The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Petitioner was discriminated against because of her race (African-American) in not being selected for promotions and whether she was not selected because of her handicap (back injury).
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a black female. At times pertinent hereto, she was employed by the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (now known as Department of Children and Family Services), at Florida State Hospital in Chattahoochee, Florida. She has a disability or handicap involving a back injury. She was first employed by the Respondent in July 1976, as a Registered Nurse II and initially supervised two or three wards. The Petitioner also worked for Apalachee Community Mental Health Service in Quincy as a Team Leader during 1977-1978. She was a part-time relief nursing supervisor at Tallahassee Memorial Hospital between 1978 and 1979. She became a Registered Nurse III in March 1978 at Florida State Hospital (FSH) and became a full-time nurse there in 1979. She supervised an entire unit after that time and worked in several different units of the Forensic/Corrections Department as a Senior Registered Nurse beginning in November 1982 and lasting until March 1987. Between March and December 1987, she served as a Senior Registered Nurse Supervisor until her current assignment. She has been employed since December 1987 as a Registered Nurse Specialist Coordinator and remained in that position until her resignation due to disability retirement on January 25, 1994. She has a good employment record, earning consistent above satisfactory or "exceeds" performance standards ratings during her career. The Petitioner earned her Bachelor of Science Degree in Nursing (BSN) from Florida A & M University in 1976. She has since earned 21 hours toward a Masters Degree and took continuing nursing education courses at a time when the continuing education course work was not yet required. She is licensed by the State of Florida as a Registered Nurse. Petitioner's Disability On August 25, 1992, the Petitioner suffered a job- related injury to her back. The Petitioner was absent from work for some months, apparently receiving worker's compensation during this time. On January 27, 1993, she was cleared to return to light duty work at the hospital by her treating physician. The Respondent provided her with an appropriate light duty job assignment at which she remained through the balance of her employment with FSH. On June 18, 1993, the Petitioner was determined to have reached maximum medical improvement by her treating physician. She was thereupon discharged from further medical care by Capital Health Plan. On July 26, 1993, she filed an application for 100 percent "line of duty" retirement from the Florida State Retirement System. The State Office of Worker's Compensation thereafter approved her application for "permanent total disability" worker's compensation benefits, effective June 16, 1993, resulting from the injuries suffered on August 25, 1992. The Petitioner was absent from employment from June 4, 1993 through January 27, 1994, inclusive, claiming 34 weeks of worker's compensation benefits for this time. Ultimately, and as part of her effort to obtain disability retirement, the Petitioner resigned from her employment with the Respondent on January 25, 1994. At the time of the Petitioner's resignation, the Department had an action pending to involuntarily terminate her from employment allegedly because of her inability to discharge her assigned job duties and responsibilities. Vacant Positions During the fall of 1992, a vacancy occurred in the position of Registered Nurse Supervisor, Forensic/Corrections at Florida State Hospital. This was in the facility known as the Corrections Mental Health Institute (CMHI). A career service system position description existed for this job which was developed by the State of Florida, Department of Administration. That position description required, among other things, that the incumbent hold a license as a registered nurse (RN) with the appropriate experience, education, licensure and nursing abilities. The position called for a minimum of 75 percent of the time expended in the job being involved with direct patient contact with forensic patients. The FSH advertised this position as position number 46392 in the HRS Job Bulletin. The application deadline was January 21, 1993. The minimum requirements for the job were licensure as an RN with three years of nursing experience. A bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university could substitute for one of the three years experience required. A bachelor's degree in nursing was not required for the job, however. For this and the other positions a "knowledge, skills and ability" instrument (KSA) was prepared, as required by applicable law, to provide for numbered items consisting of the knowledge, skills or competencies a person hired for each position would be expected to have. Position number 46392 included a KSA requirement of budget experience as being essential, since the position required the development, allocation and administration of that unit's nursing service budget. The job advertisement involving this position complied with existing HRS and FSH rules, policies and procedures. There was no evidence offered to show that it discriminated against any person as to race, national origin, or handicap and no person or class or persons was encouraged or discouraged from applying for the position. Neither employment with the Department nor FSH were prerequisites to application or acceptance of the position. Twenty-six applications were received for this position. The procedure for hiring a person in the state system and the FSH involves various tasks. First, the hiring authority must request the personnel office to fill the position. The hiring authority, from a class specification developed by the Department of Management Services (DMS), creates this specific position description which includes the specific duties of the position and the minimum qualifications established at DMS. The class specification contains generic KSAs and from the class specification and position description the hiring authority develops a KSA examination module. This module is created in three steps: (1) job analysis, where the position description is compared to the KSAs for choosing which KSAs will be searched- for when hiring the position; (2) development of a rating scale where the applicant's KSAs are compared against those developed for the position, to determine the applicant's relative qualifications; and (3) the development of KSA interview questions. According to the pertinent rule, KSAs must not reflect "easily learned" material or skills which can be rapidly learned on the job. The KSAs must also be job related. The scoring on the KSA application rankings form and on the interview questions, was 50 for a "superior level," 33 for "satisfactory level," and 17 for "acceptable level." The interview questions are the only ones which can be asked of applicants during the interview. The KSA examination module is transmitted to the personnel office, prior to the job being advertised. After the job announcement is disclosed, the applications are screened against the minimum qualifications for the position by the personnel office and those that are qualified are submitted to the hiring authority for screening against the developed KSAs for the position. This step is a paper review of the applications which is documented on the application review form filled out on each applicant. The application rankings are normally used to reduce the applicant pool to a smaller number, usually about five, who are then interviewed. The interview questions developed previously are asked of each interviewee, and their answers are rated against the 50-33-17 scale for their scores from each interviewer. The interview scores are aggregated, and the applicant with the highest interview score is selected for the job. A selection form is completed then which lists the top applicant, in the order of their scores, after the interview process. Each application for position 46392 was screened using the KSA instrument prepared in advanced, as required by applicable law, to determine which of the applicants was qualified for the job. The KSA criteria and the interview questions utilized were reviewed by the personnel office at FSH in advance of their use, to ensure compliance with HRS rules, regulations and policies, and EEOC guidelines. Points were then awarded to each of the applicants by the KSA examining committee. Applicant Z. Thompson, a white female nurse, was awarded a total of 233 points. The Petitioner, Jean Spear, was awarded a total of 165 points. Other black and white applicants ranked lower in point award amounts and some ranked higher, including black applicant Bethea, with 199 points. Based upon those scores, three applicants were selected to be interviewed for this position: Z. Thompson; D. Breeden, a white female Registered Nurse; and C. Bethea, an African-American female Registered Nurse. Applicants Thompson and Breeden had associate science degrees in nursing while applicant Bethea had a bachelor of science degree. The bachelor of science degree is a higher degree than an associate science degree and can offset a year of the experience requirement for this and the other positions. However, the bachelor of science degree does not automatically mean that the holder thereof has a higher level of qualification for the position when all the applicants' qualification attributes are weighed against the position requirements and considered together. The Petitioner was not selected for an interview for this position because she finished ninth in the overall KSA rankings for the position. The interview committee for this position consisted of three FSH employees: Joel Devolentine, the administrator in charge of the program; Alva Martin, the chief nursing consultant at FSH; and Harry Moody, Jr., an administrator at the Department of Corrections, Corrections Mental Health Institution (CMHI). Interviewers Devolentine and Martin are white and Mr. Moody is black. The interview were conducted on February 11, 1993. During the interview process, Mr. Devolentine asked the candidates questions which were prepared in advance. Each interviewed person was asked the same questions, in the same sequence. Each member of the interviewing committee scored the responses on forms provided using the scoring system designated and implemented for that purpose. Each member of the committee scored the interviewees independently and did not discuss the points awarded to those persons with the other members of the committee. Each made his or her entries on the interview form separate and apart from the other members of the interview committee, contemporaneously with the responses given by the applicants. Upon conclusion of the interviews, the score sheets were given to Mr. Devolentine by each member of the committee for tabulation. There is no evidence that points awarded were changed or modified in any way once they were awarded. The total numerical scores for each of the candidates interviewed, showed that Z. Thompson had the highest score. Black candidate C. Bethea had the next highest score, and white candidate D. Breeden had the lowest score. The preponderant evidence shows that the KSA's experience in budget issues and the KSA's requiring certification in behavior analysis were both directly related to the job in question and both KSA competencies or certifications were possessed by Z. Thompson and not by the other candidates interviewed nor by the Petitioner, who had not received enough qualification points for the position to be interviewed. Because she received the highest total number of points and met all the minimum requirements set forth in the position description in the HRS job bulletin, because she possessed more experience in budget issues and was certified in behavior analysis, Z. Thompson was selected to be awarded the job. The preponderant evidence shows that the hiring process as to this position was conducted in accordance with existing HRS and FSH rules, regulations, policies, and procedures. There was no persuasive evidence that any of the hiring and selection process was designed or used to favor one class of persons or one person over another by reason of race, ethnicity or handicap. Although there was testimony concerning comments made by various supervisory personnel at FSH to the effect that Z. Thompson should apply for this position or that it was intended in advance that she get this position, there was no persuasive evidence of such pre-selection of Z. Thompson by the hiring decision-maker. It is somewhat noteworthy that white interview committee member Alva Martin gave black candidate Bethea 380 points and white candidate Breeden 347 points, while black interview committee member Moody gave black candidate Bethea 448 points, and white and winning candidate Thompson 465 points. Committee member Devolentine gave winning candidate Thompson 516 points; next highest candidate D. Breedan, a white female, 482 points; and