Findings Of Fact Respondent was issued Embalmer's license No. EM645 in 1945, and Funeral Director's License No. FD504 in 1947. He was also issued a dual license No. FE64 in 1947. By Amended Final Order, dated March 27, 1980, Petitioner suspended Respondent's funeral director's and embalmer's licenses for a period of one year. Following the one year suspension, which concluded on March 26, 1981, Respondent was placed on three years license probation. The complaining witness, Samuel C. Rogers, employed Respondent between June 1980, and March, 1982, essentially to operate one of two funeral homes he owned 1/. His employment arrangements with Respondent were not clear (discussed below), but Rogers generally intended to capitalize on Respondent's ability to attract funeral business. Rogers was aware that Respondent could not embalm under the terms of his probation. He believed initially that Respondent could perform funeral directing duties and assigned him such responsibilities. However, Rogers continued to permit Respondent to perform funeral directing tasks even after he learned that this was improper under the terms of his probation. The funerals of Queenie M. Edwards, in December, 1980, and Jacob L. Maxwell, in late February or early March, 1981, were arranged and conducted by Respondent. Thus, during the period of his license suspension, Respondent held himself out to the public as a funeral director and did perform in this capacity. Respondent typically made all funeral arrangements with the family of the deceased, including caskets, flowers, limousines, drivers, and cemetery lots. He prepared itemized statements for services provided and collected direct payments as well as insurance assignments. He sometimes cashed client checks and retained the proceeds to pay funeral service expenses, purchase advertising materials and make funeral home improvements He also kept some of these funds for his own use and admits he owes Rogers up to $500. In other instances, Respondent brought cash to Rogers' office where he turned it over to the secretary-bookkeeper or Rogers himself. Respondent kept no records and Rogers' records were incomplete and therefore inconclusive. No specific funds or payments were identified which Respondent was proven to have diverted wrongfully. Rogers claims that Respondent misappropriated at least $30,000. Petitioner's evidence indicates that some $8,000 came into Respondent's hands for which there are no records to establish receipt by Rogers. However, the testimony of Respondent and two other former employees of Rogers established that Respondent did turn over cash funds to Rogers or his secretary-bookkeeper on various occasions and that an immediate record of such receipts was not always made. Further, Rogers has also accused his former secretary-bookkeeper of misappropriation and is apparently pursuing this claim in another forum. The employment arrangements between Rogers and Respondent were not supported by written agreement. Rogers claims he employed Respondent on a $300 per week salary and did not authorize him to collect funeral service payments. However, he did not discipline Respondent when be became aware of his collection practices. Rather, it was not until he personally attempted to collect on various accounts which customers had already settled with Respondent that he discharged him. Respondent contends he was in partnership with Rogers and was given latitude to make all funeral arrangements, including collections and expenditures for services, building maintenance and advertising. He further viewed his retention of certain funds as due him for his services to the business. Rogers' former secretary-bookkeeper understood that Rogers had employed Respondent on a commission basis. Therefore, no income tax or social security contributions were made on his behalf. In view of such conflicting testimony, there can be no finding that Respondent's employment arrangements precluded his collection of customer payments or required that all such funds be turned over to Rogers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found guilty of violating Subsection 470.036(1)(i), F.S., as charged in Count III of the Administrative Complaint. That all other charges contained in the Administrative Complaint be dismissed. That Respondent's funeral director's license and dual license be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of April, 1983.
