Findings Of Fact Respondent, Roxie E. Vause, was certified by Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on September, 1979 and was issued Certificate No. 99- 2566. On August 30, 1986, Roxie E. Vause was Chief Investigator with the Wakulla County Sheriff's Department (WCSD). At Approximately 11:00 a.m., on August 30, 1986, Eric Hindle, Chief of Paramedics and Ambulance Services in Wakulla County, was contacted by his dispatcher who reported Roxie Vause had called stating he had been in an automobile accident and requested Hindle's assistance. Hindle, who was a neighbor of Vause, had known Vause for many years and had had many years experience as an Emergency Medical Technician (EMT). As an EMT, he had dealt with many individuals who were injured and who were suffering from psychotic episodes. Hindle drove to the Vause home with two of his employees where he spoke with Vause's wife and learned that Vause was not at his house. While Hindle was talking with Vause's wife, Patrick Kennedy, a uniformed Wakulla County Deputy Sheriff, also arrived. Kennedy and Vause's wife left in Kennedy's patrol car to visit a house where Vause's wife thought he might be. Hindle decided to drive in the direction of Hindle's house searching for Vause. At approximately 12:00 noon, Hindle viewed Vause walking along the side of the unpaved road in the vicinity of Hindle's home. Vause had his hands and arms held across his stomach as though he were in pain. Hindle radioed that he had found Vause and their location. Hindle then drove his car along side Vause, stopped, and abruptly approached Vause, who reacted as though he were frightened and drew his pistol, pointing it at Hindle. Although they were neighbors and had worked together professionally for years, it was Hindle's opinion that Vause did not recognize him at that time and was having a psychotic episode. Hindle was of the opinion that Vause had been drinking alcohol and did not know where he was or what he was doing. Hindle quieted Vause down and Vause responded to Hindle, putting his pistol away. Hindle was talking with Vause, continuing to pacify him and attempting to place him in Hindle's care for transportation to the hospital when Kennedy arrived in his patrol car with Vause's wife. Kennedy approached Vause from the rear and placed his hand on Vause's shoulder. Kennedy was dressed in uniform and had worked with Vause before. When he was touched, Vause turned towards Kennedy and when he saw his uniform, he began to shout incoherently and redrew his pistol. Kennedy grabbed Vause's hands, holding the gun down between them, and Hindle, Kennedy, and another EMT wrestled Vause to the ground where Kennedy handcuffed him. Hindle was of the opinion that Vause did not know who Kennedy was or what was happening. After he was handcuffed, Kennedy talked with Vause; and as he talked with Vause, it seemed that Vause recognized Kennedy and calmed down again. When he was calm, Kennedy took the handcuffs off and continued to discuss what was going on with Vause. When Kennedy discussed sending Vause to the hospital, Vause went wild again, striking Kennedy in the face with his fist. Kennedy again subdued Vause and rehandcuffed him. Kennedy observed that Vause appeared to go wild; and when in that state, Vause did not appear to recognize Kennedy or others whom Vause should have known. According to Kennedy, Vause did not act normal. Kennedy placed Vause in a vehicle and Vause was transported to the emergency room at Tallahassee Memorial Regional Medical Center. Margorie Landers Smith was a Registered Nurse in the emergency room when Vause was brought in on the afternoon of August 30, 1986. She had known Vause when she had worked for the ambulance service in Wakulla County. She took his medical history and charted his vital signs upon admission. Vause appeared to Smith to have been drinking and was in a highly excited state. Dr. Cohen (phonetic), Vause's doctor, arrived and examined Vause and ordered various tests. Upon receiving the results, Dr. Cohen advised Vause to voluntarily admit himself for psychiatric observation. Vause angrily refused and Dr. Cohen told Vause that he, Cohen, would admit Vause involuntarily. Cohen and Smith were both in an examining room in the hospital's emergency room during this confrontation, and Vause refused to let either of them leave the room. Smith talked with Vause and convinced Vause to let Dr. Cohen leave. Vause admitted to Smith that he was drinking too much and had family problems. Vause eventually allowed Smith to leave the examining room. Dr. Cohen called hospital security and a psychiatrist obtained an involuntary admission order for Vause. Eventually, the Tallahassee Police Department was called to remove Vause to the psychiatric center because the hospital security lacked jurisdiction. Vause had rummaged through the medical supplies in the room and found two very large cardiac syringes with barrels approximately four inches long and heavy gauge needles three to four inches long. When Smith returned to the examining room, Vause threatened her with these syringes, holding them up in her face. Smith continued to try and calm Vause, but he was very upset. Vause kept saying he was going to leave and was not going to the psychiatric center. In response to the hospital's call, two female officers from the Tallahassee Police Department (TPD) arrived on the scene and attempted to talk Vause into letting