09-001839 Department Of Financial Services vs. Emerald Coast Funeral Home Status: Closed Recommended Order on Monday, October 5, 2009.

Summary: The evidence did not demonstrate that Respondents failed to treat the decedent's body in a dignified and respectful manner. However, the evidence did show that Respondents failed to notify Petitioner of the ownership change.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL )

SERVICES, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case Nos. 09-1839

) 09-2065PL

JEFFREY KEVIN WATTS and )

EMERALD COAST FUNERAL HOME, )

)

Respondents. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a hearing was held on July 9, 2009,

before Diane Cleavinger, Administrative Law Judge, Division of

Administrative Hearings, in Fort Walton Beach, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Thomas A. “Tad” David, Esquire

Florida Department

of Financial Services

Division of Legal Services

200 East Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333

For Respondents: Derek E. Leon, Esquire

Christopher J.M. Collings, Esquire

Moran,Lewis & Bockius, LLP

5300 Wachovia Financial Center

200 South Biscayne Boulevard

Miami, Florida 33131-2339

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The issues in this proceeding are whether Emerald Coast

Funeral Home (Emerald Coast) and Jeffrey Kevin Watts (Watts)

failed to treat remains with dignity and respect in violation of

Section 497.386(4), Florida Statutes, and whether Emerald Coast

was required by Section 497.380(12)(a), Florida Statutes, to

submit a change of ownership application.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On February 20, 2009, the Department of Financial Services

(Department) filed Administrative Complaints against Emerald

Coast and Jeffrey Kevin Watts in connection with their licenses

to operate a Funeral Establishment and an Apprentice Training

Agency and as a Funeral Director and Embalmer, respectively.

Specifically, the Administrative Complaints alleged that both

parties’ licenses should be disciplined for failing to treat an

excised portion of a decedent’s tongue with dignity and respect

in violation of Subsection 497.380(12)(a), Florida Statutes

(2007). Additionally, the Administrative Complaint alleged that

Emerald Coast’s licenses should be disciplined for failing to

submit a change in ownership form to the Department.

Both parties timely requested a formal administrative

proceeding. Subsequently, the cases were forwarded to the

Division of Administrative Hearings and were later consolidated.

At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of four

witnesses and offered Exhibits P-1 through P-7 into evidence.

Respondent presented the testimony of four witnesses and offered

Exhibits R-1 through R-13 into evidence.

After the hearing, the Department filed a Proposed

Recommended Order on August 20, 2009. Likewise, Respondents

filed a Proposed Recommended Order on August 20, 2009.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Emerald Coast has been licensed to operate a Funeral

Establishment in the state of Florida and as an Apprentice-

Intern Training Agency since May 4, 1998, holding license

numbers FO41292-2600-01 and FO41292—2200-01.

2. In 1997, Carriage Services of Florida, Inc., acquired

Emerald Coast Funeral Home from Forest Lawn/Evergreen Management

Corporation. Emerald Coast is a fictitious name registered with

the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations, to

Carriage Funeral Holdings, Inc.

3. Also in 1997, Carriage Funeral Holdings, Inc., became

the indirect owner of Emerald Coast through issuance of all the

shares of common stock of Carriage Services of Florida.

4. In 1998, shortly after the merger, Emerald Coast filed

a change of ownership application with the Board of Funeral

Directors & Embalmers. Unfortunately, the application contains

a scrivener’s error that erroneously reflects “Carriage Funeral

Services of Florida” as the owner of Emerald Coast instead of

Carriage Services of Florida, Inc. However, the attachments to

Emerald Coast’s application properly identify Carriage Services

of Florida, Inc., as the direct owner of Emerald Coast, and

Respondent’s records reflected Carriage Services of Florida as

the owner. Additionally, at the time Emerald Coast’s

application was filed, one of the attachments reflected that

Carriage Services, Inc., was the sole shareholder of Carriage

Services of Florida, Inc. However, as indicated, since 1997,

Carriage Funeral Holdings, Inc., has owned all the common stock

of Carriage Services of Florida, Inc., and is the ultimate owner

of Emerald Coast.

