The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner's licensure to operate a child-care facility in Leesburg, Florida, should be denied, under relevant authority cited below.
Findings Of Fact This dispute arose when the Department notified the Petitioner, by letter of January 16, 2009, that the application submitted by the Petitioner to authorize operation of a child- care facility was denied. The facility was to be located at 1329 Marshall Drive in Leesburg, Florida. The application was submitted on October 23, 2008. Upon being informed of the intended denial of the Application for Licensure, the Petitioner requested an administrative hearing and the dispute was transferred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for adjudication. The Department had denied the application based on a history of serious violations of statutes and rules, related to the safety of children, during the Petitioner's previous operation of Small Fries Daycare Center in 2004. The renewal of licensure for Small Fries, as well as an application for licensure to operate a second facility, "The Learning Tree," was denied after a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, by a Final Order entered by the Department on December 12, 2005. The Petitioner offered no credible evidence to show why the previous, serious violations would not re-occur if the subject facility was granted licensure. The Petitioner's testimony was somewhat contradictory and she appeared focused on the wrongs she believes were done with regard to her licensure and her facilities in the 2004 dispute, as much as on the present application dispute. She offered no evidence of additional training or rehabilitation since her flawed operation of the Small Fries facility, other than her own self-serving statements. Although she testified that she would be a good operator and follow all relevant rules, she testified in a misleading fashion as to her credentials and training. It became apparent that she was reading from a list of available, relevant educational courses for operators for daycare facilities, but provided no proof that she had actually completed the courses. She also admitted that she did not have the required Director's credentials to operate a child-care facility. She offered no employment history and testified that she had, in fact, not worked since the closure of the Small Fries facility, in 2005, by the above-referenced Final Order. The findings in the Recommended Order in that case, as adopted in the Final Order, entered in 2005, established that the Petitioner was responsible for a number of violations of statutes and rules pertaining to licensure and safe operation of her child care facility.1 The Petitioner made a misrepresentation of a critical fact on her application. The primary reason the Respondent took the position that licensure in this case should be denied was the past operational and licensure history of the Petitioner and her facility, which culminated in the referenced Recommended and Final Orders denying licensure. There were multiple legal violations which resulted in her loss of licensure. On the subject application the Petitioner misrepresented a critical fact by failing to acknowledge that she had her licensure denied in the past. Ultimately, the Petitioner admitted in testimony that she had not been truthful on her application when she answered the question at issue and did not disclose a previous licensure denial. Moreover, there is no dispute that the Petitioner's application to operate the day care facility was incomplete at the time it was submitted. The Petitioner ultimately, and reluctantly, admitted in testimony that she did not have a Certificate of Occupancy for the building, did not have the required sanitation and environmental inspection from the Health Department, nor an approved fire inspection. These are all items that are required to be obtained before an application can be considered complete and subject to being granted, under the relevant Department rules. These were all items that the Petitioner knew or should have known must be submitted for an application to be complete. The Department, as a routine procedure, reviews applications for completeness and required documentation. If items are missing, the Department sends a letter to the applicant, within 30 days of receipt of the application, in order to comply with Section 120.60(1), Florida Statutes (2009). The Department Licensing Counselor, Ms. Burleson, sent the letter containing the list of missing items to the Petitioner at the address of record on November 19, 2008. This was well within 30 days of the application submission (October 23, 2008) in compliance with Section 120.60(1), Florida Statutes (2009). The Petitioner was informed of the lack of information, and the need to supply it, by the Department after the filing of her application during the fall of 2008. She maintained that she had faxed the information to the Department, which proved not to be true. The Department never received any faxed information prior to the letter sent by Ms. Burleson to the Petitioner on November 19, 2008, specifically listing missing items. Moreover, the Petitioner also admitted that the Fire Department was requiring her to install additional sprinklers in the second floor of the building she proposes to use for her facility, before she could receive the necessary approval. She stated that this was a large expense that she was not able to complete at this time. The Petitioner contended that had she known within 30 days which specific items were missing from her application, as to compliance with licensure requirements, she would have had time to complete them. That statement is not credible and, indeed, the Petitioner's own testimony refutes it. The Petitioner admitted that she did not have the required health and fire inspections or the Certificate of Occupancy as late as the date of the hearing. She claimed to have faxed the missing CPR certificate to the Respondent in December 2008, after the date of the letter, November 19, 2008, informing her of missing items. In fact, the purported fax of the missing certificate never happened. The Petitioner also claimed to have taken some of the missing items with her to a meeting she had with Ms. Burleson on January 16, 2009. If she did not know what items were missing from her application, because of purportedly not having received the November 19, 2008, letter (even though she executed the application herself) then she could not have known what to fax to the Department or take with her to the meeting with Ms. Burleson. In fact, however, the missing items referenced in these findings of fact remain missing from the application, rendering it non-compliant, as of the date of the hearing. The Petitioner's testimony that she did not receive the November 19, 2008, letter from the Department is not credible. It is not supported by any evidence produced by the Petitioner. The Petitioner admitted that the address on the letter (241 Mont Clair Road, Leesburg, Florida) is her current mailing address and the address where she currently receives mail. She admitted receiving the September 8, 2008, letter from the Department, as well as the Notice of Intent which she later completed and returned to the Department. Her statement that she did not receive the November 19, 2008, letter