Smith go and going to the psychiatric center. They succeeded in getting Smith free, but he used the syringes to threaten the officers and Smith, who remained and continued to try and work with Vause. The officers requested backup and Officer Peavey, a K-9 officer, arrived at the scene. After attempting to reason with Vause unsuccessfully, Peavy broke the syringes with a night stick and, together with the TPD officers, hospital security officers, orderlies and nurses, subdued Vause, who was handcuffed and transported to the psychiatric center. On the evening of August 30, 1989, Officer Peavy was called back to the hospital psychiatric center where he arrived to find that Vause had broken free of his four-point restraints. He, again, quieted Vause down and the nurses gave Vause additional medication to calm him down. Peavy observed that Vause's behavior was erratic and Vause would shift rapidly from rational and non- aggressive behavior to irrational and aggressive behavior. On September 12, 1986, officers of the WCSD were called to the residence of Ronnie Kilgore by Kilgore's wife. Vause was one of the officers who responded to the call. Donald Crum, formerly a deputy with WCSD and then with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, also responded to this call and saw Vause, whom Crum had formerly known well. Crum was shocked at Vause's appearance and struck up a conversation with him about Vause's problems. Vause had been drinking and acted suicidal. Crum was joined by David Harvey, Sheriff of Wakulla County, and together they left Kilgore's house and returned to the Sheriff's office where they continued to discuss Vause's problems and tried to talk Vause into surrendering his weapons. Vause was very agitated, stated he was afraid of people who were out to get him, and refused to surrender his weapons. Several times during his conversation with Crum and Harvey, Vause pulled his weapon and waived it around before reholstering it. Both Crum and Harvey felt that Vause needed to be disarmed for his own good, but that to do so in the Sheriff's office at that time would be courting disaster. They let Vause leave and put a plan into effect to disarm and subdue Vause away from town in order that uninvolved persons would not get hurt. The Leon County Sheriff's Department (LCSD) Special Weapons and Tactics Team (SWAT) was alerted and deployed around the areas in which it was felt Vause could be arrested that evening because Harvey had concluded it was necessary to arrest Vause for Vause's own safety. On the evening of September 12, 1986, a call was received from Ronnie Kilgore, who reported that Vause was at Kilgore's house; however, when the deputies arrived at Kilgore's house, Vause had left. Vause's vehicle was found wrecked in a water filled drainage ditch, and Vause was arrested at a nearby convenience store and returned to the scene of the automobile wreck. When Vause was disarmed, the officers could not account for all of the weapons which he was known to carry and they felt these weapons were in Vause's truck. When they asked Vause about this, Vause advised them that if they entered his truck, they were liable to get hurt because there was a "bomb" in the truck. Joseph Doyle, the bomb expert for the LCSD SWAT and a friend of Vause, was called to the scene. He did not know that it was Vause's vehicle, but he was told that there was possibly an explosive device in the truck and weapons which the WCSD wished to secure. Doyle entered the truck, which was two-thirds full of water, and found several firearms and a one pound can of black powder with a M-120 hand grenade fuse screwed into the top of it. The pin was in place in the fuse and the device was wet. Doyle had worked with Vause on many occasions and had instructed Vause on explosive devices. In Doyle's opinion, the device which he removed from Vause's truck was not as dangerous a device as Vause was capable of making, even with essentially the same materials. Doyle felt the device he had found was probably designed as a signalling device to alert one of the approach of others. Subsequently, Vause was charged with several felonies; however, he plead guilty only to several misdemeanors, receiving two years probation. One of the conditions of this probation was that Vause not drink alcoholic beverages. Vause admits violating this condition of his probation on November 29, 1988 but asserts that he has not violated the condition since that time. For violation of that condition, Vause was sentenced to eight months in the county jail which he has finished serving. Vause admits that he is an alcoholic. He attends meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous and has completed a drug rehabilitation program. Vause has no independent recollection of the events of August 30 and September 12, 1986. Vause feels that his service as a patrol officer contributed to his personal problems and does not desire to return to those duties. He felt that his experience could be put to use as a corrections officer or bailiff. All of the sworn officers who knew Vause praised his service and professionalism prior to the events of August and September 1986. Many of them indicated a willingness to serve with Vause if he had received treatment, was well, and had demonstrated his rehabilitation. Vause experienced a psychotic episode during the period August 30, 1986 and September 12, 1986, during which he was irrational, suffered from violent mood shifts, and exhibited aggressive and suicidal behavior. He was hospitalized during a portion of this period for assessment of his mental competence. No evidence was presented by either party concerning the findings of Vause's admission to determine Vause's competency. However, based upon the testimony of those who observed the Respondent during this period, the Respondent Roxie E. Vause is found to have been psychotic during the period from August 30 to September 12, 1986 to such an extent that he could not form the requisite intent to commit a criminal act.