The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for licensure by examination as a mental health counselor was wrongfully denied.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner attended the University of Tampa and graduated with a degree in social work and psychology in 1978. He subsequently attended Heed University in Fort Lauderdale from 1979 through 1981, graduating in 1981 with a master's degree in counseling psychology. Heed University is not accredited by an accrediting agency approved by the United States Department of Education and was not so accredited while Petitioner was there enrolled. Respondent has worked as a mental health counselor at Tampa Heights Hospital (Exhibit 3), at the Hillsborough Regional Juvenile Detention Center, Charter Hospital, as well as at other facilities, and has served on panels and given lectures at mental health related programs not only in Florida but throughout the United States. Suffice it to say, he has considerable experience as a mental health counselor (Exhibits 4 and 6). At the hearing, Petitioner submitted an original of his transcript at Heed University with impressed seal of the University. This satisfies the objection that Petitioner had not presented an original transcript of his grades at Heed University.
Recommendation It is recommended that Alan Leonard Getreu's application to sit for the mental health counselor licensing examination be denied and this appeal dismissed. ENTERED this 27th day of August, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of August, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire One Urban Center Suite 750 4830 West Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, FL 33609 Linda Biedermann Executive Director Clinical Social Work, Marriage & Family Therapy and Mental Health Counseling Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Kenneth D. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue The issues in this case, which arises from Petitioner's application for an award of attorney's fees and costs pursuant to section 57.111, Florida Statutes, are whether Petitioner was a prevailing small business party in a disciplinary proceeding that Respondent initiated, and, if so, whether Respondent's decision to prosecute Petitioner was substantially justified or whether special circumstances exist that would make an award unjust.
Findings Of Fact On August 15, 2014, Respondent Department of Children and Families ("DCF") issued an Administrative Complaint against Petitioner Children's Hour Day School (the "School"), a licensed child care facility, charging the School with two disciplinable offenses, namely denial of food as form of punishment (Violation 1) and misrepresentation (Violation 2). The allegations of material fact in support of Violation 1 were as follows: During a complaint inspection on 8/6/14, the child care facility was cited for a Class I violation of Standard #12, Child Discipline, [because] a child, to wit, S.B., was denied a snack as a form of punishment when the child allegedly hit her sister, L.B. who is also enrolled at the child care facility. The allegations of material fact in support of Violation 2 were as follows: During a complaint inspection on 8/6/14, the child care facility was cited for a Class I violation of Standard #63, Misrepresentation, when it came to the Family Safety Counselor's attention that child care personnel, K.L. misrepresented and forged information, related to the child care facility when he utilized a notary stamp belonging to a former employee, namely Albarran and submitted the 2014 application for licensure to the Department with the forged notarization. The School, which requested a hearing, was found not guilty of the charges. See Dep't of Child. & Fams. v. Child.'s Hour Day Sch., Case No. 14-4539, 2015 Fla. Div. Adm. Hear. LEXIS 8 (Fla. DOAH Jan. 9, 2015; Fla. DCF Feb. 18, 2015). The Administrative Law Judge made the following findings of material fact with respect to Violation 1: S.B. and L.B. are young sisters who stayed at Respondent's day-care center in July 2014. On July 9, 2014, one of Respondent's employees gave S.B. and L.B. a small cup of Cheez-Its as a snack. [Kevin] Lennon was present when the two girls were sharing the cup of Cheez-Its. After S.B., who is the older and bigger child, finished her share of the Cheez-Its, S.B. began to hit her sister to take her sister's share of the Cheez-Its. Mr. Lennon separated the two girls and permitted L.B. to eat her share of the Cheez-Its. Mr. Lennon testified, credibly, that he did not take the Cheez-Its from S.B. to punish S.B. Id. at 3-4 (paragraph number omitted). The Administrative Law Judge made the following findings of material fact with respect to Violation 2: On March 25, 2014, Petitioner received from Respondent an "Application for a License to Operate a Child Care Facility" (the application). Mr. Lennon completed the application on behalf of Respondent. The application contained an attestation section that required Mr. Lennon's signature to be notarized. On March 25, 2014, Petitioner received an attestation section (first attestation section) signed by Kevin Lennon on February 28, 2014. The first attestation section contains Ivanne Albarran's notary seal and a signature dated February 28, 2014. Mr. Lennon testified, credibly, that he signed the first attestation section as Kevin Lennon. Mr. Albarran testified, credibly, that he signed the first attestation section as the notary public. The application package contains a second attestation section that was received by Petitioner on March 28, 2014. The second attestation section contains Mr. Lennon's signature and a date of March 26, 2014. The second attestation section contains Mr. Albarran's notary seal and a signature dated March 28, 2014. Mr. Lennon testified, credibly, that he signed the second attestation section as "Kevin Lennon." Mr. Albarran testified, credibly, that he signed the second attestation section as the notary public. Id. at 4-5 (paragraph numbers omitted). The School's owner is a corporation, Hamilton-Smith, Inc. ("HSI"), whose principal office is located in the state of Florida.1/ Kevin Lennon, who was referred to as "K.L." in the Administrative Complaint and is mentioned in the findings of fact quoted above, is HSI's sole shareholder. HSI employed fewer than 25 persons at the time DCF initiated the underlying disciplinary proceeding, and at all relevant times thereafter. Thus, HSI