Findings Of Fact In April, 1987, DOA submitted recommendations to the Florida Legislature which included proposed changes in the state employees' group insurance program. Among the recommendations was a proposal that would require the Department to competitively bid HMO contracts in the state health program on the basis of cost, service area, plan benefits, and accessibility. The stated objective of the recommendation was to: encourage HMOs in a geographic location to structure their premiums to reflect actual cost experience and to provide the lowest possible cost for the state and state employees, while at the same time changing the current concept of the state's contributions to HMOs..." At the time of the DOA legislative recommendation, existing state law provided that persons eligible to participate in the state group health insurance program had the option to elect membership in any qualified HMO engaged in providing basic health services in the HMO service area where the employee resided in lieu of participating in the state self-insurance plan. Section 110.123(3)(d), Florida Statutes, Rule 22K-1.1003(21), F.A.C. A "qualified" HMO was defined as an entity qualified under the federal Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 300e-9, or certified under Part II of Chapter 641, Florida Statutes, which had entered into a contract with the State, and had achieved a designated level of participation by state employees. Rule 22K- 1.1003(21), F.A.C. Effective October 1, 1987, Chapter 87-156, Laws of Florida (now codified as Section 110.123(3)(d), Fla. Stat.) was amended to add the following: (3) STATE GROUP INSURANCE PROGRAM. -- * * * (d) * * * 2. Effective January 1, 1988, the Department of Administration shall, by rule, contract with health maintenance organizations to participate in the state group health insurance plan through the competitive bid process based on cost, service area, plan benefits, and accessibility. Effective January 1, 1988, all employees participating in the state group health insurance plan, irrespective of whether or not the member participates in a health maintenance organization, shall be subject to the same total premium, regardless of the state or employee's share. THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS Dennis Nye, then the DOA Director of the Office of State Employees Insurance and administrator of the state health insurance program, was directly responsible for implementing the new legislation regarding the HMO contracts. He initially determined that procurement of HMO contractual services was governed by Section 287.057, Florida Statutes. The Request For Proposals For Health Maintenance Organization Coverage was issued on July 31, 1987, as "Bid No. 88-05." It scheduled a presubmission conference on August 12, 1987, and established the deadline for receipt of proposals of August 28, 1987, with a contemplated date of award of contract on September 14, 1987, and an effective contract date of January 1, 1988. The Department clearly set forth the general purpose of the RFP in Section II as requiring each proposal to meet the benefit objectives and to provide high quality benefits and services to state employees. More specific objectives were as follows: A proactive approach to cost containment, including an emphasis on aggressive claims management, utilization review and superior statistical reporting Quality medical care which encourages health promotion, disease prevention, early diagnosis and treatment. Stability in the financial structure of offered health plans. Professional, high quality service in all administrative areas including claims processing, enrollment, membership services, grievances, and communications. Competitive premium rates which take into account the demographics and, if appropriate, the claims experience of State employees. DOA stated other objectives to be as follows: Have each county or contiguous group of counties be considered one service area. Award no more than two contracts per service area; however, the awards will be based on the HMO's ability to respond to the needs of employees and on accessibility by employees. Have reciprocal agreements between locations, if an HMO has multiple service areas. For example, an employee covered in Miami with a covered dependent living in Gainesville, should be provided similar services. Enter into a two year, non-experience rated contract. A provision will be included tying renewal action at each of the two renewals to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for Medical Care Services. This will become part of the contract. Section III of the RFP stated that to be considered as a "qualified" HMO, the proposer must be licensed by the Department of Insurance pursuant to Part II of Chapter 641, Florida Statutes. Each proposer was required to submit the following: Form PUR 7033, properly completed and signed. The completed Questionnaires Requirements Section (Please answer questions in the same order as they appear in that Section; do not reformat). The completed Cost Proposal forms (Please use the enclosed form on page 43 and 44; do not reformat). The completed Statement of Compliance on page 47. Documentation in support of the above. Section III further provided in part as follows: Proposals are to be submitted only on the forms and formats provided in this RFP. All exhibits requested must be submitted with your proposal along with answers to all questions contained in this RFP. Section IV of the RFP provided that each contract would be for a 24 month term, beginning January 1, 1988. The Department reserved the right to renew the contracts on the same terms and conditions of the initial contract for two additional one-year periods. Section VI of the RFP, concerning "Required Benefits and Services," listed the minimum benefits that must be provided, and also required that a complete list of all other intended services for each service area be provided. Section IX specified the following criteria for evacuation of the proposals: Premium Cost Extensiveness of Service Areas by County and/or contiguous Counties. Note: The State's objective is to award no more than two contracts per services (sic) area; however, the awards will be based on the HMO's ability to respond to the needs of employees and on accessibility by employees. Plan Benefits as follows: Covered services Limitations and exclusions Co-payments, deductibles and co-insurance features Range of providers including specialists and number of hospitals Out of service area coverage Grievance procedures Acessibility as follows: Reciprocal agreements Provider locations Number of primary care physicians and specialists, in relation to membership Completeness of proposals The RFP did not provide information on DOA's evaluation of the legislatively required criteria concerning the importance of price and other evaluation criteria. The Department weighed cost equal to benefits plus accessibility and determined accessibility was a part of the plan benefits. Section X was a questionnaire with forty-nine questions for the proposers to answer including questions regarding the proposer's license status, corporate structure, reserving practices, reinsurance contracts, service area, employee membership and staff, hospitals and other care facilities, participating physicians, utilization review, and other information regarding the proposer's case management, control mechanisms, statistical reporting, and the like. Each proposer was directed to submit audited financial statements for the last two fiscal years, together with financial statements for the first quarter of 1987. Section XI dealt with cost proposals and provided a form for completion as to proposed premium rates. In an undated addendum to the RFP, the Department added Question 50 to the RFP to provide information for use in a brochure which would allow state employees to compare the benefits offered by the various HMOs. In the pre-submission conference held on August 12, 1987, and attended by representatives of the HMOs, the participants were informed by Mr. Nye that the two criteria of cost and benefits would be weighted on an equal basis. He also advised that the State would enter into a two year, non-experience rated contract, subject to renewal which would tie rate increases to the Consumer Price Index for Medical Care Services. Proposers were told to quote a specific rate for the first year of the contract, and a percentage increase or decrease for each of the following three years. However, he noted that the State would evaluate cost solely on the basis of the premium for the first year. He indicated that two HMOs per service area would be awarded contracts based on the highest number of points received in the bid evaluation process, and not based upon the type of HMO, such as an individual practice association (IPA) or staff model. Then asked whether some factors would be weighted higher than others, Mr. Nye responded that benefits and cost would be weighted higher. THE PROPOSERS 15. Twelve HMOs submitted proposals to the Department for the South Florida area (Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties) in response to the RFP by the deadline, and several of those submitted more than one proposal. There was, however, no prohibition on submitting multiple proposals, and prospective bidders were told that they had that option. In this proceeding, proposals were received from Health Options, Heritage, and Humana to serve Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties, and a proposal from Gulfstream to serve Palm Beach County. Health Options is a for profit subsidiary of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, and is an individual practice association (IPA) model HMO. Health Options offers HMO services in Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties. It has a total membership of 23,074 members, of which 517 are state employees and dependents. Heritage is a subsidiary of Heritage Health System, Inc., for profit Delaware Corporation, and is an IPA model HMO. Heritage offers HMO services in Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties, and has a total membership of 12,500 members, including 10 state employees and dependents. Humana is a for profit subsidiary of Humana, Inc., and is a combination staff/IPA model HMO. Humana offers HMO services in Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties, and has a total membership of 91,217 members, including 3,273 state employees and dependents. Gulfstream, at the time its proposal was filed, was a limited partnership whose general partner was Equicor Holding Company and whose limited partner was H.C.A. Care of Florida, Inc. The limited and general partners were wholly owned subsidiaries of Equicor, Equitable H.C.A. Corporation, which is owned by Hospital Corporation of America and the Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States. On January 1, 1988, Gulfstream converted to corporate form, and is now known as Equicor Health Plan of Florida. Gulfstream offers services in Palm Beach County and has a total membership of 12,335 members, including 933 state employees and dependents. THE EVALUATION PROCESS The evaluation of the proposals submitted by HMOs throughout the state for the seven service areas was initially accomplished by employee evaluation teams made up of employees in Dennis Nye's office. He was assisted in his selection by Marie Walker, a benefits analyst in his office. Dennis Nye and Ms. Walker decided which employees could best evaluate the proposals based on the criteria established in the law, including familiarity with benefits and the request for proposal process. The employees selected for these duties had varying degrees of knowledge concerning health plan benefits, HMOs, and bid evaluations. After the initial evaluation was completed, the Department determined that inconsistent methods had been used to score the proposals and further directed Dennis Nye to continue the evaluation process based upon an objective scoring system which limited subjectivity to the maximum extent possible. As Secretary, I was concerned with the financial soundness of each bidder and instructed Dennis Nye to keep that aspect in mind when making his final recommendation. The second or "final evaluation" of the proposals was solely based on the five criteria contained in the RFP, i.e., premium cost, extensiveness of service area, plan benefits, accessibility, and completeness of proposals. In his memorandum of October 6, 1987, Mr. Nye initially recommended that contracts be awarded in the Jacksonville, Pensacola, and Gainesville Service Areas to the two HMOs in each area that had received the top rankings. 