Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations of this matter, Respondent was licensed to operate an assisted living facility at 817 Eleventh Street, West Palm Beach, Florida. The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating, and assuring compliance with state laws governing, assisted living facilities. Joseph Narkier, a human services surveyor employed by AHCA, was assigned to perform an appraisal of the Respondent's facility in September, 1995. He visited the facility on September 27, 1995, along with Polly Weaver, chief of field operations. In accordance with his instructions, Mr. Narkier did not perform a full survey but only looked at certain items, "tags," which had historically been out of compliance at the facility. Based upon his review, Mr. Narkier found the following deficiencies at the Aries Retirement Living facility: Respondent failed to display its current license inside the facility as required by state standard A 003. This deficiency had been cited on an earlier survey, March 14, 1995. Fiscal records were not on the premises, thus Respondent could not identify income and expenses as required by state standard A 100. This deficiency had also been cited on March 14, 1995. Since fiscal records were not on the premises, it could not be determined that the facility was administered on a sound financial basis as required by state standard A 101. This deficiency had also been cited on March 14, 1995. The Respondent did not produce an accurate written admission and discharge record as required by state standard A 201. This deficiency had also been cited on March 14, 1995. The Respondent did not produce an executed contract for each resident dated at the time of admission as required by state standard A 300. There were three residents for whom no evidence of a contract, executed at admission, could be produced. This deficiency had also been cited on March 14, 1995. State standard A 301, which relates to the content of the resident contract, was also deficient. Since there were no contracts for three residents, the contract content did not exist. This deficiency had also been cited on March 14, 1995. The Respondent did not have medical records or other support documentation to show that one resident had had a medical examination either within sixty days prior to admission or within thirty days after admission to the facility. Such exams are required to verify the residents are free of signs and symptoms of any communicable disease which is likely to be transmitted to other residents and is required by state standard A 406. The Respondent also could not produce documentation regarding admissions criteria as required by state standard A 408. According to records for one resident, medications were to be administered by a licensed professional. Since records did not verify the medications were administered according to the physician's orders, state standard A 601 was not met. Electrical outlets in the kitchen were not maintained in a safe condition in violation of state standard A 901. Hot and cold water faucets were not identified by use of the "H" and "C" initials as required by state standard A 1023. The records needed to verify the facility was in compliance with the state standards were not made available to the surveyors prior to their departure from the facility. Moreover, fiscal records were not made available to Mr. Narkier at the follow-up review on November 21, 1995. The fiscal records were not available until a third survey date, February 13, 1996, the second follow-up date. Based upon the foregoing, at the time of the survey Respondent had at least six class III deficiencies. None of the excuses suggested by Respondent to explain the survey findings has been deemed credible. This Respondent has a history of deficient performance. Two prior contested administrative complaints resulted in findings of numerous violations. Those violations were fully addressed in DOAH Case Nos. 94-5078 and 94-6908. On April 5, 1995, a recommended order was entered in DOAH Case Nos. 94-5078 and 94-6908. That order was adopted and incorporated by reference in the final order entered by AHCA on May 15, 1995. The final order entered in DOAH Case Nos. 94-5078 and 94-6908 imposed an administrative fine in the amount of $8,000.00 which Respondent has not paid. In addition to this outstanding administrative fine, Respondent has a history of two other administrative actions which also resulted in administrative fines. In DOAH Case No. 92-2415, the parties entered into a stipulation wherein Respondent agreed to pay a fine in the amount of $1,125.00. The Respondent did not timely remit that administrative fine. The second administrative action also resulted in an administrative fine. That case was not referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings. The final order (AHCA Exhibit 4), entered on August 8, 1991, imposed an administrative fine in the amount of $750.00. Respondent eventually paid this fine on April 22, 1992. Respondent has consistently failed to honor the state standards set for this type facility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order dismissing Case No. 95-0128 since the applicant has withdrawn the request to increase capacity of the ALF; denying the renewal of licensure sought in Case No. 95-0129; and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,200.00 in Case No. 95-5678. