The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what sanctions, if any, should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at the final hearing and the record as a whole, including the factual stipulations contained in the parties' Joint Prehearing Stipulation,2 the following findings of fact are made: Admitted facts The Respondent operates a six-bed assisted living facility located at 12085 West Dixie Highway, Miami, Florida 33161, and is licensed by the State of Florida under Chapter 400, Part III. The Agency conducted surveys at First Care on November 29, 2004, and on May 24, 2005, and identified three alleged repeat deficiencies that were described as three Class III deficiencies. An Administrative Complaint was filed on August 15, 2005. The deficiencies alleged in the Administrative Complaint are: (1) that the facility failed to maintain an accurate record of admissions and discharges; (2) failed to have weight recorded for some residents; and (3) failed to properly complete the health assessment for some residents. Because the deficiencies alleged in the Administrative Complaint are alleged to be Class III deficiencies, the Agency is seeking to impose a fine of $500.00 for each deficiency, for a total fine of $1,500.00. The Respondent timely requested an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The records provided by the Respondent through discovery and those copied by the Respondent at the time of the survey are authentic records that are true and correct. Additional findings about Count I Alfonso Martin, a Health Care Evaluator for the Agency, conducted a survey inspection of the Respondent's facility on November 29, 2004. There had been prior inspections of the Respondent's facility. None of the prior inspections had revealed any violations that resulted in any Agency action against the facility. The Respondent's admission and discharge log ("A&D log") shows that Resident R.M. was taken from the Respondent's facility by his guardian to live with his fiancée. The A&D log shows that Resident D.K. left the Respondent's facility and went to the local VA Hospital. The A&D log shows that Resident P.H. went first to the VA Medical Center and then to North Shore Hospital. The A&D log does not contain any information as to where Resident G.D. went, because that resident left the Respondent's facility in a taxi without telling anyone where he was going. The A&D log shows that Resident J.W. was discharged or transferred "to his family." Actually, Resident J.W. did not have any family, but he had friends who treated him like family. Those friends had brought Resident J.W. to the Respondent's facility and those same friends had arranged for J.W. to be taken to a hospice facility by Vitas Medical Center. The A&D log does not contain any information as to where Resident J.N. went, because, after receiving an eviction notice, that resident left the Respondent's facility in a taxi without telling anyone where he was going. Mr. Martin conducted another survey inspection of the Respondent's facility on May 24, 2005. During this inspection Mr. Martin noted that, with regard to Resident R.M., the A&D log showed "taken by guardian" as the place to which R.M. was discharged. The A&D log also showed "other facility" as the place to which Resident J.B. was discharged. Resident J.B. was taken from the Respondent's facility by a State Ombudsman. The State Ombudsman did not tell anyone at the Respondent's facility where J.B. was being taken. At all times, the Administrator of the Respondent's facility did the best she could to maintain appropriate records with the sometimes incomplete information she received from the Residents. Findings about Count II During the course of the survey on November 29, 2004, Mr. Martin reviewed the weight records at the Respondent's facility. He did not see any weight records for Resident A.L. On that date there was a written weight record for Resident A.L., but for reasons not explained on the record in this case, Mr. Martin did not see the record that day. If Mr. Martin had seen the weight record for Resident A.L. on November 29, 2004, he would not have cited the Respondent's facility for insufficient weight records. During the course of the survey on May 24, 2005, Mr. Martin again reviewed the weight records at the Respondent's facility. The records for Resident J.B. show he was admitted on January 13, 2005, and that his weight was recorded on February 21, 2005. The records for Resident P.H. show he was admitted on November 1, 2004, but his weight was not recorded until February 21, 2005. The records for Resident R.H. show that he was admitted on May 1, 2005, but his weight was not recorded until June 8, 2005. There is no evidence that the quality of care of any resident was diminished or compromised by reason of the manner in which the weight records were prepared and kept. Findings about Count III During the course of the survey on November 29, 2004, Mr. Martin reviewed Health Assessments for residents at the Respondent's facility. He did not see any Health Assessments for Residents J.W. or A.L. On that date there was a written Health Assessment document for Resident A.L., but for reasons not explained on the record in this case that document could not be located during the course of the November 29, 2004, survey. During the course of the survey on May 24, 2005, Mr. Martin again looked at the Health Assessments. The survey report states that Health Assessments for Residents 2, 3, and 4 were not completed. Mr. Martin testified about the Health Assessment documentation of Resident R.H. In the survey report for the May 24, 2005, survey, Resident R.H. was identified as being either Resident 5 or Resident 11. Health Assessments are not prepared by employees of the Respondent facility. They are prepared by third parties; usually medical doctors or health care professionals working under the supervision of medical doctors, such as physician assistants or advanced registered nurse practitioners.