Conclusions By letter dated March 31, 2010, the Agency for Persons with Disabilities (APD) informed Angels of America, Inc., that it was terminating the Medicaid Waiver Services Agreement that it and Angels of America had entered into. Following the receipt of a request for an administrative hearing, the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH). On May 26, 2010, APD moved to dismiss the proceeding on the basis that Petitioner had not shown that its substantial interests would be affected by the Agency’s action. On June 9, 2010, the Administrative Law Judge entered an Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File. THEREFORE, based on the foregoing and being otherwise fully apprised of the premises, it is hereby ORDERED that the hearing request filed in the above-styled case is hereby DISMISSED and this case is CLOSED, DONE AND ORDERED, this 16th day of June, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _ . PSY Nt ee Percy W. Mallison, Jr., Esquire Agency Clerk Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 APD-11-4859-FO | 1 Filed June 16, 2011 1:04 PM Division of Administrative Hearings CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Copies provided to: Jeffrey C. Marty, Esa. Juan R. Collins, Esq. Post Office Box 3159 Agency for Persons with Disabilities Zephyrhills, Florida 33539 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 335B Tallahassee, Florida 34785 APD Area 13 Office | HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of this Final Order was provided to the above- named individuals at the listed addresses, by U.S. Mail or electronic mail, this 16th day of June, 2011. Percy i Mallison, Jr., Agency Clerk Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 APD-11-4859-FO | 2
The Issue This is a proceeding pursuant to the Florida Equal Access to Justice Act, Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, and Rule 60Q-2.035, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner, Dr. Hoover, seeks to recover his attorney's fees and costs incurred in the defense of an action brought against him by the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medicine. The issues for determination are whether Respondent, the state agency charged with regulation of the professional conduct of physicians in the State of Florida, was substantially justified with regard to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against Petitioner, a licensed physician, in DOAH Case No. 92-2202, DPR Case No. 0104601, and whether, in the absence of such substantial justification, Petitioner is entitled to the award of the amount of attorney's fees and costs sought, or whether special circumstances exist which would make an award unjust.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Professional Regulation, a state agency, initiated action against Dr. Hoover by filing an Administrative Complaint on May 16, 1991, in DPR Case No. 0104601 (Hoover I); Dr. Hoover by election of rights requested a formal hearing; the case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) and was assigned DOAH #91-4068. (DOAH Case No. 91-4068: Administrative Complaint, Election of Rights form) The case was set for final hearing on November 13-14, 1991. Dr. Hoover requested a continuance on October 16 because he would be unavailable to assist counsel prepare for hearing. Hearing Officer Robert Meale denied his request. (DOAH Case No. 91-4068: Request for Continuance, Order Denying Continuance) The Department moved for a continuance on October 29th because the primary expert witness had gone to Japan and could not return in time for the hearing or depositions by Dr. Hoover. The Hearing Officer also denied this motion. (DOAH Case No. 91-4068: Petitioner's Motion for Continuance, Order Denying Continuance) On November 5, 1991, the Department filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, Without Prejudice. (DOAH Case No. 91-4068: Notice) The Hearing Officer closed the DOAH file on November 13, 1991. (DOAH Case No. 91-4068: Order) Dr. Hoover then filed a Petition for Fees and Costs on November 21, 1991, and the case was assigned DOAH Case No. 91-7526F. (DOAH Case No. 91- 7526F: Petition) After formal hearing the Petition was denied by the Hearing Officer, who on March 31, 1992, ruled that "the Department has met its burden of showing that the filing of the Administrative Complaint was substantially justified." (DOAH Case No. 91-7526: Final Order) Immediately, without returning the case to the Probable Cause Panel, the Department served the same Administrative Complaint in DPR Case #0104601 on Dr. Hoover (Hoover II). By election of right, he again requested a formal hearing. (DOAH Case No. 92-2202) On April 8, 1992 two cases against Dr. Hoover were referred to DOAH, DPR Case #0104601 and #110008. They were assigned DOAH Case #92-2202 and 92- 2201, respectively, and were assigned to Hearing Officer Mary Clark, who consolidated them without objection. (DOAH Case Nos. 92-2201, 92-2202) Dr. Hoover's counsel withdrew and Mr. Brooten became counsel of record on May 4, 1992. (DOAH Case No. 92-2202) On May 14, 1992, Dr. Hoover filed his Motion to Dismiss DOAH Case #92- 2202. After oral argument the motion was granted by the Hearing Officer on September 16, 1992. (Recommended Order of Dismissal, DOAH Case No. 92-2202) The Hearing Officer held in her Conclusions of Law that the