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of September, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of September, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: Paragraphs 1, 3, 11, 12, 13, and 14 are accepted. With regard to paragraphs 2, and 4 through 10, such paragraphs reiterate findings of fact made in DOAH Case Nos. 94-5078 and 94-6908 which have been adopted by final order and are not at issue in this proceeding. As a matter of law, unless set aside such findings remain in effect. Paragraph 15 is rejected as hearsay. Notwithstanding that Respondent's proposed findings of fact failed to comply with Rule 60Q-2.031(3), Florida Administrative Code, and contained multiple facts per paragraph (some of which could not be accepted while others could), to the extent possible, the following rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent are made: The first sentence of paragraph 1 is accepted; the remainder is rejected as irrelevant or inaccurate. An administrative proceeding related to two complaints against this Respondent which found numerous violations resulted in a final order being entered by the Department. With regard to paragraph 2, the last sentence is accepted; the remainder of the paragraph is rejected as irrelevant or inaccurate or procedural issues unrelated to this matter. Further, as to the unannounced survey conducted by Mr. Narkier, notice of an intended survey is not required as a matter of law. With regard to paragraph 3, it is accepted a current license was not displayed. Otherwise rejected as contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraph 4 is rejected as irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. The violation stems from the failure to display the current license. Paragraph 5 is rejected as mischaracterization of the testimony or contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. Paragraphs 6 through 8 are rejected as no record cited supported the findings or irrelevant or contrary to the weight of the evidence in its entirety. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Fort Knox Building 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Douglas M. Cook, Director Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Fort Knox Building 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Jerome W. Hoffman, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Suite 3431 Fort Knox Building 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Linda L. Parkinson, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Division of Health Quality Assurance 400 West Robinson Street, Suite S-309 Orlando, Florida 32801 Esther A. Zaretsky, Esquire 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard Forum III, Suite 900 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent wrongly presumed that Petitioner's father had been "killed in the line of duty," which presumption entitled the surviving spouse of Petitioner's father to receive "in line of duty" death benefits during her lifetime, to the exclusion of the rights of her late husband's children, whom he had named as his primary beneficiaries.
Findings Of Fact On December 14, 2005, Douglas Ulmer, Sr. ("Mr. Ulmer"), died as a result of complications from coronary artery disease and hypertension. At the time of his death, Mr. Ulmer was married to Cynthia Andrews-Ulmer ("Mrs. Ulmer"). His other survivors included two children: a son named Douglas Ulmer, Jr. ("Douglas"), who had been born on July 13, 1991; and a daughter named Kayla Ulmer ("Kayla"), who had been born on October 3, 1983. Mrs. Ulmer was not the mother of either Douglas or Kayla. From February 1993 until his death, Mr. Ulmer had been employed as a fireman in Palm Beach County, Florida. Through that employment, be had become a member of the Florida Retirement System ("FRS"), which is administered by Respondent Department of Management Services, Division of Retirement ("Division"). After having been offered the job as a fireman, Mr. Ulmer had undergone a "post-offer physical" examination. This examination, which had taken place on January 15, 1993, had revealed no evidence of any medical abnormalities; specifically, the physician had found Mr. Ulmer's "heart and vascular system" to be "normal." In October 2004, Mr. Ulmer had experienced chest pain while lifting equipment at work and been taken to the hospital. Thereafter, diagnosed as having heart disease, Mr. Ulmer had gone on disability and never returned to work full time. About one month before his death, Mr. Ulmer had completed a Pension Plan Beneficiary Designation Form in which he had named Douglas and Kayla as his primary beneficiaries for retirement benefits payable under the FRS. After Mr. Ulmer passed away, Mrs. Ulmer submitted an application to the Division for "in line of duty" death benefits, which are available under the FRS to the surviving spouse of a member "killed in the line of duty." In July 2006, the Division gave notice that it intended to approve Mrs. Ulmer's application. For reasons that will soon be made clear, the Division's intended decision deprived Kayla of any benefits under the FRS, and it threatened to deny benefits to Douglas, even though the children's father had named them as his primary beneficiaries. Consequently, Douglas timely requested a hearing to contest the payment of "in line of duty" benefits to his father's widow. (Kayla would later intervene in this proceeding, on the eve of the final hearing.) Sadly, Mrs. Ulmer died suddenly on September 24, 2006, before the dispute over Mr. Ulmer's retirement benefits could be resolved.