16-002313PL Department Of Health, Board Of Chiropractic Medicine vs. Steven Read, D.C. Status: Closed Recommended Order on Thursday, September 29, 2016.

Summary: Petitioner failed to prove that Respondent committed sexual misconduct. Recommend dismissal of the Administrative Complaint.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF

CHIROPRACTIC MEDICINE,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 16 - 2313PL

STEVEN READ, D.C.,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

On Au gust 3, 2016, Administrative Law Judge Lisa Shearer

Nelson of the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings

conduct ed a duly - noticed hearing pursuant to section 120.57(1),

Florida Statutes (2016), in Jacksonville, Florida .

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Octavio Simoes - Ponce, Esquire

Candace Rochester, Esquire

Prosecution Services Unit

Florida Department of Health

4052 Bald Cypress Way , Bin C - 65

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

For Respondent: Kevin Mercer, Esquire

Wicker Smith

Suite 2700

50 North Laura Street

Jacksonville, Florida 32202

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE S

The purpose of this proceeding is to determine whether

Respondent violated section 460.413(1)(i), Florida

Statutes (2013), by committing sexual m isconduct, as alleged in

the Administrative Complaint. In the event that a violation is

established, then the appropriate penalty to be imposed also

must be established.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On September 2 , 2015, Petitioner, Department of Health

(Petiti oner or the Department), filed an Administrative Complaint

against Respondent, Steven Read, D.C. (Respondent or Dr. Read),

alleging that he failed to perform a statutory or legal

obligation placed on a licensed chiropractic physician in

violation of sectio n 460.413(1)(i), by committing sexual

misconduct in his care and treatment of patient K.W., in

violation of section 460.412. Respondent submitted an Election

of Rights form disputing the allegations of the Administrative

Complaint , and requesting an admin istrative hearing pursuant to

section 120.57(1). He also, through counsel, filed an Answer to

the Administrative Complaint. On April 25, 2016, the Department

referred the matter to the Division of Administrative Hearings

for assignment of an administrati ve law judge.

The case was originally scheduled for hearing to commence on

July 1, 2016. However, at the request of both parties, the case

was rescheduled for August 3, 2016, and was completed that day.

On July 22, 2016, the parties filed a Joint Pre - hea ring

St ipulation that contained stipulations of fact which, where

relevant, have been incorporated into the F indings of F act below.

Prior to hearing, Respondent filed three motions in limine

directed toward PetitionerÓs Exhibits 2 through 4. The motions

were denied by Order dated July 26, 2016.

At hearing, the Department presented the testimony of

patient K.W., and PetitionerÓs Exhibits A through D were admitted

into evidence . PetitionerÓs Exhibits B through D were admitted

over RespondentÓs objection, b ut with the caveat that any hearsay

statements contained within the exhibits would only be used to

supplement or explain other evidence, in conformance with

section 120.57(1)( c ) , but would not serve as the sole basis for a

finding of fact unless they would be admissible over objection in

a civil proceeding. Respondent testified on his own behalf and

presented the testimony of Pam M o barak and Clarissa Ragsdale

Brown . RespondentÓs Exhibit 1 and Composite Exhibit 2 also were

admitted into evidence.

The one - v olume Transcript of the proceedings was filed with

the Division of Administrative Hearings on August 22, 2016. Both

parties timely filed Proposed Recommended Orders that have been

carefully considered in the preparation of this Recommended

Order. All sta tutory references are to the 2013 codification ,

unless otherwise indicated.

FINDING S OF FACT

Based upon the testimony and documentary evidence presented

at hearing, the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, and

upon the entire record of this proceed ing, the following factual

findings are made:

1. Petitioner is the state agency charged with the

regulation of the practice of chiropractic medicine pursuant to

section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 460, Florida Statutes.

2. Respondent, Steven Read, D.C., i s a licensed

chiropractic physician in the S tate of Florida, and holds license

CH 5979. Respondent is the owner of Ortega Chiropractic Clinic

(Ortega) in Jacksonville, Flo rida, and his address of record is

5367 Ortega Boulevard, Jacksonville, Florida 3221 0.

3. Respondent has been practicing chiropractic medicine in

the Jacksonville area for 27 years. He has been running his own

office since 1996. Respondent has no prior discipline against

his license.