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Agency issue a final order dismissing the instant Administrative Complaint in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of February, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. 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 28th day of February, 2006.
Findings Of Fact SFWMD is a public corporation and local sponsor for the federally authorized Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project. As part of its duties as local sponsor, SFWMD operates eight pumping stations and six other structures all of which discharge into Lake Okeechobee. On August 26, 1977, SFWMD filed an application with DER for an operating permit for its inflow points into Lake Okeechobee. By mutual agreement, SFWMD and DER determined that there was insufficient data available to determine whether SFWMD qualified for an operating permit, therefore, DER proposed issuing a TOP. On November 22, 1978, DER issued its notice of intent to issue a TOP to SFWMD for its inflow points into Lake Okeechobee. Among the conditions contained in the TOP is that the permit will be effective for thirty (30) months. Petitioners complain that Lake Okeechobee is being environmentally damaged by the drainage into Lake Okeechobee of waters from surrounding agriculture and dairy farming areas. This, say the Petitioners, is causing the eutrophication or damaging enrichment of the Lake by the addition of chemical elements above their natural levels in that environment. DER and SFWMD contend that at least thirty (30) months is required to complete the testing and observation of the Lake and to make long-range plans for reduction of drainage into Lake Okeechobee and to develop necessary management alternatives to accomplish that goal. The proposed TOP provides a temporal framework. Within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the permit, SFWMD is required to present to DER a program for interim actions which will reduce nutrient loading during the time of the permit. Within 120 days of the issuance of the permit, SFWMD is required to submit for approval by DER a plan of study for determining the probable impacts of management alternatives for reducing the nutrient loading into Lake Okeechobee. Within twenty-four (24) months of the issuance of the permit, SFWMD is required to submit to DER an analysis of the impacts of each reasonable management alternative which will reduce the nutrient loading into Lake Okeechobee. During two successive rainy seasons SFWMD is required to do extensive chemical testing on site. After SFWMD submits its analysis of the impacts of management alternatives, DER has six months to review the data submitted and approve a schedule for implementing a plan to reduce nutrient loadings into Lake Okeechobee. Petitioners have submitted seven (7) Proposed Findings of Fact, five of which are hereby adopted in this Recommended Order: Lake Okeechobee is in a eutrophic state and getting worse as a result of man's activities. Both state agencies charged with respon- sibility for protecting Lake Okeechobee have long recognized that the Lake is in a eutrophic state and is in need of relief. Both the DER and the SFWMD have recognized that backpumping contributes significantly to eutrophication. Since 1975, DER and SFWMD have known that backpumping is one cultural activity that should be and could be stopped or substan- tially reduced. (This proposed Finding of Fact was numbered 6 in Petitioners' pleading.) The durational provision of the TOP is linked to the addi- tional time the DER and SFWMD claim it will take to study ways to stop backpumping. Petitioners' Proposed Findings of Fact numbers 5 and 7 are hereby rejected for the following reasons. First Petitioners request a finding that "the state agencies have done nothing to reduce the amount of bad water backpumped into Lake Okeechobee." In fact DER and SFWMD have proposed the TOP with its temporal frame work and requirements of interim actions for reduction of backpumping. Petitioners also propose as a finding of fact that "the TOP's durational provision as drafted is unreasonable and arbitrary in not assuring immediate reductions in backpumping and therefore, should be redrafted to require such action." Petitioners have not supported this contention with substantial, competent evidence. In fact, the TOP provides that a plan for the reduction of nutrient loading be presented within thirty (30) days of the issuance of the TOP. Furthermore, the proposed finding of fact is outside the scope of the issues framed by the pleadings. The issue is whether the thirty (30) month durational provision of the TOP should be reduced to twelve (12) months and not whether the TOP provides for immediate