Department of Professional Regulation had no jurisdiction to dismiss a complaint, hold it in abeyance, and refile at its convenience without a new probable cause determination. The Hearing Officer also noted that the passage of time might yield changed circumstances and a changed result. (Recommended Order of Dismissal, DOAH Case No. 92-2202) On October 12, 1992, Dr. Hoover filed a Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs which was denied without prejudice by the Hearing Officer on October 21, 1992, on the grounds that, without a final order, he was not a prevailing small business party. (DOAH Case No. 92-2202) On October 4, 1992, a Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Medicine again found probable cause in DPR Case #0104601. (Memorandum of Finding of Probable Cause, filed by DPR in DOAH Case No. 93-0168F) By Final Order filed on December 30, 1992, the Board of Medicine dismissed DPR Case #0104601 without prejudice. The Board of Medicine in its Conclusions of Law in the Final Order expounded and clarified the Board's intentions and interpretation of the governing statutes. The Board rejected the Hearing Officer's conclusions, but "in the interest of equity" determined that ". . . the disposition recommended by the Hearing Officer be ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED." (DOAH Case No. 92-2202) On February 8, 1993, the Department served the Administrative Complaint in DPR Case #0104601 (Hoover III) on Dr. Hoover. (Motion to Abate, filed 3/8/93 in DOAH Case No. 92-2201). DPR Case #0104601 (Hoover III) is now pending in the Fifth District Court of Appeal, Case #93-455, on a petition for writ of prohibition by Dr. Hoover. DOAH Case #92-2201 (DPR Case #0110008) is in abeyance, at the request of the parties, awaiting determination by the appellate court on the extraordinary writ. (Order of Abeyance dated 3/17/93 in DOAH Case No. 93-2201) It is uncontroverted that DOAH Case #92-2202 was initiated by a state agency, that Dr. Hoover prevailed when the case was dismissed, and that Dr. Hoover is a "small business party" as defined in Section 57.111(3)(d), F.S. The reasonableness of the claimed fees and costs, $10,376.22, total, is likewise uncontroverted.
Conclusions Agency Clerk's Office This matter comes before the Agency for Persons with Disabilities (the Agency) following a hearing at the Division of Administrative Hearings and the issuance of a Recommended Order. A copy of the Recommended Order is attached to this Final Order, On March 30, 2012, the Agency sent Respondent a Notice indicating that it was denying its application for licensure. Respondent timely requested an administrative hearing and the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings where it was assigned to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). On May 15, 2012, after reaching a settlement agreement, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice and on May 15, 2012, the ALJ issued an Order Closing File and Relinquishing Jurisdiction. Based on the foregoing and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED that Respondent's request for an administrative hearing to contest the Agency's Notice of March 30, 2012, is DISMISSED with prejudice. APD-12-1978-FO | 4 Filed July 18, 2012 3:04 PM Division of Administrative Hearings DONE AND ORDERED, this _/ S date of La ly , 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. a ichael P. Hansen, Director Agency for Persons with Disabilities RIGHT TO APPEAL A party who is adversely affected by this final order is entitled to judicial review. To initiate judicial review, the party seeking it must file one copy of a “Notice of Appeal” with the Agency Clerk. The party seeking judicial review must also file another copy of the “Notice of Appeal,” accompanied by the filing fee required by law, with the First District Court of Appeal in Tallahassee, Florida, or with the District Court of Appeal in the district where the party resides. Review proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Notices must be filed within thirty (30) days of the rendition of this final order.’ Information about some sources of possible legal assistance may be found at: http://apd.myflorida.com/customers/legal/resource-listing.htm. ‘The date of the “rendition” of this Order is the date that is stamped on its first page. The Notices of Appeal must be received on or before the thirtieth day after that date. APD-12-1978-FO | 2 Copies furnished to: Martez Whipple APD Area 15 Office Miracles House, Inc. address of record) Laurel Hopper, Esq. Claudia Llado, Clerk DCF, Legal Counsel Division of Administrative Hearings CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE | HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of this Final Order was provided to the above- named individuals at the listed addresses, by U.S. Mail or electronic mail, this day of | h y , 2012. Percy A ihe Jr., Agency Clerk Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Fl 32399-0950 APD-12-1978-FO | 3
The Issue Whether Petitioner's Petition Seeking an Administrative Determination of the Invalidity of an Existing Rule (Petition) should be dismissed on the ground that the "challenged rule in this proceeding has been effectively repealed by the Florida Legislature by Section 626.854(11), Florida Statutes, effective October 1, 2008," as requested by Respondent.
