Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed practical nurse licensed in the State of Florida and holding license number 0504051. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida and is charged with enforcing the provisions of Chapter 464, Florida Statutes (1981), related to regulating and enforcing the licensure and professional practice standards for nurses of various categories enumerated therein in the State of Florida. During times pertinent to the allegations of the amended administrative complaint, the Respondent was employed as a licensed practical nurse at Ocala Geriatric Center, Inc. On September 16, 1982, the Respondent was the "float nurse" at Ocala Geriatric Center, meaning that she was a nurse assigned to various portions of the Geriatrics Center on an impromptu basis, which assignments to the various wings of the facility would be communicated to her by notations on her timecard which she would receive when she reported to duty for a particular shift. On September 16, 1982, she was previously scheduled by her supervisor to work on the north wing of the Ocala Geriatric Center. When Respondent reported to work for the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift for September 16 - September 17, 1982, she was told by her supervisor, Deloris Jamison, to work instead on the east wing of the facility. Respondent, upon learning this, became engaged in a dispute with Mrs. Jamison regarding this assignment, refused to fulfill the assignment and indicated that she preferred to report herself as sick and return home rather than work at her assigned location on the east wing that evening. The Respondent was told to shift her duties from her customary station on the north wing to the east wing that evening due to a shortage of nurses on duty on that shift. The director of nurses of the Ocala Geriatric Center, Ellen Cain, had already arranged for nurse Phyllis Shepard to work half of the 11:00 to 7:00 shift on the north wing of the facility. When nurse Shepard duly reported for duty at the north wing she found the Respondent present at the north wing even though the Respondent had previously been informed that she was to work on the east wing. At this time the Respondent announced her intentions to nurse Shepard to remain on duty at the north wing and not to report to duty on the east wing, contrary to her supervisor's direction. At this point nurse Shepard went to the south wing of the facility and conferred with nurse Jamison regarding the Respondent's assignment and her own assignment, and had the instructions confirmed by supervisor Jamison. Upon nurse Shepard's return to the north wing, the Respondent indicated to her also that she intended to report herself sick and go home rather than work on the east wing. Only upon calling the Director of Nurses, Ellen Cain, at her home and again receiving instructions to work on the east wing that evening, did the Respondent ultimately elect to proceed to her assigned duty station. Patients Whitehurst and Rubright were classified on September 16, 1952 and September 17, 1982, "as critical geriatric patients" inasmuch as they were nasal-gastric or "tube-fed" patients and both had "indwelling" catheters for elimination of urine. On or about September 16, 1982, the Respondent charted a "dash" on the fluid intake and output record of patient Whitehurst, rather than specifying actual fluid, if any, taken in by the patient. This is an improper method of notation of fluid intake and output for such a patient, since this does not accurately reflect any information one way or the other regarding fluid intake or output for that patient for that shift. At best it might lead to a presumption that that patient had received no fluid, which is a potentially serious problem with such a patient since if a catheterized patient does not receive adequate fluid from time to time during the day, then the catheter is at risk of being blocked, with potentially serious health consequences to the patient. On that same date Respondent also failed to chart any information in her nurses' notes for patient Whitehurst. Both nurses Shepard and the Director of Nursing at Ocala Geriatric Center, Ellen Cain, were accepted as expert witnesses in the field of nursing and specifically with regard to minimal standards of professional nursing practice in Florida. It was thus established that the failure to chart in her nurses' notes any information for patient Whitehurst was conduct not comporting with minimal standards of nursing practice, especially in view of the fact that the patient Whitehurst was a naso-gastric tube patient who was also catheterized. It is imperative to note any reason why such a patient does not receive fluid during a single shift or alternatively, when a patient does receive fluid, to note on the chart the amount and type of fluids received. Further, the use of a dash on the nursing chart makes it even more imperative that the nursing notes explain what occurred on that shift regarding the patient's fluid intake, so that the nurse charged with the responsibility of that patient on the ensuing shift would be aware of the patient's fluid status and aware of any abnormality that may have occurred on the previous shift. Although the Respondent may have, in fact, administered the proper fluids to patient Whitehurst on that shift, she failed to record whether or not that duty was performed. On September 16, 1952, the Respondent also charted a for fluid intake on patient Rubright, but again failed to make any notation on the nurses' notes as to why this patient actually received no fluids. This failure to properly chart and make notes regarding the patient's fluid intake and failure to administer fluids without explanation does not comport with minimal standards of nursing practice, especially inasmuch as patient Rubright was also a naso- gastric tube-fed and catheterized patient. The Respondent also failed to chart or record any nurses' notes with regard to patient Lesimby on September 16, 1982. Failure to chart was established to be a violation of federal medicare regulations and a violation of this particular facility's policies with regard to such medicare patients. Although daily charting and notes from each shift for such critical care patients as patients Whitehurst and Rubright is required by minimal standards of professional nursing practice, failure to chart nurses notes for other patients, simply because they are medicare patients, does not necessarily depart from proper standards of nursing practice, although federal regulations require that medicare patients be the subject of daily charting, including recording of vital signs. Compliance with such federal standards is of course, not the subject of the administrative complaint in this proceeding, however. Respondent's failure to properly record fluid intake and output for patients Whitehurst and Rubright, and her failure to properly chart nursing notes for those patients on the above dates, as well as her failure to order medications for patients as required by her position at Ocala Geriatric Center, Inc., could have resulted in serious harm to the oat' ants. It was not established that the Respondent has committed acts or omissions that could have jeopardized safety in the past, however, and it was not shown that any other violations of the nursing practice act or failures to comport with minimal standards of nursing practice have ever been charged or proven with regard to the Respondent's licensure status and nursing practice in the past.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Board of Nursing finding the Respondent guilty of the violations charged with respect to Section 464.018(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1981), with the exception of the violation charged with regard to patient Lesimby, and that the penalty of a reprimand and 90-day suspension of her licensure be imposed. DONE and ENTERED this 19th May of July, 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of July, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Julia P. Forrester, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Linda Sears Gibson 2003 Southwest Seventh Street Ocala, Florida Helen P. Keefe, Executive Director Board of Nursing 111 East Coastline Drive, Room 504 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues in this proceeding are whether the Respondent has committed violations of statutes pertaining to the practice of nursing as alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what disciplinary action is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent has been licensed by the Petitioner as a licensed practical nurse. From approximately May 21, 1980 until May 29, 1981, the Respondent was employed as an "LPN charge nurse" at Huntington Square Convalarium, Inc., in Daytona Beach, Florida. She had previously been employed at Huntington Square in the same capacity for approximately two months. She then went on maternity leave before she was reemployed. Persons in this capacity at Huntington Square supervised several nurses' aides, and performed usual nursing duties which included assessment of patients, preparation, administering and charting of medications, public relations duties with members of patients' families, telephone duties, being aware of safety conditions in the building, and the like. During the time that she served as a charge nurse at Huntington Square, the