The Issue The issue is whether Respondent, Andrew Pollock (also known as Antone Pollock), should be terminated from employment with the City of Clearwater (City) after testing positive for cocaine, while on duty, as alleged in the City's Termination and Dismissal Notice (Notice) dated March 7, 2015.
Findings Of Fact Respondent began working for the City in August 2001. In November 2012 he was reclassified as a Stormwater Technician II. Pursuant to federal Department of Transportation (DOT) safety regulations, this position is considered a safety- sensitive position and requires that Respondent have a commercial driver's license (CDL) and that he submit to random drug testing. The City has a zero tolerance for drug and alcohol use while on the job. This is explained in the City's Drug/Alcohol Program Policy, also known as Policy No. 3401.2. See City Ex. 3, p. 5 ("Any employee covered by this policy who . . . fails an alcohol or drug test . . . will be immediately removed from active duty and subject to discipline, including termination."). Respondent signed documents acknowledging that he was given a copy of the policy and was responsible for complying with its terms and conditions. See City Ex. 1 and 2. Various rules, standards, and policies have been adopted by the City to govern the conduct of its employees. Specifically, the City has adopted a Performance and Behavior Management Program (PBMP) manual, which includes Personal Responsibility, Integrity, Excellence, and Citywide Standards. Pursuant to authority in the Code of Ordinances (Code), the Civil Service Board has adopted Rules and Regulations governing the conduct of all positions in the civil service. Relevant to this case is chapter 13, section 3, Rules and Regulations, which spells out grounds for suspending, demoting, or dismissing an employee. Also, as noted above, DOT safety regulations apply to employees such as Respondent who are performing safety-sensitive functions on the job. Finally, the City has adopted Policy 3401.2, which establishes guidelines and procedures regarding the use or abuse of illegal drugs by employees. Notably, these standards, rules, policy, and DOT regulations apply only to the use of drugs and alcohol by an employee while on duty. With certain exceptions not relevant here, there is no City prohibition against the use of drugs or alcohol while off-duty. But if an employee fails a drug test administered during regular working hours, it is presumed he is using, or under the influence of, drugs while on the job. In accordance with DOT regulations, on February 17, 2015, Respondent was selected for a random drug test and willingly submitted to the collection procedure that morning. See City Ex. 4, p. 5. Respondent acknowledges that he participated in the collection procedure on that date. The results of the test, conducted by Largo Medical Center, are shown on a copy of a barely legible Verification Report (Report) received in evidence as Exhibit 4. No individual from the testing facility testified, the Report is not signed by the medical review officer, and several significant sections in the Report are not completed or signed. Given these deficiencies, the City agrees that it does not have "admissible drug lab evidence." Tr., p. 77. Without objection the Report was offered only for the purpose of showing "what action [the City took] upon receipt of this document," and not to prove that Respondent failed the drug test. Tr., p. 18. On February 23, 2015, Respondent was notified that he tested positive for cocaine. While he disputes the laboratory results, he does not dispute the laboratory collection procedure. A recommendation was then made by his department head that he be terminated for violating City rules, policies, and standards, and DOT regulations. Civil Service Board regulations allow an employee to explain the circumstances which led to the positive test results and to provide mitigating facts. See ch. 13, § 8, Rules and Regs. An employee may request a disciplinary determination meeting with the Department of Human Resources; an adverse decision is then subject to review by a hearing officer (administrative law judge). Alternatively, an employee may file a grievance pursuant to the union collective bargaining agreement. If the grievance is denied, the employee may have the matter heard by an arbitration panel, but the cost of arbitration is borne by the employee. Because of financial constraints, Respondent elected to have the matter reviewed by the Department of Human Resources. A disciplinary determination meeting was conducted on March 3, 2015. Respondent was represented at the meeting by a member of his union. After Respondent's explanation was not deemed to be plausible, on March 7, 2015, the City Manager formally notified Respondent that he was being terminated effective March 11, 2015. See City Ex. 6. Respondent then requested a hearing to contest that action. At hearing, Respondent essentially repeated the explanation he gave at the disciplinary determination meeting. He testified that while at a local bar with his brother on the evening of February 15, 2015, or two days before the random drug test and while off-duty, he asked a long-time friend, Eric "Red Rock" Gibson, for a "black and mild" (a