5. In 2000, Carriage Services of Florida, Inc. merged into

Carriage Cemetery Services, Inc., a Texas corporation authorized

to do business in the State of Florida. Under the Articles of

Merger, Carriage Services of Florida and Carriage Cemetery as

the constituent corporations merged into the surviving

corporation Carriage Cemetery Services. Carriage Services

ceased to exist and, by the terms of the merger, Carriage

Services shares of stock were cancelled. The official records

of the Department of State do not contain any corporate annual

reports for Carriage Services after 1999. The official records

of the Department of State do contain required corporate annual

reports for Carriage Cemetery up through 2009. There was no

evidence regarding the relationship between Carriage Holdings

and Carriage Cemetery. However, all three corporations appear

to be owned by the same individuals, but are legally separate

entities.

6. As separate entities, the merger of Carriage Services

with Carriage Cemetery technically caused a change of ownership

of Emerald Coast to occur at the time of the merger, since

Carriage Services ceased to exist. At that point, the new owner

should have notified the Department of the change in ownership.

Emerald Coast did not file such a notification. There was no

evidence that Emerald Coast intentionally elected not to notify

the Department regarding its change in ownership or that it was

trying to hide such change. As indicated, the people at Emerald

Coast’s corporate headquarters remained the same, even though

the technical corporate entity changed. However, the failure to

notify the Department about the change in ownership is a

violation of Florida law, albeit a very minor violation, easily

corrected by filing the correct paperwork with the Department.

Except for failing to notify the Department, no other violation

of Florida law was shown by the evidence, since the funeral

establishment is the licensed entity under Florida law and

Emerald Coast, as the licensed funeral establishment, had a

valid license to operate as such. Given these facts, Emerald

Coast is guilty of violating Section 497.380(12)(a), Florida

Statutes. All other statutory violations alleged in Count II of

the Administrative Complaint should be dismissed.

7. Jeffrey Kevin Watts has been a licensed Funeral

Director and Embalmer for approximately 20 years holding license

number FO47717. In 2008, he was the funeral director for

Emerald Coast.

8. In February of 2008, the family of decedent B.C. hired

Emerald Coast to provide funeral services. Those services

included embalming B.C.’s body for viewing and cremation.

9. To enable Emerald Coast to prepare B.C.’s body for

viewing, B.C.’s husband executed a written Embalming

Authorization. The written Authorization authorized Emerald

Coast to care for and prepare for disposition of B.C. in

accordance with its customary practices.

10. Additionally, B.C.’s family provided Emerald Coast

with a photograph of B.C. in life. The purpose of the

photograph was to enable Emerald Coast to prepare B.C.’s body

for viewing by her friends and family. In fact, the goal of the

embalming process was to restore B.C. to as natural state as

possible towards which the picture served as the standard.

Importantly, B.C.’s tongue did not protrude between her teeth

and out of her mouth while she was alive. Thus, the goal was to

prepare B.C.’s body so that her mouth would close normally and

she would resemble the photograph provided by her husband.

11. In order to prepare a body for viewing, the body of

the deceased must be embalmed. Embalming is a restorative art

and always involves removing fluid and tissue from the body and

replacing the same with embalming fluid. The evidence

demonstrated that it is standard practice for some tissue to be

removed and discarded down the drain and some tissue to be

removed and discarded in a biomedical waste container at the

funeral home. The condition of the body at the time of death

determines how much tissue must be removed from a decedent’s

remains in order to restore the exterior features of that person

to its natural appearance.

12. On February 15, 2008, Mr. Watts embalmed the body of

B.C. in preparation for its viewing on February 17, 2008.

During the embalming process, B.C.’s tongue became swollen.

Such swelling is not a frequent occurrence of the embalming

process; but it is always a possibility due to the nature of the

embalming fluid used to embalm a decedent’s body. In this case,

the swelling caused B.C.’s tongue to protrude from her mouth and

disfigure her appearance.

13. The decedent’s tongue protruded approximately a

quarter of an inch beyond her upper and lower front teeth and

prevented the mouth from being closed. The disfigurement would

not have allowed B.C. to be viewed with a normal appearance

since her tongue would have protruded from her mouth.

