Findings Of Fact Respondent is and at all times has been a licensed physician, holding Florida license number ME 0029977. He has been licensed in Florida since about 1976. G.L. is 73 years old. He has a third grade education. Previously, he was a farmworker in the fields. He is at most barely literate. In any event, he would not appreciate the meaning of a document of the type described below. G.L. and his companion, A.M., who is 59 years old and unemployed, had been patients of Respondent for about eight years at the time of the subject incident. From time to time, Respondent has lent his patients money, such as for transportation or medicine. Respondent's daughter, who serves as his office manager, has even provided transportation for patients in order to get them to the office and back home. On certain occasions, Respondent has lent G.L. money or paid for his medicine, although the amounts involved were not significant. On many other occasions, Respondent provided G.L. with free medication by giving him samples. Respondent did not keep track of the amounts involved because of the unlikelihood of any repayment. Between 1980 and the time of the incident, G.L.'s total charges for medical services rendered by Respondent were less than $5000. Medicare or Medicaid paid for about 80% of these costs. In May, 1986, G.L. suffered injuries as a result of an automobile accident. Respondent treated G.L., who had a balance due of about $824 at the time in question. Respondent referred G.L. to Franklin Douglas McKnight, who also served as Respondent's attorney, for representation in the recovery of damages for personal injuries. By January, 1987, Mr. McKnight was close to settling the case. At this point, Respondent visited Mr. McKnight and said that G.L. had agreed to pay Respondent a percentage of the settlement. The net amount that was estimated to be due G.L. was roughly $25,000, and Respondent was claiming $12,500. Mr. McKnight informed Respondent that he could not pay him a percentage and, in any event, could not pay him anything unless G.L. signed a letter authorizing the disbursement to Respondent. Mr. McKnight showed Respondent a simple example of such a letter. Respondent then prepared a letter for G.L. to sign. The letter stated: To Whom It May Concern: For past services, medical, social and humane assistance and personal loans rendered to me [G.L.] and my family during last many years. We hereby agree that the sum of $12,500 ... may be deducted from the net proceeds recovered as a result of the automobile accident, of date 5-30-86. I, [G.L.] Hereby thus authorize you, Mr. Douglas McKnight, (My representing Lawer) to disburse above amount out of net proceeds to Dr. Prem N. Tandon, M.D. without reservations. Thanking you: [Signed by G.L. and A.M. as witness.] During an office visit, Respondent presented the letter to G.L. and A.M. for their signature. Little if any meaningful explanation accompanied the signing. G.L. and A.M. signed the letter based on their trust of Respondent as their physician. When Respondent delivered the signed letter to Mr. McKnight, he told Respondent that he would not disburse any sums to Respondent without the consent of G.L. at the time of disbursement. G.L. later refused to honor the disbursement letter. Confronted with conflicting claims to nearly $12,000 of the settlement proceeds, Mr. McKnight interpleaded the sum in Orange County Circuit Court. Respondent has been disciplined twice previously. In a Final order dated February 27, 1984, Petitioner found Respondent guilty of violating Section 458.331(1)(r), Florida Statutes, by unlawfully prescribing to himself two legend drugs, Nembutal and Ritalin. Petitioner imposed an administrative fine of $200 and placed Respondent on probation for one month. In a Final Order dated June 15, 1988, Petitioner found, Respondent guilty of various statutory violations concerning generally recordkeeping requirements with respect to controlled substances. Petitioner imposed an administrative fine of $1500, reprimanded his license, required him to attend 60 hours of Category I Continuing Medical Education courses in legal aspects of dispensing controlled substances, and restricted his license by prohibiting him from dispensing drugs in an office setting and maintaining drugs for the purpose of dispensing until he complied with certain conditions concerning recordkeeping requirements.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of violating of Section 458.331(1)(n), Florida Statutes, suspending Respondent's license for six months, and imposing an administrative fine of $5000. ENTERED this 3rd day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of May, 1989. APPENDIX Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Petitioner 1-3 Adopted. 4 Adopted in substance. 5-7 Adopted. Adopted except as to the mischaracterization of the document as a promissory note. Rejected as irrelevant, contrary to the greater weight of the evidence, and recitation of testimony. Whether G.L. was able to read is beside the point. He was incapable of understanding the meaning of the document that he signed. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as cumulative and, to the extent not cumulative, irrelevant. 12-15 Rejected as recitation of testimony and subordinate. 16-17 Adopted in substance. 18 Rejected as recitation of evidence and legal argument. 19-21 Rejected as recitation of testimony and subordinate except that the first sentence of Paragraph 21 is adopted. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as recitation of testimony. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Adopted. Rejected as cumulative and, to the extent not cumulative, irrelevant. Rejected as legal argument contrary to the cited statutory definition of the practice of medicine. Rejected as recitation of testimony. Adopted in substance. Treatment Accorded Respondent's proposed Findings 1-4 Adopted. 5-6 Rejected as subordinate. Adopted. Rejected as irrelevant and, to the extent implying that G.L. understood the meaning of the document that he was signing, against the greater weight of the evidence. 9-10 Rejected as irrelevant. See Paragraph 9 in preceding section. 11-14 Adopted. 15 Adopted in substance. 16-19 Adopted in substance except that the first sentence of Paragraph 16 is rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as irrelevant. First sentence adopted. Second sentence rejected as irrelevant. Adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Board of Medical Examiners Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Kenneth D. Easley, Esq. General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 David G. Pius, Esq. Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Joseph M. Taraska, Esq. Launa K. Cartwright, Esq. Taraska, Grower, Unger and Ketcham, P.A. Post Office Box 538065 Orlando, FL 32853-0065 =================================================================
