Recommendation By reasons of the foregoing Facts and Conclusions of Law, I recommend that the Respondent's license be revoked. DONE and ORDERED this 4th day of August, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law I hereby recommend that the complaint filed herein be dismissed in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of May, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Jose Iglesias (Petitioner or Iglesias) is entitled to attorney's fees and costs from the Complainant/Respondent, Robert Nieman (Respondent or Nieman), pursuant to Section 112.317(8), Florida Statutes (2004).
Findings Of Fact On August 14, 2003, the Respondent executed a Complaint that was filed with the Ethics Commission against the Petitioner. The Complaint alleged: Vice Mayor Iglesias is constantly interfering with Police Department’s day-to- day operations, and spreading false rumors about Police Department personnel. (Document #1) Vice Mayor Iglesias is causing a hostile work environment with constant complaints about officers. Vice Mayor Iglesias is constantly encouraging racism, pitting hispanics against white and black officers of the Department. Vice Mayor Iglesias filed false police reports (verbally) constantly for his own gain and benefits. Vice Mayor Iglesias’s 16-year-old son works part time in Town Hall. (Nepotism) Vice Mayor Iglesias improper use of his title by instructing the Town Manager to take actions on the police department, and even retaliation against the Police Chief and myself. Vice Mayor Iglesias ordered public records about himself not to be released, and then when they were released he insisted the secretary releasing the records be fired. (Document #1) Mr. Iglesias is falsely using the title of M.D. and in fact used this title to gain his seat on the council and then becoming Vice Mayor. When Mr. Iglesias has been questioned on this matter by residents in the past he has stated he was a brain surgeon, a foot doctor, and a chiropractor, and could not list a hospital where he did his residency to become M.D. (Document #2) At all times material to this case the Petitioner was Vice Mayor serving on the Town’s governing council. As such, the Petitioner was subject to the ethics provisions governed by the Ethics Commission. The Respondent is a town employee and serves as a police sergeant within the police department. Mr. Nieman has been so employed for over 20 years. After an investigation of three of the allegations set forth in the Complaint (only three were deemed legally sufficient to warrant investigation) and consideration of the Advocate’s recommendation, the Ethics Commission entered a Public Report on March 16, 2004. The Public Report dismissed the Complaint and closed the matter. On April 14, 2004, the Petitioner filed the instant Fee Petition pursuant to Section 112.317(8), Florida Statutes (2004). The Fee Petition alleged that the Complaint “is based on eight allegations, all of which are false and were known to be false by Complainant when he filed the Complaint.” Additionally, the Fee Petition stated the Complaint “was filed by the Complainant with the knowledge the Complaint contained one or more false allegations, or with reckless disregard as to whether the Complaint contained false allegations. ” At hearing, the Petitioner presented evidence as to the three allegations of the Complaint that were investigated and deemed legally sufficient to require an ethics investigation. Those allegations were: whether the Petitioner had filed false police reports for his personal benefit; whether the Petitioner had attempted to prevent the release of a public record or insisted on the firing of the person who had released the record; and whether the Petitioner had caused his son to be employed by the Town. The false police reports allegation stemmed from the Petitioner’s use of public roads for rollerblading. The Petitioner is an avid rollerblader and likes to rollerblade for exercise. The Petitioner opined that rollerblading puts less stress on his back and has less impact than jogging. The Petitioner frequently rollerblades on the public road within the Town. Automobile traffic on the road must go around the Petitioner in order to pass. It is the Petitioner’s position that since there is no sidewalk or shoulder suitable to rollerblade, he is entitled to use the road surface just as a pedestrian might use the road surface. The Petitioner skates toward the middle of the lane and not on the edge of the road surface because the roadway is better there for the rollerblades. The record in this case does not clarify whether the Petitioner skates with or against the traffic. In connection with the rollerblading, the Respondent believes that the Petitioner is not entitled to use the road as he does and that if the Petitioner did not use his position as a councilman for influence, he would be cited for rollerblading down the road as he does. Further, the Respondent maintains that the Petitioner has made verbal complaints against motorists who passed too close to him. The Respondent maintains that the verbal complaints are false in that the Petitioner is not entitled to use the roadway as he does and therefore cannot complain against motorists as he does. The Petitioner does not deny the activity. The Respondent has observed the Petitioner rollerblading down the road. The Respondent has not issued a citation to the Petitioner because he is assigned an administrative position within the police department and he believes he is not allowed to issue such citations. The Respondent based the allegation regarding this claim upon statements he has heard from police officers within the Town’s police department. The Respondent did not subpoena the officers to the hearing because he did not want to involve other Town employees in the matter. The Respondent