black candidate Bethea 448 points, the same number of points that black committee member Moody had given candidate Bethea. There is no definitive, persuasive evidence that race was a determining factor in the award of the job to candidate Thompson. There was no persuasive evidence as to this position that handicap was a factor in determining that the Petitioner did not get selected for an interview for the position nor selected for the position. Position number 34563 involved a vacancy occurring during 1992. The application deadline for the position was October 22, 1992. The minimum requirements for the job were licensure as a Registered Nurse and four years of nursing experience with one year of that experience requirement offset if a candidate had a bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university. The position description indicates that approximately 75% of the time expended in the job required direct patient conduct with forensic clients. This is the position known as Executive Nursing Director, Forensic/Corrections at Florida State Hospital. The position was advertised in the HRS Job Bulletin. The advertisement complied in all respects with existing HRS and FSH rules, policies, and procedures, and no person, or class of persons, was either encouraged to apply or discouraged from applying as to race, handicap or other status. Thirteen applications were received, and the screening and interview process described above was employed once again in accordance with HRS rules, regulations, and policies and EEOC guidelines. The screening used the KSA instrument prepared in advance for the position, as required by applicable law to determine which applicants were qualified for the job. That resulted in points being awarded and twelve out of the thirteen applicants being interviewed for the position. The interview committee consisted of four FSH employees: Robert Alcorn, the administrator in charge of the program; Alva Martin, chief nursing consultant at FSH; Richard Taylor, a unit director in the Forensic Services at FSH; and R. W. Myers, an administrator in the Forensic Services. Alcorn and Myers are white males. Ms. Martin is a white female and Mr. Taylor is an African-American male. The interviews were conducted on November 23, 1992, with interviewer Robert Alcorn asking all questions of all candidates. The questions were prepared in advance and the interview process included the private and independent deliberation and evaluation by each committee member, conducted as described above. There is no evidence that any points awarded were changed or modified in any way once they were assigned by each committee member. Upon conclusion of the interview process, Mr. Alcorn recommended the following persons for the position of Executive Nursing Director, Forensic/Corrections, as being most qualified for the job, by order of preference: (1) G. Cook with 82.1 points; (2) Z. Thompson with 80.6 points; (3) B. Weems with 74.6 points; (4) L. McMullian with 64.1 points; and (5) J. Spear, the Petitioner, with 61.0 points. Candidate Gwen Cook met all of the requirements of the position description in the HRS Job Bulletin and had more experience in forensic and emergency nursing than did the Petitioner. She received the highest total points and was offered and accepted the job. The KSA at issue as to this position required hospital emergency room experience, including certification in advanced cardiac life support. The position was executive nursing director in a medical-surgical psychiatric ward. Therefore, it was relevant to require, in a KSA for the position, that applicants have extensive knowledge of emergency medical procedures including management of airway obstructions, intubation defibrillator operation, etc., as well as the certification for advanced cardiac life support. It was a legitimate KSA requirement to specify hospital emergency room type experience, which Gwen Cook had in better degree than the Petitioner. The Petitioner did have psychiatric emergency care experience which was relevant, but the higher level of emergency and advanced cardiac life support experience possessed by Gwen Cook coupled with her additional forensic experience justified her selection for the position. The Petitioner was certainly qualified for the position, but Ms. Cook was more qualified, and there is no showing that the point rankings referenced above were improperly arrived at in violation of any rules, policies or statutes. There was no persuasive evidence that they were arrived at to the Petitioner's detriment for reasons of racial preference, ethnicity, or improper discriminatory consideration of the Petitioner's handicap. It was not persuasively demonstrated by the evidence that the advanced cardiac life support certification was a certificate that could be earned in a very short period of time, and thus it was not shown that it was an invalid KSA criterion. In 1992, a vacancy occurred in position number 04877. The FSH advertised this position in the HRS Job Bulletin. It was the position of Registered Nursing Consultant. The position application deadline was July 1, 1992. The position description for this position, which had been developed by the Department of Administration, required that the incumbent have appropriate knowledge, experience, education, and abilities in nursing principles, especially in the area of infection control. The description called for approximately 75 percent of the time expended by the holder of this position to be in direct patient contact with forensic clients. The minimum requirements for the job were licensure as a registered nurse with four years of nursing experience. A bachelors degree from an accredited college or university could substitute for one of the four years of experience required. Specific experience in infection control and epidemeology was essential. The job advertisement complied in all respects with existing HRS and FSH rules, policies, and procedures. Employment with the Department or with the Florida State Hospital was not a prerequisite to attainment of the position. Fourteen applications were received and each application was screened using the KSA instrument prepared in advance for that purpose, as required by law. This was used to determine which of the applicants were qualified for the job. Both the KSA criteria and the interview questions used were prepared and reviewed in advance of their use to ensure compliance with relevant law, in the manner delineated more particularly above. Points were awarded to the persons who applied for the job by the KSA examining committee in such a manner that the Petitioner received 232 points, with only applicant, Nora Howell, who received 300 points, being ranked higher. The Petitioner, was tied for second place in point awards with black applicant C. Bethea and applicant S. Harris. The remainder of the fourteen applicants all scored lower. Based upon those scores determined by the KSA examining committee, the six highest ranking applicants were selected to be interviewed for the position, including the Petitioner. The interview committee consisted of two FSH nursing professional employees: Kathy Wheeler, the administrator in charge of the program and Sue Calloway, a practicing registered nurse at FSH. The interviews were conducted on July 9, 1992. During the interview process, committee member Kathy Wheeler asked the candidates questions, which had been prepared in advance. Each person interviewed was asked the same questions by the designated interviewer, Ms. Wheeler. They were asked in the same sequence. Each member of the interviewing committee scored his or her responses to the questions on forms that had been provided using the scoring system designated and implemented for that purpose. There is no evidence that any member of the committee discussed the points he or she awarded to the interviewees with other members of the committee and no evidence that the entries on the interview forms were made other than separate and independently from each other member of the committee. There is no evidence that points awarded were changed or modified in any way once they were awarded. Upon conclusion of the interviews, all the scoring sheets were given to Ms. Wheeler for tabulation. The total numerical scoring for each of the applicants interviewed was: Nora Howell, 128.4 points; Jean Spear, 119.9 points; C. Bethea, 111.4 points; V. Ramsey, 122.9 points; J. Collins, 118.8 points; and S. Harris, 111.4 points. One of the KSAs applicable to this position called for the person to be hired to have significant expertise in the area of infection control and epidemiology for this nurse consultant position. While the Petitioner remonstrates that this is not a legitimate KSA requirement because it is not directed related to the job and is an area easily learned on the job, the preponderant evidence reveals that indeed, it is directly relevant to this position and it is of significant importance. It is not a field or area of expertise which can be rapidly learned after hiring. Thus, the preponderant evidence shows that this KSA item or criterion is a legitimate one. The preponderant evidence shows also that successful applicant Nora Howell possessed this expertise to a greater extent than did the Petitioner. Thus, although the Petitioner was well qualified for the job in most respects, the qualifications of Nora Howell in this area exceeded those of the Petitioners according to the preponderant, credible evidence. This justified her being awarded a higher level of points in the screening and interviewing process than the Petitioner. Since she met or exceeded all the other position criteria which had been duly and legally adopted, it was justifiable for her to be offered and to accept the position instead of the Petitioner on these qualification-related bases. The application, screening, and interview process and ranking and scoring of points followed the procedure delineated by statute and rules and described in more detail above. There is no credible evidence that the hiring decision as to this position was made for any reason motivated by racial discriminatory intent or discrimination because of any handicap of any applicant. There is no clear evidence that "pre- selection" occurred as the Petitioner contends, but even if Nora Howell had informally been pre-selected for this position, there is no credible evidence that it had anything to do with racial or handicap discrimination against the Petitioner. During the fall of 1992, Florida State Hospital advertised the position of Senior Registered Nurse Supervisor for the Forensic/Corrections Department, position number 09671, in the HRS Job Bulletin. The position application deadline was January 21, 1993. The minimum requirements for the job were licensure as a registered professional nurse and three years of nursing experience. Here again, a Bachelor's Degree from an accredited college or university could substitute for one of the three years experience required. Experience dealing with forensically-committed patients was essential. The evidence shows that the job advertisement complied in all respects with existing HRS and FSH rules, polices, and procedures. The advertisement did not discriminate against any person or group or class of persons on the basis of race, handicaps, or other reasons. No person, or class of persons, was either encouraged or discouraged from applying by the advertisement. Neither was employment with the Department nor the hospital a prerequisite. Twenty-four applications were received. Each application was screened using the KSA instrument prepared in advance for that purpose by the procedure delineated above. In the KSA screening or examining process, applicant Patricia Powell scored 266 points; William Dixon scored 250 points; and Jean Spear, the Petitioner, scored 249 points. Applicant Zilla Thompson scored 323 points, S. Peoples scored 232 points, and Betty Thames scored 233 points. These six top point winners in the KSA examining process were selected to be interviewed by the interview committee. The interview committee consisted of five employees: Steve Lacy, an administrator in charge of the program; Gwen Cook, a practicing Registered Nurse in the forensic services at FSH; Judy Wester, a direct care supervisor in forensic; Alva Martin, the chief nursing consultant at FSH; and Willie McLeroy, a forensic direct care supervisor at FSH. The interviews were conducted on February 1, 1993. During the interview process, interview committee member Alva Martin was designated to ask the candidates questions which were written, prepared, and approved in advance under the process already delineated above. Each person interviewed was asked the same questions by the same interviewer in the same sequence. Scoring was done independently by each member of the interview committee and the scores submitted to Steve Lacy of the committee for tabulation. There was no evidence that points awarded were changed or modified in any way once they were awarded by each member of the committee. Applicant Dixon was awarded 3127 points and Petitioner Spear was awarded 2276 points. That made the Petitioner rank