is a "small business party" as that term is defined in section 57.111(3)(d)1.b., Florida Statutes.2/ DCF agrees that HSI is a "prevailing" party as that term is defined in section 57.111(3)(c)1., inasmuch as a final order dismissing the charges against the School was entered in DOAH Case No. 14-4539. It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that HSI is a "prevailing small business party" entitled to recover its reasonable attorney's fees and costs from DCF "unless the actions of the agency were substantially justified or special circumstances exist which would make the award unjust." § 57.111(4)(a), Fla. Stat. In defending against the administrative charges, HSI incurred attorney's fees in the amount of $4,515.00 and costs totaling $434.50, for which it now seeks to be reimbursed. DCF does not contest the amount or reasonableness of either sum. DCF contends, however, that an award of attorney's fees and costs is unwarranted because its actions were substantially justified. It is therefore necessary to examine the grounds upon which DCF made its decision to charge the School with the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint. The disciplinary action had its genesis in an anonymous complaint that, on August 6, 2014, was phoned in to the local DCF licensing office in the School's vicinity. DCF counselor Michaelyn Radcliff went out that same day to investigate, and she met Tajah Brown at the School. Ms. Brown, an employee of the School, revealed to Ms. Radcliff that she had made the complaint, which involved the ratio of staff to children. Mr. Lennon, who was Ms. Brown's boss, happened to be out of town at the time and hence was not present for Ms. Radcliff's inspection. For the next six hours or so, Ms. Brown described for Ms. Radcliff every regulatory violation or offense she could think of, which she believed the School might have committed. One such offense was the alleged withholding of S.B.'s snack. Ms. Brown had not witnessed this incident, but she knew the child's mother, E.B., and offered to ask the mother to give a statement about it, which Ms. Radcliff agreed was a good idea. E.B. met Ms. Radcliff at the School, accompanied by her daughter S.B., who was then two years old. E.B. did not have personal knowledge of the alleged denial-of-snack incident, but she had been told about the event by her sister (S.B.'s aunt) who had picked S.B. and L.B. up from day care the evening of its alleged occurrence. The aunt did not have personal knowledge of the matter either, having arrived afterward. Rather, according to E.B., the aunt had told E.B. that Mr. Lennon had told her (the aunt) that S.B. had hit L.B. and thrown a tantrum. Ms. Radcliff did not speak to the aunt, however, whose testimony about what Mr. Lennon told her actually might have been admissible at hearing under an exception to the hearsay rule3/; instead, she accepted E.B.'s statement about the incident, which was based on hearsay (Mr. Lennon's declaration) within hearsay (the aunt's declaration) and had no evidential value on its own. Ms. Radcliff did question one eyewitness: two-year- old S.B., who denied hitting her sister, complained that Mr. Lennon would not give her a snack, and accused Mr. Lennon of hitting her. S.B.'s statement, such as it was, was the only independently admissible evidence Ms. Radcliff had. She never spoke with Mr. Lennon, who was the only adult eyewitness to the alleged denial-of-snack incident.4/ As for the alleged misrepresentation, Ms. Brown informed Ms. Radcliff that she (Ms. Brown) had observed Mr. Lennon using a notary stamp belonging to Ivanne Albarran, a former employee of the School, to "notarize" signatures in Mr. Albarran's name when he was not around. Ms. Brown did not, however, identify any specific documents that she claimed to have seen Mr. Lennon fraudulently notarize in this fashion.5/ Nor, apparently, was she asked whether she was familiar with either Mr. Albarran's or Mr. Lennon's signature or if she could identify anyone's signature on any document. Ms. Radcliff herself compared the signatures on documents purportedly signed by Mr. Albarran during the time when Mr. Albarran was an employee of the School with some of his purported signatures on documents executed after his employment had ended. She concluded that the signatures looked different. Ms. Radcliff is not a forensic document examiner, however, and she has no discernable expertise in handwriting analysis. Based on her layperson's opinion about the signatures, Ms. Radcliff determined that Mr. Albarran had not executed some notarized documents that the School had submitted with its recent application for renewal licensure, even though his stamp, seal, and purported signatures appeared on them. Based on Ms. Brown's claim to have seen Mr. Lennon use Mr. Albarran's notary stamp, Ms. Radcliff concluded that Mr. Lennon had forged these signatures. Ms. Radcliff never asked Mr. Albarran whether he had signed the documents in question, nor did she speak with Mr. Lennon about the matter.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence offered at the formal hearing in this case, the following facts are found: The Petitioner, Elizabeth R. Hillegas, took the Mental Health Counselor licensure examination administered on April 21, 1989. The Petitioner's examination was given a failing grade. The Petitioner needs to receive credit for correct answers on at least two more questions in order to be entitled to a passing grade. The Petitioner's answers to questions 8, 17, and 33 on the subject examination were incorrect. 2/ All three of the challenged questions, namely questions 8, 17, and 33, inquire as to matters which are part of the basic training in the field of Mental Health Counseling or matters which are crucial to competent practice in the field of Mental Health Counseling. The challenged questions ask about matters which should be known by a competent Mental Health Counselor. Therefore, the challenged questions are within the appropriate subject matter domain for a licensure examination for the profession of Mental Health Counselor. 3/
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Mental Health Counselors issue a final order in this case dismissing the Petition and assigning to the Petitioner a failing grade on the April 21, 1989, Mental Health Counselor licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of May 1990. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of May 1990.