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division enter a final order: (a) finding that Mr. Ulmer died in the line of duty; (b) awarding Mrs. Ulmer's estate the benefits to which Mrs. Ulmer, as the surviving spouse of a member killed in the line of duty, was entitled under Section 121.091(7)(d)1., Florida Statutes; and (c) providing for the payment of benefits to Douglas Ulmer, Jr., in accordance with Section 121.091(7)(d)2. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of January, 2007 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 29th day of January, 2007.
Findings Of Fact Based on all available evidence, the undersigned makes the following findings of fact. Mateo was born on July 10, 2019, at the Hospital located in Orlando, Florida. Petitioner filed the Petition with DOAH on August 28, 2019. DOAH then served a copy of the Petition on NICA on September 17, 2019. In reviewing the claim, NICA obtained medical records regarding Mateo’s birth. The medical records document that Mateo’s weight at birth was 2,365 grams. A review of the medical records submitted in this matter reveals no evidence disputing a finding that Mateo weighed under 2,500 grams at his delivery at the Hospital. Based on the evidence that Mateo weighed less than 2,500 grams at birth, NICA determined that Petitioner’s claim was not compensable. NICA subsequently filed a Motion for Summary Final Order asserting that Mateo did not suffer a “birth-related neurological injury” as defined by section 766.302(2).
Findings Of Fact Ms. Mamie Wilson worked at the Southeast Florida Tuberculosis Hospital in Lantana, Florida from January, 1952 to September, 1958. At that time she resided at 1109 Sapodilla Avenue. She left the job in 1958 after she became pregnant. Ms. Wilson thereafter moved to 1103 Division Street in West Palm Beach. Ms. Wilson was thereafter employed at the county nursing home by Palm Beach County from March, 1964 through August, 1974. She resigned due to injuries that she received in an automobile accident. In 1983, Ms. Wilson wrote to the Administrator of the Division of Retirement and requested that her retirement beneficiary be changed from her mother, Anna Williams, who had died, to her son, Alonzo Peterson. In response, she received a letter dated November 21, 1983 from the Division of Retirement stating that if she retired as of November 1, 1983 she would be retired to a retirement benefit of $65.96 per month based upon 10.75 total years of service with average final compensation of $4,788. The letter also told her that her service at the Lantana Tuberculosis Hospital may be creditable and if she wished to claim that service she should have her salaries and earnings certified to determine if this service was includable for retirement purposes. Ms. Wilson never responded to this letter because she did not intend to retire at that time, she only wanted to change her beneficiary. In January, 1986, Ms. Wilson was preparing to retire and went to the county courthouse where she was assisted in preparing a Request for Audit form for retirement effective as of March 16, 1986. On the form the only employment she had listed was that at the Palm Beach County Nursing Home from 1964 to 1974. She then received a letter dated February 25, 1986 estimating her service as 16.33 years on the assumption that Ms. Wilson would pay $1,413.82 to repurchase the time she worked at the tuberculosis hospital for which the Division of Retirement contended her contributions had been refunded in 1961. If she did so, her retirement benefit would be $106.41 per month. If her retirement was based solely on the time she worked at the county nursing home, her monthly benefit would be $66.19 per month. The evidence is not persuasive that Ms. Wilson received, in 1961, $449 as a refund of her retirement contributions for the time she was employed at the tuberculosis hospital. The Department of Administration, Division of Retirement has been unable to show any application by Ms. Wilson for these funds, and had been unable to produce the state warrant by which these funds were paid to show that it was cashed by her [the warrant has since been destroyed]. The Department has produced a receipt prepared for use in connection with the delivery of that warrant. It shows Ms. Wilson's address as 1103 Division Street, an address where she did not live at the time she actually worked for the hospital, though she did move to that address later. That receipt is not signed, however. The appearance of an address on that receipt of a place where Ms. Wilson did not live at the time she was employed at the hospital gives rise to the inference that someone must have been in contact with the hospital to provide a current address for Ms. Wilson as of 1961. That fact, standing alone, is not sufficient to carry the burden of persuasion that Ms. Wilson received the money in the absence of a signature on that receipt, any signature on an application from Ms. Wilson seeking the refund of her retirement contributions or a signature on the refund warrant. That a warrant was prepared at the request of someone, delivered to someone and cashed by someone, with no proof that that someone was Ms. Wilson, is insufficient to deprive her of her retirement benefits.