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 At issue in this proceeding is whether respondent committed the offenses set forth in the administrative complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Carmalita Thomas, was licensed as a registered nurse in the State of Florida, license number RN 1329552. From November 11, 1987, to September 1988, respondent was employed as an independent contractor by Hi-Tech Medical Services, Inc., (the Agency), a comprehensive health maintenance organization. Pursuant to the terms of her employment, respondent was responsible for the Agency's pediatric program, and was to provide skilled nursing visits in homes where ill or disabled persons were receiving care from the Agency. Regarding compensation, their agreement provided: The Contractor will be paid for Agency authorized visits. The Agency will not pay nor be responsible for visits rendered or expense incurred due to the Contractor's execution of unauthorized visits. The Agency will pay the Contractor 30 days after receipt of a statement reflecting number of authorized visits rendered during the previous period at the prevailing rate of 22/27 per visit. The Contractor will prepare and submit a written clinical report for each visit in keeping with Agency policy and requirements. The Agency's written policy regarding the preparation and submittal of written clinical reports required, for verification of visits and billing purposes, that respondent, for each visit, prepare and sign a written nurses progress report. Respondent was aware of this policy, but did not consistently present such reports with her billing form by which she received her compensation. Notwithstanding such failures the Agency routinely paid respondent upon presentation of her billing form. During the period of May 23, 1988, through June 17, 1988, respondent prepared and signed four progress notes reflecting nursing care rendered to pediatric patient Jessica Metzel, and submitted a billing form to the Agency for payment at $27.00 per visit. Respondent was compensated by the Agency, who in turn billed the patient's insurance carrier for the services. While requesting and receiving payment for four visits, the proof demonstrates that respondent was only at the Metzel residence on two occasions. The first occasion was to have Jessica's father sign some paper work, and the occasion was to insure that the family was satisfied with the respiratory therapist that was treating Jessica. At no time did respondent examine or otherwise treat Jessica, and the progress notes prepared by respondent were a fabrication. Respondent also submitted billing forms to the Agency on at least two occasions, which resulted in her being compensated twice for the same working hours. More particularly, respondent billed the agency in December 1987, and was paid, for having worked from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. (3 hours) on December 21, 1987, and from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. (4 1/2 hours) on December 24, 1987. Thereafter, by separate billing, she also billed the Agency, and was paid, for services purportedly rendered from 9:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. (3 1/2 hours) on December 21, 1987, and from 10:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. (3 1/2 hours) on December 24, 1987.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of having violated the provisions of Section 464.018(1)(d) and (f), Florida Statutes, as heretofore found in the conclusions of law, and that respondent's license be suspended for 90 days, followed by a two (2) year term of probation upon such terms and conditions as the Board of Nursing deems appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of February 1991. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of February 1991.
Findings Of Fact In October 1978 Bonnie Ray Solomon Crawford, LPN was employed at the West Pasco Hospital, New Port Richey, Florida as a licensed practical nurse provided by Upjohn Company's rent-a-nurse program. On 7 October 1978 Respondent signed out at 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., and on 8 October 1973 at 8:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. for Demerol 75 mg for patient Kleinschmidt (Exhibit 2). Doctor's orders contained in Exhibit 4 shows that Demerol 50 mg was ordered by the doctor to be administered to patient Kleinschmidt as needed. Nurses Notes in Exhibit 4 for October 7, 1978 contains no entry of administration of Demerol at 10:00 a.m. and at 2:00 p.m. shows administration of 50 mg. and Phenergan 25 mg. Exhibit 3, Narcotic Record for Demerol 50 mg contains two entries at 8:15 a.m. on October 7, 1978 and one entry at 12:30 p.m. where Respondent signed out for Demerol 50 mg. for patients King, Zobrist and King in chronological order. Nurses Notes for King, Exhibit 6, and Zobrist, Exhibit 5, contain no entry that Demerol was administered to patient Zobrist at 8:15 a.m. or to patient King at 12:30 p.m. on 7 October 1978. In fact, the record for Zobrist shows that Zobrist was discharged from the hospital on October 5, 1978. Failure to chart the administration of narcotics constitutes a gross error in patient care and is not acceptable nursing practice. Similarly it is not acceptable nursing practice to withdraw narcotics not contained in doctors orders or administer medication not in doctors orders. When confronted by the Nursing Administrator at West Pasco Hospital with these discrepancies in the handling of Demerol, Respondent stated that she failed to check the identity of the patient before administering medication and that she didn't feel she should be giving medications any more. Following this confrontation with the hospital authorities, Respondent was fired for incompetency. No evidence was submitted regarding Respondent's 1975 disciplinary proceedings.