cigar). After smoking the cigar, Respondent said that something seemed different about the cigar, his tongue was numb and tingling, and he was mumbling words. However, he attributed this to being drunk at the time and gave it no further thought. After receiving the results of the random drug test, and being told that he was terminated, Respondent spoke to Gibson and learned that Gibson always laced his cigars with cocaine, including the one given to Respondent. The City relies on this admission, and not the drug test, to prove the charges in the Notice. Thus, the sum of the case is that Respondent admitted that he unknowingly smoked a cigar laced with cocaine on February 15, 2015. There is, however, no competent evidence to support the charge that he flunked a drug test two days later, as charged in the Notice, or that cocaine was in his system when he reported to work that day. Respondent testified credibly that he does not use drugs and he unknowingly injested the cocaine. He pointed out that, except for this test, he has never failed a drug test while employed by the City. Shortly after the random testing, he paid for a follow-up drug test, which produced negative results. He desires to return to work in order to reinstate his health insurance benefits and to provide a source of income for his family. It is undisputed that Respondent has a blemish-free record working for the City over the last 14 years and, among other awards, he has received over 17 certifications for exceling in his work. His last evaluation in February 2015 was "Excellent." Policy 3401.2, the City's Administrative Policy and Procedure Manual, states that an employee in a safety-sensitive position who fails a drug test "may be demoted to a non-CDL or non-safety sensitive position in accordance with the procedures outlined in this document." City Ex. 3, p. 6. Even assuming arguendo that Respondent failed a drug test, which has not been proven here, Respondent testified that he is willing to accept a demotion to a non-CDL position.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Civil Service Board enter an order dismissing all charges against Respondent and reinstating him, with back pay, to his position as a Stormwater Technician II. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of October, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 1st day of October, 2015.
The Issue Whether Respondent is unable to practice nursing with reasonable skill and safety by reason of illness or use of alcohol, in violation of section 464.018(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2020); and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the credibility of witnesses and evidence presented at the final hearing and stipulated facts, the following Findings of Fact are found: 1 Respondent objected to Petitioner’s admission of Exhibit 7, which was a close-captioned television video recording of Respondent and others on July 2, 2020. Respondent argued that Petitioner only offered a portion of the recordings from that day, and, thus, Petitioner should offer the complete video. To address Respondent’s objection, Petitioner was instructed to contact Mr. Anderson to verify whether additional recordings were available for July 2, 2020. However, Mr. Anderson was not available. Given the location of the camera and the area of treatment, the video camera may have captured Respondent leaving the emergency room. After considering the record, however, additional recordings would not have changed the outcome of the undersigned’s findings in this matter. 2 Respondent indicated at hearing that he was offering the reference letter as his sole exhibit. He was permitted to file the exhibit with DOAH after the hearing. Instead, Respondent filed a copy of a certificate of completion for nursing continuing education courses. The reference letter was not filed and, thus, is not a part of the record. Stipulated Facts At all times material to this complaint, Respondent was licensed as a registered nurse within the State of Florida, having been issued license number RN 3349322. Respondent’s address of record is 805 Sunday Road, Chipley, Florida 32428. At all times material to this complaint, Respondent was employed by Doctors Memorial Hospital (DMH), located in Bonifay, Florida. Respondent submitted to a blood alcohol test, which returned positive at a level of 0.2637 g/dl. Facts Related to the Events on July 2, 2020 On July 2, 2020, several colleagues of Respondent observed Respondent’s behavior at work, which raised questions regarding whether Respondent was impaired. Janet Smith, a registered nurse, worked at DMH. She had worked with Respondent for approximately 10 years before July 2, 2020. Ms. Smith arrived to work at 8:00 a.m. She observed Respondent at the emergency room desk from a distance of 10 feet for approximately 10 to 15 minutes. She testified that Respondent’s speech was “different, it was drawn out, and he was talkative, more friendly than usual.” Ms. Smith had more than 30 years of experience working in the emergency room and was familiar with the behavior of persons under the influence of alcohol. Based on her experience, she believed that “[Respondent] appeared drunk.” Concerned about Respondent’s behavior, Ms. Smith shared her