The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a practical nurse (PN) should be approved or denied.
Findings Of Fact At issue in this proceeding is the application for licensure by examination as a PN signed by Petitioner on August 6, 2012, and mailed to the Board for filing. This application will be referred to as the "August 2012 PN application." The purpose of an application for PN licensure by examination is to demonstrate that the applicant has the educational and background qualifications to be eligible to take the PN licensure examination. The Board uses the National Council Licensure Examination, commonly referred to as "NCLEX." The NCLEX is owned by the National Council of State Boards of Nursing, to which all state nursing boards, including Florida's, belong as members. There is an NCLEX for PN licensure (NCLEX-PN) and a separate NCLEX for RN licensure (NCLEX-RN). The August 2012 PN application stated that Petitioner obtained her nursing education from Lincoln Technical Institute in Fern Park, Florida, where Petitioner completed an LPN program from which she graduated on September 24, 2011. In the "examination history" section of the August 2012 PN application, Petitioner stated that she took the NCLEX-RN in Florida in November 2002 and passed. However, according to Mr. Spooner's credible testimony, Petitioner could not have taken and passed the NCLEX-RN in Florida in November 2002, as represented. The Board has no record of Petitioner ever having been approved to take the NCLEX-RN in Florida, much less having taken and received a passing score. As Mr. Spooner explained, in order for someone to take either the NCLEX-RN or the NCLEX-PN in Florida, that person must first submit an application to the Board for either RN or PN licensure by examination, and the application must be approved by the Board. If an application is approved, the Board then would send an "authorization to test" to the approved applicant. The Board would also transmit the applicant's name to the exam vendor, Pearson VUE, on a list identifying the applicant as eligible to take either the NCLEX-RN or the NCLEX-PN. Following the examination, the results would be transmitted by the exam vendor directly to the Board. In a section of the August 2012 PN application called "applicant background," Petitioner was asked a series of "yes-no" questions, asking whether she had "ever applied for" any of the following: RN licensure by examination in Florida; PN licensure by examination in Florida; RN licensure by endorsement in Florida; or PN licensure by endorsement in Florida. Petitioner did not answer either yes or no to any of these questions about prior applications in Florida. The "applicant background" section also asked Petitioner whether she has ever been licensed in Florida as an RN or a PN. Petitioner indicated that she had been licensed in Florida as an RN. Petitioner was required to list all nursing licenses she has held; and for any licenses that were no longer active, Petitioner was instructed to "state why and when" the license became no longer active. Petitioner listed her Florida RN license and offered the following as to why and when that license became no longer active: "lack of accreditation of the school (07-2007)." Evidence at hearing established that in the August 2012 PN application, Petitioner should have disclosed the following prior nursing applications filed in Florida: in May 2006, Petitioner applied for RN licensure by endorsement (May 2006 RN application); in October 2008, Petitioner applied for RN licensure by examination (October 2008 RN application); in January 2009, Petitioner applied for RN licensure by examination (January 2009 RN application); and in October 2011, Petitioner applied for PN licensure by examination (October 2011 PN application). The May 2006 RN application resulted in the issuance of an RN license to Petitioner. This was the RN license that Petitioner listed on the August 2012 PN application. However, the RN license was not rendered inactive for the reason stated by Petitioner ("lack of accreditation of the school"). Instead, the May 2006 RN application contained false information, misrepresenting that Petitioner graduated in 2002 from an ADN (associate degree in nursing) program at Laramie County Community College in Wyoming; that Petitioner had taken and passed the RN licensure exam in Wyoming in November 2002; and that in December 2002, the Wyoming Board of Nursing issued an RN license to Petitioner. Submitted with the May 2006 RN application was a falsified license verification form completed by someone identified as the director of Wyoming's Board of Nursing, verifying that Petitioner held an active RN license in Wyoming and providing the license number ostensibly corresponding to Petitioner's Wyoming RN license. The May 2006 RN application contained accurate personal information about Petitioner, including her social security number, date of birth, and her mother's maiden name. Some of the personal information was wrong, such as Petitioner's birth place. Petitioner's Orlando, Florida, home address was a bit garbled-- the street number and name were correct, but "Parkway" was left off of the street name and was, instead, put into the space for the city (so that the city was identified as Parkway instead of Orlando). However, the zip code was correct, so despite the garbled address in the application form, the Board got the address straightened out and was able to correspond with Petitioner about the application during its processing. Petitioner described the background leading up to the May 2006 RN application. Petitioner was born in Haiti. She said that she was a nurse in Haiti before moving to Florida. Petitioner offered no details regarding any formal education received or regulatory approvals to practice nursing held in Haiti. There was no evidence establishing when Petitioner moved to Florida, except that it was sometime before 2002. Once in Florida, she sought to take the steps needed to be allowed to practice nursing in Florida. Petitioner testified that based on her "accreditation" from her country, she was allowed to take an "online program" of some kind offered by the International School of Nursing, which she described as based in Wyoming, with "school" branches in Hallandale, Florida, and Nigeria. According to Petitioner, she successfully completed the online program in 2002; she understood that the purpose of the program was to allow her to "sit for the exam here in Florida." Petitioner testified that her online school took "them" (presumably Petitioner and other students) to Miami, Florida, to "the exam" in 2002. When asked what exam she took, Petitioner testified as follows: "When I go in the computer it says NCLEX, NCLEX exam."1/ Petitioner said that someone at the online school called her to tell her that she passed the exam, but she never saw the results. Petitioner said that she was told by the online school that she could not get a nursing license until she paid the school the rest of the money she owed for the online program. Petitioner testified that she paid off the debt between 2002 and 2006, at which point the school prepared the May 2006 RN application and filed it for Petitioner. Petitioner's testimony was not forthright about the May 2006 RN application. Petitioner claimed that she had no knowledge whatsoever about the contents of the May 2006 RN application, because the application was handled entirely by the online school. At first, Petitioner claimed that all she knew was that the school submitted the application for her, and the next thing she knew, she received her license. She claimed that she did not question the license when it appeared, because she thought she qualified for the license. However, Petitioner ultimately admitted that she was involved in the application process, because the Board corresponded with her at her home address and Petitioner responded to the Board's requests. The Board wrote to Petitioner to confirm receipt of her RN "endorsement application," but noted that she had omitted the filing fee; the filing fee was then paid by Petitioner. The Board then wrote to Petitioner to confirm receipt of the filing fee