from the Department, advising her of incomplete documentation is inexplicable and not credible, given the evidence that she knew what was missing from her application. The Petitioner knew, or should have known, that at the time she requested the hearing and at all times through the hearing date that she could not possibly meet the requirements for licensure. This is because she admittedly lacked the four critical items required for licensure: a current Directors Certificate; an Occupancy Permit for the building from the City of Leesburg; an approved Health and Sanitation Report from the Lake County Health Department; and an approved Fire Safety Inspection and evidence of it. The Petitioner instead, admitted at the hearing that she had chosen not to comply with the fire inspection requirement, which would result in the addition of more fire sprinklers, because they were too expensive. The Petitioner's refusal to expend time and money to comply with the licensing requirements, in essence, resulted in her demanding a hearing when the inevitable Notice of Intent to Deny Licensure was issued from the Department. This resulted in the expenditure of resources by the Department and the Division of Administrative Hearings, when such use of resources for the formal hearing process might have been avoided. In essence, she approached the hearing as an attempt to re-try the prior facts which resulted in her loss of licensure in 2005, rather than make a more affirmative showing of how she could comply with the licensure and operational requirements attendant to the potential grant of the subject application.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the State of Florida, Department of Children and Family Services denying the application in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of October, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of October, 2009.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times material to this proceeding, the Respondent was certified as a school social worker and as a teacher for emotionally handicapped children and has been licensed by the state of Florida as a clinical social worker for eight years. For approximately 2 years prior to the 1991-92 school year, the Respondent had been employed by the Board as a teacher for emotionally handicapped children and assigned to the Sunshine Kids Program (Program) at the YMCA in Sarasota County, Florida. The Program was a pilot project, and a joint effort between the Board, the Child Development Center and the YMCA. The Board provided the teacher, the classroom aide and educational supplies. Although the Board considered the Program a success, it was decided that in order for the Board to offer the program to all eligible children it would be best to locate the Program in a school facility. Therefore, the Program was moved to the Fruitville Elementary School beginning the 1991-92 school year. The Program employed attachment bonding therapy in dealing with severely emotionally disturbed children. This type of therapy is confrontational in nature and at times requires the therapist to physically restrain the child to gain control. It was Respondent's understanding that the attachment based curriculum had the Board's approval and that there was administrative support for the attachment based curriculum. During Respondent's tenure with the Program at the YMCA, the Respondent asked for and was granted permission by the Board to attend two annual conferences on attachment and bonding in Miami, Florida where attachment bonding therapy was discussed. During the 1991-92 school year, Respondent was employed by the Board as a teacher of pre-kindergarten severely emotionally disturbed children at Fruitville Elementary School in Sarasota County, Florida. There was a full-time therapist for Respondent's class while located at the YMCA facility. However, when Respondent's class moved to Fruitville Elementary School the therapist was only available on an "as needed" basis. At the beginning of the 1991-92 school year, Respondent was assisted in the classroom by Linda Gonzales, a teacher's aide. Beginning in December, 1991, in addition to Linda Gonzales, the Respondent was assisted by Ann Klemeyer, a teacher's aide. Prior to assisting Respondent, both Gonzales and Klemeyer had worked as teacher's aides in classes dealing with emotionally handicapped children. Respondent's class at Fruitville Elementary School consisted of approximately nine severely emotionally disturbed children ranging in age from three to five years of age. One of the severely emotionally disturbed children in Respondent's class was four year old Heath VanderCar who was approximately 3 1/2 feet tall, weighing between 35 and 40 pounds, with long pale blond hair. Heath was speech disabled due to a cleft palate. Sometime in April, 1992, during a school day while the children were in "circle time", the Respondent, using both hands, took Heath VanderCar by his hair and lifted Heath momentarily off of the floor. The Respondent then dragged Heath across the floor and dropped him to the floor where he remained in "time out". Apparently, Respondent's actions were initiated by Heath's verbal refusal of Respondent's request that Heath remain still while in "circle time". After the incident, several clumps and numerous strands of hair resembling Heath's hair were found by Klemeyer in the time-out area where the Respondent had placed Health. There is competent substantial evidence to show that the hair found by Klemeyer in the time out area was Heath's hair and that its presence in the time out area was a result of Respondent lifting Heath by the hair. Other than his missing hair, Heath suffered no physical or mental injury and there were no marks or bruises on Heath's body as a result of this incident. Gonzales picked up Heath's hair from the floor for the purpose of discussing the matter with a teacher and a teacher's aide in the classroom next door. After discussing the matter with the teacher and teacher's aide next door, Gonzales was advised by them not to report the incident. Their reasoning was that it would be a teacher's aide's word against a teacher with good standing in the community. Gonzales did not report the incident to the school authorities or to the abuse registry. During circle time on a school day close to Mother's Day, 1992 (May 10, 1992), Respondent, while stressing good behavior, made comment to the children in her class that their mothers could kill them if they wanted to and that, if they, the children, did not behave and start listening, the Respondent was going to call their mothers and tell them to kill the children. On another occasion in class during 1992, the Respondent interrupted Gonzales while discussing dinosaurs with the children and told the children that the reason the dinosaurs were extinct was that they were mean, greedy and fought all the time. The Respondent told her class that extinct meant dead, and if they, the children, did not stop misbehaving they too would be extinct, dead. On May 22, 1992, during "circle time" for the class, Heath VanderCar had been placed in a time out area for being disruptive. When Heath continued to fidget and interrupt the class while in time out, the Respondent proceeded to pick Heath up by his head so that his feet were off of the floor, using one hand under his jaw and the