4 . Ortega is located in a two - story building. Th e

downstairs includes a waiting room and check - in area, the office

managerÓs office, and three patient examination rooms. Upstairs,

there is a large rehabilitation room . A djacent to th e

rehabilitation room is a small reception area and RespondentÓs

offic e.

5 . The rehabilitation room include s three examination

tables , as well as several pieces of exercise equipment used to

assist patients with stretching and strength - building exercise s .

Patients routinely receive treatment in the rehabilitation area

as t heir condition warrants.

6 . Ortega ha s what was described as an open - door policy

when it c omes to examination rooms. In other words, with the

exception of when a patient i s in an examination room changing

clothes, the examination room doors remain open during treatment.

This policy was in place at the time of the events giving rise to

this case.

7 . At the time of her initial visit to Ortega, patient K.W.

was a 52 - year - old female. She was in a car accident on or about

April 4, 2014, and presented to Or tega on April 7, 2014, with

pain in the neck, right shoulder, lower back, right hip, and

right buttocks, along with persistent stiffness and pain in her

lower right back and right posterior thigh. She described the

constant pain as sharp and shooting, and stiffness with aching ,

at a level of 6 out of 10.

8 . K.W. had nine treatments at Ortega related to her

post - accident pain. Typically, she would receive electric muscle

stimulation, moist heat, and massage therapy from a massage

therapist. Respondent w ould provide chiropractic adjustments.

Those adjustments were spinal adjustments , including her cervical

spine, thoracic spine, and lumbar spine, as well as the

sacroiliac joint, and were done with K.W. lying on her back,

stomach, and side.

9 . During eac h visit, Dr. Read examine d K.W., including

performance of palpation and range of motion assessments, and

performed an adjustment. K.W.Ós condition improved over the

course of her treatment with Dr. Read.

10 . By all accounts, the first ei ght appointments consisted

of the treatments described above and were unremarkable.

1 1 . K.W.Ós ninth appointment was April 23, 2014. Her

appointment was at 8:30 in the morning. K.W. was wearing

sweatpants and a tee shirt. Consistent with her normal practice,

she was not wearing underwear.

1 2 . Dr. Read was late coming to the office because of an

issue related to his daughterÓs health. Dr. ReadÓs massage

therapist, Clarissa (then Ragsdale) Brown , began K.W.Ós treatment

that day with electric muscle stimulation, moist heat , and

massage therapy. Dr. Read then came in, apologized for his

tardiness, and began palpating K.W.Ós glute muscle in her right

buttocks. He worked on the glute muscle into the thigh both over

and under her sweatpants. Patient K.W. had pulled down her

sweatpants on the right - hand side to show Dr. Read the location

of the pain in her buttocks.

1 3 . While he was working on her glute muscle, K.W. believed

that Respondent Ðswiped across my vagina lips a couple of times.Ñ

K.W. could not say whether what she felt was actually Dr. ReadÓs

hands or whether it was contact between her body and her sweat

pants. Either way, she considered the contact to be accidental.

K.W. did not say anything to Dr. Read about this perceived

contact.

1 4 . At this visit, K.W.Ó s pa in level had improved. As a

result of this improvement, Dr. Read asked K.W. if she would like

to begin active strengthening of her lower back on the flexion -

extension machine in the rehabilitation center. She indicated

her willingness to do so, and t he two of them left the

examination room and walked upstairs to the rehabilitation room.

1 5 . As they walked up the stairs, Respondent noticed that

K.W. was moving slowly going up the stairs. He asked her what

was wrong, and K.W. told him that she had a p ulling feeling in

the back of her right leg.

1 6 . The pulling that K.W. described was a new symptom to

Dr. Read , and concerned him. He told her he needed to assess

this symptom before they went further.

1 7 . Dr. Read testified that he had K.W. lie face down on

one of the examination tables to assess the pulling in her leg.

In his assessment, Respondent wanted to differentiate between a

sciatic nerve problem from the low back and a hip pathology. He

also wanted to rule out a deep vein thrombosis (DVT) , which can

be quite dangerous.