reductions in backpumping. The reason for the issuance of the TOP in lieu of an operating permit is to allow SFWMD time to gather data, to assess impacts and to develop management alternatives for the control of nutrient and pollutant loadings. Although some biological and chemical data already exist, much of the information requested of SFWMD under the TOP is currently unavailable. Specifically, the TOP requires that numerical nutrient limits be established for each discharge point and that specific management alternatives be developed. Currently available data on backpumping reduction does not specifically detail how much reduction is feasible nor what alternatives are soundest environmentally. Existing reports dealing with backpumping into Lake Okeechobee are not specific enough to support presently implementable management alternatives. Petitioners introduced no evidence to establish that the budgetary or manpower constraints with which SFWMD must deal would allow a reduction of the durational provision of the TOP from thirty (30) months to twelve (12) months. SFWMD's witnesses, however, established that if SFWMD were required to complete the study within one year, it would be economically impossible unless money and personnel earmarked for other important projects were tapped. Not only would the instant studies suffer a decline in quality but other equally pressing environmental studies would be jeopardized.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent's certification as a teacher in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Florida's Commissioner of Education, was the state official responsible for the certification of teachers in this state. Respondent held and currently holds Florida Teaching certificate No. 086279 in the areas of reading and social science. This certificate , unless otherwise revoked for cause, will be valid through June 30, 2000. During the school years from 1990 to 1992, Respondent was employed as a reading teacher at the Lake Alfred Career Development Center operated by the Polk County School Board, having been hired into that position by the Center's Principal, Mr. Williams, in 1990. During the 1991-1992 school year, Respondent taught T.B., a minor female. During the same school year, 1991-1992, O.B., T.B.'s sister and a minor female, also was a student at the Center, and though not a pupil of the Respondent, served as a tutor to Respondent's class. Starting in January, 1992, Respondent gave O.B. small amounts of money for personal expenditures such as drinks and lunch. He also gave her items of clothing and a check to pay for a subscription for a magazine she wanted. During the period up to April, 1992, he gave her money for making the honor roll and other sums, up to $20.00 at a time, for spending money. These payments would be made every other week or so. In addition to giving O.B. money and gifts, shortly before the spring break he also gave her his home phone number and told her that if she needed anything she should call him and they would go shopping together. On April 22, 1992 O.B. had occasion to work, alone, in Respondent's office. At the time, she was reading newspaper articles into a tape recorder for him to use to help his students in their reading lessons. While she was there, Respondent came to the office several times to check on her, and on this day, she was wearing one of the outfits Respondent had bought for her. On one of these visits, Respondent sat down across from O.B. and placed his hands on her upper thighs. As he did this, he asked her if he could do something personal with her. O.B. asked Respondent what that was, to which question Respondent told her not to ask questions but just say either yes or no. O.B, did not respond but remained silent. At this point, Respondent lifted O.B.'s skirt. He then told her to stand up while he remained seated. When she stood, Respondent reached over and pulled out on the top of O.B.'s panties. Petitioner asserts that by doing so he was able to see her vagina but this is unlikely. Because he did not pull her panties down and she was standing up, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for him to see her vagina from that angle. Regardless, he told O.B. she was beautiful, pulled her close to him, held her and kissed her between the breasts. In his affidavit, Respondent contends it was impossible for him to do this as well because of the differences in their height and the fact that he was seated at the time, but it is found that he did. At this point, Respondent stood up and told O.B. to open her mouth. When she complied, Respondent tried to kiss her, but she pulled away. With that, Respondent remarked that she "was not ready for that yet" and then left the office. O.B. then went quickly to the girls' bathroom and locked herself in. While there, she heard Respondent, or someone, walk by outside the bathroom several times. When she felt ready, O.B. left the bathroom and went to one of the classrooms down the hall where her friend, H.H. was in class. Still upset and crying from her encounter with the Respondent, O.B. got H.H. out of class and told her what had happened. While the girls were talking in the hallway, T.B. came by and noticing that O.B. was crying and upset, asked what was wrong. O.B. didn't want to say, but T.B. insisted, threatening to tell their mother if O.B. did not tell her story. After