The Issue Whether Respondents directly or indirectly represented or aided an unauthorized insurer, an insurance or annuity product; whether Respondents knew or reasonably should have known that the annuity contracts with the unauthorized insurer violated Section 626.901, Florida Statutes; whether Respondents knowingly placed before the public a statement, assertion, or representation with respect to the business of insurance that was untrue, deceptive, or misleading; whether Respondents knowingly caused to be made, published, disseminated, circulated, delivered, or placed before the public any false material statement; whether Respondents demonstrated a lack of fitness and trustworthiness to engage in the business of insurance; whether Respondents engaged in unfair or deceptive practices or otherwise showed themselves to be a source of injury or loss to the public; and whether Respondents otherwise acted in violation of the Florida Insurance Code provisions as specifically detailed in Petitioner’s Amended Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty, if any, should be imposed on Richard P. Eberhardt’s insurance agent license and/or Nancy Eberhardt’s license.
Findings Of Fact General facts applicable to both Respondents Respondent, Richard Eberhardt (RE), is currently licensed in the State of Florida as a Life Including Variable Annuity & Health Life, Life & Health, and Health insurance agent. RE was initially licensed by Petitioner as a non- resident insurance agent on May 6, 2004. Previously, RE was a licensed insurance agent in Nebraska, Indiana, and Arizona. Respondent, Nancy Eberhardt (NE), is currently licensed in the State of Florida as a Life Including Variable Annuity, Life Including Variable Annuity & Health, Life, Life & Health, and Health insurance agent. NE was initially licensed by Petitioner as a non-resident insurance agent on January 2, 2003, and then as a resident agent on October 5, 2004. Previously, NE was a licensed insurance agent in Arizona. Petitioner has historically mailed, and subsequently made available on line, the Intercom, an insurance agent newsletter. The heading to the newsletter, reads in part: “Publication for Agents and Adjusters from the State of Florida Department of Financial Services.” These newsletters contained warnings regarding unauthorized sales of insurance products, and explanations as how an agent could verify whether or not an insurer was authorized to do business in Florida. Petitioner’s records evidence that the newsletters were distributed to insurance agents from the July – October 1996 through December 2006 editions. Respondents became licensed Florida agents in January 2003, and it is a reasonable assumption that they received or had computer access to those publications. Both Respondents are listed in Petitioner’s records as being the owners of LLQ Consulting, LLC. Respondent NE is listed as being the insurance agent-in-charge of LLQ Consulting, LLC. Pursuant to records on file with the Florida Secretary of State, LLQ Consulting, LLC, is an Arizona-limited liability company that is authorized to do business in Florida. Respondent RE was originally listed as manager; however, since April 22, 2005, Respondent NE has been listed as the manager. At all times pertinent to the dates and occurrences referred to herein, Respondents were licensed in Florida as insurance agents. Petitioner has jurisdiction over Respondents’ insurance agent licenses and appointments, pursuant to statute. National Foundation of America (NFOA) The NFOA is a registered Tennessee corporation that was formed on January 27, 2006, and headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee. Respondents assert that the difference between a charitable gift annuity and a charitable installment bargain sale is that a charitable gift annuity is under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 501(m) and the payout to the investor is based on a mortality table of the donor’s expected life. Therefore, it is a tax free exchange of an asset by a donor at less than the asset’s fair market value to a charitable organization in exchange for an annuity issued by the charitable organization. On the other hand, Respondents argue that an installment bargain sale is under Section 453 of the IRC and 26 C.R.F. Sections 1.1011-2 of the IRC regulations. It is an exchange of an asset owned by the donor at less than fair market value to a charitable organization in exchange for an annuity. The IRS allows the donor to deduct the difference between the fair market value of the asset and the amount that the charitable organization pays for the asset. The payout of the annuity is for a specific term and not tied to a mortality table. Therefore, NCF did not consider the Charitable Installment Purchase to be an insurance transaction or the sale of an insurance product under state insurance laws. Nevertheless, an NFOA Corporate Resolution, dated April 16, 2006, provides for the corporate authority to “liquidate stocks, bonds, and annuities . . . in connection with charitable contributions or transactions. . . .” This same resolution also provides for the corporate ability to “enter into and execute planned giving or charitable contribution transactions with donors, including executing any and all documentation related to the acceptance or acquisition of a donation, . . . given in exchange for a charitable gift annuity. “ On September 18, 2006, the State of Washington Office of Insurance Commissioner issued an Order to Cease and Desist in the matter of National