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission reactivate the Respondent's certification upon the following conditions: The Respondent complete all required training and education; The Respondent be placed upon a two-year probation, during which time he shall comply with the following conditions: The Respondent advise any employer or potential employer that he is a recovering alcoholic; The Respondent regularly attend meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous for 24 months and present evidence of attendance to his supervisors upon request; The Respondent, if medically possible, take medications for 24 months which cause violent intestinal upset if alcohol is ingested; The Respondent attend any additional counseling, treatment, or instruction which the Commission or his employer may require for 24 months to include his appearance as a speaker or participant; and The Respondent submit all performance evaluations by his employer on his performance to the Commission during his probation. The Respondent's certificate may be revoked or this probation may be extended by the Commission for violation of the terms of this probation. DONE AND ORDERED this 18th day of December, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of May, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esq. Florida Department of Law Enforcement P.O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Harold S. Richmond, Esq. P.O. Box 695 Quincy, FL 32351 Jeffrey Long, Director Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission P.O. Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Florida Department of Law Enforcement Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact The Hospital Cost Containment Board has adopted a policy known as the "outlier" policy. Generally speaking, the policy is a credit available to a hospital as a result of the hospital's having experienced a higher level of outlier experience compared to total admissions in one period as compared to another period. The policy has an exception in which a hospital can receive credit in an amendment for a change in outlier experience in a previous year if it files an amendment to its budget within the first ninety days of its current fiscal year. For such amendments, the comparison is between changes in outlier experience which have occurred between two specific timeframes. The first is the change between outlier experience during all the fiscal year two years prior to the current year and the first half of the year prior to the current year. The second is the change between outlier experience in all the fiscal year two years prior to the current year and all of the year prior to the current year. If the second change is greater than the first change, the difference is the outlier credit that is allowed. For an amendment filed after the first ninety days of a hospital's current fiscal year, no credit is allowed for changes in outlier experience from the prior year because in such cases the comparison is between outlier experience which has actually occurred in the current year-to- date compared to the hospital's prior year actual outlier experience. The "outlier" policy described above has been adopted by the Hospital Cost Containment Board as a policy that it generally applies to all hospitals subject to its regulation. The "outlier" policy described above has not been promulgated as a rule in accordance with the procedures established by Section 120.54, Fla. Stat. (1987).
Conclusions THE PARTIES resolved all disputed issues and executed a Stipulation and Agreement, which is attached and incorporated by reference. The parties are directed to comply with the terms of the attached Stipulation and Agreement. Based on the foregoing, this file is CLOSED. DONE AND ORDERED this 7D day of DcMen... I 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. I T&a . t:lo Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW, WHICH SHALL BE INSTITUTED BY FILING THE ORIGINAL NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF AHCA, AND A COPY, ALONG WITH THE FILING FEE PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE AGENCY MAINTAINS ITS HEADQUARTERS OR WHERE A PARTY RESIDES. REVIEW PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED. Filed November 2, 2009 1:20 PM Division of Administrative Hearings. Case No. 08-1995MPI ARCA vs. City of Jacksonville Fire Division Rescue Service Final Order CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished by United States Mail and by facsimile transmission (904)630-1731 to Loree L. French, Esquire, Attorney for the Respondent; City of Jacksonville, 117 West Duval Street, t::5-_ Suite 480, Jacksonville, Florida 32202 this ...5.. 1) day of October, 2009. ?Sb RICHARD J. S::P, A:;y Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, MS #3 Tallahassee, FL 32308 (850) 922-5873 2
