Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
Find Similar Cases by Filters
You can browse Case Laws by Courts, or by your need.
Find 49 similar cases
BOARD OF FUNERAL DIRECTORS AND EMBALMERS vs. JOE A. JOHNSON, D/B/A JOHNSON`S FUNERAL HOME, 76-000027 (1976)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 76-000027 Latest Update: Jun. 08, 1976

Findings Of Fact In September, 1975 two sons of Mrs. Pearlene Dillard were drowned. At the hospital Mrs. Dillard selected Stevens Funeral Home to provide the burial services. Later that evening she was visited by Rudolph Gilliam who was a friend of one of her sons. Mr. Gilliam had been phoned by a roommate of one of these sons who was very upset and requested he go to Mrs. Dillard's home to assist in the funeral arrangements. At the time Mr. Gilliam was not an employee of Johnson's Funeral Home, but he had on occasion worked at the funeral home as an assistant at funerals. Gilliam is self-employed and owns a restaurant. When Gilliam talked to Mrs. Dillard and learned that she had already engaged the services of another funeral director he did not pursue the matter. However, Mrs. Dillard asked him to take her to Johnson's Funeral Home which he did on the evening of September 18, 1975. He also took her brother, a daughter, and a niece. Upon arrival at Johnson's Funeral Home Gilliam introduced Mrs. Dillard to Joe Johnson and departed the room. Johnson showed Mrs. Dillard caskets and explained to her some of the provisions relating to funeral arrangements. Thereupon Mrs. Dillard decided that she preferred to use Johnson's Funeral Home. She thereafter went to the hospital and signed a second consent to have the bodies committed to Johnson's Funeral Home. Under oath Mrs. Dillard denied that Gilliam had told her that Johnson could provide a cheaper funeral as she alleged in an affidavit that was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 2. She further indicated that she had made up her mind independent of anything that Gilliam had said and that she was happy with the arrangements that she had procured from Johnson's Funeral Home. She acknowledged that she had changed her mind before the bodies had ever been released by the hospital to Stevens Funeral Home and considered that she had the right to do so. Subsequent to this incident, Jerome Stevens, the licensed Funeral Director of Stevens Funeral Home, filed a complaint that led to these charges. His affidavit was admitted into evidence without objection as Exhibit 1. Exhibit 3, the Affidavit of Fannie Mae Goodman was admitted into evidence without objection. Therein Mrs. Goodman stated that Rudolph Gilliam came to her house three times trying to get her to take the body from Stevens Funeral Home and give it to Johnson's Funeral Home which she declined to do. Rudolph Gilliam testified on behalf of Respondent. He does not know Fannie Mae Goodman and denied any attempt on his part to request her to change from Stevens Funeral Home to Johnsons'. He was a classmate of Mrs. Goodman's daughter, and went to the house after learning of her father's death. He did talk to Mrs. Goodman's daughter but he did not talk to Mrs. Goodman. On September 19, 1975 Stevens went to Mrs. Dillard's home to inquire why she had changed the funeral services to Johnson. She told him that she had changed her mind and was going to use Johnson's for the burial services. Mrs. Dillard made no deals with Gilliam and did not discuss any funeral arrangements with him. The discussions pertaining to funeral arrangements were made between her, her brother, and Johnson. Joe Johnson testified in his own behalf. He handled the funeral arrangements for Mrs. Dillard, and Mrs. Dillard did come to his funeral home on the evening of September 18, 1975 in company with Gilliam. He stated that Gilliam was not working for him, that Gilliam did occasionally work for him as an assistant during funerals. At the funeral services for Mrs. Dillard's sons Gilliam acted as an attendant and drove a family car. For these services Gilliam was paid $10.00 for the use of Gilliam's car and $10.00 for his services as an attendant. Johnson at no time paid any commission to Gilliam or offered to pay any commission to Gilliam. Prior to the arrival of Mrs. Dillard Johnson was not in contact with Gilliam and Gilliam was not working for him. Johnson has not had enough business for the past several months to warrant the employment of any assistants other than himself and his father, who is also a licensed funeral director and embalmer. Johnson acknowledged that he placed the advertisement in the newspaper that is contained in Exhibit 4.