fifth from the top point earner, Mr. Dixon. Mr. Dixon met all the minimum requirements set forth in the position description in the HRS Job Bulletin for the position. Mr. Dixon had more forensic nursing experience overall than did the Petitioner, having ten years versus the Petitioner's five years. The Petitioner offered no preponderant, persuasive evidence that the hiring decision for this job or for the other three jobs was racially motivated. The Respondent's position in response to the Petitioner's attempted prima facia showing of racial discrimination, to the effect that she is black and that the successful job applicants were all white, is that, in fact, the Respondent hired the persons it believed were most qualified for the job. In fact, the proof shows that as to three of the positions, already treated herein, the winning applicants were indeed the most qualified for the job. The proof shows that the Petitioner was most qualified for the job currently being discussed in the paragraphs next above, that is, position number 09671. Her denial of hiring for that position, however, was not shown to be due to any racially discriminatory intent given the proof culminating in the above findings concerning how the selection process operated in accordance with the rules and policies of the agency. The preponderant, persuasive evidence shows that the Petitioner was actually better qualified than Mr. Dixon, the nurse who was awarded the position. The expert testimony of Dr. Frank, corroborated by the testimony of witness Betty Thames, in particular, shows that the Petitioner was better qualified for this supervisory position number 09671 because of her more extensive educational and work-experience qualifications. She had more varied experience in the nursing profession in areas that were related to this job than Mr. Dixon had, in spite of his longer experience in the forensic department. The Petitioner was shown to have a superior ability in the area of implementing medications and psychiatric nursing treatment procedures because the Petitioner had demonstrated this ability in a broad variety of settings, with different kinds of patients, coupled with her three and three-quarter years of forensic supervisory experience. She is also superior in her skills and expertise regarding working as a contributing member of a multi-disciplinary team, functioning as a team leader and with consulting with families. She also has more experience as a liaison nursing person with jails and community health-related facilities or resources. Additionally, for position number 09671, KSA number one for that position indicated a desire for experience in a tardive dyskinesia clinic. Only Mr. Dixon had this experience of all the applicants for this position, so the Petitioner was not given credit for it in the screening and interview process. In fact, she had many of the same general skills and abilities. The specific emphasis on tardive dyskinesia experience was shown, however, through the testimony of Dr. Frank, as being unnecessary to this type of supervisory position. More importantly, in the interview for this Senior Registered Nurse Supervisor position (09671), there was a written interview question asked the Petitioner concerning her disability. That question was as follows: "6. Do you have any disabilities that would prevent you from lifting or working a 40-hour week or that would prevent you from performing this job? How many days have you missed in the past year due to illness? How many unscheduled absences did you have in the past year? Do you have any responsibilities commitments or activities that would prevent you from doubling on or changing your work days or weekends?" Witness Betty Thames for the Petitioner also stated that during the course of a telephone interview in which the interview committee chairman, Steve Lacy, questioned her, as the Petitioner's supervisor, concerning her attendance that he made a "nonprofessional remark" (in a negative vein) regarding the Petitioner's physical limitations to the effect that "It doesn't matter why she was out to me". This was related to a discussion between the two in the telephone interview concerning the Petitioner's work attendance history and her back injury. Lacy's statement was admitted into evidence as a "party admission exception" to the hearsay rule. He was clearly an agent of the Respondent and a key person in this hiring process. The Respondent was aware of the Petitioner's disability. She had injured her back on the job in August of 1992. She had been off work receiving worker's compensation benefits for the injury and, based upon her doctor's finding that she had reached maximum medical improvement, had been returned to work, apparently in early 1993, and given light duty involving work not requiring lifting more than 15 pounds, prolonged walking, stooping or bending. She reported this disability on her employment application for these positions. Her back injury clearly limited her in a "major life activity," such as lifting, walking, prolonged standing, or her level of mobility and strength in general. All of the positions for which she had applied were less strenuous than the position she had last held before going on retirement. This was testified to by the Petitioner as well as C. J. Brock, the Respondent's personnel director and Betty Thames, the Petitioner's immediate supervisor. Mr. Brock testified that her injuries would not normally be considered a negative factor for supervisory or consulting positions in nursing, which is the position at issue. In fact, after the Petitioner answered on all of her application forms "yes" to the question concerning whether she had a disabling or handicapping condition and had additionally written that her limitations involved lifting, bending, prolonged standing or walking, the personnel office still qualified her for the position at issue in this proceeding. In spite of that, the Respondent's agent in the hiring process still, at least as to position number 09671, formally asked her about her disability and handicap in the context of the above-quoted questions. The Petitioner maintains she was asked about this in each of her interviews for all four positions. Her testimony does not clearly show exactly what the nature of the questions were, if they were asked, and that self- serving testimony cannot serve as evidence of disability discrimination as to the other three positions, as it is not sufficiently preponderant credible and persuasive. The formal written questioning as to position number 09671, however, does show that the employer had a no doubt genuine, but for the reasons delineated below, illegal pre- occupation about the Petitioner's disability or handicap. There is no evidence of malicious intent in the above-quoted inquiry about the Petitioner's physical limitations or even in the statement attributed to Steve Lacy referenced above. The inquiring statement rather reflects a genuine but ill-advised concern by the Respondent about getting an employee in the subject position who might be absent from work excessively or be the source of other personnel problems due to her disability. The Petitioner has raised an issue concerning "pre- selection" by citing statements witnesses related at hearing, made by certain supervisory individuals involved to one degree or another in the hiring process for the four positions at issue. These statements purport that a certain person who ultimately got the job in question was the person the declarant involved wished to have apply for the job or a statement to the effect that the Petitioner need not apply because another person, such as, for instance, Nora Howell, was going to get the job. These statements were purportedly made before the hiring process started or was completed, and therefore were offered as evidence of illegal pre-selection, that is, illegal pre-selection in the context of the agency's rules. These statements were admitted as party admission exceptions to the hearsay rule. In terms of their credibility and persuasiveness, however, it is pointed out that they were not subject to cross- examination. Moreover, whether they are credible or not, they did not stand as probative of racial discrimination or disability discrimination because the statements could just as easily have been reflections of preferences based on friendship, which might be distasteful, ill-advised, or even illegal in another context but does not itself show racial animus or intent to discriminate based upon the Petitioner's disability. The statements might equally reflect an innocent statement or statements by these individuals which reflect their genuinely-held belief that the persons they purportedly favored were actually the best qualified for those jobs. It is thus found that these statements, as evidence of pre-selection, are largely immaterial to resolution to the issues in this case because they do not have any significant probative value in fact-finding as to the issues of racial or disability discrimination. The Petitioner was paid $1,544.68 bi-weekly through January 25, 1994, the date she retired. She was making $1,499.69 on a bi-weekly basis prior to September 30, 1993, back through the relevant period at issue. Her salary would have been increased a minimum of 10 percent if she had been hired at any of the four positions involved in this case. Because of the above findings of fact, she should have been hired in position number 09761. Thus, she should have had her pay increased by 10 percent from the hiring date for that position forward to the time when she retired. That hiring date would be shortly after the interview date for that position, of February 1, 1993, so her salary should have been increased 10 percent forward from that time with a cost of living increase of 3 percent beginning October 1, 1993, with such back pay and attendant upward adjustment in retirement benefits being awarded through her retirement date of January 25, 1994. There is no proof of compensatory pay, front pay or attorney's fees and costs in this proceeding.
Recommendation Accordingly, in consideration of the preponderant evidence of record and for the reasons delineated in the above findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Petitioner was the victim of discrimination because of her handicap as to position number 9671. Because the Petitioner is unable, due to her total and permanent disability to return to work, her remedy is back pay. She should therefore be awarded back pay represented by the salary she would have earned in position number 9671 from the hiring date of that position which occurred shortly after February 1993, the interview date. She should have her attendant retirement benefits adjusted upward by virtue of being denied that job, with an attendant cost of living increase of 3 percent which she would have earned beginning October 1, 1993, with such increased salary and benefits to be awarded terminating as of January 25, 1994, her retirement date. Jurisdiction is reserved on the issue of attorneys' fees and costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of August, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of August, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Lawrence F. Kranert, Esquires Florida State Hospital, Building 249 Post Office Box 1000 Chattahoochee, Florida 32324 Jack McLean, Esquire 100 Peachtree Street, Northwest, Suite 600 Atlanta, Georgia 30303-1909 Larry K. White, Esquire John W. Hedrick, Esquire 1311-B Paul Russell Road, Suite 203 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, Esquire Commission on Human Relations Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue Should discipline be imposed by Petitioner against Respondent's certificate to practice as a Certified Nursing Assistant?
