as of the date of hearing (February 8, 2000) was serving his 7-month period of participation in the Home Detention Electronic Monitoring Program. According to Respondent, his term of supervised release (probation) is scheduled to end December 12, 2001. Circumstances related to aggravation or mitigation of any penalty Respondent has been actively engaged in the practice of medicine in the State of Florida from his initial licensure on June 22, 1988, until the Department suspended his license (on an emergency basis, as a consequence of the pending federal charges) on April 6, 1999.3 During such period, in addition to his active practice, Respondent volunteered his services (from 1998 until his license was suspended) two or three days a month to the Dade County Chapter of the American Red Cross; volunteered his services for 5 or 6 years as a member of the medical staff of "Camilla's House," an organization serving the homeless; and volunteered his services to the American Red Cross for treatment of the victims of Hurricane Andrew. Respondent has never previously been disciplined by the Board of Medicine, and notwithstanding his conviction, continues to enjoy the support of former patients and colleagues. With regard to the Mederi case, Respondent cooperated with the United States attorney and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, albeit not until investigators discovered (3 years after the events) his participation in the conspiracy, and confronted him with their findings; it appeared in his best interest to cooperate. Notwithstanding, consistent with the terms of his plea agreement, Respondent provided truthful information, testified on behalf of the government at trial, and proved to be a key witness in resolving the case favorably for the government. With regard to the strictures placed on his conduct under the terms of conviction, the proof demonstrates Respondent has complied with the Special Conditions of Supervision. Indeed, during the term of his imprisonment, Respondent was formally excluded from eligibility to participate in the Medicare, Medicaid, and all Federal health care programs; was barred from receiving payment, directly or indirectly, from the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program; and, surrendered his controlled substances privileges (Drug Enforcement Administration Certificate of Registration). As for restitution, there is no proof of record that Respondent has made any payment toward satisfaction of such obligation; however, it is also noted that Respondent was imprisoned from May 17, 1999, to on or about December 12, 1999, and, consequently, unemployed. As for his future plans, Respondent, given his training and experience, desires to resume the practice of medicine upon completion of his term of supervised release (December 12, 2001), provided the Department does not further restrict his licensure status.4 Such practice will, according to Respondent, allow him an opportunity to properly support his family,5 and it would also appear likely that such employment would accord Respondent an opportunity to satisfy, in whole or part, his obligation to pay restitution for his criminal offense.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be rendered adopting the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and which, for the violation found, imposes an administrative fine of $10,000.00; orders compliance with all terms of the judgment of conviction; and continues the suspension of Respondent's license for a term of 2 years following successful completion of his term of supervised release, followed by a 2-year period of probation on such terms and conditions as the Board may deem appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of May, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 25th day of May, 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 Whether Respondent, Mildred Jones, doing business as Jones Family Day Care (Jones or Respondent), committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated May 29, 2012, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Respondent operated a licensed day care facility located in Orange County, Florida. On the date of the attempted inspection in this case, Respondent had six children enrolled in her day care program. Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of licensing and inspecting day care facilities throughout the State of Florida. As part of that responsibility, Petitioner routinely inspects day care facilities to assure compliance with rules and regulations that govern day care programs. On May 4, 2012, Petitioner’s agent, Luz Torres, inspected Respondent’s home. This was not Ms. Torres’ first visit to the home and, like all other visits, she approached the front door during regular business hours and knocked. Upon knocking, Ms. Torres was greeted by a female voice behind the door who advised that she could not let Ms. Torres into the home. The female, later identified as Christine Randall, refused Ms. Torres admission even after the inspector advised that it was required by law. Despite her efforts to enter the home, Ms. Torres was denied access. Ms. Torres could hear the sounds of children within the home but could not from outside the front door determine the identity or number of the voices. Ms. Randall did not advise Ms. Torres that Ms. Jones was in the rear of the property. Ms. Randall did not direct Ms. Torres to go to the rear of the property. Ms. Torres could not view the rear of the property from the front entrance. Ms. Torres’ efforts to reach Ms. Jones by telephone proved fruitless. Ms. Randall has not been screened or had a background check in years. Ms. Randall was not listed as a substitute caregiver for Respondent’s facility. Ms. Jones’ claim that only Ms. Randall’s two children were present on the date Ms. Torres attempted entrance has not been deemed credible. Ms. Jones also claimed Ms. Randall was present helping her prepare for her inspection. Had only two children been present, Ms. Randall could have easily admitted Ms. Torres, had her observe that the home was being prepared for inspection without other children present, and addressed her role as helper to Ms. Jones with only her own children present in the home. Instead, Ms. Randall denied access to the home and failed to direct Ms. Torres to the rear of the property (presuming Ms. Jones was, in fact, there). Ms. Wright’s suggestion that only Ms. Randall’s children were present on the date in question has not been deemed persuasive as Ms. Wright did not enter the home on that date, did not view the home for the entire time, and does not routinely know who is or is not in the home from her vantage as Respondent’s neighbor and friend.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Children and Families enter a final order finding Respondent committed a Class I violation and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $250.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of October, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of October, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Stefanie C. Beach, Esquire Department of Children and Families Suite S-1129 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1782 Mildred Jones Jones Family Day Care Home 5027 Caserta Street Orlando, Florida 32819 Gregory Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204B 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 David Wilkins, Secretary Department of Children and Families Building 1, Room 202 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Marion Drew Parker, General Counsel Department of Children and Families Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