The Issue As to Case 93-6927, whether Respondent, a licensed physician, violated the provisions of Section 458.331(1)(m), (t), (v), and (dd), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed. As to Case 93-6928, whether Respondent violated the provisions of Section 458.319(5), 458.327(1)(a), and 458.331(1)(x), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed. As to Case 93-6929, whether Respondent violated the provisions of Section 458.331(1)(x), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency of the State of Florida that regulates the practice of medicine. Respondent is a licensed physician in the State of Florida and has been issued license number ME 0028412 by the Petitioner. CASE NO. 93-6927 On December 12, 1990, Susan D. Bernhardt conducted an inspection for the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (DHRS) of an abortion clinic named Miami International Esthetics Center (MIEC). Ms. Bernhardt was hired as a consultant by DHRS to conduct random inspections of MIEC pursuant to a stipulation between DHRS and MIEC. Ms. Bernhardt is a registered nurse and is experienced in surgical procedures. Ms. Bernhardt observed Respondent perform an abortion on a patient at MIEC on December 12, 1990. Also present in the operating room was a nurse anesthetist, to whom Respondent referred as Mr. Martin. Respondent, Mr. Martin, and Ms. Bernhardt were present in the operating room at all times during the procedure. Mr. Martin administered anesthesia and the patient lost consciousness. Shortly after losing consciousness, the patient began making sounds which Ms. Bernhardt described as "crowing noises" and to which Dr. Van Eldik referred to as "stridors". These sounds indicate that the patient's air passages are blocked, a condition that requires prompt action from the physician or from the person administering anesthesia since the condition can be life threatening. Ms. Bernhardt testified that she went to the patient and used her stethoscope to confirm that the patient was having breathing difficulties. She thereafter tilted the patient's head and restored her breathing. The amount of time that lapsed between the time the patient first experienced difficulties breathing and the time Ms. Bernhardt acted was not established. While it is clear that neither Respondent or Mr. Martin 1/ acted to provide the patient with any relief or to assure that her air passages were open so that she could receive adequate oxygen, it is not clear whether the action of Ms. Bernhardt obviated the necessity for either the physician or the nurse anesthetist to act. Consequently, it is found that Petitioner failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent failed to properly supervise Mr. Martin by failing to order him to assist the patient when Ms. Bernhardt acted promptly to relieve the patient. Emergency equipment was maintained on a crash cart that was in the operating room during the procedure Ms. Bernhardt observed. As the operating surgeon, Respondent was responsible for making sure that appropriate emergency equipment was readily available. Appropriate emergency equipment would include emergency drugs on the crash cart. Throughout the procedure there were no emergency drugs present on the crash cart. Respondent failed to adequately supervise Mr. Martin to ensure that appropriate emergency equipment was readily available. As part of her inspection of MIEC, Ms. Bernhardt reviewed medical records at the clinic pertaining to patients of the Respondent. Some of the records that were reviewed by her are contained in Petitioner's Exhibit 5. Respondent's records reviewed by Ms. Bernhardt were of overall poor quality. Documentation concerning physical examination was scanty and often failed to include the size of the patient's uterine and a description of the presumptive signs of pregnancy. Anesthesia records were not filled out. Documentation concerning the recovery room period was virtually nonexistent. No vital signs or progress notes were charted. There was no follow-up documentation evidencing a pelvic examination and no notation of patient complaints or symptoms. The records reviewed by Ms. Bernhardt during her inspection did not justify or adequately document the course of treatment for the respective patients. A subpoena was served on Respondent by one of Petitioner's investigators that required him to turn over all medical records pertaining to certain named patients. A similar subpoena was served on Mr. Angel Caso, the owner of MIEC. In response to the subpoena that was served on his client, Respondent's attorney informed the investigator that Respondent did not have any medical records other than those that would have been maintained at the MIEC. In response to the subpoena that was served on him, Mr. Caso turned over medical records pertaining to 45 patients. These records reflect that the Respondent was their attending physician. Mr. Caso could not be subpoenaed by Petitioner to compel his attendance at the formal hearing because he could not be located. The medical records that were turned over to Petitioner pursuant to subpoena were admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 5 as records received by Petitioner during the course of an official investigation. There was no evidence that any other medical records pertaining to these patients exist. The medical records that constitute Petitioner's Exhibit 5 do not justify or adequately document the course of treatment of the respective patients. CASE NO. 93-6928 Section 458.319(5), Florida Statutes, provides, as follows: (5) The licensee must have on file with the department the address of his primary place of practice within the state prior to engaging in that practice. Prior to changing the address of his primary place of practice, whether or not within this state, the licensee shall notify the department of the address of his new primary place of practice. The Petitioner maintains the addresses of physicians by computer. There is no statute or rule that requires a physician to notify the Department in writing as to a change of address, but the Department's policy is to require that address changes be in writing and that the request for a change of address come from the physician. There was no written notification from Respondent to the Petitioner that his business address had changed prior to September 1992. At the time of the formal hearing, Respondent's business address was 102 East 49th Street, Hialeah. His former business address was 4821 West 4th Avenue, Hialeah, Florida. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent's home address was 14710 Day Pine Avenue, Miami, Florida. As of December 17, 1990, Petitioner had been informed of that address. Petitioner's investigator, Diane Robie, interviewed Respondent at his business address on East 49th Street on August 22, 1991. Respondent had been at this address for approximately eight months as of August 22, 1991. This new business address was reflected by Ms. Robie's report, which was filed with Petitioner on October 8, 1991, but that report did not trigger a change of the business address Petitioner maintained for Respondent in its computers. Respondent's license to practice medicine was scheduled to expire on December 31, 1991. In mid October 1991, the Department of Professional Regulation (Department) mailed a renewal notice to Respondent's former business address on West 4th Avenue. As required by Section 458.319(4), Florida Statutes, the Department routinely mails to the physician a renewal form that the physician must use to renew his license. This mailing takes place 60 days before the physician's license is scheduled to expire. This renewal form is generated by computer and is sent to the mailing address that is on record with the Department and maintained by computer. It was the Department's policy to try to notify a physician at his home address if a renewal notice is returned from a stale office address. There was no evidence that the renewal notice and the renewal form that was mailed to Respondent at his former address in October 1991 was returned to the Department as being an incorrect address. The evidence failed to establish what happened to the renewal notice that was mailed to Respondent in mid-October 1991. There was no further attempt by the Department following the mid-October 1991 mailing to notify the Respondent at his home address or business address that his license was about to expire. Respondent's license expired on December 31, 1991, and his licensure automatically reverted to inactive status pursuant to Section 458.319(3), Florida Statutes. Respondent made no effort to contact the Department until June 1992 at which time his secretary/office manager contacted the Department by telephone and advised that Respondent had not received the renewal documentation. On August 10, 1992, the Petitioner wrote to Respondent at his home address. This was the first written communication between the parties since the mid-October 1991 mailing. Respondent mailed a check in the amount of $500.00 for the renewal of his license to the Department in September 1992. On October 6, 1992, the Department wrote Respondent at his former address on West 4th Avenue and advised that prior to the renewal of his license, Respondent had to pay an additional fee in the amount of $350.00 for the processing of his renewal application and that he would also have to submit proof that he had earned required continuing medical education credits. On February 15, 1993, the Department sent to Respondent a letter at his East 49th Street address that provided as follows: This letter is in response to your (sic) to your submission to renew your Florida medical license which was received in the Board office on 9-15-92. Unfortunately the Board of Medicine cannot comply with your request until the follow- ing is received: $350.00 renewal fee. (in addition to the $500 already submitted) You did not fill out the Financial Respon- sibility portion of the renewal application, therefore, you will need to fill out a new form, and have it properly notarized. Please submit an affidavit for your active practice activities between January 1, 1992, and the present date. Any person applying for reactivation of a license must show either that such licensee main- tained tail insurance coverage which provided liability coverage for incidents that occurred on or after January 1, 1987, or the initial date of licensure in this state, whichever is later, and incidents that occurred before the date on which the license became inactive; OR that such licensee MUST SUBMIT A NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT STATING THAT SUCH LICENSEE HAS NO UNSATISFIED MEDICAL MALPRACTICE JUDGMENTS OR SETTLEMENTS AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION FOR REACTIVATION. After July 1, 1992, you will need to submit copies of at least 40 hours of Category I CME earned between January 1, 1990, and the present date. Five of these hours must be in Risk Management. Also one hour of HIV/AIDS Category I CME needs to be submitted. Once the above items are received, we will proceed with the issuance of an active Florida medical license. (Emphasis is in the original.) Respondent met all requirements for the renewal of his medical license on March 16, 1993, the date on which his license was reactivated. Between January 1, 1992, and March 15, 1993, Respondent engaged in the practice of medicine in the State of Florida without an active license. Case 93-6929 Petitioner filed an Administrative Complaint against Respondent on April 27, 1988, which was subsequently referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned DOAH Case No. 88-5546. On February 28, 1989, the parties to that proceeding executed a "Stipulation" which settled the dispute. On April 19, 1989, the Board of Medicine entered a Final Order that accepted the Stipulation and ordered the parties to abide by its terms. Pertinent to this proceeding, Paragraph 4 of the Stipulation required the following: 4. Within one (1) year of the date of filing of the Final Order incorporating the terms of this stipulation, Respondent shall complete twenty-five (25) hours of Category I Continuing Medical Education in the areas of Risk Management and/or Medical Records Keeping. Such continuing education shall be in addition to that amount required for renewal of licensure. Category I Continuing Medical Education is a course approved by the American Medical Association as a top level course. In March 1990, Respondent completed a 25 hour course sponsored by Jackson Memorial Hospital in the area of "Medical Records Keeping". Respondent notified Petitioner on March 21, 1990, that he had completed this course. This was the only course that Respondent claimed to have taken in satisfaction of the Final Order entered in DOAH Case 88-5546. This course has not been designated as a Category I Continuing Medical Education course by Jackson Memorial Hospital. The Petitioner advised the Respondent that the course he had taken did not satisfy its order. Respondent thereafter requested that the matter be reviewed by Petitioner's Probation Committee. This request was granted, but the Probation Committee determined that the course was not acceptable. Respondent did not comply with the order until March 16, 1993.