11-002455 Agency For Persons With Disabilities vs. Timbergreen Group Home, Help Is On The Way, Inc.
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Friday, February 3, 2012.


View Dockets  
Summary: APD did not prove grounds to non-renew licenses of two group homes. One charge not proven; proof of other charge was of single oversight by good emloyee, for which licensee took appropriate corrective action.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8AGENCY FOR PERSONS WITH )

13DISABILITIES , )

15)

16Petitioner , )

18)

19vs. ) Case No. 11 - 1620

26)

27HELP IS ON THE WAY, INC. , )

34)

35Respondent . )

38)

39AGENCY FOR PERSONS WITH )

44DISABILITIES , )

46)

47Petitioner , )

49)

50vs. ) Case No. 11 - 2455

57)

58TIMBERGREEN GROUP HOME, )

62HELP IS ON THE WAY, INC. , )

69)

70Respondent . )

73)

74RECOMMENDED ORDER

76Pursuant to notice, a final hearing was held in this case

87on October 15, 201 1 , and November 7, 2011, by video

98teleconference at sites in Tallahassee and Lakeland , Florida,

106before Administrative Law Judge Elizabeth W. McArthur of the

115Division of Administrative Hearings.

119APPEAR ANCES

121For Petitioner: Stacy N. Robinson, Esquire

127Department of Children and Families

132200 North Kentucky Avenue, Suite 328

138Lakeland , Florida 338 01

142For Respondent: Charles D. Bavol, Esquire

148The Bleakley Bavol Law Firm

1531517 0 North Florida Avenue

158Tampa, Florida 33613

161STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

165Whether Respondent's licenses to operate two group homes

173should be renewed, or whether renewal should be denied for the

184reasons charged in the a dministrative c omplaints issu ed by

195Petitioner.

196PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

198Respondent, Help is on the Way, Inc. (Respondent or HIOTW) ,

208filed with Petitioner, Agency for Persons with Disabilities

216(Petitioner or APD), two applications for renewal of licenses to

226operate two group homes know n as Lake Miriam Group Home (Lake

238Miriam) and Timbergreen Group Home (Timbergreen), in Lakeland,

246Florida. On March 25, 2011, Petitioner issued a Notice of

256Application Denial with regard to Respondent's application to

264renew the Lake Miriam license. On Apr il 29, 2011, Petitioner

275issued a Notice of Application Denial with regard to

284Respondent's application to renew the Timbergreen license. In

292both instances, Petitioner has acknowledged that the renewal

300application denials are tantamount to revocations in th at the

310renewal denials are predicated on past incidents charged as

319violations of group home licensure standards. Therefore, as

327Petitioner agreed, the denial notices should be, and are,

336considered administrative complaints for purposes of this

343proceeding. 1 /

346Respondent timely requested administrative hearings to

352contest the charges in the administrative complaints. The two

361separate cases were forwarded to the Division of Administrative

370Hearings for assignment of an Administrative Law Judge and were

380subse quently consolidated for hearing. Following several

387continuances, the consolidated cases were ultimately scheduled

394for final hearing on October 15, 2011, and were transferred to

405the undersigned, who conducted the hearing as rescheduled. When

414the parties were unable to complete the hearing in the single

425day reserved, an additional hearing day was scheduled for

434November 7, 2011, and the final hearing was concluded then.

444At the final hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of

453James Rheaume, Ronald Thomp son, Melody Taylor, and Heather

462Monteath. Petitioner's Exhibits 1 through 10 were admitted in

471evidence. Respondent presented the testimony of LaDonna

478Bennett, O.J. Bennett, Jeannette Estes, Silas Harris, Aubrey

486Bell, Schellie Fanfan - Sissoko, and Samuel C ooper. Respondent's

496Exhibits 2, 3, 5 through 9, 12 through 16, 19, 20, 22, 25

509through 28, 32, 33, 39, 40, 44, 47, 49, 50, 52 through 56, 58,

52359, 61 through 65, 76, and 105 were admitted in evidence. In

535addition, Respondent offered the deposition T ranscri pts of

544Heather Monteath, Melody Taylor, Jeannette Estes, and Frank

552Davis as Respondent's Exhibits 82, 83, 84, and 104,

561respectively, in addition to , or in lieu of , live testimony.

571The deposition T ranscripts were admitted in evidence subject to

581rulings on Petitioner's objections, which were filed as

589permitted after the hearing. Rulings on Petitioner's objections

597to the deposition testimony are set forth in an A ppendix to this

610Recommended Order.

612The two - volume Transcript of the October 15, 2011, port ion

624of the final hearing was filed on November 4, 2011; an

635additional Transcript volume of the November 7, 2011, conclusion

644of the final hearing was filed on December 5, 2011. On

655December 27, 2011, both parties timely filed Proposed

663Recommended Orders, wh ich have been carefully considered in the

673preparation of this Recommended Order.

678FINDINGS OF FACT

6811. APD is the state agency charged with licensing and

691regulating group home facilities. The statewide headquarters,

698or "central office," is in Tallahassee. Regional offices carry

707out the licensing and regulatory functions within their

715designated regions, or "areas," in coordination with the central

724office. APD Area 14 covers Polk, Hardee, and Highlands

733Counties.

7342. Beginning in 2007 and at all times mate rial to this

746proceeding, HIOTW has been a provider of various residential and

756non - residential services to developmentally disabled persons in

765Lakeland, Polk County, Florida, within APD Area 14. In 2007,

775HIOTW was licensed by the Agency for Health Care Adm inistration

786(AHCA) to provide non - residential homemaker and companion care

796services. In November 2008, HIOTW became licensed by the APD

806Area 14 office to operate Paces Trail Group Home to provide

817residential habilitation services to developmentally disabl ed

824adults. Shortly thereafter, HIOTW was licensed by the APD

833Area 14 office to operate its second group home, Hampton Group

844Home.

8453. HIOTW was licensed by the APD Area 14 office to operate

857Timbergreen in May 2009. In February 2010, the APD Area 14

868offi ce issued a license to HIOTW to operate its fourth group

880home in Lakeland -- Lake Miriam. The group home license renewal

891of these two group homes, each with a capacity to serve six

903adult male residents with developmental disabilities, is at

911issue in this pr oceeding.

9164. After initial licensure of a group home, the license

926must be renewed annually. All of HIOTW's group homes

935successfully have gone through the license renewal process one

944or more times, except for Lake Miriam, which is seeking its

955first lice nse renewal.

9595. On November 12, 2010, HIOTW submitted an application to

969the APD A rea 14 office to renew its license to operate Lake

982Miriam. On March 3, 2011, HIOTW submitted an application to

992renew its license to operate Timbergreen.

9986. By letter date d March 25, 2011, Petitioner denied the

1009Lake Miriam license renewal application (March 25 Denial

1017Letter). Petitioner relies on the following charges alleged in

1026the March 25 Denial Letter as the basis for Petitioner's

1036decision:

1037On or about April 14, 2010, an employee of

1046the applicant left two vulnerable adult

1052group home residents alone in a car for at

1061least ten minutes while that employee

1067conducted business inside a bank. One of

1074the adult residents who was left

1080unsupervised in the car had a history of

1088sexu ally molesting children and other

1094vulnerable adults. The other resident who

1100was left unsupervised in the car was

1107non - verbal. This instance threatened the

1114health, safety, and well being of the

1121applicant's residents in violation of page

1127A - 8 of the Developm ental Disabilities Waiver

1136Services Coverage and Limitations Handbook

1141and Rule 65G - 2.012(15)(b), F.A.C.