Findings Of Fact As of the end of July, 1983, Petitioner had completed all the course work required for her master's degree in counseling psychology at Wheaton College. She had not, however, taken and passed a mandatory test in the New Testament required by the college of all degree candidates prior to award of the degree earned. This test in no way concerned any academic matters relating to her specialty but was strictly limited to a knowledge of the New Testament. At the time, Petitioner had satisfactorily completed all the academic courses relating to her specialty. Because of her failure to take and pass this test, however, she was not awarded her degree at that time. Petitioner took the required test in October, 1987 and was found to have passed it and to have met all requirements for her master's degree on February 8, 1988. However, because Wheaton College does not date or award degrees until the next regularly scheduled commencement exercise, she was not actually awarded the master's degree until May 12, 1988. Transcripts of course work completed indicate Petitioner has completed more than 21 hours of graduate work with course content in human development theory and personality thereof, psychotherapy, and abnormal psych-personality courses. However, she did not offer any official course outlines, course descriptions, or course syllabi or any testimony, outside her own, to indicate that her course work meets the requirements of the statute and the Board's rule indicating the necessary course work. Petitioner has worked under the supervision of Dr. Vinod K. Bahtnagar, a Board certified psychiatrist, since June 1, 1987. Dr. Bahtnagar's credentials meet the requirement set forth in the statute and rules. The degree of supervision is also acceptable. Upon completion of her course work at Wheaton College, Petitioner interned at the Manatee Mental Health Center and then worked as a counselor there for two years. From there she went to Sarasota Palms hospital for several years where she worked under Dr. Bahtnagar's supervision and since 1987, she has worked directly for the Doctor. In each of her working years, she worked more than 1500 hours of which at least 750 was face to face dealings with clients.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's application for licensure as a mental health counselor by examination be denied. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of March, 1989 at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of March, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 88-5247 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER Accepted and incorporated herein.* Accepted and incorporated herein.* Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. Rejected as not established. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. *This does not concede Petitioner's course work meets the statute or rule requirements. FOR THE RESPONDENT Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. Accepted and incorporated herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert L. Moore, Esquire Kanetsky, Moore & DeBoer, P. A. P.O. Box 1767 227 Nokomis Avenue South Venice, Florida 34285 David M. Maloney, Esquire Asst. Attorney General Suite 1603, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Kenneth A. Easley, Esquire General Counsel DPR 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Linda Biederman Executive Director Board of Clinical Social Work, Marriage and Family Therapy and Mental Health Counseling 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue In this case, the Petitioners challenge the determination by the Respondent that Anastasia Rush, Ph.D. is an employee of the Baker County School Board based upon the Division of Retirement's determination that Dr. Rush is not an independent contractor. The issue is whether Dr. Rush should be a member of the Florida retirement system. This determination which turns upon whether she is an employee of the school district. Which turns upon whether or not she is, and was, an independent contractor providing professional services to the school board pursuant to contract.
Findings Of Fact The Board, in compliance with the statutory mandate requiring special education programs for emotionally-handicapped students, contracted with the Child Guidance Center, Inc., (CGC) to provide assessment and counseling of qualified students. See, Ex. A-B and Tr. 215-217. The Board obtained additional funding from grants to provide its students with these mandated special educational programs relating to mental health. See, Ex. E, F, G, H, and M. The Board contracts with neighboring school boards which are unable to afford their own programs and pay the Baker County Board to provide services to severely emotionally disturbed children in their counties as required by the statute. The Board's contracts with mental health specialists are dependent upon funding for special students from state monies allocated based upon the total number of students and upon grant money. See, Tr. 38 and 215-216. The Board has not established a permanent position for a health care professional to render clinical mental health services. See, Tr. 72 and 217. The Board has contracted for these professional services to severely emotionally handicapped students, as well as for the professional services of occupational therapists and physical therapists. See, Tr. 79. CGC, the first provider of services to emotionally-handicapped students, is a corporation whose business is providing mental health care. See, Tr. 29. The Board contracted annually with CGC beginning in 1982 to provide a specified number of hours of counseling for its qualifying students. See, Tr. 31-33. The number of hours stated in the contract with CGC varied according to the availability of funding and established a financial liability limit on the contract. Each contract between the Board and CGC was for the term of the school year and could be terminated by either party upon 30 days notice. See, Ex. B. The contracts between the Board and CGC provided that the services would be rendered in the Baker County public schools. See, Ex. B. CGC billed the Board for each hour of counseling provided by its employees. See, Ex. B. CGC did its billing and accounting on a quarterly basis and arranged with the Board to be paid on a quarterly basis for its convenience. See, Ex. B; Tr. 145-146. Dr. Rush was an employee of CGC and first began providing mental health services to the students of Baker County in the early 1980's. See, Tr. 142. Dr. Rush is a licensed psychologist specializing in child psychology. Dr. Rush received a graduate degree in psychiatric social work from the University of Athens, Greece, and received a Ph.D. in clinical psychology from the University of Florida. See, Tr. 140-141. Dr. Rush has worked in the field of mental health for