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.
Recommended Order on Friday, February 3, 2012.
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.
- Date
- Proceedings
- 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 cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
- 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: 10/19/2011
- 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: 10/12/2011
- 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: 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: 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: 10/07/2011
- 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: 10/06/2011
- Proceedings: Letter to Judge Mcarthur from C. Hebert requesting telephone conference (filed in Case No. 11-002455).
- PDF:
- Date: 09/28/2011
- Proceedings: 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: 09/21/2011
- 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 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: 06/14/2011
- 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: 06/02/2011
- 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: 05/31/2011
- Proceedings: Petitioners', Timbergreen Group Home, Help is On the Way Inc. Response to Initial Order filed.
- PDF:
- Date: 05/23/2011
- Proceedings: Respondent, Agency for Persons with Disabilities' Response to Initial Order 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
-
Charles D. Bavol, Esquire
Address of Record -
Stacy Robinson Nickerson, Esquire
Address of Record