Findings Of Fact Wright is a licensed practical nurse in Florida, holding license number PN 185281. In accordance with her licensure, Wright worked as a practical nurse at Manor Care Nursing Center in Jacksonville, Florida. On January 15, 1991, patient R.B. was admitted to Manor Care for recovery from multiple factures and organic brain damage. R.B. was receiving nourishment, Jevity, through a nasogastric tube (NGT). On January 18, 1991, at approximately 5:00 p.m., R.B. removed the NGT. R.B.'s mental confusion was such that she would attempt to remove the NGT regularly and mittens were used to prevent this behavior. Wright was the nurse responsible for R.B.'s care from approximately 4:00 p.m. to midnight on January 18, 1991. She recorded R.B.'s removal of the NGT. At some point thereafter, registered nurse Rosalina Harrell came and reinserted the NGT. At 9:30 p.m., Wright's notes indicate that R.B. was coughing and that she checked the placement of the NGT. Placement is checked to insure that the tube is inserted into the stomach and not into the trachea and lungs. According to Wright's notes and testimony, she discontinued feeding to give R.B. a rest, even though the placement checks were negative, meaning that the checks did not show that the tube was in the trachea or lungs. Wright restarted the feeding of Jevity (a white liquid food supplement). At 10:30 p.m., Wright's notes showed that R.B. was coughing up "large" amounts of white frothy phlegm. Wright again held the tube feeding for a short time. Another practical nurse, Margaret Patti, came on duty to replace Wright as the nurse in charge of R.B.'s care. In discussing R.B.'s condition with Wright, Wright informed Patti that R.B. had been coughing since the tube was inserted by Harrell. Wright said she did not remove the tube because she was not sure it was indeed in the wrong place. Wright and Patti then both did one test for placement and it was negative to show that the tube was incorrectly placed . Wright then did two other tests while Patti was out of the room, but she reported to Patti that those tests were also negative. Because of the concerns expressed by Wright, Patti monitored R.B. closely after Wright left around midnight. Patti observed some coughing and white sputum between 11:30 p.m. and 2:00 a.m., January 19, 1991. Again at 2:00 a.m. Patti recorded the R.B. was coughing and there was a moderate amount of white sputum present. Then the coughing became continuous and Patti removed the NGT. At 4:00 a.m., Patti recorded that R.B.'s respirations were even and unlabored and that tube feeding remained discontinued. At 5:00 a.m., Patti was advised by the nursing assistant that R.B. had no respiration or heartbeat. Patti called the doctor at 5:40 and R.B. was dead. An autopsy revealed that R.B. had died from asphyxia due to aspiration of Jevity. The lungs were full of Jevity and the bronchioles were plugged by the soft white material. There was nothing in R.B.'s stomach. As it relates to Wright's actions that night, at no time did Wright call a supervisor, registered nurse or doctor to express concern about the placement of the NGT or to indicate the presence of coughing or a white frothy substance around R.B.'s mouth. The presence of coughing and white frothy sputum or phlegm around the mouth is a danger sign that the NGT is in the trachea instead of the stomach. The minimum standard of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice requires that a licensed practical nurse report coughing or frothiness to her supervisor or to an R.N. If the practical nurse did not place the tube, she should contact the person who did insert the tube. If no one is available, then the practical nurse should remove the tube and contact the supervisor, an R.N., or the doctor, by telephone. There is no other acceptable level of care except to stop the food immediately and then report the coughing and presence of white frothy sputum to the appropriate person. At Manor Care that night, no supervisor or R.N. was on the premises, but Wright made no attempt to reach anyone by telephone regarding the situation. Wright's failure to meet these minimum standards of care constitutes unprofessional conduct as that term is defined in Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes (1991).