does not have any evidence to support the allegation other than what he believed he had been told in his experience as a police officer for the Town. The record does not demonstrate any written record of either the Petitioner being cited for improper rollerblading or making a report against a vehicle. As to the second allegation that was investigated, a memo purportedly from the chief of police was released to a member of the public by accident. It was included within a stack of documents that had been requested by a private citizen. The document stated in part: SUBJECT: Ethics violations and continual interference of day-to-day police operations by the Vice Mayor Iglesias This memorandum is to inform you [Mayor Michael Addicott] of constant harassment of police personnel and interference in daily operations by the new vice mayor. The Petitioner admitted that he was concerned that the document had been released in error and that the person who wrongly released a document should be disciplined. The Petitioner did not know about the document before it was released. He did not attempt to prevent the release of the document. Instead, the Petitioner sought to, after-the-fact find out why the document had been released, if the document was in fact a public record subject to release, and if the employee should be disciplined for the release. The document in question was a public record, was subject to public release, and the employee was not disciplined for its release. Nevertheless, the Petitioner did require a second (and arguably third opinion) regarding whether the document constituted a public record. In the meanwhile, the controversy within the Town over whether the document should have been released was widely discussed among Town employees. The Respondent filed his claim based upon several reports that the Petitioner wanted the secretary who released the report fired. One of the Respondent’s sources was the Chief of Police. The Respondent did not question the veracity of the police chief. At hearing, the Petitioner did not deny that discipline would have been appropriate if the release of the document were shown to be erroneous. The Petitioner acknowledged that the Town pursued a full review of the matter and that he was among those who called for the review. As to the third allegation (that the Petitioner caused his son to be hired by the Town), the Respondent believed that once the Petitioner was elected as a councilman that the son was not eligible to work for the Town. The Respondent thought that rules prohibiting nepotism applied to the Petitioner’s son and that as such the son could not continue to work for the Town. The Respondent based this interpretation on a general but un- researched idea about nepotism. He also discussed this matter with another Town employee who also thought the son was not eligible to work for the Town. In fact, the Petitioner’s son, Joseph, started working for the Town in a part-time position prior to the Petitioner being elected to office. After the Petitioner became Vice Mayor, the son continued with his duties but was moved from an independent contractor status to part-time employee status. The son then received a raise in his hourly rate of pay when the Town employees also received a raise. The Petitioner did not supervise the son’s employment and did not direct the son’s work. The record is unclear as to whether the Petitioner voted on the pay raise or not. At hearing the Respondent maintained that he had had numerous conversations with persons at the Ethics Commission who recommended that he add the information regarding the nepotism claim to his allegations. He admitted that he did not independently check any laws or rules that might pertain to nepotism before filing the claim. Much of the Respondent’s attitude and comments in connection with the Petitioner must be viewed in the context of the happenings within the Town. For unknown reasons, the Town, its employees, and the governing council were in a state of change and confrontation. The Respondent and the Petitioner apparently do not relate well to one another personally. The Respondent is suspicious of the Petitioner’s medical credentials and is uncertain as to why the Petitioner holds himself out as an “M.D.”, when he is not licensed nor is he eligible to be licensed as a medical doctor. The Petitioner believes the Respondent holds some animosity toward him for unknown reasons. Further, because the Respondent admitted he believes the Petitioner is arrogant, that belief somehow that demonstrates malice toward the Petitioner. The questions of whether the Petitioner is credentialed to be a medical doctor, whether the Petitioner attempted to interfere with the police department, or whether the Petitioner spread false rumors regarding the police department were not investigated and do not support, if true, an ethics violation. If attorney's fees and costs are entered in this cause the beneficiary of an award will be the Town. The Petitioner has incurred no expenses or costs associated with the defense of the Complaint. The Town agreed to pay and has paid all attorney's fees and costs associated with this case. The Petitioner presented several invoices from the Law Offices of Stuart R. Michelson that were alleged to pertain to the instant case. The Petitioner also presented testimony from an expert witness who was to be paid by the Town. That witness, an attorney, was to be paid $200.00 per hour for his efforts in this matter. Although the Petitioner’s expert testified that the hourly rates for fees applied in this cause were reasonable, there was no evidence that the time was actually expended in connection with the instant case. There is no way to know if the services were performed for the defense against the Respondent’s Complaint. The expert merely opined that the invoices he reviewed were reasonable. He maintained that the Petitioner should recover $27,455.53 in this matter.