Foundation of America, Richard K. Olive, and Susan L. Olive, Order No. D06-245. The Order, among other things, was based on NFOA’s having not been granted a Certificate of Authority (COA) as an insurer in Washington and having not been granted tax exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the IRC. On April 13, 2007, the OIR issued an Immediate Final Order (IFO) in the matter of National Foundation of America, Richard K. Olive, Susan L. Olive, Breanna McIntyre, and Robert G. DeWald, Case No. 89911-07, finding that the activities of NFOA, et al., constituted an immediate danger to the public health, safety or welfare of Florida consumers. OIR further found that, in concert, NFOA, et al., were “soliciting, misleading, coercing and enticing elderly Florida consumers to transfer and convey legitimate income tax deferred annuities for the benefit of themselves and their heirs to NFOA in exchange for charitable term certain annuities”; and that NFOA, et al., had violated provisions of the FIC, including Sections 624.401 and 626.901, Florida Statutes. NFOA has never held a license or COA to transact insurance or annuity contracts in Florida, nor has NFOA ever been registered pursuant to Section 627.481, Florida Statutes, for purposes of donor annuity agreements. NFOA was never a registered corporation with the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations. New Life Corporation of America (“NLCA”) d/b/a National Community Foundation (“NCF”) has been registered with OIR as a Section 627.481, Florida Statutes, donor annuity organization, since October 1997. NCLA subsequently changed its name to New Life International (“NLI”), which continued to use the d/b/a/ NCF. NLI is presently registered as a donor annuity organization with OIR. NFOA appealed OIR’s IFO to the First District Court of Appeal of Florida (1st DCA). The 1st DCA dismissed NFOA’s appeal on July 24, 2007. Therefore, NFOA operated as an unauthorized insurer in Florida. On May 17, 2007, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) sent a letter to the Texas Department of Insurance stating that NFOA was not classified as an organization exempt from federal income tax as an organization described in Section 501(c)(3) of the IRC. On May 23, 2007, the Tennessee Department of Commerce and Insurance (DCI) filed a Verified Petition for Appointment of Receiver for Purposes of Liquidation of National Foundation of America; Immediate and Permanent Injunctive Relief; Request for Expedited Hearing, in the matter of Newman v. National Foundation of America, Richard K. Olive, Susan L. Olive, Breanna MyIntyre, Kenny M. Marks, and Hunter Daniel, Chancery Court of the State of Tennessee (“Chancery Court”), 20th Judicial District, Davidson County, Case No.: 07-1163-IV. The Verified Petition states at paragraph 30: NFOA’s contracts reflect an express written term that it is recognized by the IRS as a charitable non-profit organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (Prosser, attachment 4), and NFOA represents in multiple statements and materials that the contract will entitle the customers to potential generous tax deductions related to that status. The IRS states that it has granted NFOA no such designation. The deceptive underpinning related to NFOA’s supposed tax favored treatment of its contracts permeates it entire business model and sales pitch. This misrepresentation has materially and irreparably harmed and has the potential to harm financially all its customers and the intended beneficiaries of the contracts. These harms are as varied in nature and degree as the circumstances of all those individuals’ tax conditions, the assets turned in to NFOA, and the extent to which they have entrusted their money and keyed their tax status and consequences to reliance on such an organization. On August 2, 2007, the Commissioner for the Tennessee DCI, having determined that NFOA was insolvent with a financial deficiency of at least $4,300,000.00, filed a Verified Petition to Convert Rehabilitation by Entry of a Final Order of Liquidation, Finding of Insolvency, and Injunction, in the matter of Newman v. National Foundation of America, et al. On September 11, 2007, pursuant to a Final Order of Liquidation and Injunction entered in the matter of Newman v. National Foundation of America, et al., the Chancery Court placed NFOA into receivership after finding that the continued rehabilitation of NFOA would be hazardous, financially and otherwise, and would present increased risk of loss to the company’s creditors, policy holders, and the general public. On February 6, 2008, the IRS sent a letter to the court appointed Tennessee DCI Receiver (“Receiver”) for NFOA stating that NFOA does not qualify for exemption from federal income tax as an organization described in Section 501(c)(3) of the IRC. The IRS, in determining that NFOA did not qualify for tax exempt status, stated that the sale of NFOA annuity plans has a “distinctive commercial hue” and concluded that NFOA was primarily involved in the sale of annuity plans that “constitute a trade or business without a charitable program commensurate in scope with the business of selling these plans.” The IRS letter also provides that consumers may not take deductions on their income tax returns for contributions to NFOA. Insurance Agent’s Duties An insurance agent has a fiduciary duty to his or her clients to ensure that an insurer is authorized or otherwise approved by OIR as an insurer in Florida prior to the insurance agent selling the insurer’s product to his