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation enter a Final Order and therein: Issue a reprimand to Geraldine McNeal Wright. Place Wright on probation for six months subject to attendance at continuing education courses relative to the omissions in this case, to include a review of danger signs and appropriate responses in patients with nasogastric tubes and a refresher on the appropriate administration of procedures for checking the placement of such a tube. Impose a fine of $100. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of February, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING 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 11th day of February, 1992. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-4573 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Nursing Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1-7(1-5); 7(7); 9(12); 10(10); 11(11); 12(11); and 15(12 & 16). [Note--There are two different sets of paragraphs numbered 7, 8, and 9. A review of the actual Finding of Fact will clarify to which paragraph these specific rulings apply.] Proposed findings of fact 8, 9, 8, and 14 are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 13 and 16 are unsupported by the competent and substantial evidence. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Geraldine McNeal Wright As indicated above, Wright's proposed findings of fact are in a form which does not permit clear specific rulings. Those proposed findings of fact which are based on the documents attached to the proposed order, which were not part of the evidentiary record, are rejected. Additionally, those proposals which constitute argument are rejected. The proposed findings of fact which are consistent with the facts found herein are adopted. All other proposed findings of fact are subordinate to the facts actually found in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Faircloth Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St., Ste. 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Geraldine McNeal Wright 7925 Merrill Road, Apt. 216 Jacksonville, FL 32211 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Judie Ritter, Executive Director Board of Nursing Daniel Building, Room 50 111 E. Coastline Dr. Jacksonville, FL 32202
The Issue Whether Rule 64B8-9.009(6)(b)1.a., Florida Administrative Code, is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority pursuant to Section 120.52(8), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated Facts Section 458.331(1)(v), Florida Statutes, authorizes the Board to adopt rules establishing the standards of practice and care for particular physician practice settings. The Board is the agency that adopted Rule 64B8-9.009, Florida Administrative Code, regarding standards of care for office surgery. Petitioner, Victor Ortiz, is a Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetist (CRNA), and is licensed by the Board of Nursing pursuant to Chapter 464, Florida Statutes. Mr. Ortiz is not a member of the Florida Association of Nurse Anesthetists or the Florida Nurses Association. Mr. Ortiz provides anesthesia care to patients in various settings under the supervision of physicians licensed pursuant to Chapters 458 and 459, Florida Statutes. Among other functions, Mr. Ortiz orders preanesthetic medications; administers regional, spinal, and general anesthesia under protocol and the supervision of a physician; provides life support functions; and monitors patient condition during surgery and in the recovery room. Prior to April 15, 2002, the effective date of Rule 64B8-9.009(6)(b)1.a., Florida Administrative Code (the Rule), Mr. Ortiz administered anesthesia under the supervision of operating physicians for all types of office surgeries, including surgical procedures classified by the Board of Medicine as "level III." Mr. Ortiz provided anesthesia services to patients in level III office surgeries under the supervision of M.D. or D.O. operating physicians four or five days per week on average. The Rule requires that if the anesthesia provider is a CRNA, there must be a licensed M.D. or D.O. anesthesiologist, other than the surgeon, to provide direct supervision of the administration and maintenance of the anesthesia in level III office surgeries. Since the adoption of the Rule, the physicians for whom Mr. Ortiz previously provided anesthesia services will no longer employ him for level III office surgeries because they believe that it is unnecessary and cost-prohibitive to pay Mr. Ortiz to provide the actual anesthesia services and an anesthesiologist to directly supervise him. Consequently, Mr. Ortiz' revenues have been reduced and his office practice has been substantially and adversely affected.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Jo Ann Murphy, is a licensed registered nurse in the State of Florida, holding license number 69367-2. The Respondent received her nursing education and training in Albany, Georgia, and became a registered nurse in Florida in 1973. In 1977 she became certified by the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology as a nurse clinician. In 1981 she was certified as a clinical nurse practitioner in ambulatory gynecology and obstetric care. Until 1979, the Respondent was head nurse of OB/GYN Labor and Delivery, Postpartum Unit, at West Florida Hospital in Pensacola. From 1979 to 1983 she was office nurse and nurse practitioner in the office of Thomas H. Wyatt, M.D., in Pensacola. The Respondent became employed at University Hospital in Pensacola on April 25, 1983, primarily because of her knowledge in the field of Caesarian Sections. She was terminated less than one month later, on May 23, 1983, while still in her probationary period, for unsatisfactory nursing performance. On May 18, 1983, another registered nurse on the morning shift with the Respondent, testified that she smelled alcohol on the Respondent's breath at 7:30 A.M. Although this witness worked with the Respondent each day, this is the only time she contends that she smelled alcohol on her breath, and this witness did not see the Respondent stagger or exhibit any other symptom