The Issue Whether Lazaro Saavedra is eligible for licensure by endorsement as a registered nurse in Florida, as provided in Chapter 464, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 210, Florida Administrative Code?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Lazaro Saavedra, received his education in Cuba (Tr. 109). There is evidence that he attended medical school for a period of four to five years beginning in 1960 (Tr. 109, 110, 119; JX-4), but he did not complete his medical education (Tr. 109). Petitioner asserts that he attended nursing school in Cuba from 1959 to 1962 (Tr. 108), and was licensed to practice nursing in Cuba (Tr. 118-119, 125). The record in this cause is devoid of any documentation of Petitioner's nursing education. While a witness apparently had a paper that may have been some sort of copy of Petitioner's nursing degree, it was neither identified for the record or offered into evidence (Tr. 85, ln. 11-15; 86, ln. 2-6). Petitioner attempted to prove his nursing education by his own testimony, but he was unable to describe well the content of his nursing program (Tr. 124, ln. 24-25, 125). He was unclear and imprecise regarding the dates of his nursing education and its overlap with his medical education (Tr. 109, 110, 124). The only testimony Petitioner offered to prove his attendance in nursing school, other than his own, was that of Bruno Barreiro. Mr. Barreiro knew Petitioner to be a nursing student (Tr. 91). He later saw Petitioner on "rounds" at a hospital (Tr. 92), but stated that medical students and nursing students took rounds together (Tr. 99). The witness expressed no knowledge of Petitioner as a graduate or as a practicing licensed nurse (Tr. 91, 98). Petitioner attempted to prove his nursing education and licensure in Cuba by the testimony of witnesses who "knew him as a nurse" in Cuba. Alicia de la Rua is a Florida licensed nurse who worked in the same hospital as Petitioner in Cuba for three months in 1964 (Tr. 55, 56, 59). They did not work together (Tr. 59), but were on the same ward in separate men's and women's sections (Tr. 61). Ms. de la Rua never saw Petitioner's nursing diploma or license (Tr. 60) and has no personal knowledge that he attended nursing school in Cuba (Tr. 61). She did see him dressed as a nurse and acting as a nurse in the principal hospital in Matanzas, Cuba (Tr. 55, 61-62). Francisca Garcia is licensed as a nurse in Florida. She met Petitioner in 1965 or 1966 in the clinic Petitioner's father and brother, who were medical doctors, operated in Havana (Tr. 69, 91, 118-119). Petitioner treated Ms. Garcia's nephew by giving him a vaccination (Tr. 70). In Cuba that treatment could have been performed by someone with a medical education or even a nurse's aide (Tr. 70). Although Ms. Garcia states that she saw Petitioner's diploma or license at the clinic (Tr. 65, ln. 9-15), no such document has been offered in this proceeding, and her testimony about the diploma is not persuasive due to Petitioner's failure to offer any copy of the degree for admission into evidence, although a copy was apparently available at the hearing. See Finding of Fact 2, above. Petitioner first sought licensure in Florida in 1977 (JX-4). The basis for that application was his incomplete medical education, and the application was denied (Tr. 111, 117). On that application, Petitioner did not indicate any nursing education, either under "Official Name of Nursing Program" (JX-4, ln. 8) or under a question regarding receipt of nursing education in another country (JX-4, ln. 10). The latter question was left blank; all other questions on the application were answered (JX- 4), including that Petitioner had not written a nursing licensing examination before. Petitioner again applied for licensure by examination in 1981 (JX-5). On the 1981 application, Petitioner did refer to his nursing education, but in vague terms, giving the Official Name of Nursing Program as "Registered Nurse" (JX-5, ln. 8). This application also contains the false statement that Petitioner had never before made application for licensure in Florida (JX-5, ln. 9), and the statement that he had not written a nursing licensing examination before. Petitioner applied for licensure a third time, this time by endorsement rather than by examination, in an application received by the Board on May 18, 1984 (JX-3). This application contains several false statements or omissions. Petitioner again failed to advise the Board of his previous applications (JX-I, section 4E). Petitioner stated that he had never held a license to practice nursing in another country (JX-3, section 4F). Petitioner again stated that he had never written a nursing licensure examination in Florida or any other state or country (JX-3, section 6A). Petitioner made a further false answer to the question "Have you ever been denied a license to practice nursing in Florida . . .?" (JX-3, section 6D). Truthful answers to these questions are necessary so that the Board and its staff may review sufficiently and evaluate an application, taking into consideration any previous Board actions (Tr. 146, 147). To prove eligibility for licensure by endorsement, an applicant who was educated and licensed in Cuba before a prescribed date must demonstrate that licensure by means of official documents (Tr. 140). If original documents are unavailable, as is often the case with Cuban nurses (Tr. 98), the Board requires some other competent, substantial proof, including affidavits of other nurses or doctors licensed both in Cuba and in Florida (Tr. 140, 149). Those affidavits must be consistent with other information received by the Board concerning the applicant's qualifications (Tr. 149). The Board amended its rules by emergency rule effective May 18, 1984 (RX-1), to provide that nurses licensed in Cuba prior to December 31, 1961, would be eligible for licensure by endorsement upon successful completion of a refresher course (Tr. 142, 143). Although Petitioner purportedly graduated from nursing school after that date, the Board reconsidered his application because he had been approved to begin and had completed the refresher course at Miami-Dade Community College before the effective date of the emergency rule (Tr. 144, 145). Petitioner completed the variable time nursing refresher program at Miami-Dade (Tr. 46; JX-2), which was a 16- week course designed for people who had never taken a licensing examination (Tr. 45, ln. 9-14). This program contained no clinical component or direct patient care (Tr. 46, 47). According to the dean of the Miami-Dade program, Dr. Jeanne Stark, who also developed the program (Tr. 46, 47), an individual with a medical background but who had not had a nursing education could successfully attend and complete the 16-week variable time refresher program (Tr. 47-50). Petitioner was approved to take the refresher course by the Board (Tr. 51), prior to his 1984 application, on the basis of affidavits provided by the Cuban Nurses in Exile Association that he was licensed in Cuba (Tr. 141, 142). Those affidavits are no longer relied on by the Board as proof of licensure because of inconsistencies and inaccuracies in them (Tr. 141, 144).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Board of Nursing enter a final order DENYING the application of Lazaro Saavedra for licensure by endorsement. DONE AND ORDERED this 4th day of April 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR., Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of April 1986.