1/ However, in the South Florida Service Area, he recommended awarding four contracts based on the need to provide one staff model and one IPA model HMO in each county in the service area. It was Mr. Nye's belief that federal law required that one HMO of each type be offered in each service area, if available. I was concerned about this issue and asked DOA's General Counsel, Augustus Aikens, to review it. He informed me that the federal requirement was not applicable because a state was not included within the definition of "employer" under the applicable federal law. On the bass of this legal advice, directed Mr. Nye to review his previous recommendations as they related to the need to retain one IPA model and one staff model HMO in each service area. In his memorandum of October 26, 1987, Mr. Nye recommended that contracts be awarded to Health Options and to Heritage on the bases that they were "the lowest, best bids for (the) service area." In his memorandum of October 30, 1987, he again recommended that contracts be awarded to Health Options and Heritage. Throughout the entire bidding process, it was my desire to avoid awarding a contract to an HMO which was not in compliance with state law or the rules of the Department of Insurance. I had written to the Department of Insurance seeking its assistance to determine the ability of each bidder to comply with the state law and to meet the needs of the state employees. By letter of October 23, 1987, the Department of Insurance informed DOA that it had approved the rates of Health Options and Heritage. EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSALS Premium Costs The Department specifically designed the RFP to require each proposer to list separate costs in categories of "employee only" and "family" for active employees and retired employees under sixty-five. Required rates for Medicare recipients were to be shown separately listing rates for retirees, retiree and spouse (both on Medicare), and retiree and spouse (one with Medicare, with or without other eligible dependents). A fixed premium cost was required for calendar year 1988 and a percentage of that rate was to be shown for the successive three years. Rates for those last three years were to be "established as a percentage of the first year's premiums" with the maximum increase "limited to the increase, if any, in the overall medical portion of the Consumer Price index." (RFP, Section XI) The rates bid by each HMO were as follows: 2/ A. Heritage (low bid): Employee Only Family Dade, Broward, 66.46 166.15 and Palm Beach B. Health Options (low bid) Dade and Broward: 78.00 195.00 Palm Beach: 75.00 185.00 C. Humana, Dade: 85.02 206.01 Broward: 83.01 199.22 Palm Beach: 77.44 185.86 D. Gulfstream, Palm Beach: 78.92 197.28 (The instructions provided that the total cost of the "family plan" shall not be greater than 2.5 times the total cost of the "employee only" plan.) DOA evaluators computed a "mean" premium cost by adding the premiums for all bidders, dividing by three, and comparing each premium to the "mean," which was then given five points. A premium above the mean gave a bidder less than five points while a premium below the mean gave the bidder more than five points. The same method was used for the "employee only" plan, the "family" plan and the three Medicare retiree groups. Based on the Department's estimate that active employees constituted 90 percent and retirees 10 percent of an HMO membership, the final point calculations were: A. Heritage (low bid): Combined (Dade, Broward and Palm Beach) 9.35 B. Health Options (low bid) Dade and Broward: 7.75 Palm Beach: 9.1 Combined (Dade, Broward and Palm Beach) 8.17 C. Humana Dade: 5.72 Broward: 6.26 Palm Beach: 8.65 Combined: 6.57 D. Gulfstream Palm Beach: 6.61 The Hearing Officer evaluated the above process and found that the Department's action was reasonable even though "the cost proposals were evaluated solely on the basis of premium for 1988." He based his conclusion on: First, Nye announced at the pre-bid conference that proposals would be evaluated solely on that basis. Second, premium costs in succeeding years were limited to the lower of the cost proposed or the future and presently unknown Consumer Price index for Medical Care Services. Accordingly, no meaningful evaluation could have resulted from a consideration of premium costs for succeeding years. (R.O., page 17) Extensiveness of Service Area At the pre-submission conference, proposers were told that they should designate their service areas and that bids would be awarded on the basis of the entire service area. DOA's evaluators awarded two points for each full county and one-half point for each partial county and proposers received 2, 4, or 6 base points depending on whether their proposal was being evaluated on one, two, or three county service area. Heritage submitted one proposal, and designated its service area as Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties. Its proposal was evaluated on a composite or combined basis. Health Options submitted one proposal and designated its service area as Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties. Its proposal contained two separate premium costs: one for Dade and Broward Counties, and one for Palm Beach County. The Department evaluated Health Options' proposal as it related to the individual counties of Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach County, and on a combined basis (Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties). Humana submitted three separate proposals, which designated three separate service areas: Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties. The Department evaluated Humana's proposal for each county and on a combined basis. Gulfstream submitted one proposal, and designated its service area as Palm Beach County. The Department evaluated Gulfstream's proposal for Palm Beach County. The Hearing Officer found that the above evaluation procedure "was reasonable and a valid exercise of the agency's discretion." (R.O., page 35) ACCESSIBILITY The Department evaluated accessibility criterion on the basis of ten points each for reciprocal agreements provided statewide and national services, ten points for each county of the service area in which a hospital was located, two points for each specialty provider in each county, and one point for each provider physician and specialist. These raw scores were then evaluated further to obtain a "mean" score for each proposer as follows A. Heritage (low bid), Combined: 5.8 B. Health Options (low bid), Dade and Broward: 8.71 Palm Beach: 1.1 Combined: 9.51 C. Humana, Dade: 4.16 Broward: 3.32 Palm Beach: 1.31 Combined: 8.79 D. Gulfstream Palm Beach: 1.18 The Hearing Officer found that the above evaluation procedure "was reasonable and a valid exercise of the agency's discretion." (R.O., page 36) COMPLETENESS OF PROPOSALS The original statutory criteria contained in Chapter 87-156, Laws of Florida, included the areas of "cost, service area, plan benefits, and accessibility." To these criteria, DOA added the fifth criterion of completeness of proposals." The Hearing Officer ruled that "(t)he Department's inclusion of this criterion was reasonable." (R.O., page 22) TOTAL POINTS Total points were calculated by adding the base points to a weighted score. In deriving the weighted score, the criteria were weighted as follows: premium costs at 3.5 times, plan benefits at 2.5 times, accessibility at 1 time, extensiveness of service area at 1 time, and completeness of proposal at 1 time. In evaluating the proposals, the Department first evaluated bids solely against other bids for the same service area. For example, Gulfstream's bid was first evaluated against only those other bids that proposed to provide services in that county. In this manner, Gulfstream ranked fourth out of the five bidders in Palm Beach County, and thirteenth overall. The points and ranking assigned by the Department to the top six proposers and to Gulfstream were as follows: HMO Base Points Weights Total Points Rank Heritage (low bid): 35.34 34.15 70.5 1 Health Options Combined (low bid) 38.59 30.79 59.48 2 Av Med 38.95 24.875 63.825 3 Health Options Dade & Broward (low bid) 34.03 27.73 51.76 4 Heritage (high bid) 34.17 25.925 60.095 5 Humana Combined: 35.05 23.46 58.51 6 Gulfstream Palm Beach: 22.46 22.03 44.49 13 A review of this table shows that the weights altered the relative positions of each of the top six proposers. Mr. Nye testified that the weighting utilized did not affect the ranking of the bids of the proposers and only affected the ranking of one bidder, AV-Med. As the Hearing Officer concluded, the proof was contrary to Mr. Nye's testimony. His finding on this point is supported by competent substantial evidence and is hereby adopted. Based on the results of its evaluation the Department proposed to award the contracts to Heritage (low) and to Health Options (combined-low). HUMANA'S COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS Humana introduced expert testimony to demonstrate that, benefits and cost were weighted equally, its cost-to-benefits ratio would be comparable to or better than the successful proposers. Two analyses were presented. One actuarial expert adjusted the different benefit patterns of Heritage and Health Options up to the Human a benefit level and adjusted their price according to actuarial information filed with the Department of Insurance. The testimony sought to place the proposers on the same co-payment/benefit level to compare premium costs. The result was that Humana's premium cost was the second lowest for the South Florida Service Area. The second analysis adjusted Humana's benefit pattern down to the benefit/co-payment levels of Heritage and Health Options, and adjusted Humana's premium cost down accordingly based on Humana's filed actuarials. This testimony sought to place the proposers on the same co- payment/benefit level to compare premium costs, and Humana' premium cost was comparable to or lower than the second lowest bidder. The Hearing Officer found that the analyses by the expert witness were not persuasive in demonstrating that Humana was the second lowest proposer in this case, or that its cost/benefits were the second lowest. (R.O., page 26) For example, the fitness did not evaluate the bids based on the five criteria contained in the RFP, nor did he include in the cost/benefit analysis all of the criteria utilized by the Department to evaluate benefits. The findings of the Hearing Officer on this point are supported by competent substantial evidence and are therefore adopted. Plan Benefits The criteria for the evaluation of all proposals was set out in Section IX of the RFP as follows: Covered services; Limitations and exclusions; Co-payments, deductibles and co-insurance features; Range of providers including specialists and number of hospitals Out of service area coverage Grievance procedures Three sections in the RFP requested information which was relevant to the plan benefits. Section VI listed the required minimum benefits and requested a complete list of all other services. Each provider was directed to specify co-insurance, deductible, co-payment and other features for all benefits and services for each service area, and to list all limitations and exclusions for all benefits and services for each service area. Section X was a questionnaire which required each propose to list information concerning hospital, ambulatory care facilities services, available physician specialties, programs for health status evaluation, screening and health promotion, limitations or restrictions relative to organ transplants, range of providers and number of hospitals, availability of skilled nursing benefits, a list of the proposer's physician panel, and out-of-service area coverage. Under the Department's Scoring system, each propose received the following scores: A. Heritage 398 B. Health Options Dade & Broward 308 Palm Beach 165 C. Humana Dade 210.5 Broward 161.5 Palm Beach 184.5 D. Gulfstream Palm Beach 203 Using a similar method to calculate a "mean" score as was needed in the premium cost criteria, the base points were as follows: A. Heritage (low bid), Combined: 7.19 B. Health Options (low), Dade and Broward: 5.57 Palm Beach: 2.28 Combined: 5.91 C. Humana, Dade: 3.38 Broward: 2.92 Palm Beach: 3.34 Combined: 4.59 D. Gulfstream, Palm Beach: 3.57 Limitation to Two Successful Bidders Humana and Gulfstream argued that they should not be excluded from being awarded a contract because there was no foundation which required the limitation of the contracts to two or to any number of HMOs. The Department had considered awarding contracts to more than two proposers but rejected doing so because such action best effectuated the general objectives of the RFP, including that of promoting competitive rates. The Hearing Officer agreed with the Department and correctly found that "there was no showing that the selected HMOs could not adequately satisfy the needs of the state employees." (R.O., page 35). He concluded: "While the statute did not specify a number, it did specify that the Department contract through the competitive bid process. If the contracts are not limited in number, there is no competitive bidding process. Accordingly, it is concluded the Department acted reasonably in limiting the award to two HMOs." (R.O., page 35) Employee Evaluation Teams Yet another contention of the Petitioners was that the DOA employee evaluation teams lacked the experience and knowledge in the health care services field and should have been disqualified as not meeting the requirements of Section 287.057(16), Fla. Stat., which states as follows "A selection team of at least three employees who have experience and knowledge in the program areas and service requirements for which contractual serviced are sought shall be appointed by the agency head to aid in the selection of contractors for contracts of more than the threshold amount provided in s. 287.017 for CATEGORY FOUR." After full consideration of the above provision, the Hearing Officer agreed with the Department and found that the employees met the minimum statutory criteria (R.O., page 35) and had sufficient experience and knowledge in the area to properly evaluate the proposals (R.O., pages 13, 14). Departure From RFP At the pre-submission conference, Mr. Nye announced that cost and benefits would be weighted equally. In its final evaluation, the Department weighted cost at 3.5 and benefits at 2.5. The remaining criteria, accessibility, extensiveness of service area, and completeness of proposal , were weighted at I each. The Hearing Officer found that the Department's final evaluation failed to conform to the weighting factors announced at the pre- submission conference. 