1147On or about September 29, 2010, an employee

1155of the applicant was transporting group home

1162residents when one of the residents left the

1170vehicle without th e driver's knowledge. The

1177vulnerable adult resident was later located

1183at a neighborhood store. This instance

1189threatened the health, safety, and well

1195being of the applicant's residents in

1201violation of page A - 8 of the Developmental

1210Disabilities Waiver Serv ices Coverage and

1216Limitations Handbook and Rule 65G -

12222.012(15)(b), F.A.C.

12247. The March 25 Denial Letter also alleged that HIOTW

1234failed to submit a current approved emergency management plan as

1244a third reason to deny the license renewal application.

1253Howev er, Petitioner abandoned the third charge at the outset of

1264the final hearing. Petitioner sought to support its proposed

1273denial of the Lake Miriam license renewal application solely as

1283a penal measure based on the two alleged incidents quoted above.

1294As su ch, but for these two alleged incidents, Petitioner

1304acknowledges that Lake Miriam's license renewal application is

1312otherwise entitled to approval.

13168. By letter dated April 29, 2011, Petitioner denied the

1326Timbergreen license renewal application (April 29 Denial

1333Letter). The April 29 Denial Letter set forth the same two

1344charges that were alleged in the March 25 Denial Letter as the

1356basis for Petitioner's decision. In other words, the same two

1366incidents were asserted as grounds for denying both the Lake

1376Mi riam license renewal application and the Timbergreen license

1385renewal application. But for these two incidents, Timbergreen's

1393license renewal application, like Lake Miriam's application, is

1401otherwise entitled to approval.

1405First A lleged Incident (on or abou t April 14, 2010 )

14179. The credible evidence established the following facts

1425relevant to the first charged incident. In early April 2010, an

1436employee of HIOTW's licensed companion care service, Frank

1444Davis, was providing companion care to R.O., a developme ntally

1454disabled adult. R.O. was not a resident of any HIOTW group

1465home. Instead, R.O. received only non - residential companion

1474services through HIOTW from its employee Frank Davis. As

1483previously noted, companion care services are licensed and

1491regulated b y a different agency, AHCA.

149810. R.O. was classified as developmentally disabled due to

1507mild mental retardation and behavioral problems. R.O. had a

1516history of sexually abusing children and vulnerable adults.

1524R.O. also had a known tendency of "telling big whoppers," i.e.,

1535he was known to be a habitual liar.

154311. R.O. apparently told someone two stories of alleged

1552incidents involving his companion, HIOTW employee Frank Davis.

1560On April 14, 2010, the person to whom R.O. told the stories

1572reported the two allege d incidents to the hotline operated by

1583the Department of Children and Families (DCF), which fields

1592reports of possible abuse or neglect. 2/ One story told by R.O.,

1604as reported to DCF, was that Mr. Davis had left R.O. alone with

1617Mr. Davis's three - year - old d aughter. The other story told by

1631R.O., as reported to DCF, was that Mr. Davis had left R.O. alone

1644in a car with a non - verbal vulnerable adult for a period of time

1659while Mr. Davis went into a bank to conduct some business. If

1671true, these allegations of R. O. allegedly being left alone with

1682a child in one instance and with a non - verbal vulnerable adult

1695in the other instance would be of great concern. Both the child

1707and the non - verbal vulnerable adult with whom R.O. was allegedly

1719left alone would have to be considered at great risk of abuse by

1732R.O., given R.O.'s known history of sexually abusing both

1741children and vulnerable adults.

174512. With regard to R.O.'s first story, involving

1753Mr. Davis's three - year - old daughter, a DCF adult protective

1765investigator (API) w as able to quickly determine that the

1775allegation was completely baseless. In screening this

1782allegation to determine if a formal investigation was warranted,

1791the API spoke with R.O. and then with Samuel Cooper, one of the

1804owners of HIOTW, on April 15, 2010 , the day after the hotline

1816call. Mr. Cooper provided a detailed description of the

1825physical appearance of Frank Davis's daughter. When

1832Mr. Cooper's description of Mr. Davis's daughter was compared to

1842R.O.'s description of the girl with whom he was suppo sedly left

1854alone, the two descriptions were so vastly different that the

1864API was able to, and did, immediately determine that R.O. had

1875fabricated the story, and the matter was closed without a formal

1886investigation.

188713. The same API conducted an investigati on of R.O.'s

1897second story that he was left in Mr. Davis's car with a

1909non - verbal vulnerable adult while Mr. Davis went into a bank.

1921However, the API did not mention this story when he spoke with

1933Mr. Cooper, nor did the API inform anyone from HIOTW that he was

1946conducting a formal investigation. In conducting his

1953investigation, the API spoke with R.O., twice with Mr. Davis,

1963and with O.J. Bennett, another owner of HIOTW.

197114. HIOTW initially learned of R.O.'s story about the bank

1981trip by a phone call from R.O .'s waiver support coordinator.

1992Mr. Bennett immediately investigated the matter, speaking with

2000Mr. Davis and also with the bank manager who was present and had

2013personally observed the events that day. Mr. Bennett's report

2022from his investigation was that when Mr. Davis drove up to the

2034bank with R.O., he left R.O. in the car only to walk about nine

2048feet from the car to the bank's glass entrance area. Mr. Davis

2060signaled to a bank employee who came to the door. Mr. Davis

2072told the employee he wanted to set u p an account to make direct

2086deposits of his paycheck. When Mr. Davis was told he would have

2098to come into the bank and it would take a few minutes, Mr. Davis

2112went back to the car for R.O. and brought him into the bank to

2126wait while Mr. Davis set up the acc ount. R.O. remained in

2138Mr. Davis's sight at all times.

214415. Based on Mr. Bennett's report, which he reviewed with

2154Mr. Cooper, HIOTW determined an unusual incident report (UIR)

2163was not required, because there was no reason to suspect neglect

2174of R.O. Severa l weeks later, when HIOTW learned from an APD

2186employee that DCF was conducting a formal investigation, HIOTW

2195submitted a UIR that set forth the details of Mr. Bennett's

2206investigation and concluded that R.O. had been in Mr. Davis's

2216sight and adequately supe rvised at all times. The APD Area 14

2228administrator confirmed in her testimony that if the facts were

2238as Mr. Bennett found them to be in his investigation, there

2249would not have been inadequate supervision , and there would have

2259been no reason to submit a UI R.

226716. Of greatest significance with regard to R.O.'s story

2276about the bank incident, the API determined that R.O. had lied

2287about being left with a non - verbal vulnerable adult. Instead,

2298the API found that Mr. Davis drove to a bank with R.O., and no

2312one els e, in the car.

231817. The DCF investigator's report summarized the differing

2326versions of events told to him by R.O. and by Mr. Davis. R.O.'s

2339version was that Mr. Davis left him in the car for the whole

2352time that he went into the bank. Of course, R.O. also s aid that

2366he was left with another adult, and that was not true.

2377Therefore, R.O.'s statement to the DCF investigator could not be

2387considered credible or reliable.

239118. According to the DCF investigator, Mr. Davis told him

2401that he left R.O. alone in the car to go into the bank, but came

2416back out of the bank to get R.O., who he then brought into the

2430bank to wait while he conducted his business. However,

2439Mr. Davis testified that he only told the DCF investigator that

2450he walked up to the bank while R.O. was in the car.