Findings Of Fact Facts Admitted: Petitioner is the state department charged with regulating the practice of nursing pursuant to Chapter 20.43, Florida Statutes, Chapter 456, Florida Statutes; and Chapter 464, Florida Statutes. Respondent is Andrea Tyson. Respondent is a Certified Nursing Assistant (C.N.A.) in the State of Florida having been issued certificate number 0898- 262792261. Respondent's current address of record (address listed for C.N.A. certificate with Department of Health) is P.O. Box 999, Cross City, Florida 32628. On or about August 23, 2001, Respondent was employed at Tri-County Nursing Home (Tri-County) in Trenton, Florida. During the time Respondent worked at Tri-County, W.H. (resident referred to in Petitioner's Administrative Complaint) was a resident at Tri-County. Respondent knew W.H. prior to working at Tri-County. Respondent regularly cared for W.H. at Tri-County. On or about August 23, 2001, Respondent assisted W.H. in taking a shower. On or about August 23, 2001, while in the shower with W.H., Respondent jerked W.H.'s hand from the shower grab bar. On or about August 23, 2001, while in the shower with W.H., Respondent sprayed W.H.'s face with cold water. On or about August 23, 2001, after Respondent finished showering W.H., Respondent partially dried W.H. and put on only his pants. On or about August 23, 2001, after Respondent finished showering W.H., Respondent refused to assist W.H. with putting on his shirt. On or about August 23, 2001, W.H. had to seek the assistance of another person at Tri-County, in putting on his shirt following his shower with Respondent. Additional Facts: W.H. had suffered a stroke in 1992. W.H. came to be a resident at Tri-County on March 8, 1999. On August 23, 2001, Respondent told W.H. to go to the bathroom to get ready for his shower. W.H. required assistance to shower. Respondent had given showers to W.H. before the date in question. On August 23, 2001, it was necessary for W.H. to support himself by holding on to the shower grab bar. W.H. explained that he uses the shower bar because he feels better that way, more secure. When Respondent jerked W.H.'s hand away from the shower grab bar, she did so without warning. This made W.H. feel bad. It also made him feel mad at Respondent. On the date in question while in the shower, W.H. told the Respondent that the water was too hot. Her response was to reach over with her hand and turned the lever to the cold setting and rinsed W.H. off with cold water. The water was really cold. W.H. did not complain about the cold water. He just wanted to get out of the shower. W.H. was left with the impression that if Respondent was going to be mean to him, he did not want to be around her. The incident made him feel abused. W.H. felt intimidated by the Respondent given her actions. As part of the process of showering that took place on August 23, 2001, in addition to spraying cold water in W.H.'s face, the cold water got into his ears. He did not like water in his ears. After the shower, Respondent dried W.H. off and put on his underclothes and pants and shoes but not his shirt. W.H. was left with only his T-shirt above the waist. W.H. took his outer shirt and went into the hall and got another C.N.A. to assist him in putting it on. To W.H.'s knowledge he had never done anything or said anything to provoke Respondent before the incident in the shower. W.H. reported the incident to a nurse at Tri-County about a day after the event. The expectation at Tri-County was that Respondent as a C.N.A. would perform her duties in the facility consistent with the Florida standards of care incumbent upon C.N.A. certificate holders. Tri-County is a skilled nursing facility. C.N.A.s who are employed at that facility, such as Respondent, undergo orientation in addition to the training received when earning a certificate to practice in Florida. The orientation includes issues such as fire safety, resident rights,1/ infection control, and body lifting of residents. What is described as the "paper part" of the orientation takes a day. In addition, the new employee is paired with an experienced C.N.A. on the same shift where the new employee will work, and the new employee and the experienced employee work together for a couple of weeks at the nursing home as training. While working with the experienced C.N.A., that employee uses a check-list to verify that the new employee can master the skills required to assist the residents. Within Tri-County the expectation for resident rights are in association with the right to dignity, among other rights. C.N.A.s at Tri-County are responsible for feeding, hydration, bathing, toileting, and skin care in relation to residents they are responsible for. Margo Chancey, R.N.C. was the Director of Nurses at Tri-County on August 23, 2001. She continues to hold that position. Ms. Chancey is a licensed nurse in Florida. By virtue of her formal training and work experience, Ms. Chancey is sufficiently familiar with the expected standard of care to be provided by C.N.A.s to offer expert opinion testimony concerning Respondent's treatment of W.H. on August 23, 2001. Nurse Chancey explained W.H.'s condition in August 2001 as being a circumstance in which W.H. had had a couple of strokes over a period of years. Nonetheless, W.H. remained alert and oriented and continued to be alert and oriented in more recent times including the present. W.H. gets around in a wheelchair. He is on an oxygen concentrator P.R.N. W.H. suffers with chronic pulmonary disease. W.H. was more ambulatory in August 2001 than he is today. Ms. Chancey is sufficiently familiar with the events on August 23, 2001, concerning Respondent's provision of care to W.H. while providing him a shower, to offer an opinion on whether that performance was within the minimal standards expected of a C.N.A. Ms. Chancey established that the manner of care provided from Respondent to W.H. was inhumane and abusive and below minimal standards. More particularly, Ms. Chancey commented that Respondent gave W.H. no choices. She demanded things of the resident. She sprayed cold water in his face, which is unacceptable. She was rough and rude with W.H. when removing his arm from the grab bar, which is unacceptable. W.H.'s patient's rights were violated pertaining to matters of human dignity and he was not treated safely. As Ms. Chancey correctly explained, for Respondent to perform her duties in giving the bath to W.H. she would have had bathing equipment ready when he came into the room and she should have been in the room when W.H. started to get undressed and would not have removed his arm from the grab bar. W.H. had the right to complain that the water was too hot. Respondent should have tested the water before she sprayed what was revealed to be cold water on W.H. Respondent should have totally dressed W.H. before she left the room given his condition, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The risk was that his condition could worsen when left partially dressed. This might lead to his contracting pneumonia.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered finding the Respondent in violation of Sections 464.204(1)(b), 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes (2001), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B9- 8.005(13)(2001), placing Respondent on probation for a period on one year subject to terms established by the Board of Nursing, imposing a $150.00 fine and requiring that Respondent attend a continuing education class on the care of the elderly. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 22nd day of December, 2003.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent may rescind its approval of Petitioner's program to operate a practical-nurse education program.
Findings Of Fact For the past 13 years, Petitioner has operated an unaccredited education program for persons seeking licensure as practical nurses. During this period, Beverly Pryce has been the Program Director. Ms. Pryce is a registered nurse in Florida and has 27 years of clinical experience comprising 10 years as a licensed practical nurse and 17 years as a registered nurse. For the 2002-03 and 2003-04 school years, Petitioner has admitted 24 students annually from a pool of 35-40 applicants. Nineteen students graduated from the 2002-03 class, and 22 students graduated from the following year's class. In both years, Petitioner retained four faculty members--two full time and two part time. In both years, Petitioner had one faculty position vacant. In February 2003, Petitioner relocated its operations from a building in Hallandale to a building in Hollywood. Petitioner made this move without prior notification to, or consent from, Respondent. Ms. Pryce testified that, subsequent to the move, Petitioner communicated to Respondent, using Petitioner's new address, about several items, such as the names of upcoming graduates. These contacts do not represent a formal notification of a change of address, and Ms. Pryce conceded that she had not known of any requirement of notice prior to making such a move. Petitioner's formal notification of the change of address took place over one year after it had relocated its operations. The omission of prior notice denied Respondent the opportunity to inspect the proposed new facility, including classrooms, laboratories, computers, and library resources, to ensure that it met all applicable requirements for a school educating persons seeking licensure as licensed practice nurses. By letter dated May 10, 2004, Respondent advised Petitioner that the failure to notify Respondent of the change of address violated "64B-9." The notification issue arose when Respondent mailed a letter to Petitioner warning that its license would expire on June 30, 2004, and requesting a Program Evaluation Report by September 2, 2004. The postal service returned the letter as undeliverable because it was addressed to Petitioner's former address. After obtaining the new address, Respondent re-mailed the letter, on June 16, 2004, again requesting a Program Evaluation Report by September 2. Petitioner failed to provide Respondent with a Program Evaluation Report by the deadline set forth in the June 16 letter from Respondent. Thus, on September 21, 2004, Respondent sent another letter, advising Petitioner that Respondent would review Petitioner's approval status at its meeting on October 14, 2004. This letter notes that Respondent had not received any response to the request for a Program Evaluation Report, and Respondent would not accept additional documents for consideration at its October 14 meeting. Ms. Pryce claims that hurricane season and her unfamiliarity with computers delayed the timely delivery of the Program Evaluation Report, but these claims do not justify the length of time, past the deadline, before Ms. Pryce filed the report. Based on its consideration of the matter at the October meeting, Respondent issued, on November 2, 2004, an Order determining that Petitioner was not in compliance with Board rules due to the above-described relocation and failure to file a Program Evaluation Report. The Order notes that Petitioner's approval has expired and is not renewed until Petitioner timely files a Program Evaluation Report, undergoes a site visit by the Executive Director of the Board, and appears at the Board's December 2, 2004, meeting. Until then, the Order prohibits Respondent from admitting additional students, although it may continue to educate existing students, who will be eligible to take the licensure examination, upon graduation. The November 2 Order memorializes the decision of the Board--and agreed to by Ms. Pryce--to extend the deadline for filing the Program Evaluation Report to November 1, 2004. The Order requires the Program Evaluation Report to demonstrate compliance with Florida Administrative Code Rules 64B9-2.002(2) and (6) and Petitioner to demonstrate compliance with Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B9-2.015, during the site visit. On November 12, 2004--11 days after the extended deadline to which she had agreed--Ms. Pryce filed the Program Evaluation Report. Two days later, Respondent's Executive Director conducted a site visit. On his site visit, the Executive Director found that the passing rate of Petitioner's students, on the practice nursing licensure exam, for the 2002-03 school year was 63.2 percent, while the national and Florida averages were 86.5 percent, and the passing rate of Petitioner's students for the 2003-04 school year was 59.1 percent, while the national average was 88.7 percent and the Florida average was 83.6 percent. Since at least 1997, the passing rate of Petitioner's students has been at least 10 percent below the national average passing rate. The Executive Director also issued a report, dated November 17, 2004, setting forth various recommendations to the Board for consideration to improve the quality of Petitioner's program. At Ms. Pryce's request, the Board continued consideration of Petitioner's case from the December meeting to the February meeting. The December 7, 2004, letter continuing the matter also warns Petitioner to provide to Respondent any additional materials that Petitioner wants the Board to consider prior to January 3, 2005. At the February, 10, 2005, meeting, the Board asked Ms. Pryce if she had yet obtained a consultant's report with specific recommendations to improve the quality of Petitioner's nurse-education program. Ms. Pryce responded that she had a consultant in mind, but had not retained anyone yet. On February 16, 2005, Respondent issued a second Order. The Order outlines the above-stated facts and revokes Petitioner's approval, effective June 30, 2005, but allows currently enrolled students to complete the program by June 30, 2005. On March 6, 2005, a consultant issued a detailed report, recommending that Petitioner raise its admission standards and provide tutoring for students, form an advisory committee for curriculum, and increase faculty involvement and raise faculty standards.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Nursing enter a final order rescinding Petitioner's approval to operate a nurse-education program. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of November, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 21st day of November, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Dan Coble, Executive Director Board of Nursing Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3252 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Timothy M. Cerio, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Mark J. Berkowitz Mark J. Berkowitz, P. A. 524 South Andrews Avenue, Suite 200N Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Lee Ann Gustafson Assistant Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioner in employment based on age or disability as prohibited by section 760.10(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was born on August 4, 1953. She has been licensed as a registered nurse (RN) in Florida since 1979. Previously, Petitioner was licensed as an RN in New York for four years. Presently, Petitioner is employed as an RN with Hospice of Broward and Palm Beach. She has been so employed for about one and one-half years prior to the final hearing. Prior to this employment, she was employed for a couple of months at Hospice at Vitas. In both of these jobs, Petitioner earned about $60,000 annually including benefits. For at least 20 years preceding the employment at the hospices, Petitioner was employed by Respondent at Westside Regional Medical Center (Westside). Initially, Petitioner was employed as a staff nurse in the critical care unit. Eventually, Petitioner was promoted to charge nurse of the intensive care unit (ICU). A charge nurse provides immediate supervision of staff nurses. Petitioner served as a charge nurse for seven years and was earning $95,000 annually plus benefits at the time of the incidents described below. The Joint Commission requires hospitals to assess employee competency annually. Respondent employs a Director of Education partly to discharge this obligation. Among the classes of employees subject to annual testing, nurses are the most numerous. To ensure that an annual test focuses on critical areas, the Director of Education annually meets with managers and representatives of quality, risk management, and infection control to learn what areas have posed problems for the hospital over the past 12 months. After identifying the problem areas, the Director of Education accesses available databases from which she obtains questions that will focus on these problem areas. The Director of Education transmits the proposed test to the relevant department head for review prior to finalization; the relevant department in this case is the ICU. At least for nurses, the annual test is part of a larger annual competency process. After preparing the nurses' test, the Director of Education provides nurses with study materials so they can prepare to take and pass the test. After each nurse takes the test, the Director of Education consults with the nurse's department director and then reviews the test with the nurse, discussing the areas of weakness revealed by the test. For more serious weaknesses, the Director of Education may require the nurse to take an entire course. For less serious weaknesses, the Director of Education may require the nurse to perform some online work or perform some individual research. The competency process concludes with a followup meeting between the Director of Education and the nurse, who discusses the remediation work that she has completed by the time of this meeting. The Director of Education then issues a final report to the relevant department director, which, for Petitioner, is the ICU department director. The ICU department director is an RN, who serves as the immediate supervisor of the ICU charge nurses, including Petitioner. For 2012, the Director of Education provided a window of three months, from February 1, 2012, through May 1, 2012, for nurses to complete all phases of the annual competency process. For nurses, including charge nurses, the Chief Nursing Officer (CNO) determined that the consequence for noncompliance would be suspension without pay until timely completion. The CNO did not address any additional consequence for noncompliance by a charge nurse because the charge nurse's department director had direct responsibility for this matter. At least six times before and during the period provided for completing the competency assessment process, the Director of Education sent emails to the nurses reminding them of the deadline to complete the annual competency process and to the department directors identifying their nurses who had not yet completed the process. Most of the nurses completed the annual competency process in March and April, 2012. Of the 68 ICU employees--all or a majority of whom are nurses--eight ICU staff nurses failed to timely complete the process, and they were suspended without pay until they completed the process. Petitioner failed to timely complete the annual competency process. She took the test on May 7, 2012, and completed the process one week later. Accordingly, she was suspended without pay from May 3 to May 14. Petitioner was cleared to return to work starting May 15, although she never did so. After learning that Petitioner had failed to timely complete the annual competency process, the ICU department director consulted with the CNO and decided to demote Petitioner to staff nurse for two reasons: the charge nurse served as an important role model to the staff nurses whom she supervised, and Petitioner had failed to timely complete the annual competency process in 2009 and 2010, at which times she was counseled for these noncompliances. There is no evidence that the CNO discriminated against Petitioner on any basis in the CNO's implementation of her preannounced decision to suspend without pay those nurses who failed timely to complete the annual competency process. There is no evidence that the CNO or the ICU department director, who is ten months older than Petitioner, discriminated against Petitioner on the basis of age in demoting her to staff nurse for failing timely to complete the annual competency process. The ICU department director made a good faith effort to accommodate Petitioner in selecting a shift and obtaining training for her new duties as a staff nurse, but Petitioner elected to forego this opportunity. After a reasonable period of waiting for Petitioner to return to work at Westside, Respondent justifiably determined that she had voluntarily terminated her employment. Petitioner has failed to prove that she had any disability, the CNO or ICU department director perceived that she had a disability, or the CNO or ICU department director discriminated against her on the basis of any real or perceived disability. The issue of a disability emerged with a work- related injury that Petitioner suffered to her hip while helping a large patient on April 23, 2012. After the pain worsened overnight, Petitioner reported it the next day, but was able to work her entire shift. Pursuant to Respondent's policy, a compensable injury necessitates a drug screen of the injured employee. Petitioner complains that a staffperson drew her blood in an employee lounge, where coworkers could witness the process, but the staffperson did so only after earlier attempts to have Petitioner report to the staffperson had failed. Although the location of the blood draw may have violated Respondent's confidentiality policy, it is unclear why a coworker would draw an adverse inference from witnessing a process routinely performed with every employee who is injured on the job. In any event, the circumstances of the taking of Petitioner's blood do not suggest any discrimination on the part of Respondent's representatives against Petitioner. The drug screen revealed the presence of Valium. When informed of this fact, Petitioner advised Respondent that she had a prescription for Valium and identified the pharmacy that filled the prescription. Unfortunately, when contacted, a pharmacy representative misstated that no such prescription existed, which resulted in Petitioner's termination effective May 11, 2012. However, a pharmacy representative later indicated that the pharmacy had a prescription for Valium, and Respondent rescinded the termination no later than May 15, 2012. No evidence links this unfortunate incident, which occurred through no fault of Petitioner or Respondent, with the demotion that is the subject of Petitioner's present complaint. This incident may have played a role in Petitioner's ensuing decision not to return to work at Westside, although this decision appears to have been driven at least as much by Petitioner's discomfort at the prospect of working with staff nurses whom she had previously supervised, if not by other factors as well. More importantly, though, no evidence links the "failed" drug screen or Petitioner's injury with the subject demotion. There is no doubt that the CNO and ICU department director demoted Petitioner, a charge nurse, for failing to timely complete the annual competency test three times in the preceding four years. Petitioner cites the injury as justification for missing the May 1 deadline for completion of the annual competency process. There are two problems with this contention. First, Petitioner assumed the risk of noncompliance when she failed to take the test at anytime in the 11 weeks prior to the injury, waiting until the last week to take the test, attend the conference with the Director of Education, complete any required remedial work, and attend the followup conference with the Director of Education. Second, the injury did not prevent Petitioner from taking the test at any time. As noted above, Petitioner was able to work her entire shift on the day after the injury. The first physician, whom Petitioner saw the day after the injury, determined that Petitioner could work, but she had to be limited to 95% sitting; three days later, this physician cleared Petitioner to return to work without restrictions. Another physician, whom Petitioner later consulted, prescribed physical therapy, but only one hour daily. Regardless of when Petitioner was able to return to regular nursing duties, it is clear that the injury did not prevent her from taking the test at any time. The posthearing interrogatories, which were devoted to producing evidence of Respondent's treatment of putative comparators, have proven unnecessary, given the findings set forth above. However, Respondent's answers to these interrogatories do not support Petitioner's claim of prejudice in any event. These responses disclose that Respondent did not grant any RNs extensions of less than 14 days, due to injury or illness, to complete the annual competency process. Of the 31 charge nurses employed at Westside at the time of the 2012 competency process, four, in addition to Petitioner, failed timely to complete the annual competency process. However, unlike Petitioner, none of these charge nurses had previously failed timely to complete an annual competency process. One received counseling, which is what Petitioner received for her first two noncompliances. One worked in another department which lacked, at the time, a director; as noted above, the department director is directly responsible for determining whether a charge nurse should undergo additional adverse employment action for missing the deadline. The other two worked in another department, which had a director who lacked a history of consistent written discipline of her employees; this director is no longer a Westside employee. The other four charge nurses are thus not comparators because of different immediate supervisors, in the form of department directors, and different circumstances, primarily in the form of no prior noncompliances by these four charge nurses.