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Fee Petition in this case. S DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of June, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Kaye Starling, Agency Clerk Commission on Ethics 3600 Maclay Boulevard, South, Suite 201 Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Phillip C. Claypool, General Counsel Commission on Ethics 3600 Mclay Boulevard, South, Suite 201 Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Bonnie J. Williams, Executive Director Commission on Ethics 3600 Mclay Boulevard, South, Suite 201 Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 James J. Birch, Esquire Law Office of Stuart R. Michelson 200 Southeast 13th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 Robert Nieman 9731 Southwest 12th Street Pembroke Pines, Florida 33026
The Issue The issue in this case is whether an interpretation of Section 458.331(1)(jj), Florida Statutes, by the Board of Medicine is an agency statement which violates Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2007), pursuant to Section 120.56(4), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact These findings of fact, with a few changes based upon the stipulated record in this case, are facts contained in the Joint Stipulation: The Parties. Petitioner Franciso Vazquez, M.D., is a licensed medical doctor within the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 68742. Respondent Board of Medicine (hereinafter referred to as the “Board”), is charged with regulating the practice of medicine pursuant to Section 20.43 and Chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes. Dr. Vazquez’s address of record is 4595 Palm Beach Boulevard, Fort Myers, Florida 33905. DOAH Case No. 07-0424PL, Dr. Vazquez’s Disciplinary Case. Dr. Vazquez signed a written opinion in the form of an Affidavit on September 5, 2003, as required by Section 766.104(1), Florida Statutes (2003), in support of a medical malpractice action related to the death of C.L. Dr. Vazquez named approximately 40 doctors and one hospital in the sworn statement. The sworn statement generally stated that each of the defendants committed medical negligence and a breach of the prevailing professional standard of care in a multitude of ways, but did not specify which doctor committed which negligent act or how any individual doctor breached the prevailing standard of care. Dr. Vazquez further asserted in this sworn statement that the negligence and breach of the prevailing professional standard of care of all the doctors caused injury, damage and ultimately the death of C.L. That sworn statement ultimately formed the basis for a civil malpractice action filed on February 2, 2004, in the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida, in and for Pinellas County, Civil Division, Case Number 04-875CI-7. On or about February 22, 2005, circuit court judge Bruce Boyer of the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida, in an for Pinellas County, Civil Division, in case Number 04-875CI-7, entered an order of dismissal as to two defendant doctors. In the order of dismissal, Judge Boyer stated that the Dr. Vazquez was not a gastroenterologist and did not otherwise appear to be qualified to comment on the defendants’ care and did not appear to have made any reasonable effort to investigate and determine what role the [two] defendants played in C.L.’s care. Dr. Vazquez was not provided with any notice of the hearing on February 22, 2005, and neither he nor anyone acting on his behalf was present at the hearing to defend his interests. The court forwarded its order to the Division of Medical Quality Assurance as required by Section 766.206(5)(a), Florida Statutes (2003). On or about May 3, 2006, an Administrative Complaint was issued against Dr. Vazquez charging him with a one count violation of Section 458.331(1)(jj), Florida Statutes (2003), which subjects a physician to license discipline for “being found by any court in this state to have provided corroborating written medical expert opinion attached to any statutorily required notice of claim or intent or to any statutorily required response rejecting a claim without reasonable investigation.” The recommended penalties for a violation of Section 4458.331(1)(jj), Florida Statutes (2003), include revocation of the physician’s license. Dr. Vazquez is the first and only physician in Florida who has been formally charged with violating Section 458.331(1)(jj), Florida Statutes (2003). On or about January 22, 2007, the Department of Health referred Case No. 2005-03579 (DOH v. Francisco Vazquez, M.D.) to the Division of Administrative Hearings (hereinafter referred to as the “DOAH”) for a formal evidentiary hearing on the Administrative Complaint pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. The case was assigned DOAH Case Number 07-0424PL. The case was assigned to the undersigned. On or about March 1, 2007, Dr. Vazquez filed a Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction in the administrative proceeding, advising the court of his intent to file his constitutional challenge to Section 458.331(1)(jj), Florida Statutes, in circuit court and arguing the DOAH should relinquish jurisdiction until after the Leon County Circuit Court has ruled on his constitutional challenge. On or about March 5, 2007, Dr. Vazquez filed a Petition for Declaratory Action and/or Injunctive Relief in the Second Judicial Circuit Court in and for Leon County, Florida, alleging that Section 458.331(1)(jj), Florida Statutes, is unconstitutional under the U.S. and state constitutions, in that it allows disciplinary action against a physician’s license based exclusively on the existence of a court order entered