concerns with other staff members, including Ashley Hall, Debra Smitty, Rohan Anderson, and Dr. Contini. Dr. Contini and Ms. Smitty were not offered as witnesses at the final hearing. Although Ms. Smith had concerns about Respondent’s behavior on July 2, 2020, she otherwise believed he was a strong nurse. Rohan Anderson also observed Respondent on July 2, 2020, after Debra Smitty shared her concerns about Respondent’s behavior. Mr. Anderson works at DMH as the Chief Operating Officer and Director of Information Technology. Mr. Anderson had also worked with Respondent at another hospital and did not recall any prior impairment issues. Similar to Ms. Smith, Mr. Anderson observed Respondent from a distance of 10 to 15 feet near the emergency room desk. He also noticed that Respondent’s speech was different than usual. Mr. Anderson testified that Respondent was “slurring his words … the way he was controlling the pitch of his voice. And I knew something was going on based on that.” Mr. Anderson then shared his concerns about Respondent’s behavior with Dr. Ulhaq, the emergency room director. Mr. Anderson unequivocally testified that Respondent was known for being a good nurse and was used as an example for training purposes. Loyd Simmons, an advanced registered nurse practitioner, was working in the emergency room on July 2, 2020. At Dr. Ulhaq’s request, Mr. Simmons evaluated Respondent based on the reports of suspected alcohol use. Mr. Simmons noted that Respondent was not acting like his “normal” self and he appeared to be unsteady on his feet. Respondent experienced difficulty with upward gaze. However, he was alert, oriented, with clear speech. Mr. Simmons performed a physical examination of Respondent, where he did not find any bruises or signs of a recent fall. He also conducted a neurological examination with Dr. Ulhaq, which revealed a positive Babinski. A positive Babinski result may be an indicator of a problem in the central nervous system. It may, however, also be related to alcohol use. Mr. Simmons interpreted findings of Respondent’s EKG and CT scan as within normal limits. Mr. Simmons found Respondent’s EKG and CT scan results did not indicate a condition that would affect his blood alcohol level. The hematology results returned normal results. The blood alcohol level test returned a result of 263.7 mg/dc, meaning .263 g/dcl.3 The chemical analyzer machine used to perform the blood alcohol test was working properly, calibrated properly, and the machine properly reported correct blood alcohol test results for Respondent. Based on his findings, Mr. Simmons diagnosed Respondent with alcohol intoxication. There was no evidence deduced from the tests performed that Respondent suffered from liver complications or COVID-19 that would cause his significantly high alcohol level results. Mr. Simmons testified that he had no prior personal knowledge of Respondent being impaired at work. Ms. Hall worked with Respondent on July 2, 2020. She observed Respondent for approximately 30 minutes while working together. She testified that he was more “jolly” than usual on that day and his mannerisms were exaggerated. She then shared her belief with the Director of Nursing that Respondent appeared to be impaired. Ms. Hall was present during Respondent’s evaluation in the emergency room. She assisted with placing an IV catheter to withdraw a blood sample from Respondent. She followed the standard process by cleaning the insertion site with isopropyl alcohol, and allowing the area to dry before inserting the catheter. She withdrew the blood sample and then delivered the sample to the lab drop-off window for testing. She had no further contact with the blood sample. Although Ms. Hall primarily worked a different shift than Respondent, she had never witnessed Respondent exhibiting similar behavior as he exhibited on July 2, 2020. Overall, each witness who worked with Respondent on July 2, 2020, reported that he was not behaving like normal and his behavior was consistent with alcohol impairment. Evaluation on January 14, 2021 Respondent was placed on administrative leave and ultimately, terminated for “being at work while under the influence of alcohol.” He was 3 The legal limit in Florida for intoxication is considered a blood alcohol level of .08 or above. presented with the option to voluntarily report to Intervention Project for Nurses (IPN) in lieu of a complaint filed with the Department, and he agreed to contact IPN. Respondent subsequently elected not to voluntarily participate in IPN because he could not “afford it.” The Department then issued an Order requiring Respondent to undergo an evaluation with Dr. Reeves. Dr. Reeves, a licensed medical doctor in the State of Florida since 1994, has specialized in addiction medicine since 2010. Dr. Reeves is board certified in addiction medicine and a member of several professional organizations for addiction treatment providers. Dr. Reeves serves as the Medical Director for two treatment facilities, South Walton Medical Group and Sacred Heart Hospital of the Emerald Coast. Prior to practicing addiction medicine, he worked as a vascular surgeon. Dr. Reeves has written articles and delivered presentations on the topic of addiction medicine. Dr. Reeves has testified