246219. Mr. Davis's version of what happened and what he told

2473the DCF investigator is more credible than the DCF

2482investigator's report of what Mr. Davis told him. Mr. Davis's

2492version was corroborated by the hearsay account of the bank

2502manager, who told Mr. Bennett that Mr. Davis brought R.O. in the

2514bank with him, only having left R.O. alone to walk up to the

2527bank entrance. The bank manager confirmed Mr. Davis's testimony

2536that R.O. was in Mr. Davis's sight at all times.

254620. In crediting Mr. Davis's version of events,

2554corroborated by the bank manager, the undersigned finds it

2563significant that Mr. Bennett told the DCF investigator about the

2573bank manager eyewitness, and Mr. Bennett was under the

2582impression that the DCF investigator would follow up by c alling

2593the bank manager. But the DCF investigator did not attempt to

2604interview anyone at the bank, despite the fact that persons at

2615the bank would have been the only other eyewitnesses besides

2625Mr. Davis, who had a self - interest in the incident, and R.O.,

2638the habitual liar whose other story about Mr. Davis had been

2649proven false.

265121. Petitioner did not undertake its own investigation of

2660the facts, either at the time of the incident or at the time it

2674was considering whether to rely on the incident as grounds to,

2685in effect, revoke two of HIOTW's group home licenses. Instead,

2695according to the area administrator for APD Area 14, Petitioner

2705simply relied on the DCF investigation report. Indeed, the area

2715administrator did not even seem to understand the DCF repo rt,

2726because at the hearing, she was adamant in her belief that DCF

2738confirmed the allegation that Mr. Davis left R.O. in a car with

2750a vulnerable non - verbal adult group home resident. The area

2761administrator conveyed her misimpression to the central office

2769i n discussions to consider whether to non - renew two HIOTW group

2782home licenses based on this incident. Ultimately at hearing,

2791the area administrator conceded that she was improperly

2799interpreting the DCF report, thinking that the allegation

2807portion of the re port contained the actual DCF findings. Even

2818so, she steadfastly (and erroneously) asserted that she did not

2828give any false information to the central office regarding

2837HIOTW. 3/

283922. In addition to the misimpression conveyed about the

2848R.O. incident, the ar ea administrator testified that she had an

2859employee convey numerous reports of allegations or suspicions of

2868HIOTW improprieties to the central office in a single packet for

2879the purpose of a decision on whether to renew the two HIOTW

2891group home licenses. T he area administrator explained other

2900information about allegations and suspicions were sent in the

2909same package so that the central office could also consider

2919whether to terminate HIOTW's Medicaid waiver provider agreement

2927at the same time. However, she admitted that the whole packet

2938of material was sent for the purpose of review and a decision on

2951whether to non - renew HIOTW's two group home licenses. As such,

2963it would be difficult to ignore the extraneous allegations when

2973making decisions regarding the l icense renewal applications ,

" 2981[o] f course, you have all of that in your mind[.]" The actual

2994transmittal package to the central office was not produced,

3003apparently because it was sent by electronic mail , and there

3013were some APD email system problems that g ot in the way of

3026producing the email transmittal package. Nonetheless, the area

3034administrator's description of what she believes was sent in a

3044single package to the central office was sufficient to paint the

3055picture of a litany of negative missives regard ing HIOTW,

3065intended , in part , to support the area administrator's

3073recommendation to deny license renewal. 4/

307923. Petitioner did not allege in the administrative

3087complaints and did not prove at the hearing that HIOTW itself

3098was blameworthy for the R.O. i ncident.

310524. The APD Area 14 administrator testified that in

3114recommending non - renewal of the two HIOTW group home licenses, a

3126significant factor that she took into account was that HIOTW

3136failed to promptly submit a UIR to report the R.O. incident.

3147The fa cts found with respect to the R.O. incident do not

3159demonstrate that a UIR was required. Moreover, HIOTW was not

3169charged, in either administrative complaint, with a violation of

3178its UIR reporting obligations.

318225. The DCF incident report concluded with a v erified

3192finding of inadequate supervision. The DCF investigator

3199testified that it was his finding that "[p]rimarily, Mr. Davis

3209was responsible for the inadequate supervision" of R.O. When

3218asked whether HIOTW was also responsible as Mr. Davis's

3227employer, the investigator said, "being his employer, and

3235trainer, yes." However, neither the DCF investigator , nor

3243Petitioner , presented any evidence to suggest that HIOTW was

3252negligent in its hiring, training, or supervision of its

3261companion care employees , gener ally , or Mr. Davis , in

3270particular. Nor was there any evidence that HIOTW failed to

3280appropriately respond to the R.O. incident once it was made

3290aware of the incident.

329426. The DCF incident report found that Mr. Davis was an

3305appropriately screened employe e with no adverse history.

3313Petitioner presented no evidence to the contrary.

332027. Both the DCF investigator and the area administrator

3329for APD Area 14 concluded that HIOTW took appropriate action

3339regarding the R.O. incident, by removing Mr. Davis from s erving

3350as R.O.'s companion and by putting Mr. Davis through additional

"3360zero - tolerance" training. Mr. Davis's employment was

3368terminated shortly thereafter for reasons unrelated to the R.O.

3377incident.

337828. Although the DCF incident report verified a finding of

3388inadequate supervision, the report concluded that the overall

3396risk associated with the finding was low because of appropriate

3406corrective action taken by HIOTW. 5/ The area administrator for

3416APD Area 14 candidly admitted at the final hearing that HIOTW

3427h andled the R.O. incident appropriately and took corrective

3436action that was deemed sufficient by APD and alleviated any

3446health and safety concerns. Inexplicably, she continued to

3454support the charges in the two denial letters, which alleged

3464that the R.O. in cident "threatened the health, safety, and well

3475being of the applicant's residents," because R.O., with his

3484history of being sexually abusive, had allegedly been left alone

3494with a vulnerable, non - verbal adult group home resident.

350429. Since the R.O. incide nt did not involve any HIOTW

3515group home residents, but rather, involved non - residential

3524services provided under HIOTW's companion care license, one

3532would expect that if licensure disciplinary action was warranted

3541against HIOTW at all for this incident, it would have been

3552initiated by AHCA as the licensing agency for companion care

3562services. No evidence was presented that AHCA took any

3571disciplinary action against HIOTW's companion care license.

3578Instead, the evidence established that HIOTW's companion care

3586license remained in good standing as of the final hearing, more

3597than one and one - half years after the R.O. incident.

360830. Notwithstanding APD's knowledge in June 2010 of the

3617DCF report and findings regarding the R.O. incident, APD

3626proceeded to renew annual licenses for the period of October 1,

36372010, through September 30, 2011, for two other HIOTW group

3647homes -- Pace's Trail Group Home and Hampton Group Home. The

3658license certificates state that the facilities comply with the

3667licensure rules of APD. No evidenc e was presented that APD

3678issued administrative complaints seeking to revoke these group

3686homes' licenses; however, the area administrator made clear that

3695she did not intend to renew any licenses for any HIOTW group

3707homes in the future.

3711Second Alleged Incide nt (on or about September 29, 2010)

372131. The facts regarding the second alleged incident

3729involving HIOTW employee Donyell Goodman, were not disputed. At

3738the time of the incident, Ms. Goodman had been employed by HIOTW

3750for three years, with a very good, un blemished employee record.

3761On the day in question, she was serving as a van driver to

3774transport several HIOTW companion care clients to various sites

3783within the local community. E.K. was one of those clients

3793receiving companion care services that day; E. K. also was a

3804resident of HIOTW's Lake Miriam Group Home. E.K. is

3813developmentally disabled due to his diagnosis of mental

3821retardation.