# 1
BOARD OF FUNERAL DIRECTORS AND EMBALMERS vs. HARTMAN DELANO POITIER, 77-002098 (1977)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 77-002098 Latest Update: Apr. 20, 1978

Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a licensed funeral director and embalmer holding license numbers 1231 and 1250 respectively. Clarence Quinn, a policeman employed by the Delray Beach Police Force testified that he has known the Respondent for approximately 35 years and at one time lived with the Respondent for an extended period of time. He testified that during the funeral of his mother on or about May 20, 1976, he encountered numerous problems in attempting to make the necessary funeral arrangements. He testified that the Respondent stayed in a drunken state for a two day period beginning May 21 and that due to his inability to make satisfactory arrangements with the Respondent, he had to remove his mother's body to another funeral home to make the necessary embalming and funeral arrangements. Messr. Quinn encountered similar problems with the Respondent during the funeral of his nephew during 1972. Lillian Rohming, Respondent's sister, also corroborated the testimony of Quinn and testified that he is suffering from an alcoholic problem which is, in her opinion, destroying him as a person and impairing his ability to function as a funeral director and embalmer. Messr. Hamon Thompson, presently employed by Meking Industries, was formerly employed by Respondent for approximately 8 or 9 years. During this period of time, he assisted the Respondent in making funeral arrangements and performed general staff duties 3 to 4 hours daily during afternoon and evening hours. He testified that it was not uncommon for the Respondent to remain in an intoxicated state frequently for periods lasting 3 to 4 days. To the best of his ability, he discouraged the Respondent and others from bringing alcohol on the premises. This was done, based on his observation of the Respondent's performance and/or lack thereof when he imbibed alcohol. He testified that without question, the Respondent is one of the more excellent embalmers and funeral directors in the area while sober but that within the last few years, he consumes alcohol excessively which has been detrimental to his performance as an embalmer and funeral director. He, like other witnesses who testified, including Lauren Braxton, Respondent's sister, Joseph Harrington, an acquaintance of Respondent's for approximately 20 years and Joe Poiter Jerkins, another of Respondent's sisters, all testified as to the severity of Respondent's alcoholic problems. The evidence is that while drinking alcohol, the Respondent is generally unresponsive to the requests of families during funerals; he occasionally lies down in empty caskets; he blows the siren while mourners including family members are viewing bodies and he occasionally interrupts funerals when, in the Respondent's opinion, the funeral ceremony lasts too long. James E. Shelton, an assistant of Respondent for numerous years, testified that based on his relationship with the Respondent, he (Respondent) has conducted himself in a mannerable fashion and that alcoholism is in no way a problem which affects the Respondent's ability to function as an embalmer or funeral director. He testified that although it is true that the Respondents business has fallen off recently, he attributes this decline due to conflicts respecting the ownership of the business. Based on the foregoing findings, I am constrained to conclude that the evidence compiled herein necessarily compels a conclusion that the Respondent is an habitual drunkard as alleged in the administrative complaint filed herein and I shall so recommend. Consideration was given to the contrary testimony of witness Shelton and Respondent's wife, Ester B. Poitier. However, on balance, the weight of evidence supports a finding that the Respondent is suffering from an alcoholic problem which has hampered his ability to function as a licensed embalmer and funeral director. I shall so recommend.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, I hereby recommend that the Respondent's license to practice as a licensed embalmer and funeral director be revoked. ENTERED this 17th day of March, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Dewberry, Esquire Rogers, Towers, Bailey, Jones & Gay Florida Title Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Hartman Delano Poitier 379 South Dixie Highway Deerfield Beach, Florida 33441 Ronald T. Giddens, Secretary-Treasurer State Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers 6501 Arlington Expressway, Suite 208 Jacksonville, Florida 32211