of alcohol use. This witness testified that the Respondent showed a lack of initiative, but that when the Respondent was told to do something she would do it well, and that she never had any concern regarding the Respondent's ability to function as a nurse. Two other hospital employees, a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) and a nurses aide, testified that they smelled alcohol on the Respondent's breath on a date unknown. The nurses aide, however, never saw the Respondent stagger, or exhibit any other sign of intoxication, and she says she only smelled alcohol on the Respondent's breath on one occasion. The LPN testified that she also saw the Respondent sitting at her desk in a daze or stupor, but this symptom was not observed or described by any other witness. Both of these witnesses worked with the Respondent each day, but only claimed to have smelled alcohol on her breath on one occasion. The Respondent denied having any alcohol to drink on or before any shift that she worked while employed at University Hospital. Her husband and her daughter confirmed that the Respondent had not consumed alcohol on the morning of May 18, 1983, before going to work. Another witness, a physician who was in the residency program at University Hospital while the Respondent worked there, had the opportunity to work in close contact with the Respondent on five or six occasions in the labor and delivery suite, and never smelled alcohol on her breath, or saw her stagger or exhibit any other sign of intoxication. This doctor found her to be alert, she performed her functions with no problems, and he had no complaints with her. The nursing director at University Hospital, who conducted the termination interview of the Respondent, observed what she characterized as red, blotchy skim on the Respondent, and the Respondent appeared to be nervous. However, this witness did not smell alcohol on the Respondent's breath, and she saw no other symptoms of alcohol use. Both the Respondent and the physician who employed her for four years confirmed the Respondent's skin blotches, but this is an inherited tendency having nothing to do with medical problems or alcohol use. The nursing director and the patient care coordinator both testified that the Respondent stated at her termination interview that she used to have an alcohol problem, but that she had been rehabilitated. The Respondent denies having made such a statement. Another physician, in addition to the one mentioned in paragraph 7 above, who was in labor and delivery with the Respondent more than ten times, and probably every day she worked at University Hospital, did not smell alcohol on her breath although they worked together closely. This witness found the Respondent's nursing abilities to be competent and very professional. Likewise, the physician who employed the Respondent for four years had no problems with her or her work, he found her prompt and attentive in her duties, and an excellent nurse. On another occasion, not specifically dated, but separate from the instances of the alleged alcohol breath, the Respondent is charged with having "defied an order to stay with a critically ill patient". The evidence is completely devoid of any explicit order given to the Respondent to stay with any patient during the time she worked at University Hospital. Instead, it is contended that the Respondent violated what are characterized as "standing orders" that a nurse should not leave a patient who has been assigned to her. These "standing orders" are supposed to have been set forth in policy manuals given to employees of the hospital, but no such manual was offered in evidence; nor was the nature of the "standing orders" explicitly described by the witnesses. On the one occasion when the Respondent is charged with defying orders to stay with a patient, the patient was being attended also by an LPN when the Respondent left to telephone the patient's physician. In the same general area, but behind the curtains of an adjoining cubicle, another registered nurse was attending a patient there. The patient whom the Respondent and the LPN attended went into deceleration after the Respondent had left to telephone her physician. The LPN needed help with the oxygen and to turn the patient. The other registered nurse in the adjoining cubicle came in and the patient was stabilized. The Respondent returned in a few minutes. It is below minimum standards of acceptable and prevailing nursing practice for a registered nurse to leave a patient, whose condition is considered critical, in the care of an LPN. Yet the patient was not in critical condition when the Respondent left to call the physician, and there was another registered nurse in close proximity who responded when the need for her arose. Thus, there is not sufficient competent evidence to support a finding of fact (1) that the Respondent either had alcohol on her breath or was in a drunken condition while on duty; (2) that the Respondent defied an order to stay with a critically ill patient; or (3) that the Respondent left a patient whose condition is considered critical in the care of an LPN. The competent evidence in the record supports a finding of fact (1) that the Respondent did not have alcohol on her breath at any time while employed at University Hospital; (2) that the Respondent did not defy an order to stay with a critically ill patient; and (3) that the Respondent did not leave a patient whose condition is considered critical in the care of an LPN.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint against the Respondent, Jo Ann Murphy, be dismissed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered this 10th day of January, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of January, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Julia P. Forrester, Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Thomas C. Staples, Esquire P. O. Box 12786 Pensacola, Florida 32575 Ms. Helen P. Keefe Executive Director, Board of Nursing Department of Professional Regulation Room 504, 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's license to practice nursing should be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined under the facts and circumstances of this case.