in other legal proceedings within the past 10 years and has never been disqualified as an expert. Dr. Reeves was accepted as an expert on addiction medicine in this matter. Dr. Reeves performed an independent medical examination (IME) of Respondent on January 14, 2021. Dr. Reeves routinely conducts IMEs of health care professionals to determine whether an individual has an issue with addiction or addictive substances, including alcohol. Dr. Reeves follows a process for conducting an IME. He reviews the available records, any medical history, and witness statements. Dr. Reeves then meets with the individual to conduct an in-person evaluation, which includes assessment tests and screening exams. Dr. Reeves testified that he understood that Respondent was referred to him for alleged alcohol intoxication while at work. Dr. Reeves was concerned as alcohol is a depressant and directly affects the judgement and decision-making functions in the brain. Dr. Reeves discussed the events that gave rise to the Department’s complaint and subsequent referral for evaluation. Respondent explained to Dr. Reeves that he began drinking more often while he was quarantined with COVID-19. Respondent told Dr. Reeves that he had increased his drinking from two to three beers a night to three to four beers per night, four to five times per week. Respondent stated that he drank several drinks the night before he returned to work to help him sleep. He did not believe that he drank a lot and was surprised that his test results reflected a significantly elevated alcohol level. He denied being intoxicated at work on July 2, 2020. Respondent completed a questionnaire after he arrived for his evaluation, which Dr. Reeves reviewed with him during the evaluation. Respondent suggested in his questionnaire that perhaps the alcohol level was because he had taken Nyquil4 while driving to work. Respondent later retracted that statement. Regarding assessments, the evaluation included an ethyl glucuronide (ETG) test, which was performed upon Respondent’s arrival to Dr. Reeves office. An ETG test is a urine test that measures the level of ethyl glucuronide in the body. An ETG test would generally yield positive results within two to five days after alcohol is ingested. Respondent’s test was negative. Dr. Reeves testified that the negative test results suggest Respondent had not drank alcohol within the prior three to five days. Dr. Reeves also asked Respondent to undergo a phosphatidylethanol (PEth) test, which tests a blood sample to measure intake of alcohol. The PEth test has a longer timeframe for measurement than the ETG test, as it measures alcohol in the system for up to 14 days after ingestion. To maintain the validity of the test, it must be completed within 48 hours of the request. 4 Dr. Reeves testified that a dose of Nyquil contains approximately the same amount of alcohol as a glass of wine. He estimated that a person would need to consume 10 to 15 doses of Nyquil to achieve a result of .2637 gm/dcl (Respondent’s test results). Respondent did not complete the test within that timeframe. Thus, there were no PEth test results for Dr. Reeves to consider. Dr. Reeves testified that the PEth test was not a necessary factor for diagnosing an alcohol-use disorder, as he had sufficient objective data from his evaluation to make a diagnosis. Expert Opinion Based upon his evaluation, Dr. Reeves diagnosed Respondent with moderate alcohol disorder. Dr. Reeves relied upon the criteria established in the Diagnostic Statistic Manual-5 (DSM-5), which sets out the standard of care for diagnosis of psychiatric disorders. The DSM-5 includes alcohol-use disorder as a psychiatric diagnosis. Dr. Reeves testified that if you meet two or more of 11 alcohol-use disorder criteria used in the DSM-5, the individual meets the criteria for that level of the disorder. Applying objective factors identified during his evaluation of Respondent, Dr. Reeves determined that Respondent met four of the 11 criteria for moderate alcohol-use disorder. Specifically, Dr. Reeves identified the following criteria in making his assessment: Alcohol is often taken in larger amounts or over a longer period than was intended; * * * 5. Recurrent alcohol use resulting in a failure to fulfill major role obligations at work, school, or home; * * * 8. Recurring alcohol use in situations in which it is physically hazardous; and * * * 10. Tolerance is defined by (a) a need for markedly increased amounts of alcohol to achieve intoxication or desired effect, or (b) a markedly diminished effect with continued use of the same amount of alcohol. Dr. Reeves testified that a nursing professional is considered a safety sensitive occupation, which requires good decision-making ability. Since alcohol significantly impairs judgement and decision-making ability, an individual who is impaired by alcohol is not safe to practice as a nurse. Dr. Reeves credibly opined that Respondent is not safe to practice as a nurse due to his diagnosis of moderate alcohol-use disorder. Dr. Reeves’ opinion is accepted. Dr. Reeves recommended a course of intensive outpatient treatment for a specified period of time. Even if Respondent indicated he stopped drinking, without treatment, Dr. Reeves maintains that Respondent is not safe to practice nursing. Based on his review of the records obtained from DMH, Dr. Reeves concluded that Respondent’s records reflected no symptoms to demonstrate that he suffered from a transient ischemic attack (TIA)5 as Respondent suggested. There was no evidence offered at hearing that Respondent harmed patients while he was impaired. Other than his behavior exhibiting impairment, the testimony overwhelmingly supported that he was considered a good nurse. Ultimate Findings of Fact Petitioner presented clear and convincing evidence to demonstrate that Respondent was impaired while at work on July 2, 2020. 