Respondent, on a recurring and frequent basis, engaged in unprofessional conduct which departed from the minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice. Respondent was experiencing extreme personal difficulties during that period, and she was subject to extreme mood swings while on the job. While in depressed moods, the Respondent would occasionally become inattentive to patients' needs and, on a few occasions, she failed to respond to obvious needs such as a catheter misplacement or edema. Respondent was subject to frequent crying fits. Other than occasional inattentiveness, the Respondent would, during her depressed episodes, inadequately chart and document procedures, use loud and profane language, and engage in extended conversations with staff members, visitors, and even patients regarding her personal problems. Respondent's conduct was disruptive and upsetting to the staff at Huntington Square, especially to those persons whom the Respondent supervised. Respondent's preoccupation with her own problems caused her to give too little attention to the needs of her patients, both directly and through persons she supervised. There was no testimony from which it could be concluded that any serious repercussions were imposed upon the Respondent's patients by her conduct. The conduct did, however, fall below minimal and acceptable standards of nursing practice in the State of Florida. Respondent's depression appears to have reached a peak in May, 1981. At that time, she was involved in an incident at Pick Shoe Store in Daytona Beach. The Respondent was dating an employee of the store. Respondent showed up at the store in an extremely agitated condition with a hand gun. Respondent was ultimately forced out of the store, the door was locked behind her, and she was handled by the police. What the Respondent's specific intent was at that incident is not known. She did admit to various persons, however, that on at least one occasion she attempted suicide at approximately that time. The Respondent suffers from a condition, recurrent depression, which is properly classified as a mental illness. The condition has in the past affected her ability to perform nursing functions. The condition is, however, controllable. Respondent was hospitalized in connection with a suicide attempt. Since October, 1951, she has engaged in regular counselling services at the Human Resources Center in Daytona Beach. Her condition has stabilized, and she has taken positive steps to improve her personal relationships. If the Respondent's condition remains stable, she is fully able to practice nursing effectively. If the Respondent continues to engage in a regular counselling program, it is likely that her condition will remain stable. Since November, 1981, the Respondent has worked at Bowman Nursing Center as a supervisor nurse. She is charged with responsibilities for examining reports; taking controlled drug counts; setting up, administering and charting medications; assisting with feeding; reporting on patients' progress; and making written evaluations. The Respondent has performed her job functions in an acceptable manner, and her job performance has steadily improved during her employment.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether, before applying for licensure as a registered nurse in Florida, Petitioner had suffered the denial of an application for licensure as a practical nurse in the state of Virginia, and, if so, whether Petitioner's failure to disclose that fact in her Florida application was a knowing misrepresentation; finally, if either or both of the forgoing questions are answered in the affirmative, whether Respondent has grounds to deny Petitioner's pending application for a nursing license.
Findings Of Fact On October 15, 2012, Petitioner Yolette Tema ("Tema") signed an application for licensure as a registered nurse, which she mailed to the Department of Health for review by Respondent Board of Nursing (the "Board"). Item No. 9 of the application sought information about the applicant's disciplinary history. Four subparts (lettered A through D) asked questions that called for a "yes" or "no" answer, which the applicant was to give by marking the applicable check box. The first question ("9A") was: Have you ever been denied or is there now any proceeding to deny your application for any healthcare license to practice in Florida or any other state, jurisdiction or country? Tema answered, "No." In Item No. 10 of the application, there appeared above the signature line the following declarations: I recognize that providing false information may result in disciplinary action against my license or criminal penalties pursuant to Sections 456.067, 775.083, and 775.084, Florida Statutes. I have carefully read the questions in the foregoing application and have answered them completely, without reservations of any kind. Should I furnish any false information in this application, I hereby agree that such act shall constitute cause for denial, suspension or revocation of my license to practice as a Registered Nurse or Licensed Practical Nurse in the State of Florida. Tema's signature manifested her agreement with the foregoing declarations. Despite having acknowledged the hard consequences of deceit, Tema's negative answer to the question of whether she ever had suffered the denial of an application for licensure was false. In fact, in June 2011, the Virginia Board of Nursing had denied Tema's application for licensure as a practical nurse, on the ground that she had provided false information in an effort to obtain a license by fraud, deceit, or material omission. Tema had received timely, contemporaneous notice of the Virginia Board of Nursing's final decision, and she was fully aware of that disposition at all times relevant to this case. When she completed the Florida application in October 2012, therefore, Tema knew that her response to question 9A was false. Because the information Tema failed to disclose obviously would have hurt her chances of obtaining a license in Florida, the undersigned disbelieves Tema's explanation for the material omission, which was that she simply made a mistake.1/ Instead, the undersigned infers that Tema intentionally omitted the damaging fact of the Virginia denial in hopes that the Board would not discover it.2/ The Board did, however, discover the Virginia decision while reviewing Tema's application. Based on that past denial and Tema's present failure to disclose it, the Board determined that Tema's Florida application should be denied. The Board's preliminary decision was communicated to Tema through a Notice of Intent to Deny dated February 11, 2014. Determinations of Ultimate Fact Tema is guilty of having an application for a license to practice nursing denied by the licensing authority of another state, which is a disciplinable offense under section 464.018(1)(b), Florida Statutes.3/ Tema is guilty of attempting to procure a license to practice nursing by knowing misrepresentation, which is a disciplinable offense under section 464.018(1)(a).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Nursing enter a final order denying Tema's application for licensure as a registered nurse. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of September, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 10th day of September, 2014.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto Respondent was licensed as a licensed practical nursing in Florida and was employed at the Lake Wales Convalescent Center. On the evening of December 29, 1983, Respondent was called into patient Allen's room by the nurses aide because Allen had refused to get into his pajamas as requested and was verbally abusing the aide. Respondent approached Allen, who began swearing at her, whereupon Respondent rolled up a towel and struck Allen several times on the left arm causing some bleeding and bruises which were visible to another witness two days later. Respondent does not deny striking Allen with the towel but contends Allen picked up a pitcher and called her a nigger before she picked up the towel. Respondent denies any intent to hurt the patient and testified she has worked as a licensed practical nurse for 15 years and has never before struck a patient. Allen is senile, often verbally abusive, but has never been violent while a patient at Lake Wales Convalescent Center. He does not bruise as easily as do many elderly patients. It is below the minimal standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice to strike a patient and, especially, a senile patient who is not violent.