The Issue The issues are 1) whether Petitioner has shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that she is rehabilitated from her disqualifying offense(s); and, if so, 2) whether Respondent's intended action to deny Petitioner's request for an exemption from employment disqualification would constitute an abuse of discretion.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner is seeking employment with The Arc of Alachua County, a service provider regulated by APD. Petitioner’s desired employment is to work as a direct service provider, which requires compliance with background screening requirements. The results of Petitioner’s background screening identified a history of criminal offenses. Petitioner received notification via letter dated April 4, 2016, from the Department of Children and Families (DCF), Respondent’s background screening entity, of her disqualification from employment due to a criminal history. The specific disqualifying offense listed in the letter was Larceny (a violation of section 810.014, Florida Statutes (2016)1/). Florida’s Legislature has designated certain criminal offenses as disqualifying offenses, which would prevent an individual from working as a direct service provider. However, an individual may seek an exemption from the employment disqualification. The granting of an exemption from employment disqualification would allow for Petitioner’s employment as a direct service provider to APD clients. APD’s clients are a vulnerable population, consisting of those individuals whose developmental disabilities are statutorily defined as: intellectual disability, autism, spina bifida, Prader-Willi syndrome, cerebral palsy, Down syndrome, and/or Phelan-McDermid Syndrome. See § 393.063(12), Fla. Stat. Without APD’s services, these clients would otherwise require institutionalization. APD’s clients often have severe deficits in their abilities to complete self-care tasks and communicate their wants and needs. These clients are at a heightened risk of abuse, neglect, and exploitation because of their developmental disabilities and inability to self-preserve; consequently, employment as a direct service provider to APD clients is regarded as a position of special trust. APD is the state agency responsible for regulating the employment of persons in positions of special trust as direct service providers for which Petitioner seeks to qualify. See §§ 110.1127(2)(c)1. and 393.0655, Fla. Stat. Many of the tasks direct service providers perform for, and/or assist individuals with disabilities with, include those of a social, personal needs, and/or financial nature. APD relies on DCF to initially receive exemption from employment disqualification requests and compile documents received related to such requests. On or around May 10, 2016, Petitioner submitted a Request for Exemption, Exemption Questionnaire, a copy of her criminal record, character references, and other various documents (the Exemption Packet) to DCF in order to demonstrate support for the granting of an exemption from employment disqualification. DCF subsequently forwarded the Exemption Packet to APD for review. In beginning its exemption review, APD considered Petitioner’s disqualifying offense. Specifically, in December 1982, Petitioner committed the disqualifying offense of Larceny/Grand Theft (a violation of section 810.014). The court’s final disposition of the case included the withholding of adjudication of guilt, two years’ probation, and payment of costs. In its continued exemption review pursuant to section 435.07(3)(b), Florida Statutes, APD considered the following non- disqualifying offenses which Petitioner committed subsequent to her December 1982 disqualifying offense: an arrest for Worthless Check on December 23, 1995 (a violation of section 832.05, Florida Statutes); a second arrest for Worthless Check on December 23, 1995 (a violation of section 832.05); a conviction for Worthless Check on December 24, 1995 (a violation of section 832.05); an arrest for Driving While License Suspended/Revoked in June 1996 (a violation of section 322.34(2), Florida Statutes); an arrest for Worthless Check in January 2007 (a violation of section 832.05(4)(a)); and an arrest for Violation of Injunction Domestic Violence/Contempt of Court in August 2012 (a violation of section 741.31(4)(a), Florida Statutes). The Disqualifying Offense Petitioner provided an account of her disqualifying offense, Larcency/Grand Theft, in an addendum to the Exemption Questionnaire, dated August 3, 2015. Petitioner indicated in her account that she relocated to Tampa from Gainesville. She was 22 years old, single, and employed with the State of Florida. She became roommates with another female who was attending college at the University of South Florida. Petitioner stated “I have no explanation as to why the both of us committed a crime of theft.” Petitioner further explained that she received a two- year term of probation and completed all her court-ordered sanctions within a year. Petitioner