Findings Of Fact Bonnie Isaac, R.N., held License No. 52845-2 as a Registered Nurse. Said license having been suspended for a period of ninety (90) days pursuant to the lawful order of the Board signed February 18, 1976. Said order of suspension was transmitted to and received by Bonnie Isaac on February 27, 1976. Subsequent to the receipt of said order, Bonnie Isaac continued to perform duties which can only be performed by licensed nurses in the course of her employment at Jackson Memorial Hospital, Dade City, Florida. Bonnie Isaac did not return her certificate of licensure and renewal certificate to the Board, but said renewal expired on March 31, 1976 pursuant to law. The license of Bonnie Isaac was not reinstated at the end of ninety (90) days although she requested that her license be returned to her by her letter of June 25, 1976 to the Florida State Board of Nursing. The license of Bonnie Isaac, suspended by lawful order of the Board effective February 27, 1976, had not been reinstated as of the date of hearing.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer would recommend that the probation of Bonnie Isaac expressed in Board's order dated February 18, 1976 for nine (9) months following the ninety (90) day suspension of Respondent's license be set aside and the license of Respondent be suspended for one year from the initial date of suspension, February 27, 1976, said license to be reinstated with the full benefits and privileges thereof on February 26, 1977. DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of December, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida COPIES FURNISHED: Julius Finegold, Esquire 218 E. Forsyth Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Geraldine B. Johnson, R.N. State Board of Nursing 6501 Arlington Expressway Bldg B Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Bonnie C. Isaac, R.N. Route 11, Box 735 A Lakeland, Florida 33801
The Issue Whether Respondent should take final action to deny Petitioner's application for licensure as a practical nurse on the grounds set forth in Respondent's Notice of Intent to Deny.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a native of Haiti, where she graduated from the Université d'Etat d'Haiti, l' École Nationale des Infirmières, Haiti's national nursing school, in 1993. Since 1997, she has lived and received mail at a residence in North Miami Beach, Florida, having the following mailing address: 1120 Northeast 155th Street, North Miami Beach (or, alternatively, Miami), Florida 33162 (155th Street Mailing Address). In or about 2006 and 2007, Petitioner attended the Miami Lakes Educational Center's practical nursing program, but she never completed the program. Thereafter, Petitioner enrolled in and later completed (in or about June 2008) a "remedial" program of practical nursing coursework specifically designed for graduates of Haiti's national nursing school. The coursework was given at Miami-Dade College (North), under the directorship of Mariane Barrientos. On April 23, 2009, Petitioner filed with Respondent an Application for Nursing Licensure by Examination seeking a license to engage in the practice of practical nursing in Florida (First Florida Application). On the completed application form, in the spaces provided for the applicant to indicate the "Nursing School Attended" and "Additional Nursing Program Attended," she wrote "Universite D'Etat Ecole Nationale Des Infirmières" and "Miami Dade College Remedial Theory & Clinical," respectively. By letter dated April 30, 2009, addressed to Petitioner at her 155th Street Mailing Address (with "Miami" designated as the city), the address she gave as her mailing address on her First Florida Application, Respondent advised Petitioner that it had received her First Florida Application and, upon review, had determined it to be "incomplete" because the following requirements had not been met: Graduates of schools outside the United States must have credentials evaluated by a Board approved credentialing service. . . . Evaluation results must be mailed directly to the Florida Board of Nursing. Copies from the applicant are not acceptable. Graduates of schools outside the United States must provide proof of Board approved English competency. . . . Results must be mailed directly to the Florida Board of Nursing. Copies from the applicant are not acceptable. After having received this letter, as well as follow-up written correspondence from Respondent dated August 12, 2009, also addressed to Petitioner's 155th Street Mailing Address (with "Miami" designated as the city), Petitioner withdrew her First Florida Application by completing a Respondent-created form (on which she gave her address as "1120 NE 155 St Miami Fl 33162") and submitting it to Respondent on October 27, 2009. Approximately two months later, in or around December 2009, Petitioner submitted an Application for License by Examination: Practical Nurse, to the Colorado Board of Nursing (Colorado Application). The application was accompanied by a money order (in the amount of $88.00) Petitioner had obtained to pay for the application fee. On the completed application form, under "Name of Professional Nursing Program Attended," "Miami Lakes Educational Center" was written; in the space provided for the applicant to indicate the "Date of Graduation," it was claimed, falsely, that Petitioner had graduated from this "[p]rofessional [n]ursing [p]rogram" in June 2009; and Petitioner gave her 155th Street Mailing Address (with "Miami" designated as the city) as her mailing address. At the end of the form was the following "Attestation," which Petitioner signed and dated on December 14, 2009: I state under penalty of perjury in the second degree, as defined in 18-8-503, C.R.S., that the information contained in this application is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. In accordance with 18- 8-501(2)(a)(1), C.R.S. false statements made herein are punishable by law and may constitute violation of the practice act. In support of the Colorado Application, the Colorado Board of Nursing received a fraudulent Miami Lakes Education Center transcript showing, falsely, that Petitioner had completed the nursing program at the school on June 29, 2009. The transcript purported to be signed (on December 11, 2009) by Dr. Angela Thomas-Dupree, who was an administrator at the Miami Lakes Education Center at the time. In fact, the signature on the transcript was a forgery: it was not Dr. Thomas-Dupree's, and she had not authorized anyone to sign her name on any transcript issued by the Miami Lakes Education Center.3/ In response to the Colorado Board of Nursing's request that she "verify [the] transcript" it had received (a copy of which the Board sent to her), Dr. Thomas-Dupree advised the Board, in writing (through a memorandum dated March 16, 2010), that (contrary to what the transcript indicated) Petitioner "[a]ttended [but] did not complete" the nursing program at the Miami Lakes Education Center. Thereafter, the Colorado Board of Nursing made its determination to deny Petitioner's Colorado Application on the ground that she had "attempted to procure a license by fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, misleading omission, or material misstatement of fact" in violation of Colorado law.4/ By letter dated June 25, 2010, addressed to Petitioner at her 155th Street Mailing Address (with "Miami" designated as the city), the Colorado Board of Nursing advised Petitioner that a decision had been made to "deny [her] request for a license." The body of the letter read as follows: Panel B of the State Board of Nursing ("Board") reviewed your application for a Practical Nurse license on June 23, 2010. After careful consideration of all of the information contained in your application file, it was the decision of the Panel to deny your request for a license based on C.R.S. §12-38-118 and §12-38-117(1)(a) and its determination that you: have procured or attempted to procure a license by fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, misleading omission, or material misstatement of fact; If you feel that you have additional information or documentation to submit that would change the outcome of the Panel's decision you may write a letter and request that your file and the supplemental information be re-examined by the Panel. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding this process. Pursuant to sections §12-38-1-117, 12-38-118, and 24-4-104(9), C.R.S., you have the right to request a hearing regarding the denial of your application. In order to exercise this right, you must provide written notification to the Board at the above listed address within sixty days from the date of this letter specifically requesting a hearing. In the event that you do not make a timely request for a hearing, the denial will become final. At the end of the letter was a Certificate of Service, signed by the letter's author, certifying that the letter: was sent First Class Mail from Denver, Colorado, this 25th day of June 2010, addressed as follows: Benita S. Jean-Noel 1120 NE 155th Street Miami, FL 33162[5/] Petitioner received the Colorado Board of Nursing's June 25, 2010, letter,6/ but did not request a hearing on the decision to "deny [her] request for a license." The decision therefore became final, as the letter indicated it would. From approximately December 2011 to December 2012, Petitioner took additional nursing coursework at Sigma Institute of Health Careers (Sigma). On November 5, 2012, before graduating from Sigma, Petitioner filed with Respondent a second Application for Nursing Licensure by Examination seeking a license to engage in the practice of practical nursing in Florida (Second Florida Application). Her signature (dated September 5, 2012) was affixed on the line provided for the "Applicant's Signature" on the penultimate page (page 17) of the completed application form, and it was immediately preceded by a statement reading, in pertinent part, as follows: I, the undersigned, state that I am the person referred to in this application for licensure in the State of Florida. I recognize that providing false information may result in disciplinary action against my license or criminal penalties pursuant to Sections 456.067, 775.083, and 775.084, Florida Statutes. I have carefully read the questions in the foregoing application and have answered them completely, without reservations of any kind. Should I furnish any false information in this application, I hereby agree that such act shall constitute cause for denial, suspension or revocation of my license to practice as a Registered Nurse or Licensed Practical Nurse in the State of Florida. At the time she filled out and signed the application form, Petitioner knew that she had applied for licensure as a practical nurse in Colorado and that her application had been denied on the grounds that she had "attempted to procure [the applied-for] license by fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, misleading omission, or material misstatement of fact." Nonetheless, wanting to keep this damaging information from Respondent, in response to Question 6A on page 13 of the form, which was, "Have you ever been denied or is there now any proceeding to deny your application for any healthcare license to practice in Florida or any other state, jurisdiction or country?," she checked the "No" box, knowing her answer to be false. Question 6A was one of four questions in the "Disciplinary History" section of the form, at the end of which was the following directive: If you answered "Yes" to any of the above questions, please send a written letter of self explanation. You must contact the Board(s) in the State(s) in which you were disciplined. You must request official copies of the Administrative Complaint and Final Order be sent directly to the Florida Board of Nursing. Consistent with her having answered Question 6A in the negative, Petitioner did not, along with the submission of her completed Second Florida Application, "send a letter of self explanation" concerning the denial of her Colorado Application.7/ Despite Petitioner's nondisclosure, in its investigation of Petitioner's application, Respondent found out about the Colorado Board of Nursing's denial of her application in 2010, and it obtained a copy of the June 25, 2010, denial letter that Petitioner had received from the Colorado Board of Nursing. Thereafter, by letter dated November 15, 2012, addressed to Petitioner at her 155th Street Mailing Address (with "North Miami Beach" designated as the city), the address she gave as her mailing address on her Second Florida Application, Respondent directed Petitioner to, among other things, "[r]equest that the Board(s) in the state[s] where [she was] previously denied send official copies of the final order to the Florida Board of Nursing" and to also "[s]ubmit a self explanation in reference to the denial(s)." In response to this request, Petitioner wrote Respondent a letter in which she denied, falsely, ever even having applied for a license in any state, including Florida, in the past. Respondent, however, knew better. On February 15, 2013, it issued the Notice of Intent to Deny set out in the Preliminary Statement section of this Recommended Order. The Notice's Certificate of Service reflects that it was mailed to Petitioner at her 155th Street Mailing Address (with "North Miami Beach" designated as the city) on February 18, 2013. In response to the Notice, Petitioner wrote a letter to Respondent, dated March 4, 2013, claiming, falsely, that she "never applied to the Colorado Board of Nursing"8/ and expressing her "read[iness] to challenge any misconception or any misunderstanding regarding the matter." Respondent treated Respondent's letter as a request for hearing and, on March 12, 2013, referred the matter to DOAH for the assignment of an administrative law judge to conduct the requested hearing. The assignment was made, and the hearing was held, as noted above. The foregoing Findings of Fact are based on the evidence received at that hearing and the record as a whole.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board of Nursing issue a final order denying Petitioner's pending application for licensure as a practical nurse on the grounds alleged in the Board's February 15, 2013, Notice of Intent to Deny.12/ DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of June, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of June, 2013.