payment, but noted that Petitioner needed to get fingerprinted and have the fingerprint cards submitted for a background check; Petitioner followed those instructions. Petitioner admitted that she did not go to nursing school at a community college in Wyoming, did not take the NCLEX-RN in Wyoming, and never held an RN license in Wyoming. Petitioner denied signing the May 2006 RN application and noted that the signature is not even her name. Indeed, with the benefit of that testimony, if one stares at the signature long enough, the cursive scrawl takes on the appearance of the name of the street where Petitioner lives. However, the scrawled signature is far from legible; the letters are not distinct. At a quick glance, one could just as reasonably discern something approximating Petitioner's first initial and last name, instead of the name of Petitioner's street; those two alternatives are about the same length and end in the same letters ("on"). For someone expecting to see Petitioner's name and not studying the signature with the benefit of Petitioner's testimony, it is not so obvious that the signature is not Petitioner's name. Petitioner did not directly accuse someone from the online school of taking it upon himself or herself to submit for Petitioner a fraudulent application for RN licensure by endorsement without Petitioner's knowledge or permission, but that was the implication of Petitioner's testimony claiming that she had no idea what was in the May 2006 RN application. Petitioner's testimony is difficult to credit, especially since Petitioner did not identify who would have done such a thing or what that person's motive could possibly have been. Moreover, Petitioner's claimed ignorance of the application is not borne out by the evidence. At the very least, Petitioner knew that an application for RN licensure by endorsement was filed in her name, because she received the Board's letters acknowledging receipt of her "endorsement application," and she actively participated in the processing of that application by responding to the Board's requests. An application for licensure by endorsement means that the applicant has an active license in another state, which was obtained after the applicant took and passed that state's licensure examination, either the NCLEX or the State Board test pool. Thus, Petitioner knew, or certainly should have known, that she was not eligible for RN licensure by endorsement because she did not hold an RN license in another state. See § 464.009, Fla. Stat. (2006)(addressing the requirements for RN or PN licensure by endorsement). As Petitioner acknowledged, applicants for nursing licenses in Florida are required to know the licensure laws and rules. Despite not qualifying under Florida law for RN licensure by endorsement, Petitioner accepted the RN license issued by the Board on the basis of the falsified May 2006 RN application and practiced as an RN for several months. In early 2007, the Board received a "fraud list" from the National Council of State Boards of Nursing, identifying names of possible fraudulent applicants. As a result, the Board investigated Petitioner's May 2006 RN application. Using the Wyoming online licensure-look-up tool, the Board searched for Petitioner and found no nursing license history, a fact later confirmed to the Board in an affidavit from a Wyoming Board of Nursing representative. Using the same tool, the Board searched the records by the license number identified in the license verification form filed with Petitioner's May 2006 RN application. The results of that search showed that the license number did not correspond to an active RN license issued to Petitioner following successful examination in Wyoming. Instead, the license number corresponded to an RN license by endorsement that had been issued to a different person, not Petitioner, but that had expired in 2004. The Board's investigation also confirmed that the person identified as the director of Wyoming's Board of Nursing, who completed Petitioner's license verification form, was not the Wyoming Board of Nursing's director. On June 22, 2007, the Department of Health (Department) issued an emergency suspension order (ESO), suspending Petitioner's RN license. The ESO contained a detailed recitation of the facts regarding the May 2006 RN application, including the fact that it was an application for RN licensure by endorsement, which required verification that Petitioner held an active RN license in another state and that to address this requirement, a license verification form attested to Petitioner's RN license in Wyoming. The ESO set forth the results of the Board's investigation, by which it determined that the May 2006 RN application contained material misrepresentations and was supported by a falsified license verification form. The ESO concluded that because Petitioner's RN license was procured by knowing misrepresentations, when the actual facts showed that Petitioner was not qualified for the license issued to her, it was necessary to immediately suspend Petitioner's license. Petitioner did not contest the ESO. Petitioner testified that she did not fight the ESO, because she had no money to hire a lawyer. However, Petitioner also admitted that she did not have grounds to fight it, because she did not, in fact, qualify for RN licensure by endorsement. The Department issued an administrative complaint against Petitioner's RN license based on the same allegations as in the ESO. In lieu of further proceedings on the administrative complaint, Petitioner agreed to voluntarily relinquish her RN license, which the Board accepted by Final Order rendered December 24, 2007. As with the ESO, Petitioner attempted to explain her choice not to contest this action as a financial decision. However, Petitioner ultimately conceded that she could not have successfully fought to retain her RN license that she received by endorsement, because she was not qualified for licensure by endorsement. Petitioner claimed to not understand until sometime recently, when the Board sent her a copy of the May 2006 RN application, that fraudulent information and documentation were submitted to enable her to obtain an RN license. Petitioner claimed to have been "shocked" when she saw the application. Petitioner's testimony in this regard was not credible. Petitioner may have failed to previously obtain a copy of the application that she knew was submitted in her name. However, at least by mid-2007, Petitioner was informed, with great specificity set forth in the ESO and administrative complaint, of each aspect of false information and falsified documentation that the Board found in connection with her May 2006 RN application. Petitioner knew, from the ESO and administrative complaint, that her application for RN licensure by endorsement could only be approved if there was evidence that she had an active RN license in another state. Petitioner knew, from the ESO and administrative complaint, that her application was submitted with a falsified license verification form attesting to the RN license she supposedly held in Wyoming, when Petitioner knew she never had any such license. Although Petitioner denied completing and signing the May 2006 RN application, she admitted that she completed, signed, and filed the other applications enumerated in Finding of Fact 9, above. The October 2008 RN application was an application for licensure by examination by which Petitioner sought permission to take the NCLEX-RN. To demonstrate that she qualified for the educational requirements for RN licensure by examination, Petitioner reported that she had graduated in 2002 from an ADN program at the International Nursing School in Hallandale, Florida. This was the online school previously described as the International School of Nursing. The October 2008 RN application stated that Petitioner took the RN licensure exam in Florida in November 2002 and passed. As previously noted, Mr. Spooner credibly testified that Petitioner could not have taken the NCLEX-RN in Florida without first applying for RN licensure by examination, obtaining Board approval, and receiving an authorization to test from the Board, which she did not do before