client. There are several methods by which an insurance agent could verify whether or not an insurer was authorized or otherwise approved (hereinafter “authorized”) as an insurer in Florida by OIR. It is insufficient for an insurance agent to depend on the assurances of the insurer itself or his or her insurance business peers as to whether an insurer needs to be authorized in Florida. Respondents asserted that, prior to selling NFOA annuities in 2006, they had performed due diligence in order to determine whether or not NFOA was authorized in Florida. Respondents testified that at the time they performed their due diligence, they viewed a State of Florida website that seemingly indicated that OIR does not regulate donor annuities. Respondents’ testimony lacks credibility as to the timing of Respondents’ claimed due diligence. The websites that seemingly indicate that OIR does not regulate donor annuities did not come into existence until September 12, 2008, for OIR and January 16, 2009, for Petitioner, which would have been several years after any due diligence that Respondents claim that they performed. As further noted below, the sale of the NFOA annuities to Mr. Bisch and Ms. Clark occurred in 2006, well in advance of the September 2008 and January 2009 creation of any websites that might seemingly indicate a lack of OIR regulation of donor annuity organizations. While the OIR 2008 and DFS 2009 websites may be somewhat confusing, at all times relevant to these matters, donor annuity organizations have been and continue to be regulated by OIR pursuant to Section 627.481, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 69O-202.001 and 69O-202.015. Due to the importance of income tax considerations in a consumer’s decision making process as to whether or not to purchase an insurance product, insurance agents have a fiduciary duty to their clients to verify the validity of any representations that an insurer’s product has an IRC Section 501(c)(3) tax exempt status, prior to the insurance agent’s selling the product to his or her clients. There are several methods by which insurance agents could verify whether or not an insurer has an IRS 501(c)(3) tax exempt status. Respondents admitted, in their testimony, that they had depended on the assurances of others and assumed that NFOA did not need to be authorized as an insurer in Florida. Respondents also admitted in their testimony that, but for the different names, the NFOA paperwork was the same as that of NCF. Respondent’s testimony is contradictory and lacks credibility in that NCF was qualified and registered with OIR as a donor annuity organization and NFOA was not. Nevertheless, Respondents claim NFOA was not and did not need to be regulated by OIR. Respondents testified that they had verified with the IRS that NFOA had applied for Section 501(c)(3) tax exempt status. However, Respondents were aware that the tax exempt status had not been granted to NFOA at any time relevant to this proceeding. Respondents knew income tax considerations were materially important to their clients. However, none of the NFOA materials nor any Florida consumer contracts signed or provided by Respondents to their clients contain any disclaimer language informing consumers that the Section 501(c)(3) tax exempt status had been applied for but had yet to be granted by the IRS. Respondents received commissions totaling $22,062.80 for selling NFOA annuities to Florida consumers. Respondents have failed to return any of these commissions to the Receiver for NFOA in the state of Tennessee. Count I: Consumer – Jacob Bisch On February 20, 2006, Respondents solicited and induced Jacob Bisch of Cape Coral, Florida, then aged 75, to transfer or otherwise surrender ownership of his existing annuity contract with Allianz Life Insurance Company in return for an NFOA annuity. The NFOA agreement that the consumer entered into was signed by Respondent RE. Bisch credibly testified as to both Respondents’ involvement in the sale of the NFOA annuity. NE wrote a letter asking that the commission for this sale be issued in her name. The commission check was ultimately paid to LLQ Consulting, LLC, a company owned by both Respondents and which NE was registered as the insurance agent- in-charge. Respondents knew or reasonably should have known that NFOA was not an authorized insurer in Florida. Respondents, by use of the NFOA donor annuity agreement, knowingly misrepresented to Bisch that NFOA was a charitable non-profit organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the IRC, even though Respondents knew or should have known that NFOA did not hold tax exempt status with the IRS. Bisch’s testimony was credible that tax considerations were the prime consideration in the purchase of the NFOA annuity from Respondents. Based upon Respondents’ transaction of insurance, Bisch presently anticipates losing approximately $26,320.04. This amount includes a surrender penalty of $16,823.04 incurred for transferring his original Allianz annuity to NFOA, and after receiving partial refunds from the NFOA Receiver. Based upon Respondents’ transaction of insurance with Bisch, Respondents were paid a commission of $4,062.80 by NFOA. Count II: Consumer – Fay Ann Clark Culminating on May 8, 2006, Respondents solicitated and induced Fay Ann Clark of Ft. Myers, Florida, then aged 70, to write a check for $200,000.00 in return for an NFOA annuity. The NFOA agreement that Clark entered into, and which was signed by Respondent RE, was entered into less than three weeks after Clark