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner was discriminated against because of her race (African-American) in not being selected for promotions and whether she was not selected because of her handicap (back injury).
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a black female. At times pertinent hereto, she was employed by the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (now known as Department of Children and Family Services), at Florida State Hospital in Chattahoochee, Florida. She has a disability or handicap involving a back injury. She was first employed by the Respondent in July 1976, as a Registered Nurse II and initially supervised two or three wards. The Petitioner also worked for Apalachee Community Mental Health Service in Quincy as a Team Leader during 1977-1978. She was a part-time relief nursing supervisor at Tallahassee Memorial Hospital between 1978 and 1979. She became a Registered Nurse III in March 1978 at Florida State Hospital (FSH) and became a full-time nurse there in 1979. She supervised an entire unit after that time and worked in several different units of the Forensic/Corrections Department as a Senior Registered Nurse beginning in November 1982 and lasting until March 1987. Between March and December 1987, she served as a Senior Registered Nurse Supervisor until her current assignment. She has been employed since December 1987 as a Registered Nurse Specialist Coordinator and remained in that position until her resignation due to disability retirement on January 25, 1994. She has a good employment record, earning consistent above satisfactory or "exceeds" performance standards ratings during her career. The Petitioner earned her Bachelor of Science Degree in Nursing (BSN) from Florida A & M University in 1976. She has since earned 21 hours toward a Masters Degree and took continuing nursing education courses at a time when the continuing education course work was not yet required. She is licensed by the State of Florida as a Registered Nurse. Petitioner's Disability On August 25, 1992, the Petitioner suffered a job- related injury to her back. The Petitioner was absent from work for some months, apparently receiving worker's compensation during this time. On January 27, 1993, she was cleared to return to light duty work at the hospital by her treating physician. The Respondent provided her with an appropriate light duty job assignment at which she remained through the balance of her employment with FSH. On June 18, 1993, the Petitioner was determined to have reached maximum medical improvement by her treating physician. She was thereupon discharged from further medical care by Capital Health Plan. On July 26, 1993, she filed an application for 100 percent "line of duty" retirement from the Florida State Retirement System. The State Office of Worker's Compensation thereafter approved her application for "permanent total disability" worker's compensation benefits, effective June 16, 1993, resulting from the injuries suffered on August 25, 1992. The Petitioner was absent from employment from June 4, 1993 through January 27, 1994, inclusive, claiming 34 weeks of worker's compensation benefits for this time. Ultimately, and as part of her effort to obtain disability retirement, the Petitioner resigned from her employment with the Respondent on January 25, 1994. At the time of the Petitioner's resignation, the Department had an action pending to involuntarily terminate her from employment allegedly because of her inability to discharge her assigned job duties and responsibilities. Vacant Positions During the fall of 1992, a vacancy occurred in the position of Registered Nurse Supervisor, Forensic/Corrections at Florida State Hospital. This was in the facility known as the Corrections Mental Health Institute (CMHI). A career service system position description existed for this job which was developed by the State of Florida, Department of Administration. That position description required, among other things, that the incumbent hold a license as a registered nurse (RN) with the appropriate experience, education, licensure and nursing abilities. The position called for a minimum of 75 percent of the time expended in the job being involved with direct patient contact with forensic patients. The FSH advertised this position as position number 46392 in the HRS Job Bulletin. The application deadline was January 21, 1993. The minimum requirements for the job were licensure as an RN with three years of nursing experience. A bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university could substitute for one of the three years experience required. A bachelor's degree in nursing was not required for the job, however. For this and the other positions a "knowledge, skills and ability" instrument (KSA) was prepared, as required by applicable law, to provide for numbered items consisting of the knowledge, skills or competencies a person hired for each position would be expected to have. Position number 46392 included a KSA requirement of budget experience as being essential, since the position required the development, allocation and administration of that unit's nursing service budget. The job advertisement involving this position complied with existing HRS and FSH rules, policies and procedures. There was no evidence offered to show that it discriminated against any person as to race, national origin, or handicap and no person or class or persons was encouraged or discouraged from applying for the position. Neither employment with the Department nor FSH were prerequisites to application or acceptance of the position. Twenty-six applications were received for this position. The procedure for hiring a person in the state system and the FSH involves various tasks. First, the hiring authority must request the personnel office to fill the position. The hiring authority, from a class specification developed by the Department of Management Services (DMS), creates this specific position description which includes the specific duties of the position and the minimum qualifications established at DMS. The class specification contains generic KSAs and from the class specification and position description the hiring authority develops a KSA examination module. This module is created in three steps: (1) job analysis, where the position description is compared to the KSAs for choosing which KSAs will be searched- for when hiring the position; (2) development of a rating scale where the applicant's KSAs are compared against those developed for the position, to determine the applicant's relative qualifications; and (3) the development of KSA interview questions. According to the pertinent rule, KSAs must not reflect "easily learned" material or skills which can be rapidly learned on the job. The KSAs must also be job related. The scoring on the KSA application rankings form and on the interview questions, was 50 for a "superior level," 33 for "satisfactory level," and 17 for "acceptable level." The interview questions are the only ones which can be asked of applicants during the interview. The KSA examination module is transmitted to the personnel office, prior to the job being advertised. After the job announcement is disclosed, the applications are screened against the minimum qualifications for the position by the personnel office and those that are qualified are submitted to the hiring authority for screening against the developed KSAs for the position. This step is a paper review of the applications which is documented on the application review form filled out on each applicant. The application rankings are normally used to reduce the applicant pool to a smaller number, usually about five, who are then interviewed. The interview questions developed previously are asked of each interviewee, and their answers are rated against the 50-33-17 scale for their scores from each interviewer. The interview scores are aggregated, and the applicant with the highest interview score is selected for the job. A selection form is completed then which lists the top applicant, in the order of their scores, after the interview process. Each application for position 46392 was screened using the KSA instrument prepared in advanced, as required by applicable law, to determine which of the applicants was qualified for the job. The KSA criteria and the interview questions utilized were reviewed by the personnel office at FSH in advance of their use, to ensure compliance with HRS rules, regulations and policies, and EEOC guidelines. Points were then awarded to each of the applicants by the KSA examining committee. Applicant Z. Thompson, a white female nurse, was awarded a total of 233 points. The Petitioner, Jean Spear, was awarded a total of 165 points. Other black and white applicants ranked lower in point award amounts and some ranked higher, including black applicant Bethea, with 199 points. Based upon those scores, three applicants were selected to be interviewed for this position: Z. Thompson; D. Breeden, a white female Registered Nurse; and C. Bethea, an African-American female Registered Nurse. Applicants Thompson and Breeden had associate science degrees in nursing while applicant Bethea had a bachelor of science degree. The bachelor of science degree is a higher degree than an associate science degree and can offset a year of the experience requirement for this and the other positions. However, the bachelor of science degree does not automatically mean that the holder thereof has a higher level of qualification for the position when all the applicants' qualification attributes are weighed against the position requirements and considered together. The Petitioner was not selected for an interview for this position because she finished ninth in the overall KSA rankings for the position. The interview committee for this position consisted of three FSH employees: Joel Devolentine, the administrator in charge of the program; Alva Martin, the chief nursing consultant at FSH; and Harry Moody, Jr., an administrator at the Department of Corrections, Corrections Mental Health Institution (CMHI). Interviewers Devolentine and Martin are white and Mr. Moody is black. The interview were conducted on February 11, 1993. During the interview process, Mr. Devolentine asked the candidates questions which were prepared in advance. Each interviewed person was asked the same questions, in the same sequence. Each member of the interviewing committee scored the responses on forms provided using the scoring system designated and implemented for that purpose. Each member of the committee scored the interviewees independently and did not discuss the points awarded to those persons with the other members of the committee. Each made his or her entries on the interview form separate and apart from the other members of the interview committee, contemporaneously with the responses given by the applicants. Upon conclusion of the interviews, the score sheets were given to Mr. Devolentine by each member of the