The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent's employment with Petitioner should be terminated.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Miami-Dade County School Board (Petitioner) was a duly constituted school board charged with the duty to operate, control, and supervise all free public schools within Petitioner's district, pursuant to Article IX, Florida Constitution, and Section 230.03, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Raynard W. Pasteur (Respondent) was employed by Petitioner as a school security monitor at Frank C. Martin Elementary School (Martin Elementary). Respondent began his employment with Petitioner on August 31, 1990, at Palmetto Middle School (Palmetto) as a school security monitor and remained at Palmetto until September 29, 1991. On January 27, 1994, Respondent began working as a school security monitor at Martin Elementary. At all times material hereto, Respondent was a member of the United Teachers of Dade (UTD). As a member of the UTD, Respondent was subject to the collective bargaining agreement (UTD Contract) between Petitioner and the UTD, as well as any Memorandum of Understanding between Petitioner and UTD. On February 2, 1998, a conference-for-the-record (CFR) was held with Respondent. In attendance at the CFR were Respondent; two of his union representatives; Isaac Rodriguez, Director of Petitioner's Office of Professional Standards (OPS); Dr. Jose Carbia, Petitioner's Director of Region V; and Pamela Siplin, Principal at Martin Elementary. The purpose of the CFR was to address Respondent's medical fitness to perform his assigned duties, to review Respondent's records, and to address Respondent's future employment status with Petitioner. Prior to the CFR, Jose Garcia, a clinical coordinator with Petitioner's Employee Assistance Program (EAP), performed an assessment of Respondent. After performing the assessment, Mr. Garcia determined that he had a duty-to-warn situation. The circumstances of a duty-to-warn situation demonstrate that serious bodily harm or injury may result or that there is a threat of serious bodily harm or injury. Having made such a determination, Mr. Garcia contacted his supervisor and discussed the duty-to-warn situation involving Respondent. Afterwards, Mr. Garcia contacted OPS. Mr. Garcia, his supervisor, and OPS subsequently contacted Dr. Carbia. Mr. Garcia informed Dr. Carbia that his (Mr. Garcia's) assessment of Respondent presented a duty-to-warn situation and that potentially bodily harm or injury could be inflicted against certain employees of Region V. Mr. Garcia did not discuss any details with OPS or with Dr. Carbia. An employee's participation in the EAP program is confidential and voluntary. Breach of the confidentiality by a clinical coordinator is permitted when a duty-to-warn situation presents itself in order to warn the affected persons of the threat of serious bodily harm or injury without discussing details of the situation. Under the circumstances, Mr. Garcia was permitted to breach the confidentiality afforded Respondent. A written statement dated February 2, 1998, explaining Petitioner's justification for requiring Respondent to submit to a medical examination, was presented to Respondent. The written statement stated, among other things, the following: This employer [Petitioner] has need to determine your fitness to carry out your assigned duties. Because of your exhibited behavior at the worksite as well as your self reported medical condition, this employer has reason to seek an immediate medical examination which will be considered relative to your future and continued employment with Miami-Dade County Public Schools. According to Ms. Siplin, the principal at Martin Elementary, Respondent's attendance was good and, in most instances, he was cooperative. She never reported any erratic or unusual behavior exhibited by Respondent. As observed by Ms. Siplin, Respondent's behavior at the worksite was acceptable and satisfactory. However, the behavior complained of referred to the Respondent's behavior at the work site as assessed by Mr. Garcia. A finding of fact is made that the written statement dated February 2, 1998, is a sufficient written statement justifying Petitioner's requirement for Respondent to submit to a medical examination regarding his fitness to carry out his assigned duties. At the CFR, a determination was made, among other things, that a medical fitness evaluation, i.e., a fitness-for- duty evaluation, was required. During the CFR, a representation was made to Respondent that Mr. Garcia had spoken to Respondent's psychiatrist because of Mr. Garcia's concern for Respondent and the staff at Martin Elementary; however, Mr. Garcia did not reveal any details of Respondent's assessment to OPS or the Director of Region V. The representation has no effect on the determination that a fitness-for-duty evaluation was required. A finding of fact is made that, regardless of the representation, a sufficient basis existed for such a determination and that it was reasonable and appropriate to require a fitness-for-duty evaluation of Respondent. A fitness-for-duty evaluation is an assessment by a psychologist or psychiatrist to determine whether an employee is psychologically competent to perform his or her job and whether that employee could potentially be a danger to himself or herself, co-workers, or students. The fitness-for-duty evaluation is designed to identify what it would take to get the employee back to work. The employee chooses the medical practitioner to perform the fitness-for-duty evaluation. According to the UTD Contract, when there has been a written statement of the need for an examination, the employee is to choose the medical practitioner from Petitioner's list of State-licensed physicians, psychologists, and psychiatrists. Respondent and his union representatives were provided a list of Petitioner approved psychiatrists and psychologists from which Dr. Larry Harmon, Ph.D., was chosen by Respondent. An appointment was made by OPS for Respondent with Dr. Harmon and was scheduled for February 6, 1998, at 9:00 a.m. At the CFR, Respondent was also placed in an alternative assignment at home during the process of the fitness-for-duty evaluation. Certain directives were given to Respondent during the CFR. The directives were as follows: Keep your scheduled appointment with Larry Harmon, Ph.D. Call Ms. Pamela Siplin at 238-3688, each work day between 7:30-7:40 a.m. and 3:50- 4:00 p.m. Be available at home during work hours for phone calls from your work site. Notify the work site of any appointments that would necessitate your absence from your alternative assignment (home) during work hours. Respondent was advised that failure to comply with the directives would necessitate a review by OPS for the imposition of disciplinary measures, including suspension, demotion or dismissal. At the CFR, Respondent was also provided a copy of Petitioner's Rule 6Gx13-4A-1.21, Employee Conduct and Rule 6Gx13-4C-1.02, Non-Instructional Personnel. Dr. Larry Harmon, Ph.D., conducted the fitness-for- duty evaluation which was administered for approximately nine hours over a three-day period, beginning on February 6, 1998. The evaluation consisted of Dr. Harmon reviewing background information provided by Mr. Rodriguez of OPS and background memoranda concerning Respondent's prior criminal activity; reviewing Respondent's job description; conducting a clinical interview with Respondent; performing psychological testing of Respondent; consulting with Mr. Garcia of EAP; and conferring with Respondent's parents. Dr. Harmon was unable to consult with Respondent's treating psychiatrist and psychologist. Routinely, Dr. Harmon requests that his patients sign a release and consent for the fitness-for-duty evaluation. The release and consent provides for the exchange and release of information and discussion with OPS, as well as EAP. Respondent signed Dr. Harmon's release and consent and, as a result, Dr. Harmon was able to consult with Mr. Garcia of EAP. Dr. Harmon also attempted to obtain a release from Respondent regarding the exchange of information with Respondent's treating psychologist, Dr. Eve McNanamy, Ph.D., and treating psychiatrist, Dr. Edgar Patino, M.D. In Dr. Harmon's opinion, the outside information from Respondent's treating psychologist and psychiatrist was essential to corroborate Respondent's self-report. However, Respondent refused to sign the release. Respondent did not "like" some of Dr. Harmon's methods or the way Dr. Harmon kept his office. Moreover, Respondent's psychiatrist, Dr. Patino, advised Respondent that he (Respondent) was not required to sign the release and that his (Respondent's) failure to sign could not be held against him. Having reviewed background information provided by Mr. Rodriguez of OPS and background memoranda concerning Respondent's prior criminal activity; having reviewed Respondent's job description; having conducted a clinical interview with Respondent; having performed psychological testing; having consulted with Mr. Garcia of EAP; and having conferred with Respondent's parents, Dr. Harmon formed an opinion as to Respondent's psychological condition. In his report dated March 1, 1998, (Report), Dr. Harmon made the following observations in his "Summary and Recommendations": With respect to diagnosis -- based on clinical interview, mental status examination, psychological test results, collaborative consultation, and review of related written records -- he [Respondent] presents, according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fourth Edition (DSM IV), with a probable as follows: Axis I: Clinical Disorders and Conditions Delusional Disorder (297.1), Persecutory Type [emphasis in original] Axis II: Personality Disorders Deferred. [emphasis in original] Axis III: Physical Disorders and Conditions Deferred. [emphasis in original] Given the information with which this psychologist was able to utilize, there is no clear evidence of any severe cognitive or affective disorder which would absolutely prevent him form currently performing any kind of work at all. However, because he was highly guarded and reluctant to share his current life circumstances, history, and current treatment recommendations, it is difficult to rule out the probability of a potential direct threat, especially to coworkers. With respect to his current position as a School Security Monitor II, the job requirements include, but are not limited to, both physical and interpersonal tasks . . . He appears to be capable of performing the physical requirements of the job . . . In addition, he is probably able to perform the non-interpersonal responsibilities of his job description . . . However, individuals with Delusional Disorder may have significant difficulties effectively and objectively performing complex interpersonal job tasks . . . His current symptoms -- clearly consistent with Delusional Disorder -- are likely to cause his thinking to be suspicious and potentially impair his judgement. In fact the DSM IV states that "People with persecutory delusions are often resentful and angry, and may resort to violence against those they believe are hurting them." Based on the above information, there appears to be a potentially significant risk of substantial harm to coworkers based on the following factors: The results of this individualized Fitness for Duty assessment . . . The results of objective psychological assessment, based on current psychological knowledge and assessment tools and techniques, suggest a potential for unpredictable and highly aggressive behavior. A review of prior history [criminal history]. . . A review of current information that suggests he is a current risk based in part on this evaluation as well as upon Jose Garcia's (of the M-D.C.P.S. E.A.P.) report that Mr. Pasteur recently called him and stated, among other comments, that "I am going to stop them." And "I'm just telling you that in case I have to do something." Finally, Mr. Pasteur reports that his psychiatrist's efforts to treat him with medication are obstructed by his unwillingness to follow his psychiatrist's recommendations and so it appears that efforts to reduce or eliminate his delusional thinking are not fruitful which, therefore, maintain the current level potential of significant risk of substantial harm to others. Therefore, because he is considered a potential direct threat and, thus, a significant risk of substantial harm to others, there is insufficient supporting information based on this assessment to clear him to return to work. Therefore, he is considered as the present time not fit for duty. [emphasis in original] His Delusional Disorder appears to seriously impair major life functions such as his social judgement, an essential requirement for his job which requires significant skills to interact effectively in interpersonal interactions. In his Report, Dr. Harmon continued with the following recommendations in his "Summary and Recommendations": In order for Mr. Pasteur [Petitioner] to be eventually cleared to return to work, it is recommended that M-D.C.P.S. support Mr. Pasteur's efforts to reduce and, hopefully, eliminate the probability that he will be a potentially direct threat to others. The following accommodations are recommended in order to assist him to get appropriate and effective treatment so that he may return to work: Provide Mr. Pasteur with at least one month of medical leave, consistent with medical leave benefits and policies for all other employees in his category, so that he may receive appropriate mental health treatment. It is recommended that he follow all of his psychiatrist's recommendations which are designed to reduce the symptoms of his Delusional Disorder to a sufficient extent that he is fit for duty. Participate in psychotherapeutic treatment with Eve McNanamy, Ph.D., his treating psychologist, and follow all recommendations designed to reduce the symptoms of his Delusional Disorder and improve his social judgement and interpersonal functioning to the extent that he is no longer a potentially direct threat and is able to function adequately in the School Security Monitor II position. In order to provide assurance that he is no longer a potentially direct threat and that he is fit for duty, that Mr. Pasteur provide me with a limited Release of Information for all of his mental health professionals which restricts the release of information to those symptoms, behavioral patterns, and treatment compliance issues directly relevant to his Fitness for Duty determination. . . . Because of his likely resistance [to take prescribed antipsychotic medication], and in order to support that his continuation and increased frequency of psychotherapeutic and psychiatric treatment render him fit for duty, it is recommended that Mr. Pasteur sign a Release of Information which enables the Employee Assistance Program to communicate directly with his psychologist and psychiatrist to assist him in getting additional treatment sessions approved, etc. It is recommended that he be re- evaluated for fitness for duty after at least one month to determine the extent to which he is adhering to treatment recommendations, responding to treatment as evidenced by reduced symptoms, displaying symptomoloty which could impair his job performance, and free of symptoms which render him a potentially direct threat to others. Dr. Harmon's fitness-for-duty evaluation was forwarded to Petitioner. On March 3, 1998, a CFR was conducted to address Respondent's medical fitness for continued employment, to review the record, and to address Respondent's future employment status. In attendance at the CFR was Respondent