also noted that “[s]ince that time, I have not committed any further crimes.” Petitioner provided the following record concerning her disqualifying offense: state attorney court record (13th Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County, State Attorney). The Non-Disqualifying Offenses Court records received in evidence indicate a total of six non-disqualifying offenses as previously mentioned. Petitioner did not disclose any of her non-disqualifying offenses, nor did she provide accounts for such on the Exemption Questionnaire, despite the directions specifically requiring an applicant to do so. Petitioner did not provide records of her non- disqualifying offenses. Records of those offenses were obtained by APD as part of its detailed review process. Records of the non-disqualifying offenses obtained included: worthless check affidavit, witness form, copies of check, and no information filed court filing (Sears 12/23/1995); worthless check affidavit, witness form, and copy of check (Pic’n Save 12/23/1995); worthless check affidavit, witness form, copy of check, and court judgment (Pic’n Save 12/24/1995); worthless check affidavit, witness form, copy of check, copy of court diversion judgment and supporting documentation, and copy of dismissal of charge (Publix 1/30/2007); and warrant affidavit for arrest (Alachua County Sheriff’s Office, August 2012). Petitioner indicated that she has no current involvement with any court system; specifically, she stated “I have not experienced any criminal charges since my last event in 1982.” Regarding whether there was any degree of harm to any victim or property, including damage or injuries, Petitioner stated “I have not experienced any harm or damage to anyone or any property since my last event in 1982.” In answering the question about stressors in her life at the time of the disqualifying incident, Petitioner indicated that there were none, other than being on probation. Regarding whether there are any current stressors in her life, Petitioner stated “I have no current stressors with the law.” Petitioner indicated that her current support system and living arrangements include being married and having one daughter and numerous grandchildren. Petitioner also explained that her community activities/volunteer efforts include volunteering with the school system (field trips/activities) and attending church and performing functions for the church’s treasury department. Regarding educational and training achievements, Petitioner stated that she graduated from high school, started a career with the State of Florida, and attended a word processing/information course where she received the Most Outstanding Student Award. The Exemption Questionnaire asks whether an applicant has ever received counseling for any reason. Petitioner indicated that she has not received counseling for any reason; if she felt stress, she would call the Employee Assistance Program. Petitioner noted she has not experienced any “major post- traumatic [stress].” As to whether she has used and/or abused drugs or alcohol, Petitioner replied that she has “not abused any type of drugs or alcohol in [her] life.” Petitioner indicated the following regarding feeling remorse/accepting responsibility for her actions: “I am the type of person to feel remorse towards everything and every person that I have contact with. I always take full responsibility for any action(s) that I encounter when I am in the wrong.” The Exemption Questionnaire asks for an applicant’s prior three years’ work history. Petitioner provided the following information: 4/2016 to 5/2016--The Arc of Alachua County (support tech/direct care); 11/2007 to 7/2014--DCF--North Florida Evaluation & Treatment Center (Human Services Worker III); 3/2004 to 7/2007—DCF--State of Florida Foster Care (word processor/data management specialist); 4/1998 to 9/2003-- American Psychiatric Association (membership coordinator/secretary). In addition to the criminal record submitted, Petitioner also provided the following additional documents that were included in her Exemption Packet: local law background checks, a volunteer award (Head Start), three letters of reference attesting to Petitioner’s character, and an Affidavit of Good Moral Character. The letters were written by persons who have known Petitioner for several years; they described Petitioner as devoted, loyal, honest, kind, and trustworthy. Finally, Petitioner submitted a copy of an exemption letter she received from DCF, dated February 12, 2016. Leslie Richards, regional operations manager for APD’s Northeast Region, advised that APD reviewed all documentation provided by Petitioner in her Request for Exemption, the information indicated in Petitioner’s Exemption Questionnaire, the various records documenting Petitioner’s criminal history, her volunteer award, character letters, and exemption from DCF. Following a review of Petitioner’s Exemption Packet, Agency Director Barbara Palmer, advised Petitioner by a letter dated September 26, 