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the matter in issue herein, the Respondent, University of South Florida, (University), was an entity of the State of Florida located in Tampa, and operated, among other services, a Student Health Services at which physicians and nurses were employed to provide health services to members of the student body. The Petitioner, Olympia Malone, was hired by the University as a registered nurse at the Student Health Service in January, 1986. At the time of her hiring, Ms. Malone had 3 years of college. She had received an Associate Degree from Hillsborough Community College, was licensed by the State of Florida as a registered nurse, and had been employed as such at St. Jospeh Hospital for 12 years. Over the years of her employment with the University, Ms. Malone received several performance evaluations which covered the period from July 25, 1986 through January 23, 1990. Prior to receipt of the last report on January 26, 1990, she received a commendation letter in May, 1989 from Ms. Sharon A. Berry, her immediate supervisor, and had been asked to transfer over to the physician area. Petitioner claims to have been told there was some problem in getting nurses to work in that area and she was asked to go there to get it organized. She was told she had the skills needed at the new section. She agreed to do this because she enjoyed it and saw it as a chance to keep her nursing skills up since the work related to direct patient care. While there she learned new skills and made suggestions for some of which she was commended. However, when she asked for a raise she was told by Ms. Allen, the Director of Nursing Services, that she had been transferred there because of personality conflicts. When a nursing supervisor position came open in the Student Health Service in 1989, Ms. Malone applied for it but the promotion was given to Ms. Hansen, another nurse, whom Petitioner feels was less qualified then she. Malone filed a grievance about this failure to select her for promotion but subsequently withdrew it because she felt she could not win and to carry it forward would polarize the work section. Ms. Allen selected Ms. Hansen for the position of supervisor because she felt, from the records, Hansen was best qualified. Though Ms. Malone indicates she has had supervisory experience as preceptor for licensed practical nurses, nursing assistants and students at St. Joseph Hospital, her application makes no reference to any supervisory experience as did Ms. Hansen's. Ms. Allen's selection was based on who had the most supervisory experience. She went strictly by what was on the applications. At no time prior to the rendering of the appraisal on January 26, 1990 was Ms. Malone given any indication there was any concern about her performance, nor was she counselled. Unknown to her, however, there were several memoranda concerning her performance, dating back to 1988 and 1989, which were being kept in a private file maintained by Ms. Allen. These memoranda, which were not being kept in Ms. Malone's official personnel record with the University, made repeated reference to personality conflicts involving her and other employees which were, apparently, causing some concern to the staff. An Addendum to Annual Performance Review relating to Ms. Malone, dated January 28, 1991 and covering the period from January 24, 1990 to January 23, 1991, refers to a counselling session with her conducted on January 24, 1991, one day after the expiration of the reporting period. At this session, Ms. Malone's non-written evaluation was discussed but she disagreed with it and left the meeting before the discussion could be completed. The use of a non-written evaluation was, at that time, a new, informal, fluid procedure whereby the rater, using the old rating form, discussed with the ratee that individual's strengths and weaknesses. The supervisor had the option of using the old formal form or the new discussion/memorandum format. Once the discussion was completed, the employee had the right to request a memorandum of the evaluation. In this case, the process did not get that far since Ms. Malone got upset and departed the room before it was completed. It is this evaluation which she now considers to be racial discrimination and retaliation for her prior grievance which forms the basis for this hearing. Ms. Malone objected to the use of this new procedure because she felt it did not require the supervisor to identify specifics. In December, 1990, she had requested of Dr. Anderson, the Director of the Student Health Service, that (1) she get an evaluation by an impartial rater, and (2) her evaluation be in writing. In response, Dr. Anderson advised Ms. Malone that her immediate supervisor, Ms. Hansen, had to render the evaluation and that she would be given "something in writing." About a year before this latter evaluation, Ms. Malone, in January, 1990, received a written evaluation by Ms. Hansen which, though it reflected she achieved standards in every category, also reflected she had experienced some difficulty in working with others and with carrying out assigned additional responsibilities. On February 2, 1990, Ms. Malone filed a grievance because of that evaluation and in August, 1990, her supervisors and Mr. Carrington, the University's Assistant Personnel Director, met with her to discuss the areas of insubordination alleged by Ms. Hansen. Ms. Malone was told this meeting was not a counselling session. When she asked for permission to gather information on her own time to refute the allegations, it was granted and the information was thereafter sent to Mr. Carrington and Dr. Anderson, but she got no response. Ms. Malone's attorney filed a complaint about this with the EEO office in the summer of 1990. This grievance got lost and was not responded to. Also that summer, Ms. Malone filed a grievance with the campus employment office based on what she felt was a negative performance appraisal. This matter was referred to an arbitration committee made up of two Black and one White member which determined that no evidence of discrimination or retaliation was indicated. In January, 1991, she then got the counselling session on which she walked out. Several days later, the written addendum, which she considered to be much worse than the original evaluation, was prepared. In March, 1991, Ms. Malone, who is African American, filed the current EEO complaint but did not get a response for "quite a while." She claims that during all this time she was treated differently from the White nurses and harassed with acts of reprisal. For example, Dr. Kali Derasari called her to her office and told her to pull an appointment for a patient to refer to a nurse practitioner. When she advised the doctor of the requirements for record keeping, the doctor disagreed so she did what was asked of her. As a result, the nurse practitioner complained to Ms. Hansen who counselled Petitioner for not following proper procedure. When the doctor, at Ms. Malone's request, backed her up, she was still reprimanded. On another occasion, according to Petitioner, she applied for leave two weeks in advance to attend a work shop she wanted and agreed to use annual leave, if necessary. She got approval from Ms. Hansen for administrative leave on March 27, 1991, 4 days later. She went to the workshop as approved, but 3 weeks later, was called in by Ms. Hansen, told she should not have had administrative leave for a workshop, and directed to change her time sheet which had already been approved. When Ms. Malone called someone at the Personnel office about it, she was told that office had not suggested the change - that her supervisor could approve administrative leave. When she told Ms. Hansen that, it was then agreed she could leave it as it was. There were numerous unspecified other instances of harassment claimed by Petitioner. She recalls one occasion where Ms. Hansen physically provoked her by leaning over her and coming up close to her face, criticizing her about her work. This was ultimately made a part of her record. In addition, Ms. Malone is the only Black nurse in the section. The other nurse there is a White licensed practical nurse, yet Ms. Malone claims she has been instructed not to refer to herself as a registered nurse. She feels this deprecates her position in an attempt to curry favor with the White nurse who is of a lower professional status. She also cites several occasions where she felt information she needed to do her job was kept from her though others were advised. When she reported all this to Ms. Allen, Ms. Hansen's supervisor, she got no response. However, she claims, whenever anyone complained about her, she was called in and counselled. She admits that management could have called and counselled those about whom she complained without her knowing about it. Ms. Malone also appears to disregard the fact that Ms. Allen, the overall supervisor, is Black. In 1987 and 1988, Ms. Malone's supervisor was Sharon Berry. According to Ms. Allen, there was some mutual complaining between the two of them At first Ms. Allen was very protective of Petitioner because she had hired her and wanted her to succeed. However, when Petitioner did not improve as expected, Ms. Allen's attitude changed and when she had an altercation with Ms. Malone about where Malone's car was parked, she began to believe that maybe Malone had some problem with personal relationships. Contrary to what Ms. Malone related, the transfer into the physician's section in 1989 was the result of problems Ms. Malone was having with her supervisors and after the move, she appeared to be doing better. Ms. Malone was given the opportunity, along with other nurses, to work in other areas to get more experience, but she declined the opportunity unless she got more money. Ms. Berry was Petitioner's immediate supervisor just after she was hired and initially they got along well. When problems first began to arise, she went to Ms. Allen who advised her to show Petitioner more understanding. This is consistent with Allen's testimony regarding her initial efforts to protect Petitioner. Nonetheless, Petitioner's performance, monitored on a continuing basis, was "fine." She was a good