November 2002 (or at any other time). On October 31, 2008, the Board notified Petitioner that it was unable to approve her application for examination, because the school attended by Petitioner for the ADN program did not offer a Board-approved program of nursing education. Petitioner's January 2009 RN application was another attempt to obtain Board approval to sit for the NCLEX-RN. This application identified a different nursing school attended for Petitioner's nursing education. According to the application, Petitioner completed the ADN program at Valencia Community College, in Orlando, Florida, graduating on July 1, 2008. However, contrary to the application's representation, Petitioner did not "graduate" from an ADN program; instead, Petitioner took an online continuing education course called "RN Refresher 1" and received a certificate of participation on July 1, 2008. The January 2009 RN application also represented that Petitioner had taken and passed the RN licensure exam in Florida in May 2008. At hearing, Petitioner did not attempt to explain this reference, nor was there any other evidence to suggest that Petitioner took and passed the NCLEX-RN in Florida in May 2008 (or at any other time). Once again, the Board notified Petitioner that her January 2009 RN application could not be approved, because Petitioner failed to demonstrate that she met the educational qualifications necessary for RN licensure by examination. The Board noted that Petitioner's continuing education participation certificate was not adequate to meet the educational requirements for RN licensure. At hearing, Petitioner attempted to cast blame on staff persons at the Board who fielded her telephone calls asking how she could get relicensed following her relinquishment of the RN license. Petitioner testified that unnamed persons told her either that she needed to go back to school; or that she needed to go to an accredited school; or that all she needed to do was to take a refresher course. Petitioner's unsubstantiated testimony did not help establish that Petitioner's August 2012 PN application should be approved. In any event, the suggestion that Petitioner was told a refresher course was sufficient to meet educational requirements for RN licensure is rejected as lacking credibility. Petitioner may have been told that she had to graduate from a Board-approved ADN program to apply for RN licensure, which would explain why Petitioner represented in her January 2009 RN application that she graduated from an ADN program. However, as Petitioner admitted, she was never told that she should misrepresent the facts on her applications. After Petitioner's unsuccessful attempts to apply for RN licensure, Petitioner changed course and enrolled in a Board-approved PN program at Lincoln Technical Institute in Fern Park, Florida. She completed the program in September 2011, and then submitted the October 2011 PN application, seeking Board approval to sit for the NCLEX-PN. In the October 2011 PN application, Petitioner answered "no" to the question asking whether she had ever applied for RN licensure by examination in Florida (despite two prior applications), but Petitioner answered "yes" to the question asking whether she ever applied for RN licensure by endorsement in Florida, acknowledging the May 2006 RN application. Petitioner identified the RN license she received in 2007, but in response to the query, "[i]f no longer licensed, state why and when," she falsely stated that the "license expired." In the examination history section of the October 2011 PN application, Petitioner stated that she took and passed the NCLEX-RN exam in Wyoming, in February of either 2002 or 2006 (both years are written on top of each other; it appears that 2006 was written first, and then was changed to 2002, although it could be the other way around). The October 2011 PN application was considered by the Board at a public meeting in February 2012. Petitioner appeared and testified, although she said that she was not given enough time to explain about the May 2006 RN application and the relinquishment of her RN license. The Board issued a notice of intent to deny the October 2011 PN application based on misrepresentations in the application.2/ The Board referred to the fraudulent May 2006 RN application and relinquishment of Petitioner's RN license (contrary to the application's representation that Petitioner's RN license had expired). The Board also referred to the application's statement that Petitioner took and passed the NCLEX-RN in Wyoming in 2002, which was contrasted with Petitioner's testimony before the Board, when she "testified both that she did and did not take the NCLEX-RN in Wyoming." Petitioner did not request a DOAH administrative hearing to dispute the facts in the Board's notice of intent to deny the October 2011 PN application. Instead, Petitioner took the option offered in the Board's notice for an informal hearing before the Board "[i]f you do not dispute any material fact[.]" That hearing was held at a public meeting of the Board on June 7, 2012, but Petitioner did not appear. By Final Order rendered June 20, 2012, the Board denied the October 2011 PN application. The Final Order summarized the reasons previously recited in the notice of intent to deny, including the fact that the May 2006 RN application was fraudulent and resulted in the relinquishment of Petitioner's RN license, and including Petitioner's testimony before the Board in February 2012 that she did not sit for the NCLEX-RN in Wyoming as represented in the October 2011 PN application. The Final Order concluded that Petitioner "is in violation of Section 456.072(1)(f) and (h) and 464.018(1)(a) by attempting to obtain or obtaining a nursing license by bribery, misrepresentation or deceit." As authorized by sections 464.018(2) and 456.072(2), Florida Statutes (2011), the Board denied Petitioner's application. The August 2012 PN application repeated the same essential problems as the October 2011 PN application, which was denied by Final Order. Petitioner again misrepresented the reason why her Florida RN license was no longer active, although this time, instead of saying that the RN license had expired, Petitioner changed her response to "lack of accreditation of the school." Petitioner again misrepresented her NCLEX examination history, although this time, instead of saying that she took and passed the RN licensure examination in Wyoming in February 2002 or 2006, Petitioner said that she took and passed the RN licensure examination in Florida in November 2002. Petitioner was given the chance to explain the inconsistencies apparent from a side-by-side review of the applications she acknowledged having prepared and filed. Petitioner offered no explanation. The implication of the unexplained inconsistencies is that Petitioner intentionally gave false answers out of fear that the Board would deny her applications if the true answers were given and that Petitioner kept changing her false answers out of hope that a different (false) answer would lead the Board to approve the application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Board of Nursing, enter a final order denying Petitioner, Rose Fenelon's, application for practical nurse licensure by examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of March, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR 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 25th day of March, 2013.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to reinstatement of his license as a registered nurse in the State of Florida.