Florida Laws (1) 120.57
# 2
BOARD OF FUNERAL DIRECTORS AND EMBALMERS vs. EDDIE L. SOWELL, JR., D/B/A SOWELL`S FUNERAL HOME, 79-000016 (1979)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 79-000016 Latest Update: Dec. 19, 1979

Findings Of Fact Respondent, Sowell, is currently a licensed funeral director and embalmer in the State of Florida. Respondent, Sowell's Funeral Home, is a licensed funeral establishment in the State of Florida. Sowell is the licensed funeral director and embalmer in charge of Sowell's Funeral Home. On April 19, 1978, Mr. Eston Singletary died in Jacksonville, Florida. His divorced wife, Gussie Wright Singletary, called the Reverend Charles James Crosby to come to her former husband's death bed. Reverend Crosby is minister of the New Trinity Baptist Church in Jacksonville, and, while never a licensed funeral director and embalmer, he worked for the Sowell Funeral Home from 1949 to 1952 and from 1960 to 1968. Reverend Crosby has no financial interest in Sowell Funeral Home. Mrs. Singletary claims that Reverend Crosby represented to her that he owned Sowell's Funeral Home. It was for this reason, says Mrs. Singletary, that she contacted Reverend Crosby and agreed to turn her former husband's body over to Sowell's. However, there is no evidence to establish that Sowell either authorized or knew about such a representation on the part of Reverend Crosby, if it in fact occurred. Upon the advice of Reverend Crosby, Mrs. Singletary released her former husband's body to Sowell at the hospital. Mrs. Singletary did not have adequate funds to cover the expense of the funeral preparations so Reverend Crosby paid for the funeral and Mrs. Singletary agreed to reimburse him. Mrs. Singletary asked Reverend Crosby to handle the details of the funeral for her. Thereafter, Sowell handled the body of Eston Singletary, embalmed it and signed the required death certificate as funeral director. The evidence shows that in connection with Singletary's death, the Reverend Charles Crosby met with the family of the deceased, including Mrs. Singletary; assisted the deceased's family in planning the details of the funeral; advised the family regarding the release of the body to Sowell; arranged for flowers for the funeral; accompanied the family to a local casket company for its selection of a casket in which to inter the deceased; met with members of the family to collect information for completion of the required death certificate; and received case and checks from family members and other sources in an amount exceeding Sowell's charges by $142.76. When Sowell was contacted by Reverend Crosby, Crosby represented that he was acting on behalf of the deceased's family. It was to Reverend Crosby and not to the family that Sowell delivered the receipt for the services he rendered. On April 27, 1978, Reverend Crosby, on behalf of the family and Sowell, on behalf of the funeral home, entered into a contract for services to be provided in connection with the funeral of Eston Singletary. Reverend Crosby obtained personal information regarding the deceased from the family for Sowell. Sowell then arranged for the obituary notice. The night before the funeral there was a viewing of the deceased at the funeral home. Reverend Crosby was there escorting the widow. The following day, Reverend Crosby served as master of ceremonies at deceased's funeral which was conducted at a church other than the one with which the Reverend Crosby was associated. Sowell was in attendance at the deceased's funeral. While the widow testified that she had not seen Sowell at the funeral, such testimony is insufficient to overcome Sowell's testimony that he did attend the funeral since the widow, having never met Sowell, would not have recognized him if she had seen him. Sometime subsequent to the funeral, the widow went to the funeral home to get a receipt. Since the funeral home was closed at the time, she called Sowell at his home. Sowell informed her that the receipt had been given to Reverend Crosby. With regard to the remaining charge, the evidence was incontrovertible that the funeral directors and embalmers licenses of Sowell were suspended pursuant to section 470.10(1), Florida Statutes, when he performed the duties of a funeral director in connection with the death and funeral of Willy D. Whitehead on or about September 15, 1978. The suspension was occasioned by the timely payment of the annual license fee. Payment was made of renewal on October 19, 1978, at which time the licenses were reinstated.