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein and which incorporates the following: Find Respondent not guilty of practicing beyond the scope of his competence in violation of Section 458.331(1)(v), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count One of Case 93-6927. Find Respondent not guilty of practicing below the standard of care in violation of Section 458.331(1)(t), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count Two of Case 93-6927. Find Respondent guilty of failing to keep proper medical records in violation of Section 458.331(1)(m), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count Three of Case 93-6927. For this violation, Respondent should be reprimanded, assessed an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00, and placed on probation for a period of two years, to run concurrently with any other period of probation imposed on Respondent. Find Respondent not guilty of failing to properly supervise the nurse anesthetist when the patient experienced breathing difficulties in violation of Section 458.331(1)(dd), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count Four of Case 93- 6927. Find Respondent guilty of failing to ensure that the crash cart was appropriately equipped, thereby failing to properly supervise the nurse anesthetist in violation of Section 458.331(1)(dd), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count Four of Case 93-6927. For this violation, Respondent should be reprimanded and assessed an administrative fine in the amount of $250.00. Find Respondent guilty of violating the provisions of Section 458.319(5), Florida Statutes, and thereby violating Section 458.331(1)(x), Florida Statutes, by failing to timely notify Petitioner of his change of business address as alleged in Count One of Case 93-6928. For this violation, Respondent should be reprimanded and assessed an administrative fine in the amount of $250.00. Find Respondent guilty of violating the provisions of Section 458.327(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and thereby violating Section 458.331(1)(x), Florida Statutes, by practicing medicine in the State of Florida after his license expired as alleged in Count Two of Case 93-6928. For this violation, Respondent should be reprimanded and assessed an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00, and placed on probation for a period of two years, to run concurrently with any other period of probation imposed on Respondent. Find Respondent guilty of violating the provisions of Section 458.331(1)(x), Florida Statutes, by failing to timely comply with an order of the Board of Medicine alleged in Case 93-6929. For this violation, Respondent should be reprimanded and assessed an administrative fine in the amount of $250.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 1995, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 1995.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent should be dismissed from employment with the Pinellas County Schools because of the misconduct alleged in the School Board's letter dated April 24, 1989.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained herein, the Respondent, Perry Hollis, was employed as a welding instructor at SPVOTEC, a facility operated by the School Board of Pinellas County. The Pinellas County School Board is the agency responsible for the administration of the public schools in the county. Respondent began working for the Pinellas County School Board as a welding instructor approximately 15 years ago. As a part of his job, he was required to take certain college courses in teacher training and now has 15 credit hours beyond his Bachelor's degree. At this time, and at the time of the allegations involved herein, he taught welding to mostly adult students at SPVOTEC where he has been employed for 13 years, satisfactorily, without any prior disciplinary problems. The evening before the incident in question, Respondent had been out gun training his dog. Since it is virtually impossible to hold the dog's chain and fire a rifle at the same time, he was using a pistol, the one involved in this case. Neither Respondent nor his wife have a permit to carry a concealed weapon. After the training session was over, Respondent placed the pistol into the door pocket on the driver's side of his pickup truck, put his dog in the back, and started home. He does not remember putting the gun in the door but can think of no other way it could have gotten there. On the way home, the dog jumped out of the back of the truck while it was moving and injured itself. When Respondent got it, he started to provide care for the dog and forgot the gun was in the door of his truck. Since the truck had been acting up, pursuant to an agreement with Mr. Protomastro, the auto mechanics instructor, the following morning he took the vehicle to school and left it at the auto shop so that students could work on it as a part of their training. This is legitimate. The car was assigned to Robert Mertz and Phat Le to work on. Mr. Protomastro drove the car into the shop but did not see the gun in the door. When Mertz got into the car, he saw the weapon in the door pouch on top of some maps and papers and took it out to show to Mr. Le. Mr. Le took it and tried to fire it but because the safety was on, it would not fire. When Le removed the safety, the weapon discharged one round, injuring no one and causing no damage. When Mr. Protomastro heard the explosion, he thought it was a firecracker and advised Phat Le not to shoot them off at school. Le told showed him the gun and Protomastro told him to put it back in the truck. He then took the truck with the gun back to Respondent at the welding shop and advised Hollis to be sure the truck contained no weapons if he brought it in again. According to Protomastro, when he first mentioned it to Respondent, the latter seemed surprised, and he has no less confidence in Respondent's abilities as a teacher even though in this incident, Respondent showed poor judgement. Protomastro did not report the incident at that time. However, when Mertz got home from school that afternoon, he told his mother what had happened. The following morning, she called the school to express her concern over the fact that someone had brought a gun to school. In her opinion, Respondent