5 A TIA is a temporary period of symptoms similar to a stroke. Petitioner presented clear and convincing evidence to demonstrate that Respondent is unable to practice nursing with reasonable skill and safety to patients due to his moderate alcohol-use disorder and alcohol use.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Ellen LeGendre Carlos, Esquire Dirlie Anna McDonald, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 For Respondent: Benjamin Dallas Stoe, pro se 805 Sunday Road Chipley, Florida 32428
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Nursing enter a final order finding: Respondent violated section 464.018(1)(j), Florida Statutes (2020); and suspending Respondent’s registered nursing license, until such time that Respondent enters into IPN and complies with any and all terms and conditions imposed by IPN. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of August, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S YOLONDA Y. GREEN Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of August, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Ellen LeGendre Carlos, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Dirlie Anna McDonald, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Louise St. Laurent, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Benjamin Dallas Stoe 805 Sunday Road Chipley, Florida 32428 Joe Baker, Jr., Executive Director Board of Nursing Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Deborah McKeen, BS, CD-LPN Board of Nursing Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin D02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the podiatry licensure examination administered by the Respondent in July, 1989, receiving a grade of 63.8%, with 230 correct answers. A score of 75%, with 270 correct answers, is required to pass the examination for licensure. This podiatry examination was developed by the Bureau of Examination Services in conjunction with consultants who served as "item writers", and Florida licensed podiatrists. Five Florida licensed podiatrists selected items written by the various consultants from a bank of questions available for the 1989 examination. Competent substantial evidence was not introduced on behalf of the Petitioner to establish that the examination was in any way flawed in its preparation or method of selecting the actual questions used on this exam. The Petitioner testified that several questions were misspelled in the examination booklet which he received at the exam site. The actual question booklets used for the July, 1989, exam were introduced in evidence, but the Petitioner failed to establish, by competent substantial evidence, that there were any significant misspellings in these booklets which would in any way impair the fairness or validity of the examination results. The Petitioner also urges that the administration of the exam was unfair and that he had insufficient time to take the morning session of the exam. He suffers from low blood sugar, and during the morning exam session he felt faint. The exam proctor had prohibited all candidates from bringing candy or Cokes into the examination room, and therefore, he had to leave the exam while it was in progress to get a Coca-Cola in order to elevate his blood sugar. He claims he had to walk a very long way to find a Coke machine, and that as a result, he lost significant time from the morning session of the exam. However, unrebutted exam records show that only one candidate was still in the examination room during the last 50 minutes of the morning session, and that candidate was not the Petitioner. Therefore, the Petitioner has not established that he lacked sufficient time to complete the morning session of the exam due to his low blood sugar problems. It is also asserted by the Petitioner that he was given insufficient time to review his examination and to identify problems in the grading of his examination. The review session was conducted on October 24, 1989, and the Petitioner attended. The review session concluded at 1:00 p.m. on that date, but unrebutted records of this review establish that the Petitioner completed his review and left the review room at 12:28 p.m. Thus, the Petitioner has failed to establish, by competent substantial evidence, that he lacked sufficient time to complete his review. There is a lack of competent substantial evidence in the record to establish that the grades which the Petitioner received on the July, 1989, podiatry licensure examination were incorrect, unfair, or invalid, or that the examination, and subsequent review session, were administered in an arbitrary or capricious manner.