committee for tabulation. There is no evidence that points awarded were changed or modified in any way once they were awarded. The total numerical scores for each of the candidates interviewed, showed that Z. Thompson had the highest score. Black candidate C. Bethea had the next highest score, and white candidate D. Breeden had the lowest score. The preponderant evidence shows that the KSA's experience in budget issues and the KSA's requiring certification in behavior analysis were both directly related to the job in question and both KSA competencies or certifications were possessed by Z. Thompson and not by the other candidates interviewed nor by the Petitioner, who had not received enough qualification points for the position to be interviewed. Because she received the highest total number of points and met all the minimum requirements set forth in the position description in the HRS job bulletin, because she possessed more experience in budget issues and was certified in behavior analysis, Z. Thompson was selected to be awarded the job. The preponderant evidence shows that the hiring process as to this position was conducted in accordance with existing HRS and FSH rules, regulations, policies, and procedures. There was no persuasive evidence that any of the hiring and selection process was designed or used to favor one class of persons or one person over another by reason of race, ethnicity or handicap. Although there was testimony concerning comments made by various supervisory personnel at FSH to the effect that Z. Thompson should apply for this position or that it was intended in advance that she get this position, there was no persuasive evidence of such pre-selection of Z. Thompson by the hiring decision-maker. It is somewhat noteworthy that white interview committee member Alva Martin gave black candidate Bethea 380 points and white candidate Breeden 347 points, while black interview committee member Moody gave black candidate Bethea 448 points, and white and winning candidate Thompson 465 points. Committee member Devolentine gave winning candidate Thompson 516 points; next highest candidate D. Breedan, a white female, 482 points; and black candidate Bethea 448 points, the same number of points that black committee member Moody had given candidate Bethea. There is no definitive, persuasive evidence that race was a determining factor in the award of the job to candidate Thompson. There was no persuasive evidence as to this position that handicap was a factor in determining that the Petitioner did not get selected for an interview for the position nor selected for the position. Position number 34563 involved a vacancy occurring during 1992. The application deadline for the position was October 22, 1992. The minimum requirements for the job were licensure as a Registered Nurse and four years of nursing experience with one year of that experience requirement offset if a candidate had a bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university. The position description indicates that approximately 75% of the time expended in the job required direct patient conduct with forensic clients. This is the position known as Executive Nursing Director, Forensic/Corrections at Florida State Hospital. The position was advertised in the HRS Job Bulletin. The advertisement complied in all respects with existing HRS and FSH rules, policies, and procedures, and no person, or class of persons, was either encouraged to apply or discouraged from applying as to race, handicap or other status. Thirteen applications were received, and the screening and interview process described above was employed once again in accordance with HRS rules, regulations, and policies and EEOC guidelines. The screening used the KSA instrument prepared in advance for the position, as required by applicable law to determine which applicants were qualified for the job. That resulted in points being awarded and twelve out of the thirteen applicants being interviewed for the position. The interview committee consisted of four FSH employees: Robert Alcorn, the administrator in charge of the program; Alva Martin, chief nursing consultant at FSH; Richard Taylor, a unit director in the Forensic Services at FSH; and R. W. Myers, an administrator in the Forensic Services. Alcorn and Myers are white males. Ms. Martin is a white female and Mr. Taylor is an African-American male. The interviews were conducted on November 23, 1992, with interviewer Robert Alcorn asking all questions of all candidates. The questions were prepared in advance and the interview process included the private and independent deliberation and evaluation by each committee member, conducted as described above. There is no evidence that any points awarded were changed or modified in any way once they were assigned by each committee member. Upon conclusion of the interview process, Mr. Alcorn recommended the following persons for the position of Executive Nursing Director, Forensic/Corrections, as being most qualified for the job, by order of preference: (1) G. Cook with 82.1 points; (2) Z. Thompson with 80.6 points; (3) B. Weems with 74.6 points; (4) L. McMullian with 64.1 points; and (5) J. Spear, the Petitioner, with 61.0 points. Candidate Gwen Cook met all of the requirements of the position description in the HRS Job Bulletin and had more experience in forensic and emergency nursing than did the Petitioner. She received the highest total points and was offered and accepted the job. The KSA at issue as to this position required hospital emergency room experience, including certification in advanced cardiac life support. The position was executive nursing director in a medical-surgical psychiatric ward. Therefore, it was relevant to require, in a KSA for the position, that applicants have extensive knowledge of emergency medical procedures including management of airway obstructions, intubation defibrillator operation, etc., as well as the certification for advanced cardiac life support. It was a legitimate KSA requirement to specify hospital emergency room type experience, which Gwen Cook had in better degree than the Petitioner. The Petitioner did have psychiatric emergency care experience which was relevant, but the higher level of emergency and advanced cardiac life support experience possessed by Gwen Cook coupled with her additional forensic experience justified her selection for the position. The Petitioner was certainly qualified for the position, but Ms. Cook was more qualified, and there is no showing that the point rankings referenced above were improperly arrived at in violation of any rules, policies or statutes. There was no persuasive evidence that they were arrived at to the Petitioner's detriment for reasons of racial preference, ethnicity, or improper discriminatory consideration of the Petitioner's handicap. It was not persuasively demonstrated by the evidence that the advanced cardiac life support certification was a certificate that could be earned in a very short period of time, and thus it was not shown that it was an invalid KSA criterion. In 1992, a vacancy occurred in position number 04877. The FSH advertised this position in the HRS Job Bulletin. It was the position of Registered Nursing Consultant. The position application deadline was July 1, 1992. The position description for this position, which had been developed by the Department of Administration, required that the incumbent have appropriate knowledge, experience, education, and abilities in nursing principles, especially in the area of infection control. The description called for approximately 75 percent of the time expended by the holder of this position to be in direct patient contact with forensic clients. The minimum requirements for the job were licensure as a registered nurse with four years of nursing experience. A bachelors degree from an accredited college or university could substitute for one of the four years of experience required. Specific experience in infection control and epidemeology was essential. The job advertisement complied in all respects with existing HRS and FSH rules, policies, and procedures. Employment with the Department or with the Florida State Hospital was not a prerequisite to attainment of the position. Fourteen applications were received and each application was screened using the KSA instrument prepared in advance for that purpose, as required by law. This was used to determine which of the applicants were qualified for the job. Both the KSA criteria and the interview questions used were prepared and reviewed in advance of their use to ensure compliance with relevant law, in the manner delineated more particularly above. Points were awarded to the persons who applied for the job by the KSA examining committee in such a manner that the Petitioner received 232 points, with only applicant, Nora Howell, who received 300 points, being ranked higher. The Petitioner, was tied for second place in point awards with black applicant C. Bethea and applicant S. Harris. The remainder of the fourteen applicants all scored lower. Based upon those scores determined by the KSA examining committee, the six highest ranking applicants were selected to be interviewed for the position, including the Petitioner. The interview committee consisted of two FSH nursing professional employees: Kathy Wheeler, the administrator in charge of the program and Sue Calloway, a practicing registered nurse at FSH. The interviews were conducted on July 9, 1992. During the interview process, committee member Kathy Wheeler asked the candidates questions, which had been prepared in advance. Each person interviewed was asked the same questions by the designated interviewer, Ms. Wheeler. They were asked in the same sequence. Each member of the interviewing committee scored his or her responses to the questions on forms that had been provided using the scoring system designated and implemented for that purpose. There is no evidence that any member of the committee discussed the points he or she awarded to the interviewees with other members of the committee and no evidence that the entries on the interview forms were made other than separate and independently from each other member of the committee. There is no evidence that points awarded were changed or modified in any way once they were awarded. Upon conclusion of the interviews, all the scoring sheets were given to Ms. Wheeler for tabulation. The total numerical scoring for each of the applicants interviewed was: Nora Howell, 128.4 points; Jean Spear, 119.9 points; C. Bethea, 111.4 points; V. Ramsey, 122.9 points; J. Collins, 118.8 points; and S. Harris, 111.4 points. One of the KSAs applicable to this position called for the person to be hired to have significant expertise in the area of infection control and epidemiology for this nurse consultant position. While the Petitioner remonstrates that this is not a legitimate KSA requirement because it is not directed related to the job and is an area easily learned on the job, the