14. To reduce the swollen tongue, Mr. Watts first tried to

put the tongue back into B.C.’s mouth using firm digital

pressure. The pressure was unsuccessful.

15. He also tried to roll decedent’s tongue back into her

mouth and reduce the swelling using a series of forceps and

clamps. Mr. Watts also attempted to reduce the swelling in

decedent’s tongue using a hot towel. These procedures were also

unsuccessful and did not improve B.C.’s appearance.

16. Mr. Watts then attempted to suture the inside of

B.C.’s upper and lower lip area. However, the sutures did not

keep B.C.’s tongue from protruding out of her mouth and did not

restore a natural appearance to B.C.’s remains.

17. Next, Mr. Watts tried to put cardboard into B.C.’s

mouth to create a barrier that would hold the tongue back. The

cardboard was unsuccessful.

18. He also used a syringe to try to remove the fluid from

B.C.’s tongue. Again, the attempt was unsuccessful and B.C.’s

tongue continued to protrude past her teeth.

19. After all these methods failed to restore B.C. to a

natural appearance, Mr. Watts consulted his supervisor, Chuck

Jordan, regarding the swelling in the decedent’s tongue.

20. Like Mr. Watts, Mr. Jordan tried to reduce the

swelling in the B.C.’s tongue and to force it back into

position. Importantly, all of the methods used by Mr. Watts and

Mr. Jordan are standard practices in the embalming industry. In

fact, the process and practices followed by both men are

recognized as appropriate practices to restore a body’s natural

appearance.

21. As a last resort, Mr. Jordan and Mr. Watts agreed that

excision of the protruding portion of the tongue was the only

procedure that would restore B.C.’s natural appearance.

22. Mr. Jordan authorized Mr. Watts to excise the

protruding portion of B.C.’s tongue. Again, excision of the

tongue, or a portion thereof, in cases such as the one here is

an accepted and customary embalming practice specifically

recognized by the industry and is addressed in the textbook used

by all 49 of the colleges of mortuary science in the United

States – Embalming: History, Theory and Practice by Robert G.

Mayer – as a proper method of last resort in restoring a body to

its natural appearance.

23. Thereafter, Mr. Watts excised the protruding portion

of B.C.’s tongue by tracing over the upper and lower teeth with

a scalpel. This procedure resulted in the excision of a piece

of waste tissue that measured approximately a quarter of an inch

wide by an inch and a quarter long. He did not remove a body

part from B.C.’s body since B.C.’s tongue remained with her

body. After removal, Mr. Watts placed the excised tissue in the

biomedical waste container in the preparation room. Such a

receptacle is the appropriate container in which to dispose of

waste tissue. Indeed, the better expert evidence demonstrated

that disposal of such waste tissue as biomedical waste is

appropriate and is standard practice in the industry. There was

no clear and convincing evidence that demonstrated disposal of

waste tissue, like the tissue in this case, was disrespectful or

an undignified handling of a person’s remains especially since

standard mortuary practice recognizes such disposal as

appropriate. Moreover, there was no clear or convincing

evidence that the excised portion of B.C.’s tongue constituted

human remains since they were no longer part of the decedent’s

body.

24. In February of 2008, Kirk Kahler was a licensed

embalmer’s apprentice working for Emerald Coast under the

supervision of Mr. Watts. As the supervising embalmer,

Mr. Watts was responsible to teach and instruct Mr. Kahler.

25. On February, 17, 2008, Mr. Watts discussed the

excision of the protruding portions of B.C.’s tongue with

Mr. Kahler. Mr. Watts discussed the issues with B.C.’s tongue

because the methods and processes he used to resolve the

protruding tongue do not occur frequently; but, do occur during

the embalming process. It was an opportunity for Mr. Kahler to

learn about an infrequent occurrence in the embalming industry.

26. While Mr. Watts was checking the point of excision to

ensure there would be no fluid leaks from the area, Mr. Kahler

asked Mr. Watts where the excised tissue was and how much had

been removed.

27. Mr. Watts informed Mr. Kahler the tissue was in the

biomedical waste receptacle and removed it to show Mr. Kahler

the amount of tissue removed. In order to show the tongue to

Mr. Kahler, Mr. Watts held the tongue up. Mr. Kahler testified

that Mr. Watts held the tongue up “like a trophy fish.”