requested rescission of two NCF annuities that Respondents had previously sold Clark. Proceeds from the rescission of the NCF annuities enabled Clark to purchase the NFOA annuity. Prior to the rescission of the NCF annuities, on or about October 21, 2005, Clark had surrendered two Allianz Life Insurance Company annuities. Proceeds from the surrender of the Allianz annuities were used to purchase the NCF annuities. Respondent NE signed the NCF annuities agreement and was the advisor. Respondent NE, by use of a check drawn on Respondents’ joint checking account, refunded Respondents’ commission for the NCF sales to Clark. Sales documentation and correspondence clearly and convincingly evidence both Respondents’ involvement in Clark’s Allianz to NCF and NCF to NFOA transactions. Respondents knew or reasonably should have known that NFOA was not an authorized insurer in Florida. Respondents, by use of the NFOA donor annuity agreement, knowingly misrepresented to Clark that NFOA was a charitable non-profit organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the IRC, even though Respondents knew NFOA was not tax exempt. Based upon Respondents’ transaction of insurance, Clark paid $200,000.00 for an NFOA annuity, paid $7,971.00 in penalties to the IRS (U.S. Treasury), and presently anticipates losing approximately $42,000.00. Clark has received a partial refund from the NFOA Receiver. Based upon Respondents’ transaction of insurance with Clark, Respondents were paid a commission of $18,000.00 by NFOA. Petitioner has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Respondents directly or indirectly represented or aided an unauthorized insurer to do business in Florida. Petitioner has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Respondents knew or reasonably should have known that the annuity contracts they contracted with clients were with an unauthorized insurer. Petitioner has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Respondents knowingly placed before the public a statement, assertion, or representation with respect to the business or insurance that was untrue, deceptive or misleading. Petitioner has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Respondents knowingly caused to be made, published, disseminated, circulated, delivered, or placed before the public a false material statement. Petitioner has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Respondents demonstrated a lack of fitness and trustworthiness to engage in the business of insurance. Petitioner has proven by clear and convincing evidence that Respondents engaged in unfair and deceptive practices or showed themselves to be a source of injury to the public. Neither Respondent has had prior disciplinary charges filed against them in Florida.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Finds of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services: Finding that Respondents violated Subsections 626.901(1), 626.901(2), 626.9541(1)(b)4., 626.9541(1)(e)1.e., 626.611(7), 626.621(2), and 626.621(6), Florida Statutes, as charged in Counts I and II of Petitioner’s Amended Administrative Complaints; Revoking Respondent Richard Eberhardt’s, licenses and appointments issued or granted under or pursuant to the Florida Insurance Code; Revoking Respondent Nancy Eberhardt’s, licenses and appointments issued or granted under or pursuant to the Florida Insurance Code; 4. Providing that if either of the Respondents, subsequent to revocation, makes an application to Petitioner for any licensure, a new license will not be granted if the applicant Respondent fails to prove that he or she has otherwise satisfied the financial losses of his or her NFOA clients or if the applicant Respondent otherwise fails to establish that he or she is eligible for licensure. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of April, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 27th day of April, 2010.
The Issue The issue for determination in this case is whether the Florida insurance license of Respondent should be disciplined for violation of certain provisions of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes, as contained in allegations set forth in the five- count Administrative Complaint filed by Petitioner.
Findings Of Fact Based upon observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying and documentary materials received in evidence, stipulations by the parties, evidentiary rulings made pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes (2003), and the record compiled herein, the following relevant and material facts are found: The Department is the agency of the State of Florida vested with the statutory authority to administer the disciplinary provisions of Chapter 626, Florida Statutes (2001). Respondent is and, at all times material, was licensed in Florida as a life and health insurance agent. His Florida insurance license number is A283290. The Department has disciplined the license of Respondent on two previous occasions. The last discipline was taken pursuant to a Consent Order in Case Number 20371-97-A. Respondent was placed on probation for a period of three years beginning on July 29, 1999, and ending July 9, 2002, as a result of having enrolled five customers in a health plan without their knowledge or consent. A condition of his probation required Respondent to "strict[ly] adhere to all provisions of the Florida Insurance Code and Rules of the Department of Insurance and Treasurer" during his probation period. Respondent was also fined $7,500. Respondent is