preponderant evidence reveals that indeed, it is directly relevant to this position and it is of significant importance. It is not a field or area of expertise which can be rapidly learned after hiring. Thus, the preponderant evidence shows that this KSA item or criterion is a legitimate one. The preponderant evidence shows also that successful applicant Nora Howell possessed this expertise to a greater extent than did the Petitioner. Thus, although the Petitioner was well qualified for the job in most respects, the qualifications of Nora Howell in this area exceeded those of the Petitioners according to the preponderant, credible evidence. This justified her being awarded a higher level of points in the screening and interviewing process than the Petitioner. Since she met or exceeded all the other position criteria which had been duly and legally adopted, it was justifiable for her to be offered and to accept the position instead of the Petitioner on these qualification-related bases. The application, screening, and interview process and ranking and scoring of points followed the procedure delineated by statute and rules and described in more detail above. There is no credible evidence that the hiring decision as to this position was made for any reason motivated by racial discriminatory intent or discrimination because of any handicap of any applicant. There is no clear evidence that "pre- selection" occurred as the Petitioner contends, but even if Nora Howell had informally been pre-selected for this position, there is no credible evidence that it had anything to do with racial or handicap discrimination against the Petitioner. During the fall of 1992, Florida State Hospital advertised the position of Senior Registered Nurse Supervisor for the Forensic/Corrections Department, position number 09671, in the HRS Job Bulletin. The position application deadline was January 21, 1993. The minimum requirements for the job were licensure as a registered professional nurse and three years of nursing experience. Here again, a Bachelor's Degree from an accredited college or university could substitute for one of the three years experience required. Experience dealing with forensically-committed patients was essential. The evidence shows that the job advertisement complied in all respects with existing HRS and FSH rules, polices, and procedures. The advertisement did not discriminate against any person or group or class of persons on the basis of race, handicaps, or other reasons. No person, or class of persons, was either encouraged or discouraged from applying by the advertisement. Neither was employment with the Department nor the hospital a prerequisite. Twenty-four applications were received. Each application was screened using the KSA instrument prepared in advance for that purpose by the procedure delineated above. In the KSA screening or examining process, applicant Patricia Powell scored 266 points; William Dixon scored 250 points; and Jean Spear, the Petitioner, scored 249 points. Applicant Zilla Thompson scored 323 points, S. Peoples scored 232 points, and Betty Thames scored 233 points. These six top point winners in the KSA examining process were selected to be interviewed by the interview committee. The interview committee consisted of five employees: Steve Lacy, an administrator in charge of the program; Gwen Cook, a practicing Registered Nurse in the forensic services at FSH; Judy Wester, a direct care supervisor in forensic; Alva Martin, the chief nursing consultant at FSH; and Willie McLeroy, a forensic direct care supervisor at FSH. The interviews were conducted on February 1, 1993. During the interview process, interview committee member Alva Martin was designated to ask the candidates questions which were written, prepared, and approved in advance under the process already delineated above. Each person interviewed was asked the same questions by the same interviewer in the same sequence. Scoring was done independently by each member of the interview committee and the scores submitted to Steve Lacy of the committee for tabulation. There was no evidence that points awarded were changed or modified in any way once they were awarded by each member of the committee. Applicant Dixon was awarded 3127 points and Petitioner Spear was awarded 2276 points. That made the Petitioner rank fifth from the top point earner, Mr. Dixon. Mr. Dixon met all the minimum requirements set forth in the position description in the HRS Job Bulletin for the position. Mr. Dixon had more forensic nursing experience overall than did the Petitioner, having ten years versus the Petitioner's five years. The Petitioner offered no preponderant, persuasive evidence that the hiring decision for this job or for the other three jobs was racially motivated. The Respondent's position in response to the Petitioner's attempted prima facia showing of racial discrimination, to the effect that she is black and that the successful job applicants were all white, is that, in fact, the Respondent hired the persons it believed were most qualified for the job. In fact, the proof shows that as to three of the positions, already treated herein, the winning applicants were indeed the most qualified for the job. The proof shows that the Petitioner was most qualified for the job currently being discussed in the paragraphs next above, that is, position number 09671. Her denial of hiring for that position, however, was not shown to be due to any racially discriminatory intent given the proof culminating in the above findings concerning how the selection process operated in accordance with the rules and policies of the agency. The preponderant, persuasive evidence shows that the Petitioner was actually better qualified than Mr. Dixon, the nurse who was awarded the position. The expert testimony of Dr. Frank, corroborated by the testimony of witness Betty Thames, in particular, shows that the Petitioner was better qualified for this supervisory position number 09671 because of her more extensive educational and work-experience qualifications. She had more varied experience in the nursing profession in areas that were related to this job than Mr. Dixon had, in spite of his longer experience in the forensic department. The Petitioner was shown to have a superior ability in the area of implementing medications and psychiatric nursing treatment procedures because the Petitioner had demonstrated this ability in a broad variety of settings, with different kinds of patients, coupled with her three and three-quarter years of forensic supervisory experience. She is also superior in her skills and expertise regarding working as a contributing member of a multi-disciplinary team, functioning as a team leader and with consulting with families. She also has more experience as a liaison nursing person with jails and community health-related facilities or resources. Additionally, for position number 09671, KSA number one for that position indicated a desire for experience in a tardive dyskinesia clinic. Only Mr. Dixon had this experience of all the applicants for this position, so the Petitioner was not given credit for it in the screening and interview process. In fact, she had many of the same general skills and abilities. The specific emphasis on tardive dyskinesia experience was shown, however, through the testimony of Dr. Frank, as being unnecessary to this type of supervisory position. More importantly, in the interview for this Senior Registered Nurse Supervisor position (09671), there was a written interview question asked the Petitioner concerning her disability. That question was as follows: "6. Do you have any disabilities that would prevent you from lifting or working a 40-hour week or that would prevent you from performing this job? How many days have you missed in the past year due to illness? How many unscheduled absences did you have in the past year? Do you have any responsibilities commitments or activities that would prevent you from doubling on or changing your work days or weekends?" Witness Betty Thames for the Petitioner also stated that during the course of a telephone interview in which the interview committee chairman, Steve Lacy, questioned her, as the Petitioner's supervisor, concerning her attendance that he made a "nonprofessional remark" (in a negative vein) regarding the Petitioner's physical limitations to the effect that "It doesn't matter why she was out to me". This was related to a discussion between the two in the telephone interview concerning the Petitioner's work attendance history and her back injury. Lacy's statement was admitted into evidence as a "party admission exception" to the hearsay rule. He was clearly an agent of the Respondent and a key person in this hiring process. The Respondent was aware of the Petitioner's disability. She had injured her back on the job in August of 1992. She had been off work receiving worker's compensation benefits for the injury and, based upon her doctor's finding that she had reached maximum medical improvement, had been returned to work, apparently in early 1993, and given light duty involving work not requiring lifting more than 15 pounds, prolonged walking, stooping or bending. She reported this disability on her employment application for these positions. Her back injury clearly limited her in a "major life activity," such as lifting, walking, prolonged standing, or her level of mobility and strength in general. All of the positions for which she had applied were less strenuous than the position she had last held before going on retirement. This was testified to by the Petitioner as well as C. J. Brock, the Respondent's personnel director and Betty Thames, the Petitioner's immediate supervisor. Mr. Brock testified that her injuries would not normally be considered a negative factor for supervisory or consulting positions in nursing, which is the position at issue. In fact, after the Petitioner answered on all of her application forms "yes" to the question concerning whether she had a disabling or handicapping condition and had additionally written that her limitations involved lifting, bending, prolonged standing or walking, the personnel office still qualified her for the position at issue in this proceeding. In spite of that, the Respondent's agent in the hiring process still, at least as to position number 09671, formally asked her about her disability and handicap in the context of the above-quoted questions. The Petitioner maintains she was asked about this in each of her interviews for all four positions. Her testimony does not clearly show exactly what the nature of the questions were, if they were asked, and that self- serving testimony cannot serve as evidence of disability discrimination as to the other three positions, as it is not sufficiently preponderant credible and persuasive. The formal written questioning as to position number 09671, however, does show that the employer had a no doubt genuine, but for the reasons delineated below, illegal pre- occupation about