1 8 . As part of his assessment, Dr. Read performed a HomanÓs

test to check for DVT. To perform a HomanÓs test, K.W. lay prone

on the table and Dr. Read rolled up her right pant leg and

applied pressure to the calf. He also forcibly flexed the leg

and dorsiflexed the ankle. The test involves stretching the calf

and squeezing it: if the patient had a DVT , heat would most

likely be detected, as well as excruciating pain.

1 9 . Dr. Read also performed a FABRE Patrick test, w hich is

for sacroiliac joint pathology. For this test, K.W. was lying on

her back and Respondent flexed the right leg then abducted the

right hip joint, while externally rotating the right hip.

Dr. Read described it as being like sitting Indian - style, ex cept

that the patient is lying on their back. He would then flex one

leg up toward the chest and then rotate the leg out, while at the

same time applying downward pressure to the knee. If the patient

has a hip - joint p athology, he or she would experience sharp pain

in the hip as a result of this move.

20 . Both the existence of the pulling sensation in K.W.Ós

leg and the performance of the Homan and FABRE Patrick tests are

noted in Dr. ReadÓs medical records for April 23, 2014. Both

tests were negative, a lthough tenderness wa s noted for K.W.Ós

right posterior and lateral thigh. Dr. Read had no knowledge

that K.W. believed he had touched her inappropriately at the time

he dictated and signed his patient records for this visit.

2 1 . During these tests, K.W. thought that, once again,

Dr. Read had touched her vaginal area. However, she could not

state whether it was her sweatpants or Dr. ReadÓs hand that

actually made contact. She testified that at one point, her

sweatpants became uncomfortable and twisted, and were getting

pulled and tugged in conjunction with the assessment that

Dr. Read was performing. K.W. believed that in all, there were

five to six contacts of short duration.

2 2 . K.W. testified that w hen she and Dr. Read entered the

rehabilitation are a, she lay on one of the examination tables

face down, and Dr. Read began working on her glut e muscle again,

separated her butt cheeks with his fingers and thumb, and touched

her vaginal area a couple of times. She felt a light brushing

sensation , but , as noted above, could not say that it was

actually his hand that she felt. She still considered the

perceived contact as unintentional.

2 3 . K.W. also testified that Dr. Read asked her to turn

over, and started working on the lower abdomen down into the

gro in area and the inner thigh . She testified that he again ran

his hand across her vagina, and massaged her upper thigh and leg.

She claimed that because her sweatpants had become twisted, when

Dr. Read pulled her leg up, her leg came out of her sweatpants .

At this point, she interpreted the contact with her vaginal area

as intentional.

2 4 . K.W. did not tell Dr. Read that she thought he had

touched her inappropriately. She testified that he came around

to the front of her and bent over like he was goin g to kiss her.

At that point, she said Ðno, donÓt go there.Ñ According to K.W.,

she asked him if he was finished, and he said yes, so she sat up,

put her leg back into her pants, and engaged in Ð small talk. Ñ

She testified that Dr. Read asked her if she would like to see

his offi ce, and she said sure. While she was in the reception

area outside his office, she testified that he apologized for

coming on to her, and she again told him Ðnot to go there.Ñ

After this exchange, she walked out and down the sta irs to sign

out.

2 5 . Dr. Read, on the other hand, testified that as he was

finishing the FABRE Patrick test, K.W. looked start l ed and got up

off the table, saying ÐdonÓt go there.Ñ He also was startled by

her reaction , and apologized if she felt uncomf ortable. He did

not recall her leg becoming separated from her sweatpants, but

stated that the orthopedic tests that he performed could be

uncomfortable, and thinks that the FABRE Patrick maneuver was

what she was referencing by her comment . He also did not recall

her vagina ever being exposed, but thought if it happened, it

would be when she lowered her sweatpants to show him the location

of her pain.

2 6 . Dr. Read explained that he apologized to her because he

would apologize to any patient who was unco mfortable at any time

during an examination. Palpation as part of the assessment of

K.W.Ós pain would have involved pretty much the entire buttock

area, but would not have gotten close to the vagina without a

clothing barrier. He denied ever engaging in or attempting to

engage in any type of inappropriate conduct or sexual contact,

and specifically denied a ttempting to kiss K.W.

2 7 . Dr. Read further testified that after performing the

H oman and FABRE Patrick tests, he told K.W. that in light of her

right leg pain, she would not use the flexion - tension machine as

planned, but would return to passive treatment. K.W. assented.