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing the Petitioner's challenge to the grades he received on the July, 1989, podiatry licensure examination. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of May, 1991 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of May, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-2798 Despite waiting an additional seven days until April 25, 1991, as requested by counsel for the Petitioner in his letter filed on April 19, 1991, no proposed recommended order was filed on behalf of the Petitioner. Rulings on the Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding 1. Adopted in Findings 2 and 3. Adopted in Finding 4. Adopted in Finding 5. COPIES FURNISHED: Melvyn G. Greenspahn, Esquire 3550 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 404 Miami, FL 33137 Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, Esquire Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Patricia Guilford Executive Director Board of Podiatry 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent failed to maintain the qualification set forth in Section 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, requiring a law enforcement officer in the State of Florida to have good moral character by unlawfully being in actual or constructive possession of cocaine on or about May 9, 1988, and by introducing cocaine into her body on or about that date.
Findings Of Fact On November 15, 1974, the State of Florida, acting through Petitioner, certified Respondent as a law enforcement officer. Certificate number 02-11734 was duly issued to Respondent by Petitioner. Respondent is a sworn police officer who has been employed as an investigator in the Special Investigations Unit of the Dade County School System for over 14 years. The Special Investigations Unit is a law enforcement agency consisting of approximately 56 sworn officers whose duties include follow-up investigations on internal issues and the investigation of crimes that are committed on School Board property. There is also a uniformed division which patrols certain of the schools in the Dade County system. The sworn officers of the Special Investigation Unit are required to be certified by Petitioner even though they are employed by the Dade County School Board as School Board employees. The sworn officers of the Special Investigation Unit are represented for collective bargaining purposes with the Dade County School Board by the Police Benevolent Association. The labor contract that was negotiated on behalf of Respondent and her fellow sworn officers of the Special Investigative Unit require that each sworn officer take an annual physical to include the giving of a urine sample from the officer to be analyzed for the presence of controlled substances. Respondent was directed by her employer to present herself on May 9, 1988, for an annual physical examination at Mount Sinai Medical Center. Respondent was aware that an annual physical, including a drug test would be required of her. She was given over two weeks advance notice of the exact date the physical examination would occur. On May 9, 1988, Respondent reported to Mount Sinai Medical Center to submit to the annual physical examination required by her employer. She was given a small sterile sample bottle in which she produced a sample of her urine as instructed. Nurse Cheryl Cain, the Mount Sinai employee responsible for the collection of the urine sample from Respondent, received the urine sample from Respondent and promptly divided the urine sample into two smaller sterile bottles and sealed each of the smaller bottles with its cap and with evidence tape. Nurse Cain followed Mount Sinai's procedures in collecting and sealing the urine sample. The sealed bottles containing Respondent's urine sample were labeled so that each bottle was identified as containing Respondent's urine sample. An identifying series of numbers, referred to as that bottle's bar code, was placed on each of the bottles. Bar code number 118856 was placed on one bottle and bar code number 110783 was placed on the other bottle. The two bottles were then placed in a locked box. On May 9, 1988, the sealed bottles containing Respondent's urine sample were picked up by an employee of Toxicology Testing Service and transported to the facilities of Toxicology Testing Service in Dade County, Florida. Mount Sinai used adequate procedures to ensure that Respondent's urine sample was properly labeled, that the chain of custody was properly maintained, and that the two specimen bottles could not be tampered with without detection. On May 19, 1988, sample bottle 118856 was opened by a laboratory analyst employed by Toxicology Testing Service. A small sample of Respondent's urine sample, referred to as an aliquot, was removed from sample bottle 118856 with a sterile disposable plastic pipette and placed in a sterile disposable cup for analysis. The aliquot of Respondent's urine sample was introduced into the analyzer equipment used by Toxicology Testing Service to screen the sample for the possible presence of controlled substances. The sample screened positive for a cocaine metabolite, which is a metabolized derivative of cocaine created by the natural processing of cocaine by the human