382232. Ms. Goodman stopped to let off one client, and she

3833watched the client walk to the appropriate destination and go

3843inside. She then resumed driving. When she had driven for

3853about five minutes, she glanced in her rear view mirror and

3864realized that E.K. was not there. Ms. Goodman immediately

3873called LaDonna Bennett, the third owner of HIOTW, to report that

3884E.K. must ha ve snuck out of the van at her last stop, and she

3899was going back to find him. Ms. Bennett also headed over to

3911where Ms. Goodman said she had stopped, to assist.

392033. When Ms. Goodman returned to the site of her last

3931stop, she found E.K. there, inside the corner store. E.K. was

3942fine and returned to the van without incident. E.K. apparently

3952admitted to sneaking out of the van, saying he just wanted some

3964fresh air. The entire incident spanned about ten minutes.

397334. Ms. Bennett and Ms. Goodman both immedia tely prepared

3983and submitted UIRs to report the incident. Ms. Goodman received

3993a written reprimand in her HIOTW personnel file and was

4003suspended for several days. When she resumed work, she

4012underwent additional training, was removed from the van driver

4021po sition , and reassigned to the "third shift" with no direct

4032interaction with residents.

403535. The UIR reports triggered a DCF investigation. The

4044AIP who conducted the investigation confirmed the facts that

4053were set forth in the two UIRs. The AIP's investi gation

4064included an assessment of E.K. at the Lake Miriam Group Home

4075where E.K. was a resident. The DCF incident report concluded as

4086follows:

4087Victim Safety Factors Implications: No

4092implications for the [victim's] safety.

4097[Perpetrator] Factors Implicati ons: Based

4102on the informaiton [sic] rec'd, API has

4109determined the [adult perpetrator] to pose

4115no threat to the [victim]. No implication

4122[sic] for the [victim's] safety.

4127Facility Factors Implications: Based on the

4133[victim] to the grouphome [sic], API ha s

4141determined the [victim] to not be at any

4149risk.

4150The API found that the overall safety assessment was low;

4160however, based on the UIRs and interviews with Ms. Goodman and

4171Ms. Bennett, the incident report concluded with a verified

4180finding of inadequate supe rvision.

418536. The API who conducted the investigation testified at

4194hearing and confirmed that the inadequate supervision finding

4202was directed to Ms. Goodman. When asked if HIOTW was also

4213responsible because it was Ms. Goodman's employer, the API said

4223he d id not know and could not answer that question.

423437. Petitioner did not allege in the administrative

4242complaints, and did not prove at the hearing, that HIOTW itself

4253was blameworthy for the E.K. incident.

425938. Neither the DCF investigator , nor Petitioner , o ffered

4268any evidence that HIOTW had negligently hired, trained, or

4277supervised its employees, including Ms. Goodman in particular.

428539. Both the DCF investigator and the APD Area 14 area

4296administrator agreed that HIOTW acted appropriately in response

4304to th e E.K. incident to alleviate any concerns about health and

4316safety, by imposing appropriate discipline against Ms. Goodman

4324for her lapse that caused the incident , and by taking steps to

4336ensure no reoccurrence of the incident.

434240. In 2011, well after APD h ad knowledge of the DCF

4354reports and findings on both the R.O. and E.K. incidents, APD

4365issued a series of temporary or conditional licenses to both

4375Lake Miriam and Timbergreen during the license renewal process

4384to give HIOTW time to respond to certain ident ified omissions in

4396the renewal applications, such as dental records, fire

4404inspection reports, and the like. The temporary and conditional

4413license certificates issued in February and March 2011 state on

4423their face that the facilities comply with the licens ure rules

4434of APD.

443641. According to the APD Area 14 administrator, each of

4446the DCF reports on the R.O. and E.K. incidents resulted in "a

4458verified abuse finding." The area administrator testified that

4466any DCF report resulting in a verified abuse finding is

4476classified as a Class I offense, which is the most serious class

4488of offenses and is sufficient, without more, to give APD legal

4499authority to deny licensure or renewal of a license to a

4510licensed applicant named in the report.

451642. Yet, despite the verified finding regarding the R.O.

4525incident, Petitioner did not deny license renewal applications

4533for other HIOTW group homes. Despite the verified findings in

4543both the R.O. and E.K. incidents, Petitioner issued temporary

4552and conditional licenses to Timbergreen and Lake Miriam during

4561the license renewal process. Thus, Petitioner has not exercised

4570its discretion consistently in dealing with HIOTW.

457743. Petitioner has not exercised its discretion

4584consistently in contexts far more egregious than the two

4593incidents ch arged here. For example, Petitioner acknowledged

4601that a recent incident of abuse and neglect, resulting in the

4612death of a group home resident, did not trigger action by

4623Petitioner to take away all of the group home licenses held by

4635the licensee. Instead, Petitioner only acted to suspend the

4644license of the specific group home where the deceased resident

4654had resided. Petitioner did not attribute this very serious

4663incident to all facilities licensed by the same entity.

467244. It would be unreasonable for APD to automatically,

4681without discretion, equate all verified findings -- whether of

4690abuse or neglect, whether deemed low risk or high risk, whether

4701risk of death or imminent bodily injury was found or not found.

4713A protracted period of abuse or neglect that act ually causes

4724death of a group home resident is on a different plane, in terms

4737of seriousness, from a brief employee lapse in which an

4747individual is not caught when he sneaks away, but is recovered

4758without harm or incident ten minutes later. No explanation was

4768offered by Petitioner as to why, in the more serious situation

4779where a verified incident resulted in death, action was not

4789taken to revoke all group home licenses held by the licensee,

4800whereas here, two incidents verified as low risk situations by

4810DCF (one of which was not proven at the hearing), would cause

4822Petitioner to act more harshly.

4827CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

483045 . The Division of Administrative Hearings has

4838jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this

4848proceeding. §§ 120.569 and 120.57( 1), Fla. Stat. (2011).

485746 . As Petitioner acknowledges, this is a penal action in

4868which Petitioner bears the burden of pleading and proving the

4878alleged violations by clear and convincing evidence. Dep't of

4887Banking & Fin . v. Osborne Stern & Co. , 670 So. 2d 932, 935 (Fla.

49021996) .

490447. As stated by the Florida Supreme Court:

4912Clear and convincing evidence requires that

4918the evidence must be found to be credible;

4926the facts to which the witnesses testify must

4934be distinctly remembered; the testimony must

4940be precise and explicit and the witnesses

4947must be lacking in confusion as to the facts

4956in issue. The evidence must be of such

4964weight that it produces in the mind of the

4973trier of fact a firm belief or conviction,

4981without hesitancy, as to the truth of the

4989allegations sought to be established.

4994In re Henson , 913 So. 2d 579, 590 (Fla. 2005) , ( quoting Slomowitz

5007v. Walker , 492 So. 2d 797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) ; a ccord

5020Westinghouse Electric Corp., Inc. v. Shuler Bros., Inc. , 590

5029So. 2d 986, 988 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) ) ("Alth ough this standard of

5044proof may be met where the evidence is in conflict, . . . it

5058seems to preclude evidence that is ambiguous").

506648. It is incumbent on Petitioner to plead the facts and

5077law relied on to charge Respondent in this penal proceeding;

5087Petiti oner cannot impose discipline for violations not charged

5096in the administrative complaints. United Wisconsin Life Ins .