this, O.B., T.B. and H.H. went back to Respondent's office so that O.B. could get her coat and books. While they were in Respondent's office O.B. told T.B. what had happened. While this was going on, Respondent came into the office several times. On one visit he noticed the girls were looking at a magazine and he asked them if they saw anything they liked. When they pointed out several bathing suits, he circled those they had shown him and left, taking the magazine with him. While he was in the office with the two girls, Respondent asked T.B. if O.B. was OK. He later saw them again and asked them both if everything was OK. He also admonished them not to say anything to anyone about O.B.'s claim. Before they left school for home that day, Respondent again told T.B. to take care of O.B., stating that O.B. had something for her. The girls then left the area but returned shortly thereafter to find out what Respondent had meant by his last comment. At that point, Respondent indicated he had forgotten, and gave O.B. a $10.00 bill. Before leaving school that day, Respondent also told O.B. that he had behaved badly with her, claiming he had behaved like a "jackass". He said he had not meant to do it and that it would not happen again. He promised that if O.B. would not tell anyone about what he had done, he would give her money, clothes or whatever she wanted. O.B. went home with H.H. right after school, not getting to her own home until about 7:30 PM. When she got there she told her mother what had happened between Respondent and her that day. Mrs. B. immediately called the Polk County Sheriff's Department and advised them of the incident. The Sheriff's Department notified the Lake Alfred Police Department. At approximately 8:15 PM on April 22, 1992, Detective Bradley of the Lake Alfred Police Department came to O.B.'s home in response to the notification and spoke with O.B. Later that same evening, he advised Respondent of the charges against him. O.B. did not go to school on April 23, 1992 because she was too upset and almost didn't go on April 24, 1992. However, Detective Bradley asked that O.B., T.B. and H.H. come to his office to make statements concerning the incident, which they did. Thereafter, he notified the Polk County School Board of the allegations and charges against Respondent as well as the State Attorney's office from whom he sought and received permission to set up a monitored phone conversation between T.B. and the Respondent. On April 24, 1992, T.B. telephoned Respondent at school from the Lake Alfred Police Department and talked with him about the incident. In the telephone conversation, which was monitored and tape recorded by Detective Bradley, T.B. advised Respondent that H.H. was very upset over what O.B. had told her regarding the incident between him and O.B. and wondered if he would be willing to give her something to keep quiet about it. Respondent wanted to talk with H.H. about it and solicited from T.B. a telephone number at which he could call H.H. and talk with her. After taking statements from the three girls and after taping the telephone conversation T.B. had with Respondent, Bradley went to Lake Alfred Career Development Center where he talked with Mr. Williams, the principal, who called Respondent to the office. Upon being introduced to Respondent, Bradley immediately read and advised him of his rights against self incrimination. Respondent elected to remain silent at that time and seek counsel prior to being interviewed. Bradley asked no further questions and advised Respondent of the allegations and charges against him. At that time, in the presence of Detective Bradley, Respondent informed Principal Williams that he wanted to keep the matter private and would resign immediately. Respondent was suspended with pay effective April 24, 1995, and on May 5, 1992, submitted his formal letter of resignation and retirement from employment with the Polk County School System, to be effective June 11, 1992. Several days after Respondent submitted his letter, on May 13, 1992, he was informed that his suspension would be continued without pay pending the outcome of the criminal investigation. However, when Respondent's employment contract came up for renewal after the expiration of the 1991-1992 school year, it was not renewed. By letter dated June 12, 1992, the Superintendent of Schools for Polk County advised Respondent he would be permitted to resign and retire and would be paid for any accrued leave. On or about July 30, 1992, Respondent was arrested on a charge of Lewd and Lascivious Acts on a Child Under 16 Years of Age and of Tampering with a Victim or Witness relating to the allegations herein. Thereafter, on June 24, 1993, Respondent pled nolo contendere to the charge of Lewd and Lascivious Acts in Circuit Court. Adjudication of guilt was withheld and Respondent was placed on 4 years probation with conditions of probation attached. Included within these conditions was that Respondent not have unsupervised contact with any child under the age of 18. The charge of Tampering with a Victim or a Witness was dismissed. It is improper conduct for a teacher to give money or gifts to a student of that teacher within the Polk County School District. It is also inappropriate activity and misconduct for a teacher to touch a student in the manner in which Respondent touched O.B.