Mr. Watts denied such an action or that he demonstrated a

“trophy fish” attitude. Such a personal opinion by Mr. Kahler

about another person’s attitude or thoughts is neither clear nor

convincing evidence that Mr. Watts treated B.C.’s tongue in an

undignified manner.

28. After showing Mr. Kahler the excised tissue, Mr. Watts

placed the tissue back into the biomedical waste container.

29. Later that day, without Emerald Coast’s consent,

Mr. Kahler removed the excised tissue from the biomedical waste

container, placed it in an envelope, and kept it in his mailbox

at Emerald Coast. Mr. Kahler, whose rationale is somewhat

suspect in this case, testified that he took the tissue because

he was outraged by Mr. Watts’ handling of the tissue, thought

the family should have been advised about the excision of the

tissue, and thought the waste tissue should have been cremated

with B.C.’s body. His desire was to preserve the tissue as

evidence.

30. The family of B.C. held her viewing and service on

February, 17, 2008. On February 21, 2008, Mr. Kahler

transported B.C.’s body to the crematorium where she was

cremated. Even though Mr. Kahler professed concern for the

family and felt that the excised tissue should have been placed

with the body, Mr. Kahler neither advised the family about the

excised tissue, nor placed the excised tissue with the body even

though he had the opportunity to do so.

31. Later, after his resignation from Emerald Coast in the

middle of March, 2008, Mr. Kahler took the envelope home with

him and kept it on his kitchen counter for approximately 45

days.

32. On March 21, 2008, Mr. Kahler emailed the corporate

headquarters of Emerald Coast regarding “the removal of a large

portion of tongue,” from a decedent’s body. The email also

voices other concerns about the management of Emerald Coast.

33. Mr. Kahler again emailed corporate headquarters to

advise that he had the “referenced tongue.” He communicated the

same message about his possession of “the tongue” to corporate

headquarters again on March 30, 2008.

34. At some point, Emerald Coast’s corporate headquarters

contacted its attorney regarding Mr. Kahler’s removal and

possession of excised tissue from Emerald Coast. On April 29,

2008, the attorney wrote Mr. Kahler a letter demanding that he

return the tissue to Emerald Coast by a specific date and time.

The attorney advised that if Mr. Kahler did not return the

tissue, Carriage would file a civil suit against Mr. Kahler.

The letter does not constitute an admission by Respondents that

the excised portion of B.C.’s tongue meets the definition of

remains contained in Chapter 497, Florida Statutes.

35. On April 30, 2008, Mr. Kahler responded that he would

return the tongue to the family since he felt it “technically”

belonged to them. He also stated that he would “contact his

friends at the local newspaper.” That same day, Mr. Kahler

asked that Petitioner contact him about the “illegal removal of

body parts.” At that time, Mr. Kahler had the excised tissue in

his possession for 70 days.

36. An investigator for the Department met with Mr. Kahler

and advised him to return the tissue to Emerald Coast so that it

could be disposed of properly. Shortly after that meeting,

Mr. Kahler returned the tissue to Emerald Coast. However, the

evidence was neither clear nor convincing that either Emerald

Coast or Mr. Watts treated B.C.’s remains in an undignified or

disrespectful manner. The procedures they used to restore B.C.

to a natural appearance were standard procedures. The disposal

of the waste tissue from that restorative process was likewise

standard. Similarly, there was no clear or convincing evidence

that demonstrated Mr. Watts treated B.C.’s remains in an

undignified or disrespectful manner. Mr. Kahler’s opinion is

simply insufficient to demonstrate that either Respondent

violated Florida law regarding the treatment of human remains.

Based on these facts, the Count I of the Administrative

Complaint filed against Emerald Coast should be dismissed.

Similarly, the Administrative Complaint against Mr. Watts should

be dismissed.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

37. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the subject matter of and the parties to this

proceeding. § 120.57(1), Fla. Stat. (2008).

38. Chapter 497, Florida Statutes, is the authority by

which funeral homes and practitioners of mortuary science are

regulated. It is also the authority which governs discipline of

the licenses of funeral homes and mortuary science

practitioners.