45. He further stated that: 43. The Department's failure to accord equal weight to cost and benefits was arbitrary and capricious. Such failure was a material departure from the RFP, as supplemented by the pre-bid conference, and adversely impacted the bid procurement process. ... Plan benefits and accessibility under Section 110.123(3)(d), Florida Statutes, and the RFP were distinct criteria upon which proposers formulated their responses. They were also distinct criteria when the Department told proposers that cost and benefits would be weighted equally, were distinct criteria when evaluated by the Departmen, and had a distinct impact upon the ranking of proposers. Under the circumstances, the Department's failure to accord them equal weight was arbitrary and capricious. Rather than acknowledge the disparity that existed between cost and benefits, the Department contended at hearing that accessibility was a part of benefits, and therefore cost and benefits were weighted equally. The Department's contention, and proof, was not persuasive and is rejected as not credible. (R.O., pages 24, 25) The Department finds that the above findings of fact are supported by competent, substantial evidence and adopts them in this final order. INTERVENORS' EXCEPTIONS TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Exceptions of Heritage Heritage filed six exceptions to the Recommended Order and each exception will be considered separately. Exception Number 1: Heritage argued that the Hearing Officer erred when he found that the Department's failure to accord equal weight to cost and benefits was arbitrary and capricious. While the Department agrees with the cases cited by Heritage which hold that administrative agencies have broad discretion in evaluating contracts for personal services such as health services, the Department is aware of its statutory responsibility to adhere to the bidding requirements of Section 287.057, Fla. Stat., and does not believe that it has the discretion to enter into contracts absent the competitive process. As to the testimony of Mr. Burbank, the Hearing Officer, as the trier of fact, was in the best position to assess his credibility and determine the weight to be accorded to his testimony. Koltay vs. Department of General Services, 374 So.2d 1386 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1979). The Department is unable to reject the Hearing Officer's findings in an area clearly within his responsibility. Exception Number 1 is rejected. Exception Number 2: Heritage next argues that the Hearing Officer erred in applying the arbitrary and capricious standard to the Department's actions relating to the weights given to various factors. The evidence shows that at the presubmission conference, Mr. Nye informed all proposers that the weights to be assigned to premium costs and to plan benefits would be equal. That information was clearly erroneous because, in the actual evaluations, the evaluators used a different weighting system, one that gave premium costs 40 percent greater weight than plan benefits. It is not the weights given to each category that makes the Department's actions arbitrary and capricious but its failure to adhere to and apply its announced weighting factors. On this basis, Exception Number 2 is rejected. Exception Number 3: Heritage urges that the Hearing Officer erred in concluding that the Department's failure to comply with the provisions of Section 287.012(11), Fla. Stat., was fundamental error. The above statute by its terms provides that "(r)equests for proposals shall state the relative importance of price and any other evaluation criteria." (emphasis added). According to the common usage of the term "shall", this language is mandatory (Fla. Tallow Corporation vs. Bryan, 237 So.2d 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970); S.R. vs. State, 345 So.2d 1018 (Fla. 1977) and requires that the weight of the criteria must be included in the RFP. Therefore, Exception Number 3 is rejected. Exception Number 4: Heritage argues that the Hearing Officer erred in granting standing to Gulfstream. In Preston Carroll vs. Fla. Keys Aqueduct Authority, 400 So.2d 524 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1981), an unsuccessful bidder who was third low bidder, attempted to overturn the award of the contract to the low bidder. The district court held that while a second low bidder to the award of a contract had the necessary "substantial interest" to contest the award. However, a third low bidder was unable to demonstrate that it was "substantially affected" and therefore lacked standing to protest the award of the contract to another bidder. Under the holding in this case, the Department concludes that Gulfstream did not have standing in this case since it ranked 13th in the ranking of low bidders. According, Exception Number 4 is accepted and included in the Conclusions of Law of this Order. Exception Number 5: Heritage argues that the Hearing Officer erred in concluding that Humana had standing to protest the Department's failure to state the relative importance of price and any other evaluation criteria in the RFP because Humana did not raise this point as an issue in its formal protest. If Humana did not have standing, then it was improperly permitted to protest the award of one of the contracts to Heritage. A review of Humana's protest shows that in Item 9, it argued that: "That the rejection of Humana's response to RFP #88-05, HMO coverage for State employees in Clay, Dade, Broward and Palm Beach Counties was not in accordance with all applicable rules, regulations, procedures, precedents and bid criteria." The rules of the Division of Administrative Hearings (Rule 22I-6.004(3), F.A.C.) provide for the minimum filing requirements in initial pleadings and state as follows: "(3) All petitions should contain: The name and address of each agency affected and each agency's file or identification number, if known; The name and address of the petitioner or petitioners, and an explanation of how his/her substantial interests will be affected by the agency determinations; A statement of when and how petitioner received notice of the agency decision or intent to render a decision; A statement of all disputed issues of material fact. If there are none, the petition must so indicate; A concise statement of the ultimate facts alleged, as well as the rules and statutes which entitle the petitioner to relief; A demand for relief to which the petitioner deems himself entitled; and Other information which the petitioner contends is material." (emphasis added) The requirements of this rule are directory only and not mandatory and are not designed to deny petitioners a hearing in which their "substantial interests" are affected. Section 120.57, Fla. Stat., see Seminole County Board of County Commissioners vs. Long, 422 So.2d 938, 940 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). The initial protest of Humana complied with the minimum filing requirements of Rule 22I-6.004(3), F.A.C., above, and was sufficient to place Heritage on notice of deficiencies alleged to be in the RFP. Exception Number 5 is rejected. Exception Number 6: Heritage argues that "(t)he Hearing Officer erred in concluding that the Department should invoke its right to reject all proposals." Contrary to Heritage's argument, the Department did not communicate how the criteria would be weighed in accordance with Section 287.012(11), Fla. Stat. It is not possible to cure the deficiency in the RFP by recalculating the proposals. The deficiency can be corrected by re-bidding for proposals for HMO medical services. On this basis, Exception Number 6 is rejected. HEALTH OPTIONS' EXCEPTION TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Health Options as one of the successful bidders filed an exception to the Hearing Officer's finding which stated that DOA had failed to state the relative importance of price and other criteria in the RFP. It argued that this issue was not presented by Humana or Gulfstream in the formal protests and thus could not be considered in the Recommended Order. Therefore, Health Options urged that the Department's award of the two HMO contracts was proper and should be upheld. As previously stated, Humana's protest argued that the rejection of its bid "was not in accordance with all applicable rules, regulations, procedures, precedents, and bid criteria." (Item 9 of Protest). Humana's protest complied with the minimum filing requirements of the Department of Administrative Hearings (Rule 22I-6.004(3), F.A.C.) which provide that petitions should contain: A statement of all disputed issues of material fact. If there are none, the petition must so indicate; A concise statement of the ultimate facts alleged, as well as the rules and statutes which entitle the petitioner to relief; A demand for relief to which the petitioner deems himself entitled; While Gulfstream's formal protest did not state that its protest was founded on the Department's failure to state the relative importance of price and other evaluation criteria in the RFP, all that was necessary for the Hearing Officer to rule on this issue was for one of the petitioner's to raise the issue in its initial protest. Since the issue was raised by Humana, the Exception of Health Options is rejected. DEPARTMENT'S EXCEPTIONS TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The Department also filed timely exceptions to the Recommended Order. After reviewing those exceptions, I find that to the extent they are not adopted and accepted herein, they are inappropriate findings of fact and have not been considered further in this Order.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order rejecting all proposals submitted for the South Florida service area. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 22nd day of March, 1988. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of March, 1988.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is qualified to take the examination for licensure as a mental health counselor.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner executed an application for licensure as a mental health counselor on June 13, 1989. He filed the application with the Board of Clinical Social Workers, Marriage & Family Therapists, and Mental Health Counselors on July 6, 1989. The application was accompanied by the appropriate fee and disclosed that Petitioner satisfied all of the educational requirements for taking the examination. However, Respondent determined that the application was incomplete because Petitioner failed to show that he had had the requisite clinical experience under the supervision of a qualified person. By letter dated July 17, 1989, Respondent informed Petitioner that his application was incomplete pending receipt of, among other things, documentation of the requisite clinical experience under the supervision of a qualified person. A second letter dated January 17, 1990, from Respondent to Petitioner restated that the application was still missing the items set forth in the prior letter. By Order of Intent to Deny filed April 12, 1990, Respondent informed Petitioner that it was denying his application on the grounds set forth above. Petitioner obtained a master's degree in clinical psychology from the University of Central Florida on December 20, 1985. From October 4, 1985, through October 20, 1988, Petitioner worked full- time as a psychological specialist at the Polk Correctional Institution under the supervision of Gerd Garkisch, Ph.D., who was head of the mental health department at the prison. Petitioner's work qualifies as clinical experience in mental health counseling. Dr. Garkisch does not hold any Florida professional licenses, such as a mental health counselor or psychologist. He is not so licensed in any other state, although he is licensed as a psychologist in Puerto Rico. Dr. Garkisch does not meet the education criteria required for licensure as a mental health counselor. Dr. Garkisch earned a master's degree in clinical psychology, which would otherwise satisfy the educational requirement for licensure as a mental health counselor. However, he received his degree from the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul, Institute of Psychology, which is located in Brazil. The school is not accredited by an accrediting agency approved by the U.S. Department of Education, Council on Postsecondary Accreditation, or Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation deny Petitioner's application for licensure as a mental health counselor. ENTERED this 11th day of October, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of October, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Linda Biederman, Executive Director Board of Mental Health Counseling 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Vytas J. Urba, Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Suresh Paul Pushkarna, pro se 309 Hidden Hollow Court Sanford, FL 32773
The Issue In this case, the Petitioners challenge the determination by the Respondent that Anastasia Rush, Ph.D. is an employee of the Baker County School Board based upon the Division of Retirement's determination that Dr. Rush is not an independent contractor. The issue is whether Dr. Rush should be a member of the Florida retirement system. This determination which turns upon whether she is an employee of the school district. Which turns upon whether or not she is, and was, an independent contractor providing professional services to the school board pursuant to contract.