other hand behind his head. The Respondent then yelled at Heath that she was the "boss" and dropped him to the floor crying. Heath suffered no apparent physical or mental injury and there were no marks or bruises on Heath's body as a result of this incident. Later on that same day, May 22, 1992, while Heath VanderCar was in the circle with the other children, seated next to Respondent on her right, Heath began to fidget with the velcro snappers on his sneakers. At this point, Respondent reached through Heath' arms around his back and proceeded to pull him across Respondent's body throwing Heath to her left for a distance of about six feet. Heath landed face down with his head within a foot of a file cabinet. Heath suffered no apparent physical or mental injury and there were no marks of bruises on Heath's body as a result of this incident. Subsequent to the second incident with Heath VanderCar on May 22, 1992, the Respondent in attempting to demonstrate to the children the need to respect authority, proceeded to tap each child and the two aides asking each, "Are your afraid of me". Ashley VanderCar, Heath's five year old sister, answered "no". The rest of the class answered "Yes". Ashley is also a severely emotionally disturbed child, approximately 4 1/2 to 5 feet tall, weighing between 40 and 50 pounds. Respondent responded to Ashley's reply by bringing her to the middle of the circle of children and pinning her to the floor, face down, with Ashley's arms and legs restrained. The Respondent then proceeded to take Ashley by the head and nod Ashley's head in the affirmative as Respondent said, "Are you afraid of Me? Yes, Ashley, you are afraid of me." When Ashley finally acquiesced, she was released. Ashley suffered no apparent physical or mental injury and there were no marks or bruises on Ashley's body as a result of this incident. The purpose of Aggression Control Techniques (ACT) is the protection of: (1) a child in danger of hurting themselves; (2) another person in danger of being hurt by a child or; (3) property in danger of significant damage by the child. ACT is not a behavior modification technique and should not be used as a means of discipline. The Respondent was aware of the purpose of ACT, having been trained in ACT through the Sarasota County School system. Notwithstanding having been trained in ACT, the Respondent directed that the ACT restraint hold be used by Gonzales and Klemeyer on children in her class at Fruitville Elementary School to punish them and to require the children to agree to be good. The Respondent used the ACT restraint hold to punish overt acts of defiance in her class at Fruitville Elementary School. The Aggression Control Techniques do not include the techniques used by Respondent in her attempt to control the behavior of Heath VanderCar. Respondent was under the mistaken belief that the techniques applied in her class at Fruitville Elementary School involved attachment bonding techniques discussed at the annual conferences she had attended in Miami, Florida. There was competent substantial evidence to show that the techniques used by Respondent with the children in her class at Fruitville Elementary School were not the type of techniques involved in attachment bonding. However, even assuming that the Respondent's techniques involved attachment bonding, such techniques are designed to be used only in a clinical setting, not in a setting such as the Respondent's classroom at Fruitville Elementary School. The bonding intended to be generated in attachment bonding therapy is between the child and the child's parent or caregiver, not the child's teacher. Gonzales testified that the Respondent was building a good rapport with the children in her class and there was no evidence that this rapport changed after the incidents. Gonzales also testified that there had been no complaints from the parents on Respondent's handling of the class. There was no evidence of the parents awareness of Respondent's conduct. There is competent substantial evidence to establish facts to show that Respondent's conduct during the 1991-92 school year, particularly her conduct during April and May, 1992 regarding Health and Ashley VanderCar, violated Rule 6B-1.006(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code. There was no evidence that the community, including teachers and students, reacted in such a fashion to Respondent's conduct that her effectiveness in the school system had been impaired. However, the danger posed to the physical and mental health and safety of the children by Respondent's egregious conduct speaks for itself and it is self evident that Respondent's conduct has impaired her effectiveness in the school system.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Sarasota County School Board enter a final order terminating Petitioner's employment with the Board, effective as of the date of Respondent's suspension. RECOMMENDED this day 9th of November, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 9th day of November, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-7278 The following constitutes my specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner in this case. Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. The following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parenthesis is the Findings of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding(s) of fact: 1(1); 2(7); 3(10); 4-5(9); 7(11); 8(12,13); 9(14); 11(17); 13(18); 14-15(19); 16(20); 17(15); 18(16); 19(22); 20(24); 21(25); 22(26); 23(27); 24-25(28); and 26(33). Proposed finding of fact 6 is neither material nor relevant to the charges. Proposed finding of fact 10 is more of statement as to credibility of testimony than a finding of fact. But see findings of fact 12 and 13. Proposed finding of fact 12 goes to the weight of given testimony and is not a finding of fact. But see finding of fact 17. Proposed finding of fact 27 is rejected in that it is not supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. See findings of fact 31-34. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. Respondent did not file and proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold O. Miller, Esquire Nelson, Hess, Cyril, Smith, Widman, Herb, Causey & Dooley 2070 Ringling Boulevard Sarasota, Florida 34237 Frederick P. Mercurio, Esquire Mercurio and Ostrander, P. A. 1800 Second Street, Suite 920 Sarasota, Florida 34236 Honorable Betty Castor Commission of Education Department of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Charles W. Fowler, Superintendent Sarasota County School Board 2418 Hatton Street Sarasota, Florida 34237-8126