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the retirement benefit paid to Ms. Wilson be in the amount of $106 per month for 16.33 years of creditable service. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of July, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway The Oakland Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of July, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Alexander Myers, Esquire Forum III, Suite 106 1655 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Brett Findler, Esquire Florida National Bank, Suite 350 1645 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Burton M. Michaels, Esquire Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center 2639 North Monroe Street Building C, Suite 207 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Adis Vila, Secretary Department of Administration 435 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Section 760.10(1), Florida Statutes, when it discharged Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Cardio-Pulmonary Center of Bethesda, Inc. (Center), operates a Health and Fitness Center in conjunction with Bethesda Memorial Hospital located in Boynton Beach, Florida. On or about December, 1988, three separate business entities operated at the Health and Fitness Center: the Cardio-Pulmonary Center, a Fitness Department open to the general public, and a Sports Medicine and Back Care Center. Petitioner, Diane H. Cramer (Cramer), was hired by the Center as a secretary/receptionist on or about December 19, 1988. Cramer suffers from chronic depression caused by a chemical imbalance. When she is not in crisis she is highly functional; however when she is in crisis, there is criteria for a major depressive disorder which affects her ability to function normally in her day-to-day activities. For the entire length of Petitioner's Employment with the Center, Randy Colman (Colman) held the position of Director of the Cardio-Pulmonary Center. Colman was Cramer's immediate supervisor from December 1988 through September, 1991. In approximately August 1989, Cramer was promoted to the newly-created position of Office Manager based on her good job performance. Her duties included supervision of the office staff of the Cardiac Rehabilitation Department and the Sports and Back Care Center. Cramer's work performance continued to be satisfactory until early January, 1990. She broke up with her boyfriend and began to experience bouts of depression in which she would feel sad and angry and would isolate herself from others. She had contemplated suicide and told her co-workers about her suicidal thoughts. She would put her head down on her desk. When Colman would ask her to do something, she would look at him as if to say "why are you asking me to do this." Her emotional behavior had escalated to the point that it was affecting the performance of her co-workers. On January 19, 1990, Colman gave Cramer a memorandum outlining his concerns. He suggested that she speak to someone who was qualified in crisis management and depression and that she take a few days off. In response to Cramer's complaints to Colman that she lacked private space and private time at work, he suggested that she try a different work schedule which would allow her some privacy in her current work space. Additionally, he advised her that if she could not become more considerate and cordial to her co-workers that he would require her to take some time off and visit the employee health nurse before returning to work. Colman discussed these concerns as well in a conversation with Cramer on January 19, 1990. Cramer followed Colman's suggestion and took some leave time. When she returned from leave, she had improved and her work performance was satisfactory. Cramer did try the different work schedule suggested by Colman in his January 19, 1990 memorandum but she went back to her old work schedule. She did not seek any counseling in January, 1990. In June, 1990, Cramer experienced another bout of depression. On June 25, she had told Ken Goby (Goby), a co-worker, that she was depressed and that if she did not come into work the next day, it would be because she had killed herself. Goby relayed his conversation with Cramer to Colman. On June 26, Colman met Cramer at the entrance of the building and told her that he was concerned about her well-being. He gave her a memorandum which outlined his expectations of her work performance. Additionally, he advised her that she was suspended without pay until such time as she saw the employee health nurse, Ruth Tillman. He gave her an appointment time with Ms. Tillman. If she chose not to see the nurse, she was advised to sign the resignation form which was included with the memorandum. Cramer did see Nurse Tillman. As a result of her conversation with the nurse, Cramer went to see her endocrinologist, who referred her to Dr. Tomelleri. She saw Dr. Tomelleri on July 5. Cramer began taking medication and returned to work. Colman spoke with Nurse Tillman after her visit with Cramer and he was satisfied that Cramer could return to work. Having judged the credibility of the witnesses, I find that when Cramer returned to work she did not advise either Colman or Kathy Vredenburgh that she had seen a doctor, that she was diagnosed as being depressed, or that she was taking medication. However, the evidence is clear that Colman knew that Cramer was having emotional problems, which he judged to be depression. From the time she returned to work in July, 1990 until the early part of January, 1991, Cramer's work performance was satisfactory. Her mood swings were no different from any of the other employees at the Center. In the fall of 1990, Cramer received a seven percent merit increase and a .5 percent bonus raise. Beginning in January, 1991, Cramer began to come to work in a bad mood several times a month. She had a "snitty" way of dealing with her co-workers and the patients. She did not make any suicide threats. 