Findings Of Fact The Board, in compliance with the statutory mandate requiring special education programs for emotionally-handicapped students, contracted with the Child Guidance Center, Inc., (CGC) to provide assessment and counseling of qualified students. See, Ex. A-B and Tr. 215-217. The Board obtained additional funding from grants to provide its students with these mandated special educational programs relating to mental health. See, Ex. E, F, G, H, and M. The Board contracts with neighboring school boards which are unable to afford their own programs and pay the Baker County Board to provide services to severely emotionally disturbed children in their counties as required by the statute. The Board's contracts with mental health specialists are dependent upon funding for special students from state monies allocated based upon the total number of students and upon grant money. See, Tr. 38 and 215-216. The Board has not established a permanent position for a health care professional to render clinical mental health services. See, Tr. 72 and 217. The Board has contracted for these professional services to severely emotionally handicapped students, as well as for the professional services of occupational therapists and physical therapists. See, Tr. 79. CGC, the first provider of services to emotionally-handicapped students, is a corporation whose business is providing mental health care. See, Tr. 29. The Board contracted annually with CGC beginning in 1982 to provide a specified number of hours of counseling for its qualifying students. See, Tr. 31-33. The number of hours stated in the contract with CGC varied according to the availability of funding and established a financial liability limit on the contract. Each contract between the Board and CGC was for the term of the school year and could be terminated by either party upon 30 days notice. See, Ex. B. The contracts between the Board and CGC provided that the services would be rendered in the Baker County public schools. See, Ex. B. CGC billed the Board for each hour of counseling provided by its employees. See, Ex. B. CGC did its billing and accounting on a quarterly basis and arranged with the Board to be paid on a quarterly basis for its convenience. See, Ex. B; Tr. 145-146. Dr. Rush was an employee of CGC and first began providing mental health services to the students of Baker County in the early 1980's. See, Tr. 142. Dr. Rush is a licensed psychologist specializing in child psychology. Dr. Rush received a graduate degree in psychiatric social work from the University of Athens, Greece, and received a Ph.D. in clinical psychology from the University of Florida. See, Tr. 140-141. Dr. Rush has worked in the field of mental health for approximately 20 years. Dr. Rush began her own practice while still working for CGC through Dr. Freeman under the name of Salisbury Counseling Clinic. See, Tr. 168-169 and 183. In 1990, Dr. Rush no longer wanted to be an employee of CGC and became an independent contractor with CGC. See, Tr. 146-147. Dr. Rush's private practice grew gradually and prior to 1991, she had resigned her employment with CGC, concentrating on her private practice. See, Tr. 146. In 1991, the Board cancelled its contract with CGC. See, Tr. 37-38. Wanda Walker, administrator of the special education programs, approached Dr. Rush and asked her if she would provide the mental health care as an independent contractor, as previously provided by CGC. See, Tr. 37-38. On August 16, 1991, the Board entered into two contracts with Dr. Rush to provide different types of mental health counseling to its students. See, Ex. A One contract between Dr. Rush and the Board provided that Dr. Rush would provide mental health services to the Board for at least nine hours per week, from which two hours would be committed to the special needs of the students in the Opportunity Program at Baker County High School. The contract services were for 37 weeks of the 1991-1992 school year. The cost of the service was $40.00 per hour, and Baker County agreed to pay Dr. Rush an amount not to exceed $14,460.00 for the service. The agreement required Dr. Rush to perform the services at Baker County public school sites, and provided that the mental health services should include psychological evaluations, classroom observations, participation as a member of the crisis intervention team, and consultations with teachers, guidance counselors and other appropriate school personnel. Dr. Rush submitted a statement of hours worked every two weeks, and was paid the contractual rate for each hour of professional services rendered. The contract provided that either party could terminate upon 30 days written notice. The other contract between the Board and Dr. Rush provided that Dr. Rush would provide mental health services to severely emotionally disturbed students in the Day Treatment Program at Southside Educational Center. This contract provided that Dr. Rush would provide case management, assessments and evaluations, consultation to school personnel, mental health services appropriate to the program, and direct the counseling services provided to Day Treatment Program students. The contract provided that Dr. Rush would provide for 10 hours of professional services per week for 37 weeks at a cost of $40.00 per hour not to exceed $14,550.00. The contract provided that Dr. Rush would submit a statement of hours worked every two weeks, and that the agreement could be terminated by either party upon 30 days written notice. On June 4, 1992, Dr. Rush entered into an agreement to provide professional services to the Board for the 1992-1993 school year. This contract duplicated the previous contract for nine hours per week of mental health services for 37 weeks in the 1992-1993 school year at a cost of $40.00 per hour not to exceed $14,460.00. The only significant change in this contract was that the contract covered the provision of services by Dr. Rush or her associate, Nancy Davie. On June 4, 1992, Dr. Rush entered into a contract with the Board to provide mental health services to severely emotionally disturbed students similar to the previous contract for the 1991-1992 school year. The contract for mental health services to severely emotionally disturbed students did not provide for the provision of these services by Nancy Davie. When the June 1992 contracts were executed, Dr. Rush had incorporated her professional practice; however, she entered into the contracts with the Board in her individual name. The Board was unaware of Dr. Rush's incorporation. Dr. Rush did not believe that there was a difference between contracting in her name or the name of her corporation; however, this contract was subsequently amended to indicate that her corporation was the contracting entity. See, Tr. 152-153, 189 and 190. Dr. Rush contracted with the Board in the name of her corporation, Protepon Counseling Center, in 1993. Dr. Rush maintained two offices, one in Jacksonville and one in Macclenny, where she held herself out to the public as a individual providing psychological counseling and where she conducted her professional business. Generally, Dr. Rush and her associates provided their services at the schools within the district; however, Dr. Rush maintained a professional office in Macclenny, Florida, and met with students and their parents at her professional office as necessary. See, Tr. 71. Both Dr. Rush and CGC provided services at the various schools within the district to alleviate the need to transport children and disrupt their schedules. Dr. Rush and her associates used the offices of guidance counsellors when at the various schools. See, Tr. 14 and 85. During the time that Dr. Rush has provided mental health services to the Board, Dr. Rush has provided her own tools for counseling and assessing students. She provides all of her own supplies. See, Tr. 88 and 297-298. Dr. Rush is not reimbursed for the use of her supplies or standardized tests. See, Tr. 211 Dr. Rush provides mental health counseling to private individuals and agencies, to include St. Johns River Hospital, the Center for Life Enrichment, Capp Care, Flamedco, Inc., and the Florida Medical Association Alternative Insurance Program. See, Tr. 160-165. Dr. Rush provides a profit sharing plan to her associates and maintains workers compensation insurance for her employees. See, Tr. 174 and 208. The contracts with the Board make up only a fraction of Dr. Rush's gross income from her professional practice. See, Ex. J(2); Tr. 169-170. Dr. Rush maintains her own retirement fund and has done so since she left CGC in 1991. See, Ex. J(3); Tr. 172-173. Neither the Board or Dr. Rush consider their relationship to be an employment relationship. See, Tr. 149 and 217. It was never the intent of Dr. Rush to be an employee of the Board or the Board's intent for Dr. Rush to be its employee. See, Tr. 149 and 181. Both Dr. Rush and the Board anticipated the continuation of the independent contractor relationship. The Board paid Dr. Rush for the services rendered by her and her associates from the special fund and not from a salary or payroll account. See, Ex. I. Every two weeks, Dr. Rush submitted statements of professional services rendered by her or her associates and charged the Board per hour for these services. See, Tr. 180-182. Dr. Rush was paid for each hour of service which she or her associates provided, and was not paid a salary or reimbursed or compensated for travel costs or supplies. See, Ex. I; Tr. 297 The statements do not indicate whether Dr. Rush or one of her associates provided the service to the Board. The Board never paid any of Dr. Rush's associates. See, Tr. 43-44, 106 and 107. Dr. Rush's associates have always been paid by Dr. Rush. See, Tr. 151-152. The Board never deducted withholding taxes from its payments to Dr. Rush. See, Ex. I. Dr. Rush paid her own social security tax. See, Tr. 207. Dr. Rush was paid by the Board as she is paid by all of her clients at the agreed-upon hourly rate for her professional counseling services. See, Ex. I; Tr. 182. In making its determination, the Division of Retirement relied upon the answers provided by Dr. Rush and Wanda Walker to a questionnaire sent out by the Division of Retirement. See, Ex. O. Both Dr. Rush and Ms. Walker answered the questionnaire without help from legal counsel and without understanding its purpose or legal implications. See, Tr. 77-79, 82, and 176. Dr. Rush provided an annual orientation to new personnel and students; however, she did not take any training program required by the Board during the period of these contracts. The answers provided by Dr. Rush and Ms. Walker were ambiguous regarding the fact that the annual orientation in which Dr. Rush participated was provided by Dr. Rush to Board employees. See, Ex. O; Tr. 70, 88-89, and 178-179. Using the school calendar, Dr. Rush prepared a schedule calendar indicating the dates, times, and school locations at which she or her associates would provide professional services under the contract with the Board. See, Tr. 178. See, Tr. 45-48, and Ex. D. Pursuant to their contract, Dr. Rush provided professional services for the Board at the times and dates when students were attending school. See, Ex. C. Dr. Rush set her own schedule within the confines of the school day and the school year. The purpose of the calendar schedule was to alert teachers as to Dr. Rush's availability at particular schools. See, Tr. 85. Dr. Rush and her associates did not check in with a supervisor at the various schools. Dr. Rush called Ms. Walker, who notified the appropriate school when a new counsellor would be going to that school. See, Tr. 121-122. This practice was designed for security reasons to let the school know for security reasons that a new individual would be providing services. Dr. Rush was available if there was an emergency. When paged, Dr. Rush called the school and determined from the facts if it was necessary for her or one of her associates to respond. See, Tr. 131 and 297. Dr. Rush was not subject to being summoned by Board employees, but exercised her professional judgment about the by of response which was necessary. See, Tr. 131 and 297. Dr. Rush and her associates evaluated students and recorded the results of their testing and observations. They participated as part of the multidisciplinary team required by law to assess special education students and prepare their educational programs. In this regard, the reports of Dr. Rush and her associates were expressions of their professional expert opinion. See, Tr. 66. It was the experience and expertise of Dr. Rush and her associates which the Board sought in contracting with Dr. Rush. The Board did not direct Dr. Rush's counseling of students. See, Tr. 81-87. Dr. Rush and her associates conducted their counseling without any control from the Board. See, Tr. 83-84 and 227.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Dr. Rush be treated as an independent contractor and denied participation in the Florida Retirement System. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of January, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 93-3378 Both parties submitted proposed findings which were read and considered. Contrary to the Division's rules, Baker County did not number its findings and did not limit them to short statements of fact. Therefore, although most of its findings were adopted in the order originally presented, it is virtually impossible to identify which of the findings were adopted. In order to assist those attempting to determine which facts were adopted, and which were rejected and why, the numbers listed under the Recommended Order column below reference the paragraphs in the Recommended Order which contain the findings suggested by the Division, or the alternative findings suggested by Baker County which the Hearing Officer determined were based upon the more credible evidence. It is readily apparent when the reason is stated for rejecting the proposed findings. Retirement's Findings Recommended Order Paragraphs 1-3 1,2,3,6,7,13 Paragraph 4 14 Paragraph 5,6 19 Paragraph 7 Rejected as contrary to more detailed descriptions of the contracts at issue. Paragraph 8,9 20,21,22 Paragraph 10 Irrelevant. Paragraph 11 As indicated in the Conclusions, there is no issue concerning the fact that employees of school boards are qualified for membership in the retirement system. The issue is whether Dr. Rush was an employee. Paragraph 12,13,14 23,24,25,49,50 Paragraph 15 26,32,34 Paragraph 16 The differences in the terms of the board's contracts with CGC and Dr. Rush are not relevant. Paragraph 17 1,53,54 Paragraph 18 48,49 Paragraph 19 37-44 Paragraph 20-23 2-4,37-44. The manner in which some non-instructional staff are paid is irrelevant. Paragraph 24 26,28-31 Paragraph 25 45-47 Paragraph 26 51,52 Paragraph 27-28 53 paragraph 29 26,28 Paragraph 30,31 25 Paragraph 32,33 Irrelevant argument. COPIES FURNISHED: A.J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Bldg. C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1560 Sylvan Strickland, General Counsel Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 309 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950 John W. Caven, Jr., Esquire Claire M. Merrigan, Esquire CAVEN, CLARK, RAY & TUCKER, P.A. 3306 Independent Square Jacksonville, FL 32202 Jodi B. Jennings, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Florida Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Bldg. C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1560 William H. Linder, Secretary Department of Management Services 309 Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not the Respondent, based on conduct set forth hereinafter in detail, is guilty of unprofessional conduct and of being convicted or found guilty of a crime which directly relates to the practice of nursing or the ability to practice nursing.