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a nurse licensed by the Florida Board of Nursing, having nursing license number RN 2651872. On June 3, 1998, an Administrative Complaint was filed against Petitioner in Case No. 1998-00739, asserting that Petitioner engaged in unprofessional conduct in violation of Section 464.018(1)(8), Florida Statutes. The parties entered into a Settlement Agreement and on March 3, 2000, a Final Order was filed by the Board of Nursing approving the Settlement Agreement and imposing one year of probation. Pursuant to an Order to Show Cause, Petitioner appeared before the Board of Nursing in August 2000. By Order filed September 25, 2000, the Board of Nursing extended Petitioner's probation for six months and required him to obtain an evaluation coordinated by the Intervention Project for Nurses (IPN) within six months. On approximately March 29, 2002, an Administrative Complaint was filed against Petitioner in Case No. 2001-12091, alleging that Petitioner had engaged in unprofessional conduct in violation of Section 464.018(1)(h), Florida Statutes, and violated the terms of the Final Order in Case No. 1998-00739, in violation of Section 456.072(1)(q), Florida Statutes. On October 28, 2003, the Board of Nursing entered a Final Order with respect to Case No. 2001-12091. The Final Order reprimanded Petitioner; suspended Petitioner's license for a period of three years; required him to undergo an evaluation coordinated by PRN; and imposed a $1,000.00 administrative fine. Specifically, the Final Order provided: The license of Hubert H. Herring is hereby reprimanded. The licensee, Hubert H. Herring, is suspended for three (3) years and thereafter until she/he personally appears before the Board and can demonstrate the present ability to engage in the safe practice of nursing. That demonstration shall include at least an in-depth psychological evaluation coordinated through the Intervention Project for Nurses, with an MMPI or other appropriate testing from a psychiatrist, psychologist, or other licensed mental health counselor experienced in the treatment of addiction. The licensee shall supply a copy of this Order to the evaluator. The evaluation must contain evidence that the evaluator knows of the reason for referral. The evaluator must specifically advise this Board that the licensee is presently able to engage in the safe practice of nursing or recommend the conditions under which safe practice could be attained. The licensee must also submit prior to appearance before the Board a reentry plan, proof of continued treatment and counseling if recommended in the psychological evaluation, and demonstration of two years of documented continuous drug free/alcohol free living. The Board reserves the right to impose reasonable conditions of reinstatement at the time the licensee appears before the Board to demonstrate her/his present ability to engage in the safe practice of nursing. Petitioner appealed the Final Order and on January 28, 2005, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed the Final Order in Case No. 1D03-5084. The mandate of the district court issued February 15, 2005. See Herring v. Department of Health, 891 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). No stay of the penalty was sought during the pendency of the appeal. On November 18, 2004, the Department of Health filed an Administrative Complaint against Petitioner in Case No. 2004- 01520, alleging a violation of the Final Order in Case No. 2001- 12901. On or about June 29, 2005, the Board of Nursing filed a Final Order in Case No. 2004-01520, revoking Petitioner's license. Petitioner appealed this Final Order. The Department of Health requested the First District Court of Appeal to relinquish jurisdiction to the Board of Nursing because the penalty of revocation was outside the Board's disciplinary guidelines. The Court granted the Motion to Relinquish Jurisdiction and on January 10, 2006, the Board vacated the Final Order revoking Petitioner's license. On that same day, the Board issued a new Final Order in Case No. 2004- 01520, that reprimanded Petitioner's license; fined him $250 and imposed investigative costs of $1,592.21; and suspended Petitioner's license until he made payment of the fine and costs of the most recent Final Order and "demonstrates compliance with each and every term of the Final Order in Case No. 2001-12091 filed on October 28, 2003." On February 20, 2006, the First District Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot in light of the vacation of the Final Order being appealed. Petitioner has not been authorized to practice nursing in the State of Florida since October 28, 2003, some four and a half years ago. No evidence was presented at hearing to show whether Petitioner has attended continuing education courses during this time or taken any steps to keep his nursing skills and knowledge up to date. Petitioner submitted the deposition of Dr. Bernard, a physician with whom he worked prior to the suspension of his license. He also presented the testimony of Karen Clark, the staffing coordinator at Tandem Rehabilitation Center. Ms. Clark served in that capacity from December 2002 through August 2004, and knew Mr. Herring during her employment there. According to her testimony, Mr. Herring was a nursing supervisor and was still employed at Tandem when she left in August 2004. She considered him a good, "team player" employee.1/ No testimony was presented, however, regarding his current ability to practice with reasonable skill and safety. Mr. Herring petitioned the Board for reinstatement of his license. His re-entry plan "is simple, to go back to work and provide for my family." He submitted information showing he had paid his fines, renewed his license, and sought evaluation from IPN providers. He stated, however, that he could not and would not be involved with IPN, both because of cost and what he considered to be "extreme prejudice" to him. Two evaluations from IPN providers were presented to the Board of Nursing. The first, prepared by Dr. Selah of the Center for Medicine and Psychiatry, Inc., indicates that in Dr. Selah's view, Petitioner was not safe to practice nursing with reasonable skill and safety. The second, prepared by Dr. Judy Rivenbark, stated that Petitioner would be safe to practice nursing only if he obtained therapy, entered into and complied with an IPN contract and demonstrated that he was current and up to date on his nursing skills. Although considered by the Board of Nursing, no testimony was presented at hearing from either professional. The Board considered his request and on December 27, 2006, entered an Order on Petition for Reinstatement denying his request.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered denying Petitioner's request for reinstatement of his nursing license. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of April, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 April, 2008.
The Issue Whether Petitioner’s application for licensure as a Certified Nursing Assistant should be approved or denied.
Findings Of Fact This cause was scheduled for hearing for August 27, 2014, at the City Hall, 2nd Floor Conference Room, 501 West Meadow Street, Leesburg, Florida, at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time. The Notice of Hearing was sent to the Petitioner's last known address of record at 3423 Southwinds Cove Way, Leesburg, Florida 34748, notifying the Petitioner of the hearing on the above date, time, and place. There was no communication from the Petitioner by motion, letter, telephonically, or otherwise indicating that the Petitioner had any difficulty which might prevent her attending the hearing at the noticed date, time, and place. Upon convening the hearing, the Petitioner failed to appear. A substantial period of time was allowed to elapse, (forty minutes) in which the undersigned and the Respondent's counsel waited for the Petitioner to appear to put on her case. Additionally, the undersigned and Respondent's counsel did observe within the building at the hearing site and in the immediate environs of the building to see if the Petitioner was observed in the vicinity of the hearing site. The Petitioner was not observed in the environs of the hearing site and never appeared at the hearing during the additional time allowed for her appearance. More than three weeks have elapsed since the hearing date, and there has been no communication from the Petitioner with the undersigned, and no indication from the Respondent that any communication from the Petitioner has been received by the Respondent, which might explain the Petitioner's absence from the noticed hearing. Petitioner applied for a license as a CNA. A Notice of Intent to Deny was issued by the Board on April 21, 2014. Petitioner was convicted of misdemeanor theft and attempted child endangerment in 2002. In her request for hearing, Petitioner did not dispute the convictions. The application for CNA licensure contained the following question: Have you EVER been convicted of, or entered a plea of guilty, nolo contendere, or no contest to, a crime in any jurisdiction other than a minor traffic offense? You must include all misdemeanors and felonies even if adjudication was withheld. [emphasis added]. Petitioner answered the above question “No”. Petitioner’s negative answer to the above question was untruthful.