2016, that her request for an exemption from her disqualifying offense was denied. The basis for the denial was that Petitioner failed to submit clear and convincing evidence of her rehabilitation. Petitioner sent APD a request for hearing on or around October 11, 2016. APD received this request timely and subsequently forwarded this appeal to DOAH. Along with her request for hearing, Petitioner submitted a personal statement explaining her reasons for disputing the denial and requesting the hearing, a copy of the denial letter, and a copy of a training certificate summary for APD-approved courses through her former employer, the Arc of Alachua County. At hearing, Ms. Richards explained APD’s process of reviewing exemption requests and the consideration of Petitioner’s application for such. Per Ms. Richards, APD considers the disqualifying offense, the circumstances surrounding the offense, the nature of the harm caused to the victim, the history of the applicant since the incident, and finally, any other evidence indicating that the applicant will not present a danger if employment is allowed. Additionally, Ms. Richards testified that APD looks for consistency in the applicant’s account of events in his or her Exemption Questionnaire, the passage of time since the disqualifying incident, whether the applicant accepts responsibility for his/her actions, and whether the applicant expresses remorse for his or her prior criminal acts. Because an applicant will be occupying a position of special trust if granted an exemption, APD weighs all of these factors in its determination. Ms. Richards testified that all of Petitioner’s submissions were reviewed and taken into consideration; she noted that the starting point of APD’s review began with the date of the disqualifying offense and any criminal conduct occurring thereafter. Ms. Richards emphasized that in APD’s review, it was noted that Petitioner failed to disclose sufficient details of the account of her disqualifying offense. Specifically, Petitioner provided what appeared to be background information about the time frame surrounding the offense and the person whom she committed the offense with, but indicated in her statement “I have no explanation as to why the both of us committed a crime of theft.” Petitioner provided other details about this time in her life, but nothing specific about the crime itself. Ms. Richards stated that it left APD with a concern that Petitioner was not forthright with disclosure of the circumstances involving the crime. Ms. Richards also explained that APD took note that Petitioner failed to disclose any of her non-disqualifying offenses, and that this fact was also of concern. APD obtained records of the non-disqualifying offenses and considered them in its review. Ms. Richards noted that the nature of the offenses, particularly the Worthless Checks and the Violation of the Injunction Domestic Violence/Contempt of Court, were troubling because those offenses involved monetary transactions and interpersonal relations. Ms. Richards observed that the individuals APD serves are highly susceptible to abuse, neglect, and exploitation, and a person who is in a role as a direct service provider would be assisting those individuals in a social and financial capacity. APD reviewed Petitioner’s involvement with three DCF investigations involving allegations of abuse toward a vulnerable adult, Petitioner’s spouse. Although there were no findings against Petitioner in these cases, based on the issues presented, DCF did make the recommendation for Petitioner to pursue family counseling. Ms. Richards noted that there is no evidence that Petitioner followed through with DCF’s recommendation, and by Petitioner’s own admission on the Exemption Questionnaire, has “not received counseling for any reason.” In addition to both the criminal offense and DCF- related information, APD noted Petitioner’s less than stellar driving record. Ms. Richards advised that a direct service provider will often be in a position to transport clients, and Petitioner’s driving record reflects a series of both moving and non-moving violations, which pose a concern. The record reflects a total of five driving-related violations: driving while license suspended/revoked (previously mentioned); tag not assigned (criminal traffic); red light camera citation; unlawful speeding; and a second red light camera citation. Ms. Richards testified regarding APD’s consideration of Petitioner’s prior employment history with DCF, and the subsequent exemption for employment granted to Petitioner by DCF. At hearing, APD presented employment evaluations and records of written disciplinary action taken against Petitioner by DCF while in its employ. Ms. Richards specifically noted that some of the disciplinary issues for which Petitioner was cited included: sleeping on the job while employed at a forensic facility; not securing the front door of a building at a forensic facility; tardiness; inappropriately streaming media on a state-owned