39. Section 497.386, Florida Statutes (2009), provides

that:

(4) The licensing authority shall establish

by rule the minimal standards of acceptable

and prevailing practices for the handling

and storing of dead human bodies, provided

that all human remains transported or stored

must be completely covered and at all times

treated with dignity and respect.

40. Section 497.005, Florida Statutes, defines “human

remains” as follows:

(36) “Human remains” or “remains,” or “dead

human body” or “dead human bodies,” means

the body of a deceased person for which a

death certificate is required under chapter

382 and includes the body in any stage of

decomposition.” (Emphasis supplied.)

41. Notably, Chapter 497, Florida Statutes, does not

elaborate on what constitutes the requisite dignity and respect

due a decedent’s remains. Similarly, there are no rules which

define those terms.

42. Without such rules, the only standards which arguably

govern licensed funeral homes, funeral directors and embalmers

are those generally accepted practices established in the

embalming and mortuary industry for the handling of dead human

bodies. Such generally accepted practices comply with the

mandate in Section 497.386(4), Florida Statutes.

43. With these criteria in mind, license revocations and

discipline procedures are penal in nature. Therefore, the

Department must prove the allegations in the Administrative

Complaints against Emerald Coast and Kevin Watts by clear and

convincing evidence. See Dept. of Financial Servs. v. Cremation

Center at Horizon Funeral Homes , 2007 WL 2142852 * 3 (DOAH

2007).

44. To meet this elevated standard, the evidence must be

of such weight that it produces in the mind of the trier of fact

a firm conviction, without hesitancy, as to the truth of the

allegations sought to be established. See Dept. of Financial

Servs. v. Cremation Center at Horizon Funeral Homes , 2007 WL

2142852 * 3 (DOAH 2007) quoting Slomowitz v. Walker , 429 So. 2d.

797 (Fla. DCA 1983).

45. The Department argues that Respondents failed to treat

the B.C.’s remains with dignity and respect by 1) excising the

protruding portion of her tongue without getting specific

authorization from the decedent’s family, 2) placing the excised

tissue in the biomedical waste receptacle instead of keeping it

with B.C.’s body, and 3) displaying it to an embalmer’s

apprentice.

46. In this case, Respondents had consent from B.C.’s

family to prepare B.C.’s body for her viewing. However, on the

issue of whether Respondents treated B.C.’s remains with dignity

and respect, such authorization is irrelevant. The issue is

treatment of or consideration for B.C.’s family.

47. On that point, embalming necessarily involves the

removal of small amounts of tissue from a deceased person’s

body. Such removal might be necessitated due to the embalming

process or disfigurement caused by trauma, disease or the

embalming process itself. It is undisputed that excision is an

accepted method of last resort to deal with swelling of the

tongue that disfigures a deceased person’s natural appearance.

It is specifically acknowledged as a generally accepted practice

by the seminal textbook on embalming, Embalming: History,

Theory, and Practice by Robert G. Mayer. Indeed, all of the

licensed embalmers who testified at the hearing acknowledged

excision as a recognized and accepted embalming practice. The

Department’s argument that the small portion of B.C.’s tongue

excised by Mr. Watts should not have been excised without the

specific permission of the family is simply absurd given the

nature and standard practice of embalming. Moreover, no statute

or rule requires permission from the family in order to excise a

small portion of a deceased person’s body to restore that person

to their natural appearance. Respondents, therefore, did not

fail to treat B.C.’s remains with dignity and respect in

excising a small portion of tissue in order to restore her to

her natural appearance.

48. However, once the tissue was removed from B.C.’s body,

it became waste tissue and no longer met the definition of

remains contained in Section 497.005(36), Florida Statutes. As

such, the tissue constituted biomedical waste and was required

to be disposed of properly in a biomedical waste container.

Again, the Department has no statutes or rules governing the

disposal of biomedical waste. Nevertheless, the Department

contends that by discarding this waste tissue rather than

keeping it with B.C.’s body, Respondents failed to treat B.C.’s

remains with dignity and respect. However, the evidence adduced

at the hearing demonstrated that requiring such waste tissue to

be kept with the body would conflict with standard embalming

procedures and its own recognition that it is appropriate to

excise and dispose of some tissue during the embalming process

without specifically consulting the family. On this point, the

evidence was neither clear nor convincing that Respondents

violated Florida law.