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of DENISE STRALKA for licensure as a certified nursing assistant be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of September, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of September, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Lee Ann Gustafson, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 (eServed) Denise Stralka 3423 Southwinds Cove Way Leesburg, Florida 34748 Joe Baker, Jr., Executive Director Department of Health, Division of Medical Quality Assurance Boards/Councils 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Lavigna A. Kirkpatrick, BS, RN, Chair Department of Health, Division of Medical Quality Assurance Boards/Councils 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Jennifer A. Tschetter, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Respondent should take final action to deny Petitioner's application for licensure as a practical nurse on the grounds set forth in Respondent's Notice of Intent to Deny.
Findings Of Fact Background On May 1, 2011, Petitioner graduated from Southeastern Community College (West Burlington, Iowa) with a certificate in Practical Nursing (PN). Thereafter, Petitioner received a passing score on the Iowa PN licensure examination, and was issued an Iowa PN license on June 13, 2012. Although both he and his wife hail from Iowa, Petitioner desired to relocate to Florida and seek employment as a practical nurse. In pursuit of that goal, Petitioner submitted an application for PN licensure by endorsement on October 19, 2012. Petitioner’s Criminal History Prior to submitting the Florida application, Petitioner had run afoul of the law on three occasions, only two of which are relevant to the application at issue. On May 10, 2007, Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to misdemeanor battery in Henderson County, Illinois. As a result of this plea, Petitioner was sentenced to two years of supervision and was required to complete anger management counseling. At the request of the Florida Board of Nursing (Board), Petitioner provided a written account of the circumstances surrounding the battery charge as follows: I had just gotten married and my wife and I were out celebrating her birthday at a club. A bouncer came to me and said that the person I had came in with was being bothered by someone else and that I should go check on her. I got my wife and we were in the process of leaving along with the rest of our group. The person bothering my wife continued talking and fussing. As I turned my back to leave, the person grabed [sic] me by the shoulder and lunged at my wife. In reaction I instinctively protected my wife feeling that she was in danger. Everyday since then this has haunted me. If I had taken a different path I would not be writing you this letter today. I feel I have learned the hard lesson from this mistake. I completed the requirements of the court for this along with my own self evaluation of life of how better to handle the situation or avoid them all together. Petitioner’s unrebutted testimony at hearing regarding the circumstances of the battery incident was consistent with his written account above, and is found to be credible. Henderson County court records reflect that Petitioner was accused of striking the person who had been bothering his wife “in the face with his fist.” On July 27, 2011, Petitioner was charged with driving under the influence, also in Henderson County, Illinois. On August 30, 2011, Petitioner entered a plea of guilty to the misdemeanor charge. In his written submission to the Board, Petitioner explained the circumstances surrounding this incident as follows: Regarding my DUI, I had just finished my semester for LPN. I was out celebrating with some classmates. I was pulled over because my oversized tires went over the white line. I was arrested for DUI. I went to the states attorney and explained my situation. He informed me that he would allow me to have court supervision if I pled guilty and pay a hefty fine. My lawyer informed me that this was not a reasonable means for stopping me, but since I had already talked to the states attorney, he informed me that it would not be wise to fight this case because I had already spoke with the states attorney and gave a verbal agreement of what I agreed to do. I have completed all of my classes, I am still paying monthly on my fine, which will be finished this year. I have learned my lesson from this situation. As a nurse I have a high standard to uphold to help people get better and by drinking and driving I was endangering many lives which is the opposite of my civic, humanitarian and the basic oath I took when I decided to become a nurse. Petitioner’s unrebutted testimony at hearing regarding the circumstances of the DUI charge was consistent with his written account above, and is found to be credible. As a result of his guilty plea, Petitioner was ordered to pay a fine and attend a substance abuse class, which he successfully completed. Petitioner’s Application Respondent introduced a copy of Petitioner’s “Initial Application for Licensure” which was submitted by Petitioner through the Board’s online website. The online application contains the following question: Criminal History Have you ever been convicted of, or entered a plea of guilty, nolo contender, or no contest to, a crime in any jurisdiction other than a minor traffic offense?2/ Your answer: NO At hearing, Petitioner testified that although he carefully reviewed his application before submitting it, he did not intend to answer the above question in the negative, and that “he made a mistake” when he did so. On cross-examination Petitioner confirmed that he read and understood the Affirmation Statement at the end of the application, and that he affirmed that the information he provided was true and correct. There is no question that Petitioner provided a false response on his application regarding his criminal history. However, the evidence of record does not support a finding that the false statement was intentional. At hearing, Petitioner presented as an articulate, intelligent, and well-educated individual. Petitioner had also successfully undergone the PN application process in Iowa, and was therefore familiar with the application review process. As such, it is reasonable to infer that Petitioner was aware that the information he provided on his application would be verified by Board personnel. This makes it increasingly unlikely that Petitioner intentionally falsified his application, since he could have no reasonable expectation of successfully perpetrating a fraud on the Board. Petitioner was notified by correspondence dated November 10, 2012, that he was required to provide information concerning his criminal history. As noted, it was not until after the notification that Petitioner provided explanations regarding his criminal charges to the Board. Petitioner included several letters of reference with his application to the Board. One of those letters was from his former employer in Iowa, Wayland Mennonite Home Association. In that letter, the facility’s director of nursing wrote: December 4, 2012 To Whom it may Concern: Hosea Pratt has been employed as a licensed practical nurse, at Parkview Home, Wayland, Iowa. He started employment September 11, 2012. Our pre-employment criminal background evaluation revealed a court proceeding regarding the suspension of his Iowa driver’s license. There was no disposition on this case and Iowa Department of Human Services ruled this did not preclude him from practicing nursing. He had a valid Iowa driver’s license at the time of hire. Hosea functioned independently as a night shift charge nurse. He assisted with orientation of new nursing staff. He completed assigned tasks during his scheduled shift. He proved to be a thoughtful young man, who demonstrated kindness towards our residents. He had good assessment skills and excellent computer technical abilities. He would be welcomed back to work in this facility. On April 9, 2013, the Board informed Petitioner that it intended to deny his Florida application. Petitioner thereafter challenged the intended denial of his application, and the instant proceeding ensued.