computer; insubordination (refusal to work a shift); failure to report to work; and poor performance/negligence (failure to answer phones/answer front door of facility). Petitioner ultimately was dismissed from DCF due to her inability to perform her job functions because of an injury. Ms. Richards explained that these disciplinary issues gave APD great pause in considering granting Petitioner an exemption, as they were indicators for potential behaviors that could pose a great risk to individuals served by APD, many of whom are unable to communicate their wants and needs. The setting in which Petitioner committed these workplace violations mirrors those in which clients of APD are served. Ms. Richards did state that APD considered the exemption granted by DCF to Petitioner, however, the weight of the prior disciplinary issues outweighed that decision when compared to the possible jeopardy in which APD clients could be placed. Should Petitioner obtain future successful employment with DCF, APD would consider that in a subsequent exemption application review. Petitioner testified on her own behalf at the hearing. She spoke about the circumstances surrounding the disqualifying offense, reiterating her statement from the addendum to the Exemption Questionnaire. She provided no new information or surrounding details about the crime. Again, she stated that she has not had any legal issues since 1982. Regarding her non- disqualifying offenses, Petitioner remarked that she “didn’t consider those bad checks as crimes,” and though she denied being convicted of such, she admitted having overdrafted checks. Petitioner also stated that regarding the DCF investigations and the Injunction Violation/Contempt of Court charge, “that’s not why we are here today, so I am not going to talk about that.” Petitioner did admit to the driving infractions on her record, but stated that two of them, running red lights, were due to the fault of her daughter, as she was the driver at the time, rather than Petitioner. Petitioner stated that she is older and wiser and has changed. She enjoyed working at the adult day care program with the Arc of Alachua County. She indicated that any bad checks she has written, she “took care of.” Petitioner offered explanations for the disciplinary situations involving her prior employment with DCF, attempting to minimize her role. She explained that she and her husband, who Petitioner described as a vulnerable, disabled adult, no longer have domestic issues; however, they are currently homeless. Petitioner stated that APD’s denial is keeping her in an adverse financial situation, stating “I cannot find a job right now because of this denial.” When cross- examined by counsel regarding her ability to obtain gainful employment with DCF and its covered providers, Petitioner admitted that she can seek a job under DCF’s purview. Petitioner presented the testimony of two witnesses. Her sister, Sherry McCrae, a retired police officer, stated that she lived with her sister the entire time she was in college; Petitioner provided a source of support to her during this period. Ms. McCrae stated that her sister has been working all the years since the disqualifying incident. She affirmed that their maiden name is Williams, Petitioner’s last name at the time of the disqualifying incident. Petitioner’s second witness, Faye Williams, testified that after Petitioner’s disqualifying incident, she got a job and was active in the community. Petitioner has a desire “to be a part of something.” She loves people, especially children. Petitioner asserted that she enjoys working with individuals with disabilities; at her last place of employment, she believed she found her “purpose and mission.” She loves helping people. She admits she made some mistakes, but that was long ago. Petitioner argued that she “really only committed one crime”; she has rehabilitated herself and that should be enough for APD. She believes APD abused its discretion in denying her request for exemption. The individuals APD serves are vulnerable and highly susceptible to abuse, neglect, and exploitation, due to their developmental disabilities. APD’s representative observed that APD’s clients must be assigned to direct care providers without fear of their endangerment. This necessarily requires reliance on a caregiver’s good character and trustworthiness. Individuals who provide direct care are frequently responsible for assisting individuals in making decisions of a financial, medical, and social nature. APD must weigh the benefit against the risk when considering granting an exemption. Ms. Richards cautioned that Petitioner’s criminal history reflects a pattern of poor judgment. Petitioner’s failure to disclose certain details in her account regarding her disqualifying offense calls into question her trustworthiness. Additionally, failure to disclose her non-disqualifying offenses, along with a failure to recognize that those offenses are truly crimes, is not only troubling, but calls into question Petitioner’s