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent Rita Flint (Flint) was a licensed practical nurse in the State of Florida, holding license number PN0655201. Flint's last known address is 6494 South West 8th Place, North Lauderdale, Florida 33068. At all times material to this proceeding Flint was employed by North Broward Medical Center (NBMC) located in Pompano Beach, Florida, as a practical nurse. On August 3, 1990, Flint was assigned to care for patients J. C. and J. K. including administering their medications and charting same on their Medication Administration Record (MAR). On August 3, 1990, J. C.'s physician prescribed one (1) nitroglycerine patch each day. Flint failed to administer the patch on this date. On August 3, 1990, J. C.'s physician prescribed 100 mg. of Norpace every six (6) hours. Flint failed to administer the 2:00 p.m. dosage of Norpace to J. C. On August 3, 1990, J. C.'s physician prescribed 120 mg. of Inderal each day. Flint failed to administer the 9:00 a.m. dosage of Inderal until 1:30 p.m. without noting any explanation on J. C.'s MAR. On August 3, 1990, Flint failed to document the administration of J. K's own medications on the MAR. On August 3, 1990, Flint failed to sign the MARs for J. C. and J. K. as required by hospital policy. On August 15, 1990, Flint left an intravenous bag with an exposed needle hanging at the bedside of a patient. On August 29, 1990, Flint was assigned to care for patient R. R. including administering his medications. Flint failed to administer the following medications leaving all of them at R. R.'s bedside: (a) Timolo (9:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. doses); (b) Mixide (9:00 a.m. dose); (c) Zantac (9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. doses); (d) Lasix (9:00 a.m. dose); and, (e) Entozyme (8:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon doses). On August 30, 1990, NBMC terminated Flint's employment as a result of the aforementioned conduct. There is no evidence that any patient suffered any actual harm as a result of Flint's errors. In September of 1990, NBMC referred Flint to the Intervention Project for Nurses. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Flint's job performance was adversely affected by long work schedules necessitated by severe financial problems. During the week of August 3, 1990, Flint worked a ninety-two-hour week. The acute financial stress was due to domestic problems including the breakup of her twenty-two-year-old marriage. Flint had no problems involving substance abuse. Flint attended individual therapy sessions with a clinical psychologist, Priscilla Marotta, Ph.D., and participated in group therapy designed primarily for persons with substance abuse problems. Flint attended weekly therapy sessions for approximately one month after which she could no longer afford treatment. Even though Flint was financially unable to continue treatment with Dr. Marotta or any other counseling program recommended by the Intervention Program for Nurses, she diligently undertook a self-help program to educate herself on stress management techniques, to develop self-reliance, and to improve self-esteem. Flint's effort to participate in therapy, to the extent financially possible, and to rehabilitate herself shows a strong commitment to her profession. Flint has been licensed to practice nursing since May 31, 1982. There is no evidence of any disciplinary action against her license prior to or after the incidents herein described. Flint is currently employed as a nurse in a hospice. Her recent performance appraisal reports indicate that, on an average, she fully meets all job requirements.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore recommended that the Board of Nursing enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 464.018(h), Florida Statutes (1989), as defined in Rule 210-10.005(1)(e)1 and Rule 210-10.005(1)(e)2, Florida Administrative Code, and not guilty of violating Section 464.018(1)(j), Florida Statutes. It is further recommended that the Board's final order: (1) place the Respondent on probation for one year subject to such requirements as the Board may require; and (2) require the Respondent to pay an administrative fine in the amount of two hundred fifty dollars ($250). DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 21st day of November 1994. SUZANNE F. HOOD, Hearing Officer 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 November 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 93-2715 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: Incorporated into Findings of Fact 1. Incorporated into Findings of Fact 2 and 11. Incorporated into Findings of Fact 4. Incorporated into Findings of Fact 5. Incorporated into Findings of Fact 6. Incorporated into Findings of Fact 7. Incorporated into Findings of Fact 8. Incorporated into Findings of Fact 9. Incorporated into Findings of Fact 10. The first sentence is incorporated into Findings of Fact 13. The remaining portion of this proposed fact is not supported by competent substantial evidence. Furthermore, Respondent's Exhibit 3, as it relates to a diagnosis of a mental condition, is hearsay which does not supplement or explain any other psychological or medical evidence. Thus, any reference in Exhibit R3 to a generalized anxiety disorder is insufficient to support Petitioner's proposed finding. Unsupported by competent substantial evidence. Unsupported by competent substantial evidence. See number 10 above. FOR THE RESPONDENT: 1. Respondent did file proposed findings of fact or conclusions of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Laura Gaffney, Esquire Natalie Duguid, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Rita Flint 3313 South East Second Street Pompano, Florida 33063 Judie Ritter Executive Director Board of Nursing AHCA 504 Daniel Building 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Harold D. Lewis General Counsel The Atrium, Suite 301 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303