and, at all times material, was operating as a health insurance agent for PHP. Respondent, as an employee of PHP, was paid a commission on his enrollment of each client with PHP. He was assigned PHP employee number 6232. His employment with PHP did not preclude nor deny his freedom to market life insurance. PHP is an insurance company that maintains a contract with the State of Florida's Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) to deliver benefits to Medicaid recipients. The state screens potential Medicaid recipients to determine individual eligibility. The Medicaid plan "marketing agent," who is an insurance agent (Respondent), must hold an "event," invite the public, and explain benefits of the PHP plan. Each such event shall be approved by AHCA. As a part of the terms of employment with PHP, certain activities are prohibited and are not to be engaged in by "marketing agents." The prohibitions included: knocking on doors and offering to parents of children who have been determined eligible for benefits monetary awards, gifts, rebates, or any other incentives to induce enrollment of a child in Medicaid plans. PHP retained MDA Investigations, an independent investigative company, to investigate irregularities in the marketing processes resulting from marketing agents' conduct and/or client dissatisfaction brought to the attention of PHP and to provide PHP with an investigative report of each such irregularity. It was through this agency that complaints about Respondent were referred for investigation. Count I Julia Benefield (Ms. Benefield), complainant, has a high school diploma and is the mother of T.K. and K.K. Both children, having met certain entitlement criteria determined by the state, are entitled to receive Medicaid benefits. Ms. Benefield decides what physician treats her children and, at all times material to this issue, had previously selected Dr. Arlene Haywood as their chosen health care provider. From her past experience in selecting the health care provider for her children, Ms. Benefield was not new to the required enrollment processes. She recalled initially meeting Respondent at the apartment rented by her mother. During the meeting, Respondent asked if her children were on Medicaid, to which she responded affirmatively, informing Respondent that they received medical services from Dr. Arlene Haywood, a physician who had previously treated Ms. Benefield when she was a child. During the course of his sales pitch conversation, Respondent discussed with Ms. Benefield life insurance policies for her minor children and intermingled his discussion with statements urging her to switch her Medicaid provider to PHP. During the course of this meeting and conversation, Ms. Benefield signed a "Request to Enroll Card" with the clear understanding that her signature thereon meant: "[I]t was to put my kids on life insurance." She emphatically denied ever intending or desiring to change from her then present physician provider and enroll her children in PHP offered by Respondent. During this process, Respondent presented Ms. Benefield with a Request to Enroll Card. The card, which Ms. Benefield acknowledged signing, contained the names, dates of birth, and social security numbers of her two children. Above the signature line, the Request to Enroll Card has printed the condition of enrollment, to wit: "By signing this card, I understand that I am only indicating my intent to enroll my family members in the Medicaid HMO plan listed above. To complete the enrollment process I will need to sign and return an enrollment form that will be sent to my home by the Medicaid Options Program." Ms. Benefield became aware of the switch of her Medicaid provider from Dr. Arlene Haywood to PHP when she received a letter mailed to her mother's apartment address informing her that her children were then enrolled (switched) with PHP. This switch to PHP caused her not to be able to obtain medical services from the children's regular pediatrician, Dr. Arlene Haywood. Ms. Benefield, dissatisfied with the method and manner of Respondent changing her Medicaid provider against her stated desires and without her permission, complained about the switch to PHP to the Department. Respondent justified and defended his conduct in this instant with the summary statement: "that if she knew the difference of the two policies [PHP and life insurance] then how could she have made a mistake when life insurance cost money and Medicaid is free." Ms. Benefield firmly maintained, "[H]e went ahead and enrolled them anyway [in PHP] without my permission." At the time Ms. Benefield executed the enrollment card presented to her by Respondent, it was not her intent to switch from her then Medicaid provider, Dr. Arlene Haywood, to PHP. The intentional misrepresentations made by Respondent induced Ms. Benefield to sign the enrollment card. Count II Dahlia Malcolm (Ms. Malcolm), complainant, is a high school graduate who also earned a cosmetology degree. She is the mother of A.M., a minor who is qualified to receive Medicaid benefits. Ms. Malcolm recalled Respondent coming uninvited to her home during which time he repeatedly suggested switching from her Medipass provider to his employer, PHP provider. Following the pattern of his conversation with Ms. Benefield, Respondent discussed with Ms. Malcolm life insurance policies for her minor child intermingled with statements urging her to switch her Medicaid provider to PHP. In this instant, and as an additional inducement incentive, Respondent offered to give