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board of Nursing issue a final order approving Petitioner's pending application for licensure as a practical nurse without conditions. However, should the Board determine that approval with conditions is warranted, a one-year probationary period is recommended. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of October, 2013.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Second Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalties that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Respondent, Diahann James, held license numbered 1266532 as a registered nurse (RN) and held license numbered 36309-1 as a practical nurse (PN). Both of these licenses had been issued to Respondent by Petitioner and entitled Respondent to engage in the practice of nursing within the scope of her licensure in the State of Florida. Respondent's RN license was, at the time of the formal hearing, suspended following Petitioner's order of suspension entered December 13, 1990. This suspension was based on Respondent's alleged failure to comply with the terms of her previously established probation. Respondent's PN license has been on an inactive status since April 1, 1983. Respondent has until April 1, 1993, to seek reactivation of her PN license pursuant to Rule 210-14.005(1), Florida Administrative Code. Unless reactivated, her PN license will permanently expire after April 1, 1993. On February 15, 1985, Respondent's RN license was suspended pursuant to an order entered by the Board of Nursing (Board) as the disposition of the Department of Professional Regulation's (DPR) Administrative Complaint Number 0051651. On June 23, 1986, Respondent's RN license was conditionally reinstated pursuant to an order of the board, contingent upon Respondent's submission of a favorable psychological evaluation. On August 11, 1986, Respondent submitted a satisfactory psychological evaluation and her license was reinstated effective August 27, 1986. Upon reinstatement, Respondent's RN license was placed on probation for a period of two years subject to specific terms and conditions. Respondent did not submit the quarterly reports required by the terms of her probation and the Board filed a complaint with DPR against Respondent on April 22, 1988, based on her failure to comply with the terms of her probation. On October 18, 1988, DPR filed Administrative Complaint 0098524 against Respondent based on the complaint the Board had filed on April 22, 1988. On April 1, 1989, Respondent's RN license 1266532 became inactive due to Respondent's failure to apply for renewal. In May 1989, Respondent applied for reactivation of her RN license. Accompanying this application was an affidavit that Respondent had executed on April 3, 1989. This affidavit affirmed that she had earned the continuing education hours during 1987-89 to meet the requirements set by DPR for renewal of her license. At the Board's request, Respondent submitted copies of continuing education certificates from Psycho- Awareness Continuing Education Provider as documentation that she had met the continuing education requirements as represented by her affidavit dated April 3, 1989. The continuing education certificates submitted by Respondent had been altered to reflect her participation and attendance at these continuing education programs in 1988. Respondent attended these programs not in 1988 (which would have met the continuing education requirements), but in 1986 (which would not meet the continuing education requirements). The affidavit Respondent signed on April 3, 1988, was false, and the certificates she submitted in support of that affidavit were altered. Respondent's submitted continuing education certificates were deemed to be forgeries by the Board. On June 23, 1989, Respondent was advised that her continuing education certificates were unacceptable, that her license remained on an inactive status, and that she was not entitled to work as a nurse. In July 1989, Respondent worked as a registered nurse at Cedars Medical Center, Miami, Florida. Respondent did not inform the Board's probation supervisor of her employment at Cedars Medical Center, even though the terms of her probation required her to do so. Respondent answered "no" on the Cedars Medical Center employment application to the question of whether her license had ever been revoked, suspended, or placed on probation. At no time during the term of her employment at Cedars Medical Center did she reveal that her licensure was on an inactive status and on probation. During the course of her employment at Cedars Medical Center on July 11-12, 1989, and on July 25-26, 1989, (these events occurred during the night shift) Respondent wrote telephone orders, allegedly from physicians, for various medications for several different patients. Respondent signed at least two of said telephone orders with the name of "L. Hemingway", a coworker. Respondent submitted these telephone orders to the pharmacy and obtained various medications, including controlled substances. The physicians named by Respondent on the telephone orders denied giving Respondent authorization to order those medications on the dates specified, and none of said orders were an existing part of the patients' records. On July 28, 1989, Respondent was confronted by her superiors regarding the numerous discrepancies that had been discovered through the pharmacy regarding her deviation from the normal procedure for obtaining and administering medications. Respondent denied any diversion of drugs and further denied writing the fraudulent telephone orders. Respondent was then asked to submit to a urine test, and she submitted a urine sample under controlled conditions. The urine sample was thereafter tested using appropriate methodology and equipment. Her urine tested positive for cocaine, meperidine (Demerol, a schedule II controlled substance, and pentazocine (Talwin, a schedule IV controlled substance). Respondent did not produce any valid prescriptions to account for the positive results of her urinalysis. On August 1, 1989, Respondent's employment at Cedars Medical Center was terminated. On July 28, 1989, the Board filed a Final Order in DPR case 0098524, the case DPR had filed against Respondent's RN license on October 18, 1988. This Final Order extended Respondent's existing probation for a period of two years and imposed conditions of probation similar to those initially imposed on August 27, 1986. On August 27, 1989, Respondent's RN license, which had been on an inactive status since April 1, 1989, was reactivated, but remained on probationary status. In December 1989, Respondent was employed at Doctors Hospital, Coral Gables, Florida, as a registered nurse. Respondent failed to inform her probation supervisor of her employment as a nurse, though she was required to do so by the terms of her probation. On December 4-5, 1989, Respondent worked the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift at Doctors Hospital. The narcotic records on which Respondent signed out for narcotics for patients under her care and the medication record on which she charted the medication for these patients were falsified to reflect that these patients had received more narcotics than had actually been administered to them. These false records, for which Respondent was responsible, permitted Respondent to obtain excess narcotics from the hospital's pharmacy. On January 18, 1990, Respondent rendered a urine specimen for drug analysis pursuant to the terms of her