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a not-for-profit Florida corporation, licensed by the Florida Department of Insurance to do business as a Health Maintenance Organization (HMO). It enrolls members and provides them with direct medical care. Petitioner was acquired by the Halifax Hospital Taxing District, a special taxing district and political sub-division of the State of Florida, in 1994. Respondent is the state agency authorized to implement the collection and enforcement of Florida tax laws. Petitioner is a staff model HMO which enrolls people who become members and provides direct medical aid to these members. This medical aid is provided by physicians employed by Petitioner, as well as some outside physicians who have contracted with Petitioner. Membership consists of these major groups: Medicare subscribers, school children enrolled in the Florida Healthy Kids Programs and private employers. Petitioner enrolls two classes of members that would fall into the category of "persons unable to pay", i. e. Medicare beneficiaries and Healthy Kids participants. Petitioner has two Medicare Programs for Medicare beneficiaries. One in which the member pays nothing and receives medical aid and a reduced prescription benefit, and another in which the member pays $15.50 per month and receives medical aid and additional benefits such as a prescription benefit, hearing aid benefit, and optometry benefit with small co-pays. Petitioner provides this comprehensive medical aid under a contract with the Health Care Financing Administration at a HCFA-approved capitation rate. Prescription benefits provided to Petitioner's Medicare members cost Petitioner $36.18 per member, per month, approximately fifty percent of average wholesale price. Non-members of Petitioner seeking their Medicare benefits through traditional Medicare, would pay an average of $70.00 per month for their prescription benefit. Approximately eight percent of the Medicare population in Petitioner's service area fall below Federal Poverty Guidelines. The economic make-up of Petitioner's Medicare membership is inferred to be reflected in its Medicare membership. Petitioner infers that eight percent of its membership falls below Federal Poverty Guidelines and are persons unable to pay. Petitioner's total expenses for the nine-month period ending March 31, 1995, were $64,675,533.32. The Medicare costs for that period were $37,421,480.36. Eight percent or $2,993,718.40, were spent for persons who were unable to pay. Petitioner provides comprehensive medical aid to children in its Healthy Kids Program. The Healthy Kids Program is a state-subsidized program in which children, who were not eligible for medicaid but whose parents do not have health insurance for them, could obtain health coverage. Petitioner was the HMO selected by the Healthy Kids Corporation, the corporation created by the Florida Legislature to operate the Healthy Kids Program, to provide this comprehensive medical aid under a monthly capitation. Petitioner operates its Healthy Kids Program at a loss ratio of approximately 101 percent, i. e. over one hundred cents of every dollar collected goes to direct medical aid to Healthy Kids participants. HMO's traditionally operate with a loss ratio of eighty percent, i. e. eighty cents of every dollar collected goes to the provision of medical care and the other twenty percent would go into administrative expenses. Eighty two point two (82.2) percent of participants in Petitioner's service area fall below Federal Proverty Guidelines and are persons unable to pay. The Healthy Kids' costs for the period ending March 31, 1995 were $3,890,964.65; 82.2 percent, or $3,198,372.90, was spent for persons who were unable to pay. For the nine-month period ending March 31, 1995, a total of $6,192,091.30, or 9.6 percent, was spent on persons who were unable to pay. Any surplus generated from the activities of Petitioner, other than through its participation in the Healthy Kids Program, is turned over to the Halifax Hospital Taxing District. Any surplus generated from participation in the Healthy Kids Program contract is returned to the Healthy Kids Corporation. Petitioner spends in excess of fifty percent of its expenditures on medical aid for the relief of disease, injury, or disability. Medicare is a federally sponsored program available to people sixty- five and over who do not receive medical benefits through an employer. It is available without regard to the person's income level. Medicare is also available to persons under sixty-five who are totally disabled for two months or longer. Medicare subscribers accounted for 12,917 of Petitioner's total of 45,759 subscribers during the relevant nine month period. Petitioner is reimbursed by the federal government at the fixed capitation rate of $365 per month for each Medicare subscriber enrolled as a member of the HMO. Thus, for a nine month period corresponding to Petitioner's financial data, the Petitioner received $42,432,345 from the federal government attributable to Medicare subscribers. Medicare expenses for a nine month period were $37,421,000. Petitioner's federal Medicare revenue exceeded its total Medicare cost by $5,011,345 for the relevant nine month period. This figure is understated because it does not reflect revenue received from the $15.50 supplemental premium for additional benefits. There are two competitors for Medicare subscribers in the Petitioner's market area. Each provider receives the same capitation rate from the federal government. The competitors offer Medicare recipients different programs in which they may enroll. The competitors offer a slightly different product at a higher premium. No testimony was introduced to compare the premium charged and the plans offered by other providers with that offered by other providers with that offered by Petitioner. Prescription medicine is not being provided free of charge or at a substantially reduced cost to those unable to pay. It is not Petitioner's policy to waive the supplemental premium based upon the subscriber's income level, although some Medicare subscribers who get behind on the co-payment are not terminated for that reason. Petitioner's prescription benefit plan is part of a marketing strategy intended to attract Medicare subscribers. Petitioner subsidizes the prescription benefit to attract subscribers. Without the necessary subscriber base, Petitioner would be forced to lay off a portion of its physician employee workforce. Another portion of the Petitioner's subscriber base consists of school age children enrolled in the Healthy Kids Program (the Program). During the nine month period reflected in Petitioner's financial data, 7,130 children were enrolled in the Program. Enrollment in the program is open to all Volusia County school children who do not have health insurance and are not eligible for federal Medicaid health coverage. Approximately 80 percent of those enrolled fell below 135 percent of the federal poverty guideline. The Florida Healthy Kids Corporation is empowered to enter into contracts with health care providers to provide health care benefits to participants. The idea is to provide children who would not otherwise receive coverage with regular health care. Petitioner entered into a competitive bidding process to act as the Volusia area provider for the Healthy Kids Program. Participation in the Program requires the Petitioner to provide health care services to those children who qualify for admission into the program. The Petitioner receives a monthly premium payment per child based upon enrollment. This rate is set by the competitive bidding process. For the period of time reflected in the Petitioner's nine month financial data, the rate was $46.50 per month. This rate generated a surplus. The rate is presently $43 per month. The Program is funded by a combination of state and local tax dollars and premium contributions from parents. Parental contributions are based on a sliding scale which adjusts for income. Parents with incomes below federal poverty guidelines do not have to contribute towards the premium payment; any difference is made up by state and local tax dollars. That a percentage of children live at or below a federal poverty guideline has no demonstrated affect on the cost of Petitioner's services to those children. Petitioner does not establish the economic guidelines used to fix a parent's share of the premium. Petitioner does not receive more or less revenue based upon the income status of a parent or child. Petitioner is not aware of the particular economic status of individual children enrolled in the Program. Petitioner does not provide children in the Program with medical services for free or at a substantially reduced cost to those unable to pay. The Healthy Kids Corporation, in cooperation with state and local governments, provides the subsidy for enrollment of children in families with an income at or below the federal poverty guidelines.