5105Co. v. Office of Ins . Reg . , 849 So. 2d 417, 422 (Fla. 1st DCA

51212003); Cottrill v. Dep 't of Ins . , 685 So. 2d 1371, 1372 (Fla.

51351st DCA 1996) ; Willner v. Dep't of Prof. Reg., Bd. of Med . , 563

5149So. 2d 805, 806 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).

515749. The administrative complaints charge Respondent with

5164violating group home licensure requirements set forth in section

5173393.13(3)(g), Florida Statutes (2009) 6/ and p age A - 8 of the

5186Florida Medicaid Developmental Disabilities Waiver Services

5192Coverage and Limitations Handbook (Handbook), incorporated by

5199reference in Florida Administrative Code Rules 59G - 13.083(2) and

520965G - 2.012(15)(b) . Petitioner relies on the provision in section

5220393.0673(2) that authorizes Petitioner to deny applications for

5228license renewal based on the applicant's failure to comply with

5238applicable requirements in the group home licensure statute and

5247rules.

524850 . Section 393.13(3)(g) provides that "[p] ersons with

5257disabilities shall have a right to be free from harm, including

5268unnecessary physical, chemical, or mechanical restraint,

5274isolation, excessive medication, abuse, or neglect."

528051. Rule 59G - 13.083(2) incorporates by reference the May

52902010 version of the Handbook. Petitioner did not offer into

5300evidence the excerpt from either the May 2010 version of the

5311Handbook or the prior version of the Handbook that was in effect

5323when the first charged incident occurred. According to the

5332administrative compla ints, the Handbook provision , relied on

5340from page A - 8 of an unidentified version of the Handbook,

5352requires that each provider of waiver services must agree "to

5362safeguard the health, safety, and well being of all recipients

5372receiving services from the provi der."

537852. Rule 65G - 2.012 sets forth the licensure standards for

5389group home facilities. Paragraph (15)(b) provides as follows:

5397The facility shall take all reasonable

5403precautions to assure that no client is

5410exposed to, or instigates, such behavior as

5417mig ht be physically or emotionally injurious

5424to him/herself or to another person.

543053. Section 393.0673(2)(a)3. authorizes Petitioner to deny

5437an application for group home license renewal if the applicant

5447has "[f]ailed to comply with the applicable requireme nts of this

5458chapter or rules applicable to the applicant."

546554. With regard to the first alleged incident involving

5474R.O., Petitioner failed to prove the charges in the

5483administrative complaints. The allegation that there were two

5491vulnerable adult group ho me residents left alone in a car was

5503proven to be false. There were not two vulnerable adults, nor

5514were there any group home residents involved in this incident.

5524While the evidence showed that one adult with a history of

5535sexually molesting children and o ther vulnerable adults was left

5545briefly in a car, the critical allegation that that individual

5555(who was not a n HIOTW group home resident) was left with a

5568non - verbal, vulnerable adult resident of an HIOTW group home was

5580not proven. There was no such other individual and that would

5591have been clear to Petitioner had any fair investigation of the

5602charges been made before they were lodged against Respondent.

5611Finally, and most significantly, Petitioner presented no

5618evidence to support the charge that the R.O. i ncident in any way

5631threatened the health, safety, or well - being of a single

5642resident of HIOTW.

564555. Petitioner did not prove, by clear and convincing

5654evidence or even by a preponderance of the evidence, that R.O.

5665was left alone in a car while a n HIOTW em ployee went into the

5680bank. Although the evidence was in dispute, the evidence

5689established that R.O. was left in the car only while Mr. Davis

5701walked nine feet away from the car to the bank entrance; that

5713when Mr. Davis went into the bank, he took R.O. with him; and

5726that at all times, R.O. was within Mr. Davis's sight. As the

5738APD area administrator conceded, these circumstances do not

5746constitute neglect or failure to supervise by Mr. Davis.

575556. Had the first incident been proven to occur the way

5766the DCF in vestigator reported , that R.O. was left by himself in

5778the car, not with a non - verbal vulnerable adult, for up to ten

5792minutes while Mr. Davis went into the bank, the incident would

5803still not give rise to disciplinary action against two of four

5814HIOTW group h ome licenses. Instead, such proof would have only

5825established inappropriate conduct by Mr. Davis. APD conceded

5833that HIOTW acted appropriately to address the incident, by

5842requiring that Mr. Davis undergo "zero tolerance" training and

5851by removing Mr. Davis as R.O.'s designated companion.

585957. In the language of Petitioner's own rule under which

5869Respondent was charged for the R.O. incident, Petitioner failed

5878to prove that Respondent did not "take all reasonable

5887precautions to assure that" no client was harm ed or caused harm.

5899Instead, the evidence established that Respondent took all

5907reasonable precautions.

590958. Petitioner did not prove the Handbook/rule language it

5918claimed was in effect so as to establish the record basis for

5930the charged violation of a Hand book provision. However,

5939assuming the applicable Handbook provision was as quoted in the

5949administrative complaints, Petitioner failed to prove that

5956Respondent violated a requirement to safeguard the health,

5964safety, and well - being of recipients of services .

597459. The second incident can only be described as an

5984obvious and admitted single negligent lapse by an otherwise good

5994employee with an unblemished record. APD acknowledged that

6002HIOTW acted swiftly and appropriately to report the incident and

6012to complete ly alleviate any health or safety concerns. The

6022employee received a reprimand, suspension, and training and was

6031reassigned to ensure no possible reoccurrence. As such,

6039Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent did not take "all

6049reasonable precautions , " as required by the rule allegedly

6057violated. Nor did Petitioner prove that Respondent failed to

"6066safeguard the health safety, and well being" of service

6075recipients, which Petitioner contends, but did not establish, is

6084a requirement of the Handbook.

608960. AP D suggested that while neither incident alone might

6099have sufficed to discipline HIOTW, the concern was with the

"6109pattern" of multiple incidents. No such "pattern" was proven.

6118Instead, the two incidents were separate, involving two

6126different employees, co mpletely different circumstances,

6132different clients, different concerns and separated by five

6140months. The two different incidents did not involve the same

6150licensed facility; indeed, neither incident occurred at either

6158group home whose licenses are in jeop ardy. No evidence was

6169presented to link these two incidents, such as that the two

6180employees were inadequately trained at the same time or that

6190both employees were trained using the same inadequate training

6199protocol. Indeed, the first so - called incident c annot fairly be

6211characterized as an incident as charged by Petitioner.

621961. In penal proceedings to sanction a licensee,

6227particularly by seeking to, in effect, revoke licenses, the

6236licensing body cannot rely solely on wrongdoing or negligence

6245committed b y an employee of the licensee; instead, the licensing

6256body must prove that the licensee was at fault somehow for the

6268employee's conduct, due to the licensee's own negligence,

6276intentional wrongdoing, or lack of due diligence. The First

6285District Court of Ap peal discussed the development of the rule

6296in a line of cases and articulated the rule as follows in Pic N'

6310Save Central Florida, Inc. v. Dep artment of Bus iness Reg ulation ,

6322Div ision of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco , 601 So. 2d 245, 251

6334(Fla. 1st DCA 1992 ):

6339[B]efore [a licensee's] license can be

6345suspended or revoked for a violation of law

6353[committed by his employees] on his

6359premises, the licensee should be found to

6366have been culpably responsible for such

6372violation through or as a result of his own

6381negligen ce, intentional wrongdoing, or lack

6387of diligence.