15 In January, 1991, Cramer complained to Ken Goby that Colman was giving all his work responsibilities away and that they were doing all his work. Mr. Goby told Colman what Cramer had said. Based on Dr. Tomelleri's notes, Cramer had quit taking her medication sometime in January, 1991. She went back on her medication in late January, 1991. She was doing well when she next saw Dr. Tomelleri in March, 1991. Based on Dr. Tomelleri's notes, Cramer would do well as long as she continued to take her medication. In September, 1991, Colman was granted additional managerial responsibilities at the Center, and Kathy Vredenburgh was made Cramer's immediate supervisor. Colman and Ms. Vredenburgh conducted a performance evaluation of Cramer in September, 1991. Cramer was given a low rating. In November, 1991, one of Cramer's co-workers was having personal problems and asked Cramer if she could use the telephone in Cramer's office for a personal phone call. Cramer let her use the telephone; however, the co- worker's conversation dragged on and Cramer asked her to get off the phone so that Cramer could get back to her desk. Cramer got angry and threw a piece of paper. On November 29, 1991, Cramer received a reprimand for the incident and was cautioned that emotional outbursts, visible sulking, and performance of non- work related functions was not acceptable behavior and would not be tolerated. Prior to the issuance of the reprimand, Colman and Ms. Vredenburgh discussed Cramer's behavior. Based on Ms. Vredenburgh notes, it is clear that she was not aware that Cramer was currently being seen by a psychiatrist. In December of 1991 or January of 1992, Cramer got into an argument with a patient over some medical records. Cramer raised her voice at the patient. In April of 1992, Kent Goby became Cramer's immediate supervisor. Cramer was certified to teach SALSArobics, which is modified low impact aerobic exercises set to Latin music and movements. In October, 1991, she approached Colman with a proposal to introduce the program at the Center. By memorandum dated November 15, 1991, she followed up a meeting with Colman concerning her proposal and addressed several questions that he had concerning the program. Colman gave her his written comments on November 25, 1991. Cramer wanted to be the instructor of SALSArobics. On June 5, 1992, Goby and Cramer had a conversation concerning the SALSArobics. Cramer told Goby that Colman had been very negative about the program. She stated that if Colman did not appreciate all the work and research that she had done then, "The hell with him." On the following Monday, June 8, Goby again spoke with Cramer about SALSArobics. Goby told Cramer that he would be meeting with the Center's exercise instructor to discuss the possibility of starting the program. Cramer told Goby that she felt that the fitness center probably was worried about her influencing members from existing aerobic classes and that she would not want anyone else to teach SALSArobics. She told Goby "screw them." On June 9, Goby relayed his conversations with Cramer about SALSArobics to Colman. Based on the Center's records, and notes of Goby, Cramer was late three times in March, 1992, and twice in May, 1992. It is not clear why she was late in March. Her tardiness in May resulted from oversleeping on one occasion and a back ache caused by her bed on the other occasion. Cramer came to work late on June 9, 10, and 11. The evidence did not establish that she was late on these days because of her depression. Sometime during the week of June 9, 1992, Cramer made comments to Colman regarding her tardiness. Once she told him that she could not understand "how people get to work on time." On another occasion, when he observed her walking in late, she told him that she was "always" late. She did not advise Colman that her tardiness was due to her depression. Cramer's employment was terminated on or about June 11, 1992, due to "inappropriate job performance, i.e. tardiness, emotional outbursts, and general attitude towards the center and [her] co-workers." Cramer was not in a crisis situation during the time of the occurrence of the circumstances which led to her discharge. Based on the medical records prepared by Dr. Tomelleri, Cramer saw him in March, 1992 and did not visit him again until July 17, 1992. Cramer's claim for unemployment compensation benefits was refused by an Appeals Referee. The Appeals Referee concluded that Cramer was terminated for misconduct connected with her work. The decision of the Appeals Referee was affirmed by the Florida Unemployment Appeals Commission and by the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal. Cramer filed a timely charge of discrimination with the Florida Commission on Human Relations. Cramer's charge alleged that she was "laid off" because of a perceived handicap, severe depression.