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant findings of fact: At times material hereto, Respondent, Cecelia Faye Norwood, was licensed as a practical nurse by petitioner and has been issued license number 0533451 by the Florida Hoard of Nursing. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit A) During times material herein, Respondent was employed as a licensed practical nurse at South Florida State Hospital, Hollywood, Florida and was assigned to a ward where she administered treatment to psychiatric patients. During the afternoon of October 21, 1983, while employed at South Florida State Hospital, Respondent administered an injection to a fifteen (15) year old patient. Thereafter, Respondent assisted other hospital employees in restraining the patient. The patient had been placed in a "four-point restraint" (with both arms and legs restrained) however she managed to pull her left arm from the restraint. While Respondent was attempting to restrain patient D'Antuono's left arm, the patient grabbed Respondent's hair, pulling her head towards the bed frame at which time Respondent struck the patient in the face. During the afternoon, Respondent was assisted by employees Patricia Calcagino, an LPN, and Mrs. Fico. Those two employees released the patient's fingers from Respondent's hair and while Ms. Calcagino was attempting to refasten the restraint straps to the bed frame, Respondent struck the patient in the face. (Tr. 19 and 37) This incident was reported to the hospital and an internal investigation was conducted by Ben Drazen, Director of Internal Affairs for South Florida State Hospital. Later, a joint investigation of the incident was conducted by South Florida State Hospital, the Office of Children, Youth and Family Services, and the Broward County Sheriff's Department. Respondent was criminally charged based on the investigation by the Broward County Sheriff's Department and, on October 17, 1984, entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge of knowingly or by culpable negligence, permitting the physical or mental injury to a child by striking said child about her face with her hand, in violation of Section 827.04(2), Florida Statutes. The patient involved in the aforesaid incident was a stocky patient who had been diagnosed as psychotic and slightly retarded. The patient had a history of combative, assaultive behavior. Ms. Rotton, an RN who was called upon to offer her opinion as to whether or not Respondent's conduct was unprofessional, considered that such conduct was inappropriate or unprofessional. She understood that Respondent was provoked to the point where she struck the patient and "she could understand how such an incident might happen." The patient is a patient with a "very well-documented history of extremely assaultive behavior, very, very agitated. She has injured many employees in the past." (Testimony of Drazen, Tr. 34 and 35) Nurse Rotten also acknowledged that the patient involved had given the staff quite a few problems. The patient bit, kicked, scratched, clawed and spit in the face of other employees. (Testimony of Rotton, Tr. 28 and 29) Nurse Rotten had observed Respondent work with patients for a long time. Nurse Rotten has "seen [Respondent] deal with some pretty difficult patients. I've seen her, you know, assaulted, by patients; nothing like this has ever happened. . . ." (Tr. 30) Respondent has never been disciplined by either her then employer, South Florida State Hospital, 2/ or Petitioner, Board of Nursing. (Tr. 30)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended that the Respondent, Cecelia Faye Norwood, be placed on probation for a period of one (1) year subject to appropriate terms of probation as deemed indicated by her conduct, found hereinabove, by Petitioner. 3/ RECOMMENDED this 21st day of March, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of March, 1985.
The Issue Whether the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) has jurisdiction to conduct a formal hearing under the provisions of Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, if the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) does not make a "cause" or "no cause" determination, as provided in Section 760.11(3), Florida Statutes, but rather issues a Notice of Dismissal, pursuant to Section 760.11(8), Florida Statutes. Whether DOAH has jurisdiction to conduct a formal hearing under the provisions of Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, if the Petition for Relief was not timely filed pursuant to Section 760.11(6), Florida Statutes. Whether DOAH has jurisdiction to conduct a formal hearing under the provisions of Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, if Petitioner fails to name Respondent in the Petition for Relief filed with the FCHR, as required by Section 760.11(1), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing facts and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing with prejudice the Petition of Manuel Pedraza in DOAH Case No. 02-0237, and FCHR Case No. 99-0849, for failure to timely file his Petition for Relief and for failure to properly name Respondent in the Petition. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of June, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 21st day of June, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan K. W. Erlenbach, Esquire Erlenbach Law Offices, P.A. 2532 Garden Street Titusville, Florida 32796 W. Russell Hamilton, III, Esquire Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP 5300 First Union Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131-2339 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent failed to protect one of the residents of its facility from sexual coercion. Whether Respondent failed to report the alleged violation immediately to the administrator.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with licensing and regulating nursing homes in Florida, under state and federal statutes. Respondent is a licensed nursing facility located in Orlando, Florida. Respondent is a small not-for-profit facility, overseen by a voluntary board of directors. Resident 2 is a Hispanic male, 57 years of age, who speaks English and Spanish fluently. He was a self-admitted resident at Respondent's nursing home facility during the relevant time period. Respondent is a small, not-for-profit facility, overseen by a voluntary board of directors. Respondent receives its funds to operate through various types of sources such as United Way, City of Orlando, Orange County, and many foundations. At all times material hereto, Petitioner is the state agency charged with licensing of nursing homes in Florida and the assignment of a licensure status. The statute charges Petitioner with evaluating nursing home facilities to determine their degree of compliance with established rules as a basis for making the required licensure assignment. Additionally, Petitioner is responsible for conducting federally mandated surveys of those long-term care facilities receiving Medicare and Medicaid funds for compliance with federal statutory and rule requirements. These federal requirements are made applicable to Florida nursing home facilities. Pursuant to the statute, Petitioner must classify deficiencies according to the nature and scope of the deficiency when the criteria established under the statute are not met. The classification of any deficiencies discovered is determinative of whether the licensure status of a nursing home is "standard" or "conditional." The evaluation, or survey, of a facility includes a resident review and, depending upon the circumstances, may consist of record reviews, resident observations, and interviews with family and facility staff. Surveyors note their findings on a standard prescribed Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services Form 2567, titled "Statement Deficiencies and Plan of Correction" and is commonly referred to as a "2567" form. During the survey of a facility, if violations of regulations are found, the violations are noted and referred to as "Tags." A "Tag" identifies the applicable regulatory standard that the surveyors believe has been violated, provides a summary of the violation, sets forth specific factual allegations that they believe support the violation and indicates the federal scope and severity of the noncompliance. Agency surveyors use the "State Operations' Manual," a document prepared by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, as guidance in determining whether a facility has violated 42 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.), Chapter 483. In March 2003, Petitioner conducted a survey to investigate a complaint that Respondent failed to protect a resident from sexual coercion. The allegation of the deficient practice was based upon an incident involving Resident 2. Pursuant to 42 C.F.R. Section 483.13(b), a nursing facility must assure that a resident has the right to be free from verbal, sexual, and mental abuse. Failure to do so constitutes a deficiency under Florida Statutes. At hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of Jane Woodson, nursing program specialist, employed by Petitioner. Woodson testified that she does state and federal surveys in both state and federal licensure and federal institutions to identify or define any noncompliance. She visited Respondent's facility on or about March 26, 2003, and prepared a 2567 form based on her observations, interviews, and record review. It details the results of her investigation, including her interviews with the director of nursing, the administrator, the social worker, the compliance officer, a licensed practical nurse (LPN), and the assistant director of nursing. She also toured the total facility, observed its residents and also observed Resident 2. Woodson observed that Resident 2 was a well-dressed, alert male, and she spoke to him about the incident on March 15, 2003. Woodson did not have an interpreter present at any time when she interviewed Resident 2, nor did she consider it necessary to do so. At no time did she have any concern that Resident 2 was not mentally competent to understand her when she interviewed him. Woodson was not aware that Resident 2 signed his own financial responsibility forms, patient's rights statement, or that he voluntarily checked himself into the facility. She was not aware that Resident 2 made his own medical decisions in the facility. Following her investigation, Woodson conducted an exit interview with the administrator, the director of nursing, the assistant director of nursing, the social worker, and the compliance offer. Woodson included in her report a document filled out by Sharon Ebanks (Ebanks), registered nurse (RN), but she did not personally interview Ebanks. She also did not interview Marilyn Harrilal, LPN, nor did she interview the employee involved in the incident. She advised the administrator of her finding a Class II deficiency and provided a correction date of April 17, 2003. She also concluded that this was an isolated incident. Ebanks was the weekend charge nurse on March 15, 2003, and was in charge of the facility on that date. Ebanks was working on the north wing when she was called by Mr. Daniels, a LPN working on the south wing. Daniels told Ebanks about the alleged incident between Resident 2 and the staff person. Ebanks then called Resident 2; the employee, Marcia Dorsey (Dorsey); and the certified nursing assistants (CNAs), Ms. Polysaint and Ms. Mezier (first names not in the record), who had witnessed the incident, to the green room. She also asked Harrilal to act as a witness to her interviews with the individuals involved. Ebanks first spoke to Resident 2 and Dorsey, both of whom stated that nothing had happened. She then questioned the two CNAs about what they had witnessed. Ebanks concluded, after interviewing both the participants and the witnesses, that the incident was not abuse, but rather, was inappropriate behavior on the part of both Resident 2 and the employee. She based this conclusion on the fact that Dorsey is a trainable Dows Syndrome individual, who was supposed to be working when the incident occurred. Ebanks concluded that Resident 2 had not been abused or hurt in any manner and had participated voluntarily. Ebanks noted that Resident 2 makes his own medical decisions, is considered to be mentally competent, has never been adjudicated mentally incompetent and has not had a legal guardian appointed for him. Ebanks concluded that Resident 2 had not been abused. Ebanks testified that she completed a Resident Abuse Report on March 20, 2003, concerning the incident, after being asked to do so by Respondent's compliance officer. The resident abuse report was admitted into evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 1. At the time of the initial investigation of the incident, Ebanks asked Harrilal to accompany her to the green room. While