nurse. Gradually, however, Petitioner's relationships with Ms. Berry and the other nurses began to deteriorate and her lateness began to be a problem. Ms. Berry supervised Petitioner until she transferred to the physician's area. Toward the end of their relationship, Berry claims, Petitioner became remote and withdrawn from other staff, indicating they were "5 faced" and "barracudas." Things got so bad between Berry and Petitioner that Petitioner would not speak to her unless spoken to and then would not make eye contact. Ms. Hansen has been Petitioner's supervisor in the physician's area since 1989. Two of the 3 individuals she supervises are Black. She evaluates Petitioner's performance formally once a year and informally on a continuing, routine basis. She has found that Petitioner works without supervision most of the time. This is all right. However, at times Petitioner does not come to her as a resource person but goes to someone outside the section for answers to job questions and this is not all right. She has observed that Petitioner often has some difficulty in her relationships with others. When it became clear Petitioner was having difficulty with another person in the section, Hansen investigated and initiated a new procedure. A part of the problem was Petitioner's attitude and often, even when she was technically correct, her abusive and abrasive approach to others diminished her effectiveness. She has had to reprimand Petitioner in the past. When Ms. Hansen called Petitioner in for the January, 1991 evaluation, she showed Petitioner what she intended to say and Petitioner got angry and left. The matters which would have been discussed with Petitioner had she not walked out, were subsequently formalized. When Ms. Malone complained to Ms. Allen she was told she was too loud, and that she acted like Whites expected her to act. Allen also reportedly alleged that Malone was hostile to her. Ms. Malone admits to being loud and believes her loud voice can cause people to think she is hostile. Nonetheless, Ms. Malone claims that because of all the above listed perceived discrimination and retaliation, she has developed unspecified physical and mental aliments and is taking medication for both even though in the last few months the pressure has let up somewhat. When she notified management of this, she was referred to the Employee Assistance Program.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore recommended that a Final Order be entered dismissing Olympia Malone's Petition for Relief from the unlawful employment practices of both racial discrimination and retaliation filed against the University of South Florida. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of February, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of February, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-3914 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: None submitted. FOR THE RESPONDENT: 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. 3. & 4. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 7. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: George Clark, III, Esquire 610 Horatio Street Tampa, Florida 33606 Wendy J. Thompson, Esquire University of South Florida 4202 Fowler Avenue, Adm. 250 Tampa, Florida 33620-6250 Margaret Jones, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F. Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32303-4149 Dana Baird, General Counsel Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-4149
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: In mid-January of 1978, the Bureau of Records Administration of the Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation mailed some 90,000 notices of license renewal to nurses currently licensed in the State. These notices contain the information that the nurses' current license expires on March 31, 1978, that failure by the licensee to renew before the expiration date automatically terminates the license, and that the license may be reinstated upon the payment of a fee and evidence that the licensee meets the current standards for practice. The notice further states that the current qualifications include the completion of high school or its equivalent. When the renewal cards and fees were returned to the Bureau of Records Administration, if postmarked on or before March 31, 1978, the Bureau mailed to each individual a renewal certificate for the year commencing on April 1, 1978. Processing time by the Bureau was generally two weeks, though it could take from four to six weeks. After the close of the renewal period, a lapse list was prepared and sent to the Board of Nursing to indicate those individuals who had not renewed their licenses. In 1978, some 4,000 to 5,000 names were on the lapse list. The only acceptable proofs of timely payment of the $6.00 renewal fee was actual receipt of the fee in the Bureau's office, signed certified mail, postmarks bearing a date of March 31st or before, or the tendering of cancelled checks. An application and notice of renewal was mailed to respondent Oliff, who has been a licensed practical nurse since 1968. A renewal certificate was not issued to her by the Bureau because the Bureau did not receive the $6.00 fee. The Bureau prepared and forwarded to the Board of Nursing a lapse card indicating respondent's failure to renew her license. Had the Bureau received respondent's renewal application and fee, it would have issued a renewal certificate to her. Respondent Oliff received the renewal notice and information from the Bureau. She was aware that her LPN license expired on March 31, 1978, and that her failure to renew the same would terminate her license. She was also aware that if her license were terminated, she would have to apply for reinstatement or reregistration with the requirement that she meet current qualifications, among which was the completion of high school or its equivalent. Ms. Oliff did not then and does not now possess this qualification. Nursing is the respondent's sole means of support, and she is also responsible for the support of her retarded daughter, a grandchild and her mother. It was Ms. Oliff's testimony that, on or about February 12, 1978, she wrote a $6.00 check made payable to the Board of Nursing, placed the check in the return envelope which was provided in the renewal notice and placed the stamped envelope in the United States mail. This testimony is substantiated by a copy of respondent's check register and by the testimony of Ms. Frances Fisher, a friend who was with respondent when she prepared the envelope and when she took it to the post office in St. Petersburg. Respondent Oliff did not become particularly concerned when she did not receive her renewal certificate before March 31, 1978, because in two previous years she had not received her renewed license. On those occasions, she had been able to obtain her license by showing the cancelled checks. Respondent came to Tallahassee on the evening of March 31, 1978, on other business. On the first working day thereafter, April 3, 1978, she went to the Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation and inquired about her license. It was at this time that respondent learned that her license had been terminated because the Department had not received her check or renewal form. Respondent tendered a $6.00 check to the Board of Nursing. This check was returned to her with the explanation that her license could not be renewed for $6.00. She was advised to place a tracer on her original renewal application and check and was informed that if she provided proof of the proper postmark or of a cancelled check, the renewal would be issued. A tracer or mail nondelivery report was placed by respondent with the U.S. Postal Service. Respondent was advised that the Postal Service was unable to locate the letter. Respondent applied for reinstatement. This was denied by the Board of Nursing on the grounds that respondent did not meet the current qualifications for a licensed practical nurse; to wit: the completion of an approved four year high school course of study or equivalent thereof.
Recommendation Based upon the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that: The Board of Nursing deny respondent's reinstatement application for failure to meet current standards for practice; and The Board of Nursing issue a renewal license for 1978-79 to the respondent upon the respondent's tender of the renewal fee and completed application. Respectfully submitted and entered this 29th day of November, 1978. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Judson M. Chapman Horne, Rhodes, Jaffry, Stephens, Bryant, Horne and Chapman Post Office Drawer 1140 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Julius Finegold 1107 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Geraldine Johnson State Board of Nursing 6501 Arlington Expressway - Bldg B Jacksonville, Florida 32211 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA STATE BOARD OF NURSING IN THE MATTER OF: Karen J. Workman Oliff P.O. Box 3121 CASE NO. 78-1337 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731 As a Licensed Practical Nurse License Number 20183-1 (Terminated) /
The Issue Whether one or more of the following penalties should be imposed on Elizabeth Worden: revocation or suspension of the Ms. Worden's practice, imposition of an administrative fine, and/or any other relief that the Board of Nursing deems appropriate?