was wrong to allow the weapon to remain unattended in his car since it is his responsibility to keep the weapon under control at all times. No action was taken then, however. The incident was subsequently brought to the attention of Pinellas County school officials by Mr. Laux, SPVOTEC Director, several months after the incident. Mr. Crosby, Director of Personnel for the Board, caused a formal investigation to be conducted. Based on the investigation and his own limited inquiry, he recommended Respondent's dismissal. In the conversation he had with him, Respondent frankly admitted the gun had been in his car and explained the circumstances of it's getting there. Crosby recommended dismissal because he concluded Respondent's effectiveness as an instructor in the Pinellas county schools had been diminished by the incident. He takes this position because, (1) the media publicity the incident received, (one article and one editorial), reduced Respondent's effectiveness, and (2) he believed Respondent's supervisors, "must feel his effectiveness was reduced due to his lack of judgement." Mr. Crosby did not, however, check with Respondent's supervisors other than Mr. Laux, the Director of SPVOTEC, who concurred in a disciplinary action far less severe than dismissal. Nonetheless, Crosby recommended dismissal rather than some lesser action which could have been taken because: The severity of the situation - teachers are to provide conditions not harmful to students and here, Respondent created a dangerous situation, Students are expelled for bringing weapons to campus and they can do no less to teachers, and Respondent's lack of judgement. Mr. Crosby admits that in his relationships with Respondent, he always found Respondent to be completely forthright and cooperative and he is aware that Hollis has taught in the public school system for more than 13 years. He is familiar with Respondent's performance ratings which were always good. Considering all this, Crosby ultimately agreed with the Superintendent's position that Respondent be dismissed even though no teachers or students indicated their loss of confidence in Respondent as a result of this incident. Even in response to questioning by the Hearing Officer, Mr. Crosby indicated no opinion as to whether the incident was intentional on the part of Respondent. From a thorough review of the evidence it is clear it was not. Ms. Betty W. Arrigo is an interpreter for the hearing impaired who previously worked with Respondent at SPVOTEC. She is aware of the incident with the gun as a result of seeing the report in the newspaper. As a fellow instructor, she has lost no confidence in him as a result of the incident and knows from her communications with seven or so other faculty members that they feel the same way. None of her contacts have any reservations about working with Respondent and she has heard nothing derogatory about him from any of them. Mr. Phares was a student at SPVOTEC and took a welding course from Respondent before the time in issue. He heard about this incident only though the newspaper and even as a result of his reading, based on his first hand knowledge of Respondent, his faith in him as an instructor has in no way been diminished. He would not be reluctant to have Respondent as an instructor again. Admitting he is not bound by the same restraints and considerations as the school administration, and agreeing that guns should not be allowed on the school grounds, he nonetheless believe that if, as it appears in the instant case, the infraction was inadvertent and was an isolated incident, leniency should be shown. Much the same approach is taken by Mr. Stanjeski, who knew Respondent as an instructor at the time of the incident. He, too, is aware of it only from the newspaper, and has not lost any confidence in Respondent's ability as an instructor. Respondent insured that his students learned to work safely and was very much involved with them from a safety standpoint. Mr. Stanjeski would have no reservations about having his 10 year old son take a class with Respondent. He does not condone children or adults bringing a loaded gun to school, but under the circumstances as they appear here, he feels confident with Respondent and his teaching and supervisory abilities. Dr. Rose, Superintendent of Schools, became aware of the Respondent when he received the complaint from Crosby with the recommendation for dismissal. School Board policies prohibit weapons from being brought onto a campus by students or faculty. The purpose of these policies is to insure, as much as is possible, against accidents, and to promote the safety of both students and staff. Prior to adoption of a policy, several public readings are required, after which it is adopted and placed in a policy book furnished to all teachers. Respondent was aware of the policies. Respondent's bringing a weapon to school constitutes a violation of this policy but, in Dr. Rose's opinion, even worse, Respondent did not demonstrate the care for his students expected of a teacher. This constitutes major carelessness on his part, and in the opinion of Dr. Rose, constitutes a violation of the Florida Teacher's Code of Ethics. Dr. Rose also feels that Respondent's actions herein jeopardizes the safety of students. Respondent's judgement in this situation was poor, and his conduct put a dangerous instrument into the hands of a youth whose judgement had not matured. Dr. Rose feels that a teacher would not, if he valued the worth and dignity of his students, do anything potentially dangerous to their welfare. According to Dr. Rose, Respondent's conduct impaired his effectiveness as a teacher in that the work site was compromised. The Board envisions that a work site within the school system will be a safe place and for that reason, guns are not allowed on campus. To bring a gun on campus shows a disregard for the needs of the students. Prior gun incidents have sensitized the public to weapons on campus. As a result, any incident involving a gun on campus is considered critical by the Board, and brings back fears of danger to the students. Whenever a teacher creates a potential hazard to his students, it adversely impacts on his effectiveness, according to Dr. Rose. As Superintendent, he receives feedback from students, parent and teacher organizations, his division heads, and the public, and in this case, though the incident was not widely known until the dismissal was publicized, public demand for action was satisfied by the dismissal. Dr. Rose contends that while the press reaction is considered to be important, school Board decisions, and his in particular, are