approximately 20 years. Dr. Rush began her own practice while still working for CGC through Dr. Freeman under the name of Salisbury Counseling Clinic. See, Tr. 168-169 and 183. In 1990, Dr. Rush no longer wanted to be an employee of CGC and became an independent contractor with CGC. See, Tr. 146-147. Dr. Rush's private practice grew gradually and prior to 1991, she had resigned her employment with CGC, concentrating on her private practice. See, Tr. 146. In 1991, the Board cancelled its contract with CGC. See, Tr. 37-38. Wanda Walker, administrator of the special education programs, approached Dr. Rush and asked her if she would provide the mental health care as an independent contractor, as previously provided by CGC. See, Tr. 37-38. On August 16, 1991, the Board entered into two contracts with Dr. Rush to provide different types of mental health counseling to its students. See, Ex. A One contract between Dr. Rush and the Board provided that Dr. Rush would provide mental health services to the Board for at least nine hours per week, from which two hours would be committed to the special needs of the students in the Opportunity Program at Baker County High School. The contract services were for 37 weeks of the 1991-1992 school year. The cost of the service was $40.00 per hour, and Baker County agreed to pay Dr. Rush an amount not to exceed $14,460.00 for the service. The agreement required Dr. Rush to perform the services at Baker County public school sites, and provided that the mental health services should include psychological evaluations, classroom observations, participation as a member of the crisis intervention team, and consultations with teachers, guidance counselors and other appropriate school personnel. Dr. Rush submitted a statement of hours worked every two weeks, and was paid the contractual rate for each hour of professional services rendered. The contract provided that either party could terminate upon 30 days written notice. The other contract between the Board and Dr. Rush provided that Dr. Rush would provide mental health services to severely emotionally disturbed students in the Day Treatment Program at Southside Educational Center. This contract provided that Dr. Rush would provide case management, assessments and evaluations, consultation to school personnel, mental health services appropriate to the program, and direct the counseling services provided to Day Treatment Program students. The contract provided that Dr. Rush would provide for 10 hours of professional services per week for 37 weeks at a cost of $40.00 per hour not to exceed $14,550.00. The contract provided that Dr. Rush would submit a statement of hours worked every two weeks, and that the agreement could be terminated by either party upon 30 days written notice. On June 4, 1992, Dr. Rush entered into an agreement to provide professional services to the Board for the 1992-1993 school year. This contract duplicated the previous contract for nine hours per week of mental health services for 37 weeks in the 1992-1993 school year at a cost of $40.00 per hour not to exceed $14,460.00. The only significant change in this contract was that the contract covered the provision of services by Dr. Rush or her associate, Nancy Davie. On June 4, 1992, Dr. Rush entered into a contract with the Board to provide mental health services to severely emotionally disturbed students similar to the previous contract for the 1991-1992 school year. The contract for mental health services to severely emotionally disturbed students did not provide for the provision of these services by Nancy Davie. When the June 1992 contracts were executed, Dr. Rush had incorporated her professional practice; however, she entered into the contracts with the Board in her individual name. The Board was unaware of Dr. Rush's incorporation. Dr. Rush did not believe that there was a difference between contracting in her name or the name of her corporation; however, this contract was subsequently amended to indicate that her corporation was the contracting entity. See, Tr. 152-153, 189 and 190. Dr. Rush contracted with the Board in the name of her corporation, Protepon Counseling Center, in 1993. Dr. Rush maintained two offices, one in Jacksonville and one in Macclenny, where she held herself out to the public as a individual providing psychological counseling and where she conducted her professional business. Generally, Dr. Rush and her associates provided their services at the schools within the district; however, Dr. Rush maintained a professional office in Macclenny, Florida, and met with students and their parents at her professional office as necessary. See, Tr. 71. Both Dr. Rush and CGC provided services at the various schools within the district to alleviate the need to transport children and disrupt their schedules. Dr. Rush and her associates used the offices of guidance counsellors when at the various schools. See, Tr. 14 and 85. During the time that Dr. Rush has provided mental health services to the Board, Dr. Rush has provided her own tools for counseling and assessing students. She provides all of her own supplies. See, Tr. 88 and 297-298. Dr. Rush is not reimbursed for the use of her supplies or standardized tests. See, Tr. 211 Dr. Rush provides mental health counseling to private individuals and agencies, to include St. Johns River Hospital, the Center for Life Enrichment, Capp Care, Flamedco, Inc., and the Florida Medical Association Alternative Insurance Program. See, Tr. 160-165. Dr. Rush provides a profit sharing plan to her associates and maintains workers compensation insurance for her employees. See, Tr. 174 and 208. The contracts with the Board make up only a fraction of Dr. Rush's gross income from her professional practice. See, Ex. J(2); Tr. 169-170. Dr. Rush maintains her own retirement fund and has done so since she left CGC in 1991. See, Ex. J(3); Tr. 172-173. Neither the Board or Dr. Rush consider their relationship to be an employment relationship. See, Tr. 149 and 217. It was never the intent of Dr. Rush to be an employee of the Board or the Board's intent for Dr. Rush to be its employee. See, Tr. 149 and 181. Both Dr. Rush and the Board anticipated the continuation of the independent contractor relationship. The Board paid Dr. Rush for the services rendered by her and her associates from the special fund and not from a salary or payroll account. See, Ex. I. Every two weeks, Dr. Rush submitted statements of professional services rendered by her or her associates and charged the Board per hour for these services. See, Tr. 180-182. Dr. Rush was paid for each hour of service which she or her associates provided, and was not paid a salary or reimbursed or compensated for travel costs or supplies. See, Ex. I; Tr. 297 The statements do not indicate whether Dr. Rush or one of her associates provided