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Edward McDonald's, teaching certificate in Florida be permanently revoked. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of December, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of December, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward McDonald 7203 North 40th Street Tampa, Florida 33604-4501 Ronald G. Stowers, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Department of Education Suite 1701, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Karen Barr Wilde Executive Director Education Practices Commission 301 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Kathleen M. Richards Administrator Professional Practices Services 152 Florida Education Center 325 W. Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Barbara J. Staros General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, PL-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Findings Of Fact The Subject Property. The property at issue in this proceeding consists of approximately 205 acres of land located in Clay County, Florida. The subject property is known as "Station Pond (Oak Forest Extension)." Station Pond was subdivided into 40 lots by an unrecorded subdivision plat. The lots range in size from approximately three to fifteen or twenty acres. Roads, which are unpaved, surrounding Station Pond, and drainage for Station Pond, are privately owned. The roads and drainage were completed prior to December of 1978. A boundary survey of Station Pond was prepared and contains a surveyor's certification of January 8, 1980. Pre-1985 Subdivision Regulations of Clay County. Prior to September of 1985 Clay County did not require platting of subdivisions such as Station Pond. In September of 1985, Clay County adopted Ordinance 85-68 creating three types of subdivisions and providing for the regulation thereof. An exception to these requirements, however, was included in Ordinance 85-68: subdivisions shown on a certified survey prior to September of 1985 with lots and roads laid out would continue to not be subject to regulation so long as the lots continue to comport with the survey. Government Action Relied Upon Before the Applicant's Sale of the Property. The Applicant was aware that it could develop Station Pond as an unrecorded subdivision in Clay County. The development of Station Pond comes within the exception to Ordinance 85-58. In a letter dated December 15, 1978 the Clay County Director of Planning and Zoning informed the Applicant that Oak Forest Clay County would "issue building permits in accordance with the uses permitted and lot/building requirements for an Agricultural zoned district, and in accordance with all other local ordinance provisions, state statutes, etc., as enclosed." This representation was based upon the conclusion of Clay County that Oak Forest was not subject to Clay County subdivision ordinances. Similar conclusions were reached by the Clay County Health Department in a letter dated September 8, 1978, and by the Clay County Public Works Director in a letter dated December 18, 1978. The Applicant's Detrimental Reliance. The Applicant's predecessor corporation provided dirt roads around part of Station Pond. The roads were constructed prior to December of 1978. The costs of the roads incurred by the Applicant was approximately $15,000.00. Rights That Will Be Destroyed. If the Applicant must comply with the Clay County comprehensive plan it will be required to pave the roads of the subdivision and provide an approximately 3 mile long paved access road. Procedural Requirements. The parties stipulated that the procedural requirements of Vested Rights Review Process of Clay County, adopted by Clay County Ordinance 92-18, as amended, have been met.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times material to this proceeding, Petitioner was employed by Respondent and supervised by Frank J. Alogna, Park Manager at Ravine State Gardens at Palatka, Florida. Petitioner signed an acknowledgment receipt indicating that: (a) he had received an Employee Handbook; (b) it was his responsibility to review the Handbook; and (c) he was to request clarification, if needed, from his supervisor. Petitioner knew, or should have known, since the Handbook explained job abandonment, that unauthorized leave of absence could result in the loss of his job through abandonment. Petitioner was absent without leave on January 14, 15, and 16, 1987. Respondent's regular days off were January 17 and 18, 1987. January 19, 1987 was a paid holiday. Respondent was absent without leave again on January 20 and 21, 1987. Petitioner's last day of work was January 11, 1987 since January 12 and 13, 1987 were Petitioner's regular days off. Respondent tried on several occasions to reach Petitioner, but was unable to do so. At 7:00 p.m. on January 21, 1987 Petitioner telephoned Alogna but had no satisfactory explanation for his unauthorized leave. During this telephonic conversation on January 21, 1987, Petitioner was informed by Alogna that he was considered to have abandoned his position and to have resigned from the Career Service. Respondent formally advised Petitioner of this decision by letter dated January 23, 1987 which was hand delivered to the Petitioner on February 12, 1987 after Petitioner failed to claim the letter sent by certified mail through the post office. At no time relevant to this proceeding was any type of leave requested by Petitioner, or granted by Respondent. Although Petitioner was notified by regular U.S Mail of the date, place, and time of the formal hearing, Petitioner failed to appear. Petitioner lived approximately one (1) block from the entrance of Ravine State Gardens where he worked.