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 4th day of March, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Violet Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Scott Michael Behren, Esquire Scott M. Behren, P.A. Suite 110 2893 Executive Park Drive Weston, Florida 33331 Mark E. Edwards, Esquire Mark E. Edwards, Attorney at Law 2501 Park Plaza Nashville, Tennessee 37203 Alexander David del Russo, Esquire Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A. Suite 1200 525 Okeechobee Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue for disposition in this proceeding is whether Petitioner, Ms. Fearon, is entitled to licensure by endorsement as a registered nurse in Florida. This requires a determination of whether her education is substantially equivalent to or more stringent than required in Florida, pursuant to Section 464.009, Florida Statutes, and Rule 64B9-3.008, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Sylem May Fearon (Ms. Fearon) was born in Jamaica, approximately 68 years ago. After being educated in Jamaica she emigrated to England to pursue an education for the practice of professional nursing. Ms. Fearon took courses in geriatric nursing in England for two years, then proceeded to do a three-year general training program (1960-1963). After the general registered nursing education, she took courses in midwifery for two years, passed an examination, and was qualified as a certified nurse midwife in September 1965. Approximately 32 years ago, Ms. Fearon responded to nursing recruiters from the United States; she emigrated to the United States and commenced working as a staff nurse in a hospital in Washington, D.C. Since emigrating to the United States, Ms. Fearon has become a citizen. She took the examinations for nursing licensure in New York and Massachusetts and was successful in obtaining licensure in both states, as well as in Washington, D.C. She maintains current licensure as a registered nurse in Washington, D.C. Approximately two years ago, Ms. Fearon moved to Florida and commenced application for licensure by endorsement as a registered nurse in this state. Florida's and other states' nursing boards do not have reciprocity with each other in the sense that if you are licensed in one state you may also practice in others. Florida and other jurisdictions have licensure by endorsement which allows an applicant for licensure to demonstrate that he or she has passed an examination in another state and has the educational background that is substantially the same or more stringent than required by the state in which the applicant is seeking licensure. This allows an applicant to become licensed without having to take another examination but does not waive other requirements for licensure such as education. After Ms. Fearon applied for licensure by endorsement in Florida, nursing board staff determined that she met all of the requirements except for some areas of her education. The Board of Nursing in Florida has developed guidelines to implement its broad rules on what specific education is required. When staff determines those guidelines are not met, the individual case is brought to the Board which then makes the ultimate decision. In Ms. Fearon's case, the Board accepted the deficiencies identified by its staff and entered the order which Ms. Fearon has challenged in this proceeding. The staff and Board considered a transcript of Ms. Fearon's registered nursing education from the University of Sheffield School of Nursing and Midwifery, hereinafter referred to as the official transcript. Ms. Fearon also provided copies of a "Statement and Recommendation by Director of Nursing" dated July 20, 1967, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner's transcript, and a copy of correspondence from the Chesterfield School of Nursing dated May 2, 1968, which stated Ms. Fearon attended lectures in elementary psychology (8 hours), psychiatry (5 hours) and head injuries (2 hours), hereinafter referred to as the 1968 supplement. The official transcript includes coursework that is not listed on Petitioner's transcript, and there are discrepancies between the official transcript, Petitioner's transcript, and the 1968 supplement; however, these discrepancies did not prejudice Ms. Fearon, according to Dr. Stiehl, executive director of the Board. According to the official transcript, Ms. Fearon's education at the Royal Hospital of Chesterfield in Derbyshire, England, consisted of the following coursework in hours: Theory Hours Anatomy and Physiology 42 Personal and Communal Health 21 First Aid 15 Nutrition 8 History of Nursing 2 Elementary Psychology 8 Bacteriology and Principles of Asepsis 15 Theory of Nursing 66 Demonstration and Practical Classes 103 Bandaging 13 Principle of Surgery and Surgical Nursing 15 Principle of Medicine and Medical Nursing 19 Operating Theatre Technique 3 Gynecology and Introduction to Obstetrics 10 Diseases of Ear, Nose and Throat 5 Genito-Urinary Diseases 4 Diseases of the Eye 3 Lecture by Anesthetist 1 Orthopaedics 4 Pharmacology 4 Communicable Disease 6 Venereal Disease 4 Pediatrics and Nursing of Sick Children 8 Psychiatry 5 Social Services 4 Disease of the Skin 4 Radiography 2 Revision and Coaching Classes 10 Practical/Clinical Hours Childrens 375 Female Surgery 487.5 Male Surgery 637.5 Ear, Nose and Throat 150 Opthalmic 300 Female Orthopaedic 75 Male Orthopaedic 300 Male Medical 412.5 Female Medical 187.5 Gynecology 300 Theatre 412.5 Casualty 300 Private Patient Unit 150 Relief Night Duty 225 Preliminary Training School 450 Study Blocks 225 A nursing license is issued by the Board of Nursing for a general practitioner, i.e. the licensee can work in any area of nursing. Therefore, to practice safely, the licensee needs a basic theoretical underpinning in all the basic areas of nursing: medical, surgical, obstetric, pediatric, and psychiatric nursing. Hours spent in patient care is not equivalent to didactic study. Study of theory provides the proper theoretical base to make good clinical decisions. The Board's guidelines establish these minimum standards that must be demonstrated before its staff may approve an applicant (education in hours): Subject Theory Clinical Medical Nursing 35 150 Surgical Nursing 35 150 Obstetric Nursing 20 70 Pediatric Nursing 20 70 Psychiatric Nursing 20 70 Community Health Nursing NO SPECIFIED MINIMUM Ms. Fearon's official transcript met the minimum requirements in Medical Nursing (theory and clinical), Surgical Nursing (theory and clinical), Pediatric Nursing (clinical only), and Community Health Nursing. The official transcript documents only 5 hours of theory in Obstetric Nursing and no clinical hours. The official Transcript demonstrates 300 hours of clinical experience in "Gynecology"; however, gynecology cannot be substituted for obstetrics training. Gynecology and obstetrics training are not interchangeable. In gynecology the training looks at the female patient in totality and at a different set of disease processes than in obstetrics; in obstetrics the training focuses not only on the mother but the growth of the fetus and the health of the child. However, Dr. Stiehl reviewed Petitioner's Exhibit no. 3 (the midwife certificate) and determined that this documents the necessary training in obstetrics. The official transcript documents only 8 hours of theory in Pediatric Nursing and no clinical hours. Ms. Fearon testified that her midwifery training covered pediatrics; however, it does not meet the requirements for theory and clinical training in pediatrics. Midwifery training covers the child from birth to age one; pediatrics covers children from birth to age 18. The official transcript documents only 5 hours of theory in Psychiatric Nursing. The 1968 supplement demonstrates 5 hours in Psychiatric Nursing and 8 hours in Elementary Psychology. Psychology cannot be substituted for psychiatric training. Basic psychology training looks at normal behavior; psychiatric nursing training deals with comparing normal with abnormal and with disease processes such as manic depression. The course in head injuries is not identified as training in psychiatry. Petitioner's transcript documents 12 weeks of clinical training in psychiatry, and the Board staff reviewer gave her full credit for the needed hours. (See worksheet Respondent's Composite Exhibit no 1.) Although Ms. Fearon asserted that she had psychiatric training in her midwifery program, it would not provide the necessary minimum education in psychiatric theory. Ms. Fearon's documentation demonstrates deficiencies in psychiatric theory, pediatrics theory, and clinical training. Even if the information on Petitioner's transcript regarding psychiatric clinical experience is accepted, Petitioner still has not demonstrated sufficient theoretical education. Ms. Fearon testified that she completed two years of geriatric nursing training. No documentation has been provided of what the content of the course was. Education for a lower level of licensure would not be considered as meeting the requirements for licensure as a registered nurse. Ms. Fearon also testified that she completed courses in order to sit for her U.S. licensing examination. However, the courses were not identified, and no documentation of the courses has been submitted. Ms. Fearon did not document the requirements for licensure in New York in 1973, when she was first licensed in the United States. Instead she has responded to the staff's inquires with an effort to provide documentation of her education, most of which occurred over 35 years ago in a program which no longer exists.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Board of Nursing enter its Final Order denying Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement without prejudice to her right to pursue her application as described above. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 22nd day of December, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Lee Ann Gustafson, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Sylem May Fearon 7019 Hiawassee Oak Drive Orlando, Florida 32818 Ruth Stiehl, Executive Director Board of Nursing Department of Health 4080 Woodcock Drive, Suite 202 Jacksonville, Florida 32207 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact The Parties. University is a 180-bed skilled nursing home located in Gainesville, Florida. The facility was licensed by the Department and all 180 beds were Medicaid certified at all times relevant to this proceeding. University's facility is managed by Covenant Care Corporation. The Department is the State agency designated the responsibility for administering Florida's Medical Assistance (Medicaid) Program. Section 409.266, et. seq., Florida Statutes. The Office of Licensure and Certification is the office of the Department responsible for licensing and the certification of nursing homes in Florida. 1989 Annual Survey. The Office of Licensure and Certification (hereinafter referred to as "OLC"), conducted an annual survey of University's nursing home facility for 1989 from February 28, 1989, through March 3, 1989, to determine the extent of University's compliance with federal and state laws. At the conclusion of the 1989 annual survey the Department issued a Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction, Form HCFA-2567 (10-84) (hereinafter referred to as the "Annual Survey Statement"). The Annual Survey Statement was provided to University. A number of deficiencies in the operation of University's facility were noted on the Annual Survey Statement. In relevant part, the deficiencies involved the need for University to improve the manner in which patient rehabilitation care was provided. The Annual Survey Statement did not indicate that University was required to add staff to its facility to correct the deficiencies. The Annual Survey Statement included space for University to indicate how it intended to correct the deficiencies noted by OLC. University completed this portion of the Annual Survey Statement noting how it intended to correct each deficiency and the date by which the deficiency would be corrected. University indicated on the Annual Survey Statement that it would correct the deficiencies by May 12, 1989. University did not indicate that it intended to add staff to its facility in order to correct any deficiency noted on the Annual Survey Statement. As part of its plan of correction, University drafted and adopted a Rehabilitative and Restorative Care Program (hereinafter referred to as the "Care Program"). The Care Program provided for the employment of a "Rehabilitative-Restorative Registered Nurse" and "Rehabilitative-Restorative Certified Nursing Assistant(s)". The Annual Survey Statement with the corrections University intended to make noted on it was submitted to OLC. A copy of University's Care Program was also provided to employees of the Department as part of University's corrective plan. The Department, through OLC, accepted University's corrections and its Care Program. By "accepting" University's corrections and Care Program, OLC agreed that the corrections addressed the deficiencies noted in the Annual Survey Statement. OLC did not, however, inform University that it "approved" of the corrections University indicated it intended to make or the Care Program. May 31, 1989 Survey. On May 31, 1989, OLC personnel surveyed University's facility in response to a complaint the Department had received concerning alleged inadequate certified nursing assistants at University. Certified nursing assistants perform "hands on" rehabilitation work at skilled nursing homes. Rehabilitation work performed by certified nursing assistants includes assisting residents to walk, eat and with other activities of daily living. A Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction (hereinafter referred to as the "May Survey Statement") was issued by OLC as a result of the May 31, 1989, survey. The May Survey Statement was provided to University. The May Survey Statement noted the following deficiencies: NH-106. Review of facility staffing for five of seven days selected at random revealed significant shortages of non-licensed nursing staff as evidenced by but not limited to: Insufficient staff to meet the personal care and hygiene needs of the residents. Insufficient staff to monitor the nutritional needs of the residents ([?] residents with significant weight loss). Insufficient staff to implement the restorative nursing program so as to maximize the optimal level of independence enjoyed by each resident. Ref: 405.1124(c)(B)3; 10D-29.108(4) The overall deficiency of University's facility noted in the May Survey Statement was based upon OLC's determination that, although University had sufficient certified nursing assistants scheduled to work during the seven shifts reviewed, an insufficient number of certified nursing assistants actually reported to work during five of those shifts. This determination formed the basis of OLC's