trustworthiness. It also demonstrates a complete lack of remorse and acceptance of responsibility for her actions. Petitioner did not admit to any of the harm she caused to her victims. Petitioner’s minimization of the discipline she received while employed by DCF also gives great pause, as the individuals she was charged with caring for were clients in a forensic setting, a clear parallel to the clients she would serve should an exemption be granted by APD. Petitioner’s multiple driving citations are concerning as well, and demonstrate a pattern of questionable decision- making, especially when considering her for a position where she could potentially transport clients. All of the aforementioned factors, along with proximity in time of her application to her last arrest (2012), caused APD to question Petitioner’s fitness for providing services to the vulnerable individuals for which it is responsible, the most vulnerable population in the state. Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proving clear and convincing evidence of rehabilitation, and therefore, the denial of the exemption was proper.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Director of the Agency for Persons with Disabilities issue a final order upholding the denial of Petitioner’s exemption request. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of February, 2017, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS 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 22nd day of February, 2017.
Findings Of Fact The initial Petition for Administrative Review was filed on August 22, 1991. The Petition was signed by Donald Eugene Halpin and Jeffery Lynn Fowler. The Petition, which was purportedly also filed by Richard Edward Jackson, was not signed by Mr. Jackson. In the Petition Mr. Halpin and Mr. Fowler challenged Rule 33-3.04(9), Florida Administrative Code. The Challenged Rule provides, in pertinent part: . . . The return address of all outgoing mail must contain the inmate's committed name, identification number and institutional address. The institutional name in the return address must be spelled out completely with no abbreviations. It was alleged in the Petition that the Challenged Rule is "arbitrary or capricious in its application." The Petition also contained an allegation that the Challenged Rule provides "no legitimate or compelling purpose when weighed against its adverse effect on Petitioners and their family and friends." Throughout the Petition it was alleged that there are "less restrictive forms the Respondent could employ to accomplish [its] goal . . . ." In this regard, the Petition contains the following allegation: 11. Petitioners have no qualms with the Respondent informing those individuals they write that they are state correctional inmates. However, Petitioners do object to the manner in which Respondent implements this restrictive measure. There is a much less restrictive means to accomplish the same objective, i.e., letting individuals know they are receiving letters from state correctional inmates. As the rule stands now, it is arbitrary or capricious as applied to the Petitioners. No facts concerning why it is believed that the Challenged Rule is an "invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority", as defined in Section 120.52(8)(d), Florida Statutes, were included in the Petition. Finally, the following relief was requested and the following statement was made in closing: WHEREFORE, Petitioners respectfully move the Division of Administrative Hearings to declare Chapter 33-3.04 to be arbitrary or capricious in its application. Furthermore, Petitioners reserve the right to proffer First and Fourteenth Amendment violations during any administrative hearings [sic] or motions for rehearing for appellate purposes. On November 1, 1991, an Order Granting Motion to Dismiss with Leave to Amend was entered. On December 2, 1991, a pleading titled "Amended Petition for Administrative Review" was filed by Mr. Halpin and Blanche Moseley with the case number of this case identified as the case that the pleading was being filed in. Through the Amended Petition Mr. Halpin and Ms. Moseley attempted to initiate the following challenge: Petitioners, Donald E. Halpin and Blanche Moseley, file their Amended Petition for Administrative Review, pursuant to Chapter [sic] 120.52(8)(d)(e), 120.56 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, to challenge Rule 33-3.004, Florida Administrative Code . . . . . . . . 