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Cardio-Pulmonary Center of Bethesda, Inc. did not commit an unlawful employment practice and that Diane H. Cramer's Petition for Relief from an Unlawful Employment Practice be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of November, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of November, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-1260 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraphs 1-3: Accepted. Paragraphs 4-5: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 6: The second half of the first sentence is rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. The remainder of the paragraph is accepted in substance. Paragraphs 7-12: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 13: The first sentence is accepted in substance. Having judged the credibility of the witnesses, I reject the second sentence. Paragraphs 14-17: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 16: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 17: Rejected to the extent that it implies that Cramer was deliberately excluded by her co-workers. Having judged the credibility of the witnesses, the evidence established that Cramer had been invited to go to lunch but had declined because of lack of money. Paragraphs 18-20: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 21: Having judged the credibility of Cramer, I reject the first part of the sentence as not credible. The second part of the sentence is accepted in substance to the extent that Cramer did have episodes of depression. Paragraph 22: Having judged the credibility of Cramer, I reject this paragraph as not supported by credible evidence. Paragraph 23: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 24: Accepted in substance to the extent that it refers to the time of discharge. The evidence is clear that Cramer had received warnings during her employment with the Center concerning her tardiness and her dealings with co-workers and clients. Paragraphs 25-31: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 32-41: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraphs 42-44: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 45: Accepted to the extent that the statement is generally true. Rejected to the extent that it implies that the tardiness that resulted in part in Cramer's discharge were caused by her depression. Paragraphs 46-48: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 49-53: Accepted in substance to the extent Ms. Vredenburgh felt that Cramer had emotional problems which should be addressed in counseling. Paragraph 54: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 55-61: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraph 62: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 63: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. No Paragraph 64 Paragraphs 65-71: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 72: The first sentence is accepted in substance. The remainder is rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Paragraphs 73-75: Rejected as subordinate to the facts actually found. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Paragraph 1: Accepted. Paragraph 2: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 3: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 4-8: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 9: The second sentence is rejected to the extent that it implies that Colman did not perceive that Cramer had emotional problems. The remainder is accepted in substance. Paragraph 10: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 11: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 12-19: Accepted in substance. Paragraphs 20-21: Rejected as recitation of testimony. Paragraphs 22-28: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 29: The first two sentences are accepted in substance. The last sentence is rejected as constituting argument. Paragraph 30: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 31: Rejected as unnecessary. Paragraphs 32-39: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 40: The first and third sentences are rejected. Based on Colman's memoranda, I find that he did know that she had some emotional problems. The second sentence is accepted in substance. The last sentence is accepted in substance to the extent that there was no competent substantial evidence to indicate that Goby did have knowledge of Cramer's condition, psychiatric visits or medication. Paragraph 41: Accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth S. Syger, Esquire Michael W. Casey, III First Union Financial Center, Suite 3600 200 South Biscayne Boulevard Miami, Florida 33131-2338 Gary A. Isaacs, Esquire One Clearlake Centre 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 503 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road, Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird General Counsel Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road, Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