Findings Of Fact Elizabeth Worden is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed practical nurse in the State of Florida. Ms. Worden holds State of Florida license number 0739611. Her license lapsed on April 1, 1987, and remained lapsed at least through September 20, 1988. On September 11, 1985, Ms. Worden was arrested and charged with one count of driving under the influence (hereinafter referred to as "DUI") and five counts of possession of controlled substance. On February 24, 1986, Ms. Worden was found guilty of DUI. Additionally, an Order Withholding Adjudication of Guilt and Placing Defendant on Probation was entered based upon a plea of nolo contendere by Ms. Worden to the five counts of possession of controlled substance. Ms. Worden was placed on three years probation for the charge of possession of controlled substance and was placed on a year of probation (to run concurrently with the sentence for possession of controlled substance), ordered to pay a fine, perform community service and had her drivers license suspended for six months for the charge of DUI. During at least part of 1986 and 1987, Ms. Worden was employed as a licensed practical nurse at the Ocala Geriatrics Center (hereinafter referred to as the "Center"). Ms. Worden was one of three licensed practical nurses at the facility during the 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift and was in charge of the patients on one floor of the facility. While on duty at the Center Ms. Worden retired to room 5 in the east wing of the Center almost every night to sleep. She generally went to the room at about 2:00 a.m. and remained in the room until approximately 6:00 a.m. While Ms. Worden slept, she left the certified nurses aides in charge of patient care and assigned duties to the aides which should have been conducted by a licensed nurse. Ms. Worden told the aides to wake her only if a patient needed medication, if another nurse appeared on her floor, and at 6:00 a.m. On three occasions Ms. Worden left the Center while she should have been on duty, leaving certified nurses aides in charge of patient care. On these occasions Ms. Worden was gone from fifteen to thirty minutes carrying out personal errands. Ms. Worden admitted on one occasion to a certified nurses aide that she had consumed a couple of beers before coming to work. Ms. Worden's breath often smelled of alcohol and the room in which she slept also smelled of beer on occasion. During 1987, Ms. Worden entered the Intervention Project for Nurses. She was dismissed from the program in August, 1987, for noncompliance with the program's requirements. On May 18, 1987, Ms. Worden was arrested and charged with DUI and resisting arrest without violence. She was adjudicated guilty of both offenses on July 13, 1987.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Elizabeth Worden be found guilty of having violated Sections 464.018(1)(c) and (g), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count One and Count Three of the Administrative Complaint. It is further RECOMMENDED that the portion of the Administrative Complaint alleging that Ms. Worden is guilty of having violated Sections 464.018(1)(f) and (h), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the second Count One and Count Three of the Administrative Complaint be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED that Ms. Worden's license as a practical nurse be suspended until the later of the end of a five (5) year period from the date of the final order issued in this case or the date that Ms. Worden provides proof acceptable to the Petitioner of her successful completion of a rehabilitation program acceptable to the Petitioner. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of November, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2548 The Petitioner has submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 3. 3-4 2. 5 3-4. 6 5. 7 7. 8 9. 9 10. 10 10-11. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael A. Mone' Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Elizabeth Worden 412-A Clark Street St. Charles, Missouri 63301 Bruce D. Lamb General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Lawrence A. Gonzalez Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Judie Ritter Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Room 504, 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32201
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner was discriminated against because of her race (African-American) in not being selected for promotions and whether she was not selected because of her handicap (back injury).
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a black female. At times pertinent hereto, she was employed by the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (now known as Department of Children and Family Services), at Florida State Hospital in Chattahoochee, Florida. She has a disability or handicap involving a back injury. She was first employed by the Respondent in July 1976, as a Registered Nurse II and initially supervised two or three wards. The Petitioner also worked for Apalachee Community Mental Health Service in Quincy as a Team Leader during 1977-1978. She was a part-time relief nursing supervisor at Tallahassee Memorial Hospital between 1978 and 1979. She became a Registered Nurse III in March 1978 at Florida State Hospital (FSH) and became a full-time nurse there in 1979. She supervised an entire unit after that time and worked in several different units of the Forensic/Corrections Department as a Senior Registered Nurse beginning in November 1982 and lasting until March 1987. Between March and December 1987, she served as a Senior Registered Nurse Supervisor until her current assignment. She has been employed since December 1987 as a Registered Nurse Specialist Coordinator and remained in that position until her resignation due to disability retirement on January 25, 1994. She has a good employment record, earning consistent above satisfactory or "exceeds" performance standards ratings during her career. The Petitioner earned her Bachelor of Science Degree in Nursing (BSN) from Florida A & M University in 1976. She has since earned 21 hours toward a Masters Degree and took continuing nursing education courses at a time when the continuing education course work was not yet required. She is licensed by the State of Florida as a Registered Nurse. Petitioner's Disability On August 25, 1992, the Petitioner suffered a job- related injury to her back. The Petitioner was absent from work for some months, apparently receiving worker's compensation during this time. On January 27, 1993, she was cleared to return to light duty work at the hospital by her treating physician. The Respondent provided her with an appropriate light duty job assignment at which she remained through the balance of her employment with FSH. On June 18, 1993, the Petitioner was determined to have reached maximum medical improvement by her treating physician. She was thereupon discharged from further medical care by Capital Health Plan. On July 26, 1993, she filed an application for 100 percent "line of duty" retirement from the Florida State Retirement System. The State Office of Worker's Compensation thereafter approved her application for "permanent total disability" worker's compensation benefits, effective June 16, 1993, resulting from the injuries suffered on August 25, 1992. The Petitioner was absent from employment from June 4, 1993 through January 27, 1994, inclusive, claiming 34 weeks of worker's compensation benefits for this time. Ultimately, and as part of her effort to obtain disability retirement, the Petitioner resigned from her employment with the Respondent on January 25, 1994. At the time of the Petitioner's resignation, the Department had an action pending to involuntarily terminate her from employment allegedly because of her inability to discharge her assigned job duties and responsibilities. Vacant Positions During the fall of 1992, a vacancy occurred in the position of Registered Nurse Supervisor, Forensic/Corrections at Florida State Hospital. This was in the facility known as the Corrections Mental Health Institute (CMHI). A career service system position description existed for this job which was developed by the State of Florida, Department of Administration. That position description required, among other things, that the incumbent hold a license as a registered nurse (RN) with the appropriate experience, education, licensure and nursing abilities. The position called for a minimum of 75 percent of the time expended in the job being involved with direct patient contact with forensic patients. The FSH advertised this position as position number 46392 in the HRS Job Bulletin. The application deadline was January 21, 1993. The minimum requirements for the job were licensure as an RN with three years of nursing experience. A bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university could substitute for one of the three years experience required. A bachelor's degree in nursing was not required for the job, however. For this and the other positions a "knowledge, skills and ability" instrument (KSA) was prepared, as required by applicable law, to provide for numbered items consisting of the knowledge, skills or competencies a person hired for each position would be expected to have. Position number 46392 included a KSA requirement of budget experience as being essential, since the position required the development, allocation and administration of that unit's nursing service budget. The job advertisement involving this position complied with existing HRS and FSH rules, policies and procedures. There was no evidence offered to show that it discriminated against any person as to race, national origin, or handicap and no person or class or persons was encouraged or discouraged from applying for the position. Neither employment with the Department nor FSH were prerequisites to application or acceptance of the position. Twenty-six applications were received for this position. The procedure for hiring a person in the state system and the FSH involves various tasks. First, the hiring authority must request the personnel office to fill the position. The hiring authority, from a class specification developed by the Department of Management Services (DMS), creates this specific position description which includes the specific duties of the position and the minimum qualifications established at DMS. The class specification contains generic KSAs and from the class specification and position description the hiring