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Revenue enter a Final Order denying a consumer's certificate of exemption to Petitioner. DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of November, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of November, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Pamela J. Thomas, Esquire Florida Health Care Plans 1340 Ridgewood Avenue Holly Hill, Florida 32117 Kevin J. O'Donnell, Esquire Department of Revenue Post Office Box 6668 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6668 Linda Lettera Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Larry Fuchs Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
The Issue Whether the Department of Corrections’ proposed award of RFP Number 96-DC-6902 to Cini-Little International, Inc. (Cini- Little) is contrary to the agency’s governing statutes, the agency’s rules or policies, or the bid or proposals specifications. Specifically, whether Cini-Little's proposal was responsive to material provisions in the request for proposal.
Findings Of Fact On July 26, 1996, the Department issued a request for proposals for RFP Number 96-DC-6902, a Feasibility Study of a Advanced Food Production system for the Department. The study was to consider costs benefits of a centralized food production system for the Department which would cook and freeze or chill foods in a central food plant and ship pre-packaged foods to the Department’s institutions where the food would be reheated and served. This process would replace the current “cook and serve” method of preparing meals used in the Department. The Department projects it will serve 330,000 meals per day to its inmates and staff in the year 2001. The study was to consider the best and most economical technology for a state of the art comprehensive food service program employing advanced food production methods. No protest of the terms and conditions of the RFP was filed. Certain of the provisions were deemed mandatory requirements, generally by the use of “shall”, “must” or “will”, and failure to meet those provisions was grounds for rejection of a proposal. See Paragraph 1.4. Paragraph 4.3.6.1 of the RFP provided as follows regarding rejection of mandatory requirements: The department has established certain requirements with respect to proposals to be submitted by proposers. The use of “shall”, “must” or “will” (except to indicate simple futurity) in this Request for Proposal indicates a requirement or condition from which a material deviations may not be waived by the department. A deviation is material if, in the department’s sole discretion, the deficient response is not in substantial accord with this Request for Proposal’s requirements, provides an advantage to one proposer over other proposers, has a potentially significant effect on the quantity or quality of items proposed, or on the cost to the department. Material deviations cannot be waived. Six companies submitted proposals, including the Jacobs and Cini-Little. The proposals of three of the six companies were determined to be non-responsive and were not assessed further. Scoring of the RFP was based on a 1,000 point scale with 500 points awarded for technical evaluation and 500 points awarded for costs. The technical evaluation assigned 200 points for corporate qualifications, 100 points for project staff, and 200 points for service delivery and approach. Corporate qualifications included consideration of the items listed under Paragraph 5.1.2 of the RFP. Paragraph 5.1.2 of the RFP provided in pertinent part that the proposer shall supply the information indicated thereafter for his own firm and for any subcontractors. Paragraph 5.1.2.1 requested financial statements; Paragraph requested details of corporate background; Paragraph requested corporate experience; and Paragraph 5.1.2.4 requested corporate references. This information was required to be provided, and was a mandatory requirement. Paragraph 5.1.2.3 regarding corporate experience provided: Details of corporate experience with the last three (3) years relevant to the proposed contract specifically current historical experience of designing for a minimum of four (4) facilities of similar size and scope to this project. (Emphasis supplied.) Paragraph 5.1.2.4 regarding corporate references provided as follows: The proposer shall furnish at least three (3) corporate references with his proposal (Attachment 1). The references shall included the company name, contact person and their telephone number. The reference shall describe where services similar in magnitude and scope to that requested in the Request for Proposal were provided. Employees of the Department of Corrections may not be used as corporate references. The department reserves the right to contact references not listed in the proposal. In order to insure current expertise, projects utilized as client references shall have been completed within 36 months preceding the issuance date of this RFP. (Emphasis supplied.) One of the interested companies poised the following question, to which the following answer was provided in the addendum to the RFP: Q: Does “facilities” mean Feasibility Studies of the nature as described in the RFP, actual physical facilities, or a combination of both? A: Feasibility studies that were not implemented are not acceptable. One feasibility study as reference to a completed physical facility may be included and both together will count as two references. Two additional physical facility references will also be required. (Emphasis supplied.) tabular form: Project Name Date Facility design/built Maryland DOC 1992 No/No In response to the requirement to list its corporate historical experience of designing four facilities of similar size and scope, Cini-Little listed the following projects. Information regarding the date of the project together and whether a facility was designed and constructed is summarized below in 1. 