The Issue Whether or not the Respondent, Franklin D. Zeigler, as a licensed embalmer violated Section 470.l2(1)(c), Florida Statutes, in that he has been found guilty by a jury in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Docket No. 76-227-NA-CR, after allegedly being charged with a crime involving moral turpitude; specifically, the convictions pertain to violations of 18 U.S.C. 371 (conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the United States), 18 U.S.C. 1341 (mail fraud), 18 U.S.C. 1342 (fraudulent use of a fictitious name) and 18 U.S.C. 1343 (fraud by wire, radio, or television) Whether or not the Respondent, Franklin D. Zeigler, as a licensed funeral director violated Section 470.12(2)(c), Florida Statutes, in that he has been found guilty by a jury in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Docket No. 76-227-NA-CR, after allegedly being charged with a crime involving moral turpitude; specifically, the convictions pertain to violations of 18 U.S.C. 371(conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the United States), 18 U.S.C. 1341 (mail fraud), 18 U.S.C. 1342(fraudulent use of a fictitious name) and 18 U.S.C. 1343 (fraud by wire, radio or television). Whether or not the Respondent, Franklin D. Zeigler, as a licensed embalmer violated Section 470.12(1)(k), Florida Statutes, in that he has been found guilty by a jury in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Docket No. 76-227-NA-CR, after allegedly being charged with a crime involving moral turpitude; specifically, the convictions pertain to violations of 18 U.S.C. 371 (conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the United States), 18 U.S.C. 1341 (mail fraud), 18 U.S.C. 1342 (fraudulent use of a fictitious name) and 18 U.S.C. 1343 (fraud by wire, radio, or television). Whether or not the Respondent, Franklin D. Zeigler, as a licensed funeral director violated Section 470.12(2)(p), Florida Statutes, in that he has been found guilty by a jury in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Docket No. 76-227-NA-CR, after allegedly being charged with a crime involving moral turpitude; specifically, the convictions pertain to violations of 18 J.S.C. 371 (conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud the United States), 18 U.S.C. 1341 (mail fraud), 18 U.S.C. 1,342 (fraudu1ent use of a fictitious name) and 18 U.S.C. 1343 (fraud by wire, radio, or television).
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the complaint Franklin D. Zeigler held Funeral Director's license no. 1789 and Embalmer's license no. 1986, held with the State of Florida, Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation, State Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers. On July 29, 1977, the Respondent was sentenced to four years in prison for violations of Title 18 U.S.C. 371, 1341, 1342 and 1343. This judgement and sentence was entered in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee based on a verdict of guilty, arrived at in Docket No. 76-227-NA- CR. A copy of this judgement and commitment order may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit 1, admitted into evidence. These federal crimes specifically pertain to the following: 18 U.S.C. 371 (Conspiracy to commit an offense or to defraud the United States) 18 U.S.C. 1341 (Mail fraud) 18 U.S.C. 1342 (Fraudulent use of a fictitious name) 18 U.S.C. 1343 (Fraud by wire, radio, or television) Based on the action taken in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, the Petitioner has charged the Respondent with violations of Chapter 470, Florida Statutes, pertaining to both his Funeral Director's and Embalmer's license. The action taken against his Embalmer's license is under Sections 470.12(1)(c)and (1)(k), Florida Statutes; and the action taken against the Funeral Director's license is in accordance with Sections 470.12(2)(c) and (2)(p), Florida Statutes. Section 470.12(1)(c), Florida Statutes, holds that it is a violation for an Embalmer to have been found guilty by a jury after being charged with a crime involving moral turpitude, and this is without regard as to whether a judgement of conviction has been entered by the court having jurisdiction in the case. Likewise, Section 470.12(2)(c), Florida Statutes, sets forth the violation in the same language as found in Section 470.12(1)(c) , Florida Statutes, the only difference being that this violation pertains to the license held by a Funeral Director. An examination of the nature of the judgement and commitment order for the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee demonstrates that a jury or a court acting as the trier of the fact has found the Respondent guilty of crimes involving moral turpitude, and those findings establish a violation of Section 470.12(1)(c) and (2)(c) , Florida Statutes. The Petitioner failed to make any other presentation in terms of a factual allegation. Therefore, the allegations against the Respondent's license as an Embalmer and Funeral Director respectively, under the conditions set forth in Section 470.12(1)(k) and (2)(p), Florida Statutes, have not been shown because those two substantive violations are premised upon the finding that the licensee has violated any provision of the Chapter and may only be read to pertain to provisions not already addressed factually and by allegation in some other part of the complaint. In this case there was a contemporaneous allegation of violation of Sections 470.12(1)(c) and (2)(c) , Florida Statutes. Therefore, proof of a violation of Sections 470.12(1)(k) and (2)(p), Florida Statutes, does not lie.