authority develops a KSA examination module. This module is created in three steps: (1) job analysis, where the position description is compared to the KSAs for choosing which KSAs will be searched- for when hiring the position; (2) development of a rating scale where the applicant's KSAs are compared against those developed for the position, to determine the applicant's relative qualifications; and (3) the development of KSA interview questions. According to the pertinent rule, KSAs must not reflect "easily learned" material or skills which can be rapidly learned on the job. The KSAs must also be job related. The scoring on the KSA application rankings form and on the interview questions, was 50 for a "superior level," 33 for "satisfactory level," and 17 for "acceptable level." The interview questions are the only ones which can be asked of applicants during the interview. The KSA examination module is transmitted to the personnel office, prior to the job being advertised. After the job announcement is disclosed, the applications are screened against the minimum qualifications for the position by the personnel office and those that are qualified are submitted to the hiring authority for screening against the developed KSAs for the position. This step is a paper review of the applications which is documented on the application review form filled out on each applicant. The application rankings are normally used to reduce the applicant pool to a smaller number, usually about five, who are then interviewed. The interview questions developed previously are asked of each interviewee, and their answers are rated against the 50-33-17 scale for their scores from each interviewer. The interview scores are aggregated, and the applicant with the highest interview score is selected for the job. A selection form is completed then which lists the top applicant, in the order of their scores, after the interview process. Each application for position 46392 was screened using the KSA instrument prepared in advanced, as required by applicable law, to determine which of the applicants was qualified for the job. The KSA criteria and the interview questions utilized were reviewed by the personnel office at FSH in advance of their use, to ensure compliance with HRS rules, regulations and policies, and EEOC guidelines. Points were then awarded to each of the applicants by the KSA examining committee. Applicant Z. Thompson, a white female nurse, was awarded a total of 233 points. The Petitioner, Jean Spear, was awarded a total of 165 points. Other black and white applicants ranked lower in point award amounts and some ranked higher, including black applicant Bethea, with 199 points. Based upon those scores, three applicants were selected to be interviewed for this position: Z. Thompson; D. Breeden, a white female Registered Nurse; and C. Bethea, an African-American female Registered Nurse. Applicants Thompson and Breeden had associate science degrees in nursing while applicant Bethea had a bachelor of science degree. The bachelor of science degree is a higher degree than an associate science degree and can offset a year of the experience requirement for this and the other positions. However, the bachelor of science degree does not automatically mean that the holder thereof has a higher level of qualification for the position when all the applicants' qualification attributes are weighed against the position requirements and considered together. The Petitioner was not selected for an interview for this position because she finished ninth in the overall KSA rankings for the position. The interview committee for this position consisted of three FSH employees: Joel Devolentine, the administrator in charge of the program; Alva Martin, the chief nursing consultant at FSH; and Harry Moody, Jr., an administrator at the Department of Corrections, Corrections Mental Health Institution (CMHI). Interviewers Devolentine and Martin are white and Mr. Moody is black. The interview were conducted on February 11, 1993. During the interview process, Mr. Devolentine asked the candidates questions which were prepared in advance. Each interviewed person was asked the same questions, in the same sequence. Each member of the interviewing committee scored the responses on forms provided using the scoring system designated and implemented for that purpose. Each member of the committee scored the interviewees independently and did not discuss the points awarded to those persons with the other members of the committee. Each made his or her entries on the interview form separate and apart from the other members of the interview committee, contemporaneously with the responses given by the applicants. Upon conclusion of the interviews, the score sheets were given to Mr. Devolentine by each member of the committee for tabulation. There is no evidence that points awarded were changed or modified in any way once they were awarded. The total numerical scores for each of the candidates interviewed, showed that Z. Thompson had the highest score. Black candidate C. Bethea had the next highest score, and white candidate D. Breeden had the lowest score. The preponderant evidence shows that the KSA's experience in budget issues and the KSA's requiring certification in behavior analysis were both directly related to the job in question and both KSA competencies or certifications were possessed by Z. Thompson and not by the other candidates interviewed nor by the Petitioner, who had not received enough qualification points for the position to be interviewed. Because she received the highest total number of points and met all the minimum requirements set forth in the position description in the HRS job bulletin, because she possessed more experience in budget issues and was certified in behavior analysis, Z. Thompson was selected to be awarded the job. The preponderant evidence shows that the hiring process as to this position was conducted in accordance with existing HRS and FSH rules, regulations, policies, and procedures. There was no persuasive evidence that any of the hiring and selection process was designed or used to favor one class of persons or one person over another by reason of race, ethnicity or handicap. Although there was testimony concerning comments made by various supervisory personnel at FSH to the effect that Z. Thompson should apply for this position or that it was intended in advance that she get this position, there was no persuasive evidence of such pre-selection of Z. Thompson by the hiring decision-maker. It is somewhat noteworthy that white interview committee member Alva Martin gave black candidate Bethea 380 points and white candidate Breeden 347 points, while black interview committee member Moody gave black candidate Bethea 448 points, and white and winning candidate Thompson 465 points. Committee member Devolentine gave winning candidate Thompson 516 points; next highest candidate D. Breedan, a white female, 482 points; and black candidate Bethea 448 points, the same number of points that black committee member Moody had given candidate Bethea. There is no definitive, persuasive evidence that race was a determining factor in the award of the job to candidate Thompson. There was no persuasive evidence as to this position that handicap was a factor in determining that the Petitioner did not get selected for an interview for the position nor selected for the position. Position number 34563 involved a vacancy occurring during 1992. The application deadline for the position was October 22, 1992. The minimum requirements for the job were licensure as a Registered Nurse and four years of nursing experience with one year of that experience requirement offset if a candidate had a bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university. The position description indicates that approximately 75% of the time expended in the job required direct patient conduct with forensic clients. This is the position known as Executive Nursing Director, Forensic/Corrections at Florida State Hospital. The position was advertised in the HRS Job Bulletin. The advertisement complied in all respects with existing HRS and FSH rules, policies, and procedures, and no person, or class of persons, was either encouraged to apply or discouraged from applying as to race, handicap or other status. Thirteen applications were received, and the screening and interview process described above was employed once again in accordance with HRS rules, regulations, and policies and EEOC guidelines. The screening used the KSA instrument prepared in advance for the position, as required by applicable law to determine which applicants were qualified for the job. That resulted in points being awarded and twelve out of the thirteen applicants being interviewed for the position. The interview committee consisted of four FSH employees: Robert Alcorn, the administrator in charge of the program; Alva Martin, chief nursing consultant at FSH; Richard Taylor, a unit director in the Forensic Services at FSH; and R. W. Myers, an administrator in the Forensic Services. Alcorn and Myers are white males. Ms. Martin is a white female and Mr. Taylor is an African-American male. The interviews were conducted on November 23, 1992, with interviewer Robert Alcorn asking all questions of all candidates. The questions were prepared in advance and the interview process included the private and independent deliberation and evaluation by each committee member, conducted as described above. There is no evidence that any points awarded were changed or modified in any way once they were assigned by each committee member. Upon conclusion of the interview process, Mr. Alcorn recommended the following persons for the position of Executive Nursing Director, Forensic/Corrections, as being most qualified for the job, by order of preference: (1) G. Cook with 82.1 points; (2) Z. Thompson with 80.6 points; (3) B. Weems with 74.6 points; (4) L. McMullian with 64.1 points; and (5) J. Spear, the Petitioner, with 61.0 points. Candidate Gwen Cook met all of the requirements of the position description in the HRS Job Bulletin and had more experience in forensic and emergency nursing than did the Petitioner. She received the highest total points and was offered and accepted the job. The KSA at issue as to this position required hospital emergency room experience, including certification in advanced cardiac life support. The position was executive nursing director in a medical-surgical psychiatric ward. Therefore, it was relevant to require, in a KSA for the position, that applicants have extensive knowledge of