the service to the Board. The Board never paid any of Dr. Rush's associates. See, Tr. 43-44, 106 and 107. Dr. Rush's associates have always been paid by Dr. Rush. See, Tr. 151-152. The Board never deducted withholding taxes from its payments to Dr. Rush. See, Ex. I. Dr. Rush paid her own social security tax. See, Tr. 207. Dr. Rush was paid by the Board as she is paid by all of her clients at the agreed-upon hourly rate for her professional counseling services. See, Ex. I; Tr. 182. In making its determination, the Division of Retirement relied upon the answers provided by Dr. Rush and Wanda Walker to a questionnaire sent out by the Division of Retirement. See, Ex. O. Both Dr. Rush and Ms. Walker answered the questionnaire without help from legal counsel and without understanding its purpose or legal implications. See, Tr. 77-79, 82, and 176. Dr. Rush provided an annual orientation to new personnel and students; however, she did not take any training program required by the Board during the period of these contracts. The answers provided by Dr. Rush and Ms. Walker were ambiguous regarding the fact that the annual orientation in which Dr. Rush participated was provided by Dr. Rush to Board employees. See, Ex. O; Tr. 70, 88-89, and 178-179. Using the school calendar, Dr. Rush prepared a schedule calendar indicating the dates, times, and school locations at which she or her associates would provide professional services under the contract with the Board. See, Tr. 178. See, Tr. 45-48, and Ex. D. Pursuant to their contract, Dr. Rush provided professional services for the Board at the times and dates when students were attending school. See, Ex. C. Dr. Rush set her own schedule within the confines of the school day and the school year. The purpose of the calendar schedule was to alert teachers as to Dr. Rush's availability at particular schools. See, Tr. 85. Dr. Rush and her associates did not check in with a supervisor at the various schools. Dr. Rush called Ms. Walker, who notified the appropriate school when a new counsellor would be going to that school. See, Tr. 121-122. This practice was designed for security reasons to let the school know for security reasons that a new individual would be providing services. Dr. Rush was available if there was an emergency. When paged, Dr. Rush called the school and determined from the facts if it was necessary for her or one of her associates to respond. See, Tr. 131 and 297. Dr. Rush was not subject to being summoned by Board employees, but exercised her professional judgment about the by of response which was necessary. See, Tr. 131 and 297. Dr. Rush and her associates evaluated students and recorded the results of their testing and observations. They participated as part of the multidisciplinary team required by law to assess special education students and prepare their educational programs. In this regard, the reports of Dr. Rush and her associates were expressions of their professional expert opinion. See, Tr. 66. It was the experience and expertise of Dr. Rush and her associates which the Board sought in contracting with Dr. Rush. The Board did not direct Dr. Rush's counseling of students. See, Tr. 81-87. Dr. Rush and her associates conducted their counseling without any control from the Board. See, Tr. 83-84 and 227.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Dr. Rush be treated as an independent contractor and denied participation in the Florida Retirement System. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of January, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 93-3378 Both parties submitted proposed findings which were read and considered. Contrary to the Division's rules, Baker County did not number its findings and did not limit them to short statements of fact. Therefore, although most of its findings were adopted in the order originally presented, it is virtually impossible to identify which of the findings were adopted. In order to assist those attempting to determine which facts were adopted, and which were rejected and why, the numbers listed under the Recommended Order column below reference the paragraphs in the Recommended Order which contain the findings suggested by the Division, or the alternative findings suggested by Baker County which the Hearing Officer determined were based upon the more credible evidence. It is readily apparent when the reason is stated for rejecting the proposed findings. Retirement's Findings Recommended Order Paragraphs 1-3 1,2,3,6,7,13 Paragraph 4 14 Paragraph 5,6 19 Paragraph 7 Rejected as contrary to more detailed descriptions of the contracts at issue. Paragraph 8,9 20,21,22 Paragraph 10 Irrelevant. Paragraph 11 As indicated in the Conclusions, there is no issue concerning the fact that employees of school boards are qualified for membership in the retirement system. The issue is whether Dr. Rush was an employee. Paragraph 12,13,14 23,24,25,49,50 Paragraph 15 26,32,34 Paragraph 16 The differences in the terms of the board's contracts with CGC and Dr. Rush are not relevant. Paragraph 17 1,53,54 Paragraph 18 48,49 Paragraph 19 37-44 Paragraph 20-23 2-4,37-44. The manner in which some non-instructional staff are paid is irrelevant. Paragraph 24 26,28-31 Paragraph 25 45-47 Paragraph 26 51,52 Paragraph 27-28 53 paragraph 29 26,28 Paragraph 30,31 25 Paragraph 32,33 Irrelevant argument. COPIES FURNISHED: A.J. McMullian, III, Director Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Bldg. C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1560 Sylvan Strickland, General Counsel Department of Management Services Knight Building, Suite 309 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950 John W. Caven, Jr., Esquire Claire M. Merrigan, Esquire CAVEN, CLARK, RAY & TUCKER, P.A. 3306 Independent Square Jacksonville, FL 32202 Jodi B. Jennings, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Florida Division of Retirement Cedars Executive Center, Bldg. C 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1560 William H. Linder, Secretary Department of Management Services 309 Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950