probation. The subsequent analysis tested positive for propoxyphene (Darvone, a schedule IV controlled substance). Respondent provided no valid prescription to account for the positive result of her urinalysis. On March 1-2, 1990, Respondent was employed at Coral Gables Hospital, Coral Gables, Florida. Respondent failed to inform her probation supervisor of her employment, although she was required to do so by the terms of her probation. While working the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift at Coral Gables Hospital, on March 1, 1990, Respondent admitted to her nursing supervisor that she had self-administered 150 mg. of Demerol. Respondent was accompanied to the Emergency Room where she received medical assistance. The nursing supervisor immediately began a review of Respondent's patients' charts. From this review, it was established that Respondent had obtained 250 mg. of Demerol, and that the patients for whom Respondent had signed out the narcotics did not possess physicians' orders for same. Respondent falsely charted on the medical records of two patients the administration of Demerol. On March 8, 1990, Respondent rendered a serum sample for drug analysis at the request of Coral Gables Hospital. Said specimen subsequently tested positive for the presence of Demerol. On July 15, 1990, Respondent rendered a urine specimen for drug analysis, pursuant to the terms of her probation. The preliminary results of that testing detected the presence of certain controlled substances and were classified as presumptive positive. The specimen Respondent had given was not of sufficient quantity to permit the completion of testing, and the preliminary findings were not confirmed. On December 13, 1990, Respondent's R.N. license was suspended due to her failure to comply with the terms of her probation. Based on the expert testimony presented at the formal hearing, it is found that Respondent is an impaired individual suffering from chemical dependency; that Respondent's practice of nursing is below the minimum standard of safe patient care for the State of Florida; and that Respondent is unable to practice nursing with reasonable skill and safety to patients because of her chemical dependency.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which revokes Respondent, Diahann James's license as a registered nurse (number 1266532) and which revokes her license as a practical nurse (number 36309-1). DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 18th day of July, 1991. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 18th day of July, 1991. APPENDIX The proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Petitioner are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The only post-hearing submittals by Respondent were in the form of two brief letters addressed to the undersigned, one filed May 8, 1991, and the other filed May 30, 1991. To the extent that either letter is construed to contain proposed findings of fact, those proposed findings are rejected as being either irrelevant, unsupported by the record, or contrary to the findings made. COPIES FURNISHED: Tracey S. Hartman, Esquire Roberta Fenner, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Diahann L. James 676 N.W. 48th Street, No. 4 Miami, Florida 33127 Judie Ritter, Executive Director 504 Daniel Building 111 East Coastline Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement should be approved or denied.
Findings Of Fact In June of 1997, the Petitioner filed an application for nursing licensure, by means of which she seeks to be licensed as a registered nurse by endorsement. In support of her application, the Petitioner submitted, or caused to be submitted, evidence showing that she was licensed as a registered nurse in Quebec, Canada, and that she had such licensure status by passing an examination in 1976. The examination she passed in 1976 was the examination administered in French by the Ordre des Infirmieres et Infirmieres du Quebec ("OIIQ"). In 1976, the registered nurse licensure examination given by, or required by, the Florida Board of Nursing was the State Board Test Pool Examination, which was administered by the National Council of State Boards of Nursing. In addition to the licensure examination administered by OIIQ, the Canadian Nurses Association Testing Service ("CNATS") has also offered a registered nurse licensure examination in Canada for many years, including 1976. The Florida Board of Nursing has determined that the CNATS registered nurse licensure examinations administered from 1980 through 1995 are equivalent to the State Board Test Pool Examinations administered by the National Council of State Boards of Nursing. There has been no such determination for CNATS examinations administered before 1980 or after 1995. The evidence in this case is insufficient to determine whether the registered nursing licensure examinations administered in 1976 by either CNATS or OIIQ were substantially equivalent to, or more stringent than, the State Board Test Pool Examinations administered in 1976 by the National Council of State Boards of Nursing.5
Recommendation On the basis of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Nursing enter a final order denying the Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of July, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 27th day of July, 2000.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, and, if so, the amount of such award.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Joseph Ovadia, M.D., is a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been so licensed since approximately April of 1985. On or about October 10, 1994, the Respondent initiated an administrative action against the Petitioner, as directed by the Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Medicine in AHCA Case No. 93-17425, through the filing of an Administrative Complaint. The Administrative Complaint in AHCA Case No. 93-17425 charged the Petitioner with one count of making a deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representation in or related to the practice of medicine, in violation of Section 458.331(1)(k), Florida Statutes. In the Administrative Complaint it was alleged that the Petitioner had stated under oath that he was Board Certified in Orthopedic Surgery when, in fact, he was not Board Certified in any medical specialty. A Corrected Administrative Complaint was subsequently filed against the Petitioner to correct a minor and irrelevant factual allegation. The Petitioner denied the allegations in the Corrected Administrative Complaint and requested a formal hearing on the matter. The proceeding was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings, where it was docketed as DOAH Case No. 95-0322, and styled as Agency for Health Care Administration, Board of Medicine vs. Joseph Ovadia, M.D. Following a formal hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings, a Recommended Order was issued in which it was recommended that the charge against the Petitioner be dismissed. Ultimately, the Board of Medicine issued a Final Order dismissing all charges against the Petitioner in DOAH Case No. 95-0322, and on August 2, 1996, the Petitioner filed a timely petition seeking an award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner, Joseph Ovadia, M. D., has been, at all times material to this proceeding, the sole proprietor of an unincorporated professional practice domiciled in this state with its principal office in this state. The Petitioner has never had more than three employees. The Petitioner’s net worth is less than two million dollars. In the course of defending against the charges in DOAH Case No. 95-0322, the Petitioner incurred attorney’s fees in the amount of $4,190.001 and incurred costs in the amount of $201.50. The administrative charges filed against the Petitioner arose from the following question and answer in the deposition testimony of the Petitioner taken on July 9, 1992, in a civil action involving injuries to a patient who had been examined by the Petitioner: Q. Are you Board Certified, Doctor? A. Yes. At the time of the Probable Cause Panel meeting at which it was decided to file charges