the Petitioner's disability or handicap. There is no evidence of malicious intent in the above-quoted inquiry about the Petitioner's physical limitations or even in the statement attributed to Steve Lacy referenced above. The inquiring statement rather reflects a genuine but ill-advised concern by the Respondent about getting an employee in the subject position who might be absent from work excessively or be the source of other personnel problems due to her disability. The Petitioner has raised an issue concerning "pre- selection" by citing statements witnesses related at hearing, made by certain supervisory individuals involved to one degree or another in the hiring process for the four positions at issue. These statements purport that a certain person who ultimately got the job in question was the person the declarant involved wished to have apply for the job or a statement to the effect that the Petitioner need not apply because another person, such as, for instance, Nora Howell, was going to get the job. These statements were purportedly made before the hiring process started or was completed, and therefore were offered as evidence of illegal pre-selection, that is, illegal pre-selection in the context of the agency's rules. These statements were admitted as party admission exceptions to the hearsay rule. In terms of their credibility and persuasiveness, however, it is pointed out that they were not subject to cross- examination. Moreover, whether they are credible or not, they did not stand as probative of racial discrimination or disability discrimination because the statements could just as easily have been reflections of preferences based on friendship, which might be distasteful, ill-advised, or even illegal in another context but does not itself show racial animus or intent to discriminate based upon the Petitioner's disability. The statements might equally reflect an innocent statement or statements by these individuals which reflect their genuinely-held belief that the persons they purportedly favored were actually the best qualified for those jobs. It is thus found that these statements, as evidence of pre-selection, are largely immaterial to resolution to the issues in this case because they do not have any significant probative value in fact-finding as to the issues of racial or disability discrimination. The Petitioner was paid $1,544.68 bi-weekly through January 25, 1994, the date she retired. She was making $1,499.69 on a bi-weekly basis prior to September 30, 1993, back through the relevant period at issue. Her salary would have been increased a minimum of 10 percent if she had been hired at any of the four positions involved in this case. Because of the above findings of fact, she should have been hired in position number 09761. Thus, she should have had her pay increased by 10 percent from the hiring date for that position forward to the time when she retired. That hiring date would be shortly after the interview date for that position, of February 1, 1993, so her salary should have been increased 10 percent forward from that time with a cost of living increase of 3 percent beginning October 1, 1993, with such back pay and attendant upward adjustment in retirement benefits being awarded through her retirement date of January 25, 1994. There is no proof of compensatory pay, front pay or attorney's fees and costs in this proceeding.
Recommendation Accordingly, in consideration of the preponderant evidence of record and for the reasons delineated in the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Petitioner was the victim of discrimination because of her handicap as to position number 9671. Because the Petitioner is unable, due to her total and permanent disability to return to work, her remedy is back pay. She should therefore be awarded back pay represented by the salary she would have earned in position number 9671 from the hiring date of that position which occurred shortly after February 1993, the interview date. She should have her attendant retirement benefits adjusted upward by virtue of being denied that job, with an attendant cost of living increase of 3 percent which she would have earned beginning October 1, 1993, with such increased salary and benefits to be awarded terminating as of January 25, 1994, her retirement date. Jurisdiction is reserved on the issue of attorneys' fees and costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of August, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of August, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence F. Kranert, Esquires Florida State Hospital, Building 249 Post Office Box 1000 Chattahoochee, Florida 32324 Jack McLean, Esquire 100 Peachtree Street, Northwest, Suite 600 Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1909 Larry K. White, Esquire John W. Hedrick, Esquire 1311-B Paul Russell Road, Suite 203 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, Esquire Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner meets the academic requirements to sit for the practical nursing equivalency examination in Florida.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner attended the registered nursing program at HCC. On or about March 1, 2007, Petitioner applied to sit for the practical nursing licensure examination. By letter dated May 8, 2008, the Board notified Petitioner that additional information was required to complete her application. According to the letter, two submissions were required. First, the director of nursing at HCC needed to submit a letter stating that Petitioner's coursework meets the practical nursing educational equivalency. Second, Petitioner needed to submit verification that she completed coursework in medical-surgical nursing (oxygenation, circulation and hematology). Rise Sandrowitz, program manager of the nursing program at HCC, submitted a letter to the Board. In the letter dated June 8, 2008, Ms. Sandrowitz stated that while Petitioner was a student at HCC, she "twice attempted but was unsuccessful in Adult Health III." The Adult Health Care III course is a 5.5 credit hour course and covers topics of oxygenation, circulation and hematology. Ms. Sandrowitz' letter does not state that the courses Petitioner completed in the professional nursing program at HCC met the requirements for the practical nursing equivalency. Ms. Sandrowitz testified credibly that the intent of her letter was to recommend that Petitioner be allowed to sit for the examination, if the Board determined that Petitioner's coursework met the practical nursing equivalency requirements. The Board determined that Petitioner's failure to successfully complete the course that covered the oxygenation (respiratory), circulation, and hematology systems demonstrated that she did not meet the practical nursing equivalency requirements. Petitioner testified credibly that each time she took the Adult Health Care III course, she attended "all lectures and every clinical," took every test and quiz, and completed all assignments. Nevertheless, Petitioner did not successfully complete the course. Each time Petitioner took the course, she was "just short of the 80%" needed to pass the lecture part of the course. Despite her failure to pass Adult Health Care III, Petitioner argues that she has adequate knowledge in all nursing areas, including those systems covered in that course and, thus, should be allowed to sit for the practical nursing examination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered which denies Petitioner, Angela Sessa's, application to sit for the examination for licensure as a practical nurse in Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of June, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 6th day of June, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Lee Ann Gustafson, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Angela Sessa 3505 Sandburg Loop Plant City, Florida 33566 Rick Garcia, Executive Director Board of Nursing Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Dr. Patricia Dittman, Chairman Board of Nursing Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Josefina M. Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R.S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issue posed for decision herein is whether or not the Respondent, based on conduct which will he set forth hereinafter in detail, engaged in acts and/conduct violative of Subsection 464.21(1)(d) and (g), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the arguments of counsel, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Michael Ray Hernicz, R.N., is a licensed registered nurse who holds license No. 0985972. Additionally, the Respondent has been certified as a Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist (CRNA) and an Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner (APNP). By its eight-count Administrative Complaint filed March 14, 1979, the Petitioner, Florida State Board of Nursing, seeks to place on probation, suspend or revoke the Respondent's license to practice nursing based on allegations that: During the week of January 15, 1979, Respondent caused to be advertised in the DeLand Sun News, a newspaper of general circulation the opening of an office in the 4 Towns Shopping Center, Orange City, Florida, for the general practice of medicine and used in connection with his name designation, "M.D." to imply or designate himself as a medical practitioner while not licensed, in violation of Florida Statutes Sec. 458.152(a), (b) and (c). On or about February 9, 1979, in Orange City, Florida, Respondent administered medical treatment to Steven H. Gaffney which action was not within the purview of the Nurse Practice Act, Florida Statutes Chapter 464. On or about February 9, 1979, Respondent practiced medicine as defined by Florida Statutes Sec. 458.13, in that he diagnosed, treated and prescribed medication for Steven Gaffney although not licensed to practice medicine in Florida and without the responsible supervisory control of a licensed physician, in violation of Chapter 453 and the Nurse Practices Act, Chapter 464, Florida Statutes. On or about February 16, 1979, Respondent was arrested by law enforcement officers of the Volusia County Narcotics Task Force at his office in Orange City, Florida, and was found to be in unlawful possession of controlled substances as set forth in Florida Statutes Chapter 893. On or about February, 1979, Respondent, for a fee, treated and prescribed medication for patient, Gladys M. Mossman, which treatments and medications were not prescribed or authorized by a person licensed to practice medicine in Florida. Respondent, for a fee, also treated and administered medications to cardiac patient, Nils Ljunberg, which treatment and medications were not prescribed or authorized by a person licensed in the State to prescribe medications or treatment, in violations of Florida Statutes Chapters 458 and 464. On numerous occasions from January 15, 1979, through February 9, 1979, Respondent unlawfully practiced