not dictated by the press. Nonetheless, the issue of guns on campus is very important to the public sector and the Board is sensitive to public reaction. The subject comes up frequently at public meetings and Dr. Rose receives many letters and phone calls about what is being done to keep guns off the campuses. After the articles previously mentioned appeared in the press in this case, Dr. Rose received substantial favorable feedback regarding the dismissal action against the Respondent. The substantial hiatus between the occurrence and the subsequent dismissal action resulted from the fact that the incident was not reported for several months. When the report was received, immediate action was taken to investigate it and to take appropriate corrective action. Local school administrators are supposed to act on their independent judgement within Board set parameters. In this case, Mr. Hollis' actions caused a question as to his ability to make valid judgements on his own and requires him to be more closely supervised. Therefore, his effectiveness, in the opinion of Dr. Rose, has been diminished. Though lesser punishments were available, Dr. Rose recommended the harshest discipline be imposed here because of the severity of the incident. The decision to dismiss Respondent was based on the fact that he had a gun on campus, aggravated by the potential danger to the students. Before taking action, Dr. Rose considered the Respondent's contention that he had forgotten the gun was in the car and, in fact, he believes this is so. In addition, his investigation disclosed no facts which lead him to believe that the incident would be repeated if Respondent were to be allowed to continue to teach. He is satisfied this was an isolated case and he considered that in making his recommendation for dismissal. Dr. Rose admitted that Respondent could probably be properly disciplined by lesser action, but, if that lesser action were taken, there is, in his opinion, a substantial risk that others might not get the important message regarding the policy against guns in the schools. Dr. Rose has not received any letters from parents as a result of this incident demanding that Respondent be dismissed. Nonetheless, he believes that because of the circumstances involved and because of the policy letters of the school Board and their intent that firearms not be brought onto campus at all; and because any time an incident involves bringing a firearm onto a campus, there is the potential for the weapon to be used in a harmful way, either directly or accidentally; it is imperative the strongest possible message be sent out stating that weapons will not, under any circumstances, be tolerated on the campuses of institutions within the jurisdiction of the Pinellas County School Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the continuing suspension with pay be lifted but that Respondent be reprimanded and suspended without pay for ten (10) days. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of September, 1989, in Tallahassee. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of September, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-2447 The following constituted my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. For the Petitioner: Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 5. Accepted and incorporated herein. 7. - 10. Accepted and incorporated herein. 11. & 12. Accepted. 13. - 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. 16. & 17. Accepted and incorporated herein. 18. 7 19. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. & 22. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. For the Respondent: Respondent did not number his paragraphs in the Statement of the Facts, so the paragraphs will be addressed in turn as though they had been numbered. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce P. Taylor, Esquire School Board Attorney Post Office Box 6374 Clearwater, Florida 33518 Mark Herdman, Esquire Kelly & McKee, P.A. 1724 East 7th Ave. Tampa, Florida 33605 Dr. Scott N. Rose Superintendent of Pinellas County Schools Post Office Box 4688 Clearwater, Florida 34618-4688 Hon. Betty Castor Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 =================================================================
The Issue The issues for determination are whether Respondent's suspension should be upheld and whether his employment with Petitioner should be terminated, as set forth in Petitioner's action letter dated May 11, 2006 and, more specifically, in the Notice of Specific Charges dated and filed May 30, 2006.
Findings Of Fact In 1983, Mr. Peraza, at 18 years of age, was arrested for strong-arm robbery. The case was nolle prossed, and the record was sealed. Almost 15 years later, in 1998, Mr. Peraza applied for an instructional position with the School Board. The 1983 arrest information became known to the School Board through this application process. In 1999, Mr. Peraza began his employment with the School Board as a teacher. At all times material hereto, he was assigned to Allapattah Middle School. While at Allapattah Middle School, Mr. Peraza taught Civics, Geography, and U.S. History. Also, at Allapattah Middle School, Mr. Peraza was the Department Chair and a Team Leader. Further, at Allapattah Middle School, Mr. Peraza received numerous awards from the school and the students, including Beginning Teacher of the Year and the student- nominated, Best Teacher. He was also twice nominated for Teacher of the Year. Additionally, Mr. Peraza was active in some of the student-oriented activities: participated in after school tutoring; assisted the Chess Club; and assisted wrestlers in achieving academic success. Since the beginning of his employment with the School Board, Mr. Peraza received outstanding performance evaluations. Mr. Peraza was well-liked by both parents and students. On or about March 12, 2004, Mr. Peraza was arrested for selling and felony dealing in a controlled substance, i.e., steroids. The arrest occurred on school property at the administration office. He was charged with selling a controlled substance, i.e., steroids, and with forgery (attempting to use the identification of another person without consent). The court's disposition of the charges was the withholding of adjudication and probation, with special conditions--probation for a year, with early termination after six months. After five months, Mr. Peraza probation was terminated due to his compliance with all the terms of his probation. At hearing, Mr. Peraza explained the circumstances surrounding the arrest, charge, and disposition. He explained that