49. Likewise, there was no credible or competent evidence

that Mr. Watts displayed the excised tissue to his apprentice in

a disrespectful or undignified manner. Mr. Watts had an

obligation as Mr. Kahler’s supervising embalmer to teach and

instruct Mr. Kahler, which included explaining the excision

procedure to him. Mr. Kahler’s opinion regarding Mr. Watts’

mindset at the time he showed him the excised tissue is

insufficient to clearly and convincingly demonstrate that

Respondents failed to treat B.C.’s remains with dignity and

respect by displaying the excised tissue to an embalmer’s

apprentice.

50. Finally, the Department did not offer any evidence to

establish that Respondent’s treatment of B.C.’s remains somehow

constituted fraud, deceit, negligence, incompetency or

misconduct as charged in Section 497.15(b)(l), Florida Statutes,

or amounted to a failure to perform a statutory or legal

obligation as charged in Section 497.152(4)(h), Florida

Statutes, or violated any other provision of this chapter or a

lawful order of the board as charged in Section 497.152(1)(a),

Florida Statutes. Given this lack of evidence, the allegations

of the Administrative Complaints involving the treatment of

B.C.’s remains should be dismissed

51. Count II of the Administrative Complaint against

Emerald Coast alleges that it violated a variety of statutory

requirements when it failed to submit a change of ownership form

to the Department.

52. Section 497.380(12)(a)(2008) provides that:

A change in ownership of a funeral

establishment shall be promptly reported

pursuant to procedures established by rule

and shall require the relicensure of the

funeral establishment, including

reinspection and payment of applicable fees.

53. This statutory provision does not describe what

“policy” is that there is a change of corporate ownership under

this section when the FEIN changes. However, there was no

evidence presented at the hearing that demonstrated federal tax

law regarding FEINs should be interpreted in such a manner.

However, irrespective of the interpretation of federal tax law,

the evidence clearly established that Carriage Services of

Florida, Inc., was the original owner of Emerald Coast and was

merged out of existence in 2000. At that point, a change of

ownership occurred and Emerald Coast should have notified the

Department about the change of ownership. Emerald Coast did not

submit a change of ownership application in violation of Section

497.380(12)(a), Florida Statutes, and Section 497.152(1)(a),

Florida Statutes (violating a provision of Chapter 497).

54. Except for failing to notify the Department, no other

violation of Florida law was shown by the evidence, since the

funeral establishment is the licensed entity under Florida law

and Emerald Coast, as the licensed funeral establishment, had a

valid license to operate as such. The other violations charged

by the Department fail since those charges relate to the entity

holding the funeral establishment license. Therefore, the

alleged violations related to Sections 497.141(10), Florida

Statutes, (assignment or transfer of the license); Section

497.152(5)(a), Florida Statutes, (practicing beyond scope

permitted of licensure); Section 497.152(5)(c), Florida Statutes

(representing as its own the license of another); and Florida

Administrative Rule 69K-21.001(14)(operating prior to licensure)

should be dismissed.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is, therefore,

RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing the

Administrative Complaint filed against Jeffrey Kevin Watts and

dismissing Count I of the Administrative Complaint filed against

Emerald Coast.

It is further RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered

finding Emerald Coast guilty of violating Sections

a letter of reprimand for such violation.

DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of October, 2009, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

DIANE CLEAVINGER

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

[phone]

Fax Filing [phone]

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 5th day of October, 2009.

COPIES FURNISHED :

Thomas A. David, Esquire

Department of Financial Services

200 East Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333

Derek E. Leon, Esquire

Christopher J.M. Collings, Esquire

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLC

5300 Wachovia Financial Center

200 South Biscayne Boulevard

Miami, Florida 33131-2399

Diana M. Evans, Director

Bureau of Funeral and Cemetery Services

Department of Financial Services

200 East Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350

Robert Beitler, General Counsel

Department of Financial Services

200 East Gaines Street, Suite 526

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.