medicine in violation of Chapter 458 by prescribing medications for various patients and treating said patients when he was not licensed to do so and while he was not acting under the responsible supervisory control of a licensed physician or without the purview of the Nurse Practices Act, Florida Statutes Chapter 464. In conclusory fashion, it is alleged that the Respondent is therefore guilty of engaging in the possession of controlled substances as set forth in Chapter 893, Florida Statutes, in violation of Florida Statutes 464.21(1)(d) and (g). The facts surrounding the allegations in the Administrative Complaint filed herein are not in dispute. What is in dispute, however, is the nature and scope of treatment authorized by nurse practitioners, such as Respondent, in view of the additional acts apparently approved by the Joint Advisory Committee on Advanced Nursing Practices. Section 464.021, Florida Statutes. Respecting the allegations that the Respondent caused to be advertised in the DeLand Sun News, an advertisement to the effect that he was opening an office for the general practice of medicine, Steve Blais, an advertising official of the Deland Sun News, appeared and testified that the day following the advertisement which appeared in the local paper, Respondent telephoned his office to alert the paper's advertising staff that a mistake had been made and that the initials "M.D." should not have followed the designation in his ad as he was not a licensed medical doctor in Florida. Mr. Steve Blais offered Respondent a letter of correction such that he could show to customers or anyone who needed documentation. Mr. Blais testified that the ad with the M.D. format ran on January 13, 14 and 17, and that the change was made on or about January 24 to delete the designation "M.D." from the ad. As stated, the facts surrounding the treatment aspect of the allegations are undisputed. However, Respondent contends that based on the supervisory arrangements and the written protocol that he had with Dr. Randal Whitney, M.D., and the working relationship that he had with Dr. Jeffrey Rudell, he was authorized to do the acts which he is here charged with as being violative of the Nurse Practice Act and Chapters 458 and 893, Florida Statutes. As originally conceived, the Respondent planned to practice with Dr. Jeffrey Rudell, who was then licensed in Alabama and who had applied for licensure by endorsement in Florida. This application by Dr. Rudell for licensure by endorsement was denied and Respondent entered into a supervisory relationship with Dr. Randal Whitney of Daytona Beach, Florida. Dr. Whitney appeared and testified that he had in fact entered into a supervisory relationship with Respondent and that he was consulted by Respondent on the treatment of several patients. Dr. Whitney's testimony is that of these patients about when Respondent consulted with him, he concurred with the method of treatment outlined and/or prescribed by Respondent. Respondent testified that he reached a decision that he could properly treat patients while working under the supervision and control of a licensed medical doctor or other specialized practitioner after considerable reflection on the latitude granted Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioners. In support of this decision, Respondent points to the fact that the Joint Committee, by its official Minutes, pointed out in Section 210-11.03, acts which were proper to be performed by an Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner. Therein, the Board authorized various categories of functions that Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioners may perform at advanced and special levels which are recognized by the nursing profession and which are currently included in the curricula of advanced nursing education programs by the Board (Petitioner). Additionally, the Board authorized Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioners to perform such additional acts as was recognized by the Advisory Committee created by Florida Statutes Subsection 464.021(2)(a)(4) as proper to be performed by an Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner. Petitioner requested the minutes from numerous meetings of the Board from 1977 through 1978 and noted that Board Member Charles D. MacIntosh during a meeting with the Board of Nursing advised that the Board of Medical Examiners had met on April 2, 1978, and ratified a new appendix D regarding Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioners. Dr. MacIntosh urged the Board that in light of the ratification by the Board of Medical Examiners, the Joint Advisory Committee should jointly meet to work out a proposed formulary of drugs that would he available to Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioners. The Board thanked Dr. MacIntosh for apprising them of the medical board's actions and Petitioner's counsel stated his opinion that, based upon the interpretations of subject Section 465.031, no conflict would result if the Joint Advisory Committee agreed that prescriptions and medications would be an additional act defined by Florida Statutes 464.021. Page 4 of the minutes indicate that with respect to Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioners, they are authorized to perform those additional acts which are performed within protocols which are jointly established by the Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioner and the M.D., D.O., or D.D.S., or the appropriate medical staff of a healthcare facility. Respondent entered into an arrangement with Dr. Whitney and explained to him the manner in which he expected to treat patients coming to his office and Dr. Whitney agreed to allow him the latitude he envisioned. (TR 259 through 261.) Accordingly, Respondent perceived his actions as falling within the purview of the regulation authorized by the joint committee. (TR 263 through 264.) Additionally, Respondent denied that he represented to anyone in this State that he was a licensed medical doctor. Respondent reiterated his position that he immediately notified the paper and asked them to change the designation to reflect that he was not a medical doctor. (Respondent's Exhibit 17.) On February 16, 1979, Respondent's office was searched by the law enforcement officers of Volusia County Narcotics Task Force in Orange City, Florida, and Respondent was given a list of drugs taken from his office by the law enforcement officers. (Petitioner's Exhibit 5.) No evidence was offered to establish that the Respondent has been found guilty of the unlawful possession of controlled substances as set forth and defined in Florida Statutes Chapter 893.
Conclusions In summation, the Respondent established that he, in addition to being a Registered Nurse, has been further certified as an Advanced Registered Nurse Anesthetist. Dr. Randal Whitney established that he entered a relationship with Respondent under the laws of the State of Florida to be his supervisory or sponsoring physician, to consult with him in the practice, and to call or talk personally with Respondent about problems or cases that might be a potential problem or possibly outside his field of expertise as to what to do about them. A similar arrangement was shown to exist between the Respondent and Dr. Paul Andrews, Additionally, Dr. Rene Almiron, M.D., testified that he agreed to read and interpret EKG's for Respondent. Subsection 464.021(2)(a), Florida Statutes, provides that performance of assessment, diagnosis, counselling and health teaching of the ill are within the definition of professional nursing. It thus appears that all of the acts and/or conduct engaged in by Respondent were permissible acts within the responsible supervisory control of Dr. Randal Whitney or were for medications within the approved formulary for Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioners. Respondent credibly testified that he consulted with Dr. Whitney, who supervised him in the treatment of all of his patients. (TR 261.) Finally, although it was alleged in Count IV of the Administrative Complaint that Respondent was found to be in the unlawful possession of controlled substances in violation of Florida Statutes Chapter 893, the Respondent denies this, and no evidence was offered by Petitioner to counter Respondent's assertion. The record herein reflects that while some of Respondent's acts and/or practices may have been questionable based on the conflicting directions embarked upon by the various joint committees, in view of the latitude granted to Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioners by the Nurse Practices Act and the established working relationship entered into between Respondent and Dr. Randal Whitney, the undersigned concludes that Respondent acted within his authority in his treatment of patients referred to herein. I shall so recommend.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint filed herein be DISMISSED IN ITS ENTIRETY. RECOMMENDED this 4th day of December, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement should be approved or denied.
Findings Of Fact In June of 1997, the Petitioner filed an application for nursing licensure, by means of which she seeks to be licensed as a registered nurse by endorsement. In support of her application, the Petitioner submitted, or caused to be submitted, evidence showing that she was licensed as a registered nurse in Quebec, Canada, and that she had such licensure status by passing an examination in 1976. The examination she passed in 1976 was the examination administered in French by the Ordre des Infirmieres et Infirmieres du Quebec ("OIIQ"). In 1976, the registered nurse licensure examination given by, or required by, the Florida Board of Nursing was the State Board Test Pool Examination, which was administered by the National Council of State Boards of Nursing. In addition to the licensure examination administered by OIIQ, the Canadian Nurses Association Testing Service ("CNATS") has also offered a registered nurse licensure examination in Canada for many years, including 1976. The Florida Board of Nursing has determined that the CNATS registered nurse licensure examinations administered from 1980 through 1995 are equivalent to the State Board Test Pool Examinations administered by the National Council of State Boards of Nursing. There has been no such determination for CNATS examinations administered before 1980 or after 1995. The evidence in this case is insufficient to determine whether the registered nursing licensure examinations administered in 1976 by either CNATS or OIIQ were substantially equivalent to, or more stringent than, the State Board Test Pool Examinations administered in 1976 by the National Council of State Boards of Nursing.5
Recommendation On the basis of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Nursing enter a final order denying the Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of July, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 27th day of July, 2000.