a man whom he had befriended at the gym inquired as to whether he (Mr. Peraza) would receive mail for him (the man) at his (Mr. Peraza’s) post office box because the man stated that he (the man) was unable to receive mail at his home; Mr. Peraza agreed to do so. A U.S. Postal inspector intercepted a packaged addressed to Mr. Peraza’s post office box, not to Mr. Peraza, which contained steroids. At the time of his arrest, Mr. Peraza denied having any knowledge of the package or of its contents. Mr. Peraza accepted a plea agreement of withholding adjudication and probation to avoid the possibility of being incarcerated so that he could support his two young daughters. The undersigned finds Mr. Peraza's testimony credible. Further, no evidence was presented as to whether Mr. Peraza actually pled nolo contendere to the charge. In as much as the evidence demonstrates that he accepted a plea agreement and that no objection was made to his explaining the charges and the court’s disposition, an inference is drawn and a finding of fact is made that he pled nolo contendere to the charge. After the arrest of Mr. Peraza, the principal at Allapattah called a special faculty meeting. At the meeting, the principal informed the faculty of Mr. Peraza's arrest. No evidence was presented that the faculty would have known about the arrest had the principal not informed the faculty at the special meeting. The local newspaper, The Miami Herald, contained a report of the arrest. The newspaper’s report on Mr. Peraza’s arrest was found on page 47 of the paper amidst the paper’s report of the occurrence of numerous criminal actions. After this criminal incident, Mr. Peraza was returned to the classroom by the School Board. He had the understanding that no disciplinary action would result from the criminal incident although he did receive a verbal warning from the principal at Allapattah Middle School. On or about September 30, 2004, Mr. Peraza was arrested at Allapattah Middle School for probation violation. The charge was eventually dismissed. During the time that the School Board was reviewing the incident, he was given an alternate location assignment. The principal at Allapattah Middle School gave Mr. Peraza a verbal warning for the incident. When Mr. Peraza returned to Allapattah Middle School, he was welcomed back by his colleagues, the students, parents, and his administrator; and he received several letters of support from students and parents. Further, at a back-to-school gathering in October 2004, when Mr. Peraza was introduced, he received a standing ovation. On or about November 26, 2005, Mr. Peraza was arrested for and charged with aggravated battery and witness tampering/threatening, involving a domestic incident with his wife. The court's disposition of the charges was probation for five years. At the time of the hearing in the case at hand, he was still on probation. At hearing, Mr. Peraza and his wife explained the circumstances of the charges involving the domestic incident. Mrs. Peraza suffers from "night terrors," a condition in which she, during sleep, screams and acts violently but is not aware of what she is doing. Prior to the incident, neither Mr. Peraza nor his wife had informed Mr. Peraza's daughters of or explained to them his wife’s condition because she was embarrassed by her condition. At the time of the incident, Mrs. Peraza was suffering from an episode of a night terror, and Mr. Peraza was attempting to calm and restrain her to ensure her safety. Mr. Peraza's daughters saw him, and one of the daughters, fearing for the safety of Mrs. Peraza, but not aware that Mrs. Peraza was experiencing one of her episodes, called 911. Mrs. Peraza, because of her condition, was unaware of what had occurred prior to the arrival of the law enforcement officers. The law enforcement officers attempted to question Mr. Peraza’s daughters, but he intervened demanding that the officers not question and upset his daughters. Mr. and Mrs. Peraza are being seen by a therapist for her condition. The undersigned finds the testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Peraza credible. Mr. Peraza explained the circumstances surrounding the plea agreement. At the time of the domestic incident and the ensuing charges, he was involved in a custody battle with his ex-wife over his daughters. Mr. Peraza was faced with expending funds for his criminal defense or his custody battle; he chose the custody battle. As a result, he accepted a plea agreement, which resulted in the five-year probation. The undersigned finds Mr. Peraza's testimony credible. Further, no evidence was presented as to whether Mr. Peraza actually pled nolo contendere to the charge. In as much as the evidence demonstrates that he accepted a plea agreement and that no objection was made to his explaining the charges and the court’s disposition, an inference is drawn and a finding of fact is made that he pled nolo contendere to the charge. No testimony was presented that students, parents, or faculty had any knowledge of Mr. Peraza’s arrest involving the domestic incident. Mr. Peraza does not deny any of the foregoing arrests, charges, or court dispositions. Mr. Peraza has had no further arrests, charges or convictions. By letter dated May 11, 2006, the School Board notified Mr. Peraza that, at its meeting on May 10, 2006, it took action to suspend him and initiate dismissal proceedings against him from all employment with it.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Miami-Dade County School Board enter a final order: Dismissing Counts I and II; and Immediately reinstating Javier Peraza, with back pay and benefits. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of February 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of February, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Jean Marie Middleton, Esquire School Board of Miami-Dade County 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33132 Carol R. Buxton, Esquire Florida Education Association 140 South University Drive, Suite A Plantation, Florida 33324 Dr. Rudolph F. Crew, Superintendent Miami-Dade County School District 1450 Northeast Second Avenue, No. 912 Miami, Florida 33132-1394 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines street, Room 1244 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 John L. Winn, Commissioner Department of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether Respondent failed to comply with a valid order of the Board of Dentistry and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent’s license to practice dentistry.