638962. In Pic N' Save , the court applied this rule to reverse

6401the revocation of a store's liquor license, which had been

6411predicated on three illegal sales by three different cashiers

6420who failed to require id entification to verify the age of the

6432purchasers. The violations were on three different days in a

6442five - month period. After each incident, the store management

6452conducted training sessions. Although the Department

6458characterized the training sessions as " relatively limited

6465efforts to [ educat e] its employees so as to prevent th o se

6479violations ," I d. at 249, the court held as follows:

6489Because the three illegal sales relied on by

6497the Division are so widely separated in time

6505and involve only single incidents by each

6512participant, we hold that these incidents

6518cannot legally provide a basis for the

6525inference of negligence and lack of due

6532diligence necessary to support the

6537Division's imposition of discipline.

6541Id. at 250. The facts of this case are even less support ive of

6555discipline against the licensee for two unrelated incidents (one

6564of which was not proven to rise to the "incident" level),

6575involving two different employees, not on the same premises, and

6585separated by an equally wide time span.

659263. APD agency prece dent has recognized and applied the

6602foregoing principles from Pic N' Save in the precise regulatory

6612context at issue here, group home licensure. In Ag ency for

6623Pers ons with Disab ilities v. Amanda and C o ., Inc., d/b/a Loving

6637Hearts Group Home , Case No. 08 - 1 812 (Fla. DOAH Oct. 29, 2008;

6651Fla. APD Feb. 3, 2009), APD adopted the Administrative Law

6661Judge's recommendation to dismiss an administrative complaint

6668seeking to discipline a group home's license. The complaint

6677charged the group home with failing to ensur e that a vulnerable

668917 - year old female resident was not abused. 7/ The facts proven

6702at the administrative hearing were that an employee of the group

6713home physically abused the vulnerable young resident. DCF

6721conducted an investigation and issued a report c ontaining

6730verified findings that the group home licensee failed to protect

6740the resident from harm and that the employee was responsible for

6751maltreatment and physical injury inflicted on the resident. The

6760group home terminated the employee. Based on these facts, the

6770Administrative Law Judge concluded that the abused resident was

6779not in any danger of further abuse after the employee had left

6791the facility and that the evidence was not clear and convincing

6802that the licensee's group home license should be disc iplined.

6812APD adopted the recommended findings and conclusions and entered

6821its Final Order determining that "Respondents' license is not

6830subject to discipline for failure to protect [the vulnerable

6839resident.]" APD Final Order at p. 2, Rend ition No. APD 09 - 1895 -

6854FO.

685564. The clear and convincing evidence fails to establish

6864that Respondent's license should be disciplined for the two

6873charged incidents in the administrative complaints.

6879R ECOMMENDATION

6881Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions

6890of Law, it is

6894RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner ,

6903Agency for Persons with Disabilities, approving Respondent's

6910applications to renew its annual licenses to operate Lake Miriam

6920Group Home and Timbergreen Group Home and issuing standard

6929licenses for one - year terms to those facilities.

6938DONE AND ENT ERED this 3rd day of February , 2012 , in

6949Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

6953S

6954ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR

6957Administrative Law Judge

6960Division of Administrative Hearing s

6965The DeSoto Building

69681230 Apalachee Parkway

6971Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

6976(850) 488 - 9675

6980Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

6986www.doah.state.fl.us

6987Filed with the Clerk of the

6993Division of Administrative Hearings

6997this 3rd day of February , 2012 .

7004ENDNOTE S

70061/ Bec ause the APD Notices of Application Denial are properly

7017considered administrative complaints, the parties agreed at the

7025outset of the final hearing that APD should be deemed the

7036Petitioner, with the burden of going forward and the burden of

7047proving the cha rges in the administrative complaints as grounds

7057to take penal action against HIOTW. Therefore, the style of

7067these consolidated cases was amended to reflect the proper

7076alignment of the parties. Previously, the pleadings were not

7085consistent. Case No. 11 - 1620 was transmitted to the Division of

7097Administrative Hearings by APD with a case style reflecting APD

7107as Petitioner and HIOTW as Respondent, whereas the order was

7117reversed in Case No. 11 - 2455. At some point, the cases were

7130consolidated and the case styl es showed APD as Respondent in

7141both cases. Therefore, caution should be used in reviewing

7150record references to "Petitioner" and "Respondent" because of

7158the confusion and changes in usage of those references before

7168the final hearing.

71712/ DCF operates the hotline pursuant to chapter 39 , Florida

7181Statutes (child protective services) , and chapter 415 , Florida

7189Statutes (adult protective services). These same chapters

7196impose obligations on providers and their employees who serve

7205children and vulnerable adults to submit incident reports when

7214they have reason to believe that abuse or neglect of a child or

7227vulnerable adult may have occurred. The hotline calls and

7236incident reports are screened by DCF to determine if a formal

7247investigation is warranted. If a forma l investigation is

7256warranted, then DCF will open a case and conclude the case by

7268issuing a report that either verifies findings of abuse or

7278neglect, or finds no substantiation of abuse or neglect. See ,

7288e.g. , §§ 415.103, 415.1034, and 415.104, addressing h otline

7297reports, incident reporting requirements, and investigations

7303regarding possible abuse or neglect of vulnerable adults.

73113/ The area administrator testified that the two denial letters

7321were prepared by the central office, but that she reviewed them

7332for accuracy before they were sent out to HIOTW. The two denial

7344letters allege that the R.O. incident involved "two vulnerable

7353adult group home residents [left] alone in a car[,]" one of whom

7366had a history of sexually abusing children and vulnerable

7375adult s, and the "other resident who was left unsupervised in the

7387car was non - verbal." These allegations were proven to be false

7399and the information for the allegations came from the APD Area

741014 office.

74124/ HIOTW attempted to, but was not permitted to, fully e xplore

7424the merits of the litany of negative allegations regarding HIOTW

7434which were included in the packet of material transmitted to the

7445central office for the purpose of making decisions regarding

7454HIOTW's pending license renewal applications and regarding

7461possible termination of HIOTW's Medicaid waiver provider

7468contract. The other negative allegations were not charged as

7477grounds to deny renewal of Lake Miriam's license or

7486Timbergreen's license, and , therefore, these peripheral matters

7493cannot be considered as grounds to act on the license renewal

7504applications. However, HIOTW was permitted to go into such

7513peripheral matters to a limited extent for the purpose of

7523establishing the rather poisoned atmosphere and relationship

7530between HIOTW and APD Area 14 offic e personnel, up through the

7542area administrator. A severe communication chasm developed,

7549seemingly borne of the belief held by some area office personnel

7560in the unfounded suspicions about HIOTW. This apparent bias was

7570established and bears on the credibil ity of Petitioner's

7579witnesses in continuing to support the grounds charged in the

7589March 25 Denial Letter and the April 29 Denial Letter.

75995/ The DCF report included a section called "Facility Factors

7609Implications." In this section, the DCF investigator n oted that

7619AHCA's web site showed no recent deficiencies for HIOTW.

7628However, an update to this finding was as follows: "APD stated

7639there have been some questions concerning the characture [sic]

7648of the owners of [HIOTW] recently, the risk is increased."

7658N otwithstanding the apparent risk due to concerns expressed by

7668APD about the character of HIOTW's owners, the overall safety

7678assessment in the DCF incident report was that the overall risk

7689was low due to HIOTW's corrective actions. Presumably, the

"7698questio ns" alluded to by APD about the character of HIOTW

7709owners had to do with the negative suspicions and allegations

7719that APD was collecting and ultimately transmitted to the

7728central office in early 2011. It is not clear whether or to

7740what extent the DCF inci dent report may have been influenced by

7752APD's raising "questions" about the character of HIOTW owners.