2. NY,NY DOC 1993 No/No 1989 Ongoing 1990 Yes/Yes Yes/No No/No 6. Hillsborough Co 1988 No/No 7. NY,NY DOC Current No/No 8. Mecklenburg Co 1992 No/No 9. NY State no date No/No 10. Eastern Corr. 1989 No/No 11. Pa. FCI 1991 Yes/Yes 12. Md. FCI 1991 No/No 13. Montgomery, Md. 1992 No/No Fla Hospital Missouri DOC Dade County Of the projects listed by Cini-Little evidencing corporate experience, the majority did not fall within the required time frame of three years prior to the issuance of the RFP. The dates of the ninth project in the table above done for New York State was not provided. Only the second, fourth and seventh projects were done during the required time period. Eugene Jacobs testified concerning these projects. He also was involved with bidding these projects and was familiar with the dates and nature of them. Regarding the second project above, it was a cost analysis and feasibility study of converting existing kitchens to receive pre-prepared meals which were to be prepared by a central kitchen located outside of New York City. It has not been implemented. Regarding the fourth project above, it is an on-going study for the State of Missouri. A portion of the work is completed; however, it involves a cook and serve dining hall. This is contrary to the nature of the Department’s RFP which is moving away from cook and serve. The remainder of the project involves a facility of the nature of the Florida study; however, design of this facility has not been completed and the project has not been implemented. See Cini-Little’s description contained in its proposal. Regarding the seventh project above, it is a follow up to the other study done for New York City discussed above. This study considered how to improve meal service using existing facilities given the lack of implementation of the previous study. It did not involve advanced food preparation methods, but related to cook and serve facilities. The size of the project is not specifically provided; however, a kitchen capable of serving 15,000 meals daily is referenced. See Cini-Little’s description contained in its proposal. The Department’s proposed order reflects consideration of Cini-Little’s projects for Mecklenburg County and Montgomery County under corporate references. These projects were completed in 1992, and while they may be considered by the Department, they do not count towards meeting the RFP’s requirement to list four projects of similar size and scope completed within the three years prior to the issuance of the bid. Cini-Little’s proposal listed three corporate references: Maryland DOC 15 year plan, New York City Department of Correction’s Feasibility Study, and Florida Hospital Center Feasibility Study. The work on the Maryland project was completed in 1992, and the work for Florida Hospital Center was completed in 1989. Neither project was completed within 36 months preceding issuance of the RFP. Only the current work for the New York City is within the required time period, and it has not resulted in the approval of a plan for the construction of a facility of the size and scope envisioned in the Department’s RFP. The requirement to list similar projects completed in the three years prior to issuance to the RFP to establish corporate experience is mandatory. Further, it is a material requirement. By establishing a requirement that a proposer perform a certain quantity of work of a particular size within a finite time, the requirement establishes the ability of a consultant to perform projects of the size of the Department’s project. The requirement for client references is mandatory, and the RFP explains this requirement by stating, “In order to ensure current expertise, projects utilized as client references shall have been completed within the 36 months preceding the issuance date of this RFP.” Cini-Little only gave one reference within the required period. Cini-Little did not meet the requirement to list four projects of similar scope and size completed within three years prior to the issuance of the RFP, and did not meet the requirement to list three references relating to projects of similar scope and size completed within the 36 months prior to the issuance of the bid. By failing to disqualify Cini-Little’s bid for failing to meet these two mandatory requirements, the Department did not follow the requirements of its own RFP regarding these material requirements which go directly to the competence of the bidder to complete work of the size and scope covered in the RFP. The Cini-Little’s proposal received a total of 907 points, 407 points on its technical evaluation and 500 points for its cost of $148,600. Jacobs’ proposal received a total of 811 points, 482 points on its technical evaluation, and 329 points for its cost of 225,000. Jacobs’ proposal met all the requirements of the RFP. (However, it was not established that Jacobs was the next lowest bidder.)
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a final order finding that the proposal of Cini-Little International, Inc., is not responsive. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of March, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of March, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Eugene A. Jacobs, President Jacobs Associates, Inc. 8119 Oakleigh Road Baltimore, Maryland 21234 Daniel Te Young, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1500 Harry K. Singletary, Secretary Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1500 Louis A. Vargas, Esquire Department of Corrections 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1500
The Issue Whether Respondent operated a public food-service establishment without a valid license and, if so, the appropriate sanctions.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent operated a mobile food-dispensing vehicle in Jacksonville, Florida. Respondent held License No. 2651331. A mobile food-dispensing vehicle is a “public food service establishment” as that term is defined in section 509.013, Florida Statutes. On January 9, 2012, Michael Byrd conducted an inspection of Respondent?s mobile food-dispensing vehicle at its commissary location at 2356 West Beaver Street, Jacksonville, Florida. During the inspection, Mr. Byrd noted that Respondent?s license, which was displayed as required, had expired on June 1, 2011. Mr. Byrd entered the violation of the Petitioner?s licensing requirement on an Inspection Report, which report was thereupon signed by Oswald Higgs on behalf of Respondent. The report established March 10, 2012, as the date for a callback inspection, by which time the violation was to be corrected. On April 20, 2012, Mr. Byrd performed the call back inspection. Respondent failed to produce a current license for the mobile food-dispensing vehicle. Petitioner proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent was operating a public food-service establishment on an expired license as alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a final order: Finding that Respondent, Ozamori Mobile Kitchen, violated section 509.241(1), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C-1.002(6); and Imposing an administrative penalty against Respondent, Ozamori Mobile Kitchen, in the amount of $500, payable to Petitioner within 30 calendar days of the effective date of the final order entered in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of January, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S E. GARY EARLY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of January, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Suite 42 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Oswald Higgs Ozamori Mobile Kitchen 2560 Automobile Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32209 Amy Toman, Hearing Officer Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 J. Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Mary Chung ("Respondent"), committed the alleged conduct and, if so, whether Petitioner, Lee County School Board ("School Board"), has just cause to terminate her employment as a food service worker.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a food service worker at Lehigh Senior High School ("Lehigh") in Lehigh Acres, Lee County, Florida. She was employed in this capacity for the 2003/2004 school year. Respondent was present for work at Lehigh on May 21, 2004. Respondent was scheduled to work from 6:15 a.m. to 2:15 p.m. on this date. This had been her work schedule all year. On May 21, 2004, Respondent reported for work at least 10 minutes late. She arrived at work at approximately 6:25 a.m. Respondent had not called in to notify anyone that she would be late to work that morning and did not advise or explain to her supervisor the reason for her tardiness. Accordingly, Respondent's tardiness on the morning of May 21, 2004, was not excused by her supervisor, Carol Lewis ("Lewis"), who was the food service manager at Lehigh. Respondent and the other employees in the kitchen are given rotating assignments. They rotate to new assignments every two weeks. During the time period which included May 21, 2004, one of Respondent's responsibilities was to open cans of fruit. In accordance with her assigned duties, upon Respondent's arrival in the kitchen on May 21, 2004, Respondent began opening cans of fruit. Lewis approached Respondent while she was opening the cans and directed her to take two coffee pots to the school's media center for a staff appreciation breakfast. It was not unusual for Lewis to direct workers to stop the tasks they were working on to attend to other tasks that needed to be done. In fact, other food service workers in the kitchen that morning were helping with preparations for the staff breakfast in addition to their other assigned tasks. Respondent first ignored Lewis's request, and when directed again by Lewis to move the coffee pots, Respondent told a fellow employee, Lucy Roan ("Roan"), to move them. Lewis overheard Respondent's remark to Roan and corrected her by saying that she wanted Respondent to move the pots. Respondent then proceeded to where the pots were located and indicated to Lewis that she could not lift them onto the cart that she was to use to take them to the media center. According to Respondent, the reason she could not lift the coffee pots and place them on the cart was because of a problem with her foot. Lewis then put the coffee pots on the cart for Respondent and, again, directed Respondent to take them to the media center. When Lewis came back by the area a few minutes later, Respondent had still not taken the coffee pots to the media center. Lewis then directed Respondent to leave the school and said Respondent was fired. Lewis reported the incident to Ronald E. Davis ("Davis"), the principal of Lehigh during the 2003-2004 school year and at the time of the incident. Davis met with Respondent about the incident and gave her a written reprimand dated May 26, 2004. The reprimand was delivered to her on May 28, 2004. The reprimand indicated that Davis was also recommending that Respondent be dismissed. Davis contacted Georgianna W. McDaniel, director, Personnel Services ("McDaniel"), regarding the May 21, 2004, incident. McDaniel advised the principal to forward documentation regarding the incident to Personnel Services. McDaniel has certain responsibilities with regard to employee discipline. She counsels supervisors and administrators regarding appropriate disciplinary action; she suspends employees (with pay) when recommended by the superintendent; and she acts as the predetermination conference administrator. On or about June 1, 2004, Davis forwarded the May 26, 2004, letter of reprimand that had been given to Respondent to the School District's Personnel Services office. He also sent four written statements from the food service manager and three food service workers who were present in the kitchen when the incident involving Respondent occurred. These statements were written at Davis' direction A predetermination conference was scheduled for July 2, 2004, to give Respondent an opportunity to respond to Davis' recommendation for her dismissal based upon the incident on May 21, 2004. Respondent was notified of the conference by McDaniel by certified letter dated June 23, 2004. Respondent attended the predetermination conference and was given an opportunity to address the complaint filed by Davis. However, the matter was not resolved, and the School District superintendent recommended that Respondent's employment as a food service worker be terminated. The School Board met on August 12, 2004, to consider the Petition. At that meeting, the School Board suspended Respondent without pay and benefits pending receipt of the recommended order of the Administrative Law Judge. Prior to the May 21, 2004, incident, Respondent had experienced work-related problems and/or areas of concern while working as a food service worker. These problems had been discussed with Respondent and documented in her record. On May 9, 2002, Respondent was put on Procedures for Improvement by her then assistant principal, James Buchanan. Procedures for Improvement is a tool used by the School District to notify employees of unacceptable conduct and to give them an opportunity to correct their behavior and desist in any further conduct of that nature. In Respondent's case, the May 9, 2002, Procedures for Improvement noted the following specific deficiencies in Respondent's behavior: "Employee refused to leave area to discuss a problem/situation with the supervisor." The desired improvement in her behavior was: "1) Employee will interact appropriate [sic] with supervisor; 2) Employee when asked to go to an area by a supervisor will go, and follow any other directives by a supervisor; [and] 3) Employee will conduct herself properly with co-workers." Respondent was advised she could achieve this desired result as follows: "Employee will do what is told of her to do by a supervisor. Do the work that is assigned to her and complete it in a timely manner." Her success in reaching the desired result would be judged as follows: "No further incidents of refusing to go to a private area to talk out differences. Employee will have no other incidents with co-workers and supervisors." Respondent was also notified in her 2003-2004 Performance Assessment that she was deficient in certain areas and that she needed to "focus" on the following areas in the future: "6) Is punctual in attendance; 8) Exhibits dependability; 11) Exhibits positive attitude; 14) Has good rapport with others; and 15) Accepts criticism constructively." Her supervisor also noted in the comments section that she: "Calls in sick or late too much. Not dependable at all — Gripes about others or duties." She also noted that as of the date of the Performance Assessment (March 2004), Respondent had been absent for 231 hours (or 33 days) and tardy 15 times. Lewis prepared Respondent's 2003/2004 Performance Assessment. It was her responsibility as the food service manager to prepare an annual Performance Assessment for all the food service workers. Lewis prepared the Performance Assessment on March 24, 2004, and reviewed it with Respondent on March 30, 2004, the same date that Respondent signed the Performance Assessment. As a food service worker, Respondent was considered a "10-month employee." She did not work during the summer months. Her last day of work for the 2003-2004 school year was Friday, May 28, 2004.