and his UTD representative; Mr. Rodriguez; a representative for Dr. Carbia; and Ms. Siplin. Respondent's father was allowed to attend but only as an observer. Prior to the CFR, Respondent was provided a copy of Dr. Harmon's Report and read it. After reading the Report, Respondent requested, and Mr. Rodriguez complied with the request, that no one at the CFR be allowed to review the Report. Respondent was advised that the focus of the CFR was Dr. Harmon's recommendations contained in the Report. During the CFR held on March 3, 1998, Respondent's father interrupted the CFR several times. Finally, Respondent's father was asked to leave the CFR and, unfortunately, the last interruption by Respondent's father caused the CFR to end. A Summary of the CFR dated April 30, 1998, was sent to Respondent. The Summary included, among other things, directives from Mr. Rodriguez which were that Respondent was required to comply with Dr. Harmon's recommendations and to comply within five (5) days of receipt of the Summary. The Summary also advised Respondent, among other things, that Mr. Rodriguez would verify his (Respondent's) compliance with the directives; that, as of March 16, 1998, Respondent's status on Petitioner's payroll record was on leave-without-pay authorized; that Respondent had applied for a medical leave of absence retroactive from March 17, 1998, through May 17, 1998, which complies with one of Dr. Harmon's recommendations; and that Respondent's failure to comply with the directives could lead to suspension or dismissal. By memorandum dated May 20, 1998, Respondent was notified by the executive director of OPS that clearance from OPS was required in order for his return to work. Respondent was further advised that a clearance conference was a requirement for his return to work; that he must schedule a clearance conference before May 27, 1998; and that failure to schedule and/or attend the clearance conference would result in disciplinary action. Respondent failed to comply with the directives given him in the Summary of the CFR dated April 30, 1998. As a result, a CFR was held on June 4, 1998, essentially to address his noncompliance with the directives. The attendees of the CFR on June 4, 1998, were Respondent and his UTD representative; Mr. Rodriguez; Ms. Siplin; and a representative for Dr. Carbia. One of the directives was for Respondent to comply with Dr. Harmon's recommendations; Respondent had complied with only one of the recommendations which was to obtain extended medical leave. At the CFR, among other things, Respondent was directed to make an appointment with Dr. Harmon by a date certain and to obtain a medical leave extension to cover his present absence and future absence to be recommended by Dr. Harmon. By memorandum dated August 4, 1998, from Mr. Rodriguez, Respondent was provided with a written Summary of the CFR held on June 4, 1998. The Summary also contained events that had occurred since the CFR. Mr. Rodriguez indicated in the Summary, among other things, that Respondent had provided notification that he (Respondent) was currently being treated by Dr. Patino; that Dr. Harmon's office had notified OPS that Respondent had scheduled an appointment and had later cancelled the appointment, but had not rescheduled the appointment; that Respondent failed to obtain approved leave and was on non- approved leave status; and that Respondent continued to be in noncompliance with the directives. Mr. Rodriguez again gave Respondent directives in the memorandum of August 4, 1998. The directives were as follows: You [Respondent] are advised of the availability of services from the District's [Petitioner's] support referral service. You must comply with Dr. Harmon's recommendations as stated in his report. You must schedule an appointment with Dr. Harmon by contacting his office no later than 24 hours from receipt of this letter. You must immediately obtain a Board [Petitioner] approved medical leave of absence to cover the period from 5/19/98 through the necessary recommended time by Dr. Harmon. Mr. Rodriguez further advised Respondent in the memorandum that failure to comply with the directives would compel Petitioner to take further disciplinary action including dismissal. Respondent continued to fail to comply with the directives. As a result, a CFR was held on September 21, 1998. In attendance at the CFR was Respondent and his UTD representative; Mr. Rodriguez; Ms. Siplin; and the personnel director for Petitioner's Region V, Clarence Jones. At the CFR on September 21, 1998, among other things, Respondent indicated that he had not complied with Dr. Harmon's recommendations and had not applied for and obtained an approved medical leave of absence. However, Respondent indicated that he had obtained an appointment with Dr. Harmon which was scheduled for September 25, 1998. Consequently, Respondent requested that he be allowed to keep his appointment with Dr. Harmon, obtain an approved medical leave of absence, and again attempt to resolve the matter after the appointment and a review of his medical evaluation report. Mr. Rodriguez did not agree to Respondent's request, but advised Respondent that his (Respondent's) matter would be forwarded for legal review and possible disciplinary action including suspension or dismissal. Even after the CFR of September 21, 1998, OPS attempted to give Respondent another opportunity to comply with the directives. By letter dated November 9, 1998, the senior executive director of OPS, Dr. Joyce Annunziata, notified Respondent that he was again being provided an opportunity to comply with the directives. The directives in the letter were as follows: You [Respondent] must comply with all of Dr. Harmon's initial recommendations as stated in his March 1, 1998, medical fitness for duty [sic] report. You must schedule an appointment with Dr. Harmon by contacting his office no later than 24 hours from receipt of this letter. You must immediately obtain a Board [Petitioner] approved medical leaves [sic] of absence to cover absences starting May 19, 1998 through the present. (Leave application attached.) Dr. Annunziata further directed Respondent to comply with the above directives within three (3) working days of receipt of the letter. She advised and notified Respondent that his continued failure to comply would be considered gross insubordination and would lead to disciplinary action including dismissal. Respondent failed to comply with the directives given him by Dr. Annunziata. Because Respondent failed to schedule another appointment with Dr. Harmon to provide Dr. Harmon an opportunity to re-evaluate Respondent, Dr. Harmon's initial evaluation remained valid. Respondent remained unfit to return to work. Respondent had a right not to execute a consent and release of information for Dr. Harmon to contact and exchange information with his (Respondent's) treating psychiatrist and psychologist. Such an exchange of information would have immensely assisted Dr. Harmon, and in his Report, Dr. Harmon referred to such exchange of information as essential. Respondent had no understanding that his refusal to sign a consent and release would have such serious ramifications, i.e., dismissal proceedings. Even though lack of information from Respondent's treating psychiatrist and psychologist warrant finding Respondent unfit to return to work, Respondent cannot be disciplined for exercising his right to not execute a consent and release of information. Moreover, this Administrative Law Judge is persuaded that Respondent continued to believe that, as long as he was not refusing to be seen by Dr. Harmon and as long as he was being continually treated by his psychiatrist and psychologist, he (Respondent) could and would be permitted to reschedule his appointment with Dr. Harmon. Respondent did not appreciate the serious ramifications, i.e., dismissal proceedings, of not keeping his appointments with Dr. Harmon. Even at the hearing before this Administrative Law Judge, Respondent continued with his disbelief that failure to reschedule and keep the appointment with Dr. Harmon was such a serious course of action on his part. Respondent presented no medical evidence at hearing to contradict Petitioner's medical evidence and to demonstrate that he is medically fit to return to work.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order sustaining the suspension of Raynard W. Pasteur without pay, but not dismissing him from employment, and reinstating Raynard W. Pasteur under the terms and conditions deemed appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of July, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Hearings Hearings ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative 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 this 23rd day of July, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Respondent holds teaching certificate number 230805 issued by the State of Florida, Department of Education. Respondent's teaching certificate is valid through June 30, 1996. Respondent is certified in administration, supervision, and physical education. Respondent has been employed by the Orange County School District for approximately 20 years (the "District"). Respondent was employed as a physical education teacher at Hungerford Elementary School for approximately 13 years ("Hungerford") until 1991 when he was transferred to Orlando Vocational Technical Center. Respondent is currently the Dean of Students at Orlando Vocational Technical Center. While he taught at Hungerford, Respondent was respected by his peers and by his students. Students generally enjoyed Respondent's physical education classes. Respondent holds a black belt in karate and is a weight lifter. He routinely allowed several students at a time to jump on him during physical education class and wrestle with him. Respondent was a strict teacher at Hungerford. He believed strongly in discipline. Students in his classes were generally well-behaved. Physical Force Against Students At Hungerford, Respondent frequently used physical contact to gain the attention of misbehaving male students. He typically tapped boys on top of their heads, in the sternum with an open hand or fist, or in the rear end with a track baton. Respondent never intended to embarrass or disparage any of his male students. The vast majority of students recognized that Respondent was merely attempting to gain their attention or playing around. Respondent's discipline in karate gave him more than adequate control to prevent harm to any misbehaving student when Respondent used physical contact to gain their attention. Respondent never lost that control in his classes. No student was physically injured as a result of physical contact from Respondent. Respondent's physical contact was not calculated to cause misbehaving students any pain or discomfort. Respondent was criticized by some who thought he was too severe a disciplinarian. In 1987, some students lodged complaints against Respondent for alleged physical abuse. Two legal proceedings were brought by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services over allegations of physical abuse. Respondent successfully defended both proceedings. Sometime in 1988 or 1989, Respondent tapped Andre Hunter in the chest with an open hand. At the time, Andre was a third grade student at Hungerford. Respondent did not hurt Andre. Andre ". . . didn't feel nothing. It didn't hurt. It just felt like he tapped me." Transcript at 24. On separate occasions in 1988 or 1989, Respondent tapped Billy Washington on the head with his fist and hit him on the behind with a track baton. Billy was in Respondent's physical education class during the second, third, and fourth grades. When Respondent tapped Billy on the head, "It was funny. It didn't hurt." Transcript at 34. When Respondent hit Billy on the behind with a track baton, "It stung a little bit, but it didn't bother me." Id. Emotionally, Billy ". . . felt all right." He ". . . didn't think about it. It didn't bother me." Transcript at 35. On separate occasions in 1988 or 1989, Respondent tapped Bobby King in the chest with Respondent's fist. At the time, Bobby was in the first or second grade. It hurt Bobby and made him mad. Bobby did not understand why Respondent struck him. On September 22, 1989, Respondent received a letter of reprimand from the District. The District reprimanded Respondent for using unnecessary physical force against a student on March 20, 1989. The letter directed Respondent to refrain from the use of threatening behavior and physical force against students. Attendance And Inadequate Supervision During the 1988-1989 and 1989-1990 school years, Respondent sometimes failed to properly supervise students in his class. Respondent was late to class a few times. A few times, he left the school campus prior to the end of the school day without permission. Respondent failed to let other school employees know that he would not be at school. However, his attendance record neither adversely affected his teaching effectiveness nor impaired his relationship with his colleagues or students. On February 14, 1990, Respondent received a letter of reprimand from the District. The District reprimanded Respondent for leaving the school campus without permission from the principal, not adequately supervising his students on one occasion, and for acting in a threatening or intimidating manner toward the principal when confronted about Respondent's supervision of his students. Transfer To Vo-Tech On August 21, 1990, Respondent was removed from his classroom duties at Hungerford and placed on relief of duty status with full pay and benefits. The District took the action as a result of allegations of inappropriate discipline, leaving students unsupervised, and insubordination. Respondent was subsequently transferred to Orlando Vocational and Technical School. Respondent continues to enjoy wide respect as a teacher from parents, other teachers, and community leaders. As Dean of Students, Respondent currently holds a responsible position of employment with the District. Respondent functions effectively in that position. Deferred Prosecution Agreement On October 8, 1991, Respondent and Petitioner entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement. On or before October 8, 1992, Respondent agreed to successfully complete college courses in Assertive Discipline, Classroom Management, and Methods of Teaching Elementary Physical Education. Respondent further agreed to provide written verification that Respondent completed the required courses. Respondent failed to complete the required courses in a timely manner. Although Respondent ultimately completed the required courses, he had not supplied Petitioner with written verification as of the date of the formal hearing. If Respondent had timely complied with the Deferred Prosecution Agreement, this proceeding would not have been instituted. Respondent believed in good faith that his transfer out of the classroom to his position as Dean of Students made the courses on classroom techniques unnecessary. Respondent was notified in 1993 that he was in violation of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement. Respondent promptly enrolled in the required classes and completed them. Respondent has now complied with all of the conditions of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Educational Practices Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of the charge that he failed to make a reasonable effort to protect students from conditions harmful to their learning and not guilty of the remaining charges in the Administrative Complaint. It is further recommended that the Commission issue a letter of reprimand to Respondent and, pursuant to Section 231.262(6)(c), impose an administrative fine not to exceed $750. RECOMMENDED this 22d day of November, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 22d day of November, 1994.