7761As discussed in endnote 4, these negative aspersions about HIOTW

7771by the APD Area 14 office, never charged or substantiated, do

7782little to instill confide nce that HIOTW was been treated fairly

7793and without bias.

77966/ The administrative complaints do not refer to which particular

7806year of statute or rule or which edition of the H andbook

7818provision Petitioner intended to charge. Because this is a

7827penal proceed ing, unless otherwise indicated, all references to

7836the Florida Statutes or Florida Administrative Code rules are to

7846the 2009 version, which was the law in effect at the time of the

7860first alleged incident cited as grounds to not renew

7869Respondent's group hom e licenses. Changes to the law in 2010,

7880in effect at the time of the second alleged incident, are

7891immaterial to the charges.

78957/ As in this case, APD also sought to prove and argue in the

7909Loving Hearts Group Home case that the licensee did not

7919immedi ately submit a UIR after the employee "casually mentioned"

7929that she had an incident with the resident the night before, but

7941that it was no big deal. As in this case with the R.O.

7954incident, the evidence tended to confirm the licensee's good

7963faith belief th at there was no reportable incident at that time.

7975Also as in this case, the resolution of this issue in the

7987recommended and final orders was that the matter would not be

7998considered because the administrative complaint failed to charge

8006a violation of the r eporting requirements for incidents of abuse

8017or neglect as required by sections 39.201 and 415.1034.

8026COPIES FURNISHED :

8029Mike Hansen, Executive Director

8033Agency for Persons With Disabilities

80384030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380

8043Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0950

8048Percy W. Mallison, Jr., Agency Clerk

8054Agency for Persons With Disabilities

80594030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380

8064Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0950

8069Michael Palecki, General Counsel

8073Agency for Persons With Disabilities

80784030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380

8083Tallahassee, Flori da 32399 - 0950

8089Stacy N. Robinson, Esquire

8093Department of Children and Families

8098200 North Kentucky Avenue , Suite 328

8104Lakeland, Florida 33801

8107Charles D. Bavol, Esquire

8111The Bleakley Bavol Law Firm

811615170 North Florida Avenue

8120Tampa, Florida 33613

8123NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

8129All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

813915 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

8150to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

8161will issue the Final Order in this c ase.

8170APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER

8174DOAH CASES 11 - 1620 and 11 - 2455

8183The undersigned has considered Petitioner's Objections to

8190Depositions, filed on November 14, 2011, and Respondent's

8198response to Petitioner's objections, filed on December 8, 2011.

8207P etitioner's filing asserted a single blanket relevancy

8215objection, without elaboration, but with separate line items for

8224designated lines and pages to which the blanket objection

8233applied. In many instances, Petitioner designated many - page

8242chunks of deposit ion testimony, sometimes covering 20 - or 30 - page

8255blocks of questioning and answering, some of which may have been

8266irrelevant, but some of which was at least of marginal relevance.

8277Petitioner's blanket objection to a single large designated

8285chunk of depos ition testimony has not been sustained where the

8296designated chunk included some relevant testimony. It was up to

8306Petitioner to lodge specific objections to irrelevant deposition

8314testimony, and Petitioner cannot by its blanket objection, shift

8323the burden t o Respondent or to the undersigned to sort through

8335the relevant and irrelevant portions within large chunks of

8344testimony when Petitioner failed to identify just those

8352irrelevant passages. However, where such deposition testimony

8359was not relevant to the is sues to be determined here, or was not

8373relevant to such permissible matters as credibility/impeachment

8380of the deponents, then such testimony was not used as the basis

8392for any findings of fact.

8397Accordingly, the following specific rulings are made on

8405Petit ioner's designated relevancy objections:

8410Respondent's Exhibit 82

8413Copy of Deposition Transcript

8417Heather Monteath, October 5, 2011

8422Petitioner's relevancy objections to testimony portions cited in

8430line items a. through c. and e. through j. are overruled.

8441Petitioner's relevancy objection d. (page 77, line 6 through page

845178, line 16) is sustained.

8456Respondent's Exhibit 83

8459Copy of Deposition Transcript

8463Melody Taylor, October 7, 2011

8468Petitioner's relevancy objections a. through h. are overruled.

8476Petition er's relevancy objection i. (page 175, line 4 through

8486page 175, line 24) is sustained.

8492Respondent's Exhibit 84

8495Copy of Deposition Transcript

8499Jeannette Estes, October 6, 2011

8504Petitioner's relevancy objections a. through e., g. through i.,

8513and k. through l. are overruled.

8519Petitioner's relevancy objection f. (page 142, line 24 through

8528page 143, line 20) is sustained.