Recommendation In the course of the hearing before the undersigned the parties were given the opportunity to present matters in aggravation and mitigation, and availed themselves of such opportunity. Having considered those representations in view of the facts in this cause, and in particular the fact that the Respondent had been held in violation of the laws of the Petitioner by a final order of December 17, 1976; which violation was similar in nature to the violation herein, and further for which violation the Respondent was given a suspended sentence; it is recommended that the licenses of the Respondent, Franklin D. Zeigler, Funeral Director's license no. 1789 and Embalmer's license no. 1986, be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of April, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Dewberry, Esquire 1300 Florida Title Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 John London Arnold, Esquire 919 East Adams Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioners are entitled to costs and attorney's fees pursuant to Sections 57.111 and 57.041, Florida Statutes (2009).
Findings Of Fact Administrative Proceedings On September 10, 2009, Respondent, Department of Financial Services, Board of Funeral, Cemetary, and Consumer Services ("Respondent" or "the Department") referred Administrative Complaints against Petitioners, Wright and Young Funeral Home, Inc., and Kimberly White, to DOAH to conduct a hearing. The cases were consolidated and set for hearing on December 2, 2009. On October 30, 2009, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Continuance and the case was continued and rescheduled for January 6, 2010. On December 23, 2009, the Department filed a Motion for Continuance asserting, in part, the need to raise additional issues with a probable cause panel that could have led to a motion for leave to amend the Administrative Complaint. Petitioners opposed the motion, which was, nevertheless, granted after a motion hearing was held. The case was rescheduled for March 10 and 12, 2010. On January 22, 2010, the Department filed another Motion for Continuance noting that the probable cause panel would meet on January 25, 2010, to consider proposed amendments to the administrative complaints and that, if approved, a motion for leave to amend would be filed that same day. Counsel for the Department, also gave notice that she would be unavailable to conduct discovery or proceed to hearing in February and March due to medical reasons. Because the case had been pending at DOAH for more than four months, counsel for the Department was asked to consider transferring the case to another attorney in the Department who could be available for a hearing in March. On January 25, 2010, the Department filed a Motion for Enlargement of Time to File a Motion for Leave to Amend Administrative Complaint citing the need for two extra days to get approval within the Department to file the proposed amendments to the Administrative Complaint. Petitioners filed their Opposition to Third Motion for Continuance, Opposition to Enlargement to file Motion for Leave to Amend Complaints, and Motion to Transfer Case to Another Attorney. The Department was granted, on January 26, 2010, a two-day extension to January 28, 2010, to file its Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. That Motion was filed on January 27, 2010. During a pre-hearing status conference on February 15, 2010, counsel for the Department reported that she had been unable to transfer the case to any other Department attorneys due to their workloads. She agreed to file, and did file, an Unopposed Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction that same day. The Motion was granted and the DOAH files were closed on February 16, 2010. Probable Cause Panel The probable cause panel that approved the filing of the initial Administrative Complaint met on June 10, 2009. The Administrative Complaint was filed in the Department on June 26, 2009. On January 25, 2010, counsel for the Department reported to the panel that based on the facts gathered, presumably through further investigations and discovery, Petitioner, Kimberly White, as the responsible funeral director in charge, had not violated Subsections 497.385(2)(f), 497.152(9)(b), and 497.152(9)(e), Florida Statutes, but that probable cause existed to believe that she had violated Subsection 497.152(9)(f), Florida Statutes. With regard to the previous charges against Petitioner Wright and Young Funeral Home, Inc., counsel for the Department reported that based on the facts gathered, it had not violated Subsections 497.385(2)(f), 497.152(9)(b), and 497.385(9)(e), but that probable cause existed to believe that it had violated Subsections 497.152(9)(f) and 497.141(12)(d), Florida Statutes. The panel found probable cause to amend the Administrative Complaints as requested by counsel for the Department. The information that served as the basis for the remaining charges, as amended, was received from Broward County Circuit Judge Mark A. Speiser. Judge Speiser wrote the Department, on April 3, 2009, after presiding in a guardianship proceeding for a six and one-half-year-old minor child, over a hearing on an Emergency Petition to Pay Funeral Expenses of the ward's deceased mother. During the proceeding, Judge Speiser determined that Terry Wright, who identified himself as the CEO of Wright and Young Funeral Home, Inc., falsely represented that an expense associated with the mother's funeral services were $7,450, but that the actual cost was $350. Judge Speiser's letter to the Department concluded as follows: The absolute lie and false statement to this Court in a legal proceeding is intolerable and should not go unpunished. As the State Agency charged with oversight of this industry, I urge you to extend this matter your utmost and immediate attention. To allow financial exploitation of the decedent's legacy to her surviving 6 and one-half-year-old child by a business that supposedly is in existence to reasonably and fairly serve individuals and families in their time of grief and sorrow is utterly impermissible and shameful. The Department's investigator interviewed witnesses, reviewed invoices, and received affidavits that supported the allegations made by Judge Speiser. While Petitioners questioned whether any violation occurred for marking up fees, that is an issue for consideration when, and if, there is a final evidentiary hearing on the pending charges. Small Business The parties did not contest the status of Petitioners as a small business and its funeral director in charge. Attorney's Fees and Cost The Department did not question the reasonableness and accuracy of Petitioners' affidavit in support of the Motion that shows attorney's fees in the amount of $17,220 and costs in the amount of $1,079 expended in defense of the complaint against Petitioners, except to the extent that fees and costs for maintaining this action should not have been included.
Conclusions THIS CAUSE came on for consideration of and final action by the Board of Funeral, Cemetery, and Consumer Services on Petitioner’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal submitted in this cause on July 18, 2009, attached hereto as Exhibit A. . On April 30, 2009, a Notice of Intent to Deny Licensure was served upon Nacional Memorial! Funeral Chapel, LLC. Pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, Petitioner requested a formal hearing and the case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 8, 2009. After conducting several depositions the Petitioner withdrew its Petition for formal hearing from the Division of Administrative Hearings and an Order Closing the File was issued on July 20, 2009, by Administrative Law Judge, John G. Van Laningham. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the application is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 2% day of VEZ , 2009, . DOUGLAS’SHROPSHIRE, Executive Director Florida Board of Funeral, Cemetery and Consumer Services Filed July 15, 2010 12:17 PM Division of Administrative Hearings.
Findings Of Fact Dale Woodward, the Respondent, holds Funeral Director's License No. 671 and Embalmer's License No. 536 at the present time, and during the times pertinent to 1978 and January through 1979. The Respondent Dale Woodward is the owner of the Dale Woodward Funeral Home of Holly Hill, Florida. The Dale Woodward Funeral Home holds an establishment operating License No. 123. During all times relevant to the allegations in the complaint, Ricky Charles Vyse and Richard G. McCafferty were employees of Dale Woodward and the Dale Woodward Funeral Home. In early 1978, one Howard McMurray made arrangements with Dale Woodward for his own funeral seven to eight months prior to his death. Mr. McMurray stated that he would prefer to have his funeral similar to that of his wife, which arrangements had earlier been handled by the Dale Woodward Funeral Home. On December 19, 1978, Howard McMurray passed away and his body was delivered to the Dale Woodward Funeral Home. On the morning of December 20, Violet Eggleston, his executrix, and her husband Raymond, came to the funeral home. Mrs. Eggleston was met by Mr. Woodward and Mr. McCafferty and introduced to Mr. McCafferty by Mr. Woodward. Although Mrs. Eggleston stated in her deposition (Exhibit 12) that she did not meet Mr. Woodward upon coming into the funeral home, she did state that he might have been painting or hanging wallpaper and that she would not have recognized him with painting clothes on and in fact Mr. Woodward's testimony establishes that he was painting the funeral home that day and was dressed in old clothes and his presence at the funeral home on that morning is corroborated by Mrs. Eggleston's later statement that Mr. Woodward introduced her to Mr. McCafferty at the time they began to discuss funeral arrangements. Mr. McCafferty was introduced to Mrs. Eggleston and obtained some information for the preparation of death certificates as well as for Mrs. Eggleston's