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in unprofessional conduct and, if so, what disciplinary action should be imposed on her nursing license.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Health is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of nursing pursuant to Chapter 464, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed practical nurse in the State of Florida, holding license no. PN 0986101. Respondent has been so licensed since 1990. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was employed in the office of Dr. David Flick, M.D., an oncologist. On October 17, 1995, Dr. Flick wrote a prescription for Fiorinal for Katherine Filan, who on that date, was an employee of Dr. Flick. The prescription authorized one refill. On or about January 12, 1996, in response to an inquiry from a pharmacy, Respondent approved a refill of the prescription for Fiorinal for Katherine Filan, without first consulting Dr. Flick. According to Dr. Flick, at all times pertinent to this proceeding, the general policy in his office was that he approved all refills. This policy was unwritten and was not effectively communicated to employees. Respondent and one other licensed practical nurse, formerly employed as a nurse in Dr. Flick's office, provided credible testimony that nurses in Dr. Flick's office were allowed to refill prescriptions, except for narcotics. However, when nurses authorized such refills, the policy was that the refills were to be documented and charted. Respondent believed that her action of authorizing the refill of Ms. Filan's prescription was consistent with the practice and policy of Dr. Flick's office. Moreover, Respondent believed that her approval of the refill was permitted because Dr. Flick had expressly authorized one refill on the original prescription he had written. No evidence was presented that Ms. Filan had refilled the prescription prior to January 12, 1996. After Respondent authorized the refill of the prescription for Ms. Filan, she failed to record the refill authorization on the any medical records. Respondent maintains that her failure to document the refill was inadvertent and was the result of her being extremely busy that day. On the day that Respondent authorized the refill, she was the only chemotherapy nurse on duty, was taking care of patients, and taking incoming nurse's calls. Except for this proceeding, Respondent has never been the subject of a disciplinary proceeding related to her nursing license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is REOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Board of Nursing, enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of February, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 17th day of February, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency of Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Paul J. Martin, General Counsel Agency of Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Howard M. Bernstein, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration General Counsel's Office Medical Quality Assistance Allied Health Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Michele L. Schrembs DeGrolier, pro se 1501 Carlos Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33755
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Cindy Louise Jirak, was licensed as a Registered Nurse pursuant to Florida law on May 14, 1979. Her license was last actively renewed to May 30, 1983, and now is in a lapsed status. P. Ex. 1. The Respondent was employed as a licensed Registered Nurse at the Central Florida Regional Hospital in Sanford, Florida, during the six month period up to and including October, 1986. On July 8, 1986, the Respondent was on duty as a licensed Registered Nurse and improperly set up intravenous fluids for a patient. The Respondent set up a previously ordered fluid, stating that the currently ordered fluid was not available. The correct procedure when a currently ordered fluid is not available is to hang a normal saline solution. By hanging the previously ordered solution, the Respondent's procedure was below minimally acceptable nursing practice. On October 6, 1986, the Respondent failed to turn on an intravenous solution pump after hanging an intravenous solution. The patient, therefore, did not receive the fluid that had been hung. The Respondent's action in failing to turn on the pump on October 6, 1986, was below minimally acceptable nursing practice. On August 23, 1986, the Respondent signed out 10 milligrams of morphine (one ampule) to be administered to a patient. Only 6 milligrams had been ordered for that patient. The procedure is to waste the excess before the narcotic is administered, and to have that act of wasting witnessed. The "waste and/or destroyed narcotic disposition record" shows that 4 milligrams were properly wasted since only 6 milligrams had been ordered for this patient. The records show that the 6 milligrams were then refused by the patient, but there is no subsequent entry to show that the 6 milligrams of morphine were properly wasted by the Respondent. The Respondent's failure to record the wasting of the 6 milligrams of morphine on August 23, 1986, was below minimally acceptable nursing practice. On August 22, 1986, the Respondent left two doses of Bumax in her cart with no explanation as to why the medication was not given. She was responsible for administration of that medication to a patient under her care, and the medication had been ordered for the patient. The medication was not given to that patient as ordered on that evening, and the Respondent did not make an entry in the records that the medication had not been administered. The Respondent's failure to administer the prescribed medication, or to chart that failure to do so, is below minimally acceptable nursing practice.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Nursing, enter its final order suspending the registered nursing license of Cindy Louise Jirak for a period of two years. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of August, 1987. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. 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 31st day of August, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Judie Ritter, Executive Director Board of Nursing Department of Professional Regulation Room 504, 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph Sole, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 John Namey, Esquire 22 East Pine Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Cindy Jirak 2718 Dellwood Drive Eustis, Florida 32726 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact On December 9, 1980, Petitioner was working as a student nurse at University Community Hospital, Tampa, Florida. She was in her next to last quarter as a student in the Registered Nurse Program at Hillsborough Community College. Her supervisor had assigned Petitioner to provide exclusive care to a comatose patient who had both a tracheostomy and a gastrostomy. Attached to the trachea of this patient was a tube into which oxygen and water were added to help patient's respiration and to keep the proper moisture content in his lungs. The hole was covered by a mask which could be slipped aside by the nurse to suction fluids emerging from the lungs. This suctioning around the trachea was required every few minutes, hence the assignment of Petitioner to only one patient during this shift. Petitioner was informed she would get this assignment one or two days prior and had visited the patient's room, read his charts, and studied the nursing required before reporting for duty on 9 December 1980. She was fully aware of the tracheostomy, gastrostomy, and the purpose and function of each. Petitioner reported for work at 6:00 a.m. on December 9, 1980, and was assigned to the comatose patient as noted above. She spent most of the first two hours suctioning and cleaning around the tracheostomy and generally caring for the patient, which included turning the patient. From her observation and study Respondent was aware of the tube into the abdomen of this patient by which he was to be fed. Shortly after 8:00 a.m. on December 9, 1980, Petitioner prepared the bag for liquid feeding of the patient and hung it on the IV pole alongside the patient's bed. She then connected the tube from the feeding bag to the tracheostomy tube. Around 8:45 a.m. James Holly, a respiratory therapy technician, entered the room and saw Petitioner standing alongside the patient's bed with the feeding bag on the IV pole and the tube from the bag leading to the tracheostomy of the patient. He immediately yelled words to the effect that the feeding tube is connected to the treach and ran to the opposite side of the bed from which Petitioner was standing. Petitioner heard a noise, immediately realized what was happening and removed the feeding tube from the trachea. Holly testified the patient coughed once violently; Petitioner testified-the patient did not cough violently. In either, event the patient's lungs were checked immediately with a stethoscope, the supervising nurse was sent for and Petitioner's supervisor was called. The patient received very little, ,if, any, feeding fluid into his lungs and suffered no adverse effects from this incident. Petitioner's supervisor discussed the incident with Petitioner, assisted her in giving the patient his morning feeding and concluded Petitioner was capable of caring for the patient for the rest of the shift. Petitioner remained with the patient throughout the shift and gave the patient his twelve o'clock feeding without assistance or incident. Petitioner's supervisor reported the incident to the Director of Nursing at Hillsborough Community College, who called a meeting of the evaluating committee the following day. At the evaluation hearing Petitioner could give no explanation of why she had connected the feeding tube to the tracheostomy tube rather than the gastrostomy tube, nor could she explain at this hearing why she did it. In Petitioner's words, "If I knew why I did it, it wouldn't have happened." Following the meeting of the evaluating committee Petitioner was dismissed from nursing school and her subsequent application for readmission was denied. Her application to take the licensed practical nurse examination, for which her time as a student nurse qualified for the licensed practical nurse training requirements, was denied by Respondent and Petitioner requested this hearing. Prior to the incident of 9 December 1980 Petitioner was regarded by her supervisors as well motivated, good with patients, and well organized. Petitioner is 37 years old and has wanted to be a nurse for a long time. She readily acknowledges that she knew the patient was to be fed through the gastrostomy tube, that the patient could not be fed through the tracheostomy tube and that it would be very dangerous to attempt to do so. Her inability to give any explanation of why she attached the feeding tube to the tracheostomy was a major factor in the evaluation board's determination to dismiss Petitioner from nursing school. Transmitting liquid into a patient's lungs through a tracheostomy tube constitutes a very dangerous procedure which could prove fatal to the patient either from suffocation (if a sufficient quantity of fluid was injested) or through infection in the lungs from the unsterilized liquid. Committing such act constitutes a failure to conform to minimum standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practices. Petitioner was sufficiently advanced in her training to know the proper procedures to be followed in such a case, and Petitioner readily acknowledges that she did know the proper procedures to follow and is unable to account for her deviation therefrom.