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law recited herein, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered deeming the Petitioner to have abandoned his position and to have resigned from the Career Service. Respectfully submitted and entered this 10th day of September, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 10th day of September, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-1236 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 parties in this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Petitioner did not submit any Proposed Findings of Fact or Conclusions of Law. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent 1.-2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. COPIES FURNISHED: Ed Pantaleon, Esquire Asst. Gen. Counsel Dept. of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Raymond W. Johnston Route 3., Box 4655 Palatka, Florida 32034 Pamela Miles, Esquire Dept. of Admin. 435 Carlton Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Adis Vila, Secretary Dept. of Administration 435 Carlton Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Augustus D. Aikens, Gen. Counsel Dept. of Admin. 435 Carlton Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Tom Gardner, Executive Dir. Dept. of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Bldg. Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Conclusions This cause is before the Department of Community Affairs on an Order Closing File, a copy of which is appended hereto as Exhibit A. On December 14, 2010, the Department published its Notice of Intent to find Lee County’s 10-2 amendment to its comprehensive plan, adopted by Ordinances 10-34 through 10-40, “in compliance” as that term is defined by Section 163.3184(1) (b), Florida Statutes. Filed March 14, 2011 10:36 AM Division of Administrative Hearings FINAL ORDER No. DCA11-GM-043 On January 6, 2011, pursuant to Section 163.3184(9), Florida Statutes, the Department forwarded LB at Miromar Lakes, LLC’s Petition for Administrative Hearing to the Division of Administrative Hearings. The case was assigned DOAH case number 11-0045. Petitioner filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice on March 9, 2011. There are no other Petitioners in this case, and, therefore, no disputed issues remain to be resolved. The Florida Supreme Court held that “[a] case is ‘moot’ when it presents no actual controversy or when the issues have ceased to exist.” Godwin v. State, 593 So. 2d 211, 212 (Fla. 1991). A moot case generally will be dismissed. Id.
Other Judicial Opinions REVIEW OF THIS FINAL ORDER PURSUANT TO SECTION 120.68, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND FLORIDA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.030 (b) (1)®) AND 9.110. TO INITIATE AN APPEAL OF THIS ORDER, A NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT’S AGENCY CLERK, 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100, WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DAY THIS ORDER IS FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORM PRESCRIBED BY FLORIDA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 9.900(a). A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITH THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL AND MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY THE FILING FEE SPECIFIED IN SECTION 35.22(3), FLORIDA STATUTES. YOU WAIVE YOUR RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL IS NOT TIMELY FILED WITH THE AGENCY CLERK AND THE APPROPRIATE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL. MEDIATION UNDER SECTION 120.573, FLA. STAT., IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES RESOLVED BY THIS ORDER. FINAL ORDER No. DCA11-GM-043 CERTIFICATE OF FILING AND SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the original of the foregoing has been filed with the undersigned Agency Clerk of the Department of Community Affairs, and that true and correct copies have been furnished by the manner indicated to each of the persons listed below on this AY ay of (Made 2011. aula Ford Agency Clerk The Honorable Bram D. E. Canter Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 By U.S. Mail By Electronic Mail Andrew W.J. Dickman, Esquire Andrew Dickman, P.A. Post Office Box 771390 Naples, Florida 34107-1390 AndrewDickman@comcast.net Donna Marie Collins, Esquire Susan Henderson, Esquire Lee County Attorney’s Office Post Office Box 398 Fort Myers, Florida 33902-0398 dcollins@leegov.com shenderson@leegov.com FINAL ORDER No. Linda Loomis Shelley, Esquire Karen A. Brodeen, Esquire Fowler White Boggs, P.A. 101 North Monroe Street, Suite 1090 Post Office Box 11240 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1240 lshelley@fowlerwhite.com kbrodeen@fowlerwhite.com Russell P. Schropp, Esquire Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, PA 1715 Monroe Street Fort Myers, Florida 33901 russell.schropptéhenlaw.com Charles J. Basinait, Esquire Henderson Franklin Starnes & Holt, P.A. Post Office Box 280 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Charles .Basinait@henlaw.com Lynette Norr, Esquire Department of Community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Lynette .Norr@dca.state.fl.us DCA11-GM-043