desires regarding arrangements for funeral services. Mr. McCafferty also assisted Mrs. Eggleston on behalf of the family in making funeral selections from the Respondent's stock of caskets and urns. Mrs. Eggleston was not the person considered in sole charge of arranging for Mr. McMurray's funeral in that she was not the next of kin, rather the deceased's daughter Diana Keeley apparently had some responsibility in arranging for the funeral, although Mrs. Eggleston was primarily responsible for making the subject arrangements and indeed paid for the Respondent's services herself. Mr. McCafferty did not complete a sale of a casket or urn to Mrs. Eggleston, although she did select a salix casket that day. These preliminary negotiations and discussions of the funeral arrangements and the obtaining of a casket engaged in by Mr. McCafferty with Mrs. Eggleston were at the direction of Respondent Dale Woodward, the subject licensed funeral director, and Mr. McCafferty himself was not present at the funeral. On or about December 22, 1978, the same day, Mrs. Eggleston signed an authorization for the cremation of the body of Howard McMurray and he was subsequently cremated at the Cedar Hill Crematory in Daytona Beach, Florida. The body was removed from the casket in which it had been placed for viewing and was cremated in a cardboard cremation container, The value of that cremation container or the sales price, was substantially less than that of the $865 casket. Neither Mrs. Eggleston nor Diana Keeley, the decedent's daughter, ever gave any written instructions regarding the manner of cremation of the body of Howard McMurray as to the container which should be used, nor does the record reflect that any written instructions or understandings passed between these two ladies and Mr. Woodward or his employees. Mrs. Eggleston's instructions regarding the cremation were verbal and made no provision for the type container to be used in the cremation process. Ricky Charles Vyse was employed by the Dale Woodward Funeral Home on or about June, 1978. At that time, and at times subsequent thereto, he represented that he was qualified to embalm human bodies as an apprentice or intern embalmer in that he had submitted papers registering him for such internship to the Florida Board of Funeral Directors. Dale Woodward and Dale Woodward Funeral Home believed and relied upon that representation, thus permitting Ricky Vyse to assist or participate in embalming procedures. The Respondent Dale Woodward supervised any embalming procedures in which Ricky Vyse participated. Particularly, Dale Woodward did virtually all cosmetic work, including that in the cases involving the decedent, Howard McMurray, as well as with regard to the funeral and embalming of Mary Salvonge. Further, evidence adduced at the hearing revealed that Ricky Vyse had never actually been registered as an intern embalmer with the Board of Funeral Directors and the testimony of four of Respondent's witnesses revealed that Ricky Vyse had been detected on a number of occasions stealing office records and various items of property from the funeral home, including an embalming machine, a Beethoven bust, a desk globe, and other items. After repeated warnings, the Respondent Dale Woodward through his employees Franklin Muffley and Richard McCafferty terminated Ricky Vyse's employment. It was evident from the demeanor of Ricky Vyse on the witness stand that he was a disgruntled employee and hostile former employee of the Respondents, and that be approached the State Attorney in January, 1979 with accusations against Dale Woodward and the Dale Woodward Funeral Home involving violations such as those involved herein. The record reflects that no prosecution was initiated by the State Attorney's office. Franklin Muffley is the internal auditor and bookkeeper for the Dale Woodward Funeral Home. As such he is responsible for the billing in cases such as the McMurray case. It is his practice and custom to gather all figures and data regarding funeral arrangements, verify them and routinely mail a statement within approximately two weeks following a funeral service. In the McMurray case however, the executrix, Mrs. Eggleston, made payment on the day the funeral arrangements were made before any written itemization for funeral services to be rendered was finalized or verified by Muffley. As a result, after having been shown the salix casket priced at $865, she proceeded to pay for the casket, as well as for the other arrangements for a total of $1,785. The record is not clear whether Franklin Muffley or Richard McCafferty who were privy to the discussions of arrangements and price with Mrs. Eggleston that morning knew that the decedent would be cremated in a cardboard container. Dale Woodward, the Respondent in this case, did not learn of the fact that Mrs. Eggleston had been billed for the casket which was not used in the ultimate disposition of the body of Mr. McMurray until approximately three months later, in about March of 1979, when, as