Ms. Malcolm money to cover the cost of a "pizza" or "pizza party," if Ms. Malcolm would either invite her friends over or provide Respondent with the names of her friends with children who were Medicaid eligible. Ms. Malcolm recalled laughing at the suggestion of a "pizza party." A few weeks later, she received a package mailed to her stating: "thank you for enrolling in PHP." According to Ms. Malcolm, the signature "Dahlia Malcolm" on the Request to Enroll Card, dated July 5, 2001, was "definitely" not her signature. She emphatically denied giving Respondent permission or authority to enroll her son in PHP. Dissatisfied with Respondent switching her Medicaid provider, Ms. Malcolm complained to both PHP and the Department. Respondent suggested that the mother of Ms. Malcolm was probably not happy with Ms. Malcolm enrolling her children with PHP and that to cover her mistake, Ms. Malcolm made a complaint to the Department; that suggestion is without merit. Ms. Malcolm at no time evidenced a knowing intent to switch her Medicaid provider to PHP. Assuming Ms. Malcolm did, in fact, sign the Request to Enroll Card, her inducement to sign the Request to Enroll Card was due to the intentional misrepresentations made to her by Respondent. Count III The complainant, Calandra Birdine, did not appear at the final hearing to testify. Respondent consented to admission of a Department Inquiry form containing statements from another person, written by Joseph Rufus, who also did not testify. Attached thereto were two Request to Enroll Cards containing the names and ages of six minor children who were qualified to receive Medicaid services, dated August 23, 2001. Although admitted into evidence without objection from the Respondent, the documents are hearsay, as are the contents. The Department failed to provide independent corroboration of the hearsay statements, and the documents and their contents are insufficient to support a finding of fact. Accordingly, the Department failed to prove by competent substantial evidence the allegations contained in Count III of the Administrative Complaint. Count IV The complainant, Monique Young, did not appear at the final hearing to testify. Respondent consented to admission of the Department Inquiry form that contained statements from another person, written by Keith Yore, who did not testify. Attached thereto were two Request to Enroll Cards containing the names and ages of eight minor children who were qualified to receive Medicaid services, dated May 11, 2001. Although admitted into evidence without objection from Respondent, the documents and contents are hearsay. The Department failed to provide independent corroboration of the hearsay evidence, and, therefore, the documents and their contents are insufficient to support a finding of fact. Accordingly, the Department failed to prove by competent substantial evidence allegations contained in Count IV of the Administrative Complaint. Count V The complainant, Jamie Powell, did not appear at the final hearing to testify. Respondent consented to admission of the Department Inquiry form containing statements of another person, written by Robekah (no last name in the record), who did not testify. Attached thereto was one Request to Enroll Card containing the name and age of one minor child who was qualified to receive Medicaid services, dated June 2, 2001. Although admitted into evidence without objection of Respondent, the documents and contents are hearsay. For a lack of independent corroboration, the documents and contents are insufficient to support a finding of fact. Accordingly, the Department failed to prove by competent substantial evidence the allegations contained in Count V of the Administrative Complaint. Respondent complained that he was employed with PHP for 11 months after the first complaint was filed against him in January 2001. He maintained that he was not notified of these complaints by the special investigator, Gladys Kennedy, until December 2001, one month after he no longer worked for PHP. It was his belief that PHP instigated the complaints because he went to work with a competing company. Respondent maintains that he had written over 1,500 applications per year with PHP and his success record demonstrated that "I must be doing something right." Respondent, under the impression that the Department assumed he was taking advantage of his client because of their educational level, testified that he, too, has only a high school diploma. Respondent, evidenced by Findings of Fact 3 through 12 hereinabove, violated his probation condition imposed in the Consent Order, of July 29, 1999, in Case Number 20371-97-A.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order as follows: Finding Respondent, Roger Lee White, guilty, as alleged in Count I and Count II of the Administrative Complaint, of violating Section 626.611 and Subsections 626.9541(1)(k)1. and 626.611(7), (9), and (13), Florida Statutes. Revoking the license of Respondent and eligibility for licensure. Dismissing Counts III, IV, and V of the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent, Roger Lee White. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRED L. BUCKINE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of December, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: David J. Busch, Esquire Department of Financial Services, Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Roger Lee White 257 Coastal Hill Drive Indian Harbour Beach, Florida 32937 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