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the School Board enter a final order terminating Respondent's employment as a food service worker with the Lee County School District. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of November, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of November, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: J. Paul Carland, II, Esquire Lee County School Board 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3916 Mary Chung 2147 Gulfside Village Drive Lehigh Acres, Florida 33972 Dr. James W. Browder, III Superintendent of Schools Lee County School Board 2055 Central Avenue Fort Myers, Florida 33901-3916 Honorable John Winn Commissioner of Education Turlington Building, Suite 1514 325 West Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Miller is guilty of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and documentary evidence received at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact: At all times material to this case, Respondent has been licensed by the Department to operate an adult congregate living facility (ACLF) which is located at 1914 21st Street, Vero Beach, Florida and which has twenty-four residents. James Valinoti is a program analyst employed by the Department. As a part of his job duties, Mr. Valinoti performs surveys to determine whether or not an ACLF is in compliance with Department regulations. On or about February 4, 1986, Mr. Valinoti visited the Miller ACLF to perform a survey. Mr. Valinoti went unannounced to the facility and asked to see the administrator in charge. The facility and its records were inspected. Mr. Valinoti asked to see the Respondent's Disaster Preparedness Plan. The administrator in charge was unable to readily locate it but did so eventually. The plan provided to Mr. Valinoti on February 4, 1986, dealt only with hurricane preparedness. As of February 4, 1986, Respondent's employee records did not have current written statements from physicians to verify the employees were free of communicable disease. The residential contracts utilized by Respondent on February 4, 1986, did not contain a refund policy in the event of the closure of the Miller ACLF. Respondent did not have a written policy and procedure for assisting residents in making appointments or providing transportation to medical, dental, nursing or mental health services on February 4, 1986. The Respondent has had an unwritten agreement with its residents to provide such assistance and transportation at no additional charge. Respondent uses a daily appointment book to schedule and to monitor the residents' services needs. Respondent did not maintain written policies, specific to the Miller ACLF, for providing proper nutritional care. Respondent utilized several general reference guides with regard to nutrition. The Miller ACLF employs a cook who is responsible for preparing food, and an administrator responsible for ordering food. Susan Miller and Ernest J. Miller, Jr. claimed that they were the ones responsible for total food service. The Millers attended a food service seminar conducted by the Indian River County Health Department. As of February 4, 1986, no Miller employee had attended the food service educational seminar conducted by the Department. The Department offers an in-service seminar which covers all aspects of food service from hygiene to nutrition. It is the Department's position that attendance of this course is required. The Miller ACLF offers therapeutic diets as may be ordered by a resident's physician. As may be appropriate, information regarding a resident's dietary restrictions are kept in the resident's file. The Miller ACLF offers a variety of foods. The foods are prepared by a cook who has considerable experience. Recipes are available in the kitchen area but whether or not they are used by the cook and whether they are appropriate was not established. There is no evidence in the record to determine whether the foods prepared are adapted to the habits, preferences and physical abilities of the residents. Menus are prepared and used in cycles. The menus are rotated and cross-referenced on a calendar to reflect which week a specific menu will be used. The southeast corner bedroom of the Miller ACLF has a window which opens into the dining room. On February 27, 1986, the Department wrote to Miller to cite deficiencies found during the survey conducted on February 4, 1986. This letter was received by Miller on or about March 15, 1986. Of the twenty-three deficiencies originally cited by the Department in this notice dated February 27, 1986, Miller corrected thirteen. On June 26, 1986, Mr. Valinoti revisited the Miller ACLF to perform a follow-up survey. The facts as set forth above correctly describe the facility and conditions material to this case as of the follow-up visit. Subsequent to the follow-up survey, Susan Miller and Ernest J. Miller, Jr. attended the food service educational program offered by the Department. Subsequent to the follow-up survey, the Miller ACLF required its employees to obtain letters from doctors stating the employee was free of communicable disease.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a Final Order finding the Respondent in violation of paragraphs (3)(a), (c), (e), and (h) of the Administrative Complaint, imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $600 ($150 per violation), and dismissing all other claimed deficiencies. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 25th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of March, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-4770 Rulings on proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner: Paragraph 1 is accepted as addressed in finding of fact paragraphs 4 and 17. Paragraph 2 is accepted to the facts set forth but is insufficient, as a matter of law, to establish a violation. Paragraph 3 is accepted. Paragraph 4 is rejected as commentary or argument without an appropriate factual basis. Paragraph 5 is accepted as to the facts. Paragraph 6 is accepted as to facts but, again, as a matter of law, is insufficient. Paragraph 7 is rejected for the reasons explained in the conclusions of law. Paragraph 8 is rejected as argumentative. Paragraph 9 is rejected as contrary to the evidence presented. Paragraph 10 is accepted to the extent the parties agree the window exists. Rulings on Respondent's proposed findings of fact: Paragraph 1 is accepted. Paragraph 2 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence presented. Paragraph 3 is accepted. Paragraph 4 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence presented. Paragraph 5 is accepted. Paragraph 6 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence presented. Paragraph 7 is accepted. Paragraph 8 is accepted. Paragraph 9 is rejected as contrary to the weight of evidence presented. Paragraph 10 is accepted. Paragraph 11 is accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard T. Helfand, Esquire 401 North West 2nd Avenue North Tower Suite 526 Miami, Florida 33128 Charles E. Garris, Esquire 2205 14th Avenue Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