Findings Of Fact After surgery on his shoulder, petitioner found it painful to lift sacks of fertilizer and the like at the nursery where he was employed, so he left his job and sought help at respondent's Orlando office. Albert Michael Tester, a counselor in respondent's employ, caused petitioner's shoulder to be evaluated by a physician and arranged for vocational testing. Presented with various vocational options, petitioner chose a two year paralegal training program at Valencia Community College. Beginning April 26, 1977, respondent paid for petitioner's books and tuition and paid petitioner $10.00 weekly toward transportation expenses incurred in getting to and from school. Petitioner's counselor also found a job for petitioner, as a child care worker at the Orange Regional Juvenile Detention Center. Petitioner testified that the $10.00 weekly transportation "maintenance" he had been receiving ceased when he began work. Petitioner held down the job and did well in school until he left both in January of 1978. Petitioner had consulted two physicians before he left off working and quit school in January of 1978. Petitioner testified that one, Dr. Samano, told him he should cut something out; but that the other, Dr., Tew, told him he need not cut out anything. At the time of the hearing, petitioner had not been employed since January 23, 1978. After dropping out of the paralegal program, petitioner suggested to his counselor that respondent set him up in a woodworking shop as a means of vocational rehabilitation. Mr. Tester advised petitioner that, in all likelihood, this request would not be granted. In mid-February, petitioner and a legal services representative met with Charles May, Mr. Tester and other employees of respondent. When informed that the rules did not seem to authorize setting petitioner up in business, petitioner's representative asked that a final determination be postponed pending a medical evaluation of petitioner. Respondent agreed to order a series of diagnostic tests to evaluate petitioner's psychiatric condition and to access the effects of petitioner's essential hypertension. Respondent had been advised as early as August of 1977, that petitioner's shoulder "should not be disabling to any degree or restrict him from activity of choice." Respondent's exhibit No. 7. Petitioner's counselor arranged for petitioner to receive four weeks' "diagnostic maintenance" and suggested he use his spare time to gather information about establishing a woodworking business. By letter dated May 8, 1978, respondent formally notified petitioner that it was "unable to meet [his] request to assist [him] in self- employment." Respondent's exhibit No. 5. On or about June 16, 1978, respondent sponsored petitioner in the photography program in which he was involved at the time of the hearing. This sponsorship has included maintenance payments. At no time before filing the petition in the present case did petitioner request any maintenance benefits. Respondent's "Rehabilitation Services Manual" provides: "Maintenance may only be provided when supportive of other vocational rehabilitation services." Respondent's exhibit No. 9. Respondent's "Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor Manual" provides: "Maintenance will be provided a client only if it is necessary for him to derive full benefits from other services being provided." Respondent's exhibit No. 8. Neither manual has been promulgated as a rule.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent deny petitioner's request for back maintenance payments. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of March, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: William R. Barker, Esquire 128 West Central Boulevard Orlando, Florida 32802 Douglas E. Whitney, Esquire Room 912, 400 West Robinson Orlando, Florida 32801
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint (as limited by the Notice of Limitation of Issues dated June 15, 2004) are correct, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was a licensed mental health counselor, holding Florida license number ME 5853. In approximately July 2001, the Respondent began to counsel a five-year-old female, allegedly the victim of sexual abuse by an uncle, the brother of the child's mother. The Respondent believed, based on information provided by the father, that the uncle resided with the child's mother. The child's father had custody of the child, and the mother had some type of visitation rights. In approximately November of 2001, the Respondent began counseling the child's father and his girlfriend for various family-related issues. Towards the end of 2001 or early 2002, the father and his girlfriend married. Although the Respondent testified at the hearing that the couple "seemed to have plenty of money to do certain things," including personal care and entertainment expenses, she apparently believed, based on what she was told by the couple, that they had financial difficulties. The couple resided in a home owned by the child's father. Apparently based solely on the couple's representations, the Respondent believed that the father was in arrears on house payments. One of the issues addressed in counseling was the father's concern that, were he to lose his house, the child would be returned to the mother's custody, where the uncle resided. Also apparently based solely on the couple's representations, the Respondent believed that the couple wanted to purchase a new house and that they needed $7,000 to buy the house. In March of 2002, the Respondent loaned the couple $7,000. The couple repaid within a few weeks a total of $9,000 to the Respondent. At the time of the $7,000 loan, the clients owed to the Respondent a balance of approximately $3,200 in unpaid professional fees related to therapeutic services provided to them by the Respondent. The Petitioner asserts that the $9,000 repaid to the Respondent included interest charges of $2,000. Petitioner's Exhibit number one is a copy of a document dated March 20, 2002, and apparently notarized on March 21, 2002. The document appears to require that the couple repay to the Respondent by not later than May 16, 2002, a principal amount of $7,000 plus $2,000 in "interest" for a total of $9,000. The genesis of the document is unclear. At the hearing, the wife testified that the document memorialized the agreement between the Respondent and the couple. The Respondent testified that she did not require preparation or execution of any loan documentation. The Respondent testified that the funds received from the couple included repayment of the loan plus payment of $2,000 towards the unpaid professional fees. Based on the candor and demeanor of the witnesses at the hearing, the Respondent's testimony as to the basis for the payment of the $2,000 is credited. Subsequent to the loan and repayment transactions, the therapeutic situation deteriorated between the Respondent and the couple, particularly as to the wife, who began to believe that the Respondent was romantically involved with the husband. The therapeutic relationship between the couple and the Respondent dissolved acrimoniously within a few months after the loan. At the hearing, the Petitioner presented the expert testimony of Dr. Owen Wunderman, a Florida-licensed mental health counselor, and Dr. Andrew Wenger, a Florida-licensed psychologist. Both testified as to the Florida Statutes and as to ethical standards adopted by the American Counseling Association (ACA) applicable to the fact situation at issue in this proceeding. The Respondent presented