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement as a physical therapist should be approved.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an applicant for licensure as a physical therapist in the State of Florida. The Petitioner attended German educational institutions and graduated in 1994 from a "gymnasium," which appears to be the equivalent of a secondary school unit in the United States. After graduating from the gymnasium, the Petitioner then attended the physical therapy training program at the University of Nurenberg in Erlangen, Germany, from where she graduated in 1997. In 1998, the Petitioner applied for licensure as a physical therapist in the State of Colorado where she took and passed the National Physical Therapy Examination (NPTE) offered by the Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy (FSBPT). The FSBPT's NPTE is the same examination used by the Respondent as the Florida licensing examination. The State of Colorado granted a license in 1998 to the Petitioner, presumably determining that, in addition to passing the exam, the Petitioner's education met the requirements of Colorado law. At all times material to this case, the Petitioner remained licensed as a physical therapist by the State of Colorado, but never practiced physical therapy in Colorado. The Petitioner moved to Florida in 2006 and began to inquire as to becoming licensed "by endorsement" as a physical therapist in the state. She eventually filed the application at issue in this proceeding. The Respondent has denied the Petitioner's application for licensure on the grounds that the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that she has met Florida's minimum education requirements and to demonstrate that the licensure standards in Colorado are the equivalent of those in Florida. The evidence establishes that by operation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B17-3.003, the licensure standards between Colorado and Florida are equivalent. The evidence fails to establish that the Petitioner has met Florida's minimum education requirements. There was no credible evidence presented that the Petitioner's German education met the minimum education requirements for licensure as a physical therapist within the State of Florida. There was no evidence presented that would permit any determination or comparison of the quality of the Petitioner's German education and experience with that available from an accredited educational unit within Florida or the United States. The Respondent apparently relies on evaluations performed by credentialing agencies that review materials supplied by applicants and render determinations of educational equivalency. The Petitioner has apparently been unable to have her German education and experience evaluated by any credentialing agency, allegedly because of the nature of available records. The Petitioner acknowledged that no written comparative evaluation of her German education and experience has been completed. None have been supplied to the Respondent, and there was no evidence of any educational credentialing determination offered into the record of the hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Physical Therapy Practice issue a final order denying the Petitioner's application for licensure. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 22nd day of February, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Linquanti, Esquire Carlton Fields, P.A. Post Office Box 3239 Tampa, Florida 33601-3239 Reginald D. Dixon, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Susie K. Love, Executive Director Board of Physical Therapy Practice 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-05 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Josefina M. Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Steven T. George, began teaching in the Bay County school system in the fall of 1977. He was employed as a physical education teacher and as a coach. The Respondent has had an exemplary record as an instructional employee of the Bay County School Board until he encountered personal problems during the 1988-89 school year. During the 1988-89 school year, he was employed as a physical education teacher and assistant football coach at Mosley High School. During that school year, his supervisor, Assistant Principal Sarah Cooper, observed his performance deteriorate unexpectedly and in a way which was out of character from his previous level of performance and demeanor. She found occasions when he was not properly supervising his class and when he had not done lesson plans, as required by the school administration. Ms. Cooper had to assist the Respondent in developing a semester examination, however, he ultimately used an examination given to him by another teacher. Thereafter, he administered the examination but did not complete the grading of it and failed to complete his grade book, which responsibility was ultimately performed by Ms. Cooper. Additionally, during the 1988-89 school year, the Respondent was observed to become increasingly isolated from other members of the faculty. His behavior became characterized by unpredictability, excessive arrogance, argumentativeness, anger and verbal aggression, which was entirely different from the personality traits which he had exhibited and which his co-workers and supervisors had observed since he had been with the school system. Indeed, female teachers in the physical education department were reluctant to be alone in the workroom with him because of the advent of these objectionable personality traits. The Respondent, during this period of time, was undergoing a divorce, or the aftermath of one, which involved a very emotional custody dispute with his former wife concerning custody of their daughter. During the 1988-89 school year, he was observed to repeatedly burden his co-workers and school administrators with the details of his personal problems and to exhibit uncharacteristic and rather severe emotional outbursts of both anger and grief. After being counseled by his supervisors concerning what they believed to be rather bizarre behavior, when measured against his prior performance and demeanor in other school years, the Respondent ultimately voluntarily admitted himself to Charter Woods, a psychiatric treatment and evaluation facility. The Respondent spent approximately 5-1/2 months in that facility, underwent treatment in response to his supervisor's advice to "get some help", and returned to Mosley High School to complete the 1988-89 school year. For the remainder of that school year, the Respondent satisfactorily assumed and carried out all of his responsibilities and performed his work as a teacher in good fashion. His temperament and demeanor had returned to that of the friendly and caring teacher and co-worker which he had formerly been before his personal problems developed. His supervisor, Ms. Cooper, gave him a satisfactory annual evaluation at the conclusion of the 1988-89 school year. The Respondent's emotional difficulties and related performance difficulties as a teacher reappeared in the 1989-90 school year. During the pre-planning phase of his teaching and coaching duties for the 1989-90 school year, in August of 1989, the Respondent was observed to be very disruptive, argumentative, and, indeed, hostile to a visiting speaker at a seminar for instructional personnel. He was observed to repeatedly interrupt the speaker with arrogant, argumentative questions and comments, during the course of which behavior he was observed to be pacing back and forth at the rear of the room where the seminar was conducted while all other attendees at the seminar were seated and listening to the speaker. This arrogant, argumentative behavior was so apparent and so inappropriate for the seminar-type setting in which it occurred that his supervisor felt it necessary to apologize to the speaker at the lunch break on that day. Additionally, during this pre-planning phase of the school year, which is before the children arrive for the school year, the Respondent was observed to have difficulties in his dealings and relationships with other coaches arising out of his increasingly arrogant, argumentative attitude and behavior. Because of this and, inferentially, because his supervisors were aware of his emotional difficulties with which they had had experience the previous school year, the decision was made to relieve him as assistant football coach at Mosley High School. A meeting was held with the Respondent, Mr. Tucker, the Principal, and Mr. Cochran, the head coach, to explain that action to the Respondent and to explain to him that he would still continue as a physical education instructor. In the course of that meeting, the Respondent became very emotional, hostile, and argumentative. He exhibited frequent angry outbursts to the extent that he would not allow Mr. Tucker or Mr. Cochran to adequately explain the basis of the personnel action directed at him. The Respondent ultimately, angrily departed from the meeting before it was completed. On that same day, he left Mosley High School without administrative permission and went to Cherry Street Elementary School on some mission related to his daughter, who was a student at that school. She had been the subject of a bitter custody dispute between the Respondent and his former wife. He is accused of interfering with the operation of Cherry Street Elementary School on that occasion, although the record does not reflect what his conduct was at Cherry Street Elementary School that day. The 1989-90 school year then commenced at Mosley High School with the arrival of the students. The Respondent assumed his regular duties as a physical education instructor. He was observed, early in that school year, on a number of occasions, to fail to control behavior of students in his gym class and to fail to be in his gym class at appropriate times which amounted to inadequate supervision of his students on those occasions. His planning for his classes was observed to become sporadic, with repeated occasions when he failed to have lesson plans prepared. Also, in the fall of the 1989-90 school year, he was observed to forget his keys to the physical education area on a number of occasions. He would, on repeated occasions, forget, from one period in a school day to the next, what he was to teach that following period. He would have to be reminded by his colleagues. He would also forget to call his students in adequate time at the end of the physical education period for them to dress for their next classes. He had to be reminded by his colleagues to do this. He would also repeatedly forget when he had extra duty, such as "door duty" and locker room assignments. His general level of cooperativeness with his colleagues declined markedly. His behavior became harsh and rude to his colleagues and to students. He was observed to be very harsh and rude to a new student coming into his physical education class and spoke loudly, in an abrasive manner to the student in front of the class, embarrassing that student. These problems occurred repetitively and in rapid succession during the first month of the school year in September of 1989. Because of the nature of the problems, the past history of the Respondent's emotional instability whereby he had lost his ability to be a caring, productive, well-performing teacher (which had been his unblemished record of behavior and performance for all the years he taught prior to the 1988-89 school year), Mr. Tucker, the Principal, felt that he had to act quickly to prevent an even worse situation occurring in the 1989-90 school year when he observed that the Respondent's emotional instability of the year before was recurring. Consequently, Mr. Tucker requested that the superintendent, Mr. Simonson, meet with the Respondent in an effort to resolve his difficulties in the matter of his perceived emotional instability and resulting declining performance. Accordingly, a meeting was held with the Respondent, Mr. Simonson, and Mr. Tucker on September 30th. At the meeting, the Respondent was confronted with the fact of his displayed emotional instability and related declining teaching performance, at which point he became very belligerent and hostile. He was, alternatively, on the verge of tears and shouting in anger. Because of the above-stated reasons for the meeting and because of the emotional instability which was so apparently displayed by the Respondent during the meeting, Mr. Simonson gave the Respondent three days of sick leave to allow him to remain at home and get some professional attention to try to regain his emotional stability before returning to the classroom. The Respondent's problems persisted, however. Although the precise date is uncertain, at approximately this time, the Respondent announced that he was going to seek election as Superintendent of the Bay County school system in opposition to Mr. Simonson. The Respondent testified himself that he elected to run for this office while he was still a teacher at Mosley High School in part, at least, to save his job because he believed that the Bay County school administration and particularly, Mr. Simonson, would be reluctant to discharge him while he was a political candidate in opposition to Mr. Simonson because of the bad impression that might make on the electorate. Shortly after he made this announcement, again on an undetermined date in the fall of 1989, the Respondent was involuntarily hospitalized pursuant to the "Baker Act", Section 394.467, Florida Statutes. Apparently, the Respondent's family members had him committed although the precise reasons are not of record. The Respondent expressed the belief at hearing that his family members had him committed because of his announcement to run for Superintendent, although that is not established to be the case. The Respondent, at the time he was committed, believed that he did not suffer from a mental condition justifying his commitment pursuant to the Baker Act. The Respondent has since come to understand that he suffered from a manic-depressive condition, also known as a "bi-polar disorder". As a result of this eventuality, Mr. Simonson determined that the Respondent should not be teaching in the school system during such a period of emotional instability. In order to be fair to the Respondent, he did not want to actually suspend him from his duties. Accordingly, Mr. Simonson elected to place the Respondent in the status known as "overused sick leave", which means that the Respondent, although he had used up all of his annual and sick leave, could still be carried on the personnel records as an employee in terms of retaining his retirement and insurance benefits, although he was not paid for the time he was absent from his duties as a result of this decision and as a result of his emotional condition. Accordingly, the Respondent was, in this fashion, removed from his instructional duties and from his job site in the fall of 1989, after his involuntary commitment, pursuant to the Baker Act. Thereafter, in the fall of 1989, the Respondent obtained treatment at the "Life Management Center" in Bay County under the care of Dr. Nellis. Dr. Nellis diagnosed the Respondent as suffering from manic-depression and prescribed Lithium to treat his manic condition. The Respondent responded well to treatment, such that Dr. Nellis, late in the fall of 1989, opined that he was fit to return to work as a teacher. The Respondent