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should be terminated for just cause from his employment under a professional service contract pursuant to Section 231.36(6), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner hired Respondent as a school teacher under a Professional Service Contract for the 1997-1998 school year. Respondent's duties included teaching physical education and serving as head basketball coach at Dunnellon High School in Dunnellon, Florida. At all times material to this case, Bobby James was Respondent's principal. Sometime during the 1997-1998 school year, but prior to the incident at issue here, Mr. James had reason to counsel Respondent and the school's wrestling coach. Mr. James advised both teachers that they should not patronize a nightclub known as Party Central. 1/ Mr. James felt that such places were not appropriate for educators. 2/ On April 9, 1998, Mr. James performed an annual teacher assessment for Respondent. Mr. James found that Respondent met all acceptable standards. Mr. James concluded that Respondent did not have any professional areas that needed improvement. On the evening of May 9, 1998, around 11:00 p.m., Respondent and his then fiancée, Theresa Casko, went to Party Central/Shark Attack with one of their male friends, Mike MacGuymo. 3/ The purpose of the night out was to celebrate the 21st birthday of Ms. Casko's male cousin, Jason Tovine. During the evening, Ms. Casko began dancing with Tammy Burke and several of the club's male customers. Both Ms. Casko and Ms. Burke had been drinking alcoholic beverages. Respondent was drinking alcoholic beverages but he was not dancing. Respondent became upset with the manner in which a male customer was dancing behind Ms. Casko. Respondent repeatedly went on to the dance floor in an attempt to persuade his fiancée to leave the establishment. Shortly after midnight, on the morning of May 10, 1998, Respondent and Ms. Casko began arguing at the edge of the dance floor. Respondent took Ms. Casko by the arm and went outside with her. Ms. Casko's cousin followed them. The argument between Ms. Casko and Respondent continued in the parking lot of Party Central/Shark Attack because she did not want to leave the club. Respondent also became angry with Ms. Casko's cousin and grabbed him by the face. At that point, Ms. Casko stepped in between them and began hitting Respondent. During the altercation, Respondent struck Ms. Casko. There is no persuasive evidence that Respondent intentionally struck Ms. Casko. Ms. Casko gave Respondent his engagement ring and walked across the street in the area of a mobile home sales company. Respondent followed her. Ms. Casko told Respondent to get away from her and walked back across the street to the parking lot of Party Central/Shark Attack. Respondent remained in the vicinity of the parking lot of the mobile home sales company. The bouncer from the Party Central/Shark Attack observed the argument and the struggle between Respondent, Ms. Casko, and her cousin. The bouncer had seen Respondent hit Ms. Casko. He asked the club's manager to call the police. In the meantime, Officer Harold Compton was flagged downed by someone in the parking lot as he drove past the club. Soon thereafter, three other officers arrived in their patrol cars. The bouncer told Officer Compton that Respondent had hit Ms. Casko. Officer Compton then went across the highway and down the street in his patrol car to look for Respondent. Officer Wayne Sellers and Officer Tommy Ketner also drove across the street to look for Respondent. Officer Nick Viaggio stayed with Ms. Casko in the club's parking lot. Ms. Casko told Officer Viaggio and Tammy Burke that Respondent had hit her but that she did not want to press charges and that she did not need medical treatment. Calls made to the Ocala Fire Rescue Emergency Medical Service and the Munroe Regional Medical Center Ambulance Service to provide Ms. Casko with medical treatment were cancelled. Officer Compton eventually located Respondent and asked him to get in Officer Ketner's patrol car so that they could return to the Party Central/Shark Attack parking lot. Respondent was cooperative. When the police returned to the club's parking lot with Respondent, Officer Compton interviewed Ms. Casko and determined that he had probable cause to arrest Respondent for domestic violence. Upon learning that he was arrested and going to jail, Respondent became belligerent. As the officers attempted to handcuff Respondent, he backed away from them, tensed up his arms and shoulders, and began to utter profanity. The officers had to hold Respondent against the hood of a patrol car in order to put the cuffs on him. Ms. Casko began to plead with the officers to let Respondent go home with her. She told Respondent she wanted her ring back. The ring was in Respondent's pocket. Officer Compton and Officer Sellers walked Respondent over to Officer Compton's patrol car because he was the arresting officer. Ms. Casko followed trying to get the ring from Respondent. A crowd gathered as people began to leave the club. About the time that the officers and Respondent reached Officer Compton's vehicle, a call came through from a police officer in another location asking for assistance. Officer Viaggio got in his car and started to leave to respond to the emergency call. Respondent refused to get in the police car as directed by