there, Harrilal listened as Ebanks first questioned Resident 2 and then Dorsey. Both stated that nothing happened. Harrilal then witnessed Ebanks question the CNAs, Polysaint and Mezier. Woodson did not interview Harrilal during her investigation. Ann Campbell, RN, a nurse for more than 38 years, was functioning in the role of assistant director of nursing on March 15, 2003. She was not in the facility on that day and was not made aware of the incident on the date of its occurrence, but became aware when she returned to work. Campbell is familiar with Resident 2. He was initially admitted with a diagnosis of alcohol abuse and dementia. She observed that he was a little confused and forgetful when first admitted, but has since became more alert and responsive. Michael Annichiarico, administrator of the facility and custodian of records, including medical records and personnel files, reviewed the personnel file of the employee, Dorsey. There were no disciplinary actions or counseling prior to the incident of March 15, 2003. Annichiarico is familiar with Resident 2 and has interacted with him. Annichiarico testified that, according to the resident's medical record, Resident 2 has never been declared mentally incompetent and that he makes his own medical and financial decisions. The Progress Note of Gideon Lewis, M.D., dated October 9, 2003, with transcription, was admitted into evidence as Respondent's Exhibit 2 and indicates that Resident 2 is mentally competent and is responsible for his actions as his cognitive functions are intact. Patricia Collins, RN, testified as an expert in the areas of nursing, long-term care, nursing home rules and regulations, and survey procedures. Collins is a RN, currently working in consulting work. She reviewed documents related to the incident. She went to the facility on two different occasions and interviewed the staff. She also reviewed the documents contained in the report of Woodson's survey. Collins interviewed the two CNAs, Ebanks, Resident 2, the medical records custodian, the director of nursing, the social worker, and Harrilal. She spent approximately four to five hours in the facility. After speaking with Resident 2, Collins concluded that he was cognitively intact and very alert. He appeared to be mentally competent. Before interviewing Resident 2, Collins reviewed his resident chart and the documents used to sign himself into the facility. She also reviewed physician's orders for medication, progress notes, nurses' notes, the MDS and the care plan. Collins testified that she reviewed the resident's financial responsibility statement and patient's rights statement, both of which were signed by the resident himself. The resident had no legal guardian. Collins concluded that during the incident of March 15, 2003, there was some inappropriate behavior that needed to be addressed and that this behavior was properly addressed by staff. The inappropriate behavior was the observation of hugging and kissing between Dorsey and Resident 2 in an empty resident's room while the employee was on duty. Collins was of the opinion that the behavior was mutual and not abuse. Collins found no reason to conclude that any harm had been done to Resident 2. Collins testified that a nursing home resident has the right to associate with whomever he desires. He also has the right to have voluntary and willing sexual contact with other people. The inappropriateness in this incident was due to the fact that Resident 2 had involvement with someone with mental deficits. The incident was inappropriate on the part of the employee as well, since she was participating in it during her working time. Collins disagrees with the findings of Petitioner's surveyor. Collins testified that the investigator should have determined the abuse allegation was unfounded. According to Collins' expert testimony, the facility staff acted appropriately. The CNA who initially observed the activity called another CNA as a witness. They then went to their supervisor, who then went to the ranking nurse at the facility at that point in time, which was Ebanks. Ebanks questioned the employee, Resident 2 and the witnesses. She had the presence of mind to have a witness there as well, which was Harrilal. Ebanks made the determination, based on her nursing judgment and in her authority as nurse in charge of the facility on that day, that there was inappropriate behavior on behalf of Resident 2 and the employee. She put a care plan in place as to Resident 2, separated the employee and Resident 2, and sent the CNAs back to work. Collins testified there was no need to report the incident to the Department of Children and Family Services because there was no evidence of abuse or harm to Resident 2. Collins' testimony is found to be credible. Based on all the evidence, it is found and determined that an incident occurred at Respondent's facility on Saturday, March 15, 2003, at approximately 11:00 a.m., involving Resident 2 and a staff employee of Respondent, Dorsey. Resident 2 and the employee were seen by staff employees sitting on a bed hugging and kissing each other in a resident's room that was not being used at the time. Two CNA employees witnessed and reported the incident to the charge nurse. Ebanks was the charge nurse on duty on March 15, 2003. Ebanks was advised of the incident shortly after it occurred and interviewed both Resident 2 and the employees involved, as well as the employees who witnessed the incident. The interviews were conducted in the presence of Harrilal. She completed a Resident Abuse Report on March 20, 2003, at the request of the risk manager within four business days of the incident, and the administrator was advised of the incident on the first business day after the incident. Resident 2 was alert and oriented on the date of the incident. Although he had a low level of dementia, he was mentally competent at the time of the incident. He does not meet the definition of an "elderly person" or "vulnerable adult" under Chapter 415, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order of dismissal of the Administrative Complaint be entered in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of January, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 28th day of January, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: George F. Indest, III, Esquire The Health Law Firm Center Pointe Two 220 East Central Parkway, Suite 2030 Altamonte Springs, Florida 32701 Gerald L. Pickett, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Sebring Building, Suite 330K 525 Mirror Lake Drive, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Whether Rule 64B4-21.007, formerly numbered 59P-21.007, Florida Administrative Code, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Case No. 97-5032RU Whether the determination, in the first instance, by the Respondent of whether a petitioner for a Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, formal hearing has raised a disputed issue of material fact, is a statement that constitutes a rule, pursuant to Section 120.52(15), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulation of the parties and the evidence educed at hearing, the following findings of fact are found: Petitioner filed an application for licensure as a marriage and family therapist pursuant to Section 491.005, Florida Statutes. After consideration of the documents submitted by Petitioner, Respondent issued its Order of Intent to Deny filed August 1, 1997. The grounds stated by the Respondent for denying Petitioner's application are that Petitioner did not demonstrate that he completed two years of clinical supervision under the supervision of a supervisor that meets the qualifications stated in Rule 64B4-21.007, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner completed six semester hours of graduate coursework in marriage and family systemic theories and techniques at an accredited university. The courses were taught by Petitioner's clinical supervisor. Petitioner's supervisor for his clinical experience is a licensed psychologist who did not complete, as a student, six semester hours or eight quarter hours of graduate coursework in marriage and family systemic theories and techniques. The Board interprets Rule 64B4-21.007 to require the supervisor to take the coursework as a student. Teaching these subjects is not considered coursework. Petitioner filed a timely Petition for Formal Hearing which alleged that he had completed two years of clinical supervision under a qualified supervisor. Respondent denied Petitioner's Petition for Formal Hearing on the grounds that Petitioner had not raised a disputed issue of material fact. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal of Respondent's Order denying the Petition for Formal Hearing. Said appeal is pending before the Florida First District Court of Appeal. When Respondent receives petitions for hearing on licensure denials requesting a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, the Board reviews the petition and the application file and determines if the applicant has raised a disputed issue of material fact. Rule 64B4-21.007, Florida Administrative Code, was originally adopted on July 6, 1988, as Rule 21CC-21.007. The rule, as originally promulgated, defined "qualified supervisor" as, inter alia, a licensed psychologist who also meets the educational requirements for licensure as a marriage and family therapist. The language requiring the licensed psychologist to meet the educational requirements for licensure as a marriage and family therapist was deleted by the Board in 1993. The deleted language would have required the supervisor to demonstrate not only six semester hours of graduate coursework in marriage and family systemic theories and techniques, but also to demonstrate all of the coursework required for licensure as a marriage and family therapist, a practicum in marriage and family therapy under a qualified supervisor as defined by the Board, and supervised experienced under a qualified supervisor as defined by the Board. In 1996, the Board amended the rule to define "qualified supervisor" as, inter alia, a licensed psychologist who "can document a minimum of six semester or eight quarter hours of graduate coursework in marriage and family systemic theories and techniques." The purpose of the amendment was to provide interns access to qualified people to supervise applicants for licensure in marriage and family therapy, while ensuring that the supervisor was in fact supervising for marriage and family therapy, i.e., training marriage and family interns. Significant differences exist between the profession of marriage and family therapy and the use of marriage and family systemic theories as a modality in the practice of psychology. The legislature recognizes those differences and requires specific education for each of the licenses issued under Chapter 491. The uniqueness of marriage and family therapy as a distinct profession is an acceptance and integration of a systemic paradigm of thought. The professional marriage and family therapist sees the whole as greater than the sum of its parts and seeks to understand the interrelationship of the parts. The education and training required for entry into the profession of marriage and family therapy provides socialization into the systemic framework of the profession, and the two years of supervised clinical experience is a part of that socialization process. The Respondent alleges that it would not be appropriate for the Board to accept only teaching experience in lieu of coursework for an individual to meet the requirements a qualified supervisor. The Board accepts various kinds of educational experiences as meeting the educational requirements of Rule 64B4-21.007(1)(d), including audited courses and externships from recognized clinics. In requiring "qualified supervisors" to demonstrate education, as opposed to teaching experience, the Board seeks to establish a standard and fair evaluation procedure. There is a standardization that has an element of fairness in a paper review in accepting a transcript from a regionally accredited institution as proof of the required education. The Respondent also alleges that accepting teaching experience as meeting the educational requirements of Rule 64B4-21.007 presents a daunting task and would amount to accreditation by the Board of courses taught by persons applicants seek to have approved as qualified supervisors.
The Issue Did Respondent, Hodges University (Hodges), commit an unlawful employment practice against Petitioner, Connie Leonessa, on account of her religion, as defined and prohibited by section 760.10(5), Florida Statutes (2018)?1