8534Petitioner's relevancy objection j. (page 200, line 12 through

8543page 202, line 19) is sustained.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 04/16/2012
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 04/16/2012
Proceedings: Agency Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/15/2012
Proceedings: Transmittal letter from Claudia Llado forwarding Petitioner's proposed exhibits, to the agency.
PDF:
Date: 02/14/2012
Proceedings: Transmittal letter from Claudia Llado forwarding Respondent's proposed exhibits, to Respondent.
PDF:
Date: 02/03/2012
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 02/03/2012
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
PDF:
Date: 02/03/2012
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held November 7, 2011). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 12/27/2011
Proceedings: Respondent`s Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/27/2011
Proceedings: Petitioner, Agency for Persons with Disabilities' Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/08/2011
Proceedings: Respondent's Response to Petitioner, Agency for Persons with Disabiilties' Objections to Depositions filed.
Date: 12/05/2011
Proceedings: Transcript of Proceedings (not available for viewing) filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/14/2011
Proceedings: Petitioner Agency for Persons with Disabilities' Objections to Depositions filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/09/2011
Proceedings: Letter to Judge McArthur from C. Hebert regarding exhibits filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/09/2011
Proceedings: (Petitioner Agency for Persons with Disabilities' Exhibit 10) filed.
PDF:
Date: 11/09/2011
Proceedings: Petitioner Agency for Persons with Disabilities' Notice of Filing filed.
Date: 11/07/2011
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
Date: 11/04/2011
Proceedings: Transcript Volume I-II (not available for viewing) filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/31/2011
Proceedings: Letter to Judge McArthur from C. Hebert regarding exhibits filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/27/2011
Proceedings: Undeliverable envelope returned from the Post Office.
PDF:
Date: 10/19/2011
Proceedings: Order Amending Style of Cases.
PDF:
Date: 10/19/2011
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing by Video Teleconference (hearing set for November 7, 2011; 9:00 a.m.; Lakeland and Tallahassee, FL; amended as to pre-hearing instructions).
PDF:
Date: 10/18/2011
Proceedings: Order Re-scheduling Hearing by Video Teleconference (hearing set for November 7, 2011; 9:00 a.m.; Lakeland and Tallahassee, FL).
Date: 10/14/2011
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Partially Held; continued to date not certain.
PDF:
Date: 10/13/2011
Proceedings: Affidavit of Service (to S. Fanfan-Sissoko; filed in Case No. 11-002455).
PDF:
Date: 10/13/2011
Proceedings: Return of Service (to R. Lawrence; filed in Case No. 11-002455).
PDF:
Date: 10/13/2011
Proceedings: Return of Service (to A. Trott; filed in Case No. 11-002455).
PDF:
Date: 10/13/2011
Proceedings: Return of Service (to S. Kirnes; filed in Case No. 11-002455).
PDF:
Date: 10/13/2011
Proceedings: Return of Service (to P. Stewart; filed in Case No. 11-002455).
PDF:
Date: 10/13/2011
Proceedings: Return of Service (to S. Harris; filed in Case No. 11-002455).
PDF:
Date: 10/12/2011
Proceedings: Petitioner's Amended and Restated List of (Proposed) Exhibits (filed in Case No. 11-002455).
PDF:
Date: 10/12/2011
Proceedings: Petitioner's Final Hearing Memorandum (filed in Case No. 11-002455).
PDF:
Date: 10/12/2011
Proceedings: Memorandum Supplementing Petitioner's Motion to Compel and Motion for Sanctions (filed in Case No. 11-002455).
PDF:
Date: 10/11/2011
Proceedings: Petitioner's Motion to Compel and Motion for Sanctions (filed in Case No. 11-002455).
PDF:
Date: 10/11/2011
Proceedings: Return of Service (to D. Goodman; filed in Case No. 11-002455).
PDF:
Date: 10/11/2011
Proceedings: Return of Service (to A. Bell; filed in Case No. 11-002455).
PDF:
Date: 10/11/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Telephonic Deposition (of F. Davis; filed in Case No. 11-002455).
Date: 10/10/2011
Proceedings: Petitioner's Exhibits (exhibits not available for viewing)
PDF:
Date: 10/10/2011
Proceedings: Petitioner's Pre-Hearing Statement (filed in Case No. 11-002455).
PDF:
Date: 10/10/2011
Proceedings: Pre-Hearing Statement (filed in Case No. 11-002455).
PDF:
Date: 10/10/2011
Proceedings: Letter to Judge McArthur regarding Witness List and Exhibits (filed in Case No. 11-002455).
PDF:
Date: 10/10/2011
Proceedings: Petitioner's Final Hearing Witness List (filed in Case No. 11-002455).
PDF:
Date: 10/10/2011
Proceedings: Petitioner's List of Exhibits (filed in Case No. 11-002455).
PDF:
Date: 10/07/2011
Proceedings: Respondent Agency For Persons With Disabilities' Pre-Hearing Statement filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/07/2011
Proceedings: Respondent Agency For Persons With Disabilities Exhibits (exhibits not available for viewing) filed.
PDF:
Date: 10/07/2011
Proceedings: Order.
PDF:
Date: 10/06/2011
Proceedings: Letter to Judge Mcarthur from C. Hebert requesting telephone conference (filed in Case No. 11-002455).
PDF:
Date: 09/28/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Transfer.
PDF:
Date: 09/28/2011
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing by Video Teleconference (hearing set for October 14, 2011; 9:00 a.m.; Lakeland and Tallahassee, FL; amended as to video hearing and Tallahassee hearing location).
PDF:
Date: 09/28/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Transfer.
PDF:
Date: 09/21/2011
Proceedings: Subpoena for Administrative Hearing (directed to Aimee Trott; filed in Case No. 11-002455).
PDF:
Date: 09/21/2011
Proceedings: Subpoena for Administrative Hearing (directed to Silas Harris; filed in Case No. 11-002455).
PDF:
Date: 09/21/2011
Proceedings: Subpoena for Administrative Hearing (directed to Schellie Fanfan-Sissoko (filed in Case No. 11-002455).
PDF:
Date: 09/21/2011
Proceedings: Subpoena for Administrative Hearing (directed to Randall Lawrence filed in Case No. 11-002455).
PDF:
Date: 09/21/2011
Proceedings: Subpoena for Administrative Hearing (directed to Pam Stewart; filed in Case No. 11-002455).
PDF:
Date: 09/21/2011
Proceedings: Subpoena for Administrative Hearing (directed to Stephanie Kirnes; filed in Case No. 11-002455).
PDF:
Date: 09/21/2011
Proceedings: Subpoena for Administrative Hearing (directed to Crystal Williams; filed in Case No. 11-002455).
PDF:
Date: 09/21/2011
Proceedings: Subpoena for Administrative Hearing (directed to Frankie Tucker; filed in Case No. 11-002455).
PDF:
Date: 09/21/2011
Proceedings: Subpoena for Administrative Hearing (directed to Donyell Goodman; filed in Case No. 11-002455).
PDF:
Date: 09/21/2011
Proceedings: Subpoena for Administrative Hearing (directed to Aubrey Bell; filed in Case No. 11-002455).
PDF:
Date: 09/21/2011
Proceedings: Subpoena for Administrative Hearing (directed to Nannette Gant; filed in Case No. 11-002455).
PDF:
Date: 09/21/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (of H. Monteat; filed in Case No. 11-002455).
PDF:
Date: 09/21/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (of J. Estes; filed in Case No. 11-002455).
PDF:
Date: 09/21/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (of M. Taylor; filed in Case No. 11-002455).
PDF:
Date: 09/21/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (of L. Gibson; filed in Case No. 11-002455).
PDF:
Date: 09/21/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (of C. Miller; filed in Case No. 11-002455).
PDF:
Date: 09/21/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum (of C. Bettis; filed in Case No. 11-002455).
PDF:
Date: 08/19/2011
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing (hearing set for October 14, 2011; 9:00 a.m.; Lakeland, FL).
Date: 08/18/2011
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Motion Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 06/24/2011
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance and Re-scheduling Hearing (hearing set for September 6 through 8, 2011; 9:00 a.m.; Lakeland, FL).
Date: 06/23/2011
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Pre-Hearing Conference Held.
PDF:
Date: 06/16/2011
Proceedings: Amended Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 06/16/2011
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing (hearing set for July 19 and 20, 2011; 9:00 a.m.; Lakeland, FL; amended as to parties of record).
PDF:
Date: 06/16/2011
Proceedings: Order Allowing Substitution of Counsel.
PDF:
Date: 06/14/2011
Proceedings: Stipulation for Substitution of Counsel (with attached Proposed Order Granting Substitution of Counsel) filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/06/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (filed in Case No. 11-002455 Charles Bavol).
PDF:
Date: 06/06/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Charles Bavol) filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/02/2011
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing (hearing set for July 19 and 20, 2011; 9:00 a.m.; Lakeland, FL; amended as to consolidated case and issue).
PDF:
Date: 06/01/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Transfer.
PDF:
Date: 06/01/2011
Proceedings: Order of Consolidation (DOAH Case Nos. 11-1620 and 11-2455).
PDF:
Date: 05/31/2011
Proceedings: Petitioners', Timbergreen Group Home, Help is On the Way Inc. Response to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/24/2011
Proceedings: Notice of Transfer.
PDF:
Date: 05/23/2011
Proceedings: Respondent, Agency for Persons with Disabilities' Response to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/16/2011
Proceedings: Initial Order.
PDF:
Date: 05/16/2011
Proceedings: Election of Rights filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/16/2011
Proceedings: Notice (of Agency referral) filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/16/2011
Proceedings: Agency action letter filed.
Date: 10/28/2010
Proceedings: Petitioner's Amended amd Restated List of Exhibits (exhibits not available for viewing)

Case Information

Judge:
ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR
Date Filed:
05/16/2011
Date Assignment:
09/28/2011
Last Docket Entry:
04/16/2012
Location:
Lakeland, Florida
District:
Middle
Agency:
Other
 

Counsels

Related Florida Statute(s) (7):