Officers Compton and Sellers. Instead, he turned to talk to Ms. Casko and to try to give her the ring. As Respondent turned to face Ms. Casko, he accidentally butted Officer Sellers in the head, leaving him stunned. Seeing that Officer Sellers was stunned and believing that Respondent might strike Officer Sellers again, Officer Compton sprayed Respondent's face with pepper spray. Respondent then began to struggle vigorously. Officer Viaggio rushed to assist in restraining Respondent. Eventually, the officers were able to subdue Respondent on the ground. They had to warn Ms. Casko and others to stand back out of the way. There was a large crowd in the club's parking lot. Consequently, the police officers took Respondent back across the road to await medical assistance to treat Respondent for injury due to pepper spray. The Ocala Fire Rescue Emergency Medical Service terminated its response because the Munroe Regional Medical Center Ambulance Service had arrived on the scene. The ambulance service medics irrigated Respondent's eyes with a saline solution. They also washed pepper spray from the hands of the officers. The medics wiped Respondent's face with a towel. They gave towels to the officers. Officer Compton then took Respondent to the jail. Respondent was released the next day. The State Attorney charged Respondent with resisting a law enforcement officer with violence, battery on a law enforcement officer, and domestic violence battery. On March 18, 1999, Respondent was tried on reduced charges of resisting arrest without violence and battery on a law enforcement officer. During the criminal trial, Respondent and his wife, formerly Ms. Casko, testified that Respondent did not strike her in the early morning hours of May 10, 1998. Respondent also testified that he received no medical attention whatsoever for his eyes before arriving at the jail. He stated that it was a "preposterous lie" that a rescue squad had irrigated his eyes across the street from the club. The jury acquitted Respondent of all charges. 4/ Petitioner suspended Respondent without pay on or about June 23, 1998. On or about July 21, 1998, before Respondent was acquitted, Mr. James made a public statement that was reported in the local newspaper. Mr. James indicated that he substituted another teacher in Respondent's coaching job because of the unresolved criminal case against him and not because of his professional performance. Specifically, Mr. James's comments included the following: Barry is to be commended for the tremendous job that he has done. No matter what happens, that is something you can't take away from anyone. He is an excellent coach and teacher. Mr. James's duties as principal include assessing the performance of teachers under his supervision. In making such assessments, Mr. James considers the teaching ability and classroom performance of teachers. He also considers the effectiveness of teachers in light of their presentation of themselves to their students, parents, and the community, i.e., as role models and counselors. Mr. James testified that he could not recommend retaining any teacher who was not "up front," trustworthy, and loyal. According to Mr. James, a teacher needs to maintain the highest standards and be able to give students the best possible advice. During the hearing, Mr. James testified that he would not recommend that Respondent be retained as a teacher. Mr. James based his decision on his reading of the criminal trial transcript, information in Joint Exhibit 2, 5/ Respondent's failure to heed the prior admonition not to patronize nightclubs like Party Central/Shark Attack, and the assumed impact of his performance if he were to be reinstated. Specifically, Mr. James stated as follows: The jury [in the criminal trial] that tried his [Respondent's] case had no bearing on my recommendation to the superintendent. The jury that tried his case is the jury of the young people that I have and the parents of those folks. Dr. John D. Smith, Superintendent of Marion County Schools, testified that he had: (a) read the criminal trial transcript; (b) considered information presented by his support staff; (c) considered Mr. James's recommendation to terminate Respondent's employment; (d) considered Joint Exhibit 2; (e) read newspaper articles relative to the May 10, 1998, incident; and (f) consulted with three members of the school advisory council of Dunnellon High School. Dr. Smith determined that Respondent should be terminated because of his questionable integrity. Dr. Smith did not believe that Respondent was trustworthy to be responsible for supervising, advising, and influencing students, especially in situations beyond the classroom or where he is the only adult present, such as field trips, athletic events, and club activities. Dr. Smith concluded that Respondent would no longer be effective as a teacher. He reached this conclusion in part based on his consultations with the three members of the student advisory council. Respondent did not present any evidence from students, parents, his colleagues, or community members regarding his continued ability to be an effective teacher.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be reinstated in a teaching position with back pay and benefits lost during his suspension. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of October, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 4th day of October, 1999.