Findings Of Fact Parties Hodges is a university located in Ft. Myers, Florida. It offers a master's degree in counseling through the Clinical Mental Health Counseling (CMHC) program housed within Hodges' Nichols School of Professional Studies. Ms. Leonessa was a student in Hodges' CMHC master's program. Ms. Leonessa is an experienced registered nurse who has primarily served pediatric patients over the years. She also volunteered regularly to work with children in inner cities of the Northeast. Those experiences, her compassion for children, and her personal trauma of molestation drove Ms. Leonessa to want to serve children better. In her words, "and I just felt that God wanted me to go back to school to get a master's so I can help these victims." Ms. Leonessa was enrolled in Hodges from 2015 until the fall of 2018. Her goal was to prepare herself to provide counseling services to child victims of trauma. There is no persuasive, competent evidence proving that providing counseling services to child victims of trauma is a profession, occupation, or trade that requires a master's degree in counseling. In fact, paid positions in the counseling field are available without a master's degree. A master's degree, followed by two years of full-time, post- graduation, paid supervised work experience is required to obtain a mental health counselor license. So is passage of the NCMHCE Exam administered by the National Board for Certified Counselors. The persuasive, competent evidence of record does not prove that Ms. Leonessa intended to take the post-graduation steps required to obtain a mental health counselor license or to seek a mental health counselor license. Hodges' Master's Program Earning a master's degree in social work from Hodges requires successful completion of academic coursework, a 200-hour practicum, and three 267-hour internships. The providers of the practicum and internships are not part of or controlled by Hodges. The student is responsible for identifying and making arrangements with the practicum and internship providers. Hodges assists when it can. Hodges' program, like counseling itself, requires students to develop awareness of their preferences, prejudices, ethics, and philosophies and separate them from the support and guidance provided clients. Upon entering the program, students agree to abide by the requirements of a Clinical Mental Health Counseling Professional Attitude and Behavior Agreement (Agreement). Ms. Leonessa signed the agreement on September 2, 2015. The Agreement states the student's obligation to align her "personal ethics with the professional ethics as defined by the American Counseling Association (ACA) 2014 Code of Ethics [Code].” The Code was attached to the Agreement. The Agreement emphasizes the priority of avoiding harm to clients or future clients and taking care to not impose the counselor's personal beliefs, values, and behaviors on clients. The Agreement recognizes the ethical dilemmas the profession presents and articulates a student's obligation to consult others about the dilemmas and develop "an ever increasing ability to apply a professional ethic to difficult situations involving ethical dilemmas and associated law … ." As part of the Agreement, Ms. Leonessa agreed to have "an open and willing attitude toward feedback and suggestions given by faculty, peers and site supervisors to help the student reduce the possibility of harm." This tenet supports the value of requiring a counselor to put "a high priority on avoiding harm to clients or future clients." The Agreement obliges the student to understand and abide by the Code. The CMHC Student Handbook (Handbook) contains and emphasizes requirements similar to the Agreement's requirements. It encourages students to pursue personal therapy and growth, for their intrinsic benefits and to provide insight into what clients experience. The Handbook emphasizes that counselors are held to higher ethical standards and higher levels of personal growth and mental health than the average person. It states that evaluation of a student's progress in those areas is part of judging a student's suitability for the counseling profession. Hodges' program includes regular evaluation of a student's progress in "interpersonal interactions with students, faculty, site supervisors, and others involved with his/her academic progress." The program requires progress in those areas and provides for a Student Development Plan for remediation if the student does not improve his or her interpersonal interactions and skills. The Handbook directs students to review the Code. The Handbook requires students to work professionally and respectfully with fellow students, faculty, site supervisors, and site employees. The Handbook also requires students to accept others without rejection based upon, among other things, age, culture, gender identity, sexual orientation, religion, or marital status. A student commits to be "respectful of differing opinions and professional practice … ." A student also commits to work "to continually improve her/his professional relationship skills and clarify professional boundaries." The Handbook, signed by Ms. Leonessa, concludes with this affirmation: I understand that the Hodges University Clinical Mental Health Counseling Program requires students to perform adequately in areas of academic assessment that include the ability to form and continue positive relationships with others; the ability to acquire and correctly use counseling knowledge and skills, and the ability to successfully complete all practicums and internships in the judgment of the faculty and site supervisors. These expectations are in addition to the didactic coursework expectations and assessment procedures. I understand that I will be expected to continually improve my ability to demonstrate counseling competencies as I progress in the program. I further understand that the American Counseling Association 2014 Code of Ethics forms the basis of professional standards to which I must adhere. In sum, the nature of the counseling field that Ms. Leonessa sought to enter and the program at Hodges required students to develop an open and tolerant and patient way of communicating with people with whom they may disagree, even disagree vehemently. Conflict in Hodges' Academic Program Ms. Leonessa performed well in her academic work. But her interactions with three fellow students and a professor were marked with conflicts. She attributed the conflict to discrimination against her on account of her religion. The evidence does not support the attribution. Ms. Leonessa's sensitivity to the age differential between herself and other students and her aggressive personality caused conflict with fellow students. Ms. Leonessa acknowledged her aggressiveness, saying, "You know, I know I have a tone and I've been honest about that. I have a tone." (Tr. V. I, p. 206). Ms. Leonessa also had a pattern of attributing any disagreement or conflict to opposition to her Christian beliefs. Dr. Thomas Hoffman taught many of Ms. Leonessa's classes. Like Ms. Leonessa, Dr. Hoffman is a Christian. In email communications each referred to scripture. For instance, Dr. Hoffman, in counseling Ms. Leonessa about alleviating her repeated personal conflicts, advised her to be "wise as a serpent, but gentle as a dove." Ms. Leonessa, in defense of her combative approach said, "Jesus Christ spoke truth and was hated for it." Neither Dr. Hoffman nor any other Hodges representative ever prohibited Ms. Leonessa from referring to her Christian beliefs in communications with them. In addition, Dr. Hoffman never asked Ms. Leonessa not to share her religious views, such as her anti-abortion beliefs, in class. As the years passed, Ms. Leonessa's communications to Dr. Hoffman grew increasingly querulous and combative. Her tone was frustrated and loud. She challenged Dr. Hoffman's competence, honesty, and integrity in a disrespectful manner. Ms. Leonessa clashed, in class and outside class, with three fellow students. She felt the students did not treat her with the respect that was her due because of her age. Ms. Leonessa had a dispute with one student about abortion. She had conflicts with another about the use of the "F" word in class. Ms. Leonessa had a conflict with a third student who said that Ms. Leonessa was trying to impose her values in class. During these conflicts, Ms. Leonessa raised her voice and spoke hostilely. Sometimes she pointed her finger. In an encounter outside of the school, one of the students told Ms. Leonessa that Ms. Leonessa's beliefs were "f…ed up" and that Ms. Leonessa should attend a Christian school. Once Ms. Leonessa jerked on another student's purse strap to make a point. Those three students did not have conflicts with other students or faculty. Also, as will be addressed below, Ms. Leonessa had significant problems in her internships, problems the other students did not have. The three students were not similarly situated to Ms. Leonessa. Due to these conflicts and ways of interacting with Dr. Hoffman, Hodges faculty met with Ms. Leonessa in February 2016 in an informal coaching session. The purpose was to address Ms. Leonessa's inability to control her emotions and express herself in an appropriate manner. These are all issues whose importance to counseling the Agreement, the Handbook, and the Code all emphasize. Ms. Leonessa's religious beliefs were not the reason for convening the coaching session or the communications during it. The faculty also conducted informal coaching sessions with the other three students. Despite the coaching sessions, Ms. Leonessa's conflicts with the students and Dr. Hoffman continued. Hodges' Handbook provides for establishing a formal Student Development Plan (SDP) to assist students who are not performing in a manner that is consistent with the Code. An SDP's purpose is to formalize concerns not resolved by the informal coaching and provide a plan for addressing them. It is a remedial measure. Hodges established SDPs infrequently. Since 2011 it has implemented seven. The faculty created an SDP for Ms. Leonessa and placed her on it in October 2016. Ms. Leonessa's religious beliefs played no part in the decision to create the plan or setting the plan's requirements. The behaviors which the SDP addressed included the changes in Ms. Leonessa's tone and raised volume when she disagreed with others, her practice of interrupting others with whom she disagreed, and her belaboring of class topics well after the instructor was trying to move the class to a resolution and on to the next subject. The plan provided supports and measurable goals for Ms. Leonessa. They were: (1) pairing her with a third-year student as a mentor, (2) completing a case study assignment, (3) completing role-playing exercises, and (4) documenting her changes of tone and volume in class. Ms. Leonessa disagreed with the SDP but agreed to follow it and signed it some two months after the faculty presented it to her. The role-playing exercises assigned to Ms. Leonessa involved same-sex attraction and abortion. The faculty selected these two topics because they recur frequently in counseling. Ms. Leonessa's religious beliefs were not the reason for selecting the topics. Ms. Leonessa successfully completed the SDP. The three students with whom Ms. Leonessa clashed were not placed on SDPs. Their issues did not match Ms. Leonessa's in frequency or intensity. Practicum Ms. Leonessa sought to establish a practicum placement at Cape Christian, also known as Samaritan Health and Wellness Center (Cape Christian). There was some uncertainty whether the supervision available at Cape Christian met Hodges' requirements. Ms. Leonessa's contact at Cape Christian, Ms. Trout, was not satisfactorily responsive to Ms. Leonessa's efforts to sort the issue out. This resulted in combative telephone calls and emails from Ms. Leonessa to Ms. Trout. An excerpt from one email illustrates Ms. Leonessa's pattern of hostility and injection of religion into disputes. In a December 5, 2016, email to Ms. Trout from Ms. Leonessa describing her displeasure with the responsiveness of Cape Christian and a conversation with one of Ms. Trout's co-workers, Ms. Leonessa wrote: You stated I chewed her out but you were not on the phone. I did not disparage her character in any way, I said as believers we are to keep our word and that now I would have to find another place at the last minute. That is all I said. The Bible says be angry and sin not. According to what I have heard, you do not believe people should be angry and I would bet there are times in your life when you have had an unprofessional tone. Also I have had to wait weeks before hearing back from you, it amazed me how quickly you called about this situation-seconds! Ms. Trout replied: If you were my student and you'd have behaved in the manner as this [sic], you would be put in a professional development status, complete with remediation, to determine your appropriateness to move forward in the field of counseling. The fact that you sent this email in its current form further highlights the display of lack of professionalism and emotional maturity now exhibited in two separate phone calls as well. I would encourage that you seek some assistance in processing your emotions, and the manner in which you communicate those. I wish you the best. Ms. Leonessa replied to Ms. Trout, "Please do not contact me further." Ms. Trout forwarded the email exchange to Sue Hook and Dr. Mary Nuosce of Hodges. Dr. Nuosce answered, "Amy, I apologize for her total lack of professionalism. We are working on this. Thank you for your patience." This incident triggered an update to the SDP. The update was because of Ms. Leonessa's conduct and unrelated to her religious beliefs. Ultimately, Ms. Leonessa obtained and successfully completed a practicum with FRS/Omega Center. Tina Friedman was her supervisor. Ms. Friedman twice noted in the July 7, 2017, evaluation form that Ms. Leonessa required ongoing attention in the area of values management. The values criterion relates to many of the requirements and principles of the Agreement, the Code, and the Handbook. The evaluation form describes it thus: "Value Management: How did the student cope with values? Were attempts made to impose the student's values during the interview?" Ms. Friedman's Session Evaluation Form noted, "Connie does repeatedly offer her own values during client/student interaction." Ms. Friedman wrote a note to Ms. Leonessa on the form stating that Ms. Leonessa's development was at an expected level save for in values management. The note went on to specify: "Please work more diligently in this area as that may [prove] to be a problem in the future." The August 17, 2017, final evaluation emphasized the problem stating, HER BURNING DESIRE TO INITIATE CHANGE, MAY PROVE TO BE HER MOST DIFFICULT PERSONAL CHALLENGE AS A CLINICIAN. IT IS HOPED THAT IN TIME AND WITH FURTHER EXPOSURE TO THE TENETS OF EFFECTIVE COUNSELING, CONNI CAN LEARN TO ACCEPT AND MEET THE CLIENT WHERE THEY ARE AT IN THE PROCESS. CONNI HAS STRONG, DEEP ROOTED BELIEFS AND VALUES, WHICH MAY BE DIFFERENT THAN THOSE OF THE CLIENTS AS WELL AS HER PEERS, THAT SHE ENCOUNTERS. I HAVE SHARED THIS OBSERVATION