the expert testimony Dr. Barbara Herlihy, a professor at the University of New Orleans and a licensed professional counselor in Louisiana and Texas. Dr. Herlihy has been involved with the adoption of the existing ACA standards and has written texts related to the issue of dual relationships in counseling situations. As identified during the hearing, the ACA standards address the issue of dual relationships as follows: Avoid when possible. Counselors are aware of their influential positions with respect to clients and they avoid exploiting the trust and dependency of clients. Counselors make every effort to avoid dual relationships with clients that could impair professional judgment or increase the risk of harm to clients. (Examples of such relationships include, but are not limited to, familial, social, financial, business, or other close personal relationships with clients.) When a dual relationship cannot be avoided, counselors take appropriate professional precautions such as informed consent, consultation, supervision, and documentation to ensure that judgment is not impaired and no exploitation occurs. Both Dr. Wunderman and Dr. Wenger testified that by making the $7,000 loan to her clients, the Respondent entered into a dual relationship (counselor and creditor) with the couple, and that in doing so, the Respondent failed to meet minimum standards of performance in professional activities when measured against generally prevailing peer performance, as well as violated the ACA standards. Dr. Wunderman testified that there was a meaningful risk of non-repayment of the $7,000 loan, given that the clients were several thousand dollars in arrears in paying professional fees, thereby increasing the likelihood that the therapist/creditor would have to take legal action against the clients for repayment, an action likely to impair professional judgment or increase the potential risk of harm to the clients, whether or not legal action was actually initiated. Dr. Herlihy testified that she did not regard the fact situation at issue in this case as a dual relationship because she viewed it as a "one-time" short-term loan and that there was no evidence that the counseling relationship between the parties was harmed. Dr. Herlihy testified that she viewed the situation as a "boundary crossing." Dr. Herlihy acknowledged that short of loaning a client a small sum for cab fare, she was unaware of any mental health counselor making a loan to a client such as occurred in this case. She also acknowledged that she was not familiar with professional performance standards as specifically applied to Florida practitioners. The weight of the evidence establishes that Drs. Wunderman and Wenger are more familiar with the minimum standards of professional performance as measured against generally prevailing peer performance within the State of Florida. The testimony of Dr. Wunderman and Dr. Wenger is credited.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order finding the Respondent has violated Subsection 491.009(1)(r), Florida Statutes (2002), and imposing a fine of $1,000, a reprimand, and a one-year period of probation. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of January, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 13th day of January, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Ellen M. Simon, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 William N. Swift, Esquire William N. Swift, Attorney at Law 901 Southwest Martin Downs Boulevard Suite 208 Palm City, Florida 34990 Susan Foster, Executive Director Board of Clinical Social Work, Marriage and Family Therapy & Mental Health Counseling Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R.S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Quincy Page, Acting General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner based on his race and/or disability by terminating his employment in violation of Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent manufactures rubber hoses for the automotive industry. Petitioner is a black male who began working for Respondent on February 17, 1999. Petitioner's job as a molder required him to work with his hands and arms pinning rubber hoses onto metal pins and removing the hoses from the pins after they cooled down. The job was dangerous and physically stressful to Petitioner's hands and wrists. After working for Respondent for approximately three months, Petitioner suffered a job-related injury. Respondent sent Petitioner to a physician who diagnosed Petitioner as having sprained hand and wrist muscles. The physician prescribed anti-inflammatory medicine for Petitioner and recommended that he return to work on light duty. For the next several months, Petitioner worked as a molder in an area of Respondent's plant that caused less physical stress on the muscles and ligaments in Petitioner's hands and wrists. Petitioner had no problems working in that area. In time, Respondent began to experience a decrease in the number and type of orders that it received from its customers. The change in demand for Respondent's products resulted in a reorganization of the production line, a smaller number of available positions, and in some cases, layoffs of employees. Eventually, Respondent moved Petitioner's work station back to his original position which was physically more stressful. After a couple of months, Petitioner suffered another work-related injury. Respondent told Petitioner that he would have to continue working as assigned because there was no other work or lighter duty available. Petitioner continued to work in the more physically stressful area of Respondent's plant. On one occasion, Respondent took Petitioner to the hospital because he was experiencing pain. Petitioner did not go back to work until he saw a physician who specialized in treating Petitioner's type of injury. Petitioner eventually was diagnosed as having bi- lateral carpel tunnel syndrome. The doctor recommended that Petitioner work on light duty until he could have surgery. Respondent accommodated Petitioner's needs by allowing him to work on light duty pending the proposed surgery. Respondent has a substance abuse policy to maintain a work place that is free from the use of illegal drugs and the use of alcohol. The policy provides for assistance for employees who develop an addiction to drugs or alcohol and who voluntarily seek assistance before the company has knowledge of the problem. If an employee tests positive for illegal drugs or alcohol use while on the job, the employee is subject to immediate termination. Respondent's substance abuse policy provides for drug and alcohol screening under the following circumstances: after any injury that requires outside medical attention; after any incident that results in damage to other associates, company property, or a pattern of