emergency medical procedures including management of airway obstructions, intubation defibrillator operation, etc., as well as the certification for advanced cardiac life support. It was a legitimate KSA requirement to specify hospital emergency room type experience, which Gwen Cook had in better degree than the Petitioner. The Petitioner did have psychiatric emergency care experience which was relevant, but the higher level of emergency and advanced cardiac life support experience possessed by Gwen Cook coupled with her additional forensic experience justified her selection for the position. The Petitioner was certainly qualified for the position, but Ms. Cook was more qualified, and there is no showing that the point rankings referenced above were improperly arrived at in violation of any rules, policies or statutes. There was no persuasive evidence that they were arrived at to the Petitioner's detriment for reasons of racial preference, ethnicity, or improper discriminatory consideration of the Petitioner's handicap. It was not persuasively demonstrated by the evidence that the advanced cardiac life support certification was a certificate that could be earned in a very short period of time, and thus it was not shown that it was an invalid KSA criterion. In 1992, a vacancy occurred in position number 04877. The FSH advertised this position in the HRS Job Bulletin. It was the position of Registered Nursing Consultant. The position application deadline was July 1, 1992. The position description for this position, which had been developed by the Department of Administration, required that the incumbent have appropriate knowledge, experience, education, and abilities in nursing principles, especially in the area of infection control. The description called for approximately 75 percent of the time expended by the holder of this position to be in direct patient contact with forensic clients. The minimum requirements for the job were licensure as a registered nurse with four years of nursing experience. A bachelors degree from an accredited college or university could substitute for one of the four years of experience required. Specific experience in infection control and epidemeology was essential. The job advertisement complied in all respects with existing HRS and FSH rules, policies, and procedures. Employment with the Department or with the Florida State Hospital was not a prerequisite to attainment of the position. Fourteen applications were received and each application was screened using the KSA instrument prepared in advance for that purpose, as required by law. This was used to determine which of the applicants were qualified for the job. Both the KSA criteria and the interview questions used were prepared and reviewed in advance of their use to ensure compliance with relevant law, in the manner delineated more particularly above. Points were awarded to the persons who applied for the job by the KSA examining committee in such a manner that the Petitioner received 232 points, with only applicant, Nora Howell, who received 300 points, being ranked higher. The Petitioner, was tied for second place in point awards with black applicant C. Bethea and applicant S. Harris. The remainder of the fourteen applicants all scored lower. Based upon those scores determined by the KSA examining committee, the six highest ranking applicants were selected to be interviewed for the position, including the Petitioner. The interview committee consisted of two FSH nursing professional employees: Kathy Wheeler, the administrator in charge of the program and Sue Calloway, a practicing registered nurse at FSH. The interviews were conducted on July 9, 1992. During the interview process, committee member Kathy Wheeler asked the candidates questions, which had been prepared in advance. Each person interviewed was asked the same questions by the designated interviewer, Ms. Wheeler. They were asked in the same sequence. Each member of the interviewing committee scored his or her responses to the questions on forms that had been provided using the scoring system designated and implemented for that purpose. There is no evidence that any member of the committee discussed the points he or she awarded to the interviewees with other members of the committee and no evidence that the entries on the interview forms were made other than separate and independently from each other member of the committee. There is no evidence that points awarded were changed or modified in any way once they were awarded. Upon conclusion of the interviews, all the scoring sheets were given to Ms. Wheeler for tabulation. The total numerical scoring for each of the applicants interviewed was: Nora Howell, 128.4 points; Jean Spear, 119.9 points; C. Bethea, 111.4 points; V. Ramsey, 122.9 points; J. Collins, 118.8 points; and S. Harris, 111.4 points. One of the KSAs applicable to this position called for the person to be hired to have significant expertise in the area of infection control and epidemiology for this nurse consultant position. While the Petitioner remonstrates that this is not a legitimate KSA requirement because it is not directed related to the job and is an area easily learned on the job, the preponderant evidence reveals that indeed, it is directly relevant to this position and it is of significant importance. It is not a field or area of expertise which can be rapidly learned after hiring. Thus, the preponderant evidence shows that this KSA item or criterion is a legitimate one. The preponderant evidence shows also that successful applicant Nora Howell possessed this expertise to a greater extent than did the Petitioner. Thus, although the Petitioner was well qualified for the job in most respects, the qualifications of Nora Howell in this area exceeded those of the Petitioners according to the preponderant, credible evidence. This justified her being awarded a higher level of points in the screening and interviewing process than the Petitioner. Since she met or exceeded all the other position criteria which had been duly and legally adopted, it was justifiable for her to be offered and to accept the position instead of the Petitioner on these qualification-related bases. The application, screening, and interview process and ranking and scoring of points followed the procedure delineated by statute and rules and described in more detail above. There is no credible evidence that the hiring decision as to this position was made for any reason motivated by racial discriminatory intent or discrimination because of any handicap of any applicant. There is no clear evidence that "pre- selection" occurred as the Petitioner contends, but even if Nora Howell had informally been pre-selected for this position, there is no credible evidence that it had anything to do with racial or handicap discrimination against the Petitioner. During the fall of 1992, Florida State Hospital advertised the position of Senior Registered Nurse Supervisor for the Forensic/Corrections Department, position number 09671, in the HRS Job Bulletin. The position application deadline was January 21, 1993. The minimum requirements for the job were licensure as a registered professional nurse and three years of nursing experience. Here again, a Bachelor's Degree from an accredited college or university could substitute for one of the three years experience required. Experience dealing with forensically-committed patients was essential. The evidence shows that the job advertisement complied in all respects with existing HRS and FSH rules, polices, and procedures. The advertisement did not discriminate against any person or group or class of persons on the basis of race, handicaps, or other reasons. No person, or class of persons, was either encouraged or discouraged from applying by the advertisement. Neither was employment with the Department nor the hospital a prerequisite. Twenty-four applications were received. Each application was screened using the KSA instrument prepared in advance for that purpose by the procedure delineated above. In the KSA screening or examining process, applicant Patricia Powell scored 266 points; William Dixon scored 250 points; and Jean Spear, the Petitioner, scored 249 points. Applicant Zilla Thompson scored 323 points, S. Peoples scored 232 points, and Betty Thames scored 233 points. These six top point winners in the KSA examining process were selected to be interviewed by the interview committee. The interview committee consisted of five employees: Steve Lacy, an administrator in charge of the program; Gwen Cook, a practicing Registered Nurse in the forensic services at FSH; Judy Wester, a direct care supervisor in forensic; Alva Martin, the chief nursing consultant at FSH; and Willie McLeroy, a forensic direct care supervisor at FSH. The interviews were conducted on February 1, 1993. During the interview process, interview committee member Alva Martin was designated to ask the candidates questions which were written, prepared, and approved in advance under the process already delineated above. Each person interviewed was asked the same questions by the same interviewer in the same sequence. Scoring was done independently by each member of the interview committee and the scores submitted to Steve Lacy of the committee for tabulation. There was no evidence that points awarded were changed or modified in any way once they were awarded by each member of the committee. Applicant Dixon was awarded 3127 points and Petitioner Spear was awarded 2276 points. That made the Petitioner rank fifth from the top point earner, Mr. Dixon. Mr. Dixon met all the minimum requirements set forth in the position description in the HRS Job Bulletin for the position. Mr. Dixon had more forensic nursing experience overall than did the Petitioner, having ten years versus the Petitioner's five years. The Petitioner offered no preponderant, persuasive evidence that the hiring decision for this job or for the other three jobs was racially motivated. The Respondent's position in response to the Petitioner's attempted prima facia showing of racial discrimination, to the effect that she is black and that the successful job applicants were all white, is that, in fact, the Respondent hired the persons it believed were most qualified for the job. In fact, the proof shows that as to three of the positions, already treated herein, the winning applicants were indeed the most qualified for the job. The proof shows that the Petitioner was most qualified for the job currently being discussed in the paragraphs next above, that is, position number 09671. Her denial of hiring