WITH CONNI AND HAVE ENCOURAGED HER TO CONSIDER THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING OPEN AND ACCEPTING TO THE DIVERSITY OF THE POPULATION SHE WILL SERVE. Internships Ms. Leonessa obtained an intern position with True Core Behavioral Solutions (True Core). True Core provided services to the Ft. Myers Youth Academy, a juvenile detention center. True Core terminated Ms. Leonessa's internship after two days. The problems leading to her termination were those of value imposition and boundary crossing presaged by her practicum. Ms. Leonessa participated in two counseling sessions for the juveniles. Her improper conduct included sharing personal information about her abandonment by her husband and her celibacy since then. In the counseling profession this boundary crossing behavior is often damaging to the therapeutic process. Ms. Leonessa also criticized a young man who supported his girlfriend obtaining an abortion, telling him abortion was murder and talked about holding premature babies in her hands. She criticized some of the youth for engaging in premarital sex telling them it violated God's law. She told one young man his troubles stemmed from abandonment by his father. This conduct demonstrated emotionalism and an inability to respect client perspectives that the SDP was intended to ameliorate. For this reason, Hodges updated the SDP. Ms. Leonessa acknowledges that it would be professionally wrong for a counselor to advocate her personal religious beliefs and values to clients. She denies that she did so. But the preponderance of the competent, substantial evidence proves that she did. True Core reported Ms. Leonessa's termination and the causes for it to Hodges. After Ms. Leonessa's termination from True Core, Dr. Mary Nuosce, Dean of the Nichols Schools of Professional Studies and a faculty member, tried to assist her in finding another internship placement. Dr. Nuosce was the supervisor for Ms. Leonessa's internships. She approached Janean Byrne from Serenity Counseling about accepting Ms. Leonessa as an intern. Dr. Nuosce thought Serenity might suit Ms. Leonessa more because it was a faith-based counseling provider. She gave Ms. Leonessa Ms. Byrne's contact information and asked her to follow up on establishing an internship. Ms. Leonessa did not seek the internship. She refused to contact Ms. Byrne for non-specified reasons. She told Dr. Nuosce, "I just emailed her [Ms. Byrne] and turned down the position. What occurred today has taught me that I need to find a place where my values are shared and respected so I will continue to look for a sight [sic]." When Dr. Nuosce asked how she could be so judgmental about someone she had never met, Ms. Leonessa responded, "I never said anything against her [Ms. Byrne], however, I am looking for a place that shares my biblical values especially after what occurred today that is all. I do have the right to choose where I want to intern at!" Hodges' faculty continued efforts to help Ms. Leonessa locate an intern position. Ms. Leonessa obtained an internship at HEADS. Within a few weeks, HEADS dismissed her. Ms. Leonessa worked with therapist Julie Jakobi attending sessions with clients. Jerry Sprague, HEADS's clinical supervisor for Ft. Myers, selected Ms. Jakobi to work with Ms. Leonessa because he was aware of Ms. Leonessa's ardent Christian beliefs and Ms. Jakobi held similarly strong Christian beliefs. The first client Ms. Jakobi and Ms. Leonessa saw was a 13-year old female with a long history of running away and conflict with her mother. They saw her at school in a room in the office. The student was very concerned about telling her mother that she was gay. After the student left the room, Ms. Leonessa turned and loudly and aggressively confronted Ms. Jakobi telling her she was wrong in her counseling of the student. Ms. Leonessa insisted Ms. Jakobi should have told the student that she would catch sexually transmitted diseases, she would become depressed, and she would commit suicide. The room's door was open, and a secretary sat right outside the door. The lack of privacy and danger to client confidentiality concerned Ms. Jakobi. They also visited a client, a man concerned about becoming an opioid addict and the effect on him of growing up in a rough neighborhood. He and his wife were separated and had completed the documents necessary to finalize their divorce. Ms. Jakobi had informed Ms. Leonessa of the pending divorce before they arrived at the home. Ms. Jakobi and Ms. Leonessa met with the client at his wife's home. Ms. Leonessa began talking to the man about how he could work through his problems and learn to love his wife better. This "froze" the client and sabotaged efforts to provide the addiction counseling he sought. On the drive back to the office, Ms. Leonessa was very rude and hostile to Ms. Jakobi. Ms. Leonessa was physically tense. Her tone was sharp. Ms. Leonessa brought up homosexuality again and renewed advocacy of "conversion therapy." At the time, this was not permitted. As soon as she left Ms. Leonessa at her car, Ms. Jakobi called Mr. Sprague to report the day's incidents. He concluded that quick action was required and asked Ms. Leonessa to apologize to Ms. Jakobi. It is worth noting that Mr. Sprague's email signature quotes from the Bible, Psalm 82:3. Ms. Leonessa’s apology read as follows: "I realize not everyone see's [sic] things eye to eye. However when differences occur truth needs to be spoken in a way that is gentle. I realize my 'tone' is not always gentle and I am working on this." This is no apology and was not received as one. Mr. Sprague spoke further to Ms. Jakobi and another counselor who worked with Ms. Leonessa about their experiences with her. He concluded that he was "not convinced that she will not cause harm." He decided that terminating Ms. Leonessa promptly was best. Mr. Sprague's September 27, 2018, email to Dr. Nuosce explaining his decision is persuasive and was reasonably accepted by the Hodges faculty. He began by reporting that Ms. Leonessa was very difficult to communicate with. He reported that Ms. Leonessa "failed at a very basic level to demonstrate the ability to maintain appropriate boundaries and to demonstrated basic empathy skills." His email went on to state: I would be surprised if you didn't already know this as her strong personality, strong beliefs and aggressive tendencies are hard for her to manage. She had told me she has had conflicts with professors so I imagine this is why. He concluded that Ms. Leonessa was "stuck on a superficial (immature) level of reasoning and so she is failing to both read others well and to maintain appropriate social boundaries … ." Mr. Sprague strongly suggested Ms. Leonessa consider a different career than counseling. This report, supported by the evidence in this case, caused Dr. Nuosce to conclude that Ms. Leonessa was not complying with her revised SDP. Also Ms. Leonessa had failed to complete two internship programs and one practicum. Failure to complete the practicum revealed significant problems which persisted. Three internships are required to obtain a counseling degree from Hodges. Ms. Leonessa completed none. For these reasons, Hodges administratively withdrew Ms. Leonessa. Ms. Leonessa appealed within the Hodges system. Her appeal papers did not acknowledge what she had done wrong or how she proposed to improve. Instead they discussed her background and accused Hodges of repeatedly violating its policies and procedures. Hodges' Provost reviewed the many documents generated during Ms. Leonessa's tumultuous enrollment. He noted the similarity of reports of unacceptable behavior from different and unrelated sources, within and without the University. He denied the appeal. Summary The record of Ms. Leonessa's three years in Hodges' counseling program, including her time in practicum and internships, is a record of consistent, disputatious conduct. When the subject of religion, specifically Christianity arose, it was because Ms. Leonessa initiated criticisms of others' behavior as unchristian, because Ms. Leonessa sought to advocate her Christian views to counseling clients, and because she explicitly judged clients' actions, decisions, and options by her standards. The evidence does not prove that Hodges took any actions against Ms. Leonessa, including imposition of the SDP and termination from the program because of her religion. Hodges' terminated her because she violated the fundamental counseling requirement to accept clients as they are and not seek to impose her values on them. The record does not prove that any of the practicum and internship providers took any actions against Ms. Leonessa on account of her religious beliefs. Furthermore, the practicum and internship providers were independent of Hodges. They were not subject to its control or direction or acting in its stead.
Recommendation It is Recommended that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief of Connie Leonessa. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Room 110 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 Thomas K. Rinaldi, Esquire Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC Suite 105 4001 Tamiami Trail North Naples, Florida 34103 Cheyanne Costilla, Gen. Co. Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Connie Leonessa American Liberties Institute Post Office Box 547503 Orlando, Florida 32854 Matthew Brown McReynolds, Esquire Pacific Justice Institute Post Office Box 276600 Sacramento, California 95827 Michelle Wilson, Executive Director Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether the Department of Children and Family Services should revoke the foster care license of Thomas and Shana Stone.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, the home of Thomas and Shana Stone was licensed by the Department as a foster home. Jeffrey G. was placed in the Stones' home on or about November 9, 2001, when he was approximately 10 months old. Two other children, who were eleven and four-year-old siblings, were also placed in the Stones' home around the same date that Jeffrey was placed in their home. The three children slept in the same bedroom which contained a bunk bed and a crib. According to Mrs. Stone, the siblings were unruly and she requested that the Department remove them from their home. The other children were removed from the home on November 12, 2001. On November 16, 2001, the Department received a report alleging that Jeffrey had a bruise three inches in length on his thigh. Jeffrey was brought to the Department's office by a foster care worker on November 16, 2001, for a scheduled visit with his mother. There is nothing in the record to indicate that Jeffrey was brought to the Department on November 16, 2001, as a result of the abuse allegation. Joann Lycett is a licensed protective investigator supervisor for the Department. Prior to becoming a supervisor, she was a protective investigator. During the time she has been an investigator and a supervisor, she took part in between 400 to 500 reports of child abuse or neglect. In addition to her experience as an investigator and a supervisor, Ms. Lycett received specialized training in child abuse investigations and earned certification in the child protection field. Her training includes determining the nature and cause of injuries to children. Ms. Lycett was present at the Department when Jeffrey was brought in for the visit. She observed an oval shaped bruise approximately three inches by two inches extending out from under the child's diaper onto his upper thigh. When the diaper was removed, Ms. Lycett could see bruising on the child's buttock as well. Ms. Lycett observed the bruise to be dark which was an indication to her that the bruise was recent as opposed to a bruise yellow or green in color. From her experience and training, the bruise did not appear to be accidental. Jeffrey was examined on November 16, 2001, by Richard C. Trump, a Child Protection Team medical doctor of the University of Florida.1 Dr. Trump's report reads in part: . . . on the buttocks there are some fairly fresh vertical and linear 1mm wide bruises which are external to the buttock crease. There is a 7x3cm bruise on the left buttock below the aforementioned linear bruises, which ends in a circular bruise at the lower left buttock. The thin linear bruises come together perfectly when the buttocks are compressed flat. All of the bruises are fairly superficial and are red and blue in color; no yellow or green is present. There are no bruises medial to the linear bruises in the crease of the buttocks. Mrs. Stone first observed the bruise the morning of November 16, 2001. Mrs. Stone did not report the bruise to the Department. Jeffrey generally attended daycare from seven or eight o'clock in the morning until 5:30 or 6:00 in the evening. Jeffrey attended day care on November 16, 2001. Mrs. Stone conceded that the bruise could not have happened at the daycare center because she observed the bruise the morning of November 16, 2001, before Jeffrey attended the center. According to Mrs. Stone, Jeffrey wore a brace on his leg which caught on the crib a couple of days before the incident. This, however, would not explain a fresh bruise as described by Ms. Lycett and supported by Dr. Trump's report. Likewise, the other foster children could not have caused the bruise as they were removed from the home four days prior to the incident in question. While the evidence did not prove that Mrs. Stone directly caused the injury, the evidence did prove that the child suffered harm while in the custody and control of Respondents.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Children and Family Services enter a final order revoking the foster care license of the Stones. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of August, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BARBARA J. STAROS 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 16th day of August, 2002.