against the Petitioner, the information before the panel included a transcript of the deposition that included the above-quoted question and answer and an affidavit from the Executive Vice President of the American Board of Medical Specialties to the effect that the Petitioner was not Board Certified in Orthopedic Surgery. The panel did not have before it any evidence as to why the Petitioner gave that deposition answer or what the Petitioner’s intent was at the time he gave that answer. The Petitioner's actual intent when he gave the subject deposition answer was described as follows in the findings of fact in the underlying case: 9. The [Petitioner] is foreign-born and is a foreign medical graduate, having graduated from the Medical School at McGill University in Canada. Among graduates of Canadian medical schools it is common to refer to the examinations for licensure in the United States, such as those of the National Board of Medical Examiners or the Federation of State Medical Boards, as the 'boards.' When the [Petitioner] gave the answer described in paragraph [5] of these findings of fact he was thinking in terms of the Canadian jargon, rather than the American jargon. The [Petitioner] did not intend by the answer described in paragraph [5] to imply that he was board certified by the American Board of Orthopedic Surgeons. The [Petitioner] has never intentionally represented to anyone that he was board certified by the American Board of Orthopedic Surgeons.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times pertinent to these proceedings, respondent was a licensed practical nurse holding license number 26892-1. The designation of "-1" in the license number is the Board's designation for a licensed practical nurse, and the designation "-2" is for a registered nurse. Respondent is not now and has never been a licensed registered nurse in the State of Florida. In June of 1974, respondent went to the nursing director's office of the Bryan Cameron Community Hospital in Bryan, Ohio, and applied for a position as a registered nurse in the operating room. Respondent could not substantiate that he was a licensed registered nurse. On the day that respondent was to report to work, the hospital administrator, Mr. Rusty O. Brunicardi, told respondent that he was having a problem verifying his registry and asked respondent if he would fill out a form saying that he was a registered nurse. Respondent then filled out and signed a form, witnessed by two persons, certifying that he was a licensed registered nurse in the State of Florida and that, his license number is 26892-1. Mr. Brunicardi also informed respondent that he should contact the Florida State Board of Nursing and have them call him and that, upon Brunicardi's receipt of a call from the Board, respondent could start to work. Respondent indicated to Brunicardi that there was some kind of mixup in the Board's files and that he would straighten it out. Respondent then left and Brunicardi never heard from him again. Respondent began his employment with the Manhattan Convalescent Center in Tampa, Florida, on October 17, 1975. As a part of the orientation procedure for new employees, respondent was made aware of the Center's policy or procedure with respect to patient trust funds. The policy was that when patients with money in their possession are admitted to the Center, the money was to be taken by the admitting nurse to the business office and put into a trust fund account for the patient. After the money had been turned in, the nurse would give the patient a receipt. The business office kept a ledger card for each patient. when a patient requested money, the nurse was to write it down in the trust fund book on the station, take it to the office and deliver the money requested to the patient on the following day. On or about November 20, 1975, Gloria Elizabeth Adams was admitted as a patient to the Manhattan Convalescent Center having in her possession $44.00 in cash. She gave $35.00 of this amount to her admitting nurse, respondent herein, for the purpose of putting it into a trust fund for her. Respondent wrote in his nursing notes on Adams' admission that she had brought money in and that it had been put in her trust fund. A day or two thereafter, respondent asked her to write a check for the trust fund. She asked respondent what had happened to the $35.00 she had previously given him and, not receiving a satisfactory answer, she refused to give him a check. Ms. Adams then went to the desk and asked to withdraw $5.00 from her account. She was told she would receive it the following day. She then saw respondent, who again asked her to write a check for $35.00 for the trust fund. She again refused and told him she had asked to withdraw $5.00 from her account. He then brought her $5.00, and she never saw him again. About a week after Ms. Adams was admitted, the Director of Nursing at the Center, Phyllis Hereford, learned that there was a problem with Ms. Adams' trust fund. Since respondent was Adams' admitting nurse, Ms. Hereford spoke to him about it. He at first told her that he had put the money in an envelope and put the envelope in a narcotic book for Sister Edna Mae, the next nurse coming on duty. Ms. Hereford suggested that he call Sister to see if she remembered. He did so and Sister was very adamant that she did not receive an envelope with money in it in the narcotic book, and that, had the envelope been there, she would have seen it when she was counting drugs. Director Hereford told respondent that since he had mishandled Ms. Adams' money, he was responsible for it and should pay it back. He indicated that he would do so, but he did not return to work more than one day thereafter. The administrator of the Center determined that the missing $30.00 would be deducted from respondent's pay check and placed into the Adams' trust fund. The ledger card for Ms. Adams reveals that on December 9, 1975, a deposit was made for $30.00 "to cover mishandled monies on Station 2." There was nothing on the ledger to indicate that an earlier deposit had ever been made. Ms. Hereford learned that another patient, Doris Clark, had $10.00 mishandled by respondent and the Center deducted $10.00 from respondent's paycheck and reimbursed Clark's trust fund by such amount. No objection or complaint was received by the Center from respondent concerning the $40.00 deduction from his salary.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that the Board dismiss that charge relating to the monies of Doris Clark; find respondent guilty of unprofessional conduct in his actions surrounding the monies of Ms. Adams; and find respondent guilty of willfully violating F.S. ss. 464.081(1) and 464.24(1)(d) in his actions surrounding his attempt at employment with the Bryan Cameron Community Hospital. It is further recommended that, for such offenses, the Board suspend respondent's license number 26892-1 for a period of one (1) year. Respectfully submitted and entered this 5th day of August, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Danny L. Pressler 3 Seashore Drive Ormand Beach, Florida Mr. Danny L. Pressler 307 Southeast Avenue Montpelier, Ohio 43543 Ms. Geraldine Johnson Florida State Board of Nursing 6501 Arlington Expressway Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Julius Finegold 1130 American Heritage Life Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against the respondent, Tana Lee Hand, for an attempt to procure a license to practice nursing in the State of Florida by giving a false answer on an application form.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that the Administrative Complaint against tile respondent, Tana Lee Hand, be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 14th day of July, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jeffery B. Morris, Esquire 2400 Independent Square One Independent Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Robert J. Castellanos, Esquire 1528 Hendry Street Post Office Box 1999 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 Geraldine B. Johnson, R. N. Board of Nursing 111 Coastline Drive East, Suite 504 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