body. This screening procedure, known as an emit test, produced a result of 71 on the first screening and a 69 when a separate aliquot from sample 118856 was tested. The emit test is conducted using an Hitachi 705 machine, a piece of equipment that is widely used in the industry. As calibrated, a score of 50 is considered a positive score for cocaine. The purpose of the emit test is to screen those samples that will be later analyzed by gas chromatography mass spectrometry method of testing urine samples. A confirmatory analysis of the sample was then conducted utilizing the gas chromatography mass spectrometry method of testing urine samples. This method is over 99.99% accurate and is the accepted method among toxicologists for identifying drugs and their metabolites. The confirmatory analysis confirmed that Respondent's urine sample was positive for the presence of a cocaine metabolite that can only be produced through the ingestion of cocaine. Subsequent testing on June 3, 1988, by Toxicology Testing Services of aliquots from sample bottle 110783, followed the same procedures as those followed for the analysis of aliquots from sample bottle 118856 and produced similar, positive results for the presence of the cocaine metabolite. Toxicology Testing Service used adequate procedures to ensure that Respondent's urine sample was properly identified, that the chain of custody was properly maintained, and that sample bottle 118856 and sample bottle 110783 had not been tampered with. The testing procedures followed by Toxicology Testing Service are widely accepted in the industry. The equipment used by Toxicology Testing Service was in proper working order. The procedures followed in the taking of Respondent's urine sample and in the subsequent analysis of the aliquots from Respondent's urine sample were consistent with the procedures set forth in Rule 11B-27.00225, Florida Administrative Code, which is entitled "Controlled Substance Testing Procedures". Respondent denies that she has ever used or has unlawfully possessed cocaine. Respondent handles cocaine from time to time in the execution of her official responsibilities, but she was unable to point to an incident that may have produced the positive test results through incidental contact with cocaine. Although samples of the currency in use in South Florida have tested positive for the presence of cocaine, Respondent would not have ingested sufficient quantities of cocaine from currency to produce the level of the cocaine metabolite reflected by the testing. On May 23, 1988, Respondent was advised by her supervisor that she had tested positive for cocaine. Respondent immediately gave another urine sample that tested negative for cocaine. Respondent had attended training sessions that taught that cocaine usually cleared the human body after 72 hours. This is a misconception. The speed with which the cocaine metabolite clears the human system depends on many variable factors, including the general physical condition of the person involved, the amounts of liquids consumed by the person, and the amount of exercise by the person. Cocaine metabolite can be detected in the human body more than 72 hours after its ingestion. Respondent failed to offer any plausible explanation for the positive results of cocaine being detected in her system that would permit any conclusion other than the conclusion that she had voluntarily ingested cocaine. Respondent has been an exemplary employee since her initial employment with the Special Investigative Unit. She has never been suspected of drug use by her superiors. None of her fellow officers ever reported that they suspected Respondent of drug use. Respondent has had several commendations during her term of service. Her performance evaluations have always been satisfactory or higher. Based on the charges involved in the pending proceeding, the Dade County School Board suspended Respondent's employment and instituted proceedings to discharge her from its employ. Following an administrative hearing, the hearing officer (who was not employed by or assigned by the Division of Administrative Hearings) found that the drug tests that found the positive results for cocaine were not reliable and recommended that Respondent be reinstated to her employment. The finding by the previous hearing officer that the tests were not reliable is not binding here and is contrary to the greater weight of the evidence in this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission, enter a final order which finds that Respondent failed to maintained good moral character and which further revokes the certification of Respondent as a law enforcement officer. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUD B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 904/488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of January, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 H. T. Smith, Esquire 1017 N.W. 9th Court Miami, Florida 33136 Jeffrey Long, Director Department of Law Enforcement Criminal Justice Standards Training Commission Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 James T. Moore, Commissioner Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Rodney Gaddy, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