The Issue Whether Respondent should be terminated from her employment with the Seminole County School Board.
Findings Of Fact Mack has been employed by the School Board for six years. During the 2001-2002 school year, Mack was a school lunch assistant assigned to Seminole High School. Her immediate supervisor was John Caldwell (Caldwell). Mack received satisfactory evaluations of her work for Petitioner until April 2002, when she received an evaluation from Caldwell criticizing her in several areas. On April 12, 2002, a Friday, Mack was upset about her evaluation, showed her evaluation to fellow workers and loudly complained about her evaluation. She was becoming disruptive to the cafeteria operations. Caldwell called Mack into his office to discuss her behavior. She became loud, and Caldwell had to call the Assistant Principal. Mack was sent home. Caldwell did not tell her not to come back, and, at that time, did not tell her that he was going to recommend that she be terminated. On Monday, April 15, 2002, Mack called her workplace and said that she was sick and was going to the emergency room. On April 16, 2002, Mack called in and spoke to Janelle Harris (Harris), who was Caldwell's assistant. Mack told Harris that she had the flu and would not be coming to work. The policy for a food service worker at Seminole High School who was going to be absent from work because of sickness was that the worker was to call either Caldwell or Harris and notify them of the absence. The telephone in Caldwell's office has voice mail capabilities; thus, if Caldwell or Harris were not in the office, the sick employee was to leave a message on the voice mail. Caldwell and Harris were the only two persons who had access to the code to retrieve messages from the voice mail. On April 17, 2002, Mack was absent from work, but did not call in and give an explanation for her absence. Mack continued to be absent from work without calling in. On April 26, 2002, Mack came to the school office and picked up her paycheck. She did not go to the cafeteria and tell Caldwell or Harris why she had not been at work. Learning that Mack had gone to the school to pick up her check, Caldwell called Mack at her home. Mack told Caldwell that she had called in and left a voice mail. No messages were left on the voice mail by Mack between April 17 and April 26. Caldwell explained to Mack that she was required to call in unless she was in the hospital or could not talk. Daniel Andrews (Andrews), the Director of Food Services, prepared a letter to be sent to Mack under Caldwell's signature. The letter, dated May 2, 2002, advised Mack that she had continued to be absent without calling in to notify Caldwell of her absence and to provide a reason for the absence. The letter further advised her that three days of absence without leave required a penalty of termination. Mack was requested to contact Caldwell by noon on May 7, 2002, or the case would be referred to Andrews. Mack did not receive the letter until May 8, 2002; however, she never contacted Caldwell concerning the letter. By letter dated May 10, 2002, Andrews advised Mack that because of her continued absences without leave and her failure to provide justification for her absences that he would be requesting that her termination be recommended to the School Board. Mack received this letter on May 18, 2002. By letter dated May 20, 2002, Paul Hagerty, Superintendent of Public Schools for the School District of Seminole County, Florida, advised Mack that he would be appearing before the School Board on May 28, 2002, and recommending that she be suspended without pay. He further advised her that at the June 11, 2002, School Board meeting he would file a recommendation that her employment be terminated effective June 12, 2002. Mack contacted Andrews by telephone and left a voice mail. On May 21, 2002, Andrews returned her call, and Mack told him that she had gotten the voice mail when she tried to call Caldwell but did not leave any messages. Andrews would have accepted a reasonable explanation from Mack for her absences when she talked to him on May 21, but she did not provide any plausible reason for not notifying Caldwell of her absences nor did she ever provide any documentation from a doctor that she had been ill during her absences. Mack told Andrews that she did not care if her employment was terminated. By letter dated May 25, 2002, Mack requested a hearing on the decision to terminate her employment. Mack did not request a hearing concerning the recommendation for her suspension. On May 28, 2002, the School Board suspended Mack, effective May 29, 2002. Mack had a job at a local barbeque restaurant during the evening hours. While she was absent from her job at Seminole High School, she continued to work at the barbeque restaurant. The Non-Instructional Personnel of Seminole County Board of Public Instruction, Inc., and the School Board have entered into a collective bargaining agreement, effective July 1, 1997, through June 30, 2002, covering the wages, hours, and the terms and conditions of employment of the public employees within the bargaining unit. The collective bargaining agreement applies to Mack's