determination that there was "insufficient staff" and not a determination that additional staff needed to be scheduled for work. University indicated in the May Survey Statement that it intended to take the following actions to correct the deficiencies noted by OLC: 5 bonus, recruitment and retention programs established along with the use of nursing pools (see attached). Seven new positions above the required standards established and filled (see attached staffing schedule). New assignment policy assures monitoring of feeding (3 meals a day) 7 days a week. New Rehab. R.N. and five restorative aides now assigned to restorative programs (see attached). The May Survey Statement with the corrections University intended to make noted on it was submitted to OLC. The Department, through OLC, accepted University's corrections. Again, by "accepting" University's corrections, OLC agreed that the corrections addressed the deficiencies noted in the May Survey Statement. OLC did not, however, inform University that it "approved" of the corrections University indicated it intended to make. June 5, 1989, Survey. On June 5, 1989, OLC personnel visited University's facility. As a result of this survey, a moratorium on admissions to University's facility was imposed. University was informed of the moratorium at the conclusion of the June 5, 1989, survey and in a letter from the Department dated June 6, 1989. In the letter of June 6, 1989, University was informed, in pertinent part: This moratorium is being imposed . . . because of the serious deficiencies identified by personnel from the Pensacola Office of Licensure and Certification during a survey conducted on June 5, 1989. These deficiencies include but are not limited to the following: Number of staff insufficient to meet minimum standards. Lack of adequate staff to meet resident needs. Lack of adequate monitoring of changes in residents' conditions. Lack of nutritional monitoring. [Emphasis added]. University and the Department ultimately entered into a Joint Stipulation resolving the issues which gave rise to the moratorium. Pursuant to the Joint Stipulation, the Department rescinded the moratorium effective June 29, 1989. Although the Joint Stipulation did not specifically require that University add staff to its facility, it did provide, in pertinent part, the following: 3. Effective upon signing this stipulation, Respondent [University] shall maintain the minimum staffing standards for licensed and non- licensed nursing personnel to meet the resident care needs. June 22-23, 1989, Survey. The Joint Stipulation called for interim visits to University's facility by OLC. An interim visit was conducted on June 22-23, 1989. A Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction (hereinafter referred to as the "June Survey Statement") was issued by OLC as a result of the June 22-23, 1989, survey. Among other things, OLC noted in the June Survey Statement the following deficiency: NH-106 Progress has been made but "NOT CORRECTED" as evidenced by: Continued insufficient staff to monitor nutritional needs or residents (see F-181) implement restorative nursing program. Ref: 405.1124(c)(b)3 10D-29.108(4) Class III 7-23-89 The June Survey Statement was provided to University. University indicated in the June Survey Statement that it intended to take the following actions to correct the deficiency noted in finding of fact 29: Five Rehab. Aides (in addition to required number of certified aides) are monitoring all meals. In addition to Two new positions of Resident Care Supervisors whose duties include meal monitoring. The June Survey Statement with the corrections University intended to make noted on it was submitted to OLC and was "accepted" by OLC in the same manner that the Annual and May Survey Statements were accepted. Additional Staff at University's Facility. Between May, 1989, and August, 1989, University established the following positions and employed individuals for those positions: 1 Rehabilitation Coordinator 5 Rehabilitation Aides 7 Certified Nursing Assistants 4 Resident Care Supervisors University also employed the services of a nursing consultant and used pooled nursing staff. University incurred the following costs associated with the newly created positions, the pooled nursing staff and the nursing consultant: Rehabilitation Coordinator $ 26,817.78 Rehabilitation Aides -0- Certified Nursing Assistants 121,919.60 Nursing Consultant 25,000.00 Resident Care Supervisors 60,559.38 Pooled Nursing Staff 183,040.00 Total $417,336.76 The Rehabilitation Aide positions were filled with 5 employees who were serving as certified nursing assistants. Medicaid Reimbursement. The method by which Medicaid providers are reimbursed for their services is provided for in the Florida Title XIX Long-Term Care Reimbursement Plan (hereinafter referred to as the "Reimbursement Plan"). The Reimbursement Plan is a "cost-based prospective plan." The rate of reimbursement is determined by calculating a provider's historical costs for a specified reporting period and factoring in an inflation index to estimate the provider's future costs. The provider is then paid a rate of Medicaid reimbursement based upon the projected future costs. In Florida, prospective rates are calculated January 1 and July 1 of each year. During a reimbursement period a providers' actual expenditures may be greater or less than the estimated costs for the period. If actual expenditures are less, the additional amount the provider receives may be kept. If actual expenditures are more, the provider must absorb the difference. The Reimbursement Plan allows providers to request and receive a rate change between reporting periods if certain exceptional circumstances are met. The rate change is referred to as an "interim rate change." The requested rate increase at issue in this case was a request for an interim rate change. Section IV, J.2. of the Reimbursement Plan provides the following concerning requests for interim rate changes: Interim rate changes reflecting increased costs occurring as a result of patient care or operating changes shall be considered only if such changes were made to comply with existing State or Federal rules, laws, or standards, and if the change in cost to the provider is at least $5000 and would cause a change of 1 percent or more in the provider's current total per diem rate. [Emphasis added]. The Department stipulated that the requirements of the Reimbursement Plan that interim rate changes involve a change in cost of at least $5,000.00 and cause a change of 1% or more have been met in this case. Interim Rate Increase. On August 23, 1989, the Controller of Covenant Care Corporation requested a Medicaid interim rate increase from the Department in University's Medicaid funding. This was the first time during 1989 that University requested an interim rate increase. University had not sought approval of an interim rate increase at any time while the surveys conducted during the first 8 months of 1989 were being conducted. Nor had the Department indicated that it would approve a rate increase as a result of its surveys, the deficiencies it found at University's facility or the acceptance of University's plan of correction. The request was reviewed by the Medicaid Cost Reimbursement Analysis section of the Department in consultation with OLC. University requested a rate increase for the $417,336.76 of additional costs incurred by University for additional staff during 1989. This resulted in an increase in per diem of $6.90 per patient day. The rate increase requested by University was very large. If approved, University would have the highest per diem patient care cost of all Medicaid approved nursing homes in the Department's District 3 where University is located. By letter dated October 19, 1989, the Department informed University that it would allow an increase in rate of $1.16 per patient day and that the additional requested increase of $5.74 was denied. The approved increase was effective August 12, 1989. The increase in rate approved by the Department was attributable to 7 new certified nursing assistant positions. The Department was confused during its review of the rate increase request and during the formal hearing of this case about the number of newly established certified nursing assistant positions and rehabilitation aide positions. The Department believed that there were only 7 new positions created. The evidence established that there were a total of 12 newly created positions: 5 rehabilitation aide positions (which were filled by 5 existing certified nursing assistants) and 7 new certified nursing assistant positions. The 7 new certified nursing assistant positions and the 5 certified nursing assistant positions which were vacated by employees filling the 5 new rehabilitation aide positions were filled by new employees. The amounts expended by University for these 5 new rehabilitation aide positions were included with the amounts expended for the 7 new certified nursing assistant positions. I. Standard Imposed by the Department. During the period of time at issue in this proceeding, University's facility met the nursing staff requirements of Rule 10D-29, Florida Administrative Code. The nursing staff requirements of Rule 10D-29, however, are minimum requirements. Nursing home facilities may have to provide nursing staff in excess of the requirements of Rule 10D-29 in order to provide proper resident care. The Department informed University, as a result of the surveys conducted by OLC during 1989, that residents at University's facility were not receiving adequate care. The Department indicated on a number of occasions that inadequate care was being provided because of "insufficient staff." The Department did not, however, inform University specifically that it needed to add staff positions at its facility. When used by OLC, the terms "insufficient staff" can mean that a facility has an insufficient number of employees assigned and hired to work on shifts. "Insufficient staff" may also mean that, although a sufficient number of employees have been assigned and hired to work on shifts, the employees are not properly carrying out their tasks. In the latter instance, required tasks may not be carried out because an insufficient number of the employees who were scheduled to be present were actually at work or because those present were simply not working adequately. When the Department uses the terms "insufficient staff" to mean that an insufficient number of employees were assigned and hired, then it would be appropriate to hire additional staff. When the Department uses the terms "insufficient staff" to mean that required tasks are not being carried out because an insufficient number of employees were present or because those employees present were simply not working adequately, then it would not be appropriate to hire additional staff. In this case the Department did not consistently inform University what it meant by "insufficient staff." In some instances (i.e., the May Survey Statement) the Department did clearly indicate that it meant that, although a sufficient number of employees were assigned and hired to work, an insufficient number of employees actually were at work. On other occasions, however, this was not the clearly expressed intent. The Department's determination that University needed to improve the quality of the care it was providing to its residents and its use of the terms "insufficient staff" were reasonably interpreted by University to mean that University had an insufficient number of employees scheduled to provide the care required by the Department. Therefore, it was reasonable for University to conclude that it needed to increase its staff to some extent to meet the standards imposed upon it by the Department. This finding of fact is consistent with the Department's determination that an interim rate increase based upon an additional 7 certified nursing assistant positions established at University's facility should be granted. The crucial determination in this case is a determination of the extent to which University should have reasonably added staff in response to the Department's surveys. Based upon the weight of the evidence, it was reasonable for University to establish the 5 new rehabilitation aide positions and the 7 new certified nursing assistant positions in response to the Department's findings of deficiencies during its surveys of University's facility during 1989. These positions resulted in a total increased cost of $121,919.60 and a per diem increase of $2.02. Although it may have been good health planning to establish the rehabilitation coordinator position and the 4 resident care supervisor positions, and to hire a nursing consultant and use pooled nursing staff, it was not reasonable for University to conclude that it was being required to take these steps by the Department. Therefore, University did not incur the costs associated with these staffing changes in order to "comply with existing State or Federal rules, laws, or standards " University did not reasonably rely on the Department's findings of deficiencies or any comments or actions of Department employees during 1989, in establishing the rehabilitation coordinator position or the 4 resident care supervisor positions, or in employing the nursing consultant or pooled nursing staff. The $4.88 of increased per diem and the costs associated with these positions should not be reimbursed as part of an interim rate increase.