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Health, is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of dentistry pursuant to Chapters 455 and 466, Florida Statutes. However, at the time the complaint in this cause was filed, this responsibility was assigned to the Agency for Health Care Administration. At the time the Final Order which is the subject of this proceeding was entered, this responsibility was assigned to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. Respondent, Arnold G. Clement, is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed dentist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number DN 0002500. Respondent’s last known address is 1405 Lennox Road East, Palm Harbor, Florida 34683. On April 22, 1993, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Dentistry, entered a Final Order in DPR Case Nos. 90-3628, 90-4117, 0092038, and 0092039 (Final Order), a prior disciplinary action against Respondent. The Final Order, which incorporated by reference an Order issued on February 16, 1993, and a Stipulation approved August 31, 1991, set forth the conditions of Respondent’s probation. Respondent’s signature is on the Stipulation and copies of the Order and Final Order were mailed to counsel representing Respondent in that proceeding. Respondent was aware of the Final Order and Order entered by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. The Final Order suspended Respondent’s license for six months, and after the period of suspension, placed Respondent’s license on probation for three years. As a condition of probation, Respondent was required to: (1) pay an administrative fine of $2,000; (2) perform ninety-six (96) hours of community service during each year of probation; and (3) complete sixty (60) hours of continuing education in removable prosthetics. Prior to the end of his six-month suspension period, Respondent was required to submit for Board approval, a written practice plan that provided for supervision by a Board approved licensee and for submission to the Board of written reports by the supervising licensee. During the probationary period, Respondent’s practice was restricted to work involving removable prosthetics. On or about October 23, 1993, and December 7, 1993, respectively, Respondent submitted to the Board the required Medical Practice Plan and Dental Practice Plan. These plans were apparently approved by the Board. By letter dated February 15, 1997, the agency reiterated the terms and conditions of Respondent’s probation. That letter provided in pertinent part the following: Pursuant to the final order filed April 22, 1993, the “hearing” held October 23, 1993 concerning the “Dental Practice Plan”, and the subsequent receipt and review of this practice plan, please note the following: * * * Probationary Conditions - 60 hours continuing education in “Removable Prosthetics. Quarterly Written Reports from Woodrow D. Wheetley, DDS, effective March/94, and continuing on a three (3) month quarter thereafter, ending December/96. Submit proof of 96 hours community service, with the first report due December/94, and continuing through December each year ending in 1996. We are requesting “Proof” be in the form of a notarized affidavit from the community service organization. The required fee of $2,000.00 is due April 24, 1994. It is your responsibility to assure that all reports are submitted timely and as specified in the final order filed April 22, 1993. . . . In the Medical Practice Plan submitted by Respondent on October 23, 1993, he agreed to: egin doing his community service work which if approved by the [B]oard would consist of seeing indigent patients at Dr. Wheetley’s office for either no fee or for the cost of the dentures only. In the Dental Practice Plan that Respondent submitted to the Board, he agreed to: egin doing his community service work consisting of removable prosthetics, which if approved by the [B]oard would consist of seeing patients referred to Dr. Clement by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Pasco Community Health Agency or any other agency as directed by the Board of Dentistry. . . . Respondent failed to submit the requisite proof that he performed ninety-six hours of community service hours for the years ending December 1994 and December 1995. In fact, no such proof was submitted at any time during Respondent’s during entire probationary period. Respondent failed to comply with the requirements of the Final Order relative to submission of quarterly written reports. Pursuant to the terms of Respondent's probation, these reports were to be submitted quarterly beginning March 1994, and continuing thereafter on at three month intervals, with the last report due December 1996. While these quarterly reports were to be prepared by the dentist supervising Respondent, it was Respondent’s responsibility to assure that all reports were timely submitted. In 1994, only two quarterly reports, not the required four, were submitted on Respondent’s behalf. The first report, due the end of March 1994, was not received by the Board until May 6, 1994. The second report was due at or near the end of June 1994, but was not submitted to the Board until November 1994. Thus, the only two quarterly reports received by the Board in 1994, were untimely submitted. Moreover, no quarterly reports were submitted by or on behalf of Respondent during the 1995 and 1996 calendar years. If Respondent had complied with the terms of and conditions of his probation as set forth in the Final Order, his probationary status would have ended in December 1996. Respondent violated the provisions of the Final Order entered in DPR Case Nos. 90-04117, 90-03628, 0092038, and 0092039 by failing to comply with the terms and conditions of his probation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Petitioner, the Department of Health, Board of Dentistry, enter a Final Order finding that Respondent violated a lawful order of the Board and revoking his license to practice dentistry. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of December, 1997, 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 (904) 488-9675 SUMCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of December, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Craig A. McCarthy, Esquire Greg W. Files, Esquire Thomas E. Wright, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Office of the General Counsel Allied Health Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 Arnold G. Clement, D.D.S. 1405 Lennox Road East Palm Harbor, Florida 34683 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building Six Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