apparently accepted the fact of his illness, continued taking his medication after being released by Dr. Nellis, and was returned to his duties with the Bay County school system at Rosenwald Middle School in late January or early February of 1990. Once again, he returned to his "old self", in terms of his adequate performance as a teacher, his emotional stability, good relationships with colleagues and students, and his prior demeanor as a genuinely caring teacher. His performance for the remainder of 1990 through the end of classes in June was good. He worked for the remainder of that school year as a physical education instructor, which is the field in which he is certified as a teacher. The Respondent had also been seen by Dr. Zumarraga beginning in November of 1989, who also found him to be manic-depressive, and who informed Mr. Simonson, by letter presented to Mr. Simonson by the Respondent, that the Respondent was taking medication for his illness and had exhibited acceptable behavior. As a result of those assurances by the Respondent's psychiatrist, Mr. Simonson had allowed the Respondent to return to work at Rosenwald Middle School in approximately early February of 1990. Apparently, sometime in late spring or early summer of 1990, the Respondent had doubts that he was still suffering from his condition and consulted another physician for an additional opinion. Apparently, he quit taking his medication sometime during the summer of 1990 as a result of that consultation. In late August of 1990, the Respondent returned to Rosenwald Middle School as a physical education instructor. Ms. Love, who had been Assistant Principal at the school, had moved up to the position of Principal. In the spring of 1990, the Respondent had been quiet and cooperative, had gotten along well with colleagues and students, and had performed his duties well, after undergoing treatment and being placed on a program of medication for his manic- depressive disorder. In the fall, however, he was immediately observed by Ms. Love and others of his colleagues and supervisors to have reverted to the arrogant, abrasive and extremely assertive attitudes and behavior, which he had exhibited in the fall of 1989, prior to securing treatment. Before these attitudes and behavior had manifested themselves, however, and immediately upon the start of the 1990-91 school year, given his long and worthwhile experience in the physical education field in the county system, Ms. Love asked the Respondent if he would work on a plan for a "middle school olympics" athletic event. The Respondent agreed to do this and immediately began setting about the formulation of a plan whereby all of the middle schools in the county would participate in the olympics athletic event on a given day at Tommy Oliver Stadium. He arrived at a plan to accomplish this and drafted it in memorandum form. Instead of sharing it with Ms. Love, however, he transmitted it directly to the Superintendent, Mr. Simonson. This was a departure from appropriate procedures for the planning of such events because the Respondent did not transmit his plan to Ms. Love for her initial approval before its being communicated to supervisory personnel at the county district level. The Respondent became somewhat obsessed with the idea of planning and conducting the olympics event, devoting an inordinate amount of time and energy to it. In early September, the Respondent brought a student to the office for disciplinary reasons asserting that he had caught the student stealing or "going through the lockers". Upon questioning of the Respondent by Ms. Love, it was learned that he did not find the child in the locker room or dressing room actually invading lockers, but found him in the locker room area where he was not supposed to be. He accused the child of stealing or attempting to steal when he had not actually observed him do this. The Respondent was criticized in this action for not having actually observed the child stealing and yet accusing him of it and for having brought prior behavior of the child up in his disciplining of the child, which Ms. Love felt to be inappropriate. In fact, the Respondent had some justification for suspecting this particular child of wrongful conduct or illegal activity because of past disciplinary violations committed by the child of a similar nature. At approximately the same period of time, in early September, the Respondent was observed to have grabbed a child by the arm in the act of admonishing the child for some alleged miscreant behavior and stating that "I am going to break your little arm". Ms. Love counseled the Respondent about these two instances and gave him an "improvement notice" on September 7, 1990 concerning them. An improvement notice is a disciplinary memorandum or report to a teacher such as the Respondent by which the Principal admonishes a teacher for inappropriate behavior and directs steps for improvement of the situation which led to that criticized behavior. On September 14, 1990, Ms. Love had another formal conference with the Respondent, since she had seen his arrogant, abrasive, overly-assertive behavior with colleagues and students continuing. She discussed with him his inappropriate behavior towards students and faculty and the matter of the Respondent's disciplinary referral of a student to the guidance counselor. He had referred a student to the guidance counselor for discipline and had been overbearing and abusive to the guidance counselor in his communication with her concerning the disciplinary referral. Ms. Love counseled him about the basic procedures involved in referring students for discipline, which specifically do not involve the guidance counselor. Rather, disciplinary referrals should appropriately go to the administration of the school, as delineated in the teacher's handbook, which the Respondent had previously been provided. Additionally, Ms. Love felt that the Respondent had exhibited a pattern of not turning in required documents in a timely manner; therefore, she gave him an improvement notice for these matters dated September 28, 1990. In fact, however, it was not established by the Petitioner that the Respondent had been untimely in turning in any required documents, reports, and the like, other than one report which had been due on a Friday, when he was absent due to illness and which he promptly turned in on the following Monday. During the fall of 1990, the Respondent was observed to frequently share details of his custody dispute and problems concerning his child and problems with his wife or former wife through notes, letters and conversations with other members of the staff in an inappropriate manner. He appeared to be emotionally preoccupied with these personal problems while on duty. On the third day of school in the fall of 1990, Mr. Simonson located his office temporarily at Rosenwald Middle School. He had done the same thing at other schools in the county that were having disruptions caused by on-going construction during the fall. Rosenwald Middle School at this time was undergoing construction work, including work on its air-conditioning system, such that many of the students and teachers did not have the benefit of air- conditioning. Mr. Simonson, therefore, elected to spend a day or so at Rosenwald Middle School on a sort of "Bob Graham Work Day". Ms. Love announced that fact over the public address system during the morning announcements on that day. The Respondent came to Ms. Love's office a short time later carrying the school's daily bulletin in his hand. He seemed hostile and agitated, leaned over her desk and shook the bulletin in her face, stating to her that he wanted her to sign on the bulletin her name and the statement she had made about the reason the Superintendent was at the school on that day. He further stated to her, in effect, that he was "fixing to be fired" and that he wanted Ms. Love to admit and put in writing on the face of the morning school bulletin the real reason, as he felt it, why the Superintendent was at the school that day. Ms. Love refused to do this and considered this behavior to be bizarre and threatening, given that the Respondent obviously felt that the Superintendent had been on campus that day to "spy on him". During late September of 1990, the school embarked, at the behest of Ms. Love and other administrators and teachers, on a "school spirit week" contest. The contest involved decorating the doors of the classrooms by the students, using as themes for the decorations certain words which denoted various aspects of "school spirit". The doors were to be decorated during "trust class time". "Trust classes" are classes which meet for approximately fifteen minutes or so at the outset of the school day, somewhat analogous to what is commonly known as "homeroom classes". The students were allowed to decorate the doors during their trust class time. Ms. Love accused the Respondent of keeping students overtime in their trust class, which required them to miss part of their next class and be tardy to that class in order to decorate his room door. In fact, she gave him an "improvement notice" in the nature of a reprimand for this on September 28, 1990. It was not proven, however, that the Respondent had actually kept students late at his behest for this purpose. In fact, his testimony is that he required no students to stay in his trust class working on door decorations after the time for the trust class to be over and instructed them to obtain permission from their other teachers should they elect to stay overtime to decorate the doors. The Hearing Officer having weighed the testimony, candor and credibility of the witnesses on this issue, including the ability of the witnesses to have knowledge of the facts concerning the time and methods employed to accomplish the door decoration effort, this violation of school procedures was not proven. The door decoration contest was judged on September 28, 1990 and the Respondent's class did not win. The Respondent became very agitated and angry at this result to the point of requesting and obtaining a meeting with Ms. Love concerning it. His temper and emotions were out of control on this occasion. He behaved in a loud, abrasive, and angry manner, even to the point of alternately crying, shaking, and shouting. He accused Ms. Love of penalizing his children by denigrating their efforts in the door decoration contest in order to hurt him, claiming that her actions really were a personal vendetta against him in the course of which the children were victimized. In the midst of his emotional outburst concerning this matter, he refused to listen to any explanation which Ms. Love attempted to give him but repeatedly interrupted her efforts to explain how the contest was judged and its rules. He even attempted to call a newspaper concerning the incident. He was inordinately obsessed with the conduct of the contest and with the result. As this incident with Ms. Love was progressing, Corporal Lassiter, the school Resource Officer, observed and heard part of it. In his view, having observed the behavior of the Respondent on this occasion and being aware of the Respondent's past history, Mr. Lassiter considered the possibility of initiating an involuntary Baker Act hospitalization at that moment, because of the Respondent's behavior. During the course of this confrontation with Ms. Love, Mr. Lassiter or others persuaded the Respondent to step across the hall to a different office to calm down. After he went into the other office with Mr. Lassiter and another administrator, Mr. Barnes, the Respondent's behavior continued to be somewhat bizarre. His demeanor toward Mr. Lassiter and Mr. Barnes alternated from being very angry and upset with them to calling them, and acting toward them, as though they were good friends. At one point, he told Mr. Lassiter that when he got elected Superintendent, all would hear about this incident in the newspaper and the reasons for it all "would become very clear". He stated then that Mr. Lassiter and Mr. Barnes would have good employment positions with him when he became Superintendent. Alternatively, before making these statements and also after making these statements, he became angry and hostile to both men, saying, in essence, that they were "all against me", becoming accusatory toward them and asserting, in essence, that Mr. Lassiter, Mr. Barnes, Ms. Love, and others in the administration were seeking to do him harm. Partly at the instance of Mr. Lassiter, the Respondent finally calmed down sufficiently to accede to Mr. Lassiter's recommendation that he call a substitute to take over his classes for the remainder of the day. A substitute was called and Mr. Lassiter then escorted the Respondent to his truck in order to see that he was removed safely from the campus without further incident with colleagues or students. As the Respondent was getting into his truck, preparing to leave the campus, he told Mr. Lassiter to "tell Ms. Love that she can kiss my ass". Teachers are required to be at Rosenwald Middle School by 7:30 a.m. The first bell rings at 7:37 a.m., and the "trust class" begins at 7:45 a.m. On approximately six occasions during September of 1990, Ms. Love had to sit in on the Respondent's trust class because he was late arriving at his class. She gave him an improvement notice concerning this deficiency on September 28, 1990. Additionally, on two separate occasions, Mr. Lassiter handled the Respondent's trust classes when he was late. The next school day after the incident concerning the door decoration contest on September 28, 1990 was October 1, 1990, a Monday. The Respondent was approximately 20 minutes late to school that day. Ms. Love, being concerned about the ramifications of the behavior she had witnessed in the Respondent the preceding Friday, met with the Respondent when he arrived at school for purposes of determining his state of mind and to talk to him about his tardiness. She found him still agitated, although not as much as he had been on Friday, the 28th. He continued to accept no responsibility for those actions and for his tardiness. He denied even being late, and as a result, Ms. Love assigned the school Resource Officer, Corporal Lassiter, to accompany the Respondent whenever he had students with him for the remainder of the day. It should be pointed out, however, that on most of the occasions when the Respondent was tardy to his first class during September of 1990, it was because he did not have a key to fit his office and would have to look for another co-worker to let him in. He was given a key at the outset of the school year which did not fit. Consequently, he disposed of it, ordering another key, the provision of which to him was delayed for unknown reasons. Later that same day, the Respondent brought between 20 and 30 students to the office for being tardy to class. The procedure for handling tardies at Rosenwald Middle School is that if a child is tardy, a teacher counsels with the child at first. The parents are contacted, the child is assigned to "team detention", and a student misconduct form is forwarded to the appropriate administrator upon tardies becoming repetitive. It is unusual to bring a student to the Principal's office for tardiness. The Respondent explained when they arrived at the Principal's office that all of the students were late to class and that Ms. Love should do something about it. This was a departure from normal procedures in dealing with tardy students. It should also be pointed out, however, that the school administration had recently issued a memorandum admonishing teachers that they should deal more severely with tardy students. When this entire group