# 4
# 5
BOARD OF FUNERAL DIRECTORS AND EMBALMERS vs ROLLE-TILLMAN FUNERAL HOME, 96-000257 (1996)
Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Filed:Miami, Florida Jan. 09, 1995 Number: 96-000257 Latest Update: Mar. 10, 1997

The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.

Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent, Rolle-Tillman Funeral Home, has been a licensed funeral establishment in the State of Florida. Respondent's license number is FH 0002111. The owners of Rolle-Tillman Funeral Home, Harry Rolle and Bobby Tillman, have not been licensed by Petitioner. At times pertinent to this proceeding prior to January 1, 1995, Cleon D. Mosley, a licensed funeral director, was the funeral director in charge of Respondent. Mr. Mosley notified Respondent and the Petitioner that effective January 1, 1995, he was terminating his relationship with Respondent to become the funeral director in charge of another funeral home. Upon Mr. Mosley's departure, the Respondent continued to operate as a funeral establishment without a licensed funeral director in charge. On February 14, 1995, Reuben Rolle, Jr., died and his body was released to the Respondent for final disposition. Harry Rolle, the unlicensed co-owner of Respondent, helped plan, arrange, and take vital information in order to effectuate the final disposition of the decedent. Manker's Funeral Home, a licensed establishment, embalmed the body of the decedent, but all other services were performed by Respondent without the benefit of a funeral director in charge. On February 15, 1995, James Cooper, died and his body was released to the Respondent for final disposition. Harry Rolle, the unlicensed co-owner of Respondent, helped plan, arrange, and take vital information in order to effectuate the final disposition of the decedent. Manker's Funeral Home, a licensed establishment, embalmed the body of the decedent, but all other services were performed by Respondent without the benefit of a funeral director in charge. On March 7, 1995, Maggie Bullard died and her body was released to the Respondent for final disposition. Harry Rolle, the unlicensed co-owner of Respondent, helped plan, arrange, and take vital information in order to effectuate the final disposition of the decedent. Manker's Funeral Home, a licensed establishment, embalmed the body of the decedent, but all other services were performed by Respondent without the benefit of a funeral director in charge. On March 8, 1995, Essie Thomas Bullard died and her body was released to the Respondent for final disposition. Bobby Tillman, the unlicensed co-owner of Respondent, helped plan, arrange, and take vital information in order to effectuate the final disposition of the decedent. Manker's Funeral Home, a licensed establishment, embalmed the body of the decedent, but all other services were performed by Respondent without the benefit of a funeral director in charge. On March 16, 1995, Guillermo Tejeda, an investigator employed by Petitioner, began an investigation of Respondent. On that date, Mr. Tejeda observed posted near the front door of Respondent's facilities a sign with the following inscription: Cleon D. Mosley Licensed Funeral Director This sign would lead the public to believe that Mr. Mosley was still acting as the funeral director in charge for Respondent. 1/ On March 31, 1995, three investigators and an inspector employed by Petitioner inspected the Respondent's premises. The inspector asked for the funeral director in charge, but Respondent could not make available any licensed funeral director. At the time of this inspection, the Respondent did not have on site or immediately available a sealed container of a type required for the transportation of human bodies that may be contagious as the result of disease. At the time of the inspection on March 31, 1995, the embalmed body of Essie L. Thomas was found in the preparation/embalming room of the Respondent and the cremains of Reuben Rolle, Jr., were found in a desk. Respondent failed to submit to Petitioner a required report entitled "Cases Embalmed or Bodies Handled" for the months of December 1994 through March 1995.

Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein and which imposes an administrative fine against Respondent in the total amount of $2,200 and places Respondent's licensure on probation for a period of three years. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (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 October, 1996.

Florida Laws (1) 120.57
# 6

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer