The Issue Whether or not, on or about January 25, 1977, in the licensed premises located at 1600 North Dale Mabry Highway, Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida, the licensed premises of the Respondent, the Respondent's employee, agent, servant, or entertainer, to wit: Linda Sue Richardson and/or Gayle Jeanette Landrum, allegedly employed at the licensed premises or employed on a contractual basis by the Respondent to entertain, perform, or work on the licensed premises known as, Tigers Den A Go Go, did commit or engage in a lewd and lascivious performance by a live person by committing obscene and indecent acts in violation of 847.011, F.S. and thereby subject the licensee to the penalty provisions of s. 561.29, F.S.
Findings Of Fact At present and at all times pertinent to this cause, to include January 25, 1977, the Respondent, Mardi Gras De Tampa, Inc., was the holder of license no. 39-0246, series 4-COP, held with the State of Florida, Division of Beverage. This license was held to trade as Tigers Den A Go Go in a premises located at 1600 North Dale Mabry Highway, Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. On January 25, 1977, officers of the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office entered the licensed premises. The officers were Detectives Ridgeway and Coakley. While in the licensed premises the officers observed an entertainer Linda Sue Richardson dancing. In the course of the dancing Richardson inserted a plastic straw into the g-string costume which she was wearing, and simulated masturbation. The officers also observed Richardson, in the course of the dance, take a napkin and rub it on her vagina, and then roll the napkin up and place it in her mouth and simulate oral sexual activity. At the time the officers were in the licensed premises and on the same date, they observed the dancing of a second female entertainer, one Gayle Jeanette Landrum. They saw Landrum place her hand in her g-string costume and simulate masturbation. Landrum also fondled her breasts in a provocative manner. The exact location within the licensed premises where the above described dancing took place is not specifically known, beyond the fact that one dancer was dancing on a large stage behind the bar and the other dancer was dancing on a smaller stage which was placed in the area where patrons would be seated. The dancing took place at a time that customers were in the licensed premises. The two women were arrested and charged with lewd and lascivious conduct and both were convicted of a violation of s. 847.011, F.S. On the date of the arrest of the two dancers, Carol Alcorn was in charge of the licensed premises in the capacity of manager. Alcorn was also serving as bartender on that occasion. The two female entertainers were employed on January 25, 1977 for compensation by the Respondent, Mardi Gras De Tampa, Inc. The two women were operating under the specific instructions of the Respondent on the subject of their conduct while performing. These instructions were generally to not commit acts which would be considered lewd and lascivious within the meaning of the "Florida Law". In addition the dancers were not to touch themselves or fondle themselves or let customers touch them. The women had been told these basic rules in individual conferences. Another policy which the management had, was to call the performers attention to any improper conduct, and dismiss performer if the performer failed to abide by management rules on the subject of proper conduct. In fact, the Respondent's management employees had corrected dancers before. On the occasion when the officers observed the conduct of Richardson and Landrum, it is unclear what period of time was encompassed to achieve the acts described. In the normal course of events the women would have been dancing for the duration of three records, which would be approximately nine minutes. They would have been dancing as a part of a group of six to eight dancers. The bartender would have been able to see any dancer performing on the stage behind the bar or performing on the stage in the area where the patrons were seated. The view of the two stages from the location the bartender would have behind the bar would have been unobstructed. Whether or not the bartender, Carol Alcorn, actually saw the subject dancing of Richardson and Landrum can not be determined from the facts offered in the hearing. What was shown was that the bartender went to the restroom, which was away from the bar itself, and was confronted by the two officers when leaving the restroom area. This confrontation was for the purposes of complaining about the activities the officers had observed on the apart of Richardson and Landrum. The acts which took place in the course of the dancing, by Linda Sue Richardson and Gayle Jeanette Landrum, constitute lewd and lascivious conduct within the meaning of s. 847.011, F.S. From the facts presented in the course of the hearing, it has not been shown that the Respondent, Mardi Gras De Tampa, Inc., has violated s. 561.29, F.S., as a result of the acts of their employees Linda Sue Richardson and Gayle Jeanette Landrum. The facts do not show that the Respondent is responsible for those acts of the employees either through its own negligence, intentional wrongdoing, or lack of diligence.
Recommendation It is recommended that the charge filed by the Petitioner against the license of Mardi Gras De Tampa, Inc., t/a Tigers Den a Go Go, under license no. 39-0246, series 4-COP, as set forth above, be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: William Hatch, Esquire Tom Whitaker, Esquire Division of Beverage 403 North Morgan Street 725 South Bronough Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Tallahassee, Florida 32304
The Issue Whether Respondents committed the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Agency adopts the findings of fact set forth in the Recommended Order. CLUSIONS OF LAW The Agency adopts the conclusions of law set forth in the Recommended Order. RDER 1. The Agency’s Amended Administrative Complaint is UPHELD and the above- named Respondent’s license is REVOKED. , 2. Additionally, a $20,000 fine and $1,000 survey fee are hereby imposed. Unless payment has already been made, payment in the amount of $21,000 is now due from the Respondent as a result of the agency action. Such payment shall be made in full within 30 days of the filing of this Final Order. The payment shall be made by check payable to Agency for Health Care Administration, and shall be mailed to the Agency for Health Care Administration, Attn. Revenue Management Unit, Office of Finance and Accounting, 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop #14, Tallahassee, FL 32308. 3. In order to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of the Respondent’s clients, the revocation of the Respondent’s license is stayed for 30 days from the filing date of this Final Order for the sole purpose of allowing the safe and orderly discharge of clients. § 408.815(6), Fla. Stat. The Respondent is prohibited from accepting any new admissions during this period and must immediately notify the clients that they will soon be discharged. The Respondent must comply with all other applicable federal and state laws. At the conclusion of the stay, or upon the discontinuance of operations, whichever is first, the Respondent shall promptly return the license certificate which is the subject of this agency action to the appropriate licensure unit in Tallahassee, Florida. Fla. Admin. Code R. 59A- 35.040(5). 4. In accordance with Florida law, the Respondent is responsible for retaining and i appropriately distributing all client records within the timeframes prescribed in the authorizing statutes and applicable administrative code provisions. The Respondent is advised of Section 408.810, Florida Statutes. : 5. In accordance with Florida law, the Respondent is responsible for any refunds that may have to be made to the clients. 6. The Respondent is given notice of Florida law regarding unlicensed activity. The Respondent is advised of Section 408.804 and Section 408.812, Florida Statutes. The Respondent should also consult the applicable authorizing statutes and administrative code provisions. The Respondent is notified that the cancellation of an Agency license may have ramifications potentially affecting accrediting, third party billing including but not limited to the Florida Medicaid program, and private contracts. | ORDERED in Tallahassee, Florida, on this _/” day of put. = 2013, r ELIZABETH DUNEK, Secretary AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION
Conclusions This cause was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings where the assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Lynne A. Quimby-Pennock, conducted a formal administrative hearing. At issue in this case is whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint; and, if so,-what penalty should be imposed. The Recommended Order dated January 17, 2013, is attached to this Final Order and incorporated herein by reference, except where noted infra.
Recommendation f Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order finding that Gene Cowles and Amelia Cowles, d/b/a Hillandale Assisted Living, violated sections 429.28 (1) {a} and (b) and 408.815(1) (e), imposing’ an administrative fine of $20,000.00, and assessing a survey fee of $1,000.00 ($500.00 for each investigation) associated with this case. 32 DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of January, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Sn Meeffink YNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK : 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 17th day of January, 2013.
Other Judicial Opinions A party who is adversely affected by this Final Order is entitled to 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 of 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. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I CERTIFY that a true and comect gepy of this Final Order was served on the below-named persons by the method designated on this {30-day of Fora , 2014. Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Bldg. #3, Mail Stop #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Telephone: (850) 412-3630 Jan Mills Shaddrick Haston, Unit Manager Facilities Intake Unit Assisted Living Unit (Electronic Mail) Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) Finance & Accounting Patricia R. Caufman, Field Office Manager Revenue Management Unit Areas 5 and 6 (Electronic Mail) Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) Katrina Derico-Harris Medicaid Accounts Receivable Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) Thomas J. Walsh II, Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) Shawn McCauley Medicaid Contract Management Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) Tracy George, Chief Appellate Counsel Office of the General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration (Electronic Mail) Lynne A. Quimby-Pennock Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings (Electronic Mail) Christina Mesa, Esquire MESA Law, P.A. P.O. Box 10207 Tampa, Florida 33679-0207 Thomas P. Crapps Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings (Electronic Mail) NOTICE OF FLORIDA LAW 408.804 License required; display.-- (1) It is unlawful to provide services that require licensure, or operate or maintain a provider that offers or provides services that require licensure, without first obtaining from the agency a license authorizing the provision of such services or the operation or maintenance of such provider. (2) A license must be displayed in a conspicuous place readily visible to clients who enter at the address that appears on the license and is valid only in the hands of the licensee to whom it is issued and may not be sold, assigned, or otherwise transferred, voluntarily or involuntarily. The license is valid only for the licensee, provider, and location for which the license is issued. 408.812 Unlicensed activity. -- (1) A person or entity may not offer or advertise services that require licensure as defined by this part, authorizing statutes, or applicable rules to the public without obtaining a valid license from the agency. A licenseholder may not advertise or hold out to the public that he or she holds a license for other than that for which he or she actually holds the license. (2) The operation or maintenance of an unlicensed provider or the performance of any services that require licensure without proper licensure is a violation of this part and authorizing statutes. Unlicensed activity constitutes harm that materially affects the health, safety, and welfare of clients. The agency or any state attorney may, in addition to other remedies provided in this part, bring an action for an injunction to restrain such violation, or to enjoin the future operation or maintenance of the unlicensed provider or the performance of any services in violation of this part and authorizing statutes, until compliance with this part, authorizing statutes, and agency rules has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the agency. (3) It is unlawful for any person or entity to own, operate, or maintain an unlicensed provider. If after receiving notification from the agency, such person or entity fails to cease operation and apply for a license under this part and authorizing statutes, the person or entity shall be subject to penalties as prescribed by authorizing statutes and applicable rules. Each day of continued operation is a separate offense. (4) Any person or entity that fails to cease operation after agency notification may be fined $1,000 for each day of noncompliance. (5) When a controlling interest or licensee has an interest in more than one provider and fails to license a provider rendering services that require licensure, the agency may revoke all licenses and impose actions under s. 408.814 and a fine of $1,000 per day, unless otherwise specified by authorizing statutes, against each licensee until such time as the appropriate license is obtained for the unlicensed operation. (6) In addition to granting injunctive relief pursuant to subsection (2), if the agency determines that a person or entity is operating or maintaining a provider without obtaining a license and determines that a condition exists that poses a threat to the health, safety, or welfare of a client of the provider, the person or entity is subject to the same actions and fines imposed against a licensee as specified in this part, authorizing statutes, and agency rules. (7) Any person aware of the operation of an unlicensed provider must report that provider to the agency. STATE OF FLORIDA FILED AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION ~ AHCA AGENCY CLERK STATE OF FLORIDA, AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, . MAPA Ib A yy: Petitioner, DOAH CASE NO. 11-3721 AHCA NOS, 2011006466 v. ‘ : ~ 2011006798 LICENSE NO. 10549 GENE COWLES AND AMELIA COWLES FILE NO. 11966321 d/b/a HILLANDALE ASSISTED LIVING, FACILITY TYPE: ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY Respondent. RENDITION NO.: AHCA-24- 0,3 5°7-FOF-OLC / .
Findings Of Fact Mrs. Martha Truitt owned a five pound Chihuahua female named Hale's Dixie Dynamite which she purchased for $624.00 in 1977. At that time Dixie was one year old. She was later bred in August, 1978. Mrs. Truitt has been a Chihuahua breeder for seven to eight years. She has seen approximately fifteen to twenty litters of dogs delivered and considers herself an expert breeder. At the hearing, Mrs. Truitt, as a breeder, displayed some ill feeling toward doctors of veterinary medicine (vets). It was also apparent from the testimony of the expert witnesses, that the ill feelings were somewhat reciprocated by the vets. There is apparent professional jealousy over who, the breeder or the vet, knows the most about the proper care of dogs. On October 2, 1978, Mrs. Truitt took Dixie to Dr. Chatham for an ear mite examination. At the conclusion of the examination, Mrs. Truitt asked Dr. Chatham if he could be available at the end of the month because Dixie was pregnant and was expected to deliver then. Dr. Chatham said he would be available if necessary. There was no firm understanding reached between the parties on exactly what "being available" meant to either person. Mrs. Truitt did not hire Dr. Chatham as an obstetrician for Dixie and he was not requested to give her any prenatal care. There was no further contact between parties until October 24, 1978. Dixie received no prenatal care from any vet. Mrs. Truitt relied on her experience as a breeder to give Dixie the care she thought appropriate. Dr. Chatham has practiced veterinary medicine in Auburndale, Florida, since 1977. In his practice he has performed approximately 40 Caesarian sections in dogs and has seen several hundred dystocia (abnormal delivery) cases. In the afternoon of October 24, 1978, Dixie went into mild labor. Mrs. Truitt called Dr. Chatham in the late afternoon or early evening to tell him of Dixie's progress. Again at midnight or 1:00 A.M., on October 25, Mrs. Truitt called Dr. Chatham. She had observed Dixie begin strong contractions and the aminon had broken discharging its "water." She explained to Dr. Chatham that Dixie was now in hard labor and asked for advice. He said to watch the dog and call him back in one hour if any problems developed. Around 3:00 A.M., Mrs. Truitt again called Dr. Chatham. She was advised to examine Dixie to determine if the first puppy had presented itself in the birth canal. During this conversation Mrs. Truitt requested Dr. Chatham to immediately examine Dixie. He did not believe that was necessary as he knew from past experience that a dog could safely remain in labor for more than twelve (12) hours. He did say that if the first puppy had not been born by 7:30 A.M., in the morning to bring Dixie to his office and he would examine her to determine if a Caesarian section would be necessary. At 7:30 A.M., Mrs. Truitt arrived at Dr. Chatham's Office with Dixie. He was not there upon her arrival. She contacted him through his answering service and by 9:30 A.M., he had arrived and performed the Caesarian section on Dixie and delivered three (3) live puppies. By noon of that day Mrs. Truitt took Dixie home. Unfortunately the little dog died on the next day, October 26, 1978. When a Caesarian section should be performed on a laboring dog depends upon a variety of factors. If all other factors are equal, a small dog does not have the capability to labor safely as long as a large dog. If the dog has a discolored vaginal discharge then an immediate Caesarian is indicated. Caesarian sections are a moderately dangerous operation because the mother dog is already under stress from the labor and from giving life support to her puppies. For that reason, it is not advisable without considerable necessity to add the additional trauma of a Caesarian to her already burdened state. Additionally, vets are reluctant to perform a Caesarian section at night if, like Dr. Chatham, they do not have staff available then to assist them in the operation. Because of the foregoing factors it is good veterinary practice to allow a mother dog to labor at least twelve (12) hours before considering a Caesarian section. Only 25 to 30 percent of dystocia cases eventually do require a Caesarian. The balance of the cases work themselves out without any necessity of surgery.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Second Amended Administrative Complaint be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of September, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of September, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Bert J. Harris, III, Esquire BOYD HARRIS & SMITH P.A. Suite 210, Barnett Bank Building Post Office Box 10369 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 William F. Casler, Sr., Esquire 6795 Gulf Boulevard St. Petersburg Beach, Florida 33706 Ken Oertel, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