of students proved to be tardy on the day in question, the Respondent volunteered, with the agreement of the other physical education teachers/coaches, to escort the students to the Principal's office for disciplinary reasons concerning their tardiness. The other teachers involved agreed. On that same occasion, on October 1, 1990, when the Respondent had the group of students waiting outside the Principal's office, he apparently had some sort of confrontation with a student named Malackai. Apparently, the student was arguing with him and denying being tardy, which was the reason he was brought to the office. The Respondent offered to wrestle the student after school and "tear him limb from limb". This action caused Mr. Lassiter to step between the Respondent and the student and to send the student to Ms. Love's office to prevent any further such confrontation. Although the student was large for his age, these actions by the Respondent intimidated the student. On that same day, the Respondent was giving a lesson in softball on the softball field. He was being observed by Mr. Lassiter at the time at the behest of Ms. Love, who was concerned about his emotional stability. During this lesson, the Respondent, for unknown reasons, began rather randomly talking about accidents, lions, the dangers of eating red meat, and some sort of discussion of suicide. When he observed a student not paying attention to him, he hit the student on the head with a clipboard. He then continued his rambling discussion. A few minutes later, the same child asked when they would be allowed to play softball; and the Respondent hit him with the clipboard again. The student got tears in his eyes and was intimidated by the Respondent's conduct. When Mr. Lassiter observed that the Respondent might be about to commit the same act for a third time, he stepped between the student and the Respondent in order to prevent this from happening again. Physical education teachers are required to supervise students by direct observation in their locker room where they dress out for physical education classes and then dress in their regular clothes again at the end of classes. This is necessary in order to prevent fights and horseplay in the locker room, which can be dangerous. On October 1, 1990, during the Respondent's period to supervise the boys' locker room, he attempted to telephone Mr. Tucker, the Principal at Mosley High School. While he was on the telephone, he left the locker room class unsupervised and was unable to observe and supervise the locker room from the location of the telephone in the coach's office. On October 2, 1990, the Respondent again left his physical education class unsupervised while he was talking on the telephone for some 15-20 minutes. During the month that the Respondent had worked with Mr. Kent in the physical education department, Mr. Kent felt that although the Respondent generally had handled his duties well, he had spent an excessive amount of time on the telephone, rather than being in his assigned area. October 2, 1990 was the Respondent's last day of employment with the Petitioner. He was suspended with pay and shortly thereafter, the School Board met and accepted the Superintendent's recommendation to suspend the Respondent without pay based upon the conduct described in the above Findings of Fact occurring in August and September of 1990. The Board took the positions that this conduct amounted to gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, and misconduct in office. In the Amended Administrative Complaint, on which this matter proceeded to hearing, which was filed on July 30, 1991, the factual allegations of the Complaint assert that the suspension action was taken based upon "alleged gross insubordination, willful neglect of duty, and misconduct in office"; however, the Amended Complaint actually charges that the factual allegations set forth in the Amended Complaint violate Section 231.36, Florida Statutes, and Rule 6B-4.009(3), Florida Administrative Code, concerning misconduct in office allegedly so serious as to impair the Respondent's effectiveness in the school system and charges incapacity (as a subset of incompetency) alleging violations of Rules 6B-1.001, 6B-1.006, and 6B-4.009, Florida Administrative Code. Thereafter, after the suspension occurred, the Respondent was involuntarily hospitalized pursuant to the Baker Act on the day following an apparent arrest for DUI, fleeing or attempting to elude a police officer, and having a concealed firearm. The Respondent was convicted of none of these charges but, rather, pled nolo contendere to a reduced charge of reckless driving and to a misdemeanor weapons charge. Adjudication of guilt was withheld. In fact, the weapon which the Respondent had in his car was believed by him to be legally possessed since it was merely the 22 pistol with which he used blanks for training his bird dogs. The pistol happened to be on the floorboard of his car when he was arrested by the officer. The Respondent spent a short period of time at Bay Medical Center, pursuant to involuntary Baker Act commitment on this occasion. Also, in 1990, at an undetermined time in the fall, he voluntarily admitted himself to the Rivendell Psychiatric Center for approximately 2-1/2 weeks in order to receive additional evaluation because he was unsure whether he was actually manic-depressive or not. Thereafter, while still suspended from his employment, in May of 1991, the Respondent apparently had an argument with his parents at their home in Bonifay and then left their home to return to his own home in the vicinity of Panama City in Bay County, Florida. Rumors apparently were communicated to law enforcement officials to the effect that the Respondent had threatened to kill his parents and had left their home with a high-powered rifle and was journeying to Panama City to his own home. Apparently, as a result of such reports, after the Respondent was at his own home, to his surprise, law enforcement vehicles and numerous law enforcement personnel, especially the Bay County Sheriff Department Swat Team, arrived in his yard, and, by megaphone, demanded his surrender. A television news crew was present at the scene and filmed the incident, which may have received billing as an "armed confrontation" between the swat team and the Respondent. In fact, this is untrue. When the Respondent observed the law enforcement officers arriving on his premises in a number of vehicles, he telephoned his attorney to inform him of the situation and then went to the door in response to the directive that he come outside. When he went to the door to ascertain why the law enforcement officers were at his residence, he was armed with a fork and a hamburger. He was charged with no crime in connection with this incident, although, apparently, he was involuntarily committed under the Baker Act once again for a brief period of time. The incident was disseminated to the public on the electronic media. However, no armed confrontation was proven to have occurred, nor was there any proof that the Respondent ever threatened to kill his parents. Although Mr. Simonson testified that there would be a great public outcry if he reinstated the Respondent because of this incident and the other incidents, there was no showing by the Petitioner that the incidents occurring at Rosenwald Middle School leading to the Respondent's suspension nor the incidents involving the alleged high-speed chase were ever communicated to the public generally or to parents of students of the Bay County school system or the students themselves. It was not shown by the Petitioner that the Superintendent or other officials of the Petitioner received any complaints from parents or members of the general public concerning the Respondent, his behavior, or his teaching performance. The incidents involving the alleged high-speed chase and the swat team confrontation, delineated in the above Findings of Fact, did not occur while the Respondent was on school premises nor while he was engaged in his duties as a teacher or coach. With regard to either incident, he was not shown to have committed any crime or conduct which can constitute misconduct in office. Both incidents occurred in the Respondent's private life, away from his employment and away from the School Board premises. The only conduct shown to have been disseminated in the public media involved the Respondent being taken into custody at his home by the Sheriff's swat team because the television news crew was there filming the incident. He was charged with no crime on that occasion and was shown to have committed no form of reprehensible conduct. He was merely involuntarily committed shortly thereafter, pursuant to the Baker Act. None of that can constitute misconduct in office, much less misconduct in office which in any way abrogates his effectiveness as a teacher in the school system involved. The Respondent has been taking Lithium and Prozac for his manic- depressive condition since 1989. He is presently under the treatment of Dr. David Smith, a licensed psychologist; and Dr. Ben Pimentel, a licensed psychiatrist, at a facility known as the "Life Management Center", as an outpatient. Both of these professionals opined that if the Respondent continues to take his medication, the symptoms of mania and depression will remain in remission, as they are at the present time. Indeed, in the past, since he first began taking medication for his condition in 1989 after being diagnosed as manic-depressive, at those times when the Respondent was taking his medication, his behavior and his teaching performance was up to the good and satisfactory standard which he had consistently exhibited from 1977 through the 1987-88 school year. It is only on those occasions when he has ceased taking his medication, in the apparent belief that his problem was not a chronic one, that he has exhibited the emotional instability, such as that displayed at Rosenwald Middle School in August and September of 1990, which is the subject of this proceeding. Indeed, both Drs. Smith and Pimentel, the only experts testifying in this proceeding, who testified for the Respondent, established that if the Respondent continues to take his medication, his symptoms of mania and depression will remain in remission and he will be competent to teach in terms of both his emotional stability and his ability to perform his duties as a teacher. Although Dr. Smith acknowledged that the rudeness exhibited by the Respondent on the occasions at issue in this case and his behavior involving striking a student and offering to wrestle a student might be behavior unrelated to the bi-polar disorder, the totality of the evidence supports the finding that, in the Respondent's case, given the many years of his teaching experience when he was a calm, caring, competently-performing instructional employee with behavior not characterized by such outbursts and aggressiveness, such conduct is, indeed, directly related to the present, active nature of his disorder on those occasions. On those occasions, he was not taking his medication. Dr. Pimentel believes that the Respondent needs to continue his medication. If he does continue his medication, he will be competent to continue teaching or to once again teach because his symptoms will remain in remission. Dr. Pimentel believes that the Respondent may need the motivation of a court order or employment directive or condition to insure that he continues his medication because if he obtains a medical opinion that he is no longer sick, he may not take the medication and stop the treatment. Additionally, Dr. Pimentel finds that the Respondent will require monthly counselling sessions and monitoring of his medication level to make sure it remains at a therapeutic level. Under those conditions, however, he would be capable of resuming his teaching duties. The Respondent, in his testimony, expressed the wish to obtain another medical opinion to make sure, in his view, that he is still manic- depressive, although he accepts the diagnosis that he is manic-depressive and is willing to continue his medication and to submit to monthly monitoring of his medication and monthly treatment by his presently-treating professionals.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, 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 the Respondent, Steven T. George, be suspended for a period of two years, but that the suspension be abated and the Respondent immediately reinstated to his duties as an instructional employee of the Bay County school district, with all of the rights of a tenured teacher, under the following circumstances which should remain in effect for a probationary period of two (2) years: His psychiatrist shall file monthly with the School Board a detailed report of his attendance at counselling sessions and the result of his monthly blood tests to ascertain if his medication remains at therapeutic levels. He is required to maintain the therapeutic levels of Lithium and Prozac or such medication as his physician and psychiatrist deem medically appropriate. If he fails to attend counselling sessions or to maintain therapeutic blood levels of his appropriate medication for any two (2) consecutive months, then this should be determined to be, at law, willful neglect of duty, subjecting him to dismissal as a teacher with the Bay County school district subject to the Respondent's right to contest such an employment action, pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, in this forum. There should be no award of back pay in light of the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. There should be no award of attorney's fees in light of the above Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law , and the opinion in Werthman v. School Board of Seminole County, Florida, 17 FLWD 1245 (Fla. 5th DCA, opinion filed May 15, 1992; Case Number 91-1831). The cases cited by the Respondent seem to accord the Respondent a hearing opportunity on the issue, with award of fees being discretionary. The Werthman decision appears contra in termination proceedings, however. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 1st day of June, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-23. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not entirely supported by the record evidence. Accepted. Accepted, except that it was not proven that he had "gone through Ms. Love's mailbox". Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not entirely supported by preponderant evidence. 28-29. Accepted. Rejected, as not supported by preponderant, competent evidence. Rejected, as not supported by preponderant, competent evidence. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not entirely supported by preponderant evidence. 33-35. Accepted. 36. Accepted, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 37-39. Accepted. 40. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 41-47. Accepted. 48. Rejected, as not, in its entirety, being in accordance with the preponderant, competent evidence of record. 49-56. Accepted, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 57-61. Accepted. 62. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-13. Accepted. 14. Rejected, as not supported by preponderant evidence. 15-22. Accepted. 23. Rejected, as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence. 24-30. Accepted. 31-36. Accepted. 37. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence. 38-41. Accepted. 42-48. Accepted. 49-51. Accepted. 52. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 53-54. Accepted. Rejected, as not in accordance with the evidence of record. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and not in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. Accepted. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not being entirely in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 61-63. Rejected, as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 64-72. Accepted. Rejected, as not in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. Rejected, as not in accordance with the preponderant evidence of record. (Second No. 74). Accepted. 75-78. Accepted. 79. Rejected in the sense that it was proven by the Petitioner that at the time he was suspended, the Respondent was incompetent to teach due to incapacity related to his emotional instability. 80-85. Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack W. Simonson, Superintendent P.O. Drawer 820 Panama City, FL 32402 Honorable Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400 Franklin R. Harrison, Esq. HARRISON, SALE, ET AL. 304 Magnolia Avenue P.O. Drawer 1579 Panama City, FL 32401 David Brooks Kundin, Esq. DOBSON & KUNDIN, P.A. 210 South Monroe Street P.O. Box 430 Tallahassee, FL 32302