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued by the Department granting University an interim rate increase of $2.02 and denying the remaining $4.88 of interim rate increase requested by University. DONE and ENTERED this 24th day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 24th day of April, 1990. APPENDIX The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. It has been noted below which proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. University's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1. 2 3. 3 4. 4 5 and 7. 5 15 and 17-18. 6 20. 7 22. 8 Not relevant to this proceeding. 9 See 50-58. 10 24. 11 Hereby accepted. 12 27. 13 See 31. 14 See 50-58. 15 11 and 13-14. 16 Testimony is taken out of context. 17 Not supported by the weight of the evidence. 18 See 34. See 49. See 34 and hereby accepted. 21 41. 22 45 and 47. 23 34. 24-25 Hereby accepted. 26-31 Not totally supported by the weight of the evidence. See 50-58. 32 36-41. 33 Not totally supported by the weight of the evidence. See 50-58. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 1 1-2. 2 3. 3 4-6 and 9. 4 5 and hereby accepted. 5 6-7. 6 7-8. 7 Hereby accepted. 8 9. 9 10. 10 12. 11 14. 12 15. 13 16. 14 11. 15 17-18. 16 18-19. 17 Hereby accepted. 18 20. 19 21-22. 20 43. 21 34 and hereby accepted. 22 23-24. 23 25. 24 25 and 43. 25 27 and 29. 26 42 and hereby accepted. 27 34 and 45. 28 36. 29 37. 30 38. 31 39. 32 Hereby accepted. 33 39. 34 40. 35 39. 36 41. 37-38 Hereby accepted. 39 44. 40-42 Hereby accepted. 43 18-19, 29 and 51-55. 44 47-48 and 55. 45 46. 46 See 51-58. See 57. Hereby accepted. 49 47-48. Copies Furnished To: Grafton B. Wilson, II, Esquire Post Office Box 1292 Gainesville, Florida 32609 Carl Bruce Morstadt, Esquire Chief Medicaid Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6, Room 230 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of violating Rule 59S-8.005(1)(e)2, Florida Administrative Code, for administering medications or treatments in a negligent manner and subject to discipline for unprofessional conduct under Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes. If so, another issue is what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact In June 1994 Respondent was licensed as a registered nurse, holding license number RN 2740932. Respondent had been licensed as a registered nurse since 1993 and as a licensed practical nurse since 1987. Respondent's license as a registered nurse became inactive June 21, 1995 after she failed to renew it. In the fall of 1993 East Pointe Hospital hired Respondent as a charge nurse in the transitional care unit, which had recently been started. Although Respondent had only recently become licensed as a registered nurse, the hospital hired her based partly on her current licensing and partly on her previous experience as a licensed practical nurse and respiratory therapist. During the weekend of June 24-26, 1994 Respondent worked the 7:00 pm to 7:00 am shift. As a charge nurse Respondent supervised several other nurses, typically licensed practical nurses. The charge nurse and nurses whom the charge nurse supervised sometimes divided up the patients in the unit, but the charge nurse retained supervisory authority over the other nurses and always remained directly responsible for patients with more complex problems. Patient C. P. had recently been transferred to the transitional care unit from the acute care unit. On the evenings in question, C.P. was among the patients for whom Respondent was directly responsible. Several IVs were being administered the evening of June 24 and early morning of June 25. One patient was having problems with an IV pump and his veins. Respondent asked another nurse, who was under Respondent's supervision, to do the accuchecks on the other patients, including C. P. Accuchecks are finger stick glucose monitors. As was the case with C. P., physicians typically order accuchecks every six hours for patients receiving their total nutrition intravenously. The purpose of the accucheck is to ensure that the patient receiving all his nutrition intravenously does not develop low or high blood sugar, which could have very serious implications. The other nurse failed to perform the accuchecks for midnight at the start of June 25 and 6:00 am on June 25. Respondent failed to follow up to ensure that they were done. Respondent's failure to perform the required accuchecks or to check to make sure that the other nurse performed them constitutes the negligent treatment of a patient. A physician had also ordered that C. P. receive antibiotics intravenously every eight hours, at about 6:00 am, 2:00 pm, and 10:00 pm. Petitioner alleges that Respondent failed to administer two consecutive doses. However, nothing in the nurses' notes documents what would have been a material omission, and no one on the nursing staff bothered to contact the physician who had ordered the antibiotics. There is also a reasonable possibility that IV bags bearing dates and times were mixed up so as to preclude a determination of which registered nurse failed to administer IV medication, if in fact two doses of antibiotics were missed. Respondent later admitted not performing the accuchecks, but never admitted failing to administer the IV antibiotics. Petitioner has failed to prove that Respondent failed to administer the IV medications as ordered. The hospital terminated Respondent's employment shortly after the incidents involving C. P. Respondent has since held two temporary nursing jobs and has applied unsuccessfully for 12 other nursing jobs. She now lives with her mother in Virginia where she earns $100-$200 weekly in employment unrelated to nursing. C. P. suffered no injury as a result of the failure to conduct ordered accuchecks and the failure, if any, to administer the prescribed IV. Respondent has not previously been disciplined as a licensed practical nurse or registered nurse.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Nursing enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Rule 59S-8.005(1)(e), Florida Administrative Code, and Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes, for her failure to perform two accuchecks or make sure that another nurse had performed them and issuing a reprimand to Respondent. ENTERED on December 21, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 21st day of December, 1995. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-4: adopted or adopted in substance. 5: rejected as irrelevant. 6-12 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 12 (second sentence): rejected as subordinate and irrelevant. 13-15: rejected as subordinate. 16: rejected as subordinate and irrelevant. 17-18: adopted or adopted in substance. 19-21: rejected as subordinate and recitation of testimony. 22-23: rejected as irrelevant and subordinate. 24: rejected as subordinate. 25: rejected as subordinate and irrelevant. 26-28: adopted or adopted in substance. 29: rejected as irrelevant. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-3 (first sentence): adopted or adopted in substance. 3 (first sentence)-4: rejected as subordinate and irrelevant. 5-6: adopted or adopted in substance, although not as to the identify of the other nurse. 7: adopted or adopted in substance, except that the failure either to perform the accuchecks or ensure that the other nurse did is negligence. 8-14: rejected as subordinate. 15-18: adopted or adopted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Laura P. Gaffney, Senior Attorney Agency for Health Care Administration General Counsel's Office Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Robert E. Tardif, Jr. Duncan & Tardif, P.A. P.O. Drawer 249 Ft. Myers, FL 33902 Linda Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Judie Ritter, Executive Director Board of Nursing Daniel Building, Room 50 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, FL 32202
Findings Of Fact Pauline J. Brown Larach, Respondent, is licensed by the Board of Nursing as a Registered Nurse, license No. 60268-2 and was so licensed at all times here relevant. Respondent was employed by Hollywood Memorial Hospital during the period July-October, 1981, in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). At the time of her employment Respondent represented that she was qualified to work in the ICU. Hollywood Memorial Hospital sends all nurses employed through an orientation program of approximately one week before assigning them to a particular duty. Respondent went through this orientation program before she was assigned to ICU. Respondent was assigned the shift under the direct supervision of Shirley Scott, who was assistant head nurse of the ICU and was supervisor on the shift to which Respondent was assigned. Respondent's work was unsatisfactory and she was counselled several times by Scott. Specifically, Respondent was counselled about the manner in which she maintained her nurse's notes, her inability to schedule her time and duties, her inability to concentrate on a particular problem, her refusal to seek assistance when needed, and a penchant for ignoring serious problems. The following incidents gave rise to the concern about the type of care provided by Respondent to patients in the ICU: On about October 21, 1981, a neurological patient assigned to Respondent was on the drug Nipride to keep the blood pressure low. The patient had suffered intracranial hemorrhaging. The Nepride, which is considered a dangerous drug unless its administration is carefully monitored, was administered to this patient in much less than the time it should have taken for the Nipride to be infused and the patient's blood pressure dropped very low. The ICU supervising nurse discovered the patient in a severely hypertensive state and Respondent had placed the patient in a position with the head below the feet. This attitude would be correct for most patients whose blood pressure is low but was contraindicated for a neuro-patient or a patient with the history of intracranial bleeding. Although the head nurse's intervention possibly avoided further intracranial bleeding, no entry of blood pressure drop or of the emergency was placed in the nurse's notes kept by Respondent. On or about August, 1981, Respondent was observed by her shift supervisor (Scott) hiding her nurse's notes under a patient's mattress so Ms. Scott could not read them. During a "code" situation Respondent offered the doctor a cookie while he was resuscitating the patient. Respondent's nurse's notes are virtually illegible and replete with trivia and inappropriate items while failing to include pertinent information. Specifically, these nurse's notes were also found deficient in that Respondent did not chart complete systems before going to another system, but instead jumped around from items in one system to items in another and included trivia while omitting essential information about the patient. On one occasion when a patient was transferred from the emergency room to the ICU as a patient to be tended to by Respondent, who had accepted the patient by phone from the emergency room, upon arrival the patient was in dire distress and Respondent left the room. Another nurse declared a "code" emergency on this patient, but Respondent did not return to the room until after the "code" situation was ended. During a "code" situation involving one of Respondent's patients, it was discovered that she had incorrectly computed the infusion rate for the drug Dopamine, which drug is intended to raise blood pressure. Respondent's evaluations (Exhibit 1), which were prepared three months after Respondent commenced work at Hollywood Memorial Hospital, evaluated Respondent as unsatisfactory and far below the minimal standards required for acceptable nursing practices. This report followed numerous conferences with Respondent during this three-month period when the areas in which she was unsatisfactory were pointed out to her. All of the witnesses who worked with and observed Respondent in the ICU concurred that Respondent's professional competency, as observed by them, was far below minimal acceptable standards and that they would be unwilling to have Respondent assigned under them in an ICU. All expert witnesses opined that in the manner in which Respondent maintained nurse's notes, organized her work, provided care to patients, and, specifically, to react properly in an emergency situation, Respondent's performance as a nurse was far below minimal acceptable standards. At the expiration of Respondent's three-month period during which her evaluation was unsatisfactory, a conference was held between Respondent and hospital staff. At this meeting the evaluations were presented to Respondent and she was given the alternatives of voluntary resignation, transfer to a less critical area of the hospital, or termination. Respondent opted for voluntary resignation.