in a proceeding in which the physician, acting as a presuit medical expert, is not a party and has no right to notice and an opportunity to be heard. The case was assigned case number 2007-CA-0663. On or about March 19, 2007, an Order Denying Motion to Relinquish was entered by the undersigned. On or about March 21, 2007, a hearing was held before the undersigned on Dr. Vazquez’ Motion to Continue Hearing. At the hearing, counsel for the Department of Health, argued that it is her client’s position that Section 458.331(1)(jj), Florida Statutes, only requires proof of the existence of a court order that includes the language mentioned in the statute and that, once this is proven, there is no opportunity for the physician to dispute the findings of the court order. The Department of Health’s argument was accepted by the undersigned. On or about April 17, 2007, after a formal administrative hearing was conducted but before a recommended order was issued, the Department of Health filed a Motion to Reopen the Hearing and Record and Schedule Evidentiary Formal Hearing. In the motion, the Department of Health urged the undersigned that a new interpretation of Section 458.331(1)(jj), Florida Statutes (2003), should be accepted, stating: It is the [Department of Health’s] position that Section 458.331(1)(jj), Florida Statutes, creates a rebuttable presumption. Under this interpretation, to create a prima facie case, the Department must prove that [Dr. Vazquez] was found to have provided a corroborating written affidavit in support of a notice of a claim without reasonable investigation. [Dr. Vazquez] may rebut such a showing by demonstrating that, notwithstanding the finding, his investigation was in fact reasonable. On or about May 8, 2007, the undersigned denied the Department of Health’s Motion to Reopen, holding that its new interpretation of Section 458.331(1)(jj), Florida Statutes (2003), is contrary to any reasonable reading of the statute. On or about July 5, 2007, the Department of Health filed its Exceptions to the Recommended Order of the undersigned in DOAH Case No. 07-0424PL, in which it reasserted that the correct interpretation of Section 458.331(1)(jj), Florida Statutes (2003), is the one set forth in its Motion to Reopen Hearing (quoted in paragraph 20, supra). On or about July 6, 2007, Dr. Vazquez filed his Reply to Petitioner’s Exceptions urging that, even if Petitioner’s new interpretation of Section 458.331(1)(jj), Florida Statutes, were to be adopted and applied to this case, the case should be dismissed and sent back to the probable cause panel for a determination made based upon the new interpretation. On or about August 10, 2007, a meeting of the Board was held in Fort Lauderdale, Florida at which the Board approved the Department of Health’s Exceptions to the Recommended Order and entered an Order remanding the case back to the DOAH for a “de novo hearing so that findings may be entered consistent with the Board of Medicine’s reading of Fla. Stat. § 458.331(1)(jj), as set forth in this order.” By accepting the Department of Health’s Exceptions, the Board adopted as its own, the interpretation of Section 458.331(1)(jj), Florida Statutes (2003), asserted by the Department of Health in its Motion to Reopen the Hearing and Record and Schedule Evidentiary Formal Hearing and quoted in paragraph 20, supra. In light of the fact that the Board has the final authority over its interpretation of the laws it is charged with applying, the Order of Remand was accepted by Order Accepting Remand and Reopening File entered September 17, 2007. On or about January 8, 2008, Dr. Vazquez filed his Motion to Dismiss Administrative Complaint and Remand to Agency for Probable Cause Determination, again arguing that the probable cause determination made against him was based on a reading of the statute which is substantially different than the reading that the Board adopted in the Order on Remand. The Department of Health opposed this motion. The motion was denied by an Order entered by the undersigned on January 18, 2008. The final hearing on remand in DOAH Case No. 07-0424PL was held on January 29, 2008, pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. In his Amended Petition, Dr. Vazquez has challenged the statement adopted by the Board through its Order of Remand. That statement, which is quoted in paragraph 20, supra, will hereinafter be referred to as the “Challenged Agency Statement.” The Challenged Agency Statement has not been adopted a rule pursuant to Section 120.54(1), Florida Statutes, and the Board has not initiated any rule-making procedures in this regard. The Board has not argued or presented evidence to support a finding that rule-making is not feasible and practicable under Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a general lines agent should be granted.
Findings Of Fact By application dated July 12, 2002, Ms. Baskinger applied to the Department for a license as a general lines agent. On the application, Ms. Baskinger answered affirmatively to the following question: Have you ever been charged, convicted, found guilty, or pleaded guilty or nolo contendere (no contest) to a crime under the laws of any municipality, county, state, territory or country, whether or not adjudication was withheld or a judgment of conviction was entered? On December 27, 2000, a one-count information was filed in the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit In and For Charlotte County, State of Florida, charging Ms. Baskinger with welfare fraud in violation of Section 414.39, Florida Statutes, a third degree felony. On June 27, 2001, Ms. Baskinger entered a plea of guilty to the crime. Adjudication of guilt was withheld and Ms. Baskinger was placed on probation for a period of four years and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $4,869.14. Ms. Baskinger was also required to perform 75 hours of community service. Ms. Baskinger made full restitution, and an Order Terminating Probation was entered on July 3, 2002. On July 12, 2002, Ms. Baskinger applied for licensure as a general lines agent. The Department denied her application for licensure by letter dated August 22, 2002, stating that the application was denied on the basis of Subsections 626.611(1), (7), (14), 626.621(8), and 626.731(1), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the application of Teresa M. Baskinger for licensure as a general lines agent. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 4th day of March, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Teresa M. Baskinger 4461 Ewing Circle Port Charlotte, Florida 33948 Ladasiah Jackson, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, a certified law enforcement officer, failed to maintain good moral character by knowingly making a false statement in writing with the intent to mislead a public servant in the performance of his official duties, a failure that, if proved, would warrant the imposition of discipline upon Respondent's certificate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Pablo Barrios ("Barrios") is a Florida- certified law enforcement officer and, as such, falls under the regulatory and disciplinary jurisdiction of Petitioner Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission ("Commission"). At the time of the final hearing, and at all times relevant to this case, Barrios was employed as a police officer by Florida International University ("FIU"). The events giving rise to this proceeding took place on July 17, 2003. That morning, Barrios attended an in-service training class taught by Sgt. Alfonso. There were about a dozen other FIU police officers in the class. Shortly after the class began, Barrios and Sgt. Alfonso got into an argument over Barrios's use of a digital recorder. (Sgt. Alfonso was apparently offended that Barrios would record the lecture; Barrios claimed that he was merely using the device to keep track of the time.) Sgt. Alfonso asked Barrios to leave the classroom. Barrios did leave, remarking on his way out that if he (Barrios) had intended to turn on the recording device, he would first have told everyone in the "fucking room." Barrios later returned to the classroom and sat in the back. The lesson proceeded to conclusion uneventfully. When the class ended, Capt. Wright entered the room. Someone had reported the verbal altercation between Barrios and Sgt. Alfonso, and Capt. Wright was there to find out what had happened. To that end, Capt. Wright asked each of the officers present to prepare a statement describing the incident and stating specifically whether "improper language" had been used. In response to Capt. Wright's request, Barrios wrote the following statement: I was single[d] out by Sergeant Alfonso for taking out [sic] a personal recorder out of my laptop bag. Capt. Wright considered Barrios's statement to be incomplete. He therefore wrote the following question beneath Barrios's description of the event: Lt. Barrios, was improper language ever used during the incident. Barrios answered the captain's query, in writing, with one word: "No."1 Ultimate Factual Determinations The undersigned infers (and is convinced) that Barrios knew, when presented with Capt. Wright's imprecisely drafted question regarding the use of "improper language," that this interrogatory, though ambiguous and open to interpretation, was meant to require Barrios to either admit or deny using the "f" word during the incident. The undersigned further infers (but is not convinced) that Barrios was likely aware that Capt. Wright would misinterpret Barrios's negative answer as an affirmation that no one (including Barrios) had uttered the word "fuck" or any of its cognates. The undersigned is not clearly convinced, however, that Barrios intended to mislead Capt. Wright.2 Rather, since admitting that his language had been "improper" would have been tantamount to confessing misbehavior,3 Barrios likely intended to deny having engaged in inappropriate behavior. The undersigned is also not clearly convinced that Barrios's statement was false, for two reasons. First, the undersigned is not convinced that Barrios believed his language to have been improper.4 To the contrary, the evidence persuades the undersigned that Barrios subjectively believed his words were justified. It is likely, in other words, that Barrios made what was, for him, a true statement. Second, Barrios's statement has not been clearly and convincingly falsified——that is, shown via ordinary evidence to be objectively untrue. Because the adjective "improper" reflects an opinion or judgment about something, such an opinion could be falsified only if5 (among other things) there were a clear objective standard against which to measure or judge the thing in question.6 The Commission offered no evidence regarding such an objective standard for determining that Barrios's language was improper and hence failed objectively to falsify Barrios's denial that improper language had been used.7 In sum, the Commission failed clearly and convincingly to prove, as was its burden, that Barrios made a "false statement" with the intent to mislead Capt. Wright.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order finding Barrios not guilty of failing to maintain good moral character by knowingly making a false statement in writing with the intent to mislead a public servant in the performance of his official duties. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of February, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 16th day of February, 2005.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent should deny Petitioner's application to be licensed as a resident personal lines insurance agent.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency responsible for licensing insurance agents in the state pursuant to Chapter 626, Florida Statutes (2004). On October 29, 2004, Respondent received Petitioner's application to be licensed as a resident personal lines insurance agent (insurance agent). On October 13, 2005, Respondent issued a Notice of Denial to Petitioner. Respondent based the denial on several grounds that fall into three categories. The first category is based on Petitioner's prior criminal history. In relevant part, the Notice of Denial denies the application because Petitioner pled nolo contendere to a crime punishable by imprisonment of one year or more. The Notice of Denial further states that the crime was one of moral turpitude and that Subsection 626.611(14), Florida Statutes (2004), makes denial of the application compulsory. Even if the crime were not one of moral turpitude, the Notice of Denial states that the plea of nolo contendere provides a discretionary ground to deny the application pursuant to Subsection 626.621(8), Florida Statutes (2004). The Notice of Denial states a second category of grounds that are also compulsory. The second category of grounds may be fairly summarized as alleging a lack of fitness or trustworthiness to engage in the business of insurance. The second category of grounds generally relates to turpitude inherent in the criminal offense and an inaccurate application answer stating that Petitioner had no prior criminal record. The Notice of Denial states that Petitioner lacks one or more qualifications for the license, that Petitioner committed a material misstatement or misrepresentation on her application, and that Petitioner demonstrated a lack of fitness or trustworthiness to engage in the business of insurance as provided in Subsections 626.611(1), 626.611(2), and 626.611(7), Florida Statutes (2004). The third category of grounds relates to waiting periods. The Notice of Denial states that Petitioner must wait 17 years from the date she pled nolo contendere before applying for a license as an insurance agent. The waiting period is based on agency rules in Florida Administrative Code Rules 69B-211.042(4)(b) and 69B-211.042(8) that are promulgated pursuant to Subsection 626.207(1), Florida Statutes (2004). The remaining Findings of Fact address the factual sufficiency of the second category of grounds for denial. The conclusions of law, in relevant part, address the legal sufficiency of the remaining grounds for denial. The criminal record of Petitioner is not disputed. On October 4, 2004, Petitioner pled nolo contendere to a third degree felony of grand theft in the Circuit Court in and for Pasco County, Florida, Case No. CRCO4-1177-CFAES. The court withheld adjudication of guilt and imposed fines and costs of $395. Petitioner served 30 days in the Pasco County jail. The court placed Petitioner on supervised probation for 18 months, which Petitioner successfully terminated early on September 27, 2005. Petitioner contests neither the inaccuracy of the application answer stating she had no prior criminal record nor the materiality of the inaccuracy. However, Petitioner does contest the agency's assertion that Petitioner possessed the culpable knowledge or scienter required to misstate, misrepresent, or commit fraud in attempting to obtain a license within the meaning of Subsection 626.611(2), Florida Statutes (2004). Petitioner also contests the assertions that she lacks one or more qualifications for licensure and that she lacks fitness or trustworthiness within the meaning of Subsections 626.611(1), 626.611(2), and 626.611(7), Florida Statutes (2004). Petitioner testified that her employer submitted her application electronically. Petitioner testified that she gave her employer accurate information concerning her application, but she did not review the application before transmission. The trier of fact finds the testimony concerning Petitioner's lack of culpable knowledge to be credible and persuasive. Petitioner testified with extraordinary candor. Her demeanor was frank and unguarded. Her denial of culpable intent to mislead the agency is consistent with the totality of evidence in this proceeding and with Petitioner's demonstrated fitness and trustworthiness after November 2002. After Petitioner gave birth to a son on March 20, 2002, her treating physician advised her to undergo a tubal ligation, and the subsequent surgery was successful. The resulting inability to bear more children, however, led Petitioner into a mental state that was subsequently diagnosed as severe clinical depression. Petitioner returned to work approximately 12 weeks after surgery. From August 2002 through November 2002, Petitioner engaged in an episode of compulsive spending in which she incurred approximately $70,000 in credit card debt that she charged to personal and business credit cards. In order to pay the debt, Petitioner began taking money from her employer. Petitioner describes her hedonistic offense in her own words: [T]his incident occurred when I was suffering from severe depression that was [subsequently] diagnosed by a physician. I have been under the treatment of a psychiatrist and also a psychologist. I still see my psychiatrist quarterly to make sure that all is well with my medications . . . . The psychologist released me from her care because she felt that I can now deal with everyday stress. . . . So in order to fill that void [of no more children] I started shopping. And I would - I would go to the mall in a day and I would spend several thousand dollars on absolute garbage, you know, when you look. I mean. I started buying clothes; I bought furniture. I just was a shopaholic. I would go every Saturday and Sunday and spend time at the mall and just shop like crazy. [M]y husband had no idea of our finances. He just gave the paycheck and said: You do what you need to do. As long as he could have cash he didn't care. So he had no idea. He didn't even know how much money I made; he didn't know how much our mortgage was; he didn't know anything about our finances. And then once I started having all these credit card bills then I was, you know, robbing Peter to pay Paul . . . . And then it just got where I snapped . . . . And . . . unfortunately it looked like the easy way out. It was an answer to my problems and I could continue doing what I needed to do. [T]he attorney [employer] pretty much left me to do what I needed to do. I wrote all of his court motions, and I wrote all of his pleadings, and accountings, and inventories, and he didn't even look at them. He would just sign them. He didn't review them at all. And so when I would give him checks to sign . . . I would just take him the check and say, "I need you to sign a check," and he would sign the check and wouldn't even look to see . . . it was [to me]. Transcript (TR), pages 15 and 24-26. After November 2002, Petitioner voluntarily disclosed her offense to her employer. Petitioner's effort to reclaim her integrity and trustworthiness was both epiphanic and Herculean. The effort is best described in her own words: I started contemplating suicide and said: Oh, well, this will take care of all the problems. But then I had read up and didn't want my kids to grow up without a parent or think that for some reason they caused me to do it. So at that point in time I was just - I didn't know what to do or where to turn. I was just completely lost. And so I hadn't been to church in like a year. For whatever reason the Sunday before the Monday that I went to [an] attorney I went to church and they told a story. And I said: You know, I'm willing to confess to what I've done at whatever cost because I can't - I can't keep going like this, and I can't keep pretending like nothing is wrong, and laying in bed and the couch all day. So I went to [an] attorney the very next day. Q. Do you need a moment? A. I'm okay. * * * In January 2003, I'm sorry. This is hard reliving it. THE COURT: That's okay. Take your time and if you need a recess just let me know. A. This is the first time that I just really said it out loud. THE COURT: Yes. A. In January of 2003, I contacted [an attorney]. I informed him . . . that I had done something wrong and I didn't know where to turn to or who to turn to. At this point in time I hadn't told my family and nobody knew. All they knew is that something was wrong with me. I wasn't myself. I was withdrawn and I stayed in bed . . . all day. The attorney immediately contacted my former employer to advise that there was a problem with his accounting system. Up until this time he had no knowledge of any . . . problems. My attorney also contacted a doctor for me to see immediately because he could tell that something was not right with me. At this time that my attorney contacted my former employer I offered to make immediate restitution, which I did [over time]. At this point in time my employer said that he did not want to contact any authorities because he didn't want the publicity in a small town. And as far as I knew, the situation was taken care of. I was making restitution and I thought it was over. At some point in time my former employer contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). After meeting with the FBI, I agreed to assist them because my former employer was billing my time as the attorney's time in guardianship cases. This would cause clients to run out of money and become eligible for Medicaid and other state governmental services. The federal government ended up dropping the charge against me and I . . . agreed to assist them in any cases against my employer. When things were not moving along in the federal case my former employer also contacted the local authorities. I was arrested on May 1 of 2004. And this was almost - this was almost a year-and-a-half after I had first come forward. And then in September 2004, my attorney was ready to go to trial. At the last minute the State Attorney offered a plea deal. I was told that I could finally put this nightmare behind me by pleading no contest and I would have no criminal record because the court would withhold adjudication. [T]he judge made a point to mention that adjudication was being withheld so I would have no felony criminal record. And also at this time there was no restitution ordered because I had already paid it all back. TR at 15-18. Petitioner paid approximately $85,000 in restitution. Restitution was a Sisyphean effort, as Petitioner explains: I paid back cash. I had taken - I had calculated $40,000. He said that I calculated - that I had taken $60,000 and then he raised it to $80,000 for his time. But I - I paid back $45,000 in cash. The credit card companies, he contacted every credit card company that I paid and they all reversed all of their [charges]. So I ended up owing, you know, another $45,000 back in credit cards that he had . . . all the payments reversed. . . . So I paid a total - it was $85,000. * * * [W]e sold everything we had. . . . We sold our home. I had bought my husband a third vehicle. We sold that. We had a motorcycle that sold. We had a lot of toys. TR at 27-28. The trier of fact is not persuaded that Petitioner would have lied on her license application in October 2005 after voluntarily disclosing her offense in January 2003. When Petitioner exercised a conscious choice to confess her offense, she knew with certainty that shame would follow her exposure to her husband and children. Petitioner also knew that her choice would subject her family to the financial hardship and social upheaval inherent in selling everything they owned to make restitution