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent should grant Petitioner's request for licensure by endorsement as a physical therapist pursuant to Sections 486.031 or 486.081, Florida Statutes (1997), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B17- (All statutory references are to Florida Statutes (1997) unless otherwise stated. All references to rules are to rules promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code in effect on the date of this Recommended Order.)
Findings Of Fact It is uncontroverted that Petitioner is 48 years old and of good moral character within the meaning of Section 486.031(1) and (2). Petitioner has been a resident of Florida for 34 years. He is licensed in Florida as a chiropractor and is a graduate of a four-year degree program at Palmer College of Chiropractic ("Palmer College"). Petitioner is board certified as a chiropractor orthopedist and as a chiropractic neurologist. Both board certifications required additional training after graduation from Palmer College. In June 1995, Petitioner attended the University of Health Sciences Antigua School of Allied Health Professionals and received a Bachelor of Science in Physical Therapy from that institution in August 1996. Petitioner traveled to the University of Antigua eight times in two years for education sessions. Each session lasted approximately two weeks. In addition to the hours Petitioner spent at the University of Antigua, Petitioner spent approximately 1,200 hours during an eight-month period at a physical therapy facility associated with the hospital in Antigua. In addition, Petitioner spent approximately 650 hours interning at the Spinal Rehabilitation Institute in Titusville, Florida. The University of Antigua required Petitioner to complete the 1,200 hours at the physical therapy facility and the 650 hours as an intern as part of its educational program. After obtaining a degree in physical therapy from the University of Antigua, Petitioner applied to the State of Colorado to take an examination prepared under the auspices of Profession Examination Services ("PES"). Colorado evaluated Petitioner's education and allowed Petitioner to take the PES exam. Petitioner passed the PES exam and has been licensed as a physical therapist in Colorado since April 11, 1997. On February 9, 1999, Petitioner applied to the State of Florida for a license as a physical therapist. Petitioner received and relied upon application materials provided by Respondent. In particular, Petitioner utilized Respondent's "List of Currently Qualified Credentialing Agencies" to select the International Education Research Foundation (the "Foundation") to evaluate Petitioner's foreign education. The Foundation is the appropriate agency identified by the Board, within the meaning of Section 486.031(3)(b), to determine whether Petitioner has educational credentials equivalent to those required for the educational preparation of physical therapists in the United States. The Foundation gave Petitioner credit for 60 semester hours of physical therapy education including six clinical hours. The Foundation determined that Petitioner has the U.S. equivalent of a Bachelor of Science in Physical Therapy (non-traditional program awarded by nonaccredited colleges and universities). The Foundation prepared its evaluation: . . . in accordance with guidelines developed by several state licensing boards and was completed in close collaboration with a physical therapy consultant. Records from the institution attended showing coursework completed, hours of study and grades earned, were used as the basis for this report. Joint Exhibit 1 at 399. The Board denied Petitioner's application for the following reasons: The applicant does not meet the requirements of Sections 486.031(3)(b) or 486.081(1) . . . and Rules 64B17-3.001(3) and (4) or 64B17- 3.003 . . . in that the applicant does not possess credentials that are deemed equivalent to a bachelor's degree in physical therapy in the United States. At best the applicant's training is a six week lecture series that would constitute a continuing education course. It is not the length and content of a CAPTE approved bachelors or masters in science program in physical therapy that would be the bulk of the final year of training. Denial Order at 1. The actual basis for Respondent's denial has little to do with factual disputes concerning Petitioner's educational hours. As Respondent admits in its PRO: While there may be some factual disputes about Petitioner's educational hours, both in modules and clinical time, these are not really material facts for the [ALJ] to resolve. The real issue is the legal interpretation of . . . Sections 486.031 and 486.081. . . . Respondent's PRO at 5. The findings in paragraphs 12-15 of Respondent's PRO are not material to the real issue concerning the interpretation of Sections 486.031 and 486.081. Respondent does not approve the physical therapy program at the University of Antigua for the educational preparation of physical therapists within the meaning of Section 486.031(3)(a). The record does not show whether the United States Department of Education approves the program. Petitioner has received a diploma from a program in a foreign country within the meaning of Section 486.031(3)(b). The Foundation, as the appropriate agency identified by the Board, has determined that Petitioner possesses educational credentials required for the educational preparation of physical therapists in this country. Petitioner passed the Colorado PES exam in 1997. Petitioner passed a national examination approved by the Board to determine Petitioner's fitness to practice as a physical therapist within the meaning of Section 486.031(3)(a) and (b). Petitioner is entitled to licensure in Florida without examination, pursuant to Section 486.031(3)(c), as provided in Section 486.081. Petitioner passed the PES exam in 1997. The written examination taken by Petitioner for licensure in Colorado was an examination prepared under the auspices of the Professional Examination Services within the meaning of Rule 64B17-3.003. Respondent has long construed applicable Florida Statutes to require an applicant for licensure without examination to pass the requisite national examination and to meet those educational requirements approved by the Commission on Accreditation for Physical Therapy ("CAPTE") in accordance with the requirements of Section 486.031(3)(a). Respondent's legal interpretation of applicable statutes and rules is a legal interpretation rather than a matter within the ambit of agency expertise.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order granting Petitioner's request for a license in Florida as a physical therapist pursuant to Sections 486.031(3)(b), 486.031(3)(c), and 486.081. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of April, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of April, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Dr. Kaye Howerton, Executive Director Board of Physical Therapy Practice Department of Health Division of Medical Quality Assurance Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William Large, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capitol Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Ann Cocheu, Esquire Office of the Attorney General Administrative Law Section The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Wilson Jerry Foster, Esquire 1342 Timberlane Road, Suite 101A Tallahassee, Florida 32312-1775
The Issue Whether Petitioner has just cause to terminate Respondent’s employment based on the determination by a licensed psychologist that Respondent was not fit to perform his duties as a classroom teacher.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was the constitutional entity authorized to operate, control, and supervise the public schools in Broward County, Florida. Petitioner has continuously employed Respondent since 1998 as a classroom teacher. At the times material to this proceeding, Respondent has held a professional services contract. The School Board has adopted Policy 4004, which provides for mandatory physical and/or psychological examinations for employees, as follows: AT ANY TIME DURING THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT WHEN IT SHALL BE DEEMED ADVISABLE BY THE SUPERINTENDENT/DESIGNEE, AN EMPLOYEE MAY BE REQUIRED TO TAKE A PHYSICAL OR PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINATION. RULES The Board authorizes the Superintendent to establish procedures to carry out the intent of this policy. The affected employee shall select the name of a medical doctor, psychologist or psychiatrist from a list maintained by the Division of Personnel, Policies, Government and Community Relations. Where the employee is found to be unable to function satisfactorily, the Division of Personnel, Policies, Government and Community Relations shall take appropriate action. At all times relevant to this proceeding, the Superintendent of Schools had in effect the following procedures (Policy 4004 procedures) relating to fitness for duty determinations: Fit for Duty Determination Procedures The Executive Director of Professional Standards & Special Investigative Unit (SIU) receives request from a Principal/Administrator (includes District Administrators) or Superintendent/Designee. SIU notifies employee via certified mail that he/she must undergo a physical and/or psychological examination. A reassignment letter is prepared directing employee to remain at home or at an alternate site with pay, depending on circumstances (i.e. active case file/investigation). The affected employee shall select the name of a medical doctor psychologist or psychiatrist from a list maintained by the Executive Director of Professional Standards & Special Investigative Unit, within 24 hours. SIU Administrator schedules within ten working days a medical appointment and follows-up in writing to the doctor’s office and to the employee of appointment confirmation. Letter is sent to the doctor explaining billing instructions, and ‘Fit for Duty Evaluation’ report of findings. The doctor as delineated in the policy will conduct Pre [sic] evaluation at District expense. Note: a 2nd Opinion will be at the employee’s expense if requested, with the employee selecting from the School Board approved list as delineated in the policy. [Emphasis is in the orginal.] A third evaluation will be mandated if previous two (Pre & 2nd Opinion) are contradicting and will be at District expense and will be binding by [sic] all parties. [Emphasis is in the original.] Doctor determines if employee is ‘Fit for Duty’ or [is] not [fit] for duty. Where the employee is found ‘unfit for duty’ the Executive Director of Professional Standards & Special Investigative Unit shall take appropriate action per the recommendation of the doctor, subjecting employee to a Post-evaluation by the same doctor making the initial evaluation. The Post-evaluation ought to occur within 90 days of the initial evaluation. If a doctor determines that the employee is ‘Unfit for Duty’, an administrative reassignment letter is prepared changing the employee’s pay status to ‘at home without pay (PLV)’. The employee is given information to call the Leave Department to apply for any paid leave accrued, and/or any other leave types per SBBC Policies that they are eligible for. Also, a Formal Referral to EAP is prepared for follow-up. Based on the progress and/or compliance with EAP’s recommendations, a Post Evaluation is scheduled within the 90- day reassessment period. If employee is unfit to return to work in the Post Evaluation, then the employee is recommended for termination (School Board Agenda is prepared for the next Board Meeting). Note: 2nd Opinions on the Post evaluation will be at the employee’s expense, if requested. Third evaluation, if required will be at District expense and will be binding by [sic] all parties. [Emphasis is in the original.] Employee and school/work site are notified of doctor’s fit for duty status via certified mail. (Note: Confidential Doctor’s report will only be distributed to the employee). The immediate supervisor is notified as well. However if the doctor has follow-up recommendations, then a Formal Referral to Employee Assistant Program (EAP) is prepared by SIU (i.e. mental health follow-up or other referrals as appropriate. If employee is found Fit for Duty, a certified letter is sent to the employee with instructions to return to work. The immediate supervisor is notified as well. Respondent was employed as a science teacher at Piper High School (Piper High) from 1999 until September of 2003. After two of Respondent’s students alleged in September 2003 that Respondent had battered them, Petitioner’s Professional Standards and Special Investigative Unit (SIU) conducted an investigation of the alleged incident. Petitioner submitted the results of the investigation to a Probable Cause Committee, which, in March of 2004, found probable cause of battery. A Pre-Disciplinary Hearing was held on June 10, 2004. The Committee recommended that Respondent's employment be terminated. Subsequently, in July of 2004, after his review of Respondent’s case, Dr. Frank Till (the Superintendent of Schools), recommended to the School Board that Respondent be reprimanded and returned to his teaching duties. The School Board followed Dr. Till’s recommendation. Respondent was notified of Petitioner’s action and the fact that he would be returned to the classroom by letter dated July 12, 2004. The letter was signed by Dr. Melita. Respondent responded to the July 12, 2004, letter with a letter to Dr. Melita dated July 15, 2004 (Petitioner’s Exhibit 8). This letter was copied to then President Bush, then Governor Bush, then Commissioner of Education Horne, Dr. Till, members of the School Board, and others. The letter consisted of two paragraphs. The first paragraph, which inexplicably contains a complaint by Respondent that he was being returned to the classroom, is set forth below. The second paragraph is not reproduced here because it pertained to an alleged leak of the SIU report to a newspaper reporter. The entire letter should be read if there is a question as to the context of the statements. Due to the fact that the students deliberately deceived in their irrefutably asinine assertion of battery, because they were failing Mr. Black’s science class, indeed, Mr. Black was wrongfully removed from his teacher position at Piper High School in the first place. It is fiercely urgent that you, Dr. Melita, and the School Board of Broward County, Florida, be aware that the students’ sickening battery hoax, which has been wantonly compounded by the draconian intimidating threat to terminate Mr. Black, has unfortunately caused Mr. Black’s family and himself exceptionally grave pain and suffering. This horrific suffering Mr. Black has been unnecessarily forced to go through since October 3, 2003, has rendered him psychologically, emotionally, physically and professionally harmed. Mr. Black immutably practiced the highest professional and ethical standards in his committed teaching duties at Piper High. Now, it is egregiously unfair to negligently dump Mr. Black back in a teacher position after his character clearly has been irreparably defamed by the mendacious students and the unjust Professional Standards Committee. Respondent’s correspondence caused Dr. Melita to be concerned as to Respondent’s emotional and mental stability. Before the commencement of the next school year (2004- 2005), Petitioner transferred Respondent from Piper High to Boyd Anderson High School (Anderson High). Respondent strenuously objected to the transfer. The decision to transfer him was made by the appropriate area office, based on a determination that his return to Piper High might disrupt the instructional program. Respondent made his objections to the transfer known by writing letters to School Board supervisory level employees, and others. Frances Bolden, the area director, communicated with Respondent about his transfer to Anderson High, and explained that she would meet him at the school to help him get acclimated. On Tuesday, August 10, 2004, Respondent reported to Anderson High. He met with Principal Timothy Gadson and Ms. Bolden twice on that day, with a faculty meeting intervening between the two meetings. Ms. Bolden described Respondent as being very anxious and nervous, despite the fact that it was a planning day before the school year commenced and no students were on campus that day. Following their meetings with Respondent on August 10, 2004, Dr. Gadson and Ms. Bolden referred Mr. Black to SIU based on the following statements he made: He was not comfortable in teaching students; He feared for the safety of the students; He had a condition that prevented him from going in the classroom; He had been out of the classroom since October 2003; and If he were forced to go into the classroom, he would leave Boyd Anderson within one week. He could not teach as he was under a doctor's care through EAP; He could not be at this school; His doctor told him that he could not work with students; and He needed help. Based on these concerns, Dr. Melita required Respondent to submit to a fitness for duty assessment pursuant to Policy 4004. Respondent was provided with a copy of the policy and procedures.1 On August 23, 2004, Respondent selected and met with Dr. Mendoza, who was on the School Board approved list. Dr. Mendoza found that Respondent was not fit for duty at that time. Respondent was formally referred to the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) and advised to follow up with Dr. Mendoza within 90 days. Respondent returned for a follow-up evaluation with Dr. Mendoza on November 10, 2004, after which Dr. Mendoza recommended that he be returned to work "in low stress settings while continuing to receive therapeutic treatment." Respondent was returned to work effective November 22, 2004, but Petitioner transferred Respondent from Anderson High to Rickards Middle School, in an attempt to comply with Dr. Mendoza’s recommendation that he be placed in a low stress setting.2 Prior to December 8, 2004, the Florida Department of Education (DOE) started an investigation into the 2003 incident at Piper High. As a consequence of that investigation, Respondent hired certain college students who, along with Respondent and some others, reenacted Respondent’s version of the events that had led to the charges of battery. Respondent videotaped the reenactment and forwarded a copy of the videotape to the DOE investigator. The DOE investigator became concerned that Respondent may have violated the Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession by using high school students as part of the reenactment. On or before December 8, 2004, the DOE investigator made contact with Respondent. Respondent became distraught after that contact. On December 8, 2004, a school based administrator from Rickards Middle School contacted SIU because of concerns about Respondent. Charles Rawls (a SIU supervisor) and Richard Mijon responded to Rickards Middle School and met with Respondent. Respondent admitted that he was concerned about a possible new investigation by DOE. Respondent stated that he was too upset to be at the school and too upset to be around children and he was sent home for the day. The next day, December 9, 2004, Dr. Melita requested a second fitness for duty assessment pursuant to Policy 4004. Again, Petitioner provided Respondent a copy of the pertinent policy and procedures. Of the School Board approved psychologists, Respondent chose Dr. Forman to provide his initial evaluation. On December 15, 2004, Respondent met with Dr. Forman for the initial evaluation. Dr. Forman prepared a report (Petitioner Exhibit 32) which, together with his testimony at the formal hearing, detailed the manner in which he conducted the evaluation, the tests he administered, the reasons he selected the tests he utilized, the results of the tests, and his interpretation of his results. Dr. Forman found that Respondent was not fit for duty. Respondent was again referred to the EAP and advised to follow up with Dr. Forman within 90 days. Respondent objected to Dr. Forman's initial evaluation because, Respondent alleged, Dr. Forman's behavior was inappropriate, and Respondent asked for a new evaluation. Respondent’s objections were made both orally and in writing. On December 15, 2004, Respondent wrote Mr. Mijon the following letter: As instructed by you I did in fact promptly report to my 1:00 p.m. appointment with [Dr. Forman] for the purpose of submitting to a Fit For Duty Psychological Exam. However, I quickly became extremely uncomfortable with Dr. Forman’s deportment when he began articulating extremely graphic and indecent profanity during his evaluation session with me. Dr. Forman even questioned whether or not racism was a motivating factor in my circumstances for being ordered to take the Fit For Duty Psychological Exam. I specifically told Dr. Forman that I did not feel comfortable with his conversation and kindly asked him to please change the subject. Dr. Forman continued the besetting conversation for a while longer. Considering Dr. Forman’s clearly inappropriate conduct unbecoming a psychologist, I understandably, feel highly uncomfortable entrusting the unwavering integrity and irrefutably unbiased interpretation of my Fit For Duty Psychological Exam results in Dr. Forman’s questionable care. Moreover, my vital employment wherewithal depends on the strict accuracy and reliability of the Fit For Duty Psychological Exam, which Dr. Forman administered with suspect. Naturally, due to the immensely inappropriate conditions in which I was unfairly subjected to take the required Fit For Duty Psychological Exam, which in and of it self [sic] in part of a terribly stressful 400-question test, I am certainly poised to vigorously challenge the exam results. As such, I respectfully request that you immediately abrogate Dr. Forman’s exam results and allow me a fair opportunity to select a professional and competent psychologist to properly administer the Fit For Duty Psychological Exam. Pursuant to the School Board's Policy 4004, Respondent was entitled to seek a second opinion by being evaluated by a separate School Board approved psychologist of his choosing, but at Respondent’s expense. Respondent chose psychologist Steven Shiendling, Ph.D., for the second opinion. Dr. Shiendling met with Respondent on March 14 and 15, 2005. His evaluation consisted of face-to-face interviews lasting a total of 2.5 hours. Dr. Shiendling did not administer any standardized testing in his evaluation. Dr. Shiendling found that Respondent was fit for duty. In accordance with Policy 4004, Dr. Hohnecker was selected to provide the third evaluation of Respondent (with Dr. Forman and Dr. Shiendling having provided the first two evaluations) at Petitioner’s expense. This evaluation occurred April 1, 2005. Dr. Hohnecker’s thorough report (Petitioner’s Exhibit 36) and her testimony at the formal hearing established that Respondent was not fit for duty as of the date of the evaluation "by reason of inappropriate outbursts of anger and intense anxiety." As of April 1, 2005, Respondent was not fit for duty as a classroom teacher. Dr. Hohnecker made recommendations that, if satisfied, would warrant Respondent’s return to work. Dr. Hohnecker further recommended that Respondent not be returned to Piper High School, which Respondent still wanted to do, until the students involved in the September 2003 incident had graduated. Respondent was, again, recommended to the Employee Assistance Program and advised to follow up with Dr. Forman. On April 20, 2005, John P. Molinari, a psychotherapist who worked with Respondent through Petitioner’s EAP, sent the following letter to Michelle Moore of Petitioner’s EAP: I met with Mr. Clinton Black today as part of our ongoing treatment. Mr. Black appears much less anxious with a high degree of motivation to return to work. In view of this, I recommend that Mr. Black return to Dr. Forman to be reevaluated for his fit for duty status. Mr. Mijon advised Respondent to report to Dr. Forman on May 12, 2005, for his reevaluation. Respondent objected to returning to Dr. Forman. On April 28, 2005, Mr. Mijon informed Respondent that he would be guilty of insubordination if he did not keep the appointment with Dr. Forman. Dr. Forman was selected to provide the reevaluation pursuant to the Policy 4004 procedures. Between Dr. Forman’s initial evaluation of Respondent and his reevaluation, Mr. Mijon told Dr. Forman that Respondent had lodged complaints about the manner in which the initial evaluation had been conducted. Mr. Mijon told Dr. Forman that Respondent considered the initial evaluation to have been unprofessional and invalid. Mr. Mijon did not go into the specifics of Respondent’s complaints. Mr. Mijon had also told Dr. Melita about the complaints Respondent had as to Dr. Forman’s initial evaluation. At some undetermined point, Respondent lodged complaints against Dr. Forman with the American Psychological Association (APA) and the Florida Department of Health, Board of Psychology (DOH). On May 4, 2005, Respondent hand delivered the following letter to Mr. Mijon with copies to Dr. Till, Dr. Melita, and Michelle Moore: Due to the egregious harassment and verbal abuse Dr. Bruce Forman wrongfully inflicted upon me during my initial fit for duty session, I respectfully urge you to immediately rescind your intimidating treat [sic] to terminate me should I not report to Dr. Forman, due to my resulting genuine fear and discomfort, for the second appointment you have scheduled for me on May 12, 2005. As I previously formally documented to you, Dr. Joe Melita, Mr. Charles Rawls and Ms. Michelle Moore via letter, I factually suffered excruciating and debilitating harassment and verbal abuse while under the care of Dr. Bruce Forman during my initial fit for duty assessment on December 15, 2004. However, my authentic complaint was apparently inappropriately ignored. Furthermore, due to the fact that I have appropriately filed two investigative complaints against Dr. Forman for the abject harassment and verbal abuse he inflicted upon me during my initial fit for duty exam, it clearly would be overwhelmingly inappropriate for me to return to Dr. Forman for a second fit for duty assessment under these brutal circumstances Dr. Forman has inappropriately forced upon me. Naturally, I feel extremely afraid and uncomfortable returning to Dr. Forman for a second fit for duty assessment under his inappropriate care and thus would be incapable of relaxing and focusing for proper testing as I rightfully deserve and should have the fair and equal opportunity to do so during a valid fit for duty exam. Therefore, I unambiguously urge you to withdraw at once your intimidating treat [sic] to terminate me and cancel your scheduled May 12, 2005 appointment for me with Dr. Forman due to the exceptionally grave harassment and verbal abuse Dr. Forman wrongfully inflicted upon me. Mr. Mijon ordered Respondent to be reevaluated by Dr. Forman because he believed that paragraph 12 of the Policy 4004 procedures provided no other option than to require Respondent to be re-evaluated by the same psychologist (Dr. Forman) who performed the initial evaluation. Dr. Melita interprets paragraph 12 more liberally than Mr. Mijon. Dr. Melita testified beginning at page 47 of Volume I of the Transcript as follows: Q. Were you made aware that Mr. Mijon was sending Mr. Black back to see Dr. Forman for re-evaluation? A. Yes. If I remember correctly, because I asked why, from what I understand it was that Mr. Black said it was okay. Q. Now, did you understand that Mr. Black initially refused to go back to see Dr. Forman? Were you made aware of that? A. Yes. Q. Were you aware that Mr. Mijon then told him that if he did not go back to see Dr. Forman that he would be terminated for insubordination? A. That’s not what I was aware of, because I questioned why he was going back to Forman if there was an issue. According to what I believe to be what Mr. Mijon told me was that that was Mr. Black’s decision. Q. So you think it was Mr. Black’s decision to go back to see Dr. Forman? A. Yes, as odd as I thought it was. Q. So if Mr. Black had, in fact, had some problem with Dr. Forman, from your perspective, he should have gone to see a different doctor other than Dr. Forman, correct? A. Yes. If I remember correctly, my normal process is, Why would he go back to somebody who he has an issue with? Mr. Mijon’s response, if I remember correctly, was that Mr. Black said he had no problems going back to Mr. Forman. That’s the best of recollection. Q. So if Mr. Mijon, in fact, threatened Mr. Black with termination if he refused to go back to see Dr. Forman, that would not be consistent with your view of what should happen? A. That’s absolutely correct. I would not like to see anybody threatened. Dr. Forman was unaware of the complaints Respondent had lodged with the APA or the DOH until after Petitioner took action to terminate Respondent’s employment. Consequently, these complaints had no influence on the report Dr. Forman filed following his May 12, 2005, evaluation of the Respondent.3 Respondent agreed, under protest, to be reevaluated by Dr. Forman, but only on the condition that Dr. Forman would allow him to record the session. Dr. Forman agreed to have the session recorded on the condition that Respondent would provide Petitioner with a copy of the taped session. Respondent agreed to that condition. Respondent recorded the reevaluation session of May 12, 2005. Despite numerous requests, no tape was ever provided. Respondent testified that the tape was destroyed during Hurricane Wilma, which, according to the National Hurricane website, hit South Florida in October 2005. Dr. Forman testified at the hearing as to both the evaluation and the reevaluation. Reports as to his evaluation and his reevaluation were admitted into evidence. Dr. Forman again found that Respondent was not fit for duty on his reevaluation. The undersigned finds Dr. Forman’s testimony to be clear, professional, and persuasive. There was insufficient evidence to establish that the complaints Respondent lodged against Dr. Forman to Mr. Mijon had any bearing on Dr. Forman’s reevaluation. There was also insufficient evidence to establish that Dr. Forman should have been disqualified from providing the reevaluation. Dr. Forman’s Reevaluation Report (Petitioner’s Exhibit 43), provides, in relevant part, a recap of Dr. Forman’s findings as follows: . . . As I expressed to you by phone, Mr. Black appears to have deteriorated emotionally over the past five months and I am concerned that Mr. Black may be acutely psychotic. I can say unequivocally that Mr. Black is not ready to return to the classroom at this time. He was not fit to return to teaching duties the first time I evaluated him and given that his current emotional state is worsened, he is less able to function in an instructional capacity. I also believe an effort should be made to get Mr. Black psychiatric care as I am concerned about his wellbeing. . . . Petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent was not fit for duty as a classroom teacher as of May 12, 2005. On June 10, 2005, Respondent was notified that he would be recommended for termination from employment based on the finding that he was not fit for duty as a teacher. At its June 21, 2005 meeting, the School Board voted to terminate Respondent's employment pursuant to Policy 4004. The action to terminate Respondent’s employment was part of the consent agenda.4 In accordance with paragraph 12 of Policy 4004 procedures, Respondent could have requested a second opinion, following the reevaluation by Dr. Forman. Respondent did not request another evaluation. He no longer trusted the process, and stated that he could not obtain another evaluation for financial reasons. Subsequent to the School Board’s vote in June 2005, Respondent went off of the School Board approved list, looked in the yellow pages, and retained some other therapists, psychologists and/or psychiatrists to perform evaluations. Those subsequent evaluations were not offered into evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order adopting the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law contained in this Recommended Order. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order terminate Respondent’s employment. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of March, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 3rd day of March, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent is now, and was at all times material hereto, a physician authorized to practice medicine in the State of Florida under license number ME 0031424. Respondent has an office located at S.W. 8th Street and S.W. 34th Avenue in Miami, Florida. Delores Prado has worked in Respondent's office for the past ten years. Her duties are primarily administrative in nature. On occasion, however, Prado assists Respondent by administering physical therapy to Respondent's patients. She does so, though, only at the specific directive of Respondent, who provides her with detailed instructions regarding the precise treatment each patient is to receive. Prado never treats a patient when Respondent is not on the premises and immediately available if needed. During her first year of employment with Respondent, Prado received training in the practice of physical therapy. Prado is not now, nor was she at any time material hereto, licensed or certified to render any health care services in the State of Florida, including, but not limited to, those that licensed or certified physicians, registered nurses, practical nurses, physical therapists, and physical therapist assistants are authorized to perform. At all times material hereto, Respondent knew or should have of known of Prado's unlicensed status. On September 2, 1988, Thomas Daniels, an Investigative Specialist II with the Department, visited Respondent's office to investigate a complaint that Respondent was permitting unlicensed individuals to administer physical therapy to his patients. Upon his arrival at the office, Daniels was greeted by a young woman seated behind the reception desk. During the course of his conversation with the woman, Daniels inquired as to whether she had ever administered physical therapy to any of Respondent's patients. She replied in the negative. Daniels then showed her a copy of a letter, addressed to the U.S. Security Insurance Company and bearing her signature, which reflected the contrary. Confronted with this letter, the woman conceded that she and her fellow employees performed physical therapy on Respondent's patients. Respondent, who was nearby in a position where he could overhear the conversation, did not interject and deny the statement that his employee had made to Daniels. Later during his September 2, 1988, visit, Daniels met with Respondent and was shown the office's physical therapy area. He then left. Daniels returned to Respondent's office on September 6, 1988. On this visit, he was greeted by Prado. He asked her if he could speak with Respondent. Prado replied that Respondent was out of the office and she did not expect him back until later that afternoon. Daniels then asked Prado if he could take photographs of the physical therapy area. Prado indicated that she had no objection to him doing so. Daniel thereupon went into the physical therapy area where he observed one of Respondent's patients seated in a chair with "hot packs" on her neck and shoulders. The patient was in the midst of receiving physical therapy administered by Prado pursuant to the specific directive of Respondent. Notwithstanding what Prado had told Daniels, Respondent was in fact on the premises, albeit outside of the physical therapy area and beyond Daniels' view, and was immediately available if needed. Daniels took photographs of the physical therapy area and then concluded his visit. During the ten minutes that Daniels was in Respondent's office on September 6, 1988, he spoke to Prado and no one else. Their conversation was in English and Prado appeared to have little difficulty understanding what Daniels was saying to her.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order finding that Respondent did not commit the offenses charged and dismissing the instant administrative complaint. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 17th day of August, 1990. STUART M. LERNER 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 17th day of August, 1990.
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Respondent's license as a Physical Therapist should be suspended or revoked or the licensee otherwise disciplined for alleged violations of Chapter 486, Florida Statutes, as is more particularly set forth hereinafter and which is contained in a Second Amended Administrative Complaint filed December 12, 1986.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Steven R. Bernstein, is and at all times material, was a licensed physical therapist having been issued license number PT 0002304. (Stipulation) Respondent maintained two separate offices in Fort Lauderdale: 4580 North State Road 7, Suite K, and 2951 Northwest 49th Avenue, Suite 308. (Stipulation) From March 1981 to March 1983, Respondent employed Kathy Schillace as an aide at both of his offices. At no time was Schillace licensed as a physical therapist or a physical therapist assistant. (Stipulation) Schillace's duties included giving treatments to patients such as electrical stimulation, range of motion exercises and ultrasound. To perform these duties, Schillace reviewed patient charts and determined what procedures were needed based on notations which had been recorded by Respondent or one of his licensed physical therapists employed in one of the two offices. Schillace received on the job training from Respondent and Susan Trider, a licensed physical therapist, on how to operate the equipment. Susan Trider supervised Schillace during most of her employment with Respondent. Susan Trider worked for Respondent from November 16, 1981 thru June 21, 1982. Trider was licensed in Florida by endorsement on June 3, 1982. Trider was licensed in Massachusetts in April 1980. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4) From April 1982 to May 1983, Respondent employed Patricia Sears as an aide at both of his offices. At no time was Sears licensed as a physical therapist or a physical therapist assistant. (Stipulation) Sears routinely performed treatments on patients with electrical stimulation, range of motion and ultrasound exercises. Although Sears felt that she did not receive adequate training to do the treatments she performed for patients, it is found that Sears received adequate training and there were ample licensed supervisory personnel on hand to answer any inquires or provide the needed assistance. As example, it is alleged that based on the inadequate training and lack of supervision that Sears received, she burned a patient with the electrical stimulation machine. Upon review of the testimony concerning that incident, it is found that Sears was working under the supervision of an employee of Respondent, Paula Allia, a licensed physical therapist. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1, pages 12, lines 21-25; page 13 lines 1-4). Respondent had a policy of requiring licensed physical therapists to be on the premises at all times while aides were administering treatment to patients. The training included reviewing contra-indications, the indications, what procedures the equipment was capable of doing, reviewing the operating manuals and explaining the various equipment including hands-on training by licensed personnel. (TR 76-77) Prior to administering any procedures to patients, the aides were given a training exam and they had to demonstrate their abilities by passing the exam and by providing treatment to the licensed personnel. Respondent endeavors to insure that the aides were adequately trained by duplicating the training program that he received while in school to become licensed. (TR 77, lines 23-25) After they were trained, the typical case would be that the aides would only perform procedures diagnosed by a licensed physical therapist. While performing the procedures, licensed therapists were on the premises throughout the period during which the procedures were being administered. (TR 78-79) The procedures that were performed by the aides were procedures ordered by private physicians and all patients of Respondent's were referred from private physicians. Respondent constantly checked the administration of procedures by licensed personnel. (Testimony of Fran Wade, TR 97-98. Testimony of Susan Trider, TR 104) During times material herein, the procedures that Respondent's aides performed were the typical procedures engaged in by aides at other hospitals and private physical therapists in South Florida. (Testimony of Todd Williams, (TR 116-117) Respondent's offices were small and it was possible to hear communications between the patients, aides and the licensed physical therapist constantly monitored the treatment modalities administered by the aides. (Testimony of Respondent, R 92) In the opinion of Paul Hughes, an expert physical therapist, a physical therapist actively involved in the treatment or who is in the immediate area to provide supervision to an aide, is engaged in an acceptable practice in Florida. (TR 39) The testimony of other licensed physical therapists herein support Respondent's position that the treatment modalities that Respondent allowed his aides to administer were the type modalities which were considered acceptable by the local community. (Testimony of Diane Siweck, Sue Chestnut, Todd Williams and Fran Wade).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed herein be DISMISSED. RECOMMENDED this 29th day of June 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 29th day of June 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Ray Shope, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Hubert, Esquire Paragon Center Suite 512 2400 East Commercial Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Dorothy Faircloth, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Wings T. Benton, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Should the State of Florida, Education Practices Commission (EPC), impose discipline against Respondent, who holds Florida Educator's Certificate No. 292611, for the alleged violations set forth in EPC Case No. 001-0121-A?
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts: Respondent holds a Florida Educators Certificate (FEC), number 292611, in the areas of General Science, Physical Education, and Middle Grades. Respondent's FEC is valid through June 30, 2005. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was employed as Physical Education Teacher at Sante Fe High School (Sante Fe) in the Alachua County School District. Additional Facts: During his career Respondent has been employed by the Alachua County School Board as part of the instructional staff. His career spans 33 years. Respondent taught physical education at Sante Fe from 1974 through 2001. In the last two years he has taught at Bucholz High School in drivers education. The physical education curriculum at Sante Fe, to include the spring of 2000, emphasized physical activity for the students three days a week. Two days a week were devoted to classroom instruction. The physical fitness instruction emphasized cardio vascular conditioning and building endurance in the participants' muscles. The physical activity took place both inside the gymnasium and outside on the school grounds. The physical activity involved stretching before engaging in the prescribed activity. A typical physical fitness class taught by Respondent would have had 35 to 48 students. In the spring of 2000 two of the students taught physical education by the Respondent were E.C. and L.B., who were ninth graders. On the whole, the proof is not clear and convincing that Respondent inappropriately stared at the students E.C. and L.B. when they were doing their exercises in the physical education class in the spring of 2000, as they claim. During the spring of 2000 E.C. and L.B. went to Respondent's office to exchange a basketball which was flat for one that was not. After the students asked for a new basketball Respondent replied "well that's not the only thing that's flat" while looking in the direction of the students. The students took this remark to be intended as sexual innuendo concerning the chest of the student E.C. but their impression was gained outside the context of another remark made at that time directed to those students referring to them as a "bunch'a airheads." When the set of remarks are considered together they do not constitute remarks that are perceived as sexual harassment or sexual innuendo as alleged in the Administrative Complaint. To refer to students as "airheads" is not appropriate, however that remark is not the subject of the Administrative Complaint. The comments made by Respondent directed to E.C. and L.B. were overheard by a male student, F.T.B. M.H., whom one can infer was a student at Sante Fe, showed Respondent her midriff where she had been sunburned. Respondent commented "M., you need to put sunscreen on. You're going to get burnt up." No other facts were established concerning Respondent and the student M.H. Contrary to the material allegations in the Administrative Complaint, no proof was presented concerning the allegation that Respondent told female students in his class that the shorter their shorts were, the higher their grades would be.
Recommendation Upon the consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered dismissing the Administrative Complaint in all its counts. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 23rd day of April, 2003.