4. Petitioners file this action pursuant to Chapter [sic] 120.52(8)(d)(e), 120.56 (Halpin being a State Prisoner must utilize Section 120.56) and 120.57 (Ms. Moseley being a free citizen will utilize Section 120.57), Florida Statutes. Petitioners will allege Chapter [sic] 33-3.04, F.A.C., is vague, vest unbridled discretion in the agency, and is arbitrary or capricious in its application. Furthermore, Petitioner Moseley would allege Chapter [sic] 33-3.04, F.A.C., violates the First, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment guarantees to the United States Constitution. It is further alleged under the "Conclusion" section of the Amended Petition that Ms. Moseley's challenge is based upon Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, although no proposed rule or rule amendment has been challenged in the Petition or Amended Petition. In support of the allegation that the Challenged Rule is vague, it is alleged in the Amended Petition that the Challenged Rule "does not set forth why the public must be protected, e.g., the types of crimes committed by inmates, the number of inmates who violated U.S. Mail regulations, and how other crimes were committed by inmates through U.S. Mail." In support of the allegation that the Challenged Rule vests unbridled discretion in the Respondent, it has been alleged in the Amended Petition that the Challenged Rule is only intended as punishment--by informing those who come in conduct with an inmate's mail that the mail is from someone who is in prison. Several allegations are also included in the Amended Petition concerning how Ms. Moseley's constitutional rights are being violated by the Challenged Rule. The Amended Petition is devoid of any alleged facts pertinent to the issues raised in the Petition or the Amended Petition which, if proven, would support a determination that the Challenged Rule is invalid under Sections 120.54 or 120.56, Florida Statutes. Mr. Jackson and Mr. Fowler did not file an amended petition.
Findings Of Fact 9. The factual allegations contained in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on February 8, 2011, and the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on Februrary 23, 2011, attached as “Exhibit A” and “Exhibit B” respectively, and fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this case,
Conclusions THIS PROCEEDING came on for final agency action and Jeff Atwater, Chief Financial Officer of the State of Florida, or his designee, having considered the record in this case, including the request for administrative hearing received from CARLOS ALBERTO RODRIGUEZ, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, and the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that: 1. On February 8, 2011, the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (hereinafter “Department”) issued a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 11-047-D5 to CARLOS ALBERTO RODRIGUEZ. The Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein CARLOS ALBERTO RODRIGUEZ was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, and must conform to Rule 28-106.2015, Florida Administrative Code. 2. On February 8, 2011, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was served by personal service on CARLOS ALBERTO RODRIGUEZ. A copy of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit A” and incorporated herein by reference. 3. On February 23, 2011, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment to CARLOS ALBERTO RODRIGUEZ. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $163,791.63 against CARLOS ALBERTO RODRIGUEZ. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein CARLOS ALBERTO RODRIGUEZ was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes, and must conform to Rule 28-106.2015, Florida Administrative Code. 4. On March 7, 2011, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served by personal service on CARLOS ALBERTO RODRIGUEZ. A copy of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit B” and incorporated herein by reference. 5. On February 28, 2011, CARLOS ALBERTO RODRIGUEZ timely filed a request for administrative hearing with the Department. The petition for administrative review was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings on March 28, 2011, and the matter was assigned DOAH Case No. 11-1574. A copy of the petition is attached hereto as “Exhibit C” and incorporated herein by reference. 6. On May 9, 2011, the Department served by U.S. mail its First Interlocking Discovery Request (‘discovery requests”) which included requests for admissions, interrogatories, and requests for production on Respondent. Respondent was required to serve its answers upon the Department within 30 days pursuant to Rules 1.340(a), 1.350(b), and 1.370(a), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. However, pursuant to Rule 128-106.103, Florida Administrative Code, “five days shall be added to the time limits when service has been made by regular U.S. mail.” Therefore, Respondent was required to respond to the discovery on or before June 13, 2011. 7. On June 22, 2011, the Department filed a Motion to Deem Matters Admitted and Relinquish Jurisdiction Pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(i), Florida Statutes after having not received any answer from Respondent to the Department’s discovery requests. 8. On June 23, 2011, the Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File. A copy of the Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File is attached hereto as “Exhibit D” and incorporated herein by reference.