to her former employer. Petitioner learned a new occupation, contributed to her family's recovery, and testified candidly and frankly about her offense. When the court sentenced Petitioner to 30 days in jail, Petitioner requested that she be allowed to serve the sentence every other weekend. Petitioner worked during the week and did not want to be away from her children all week and every weekend. The judge granted the request. The trier of fact finds that Petitioner neither misstated nor misrepresented her criminal record on her license application. Nor did Petitioner commit fraud in answering the questions on the application within the meaning of Subsection 626.611(2), Florida Statutes (2004). The trier of fact finds that Petitioner does not lack one or more of the qualifications for licensure required in Subsection 626.611(1), Florida Statutes (2004).1 Nor does Petitioner demonstrate a lack of fitness or trustworthiness to engage in the business of insurance within the meaning of Subsection 626.611(7), Florida Statutes (2004).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order determining that Petitioner's license application has been granted by operation of law. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of May, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of May, 2006.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent violated Section 475.25(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1997), by obtaining a license by fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment. (All Chapter and Section references are to Florida Statutes (1997) unless otherwise stated.)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for the regulation and discipline of real estate licensees in the state. Respondent is licensed in the state as a real estate sales person pursuant to license number 0640934. The last license issued to Respondent was c/o Raizor Realty, Inc., 12007 Cypress Run Road, Orlando, Florida 32836. On July 3, 1996, Respondent applied for a license as a real estate salesperson. On the application, Respondent signed a sworn affidavit that all of his answers were true and correct and: . . . are as complete as his/her knowledge, information and records permit, without any evasions or mental reservations whatsoever. . . . Question nine on the application asked Respondent whether he had ever been convicted of a crime, found guilty, or entered a plea of nolo contendere, even if adjudication was withheld. Respondent answered "no." Petitioner relied on the accuracy of the application and issued a license to Respondent. Respondent is active in the practice of real estate and depends on his license to earn a living. Respondent has no prior disciplinary history and has been licensed for approximately two years. On February 20, 1985, Respondent was adjudicated guilty of misdemeanor theft. The court suspended the sentence. Petitioner had changed the price stickers on a pair of shoes valued at $20 and on a jar of vitamins. The court found Respondent guilty of misdemeanor theft, fined him $100, and sentenced him to 30 days in jail. The jail sentence was suspended pending completion of six-months' probation. Respondent completed probation in a satisfactory and timely manner. Respondent did not willfully misstate a material fact. He conferred with friends. They advised Respondent that the matter was immaterial and more than seven years old. Respondent answered no to question nine on his application in the good faith belief that the crime was immaterial and not the type of offense addressed in the question. When Petitioner's investigator inquired of Respondent, Respondent answered all questions fully and truthfully and cooperated in the investigation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of violating Section 475.25(1)(m), and dismissing the charges against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of December, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of December, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Laura McCarthy, Senior Attorney Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire 1999 West Colonial Drive, Suite 211 Orlando, Florida 32804 James Kimbler, Acting Division Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Respondent, Hazel Marie Bowling, is qualified to hold a Certificate as a law enforcement officer in Florida.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, stipulation of facts, and the entire record compiled herein, hereby make the following relevant factual findings. Respondent, Hazel Marie Bowling, was certified by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission on July 3, 1979, and was issued Certificate Number 02-23702 as a law enforcement officer. On approximately December 17, 1981, Respondent was adjudicated guilty of the offense of filing a false report to law enforcement authorities, a misdemeanor involving perjury or false statement. (Stipulation of the parties) As mitigating factors, Respondent, through representative Henry C. Jones, pointed out that motions for a new trial and for an arrest of the judgment, referred to hereinabove, had been made but were "erroneously" decided, at least in the minds of Respondent and representative Jones. Respondent also points to the fact that she has been hired by the Hendry County Sheriffs" Department as a dispatcher and that to obtain that employment, she was subjected to a background check and was cleared by that agency for the dispatcher's position.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby recommended that the Petitioner, Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, enter a Final Order revoking Respondent's certification as a law enforcement officer in Florida. RECOMMENDED this 7th of January, 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 9th day of January, 1985.