personal injuries; upon observance of abnormal or erratic behavior while at work or a significant deterioration in work performance; upon reasonable suspicion due to observable phenomena, direct observation of use, or a report of use by a reliable and credible source; and (e) pursuant to random drug screening. Petitioner never tested positive for illegal drugs or alcohol use while he was working for Respondent. He never even went to work under the influence of illegal drugs or alcohol. However, on August 22, 2000, Petitioner voluntarily advised Respondent that that he had a substance abuse problem and that he desired to participate in the assistance referral program. On August 23, 2000, Petitioner met with Respondent's human resource manager and occupational nurse. The nurse reviewed the company's substance abuse policy and assistance referral program with Petitioner. Additionally. the nurse advised Petitioner as follows: (a) he would have to enroll in a treatment program; (b) he would have to provide Respondent with weekly letters from the treatment program, furnishing information about Petitioner's progress in the program; and (c) he would be subject to random drug screens for two years. The human resource manager advised Petitioner that he would be discharged if he failed to comply with and successfully complete the treatment program. Petitioner indicated that he understood Respondent's requirements for participation in the assistance referral program. Petitioner elected to enroll in an outpatient substance abuse treatment program sponsored by Marion Citrus Mental Health. Petitioner missed his first appointment at the treatment center because he lacked transportation. Petitioner eventually began attending the treatment program three nights a week. He continued to work light duty at Respondent's plant during the day. Petitioner did not furnish Respondent with documentation showing that he had enrolled in the substance abuse treatment program. Instead, Petitioner advised Respondent's occupational nurse that he had signed a release at Marion Citrus Mental Health so that she could call his mental health counselor to verify his attendance in the program. Meanwhile, Respondent continued to reorganize and downsize its operations. When there were more employees restricted to light duty than light duty positions available, Respondent assisted the employees in filing workers' compensation claims and allowed them to stay at home on medical leave for up to 12 weeks. In time, Respondent could no longer accommodate Petitioner's physical injury with a light duty position. Petitioner filed a workers' compensation claim and began staying at home on medical leave on September 11, 2000. On September 11, 2000, Respondent's occupational nurse called Petitioner's mental health counselor at Marion Citrus Mental Health. The nurse learned that Petitioner had kept an appointment at the mental health facility on September 7, 2000. The nurse also learned that Petitioner had not signed a release of information form that would allow the counselor to share any other information about Petitioner's treatment program. On September 12, 2000, Respondent's occupational nurse sent Petitioner a letter. The purpose of the letter was to remind Petitioner that he was required to furnish Respondent with a written statement from the substance abuse treatment facility each week. According to the letter, the written statement was supposed to include Petitioner's treatment plan schedule. The letter advised Petitioner that to remain employed, he would have to keep Respondent fully informed about his progress in and completion of the treatment program. On September 14, 2000, Petitioner called Respondent's occupational nurse to advise her that he could not keep his appointment at Marion Citrus Mental Health that week. Petitioner advised the nurse that he was taking medication that made him dizzy and that he had transportation problems, which made it difficult for him to attend the treatment program. On September 15, Petitioner went to Respondent's plant to see the occupational nurse. Because he claimed that he had not received the letter dated September 12, 2000, the nurse read the letter to him and gave him a copy of it. Once again the nurse explained Respondent's assistance referral program to Petitioner, advising him that Respondent would not tolerate future missed appointments at Marion Citrus Mental Health. The nurse also gave Petitioner a rapid drug screen, the result of which was negative. On November 15, 2000, Respondent sent Petitioner another letter regarding his failure to furnish Respondent with evidence of his attendance at and completion of a treatment program. The letter advised Petitioner that he had to furnish the information on or before November 27, 2000, or risk having his employment terminated. Petitioner received Respondent's November 15, 2000, letter but did not furnish Respondent with the requested information. Petitioner did not call Respondent to explain his failure to do so. In a letter dated November 27, 2000, Respondent advised Petitioner that he was discharged. Petitioner furnished Respondent with a letter dated December 4, 2000, from Marion Citrus Mental Health. The letter states that Petitioner had been enrolled in substance abuse outpatient counseling beginning August 31, 2000, and that he was progressing well. There is no evidence that Respondent applied its substance abuse policy to non-minority employees differently than it did to Petitioner or other minority employees. Additionally, there is no evidence that Respondent treated non-minority employees who had workers' compensation claims differently than it treated Petitioner or other minority employees who were home on medical leave due to a workers' compensation injury. In fact, Petitioner admitted during the hearing that he had no proof that Respondent discriminated against him based on his race. During the relevant time period, Respondent had approximately 52 employees (half black and half white) that suffered a workers' compensation injury. Employees with workers' compensation injuries were allowed to remain on family medical leave for 12 weeks. Employees who returned to work within the 12-week period were guaranteed a job. Subsequent to the 12-week period, employees with workers' compensation injuries were not officially terminated unless they were unable to return to work after 12 months.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That FCHR enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of October, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of October, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ray Mayo 708 Southwest Second Street Ocala, Florida 34471 Kade Spencer Dayco Products, Inc. 3100 Southeast Maricamp Road Ocala, Florida 34471 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