for that position, however, was not shown to be due to any racially discriminatory intent given the proof culminating in the above findings concerning how the selection process operated in accordance with the rules and policies of the agency. The preponderant, persuasive evidence shows that the Petitioner was actually better qualified than Mr. Dixon, the nurse who was awarded the position. The expert testimony of Dr. Frank, corroborated by the testimony of witness Betty Thames, in particular, shows that the Petitioner was better qualified for this supervisory position number 09671 because of her more extensive educational and work-experience qualifications. She had more varied experience in the nursing profession in areas that were related to this job than Mr. Dixon had, in spite of his longer experience in the forensic department. The Petitioner was shown to have a superior ability in the area of implementing medications and psychiatric nursing treatment procedures because the Petitioner had demonstrated this ability in a broad variety of settings, with different kinds of patients, coupled with her three and three-quarter years of forensic supervisory experience. She is also superior in her skills and expertise regarding working as a contributing member of a multi-disciplinary team, functioning as a team leader and with consulting with families. She also has more experience as a liaison nursing person with jails and community health-related facilities or resources. Additionally, for position number 09671, KSA number one for that position indicated a desire for experience in a tardive dyskinesia clinic. Only Mr. Dixon had this experience of all the applicants for this position, so the Petitioner was not given credit for it in the screening and interview process. In fact, she had many of the same general skills and abilities. The specific emphasis on tardive dyskinesia experience was shown, however, through the testimony of Dr. Frank, as being unnecessary to this type of supervisory position. More importantly, in the interview for this Senior Registered Nurse Supervisor position (09671), there was a written interview question asked the Petitioner concerning her disability. That question was as follows: "6. Do you have any disabilities that would prevent you from lifting or working a 40-hour week or that would prevent you from performing this job? How many days have you missed in the past year due to illness? How many unscheduled absences did you have in the past year? Do you have any responsibilities commitments or activities that would prevent you from doubling on or changing your work days or weekends?" Witness Betty Thames for the Petitioner also stated that during the course of a telephone interview in which the interview committee chairman, Steve Lacy, questioned her, as the Petitioner's supervisor, concerning her attendance that he made a "nonprofessional remark" (in a negative vein) regarding the Petitioner's physical limitations to the effect that "It doesn't matter why she was out to me". This was related to a discussion between the two in the telephone interview concerning the Petitioner's work attendance history and her back injury. Lacy's statement was admitted into evidence as a "party admission exception" to the hearsay rule. He was clearly an agent of the Respondent and a key person in this hiring process. The Respondent was aware of the Petitioner's disability. She had injured her back on the job in August of 1992. She had been off work receiving worker's compensation benefits for the injury and, based upon her doctor's finding that she had reached maximum medical improvement, had been returned to work, apparently in early 1993, and given light duty involving work not requiring lifting more than 15 pounds, prolonged walking, stooping or bending. She reported this disability on her employment application for these positions. Her back injury clearly limited her in a "major life activity," such as lifting, walking, prolonged standing, or her level of mobility and strength in general. All of the positions for which she had applied were less strenuous than the position she had last held before going on retirement. This was testified to by the Petitioner as well as C. J. Brock, the Respondent's personnel director and Betty Thames, the Petitioner's immediate supervisor. Mr. Brock testified that her injuries would not normally be considered a negative factor for supervisory or consulting positions in nursing, which is the position at issue. In fact, after the Petitioner answered on all of her application forms "yes" to the question concerning whether she had a disabling or handicapping condition and had additionally written that her limitations involved lifting, bending, prolonged standing or walking, the personnel office still qualified her for the position at issue in this proceeding. In spite of that, the Respondent's agent in the hiring process still, at least as to position number 09671, formally asked her about her disability and handicap in the context of the above-quoted questions. The Petitioner maintains she was asked about this in each of her interviews for all four positions. Her testimony does not clearly show exactly what the nature of the questions were, if they were asked, and that self- serving testimony cannot serve as evidence of disability discrimination as to the other three positions, as it is not sufficiently preponderant credible and persuasive. The formal written questioning as to position number 09671, however, does show that the employer had a no doubt genuine, but for the reasons delineated below, illegal pre- occupation about the Petitioner's disability or handicap. There is no evidence of malicious intent in the above-quoted inquiry about the Petitioner's physical limitations or even in the statement attributed to Steve Lacy referenced above. The inquiring statement rather reflects a genuine but ill-advised concern by the Respondent about getting an employee in the subject position who might be absent from work excessively or be the source of other personnel problems due to her disability. The Petitioner has raised an issue concerning "pre- selection" by citing statements witnesses related at hearing, made by certain supervisory individuals involved to one degree or another in the hiring process for the four positions at issue. These statements purport that a certain person who ultimately got the job in question was the person the declarant involved wished to have apply for the job or a statement to the effect that the Petitioner need not apply because another person, such as, for instance, Nora Howell, was going to get the job. These statements were purportedly made before the hiring process started or was completed, and therefore were offered as evidence of illegal pre-selection, that is, illegal pre-selection in the context of the agency's rules. These statements were admitted as party admission exceptions to the hearsay rule. In terms of their credibility and persuasiveness, however, it is pointed out that they were not subject to cross- examination. Moreover, whether they are credible or not, they did not stand as probative of racial discrimination or disability discrimination because the statements could just as easily have been reflections of preferences based on friendship, which might be distasteful, ill-advised, or even illegal in another context but does not itself show racial animus or intent to discriminate based upon the Petitioner's disability. The statements might equally reflect an innocent statement or statements by these individuals which reflect their genuinely-held belief that the persons they purportedly favored were actually the best qualified for those jobs. It is thus found that these statements, as evidence of pre-selection, are largely immaterial to resolution to the issues in this case because they do not have any significant probative value in fact-finding as to the issues of racial or disability discrimination. The Petitioner was paid $1,544.68 bi-weekly through January 25, 1994, the date she retired. She was making $1,499.69 on a bi-weekly basis prior to September 30, 1993, back through the relevant period at issue. Her salary would have been increased a minimum of 10 percent if she had been hired at any of the four positions involved in this case. Because of the above findings of fact, she should have been hired in position number 09761. Thus, she should have had her pay increased by 10 percent from the hiring date for that position forward to the time when she retired. That hiring date would be shortly after the interview date for that position, of February 1, 1993, so her salary should have been increased 10 percent forward from that time with a cost of living increase of 3 percent beginning October 1, 1993, with such back pay and attendant upward adjustment in retirement benefits being awarded through her retirement date of January 25, 1994. There is no proof of compensatory pay, front pay or attorney's fees and costs in this proceeding.
Recommendation Accordingly, in consideration of the preponderant evidence of record and for the reasons delineated in the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Petitioner was the victim of discrimination because of her handicap as to position number 9671. Because the Petitioner is unable, due to her total and permanent disability to return to work, her remedy is back pay. She should therefore be awarded back pay represented by the salary she would have earned in position number 9671 from the hiring date of that position which occurred shortly after February 1993, the interview date. She should have her attendant retirement benefits adjusted upward by virtue of being denied that job, with an attendant cost of living increase of 3 percent which she would have earned beginning October 1, 1993, with such increased salary and benefits to be awarded terminating as of January 25, 1994, her retirement date. Jurisdiction is reserved on the issue of attorneys' fees and costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of August, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of August, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence F. Kranert, Esquires Florida State Hospital, Building 249 Post Office Box 1000 Chattahoochee, Florida 32324 Jack McLean, Esquire 100 Peachtree Street, Northwest, Suite 600 Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1909 Larry K. White, Esquire John W. Hedrick, Esquire 1311-B Paul Russell Road, Suite 203 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, Esquire Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