it was his regular custom and practice, he instituted his quarterly review of his business's billing and receipts. Having been closely acquainted with the McMurray family and being aware of the arrangements Mrs. Eggleston had requested for Mr. McMurray's funeral (i.e., cremation), Mr. Woodward detected an error in billing due to the charge for the casket which was not ultimately used except for display purposes. Mr. Woodward thereupon immediately made a refund to Mrs. Eggleston of $805 representing the price charged her for the casket less the $60 charge legitimately due and owing for the cardboard cremation container. Dale Woodward and Dale Woodward Funeral Home have been in operation and licensed approximately 25 years and have never been the subject of such complaints and charges heretofore. The Respondents Dale Woodward and Dale Woodward Funeral Home, as established by the four "character witnesses," enjoy a good reputation for truth and veracity in the community
The Issue Whether the license of Arnett P. Rogers, Funeral Directors' license number 701 and Embalmers' license number 873 and the license of House of Rogers Funeral Home Establishment Operators' license number 6700 should be revoked, suspended or annulled or whether Arnett P. Roger should be otherwise disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Arnett P. Rogers holds Funeral Directors' license number 701 and Embalmers' license number 873 and is the owner of House of Rogers Funeral Home which was issued Establishment Operating license number 6700. Respondent was charged in a complaint issued by Petitioner with violating Setion 470.12(1)(k); Section 470.12 (2)(c); and section 470.12(2)(p), Florida Statutes, in that as a licensed funeral director and embalmer he was found guilty of, after being charged with, a crime of moral turpitude in this State. More specifically, Respondent was charged with being found guilty of violating Section 409.325, Florida Statutes, which prohibits fraud in the handling of federal food stamps. The Respondent, Arnett P. Rogers, was charged with violating the terms of probation imposed upon him by final order of the State Board of Funeral Directors and Embalmers dated January 31, 1977, which adopted a recommended order dated December 1, 1976, copies of which are attached hereto and made a part hereof, after being charged and found guilty of a crime of moral turpitude in this state. Petitioner charged the Respondent, House of Rogers Funeral Home, with the violation of Section 470.12(4)(a), Florida Statutes, in that Arnett P. Rogers, the licensed funeral director in charge of and owner and operator of said funeral home committed acts in violation of Chapter 470, Florida Statutes, by being found guilty of a crime involving moral turpitude in this state. Respondent, House of Rogers Funeral Home, was charged with having violated the terms of the Order of Probation dated January 31, 1977. Upon examination of the evidence submitted and considering the testimony of a witness produced by the Petitioner, it is found that the Arnett Rogers shown in the information filed and judgment of guilt ordered September 23, 1977, which is attached hereto and made a part hereof, is one and the same person as the Respondent, Arnett P. Rogers. No evidence was offered mitigating the apparent turpitude of the offense for which Respondent Roger was found guilty. The Respondent, Rogers, violated the terms and conditions of the Final Order entered on January 31, 1977, which revoked Respondent's licenses but withheld revocation pending the satisfactory completion of a two year probation period beginning on the date the Order was entered. It is found that the conviction of Respondent by Judgment dated June 27, 1977, and filed by the Clerk of the Circuit Court, Fourth Judicial Circuit of Florida, in and for Duval County, Florida, is a violation of the requirements of Chapter 470, Florida Statutes, and is not a "satisfactory completion of a two year probationary period" required by the foregoing Final Order. The adjudication of guilt of a crime proscribed by Section 409.325, Fraud.-Florida Statutes, is a "crime of moral turpitude" and a violation of Section 470.12(2)(c) Florida Statutes. From the testimony and evidence submitted, it is found that Respondent intended to use food stamps as payment for funeral services to be rendered by him and The House of Rogers when he accepted food stamps in a negotiation for a down payment for a funeral. The proposed orders of the parties have been considered in the rendition of this order and any part thereof not directly treated is found to be without merit.
Recommendation Revoke the licenses of Arnett P. Rogers and the House of Rogers Funeral Home. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of November, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Dewberry, Esquire 1300 Florida Title Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Lacy Mahon, Jr., Esquire 350 East Adams Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202