employment with the School Board. Article VII, Sections 5, 11, and 15 of the collective bargaining agreement provide: Section 5. Regular employees who have been hired for a minimum of three (3) continuous years (without a break in service) shall not be disciplined (which shall include reprimands), suspended or terminated except for just cause. * * * C. An employee may be suspended without pay or discharged for reasons including, but not limited to, the following providing just cause is present: * * * 10. Improper use of sick leave. Section 11. Absence Without Leave Employees will be considered absent without leave if they fail to notify their principal, appropriate director or supervisor that they will be absent from duty and the reason for such absence. Absence without leave is a breach of contract and may be grounds for immediate dismissal. Section 15 Employees shall report absences and the reason for such absences prior to the start of their duty day in accordance with practices established at each cost center. An employee who has been determined to have been AWOL shall be subject to the following progressive discipline procedures: 1st Offense--Written reprimand and one day suspension. 2nd Offense--Five day suspension without pay. 3rd Offense--Recommend for termination. The School Board interprets the collective bargaining agreement to mean that each day an employee is absent without leave is a separate offense. At no time did the School Board issue Mack a written reprimand, one-day suspension, or a five- day suspension prior to her termination, as set forth in Section 15 of the collective bargaining agreement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Dorothy Mack was absent without leave, suspending her for one day, and issuing a reprimand. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 10th day of April, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas L. Johnson, Esquire Chamblee, Johnson & Haynes, P.A. 215 West Verne Street, Suite D Tampa, Florida 33606 Sandra J. Pomerantz, Esquire Seminole County School Board 400 East Lake Mary Boulevard Sanford, Florida 32773-7127 Daniel J. Woodring, General Counsel Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street, Room 1244 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. Paul J. Hagerty, Superintendent Seminole County School Board 400 East Lake Mary Boulevard Sanford, Florida 32773-7127 Honorable Jim Horne Commissioner of Education Department of Education 325 West Gaines Street Turlington Building, Suite 1514 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
Conclusions THE Respondent filed a Notice of Voluntary Withdrawal of Hearing Request with the Division of Administrative Hearings. The Division of Administrative Hearings issued an Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction. BASED on the foregoing, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Respondent refund, forthwith, the sum of $205,215.43, together with such statutory interest as is set forth in Section 409.913(25)(c), Florida Statutes. This amount due will be offset by any amount already received by the Agency in this matter. Based on the foregoing, this file is CLOSED. DONE and ORDERED on this the ae of “fog , 2012, in Tallahassee, Florida. Coa Wf UL fea Mf, for. Agency for Health Care Administration 1 Filed May 16, 2012 2:09 PM Division of Administrative Hearings A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO A JUDICIAL REVIEW WHICH SHALL BE INSTITUTED BY FILING ONE COPY OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF AHCA, AND A SECOND COPY ALONG WITH FILING FEE AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE AGENCY MAINTAINS ITS HEADQUARTERS OR WHERE A PARTY RESIDES. REVIEW PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED. Copies furnished to: Daniel Lake, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration (Interoffice Mail) Cynthia Mikos, Esquire Allen Dell, P.A. 202 South Rome Avenue, Suite 100 Tampa, Florida 33606 (U.S. Mail) June C. McKinney Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 Mike Blackburn, Chief, Medicaid Program Integrity Finance and Accounting HQA Agency for Persons with Disabilities (Facility) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished to the above named addressees by U.S. Mail on this the /S_ day of Dé ys , 2012. a co oS \__ Richard Shoop, Esquire Agency Clerk State of Florida Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Building #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 (850) 412-3630
Findings Of Fact On or about September 30, 1980, petitioner mailed its application to respondent for registration of the trademark "Cachet". Accompanying the application were a check for fifteen dollars ($15.00) and shoe insoles stamped "Cachet", each bearing an escutcheon and the legend "MADE IN SPAIN". On October 14, 1980, respondent returned petitioner's application, declining to register "Cachet" as a trademark in the absence of consent by Cachet, Inc., an unrelated active Florida corporation for profit with a Miami address, duly registered with respondent. Cachet, Inc. has not registered any trademark with respondent, and does not sell shoes. Ms. Nettie Sims, chief of respondent's bureau of corporate records and an employee of respondent for 27 years, testified that this action was in keeping with respondent's policy going back as far as she could remember.