As they left the rehabilitation room, he went toward his office

to unlock it. K.W. asked whether that was his office too, and he

r eplied that it was, and that Ortega rented the whole building.

After unlocking the door, he stepped to the side, and K.W.

entered the reception area. As he entered his office, he

repeated that they were done for the day and he would see her the

following day. He stayed upstairs and K.W. went downstairs to

check out.

2 8 . K.W. stated that while she was checking out, Ms. Brown

made the comment that she did not realize that K.W. was there.

Ms. Brown , on the other hand, said that K.W.Ós checkout was

routine and that K.W. did not say anything to her. Ms. Brown

also testified that she saw Dr. Read go to the rehabilitation

area with K.W. and that it is not unusual for Dr. Read to take

patients to the rehabilitation area.

2 9 . K.W. returned to Ortega for her ne xt scheduled

appointment on April 25, 2014. At that time, she told Dr. Read

that she did not feel comfortable with him and would not be

seeing him any longer. Dr. Read told her that under those

circumstances, it was best that she saw someone else, and th at

Ortega would facilitate sending her records to another

chiropractor.

30 . Although she told him she was not comfortable, at no

time did K.W. ever express to Dr. Read that she thought he had

touched her inappropriately. She did not say anything to

Dr. R ead, his office manager Pam Mobarak, or Clarissa Brown that

indicated anything inappropriate occurred at the April 23, 2014 ,

office visit.

3 1 . Approximately one month after the April 23, 2014 ,

appointment, K.W. filed a complaint with the Department . Four

months after the appointment, she filed a complaint with the

Jacksonville SheriffÓs Office.

3 2 . In conjunction with the SheriffÓs OfficeÓs

investigation, K.W. participated in a controlled call in

September 2015. During this telephone call, there was a n officer

on the line giving K.W. questions to ask Dr. Read.

3 3 . The call was answered by Dr. ReadÓs office manager,

Ms. Mobarak, who eventually transferred the call to Dr. Read.

During the call, K.W. attempted to get Dr. Read to see her

outside of the office. Dr. Read declined to do so. When she

asked to see him, he inquired whether she was asking to see him

professionally. The transcript of the controlled call does not

indicate that Dr. Read ever admitted doing anything inappropriate

with respect to K.W. At most, he tells her that it would not be

advisable to see her given her pending complaint with the

Department.

3 4 . The SheriffÓs Office did not file charges against

Dr. Read.

3 5 . This case represents the classic Ðhe said/she saidÑ

scenario where the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses is

key. No testimony was presented by the Department to establish

the scope of chiropractic practice or the proper scope of a

generally accepted chiropractic examination. Dr. Read testified

that while a woma nÓs private areas are in close proximity to

those areas being examined and adjusted, there would be no reason

to touch a womanÓs vagina.

3 6 . After hearing the testimony of all of the witnesses

presented and comparing the testimony with the written docum ents

admitted into evidence, there is no clear and convincing evidence

that Dr. Read touched K.W. inappropriately, whether incidentally

or on purpose.

3 7 . K.W. acknowledged that she could not really tell what

was touching her. It was just as likely that what she felt was

the slide of cloth as her sweatpants moved against her skin.

Moreover, her testimony conflicts with not only Dr. ReadÓs

testimony but also Ms. BrownÓs .

3 8 . Dr. Read, Ms. Mobarak, and Ms. Brown all testified

regarding OrtegaÓs open - doo r policy. K.W., on the other hand,

could not remember whether the examination room was open or

closed. Similarly, the rehabilitation room, while upstairs, was

clearly equipped so that multiple patients could be seen at one

time. While there was no other person upstairs during K.W.Ós

treatment in the rehabilitation area, there was nothing to

prohibit staff or others from entering or leaving the area. It

is inconceivable that Dr. Read would initiate the type of

inappropriate touching K.W. described in a r ehabilitation room

having easy acc ess or a n examination room with an open door.

3 9 . While K.W. testified that Ms. Brown commented at

check - out that she did not realize K.W. was there, Ms. Brown

testified that she observed K.W. going upstairs with Dr. Rea d,

and that it was routine practice for patients to go upstairs for

rehabilitation exercise. K.W.Ós testimony was not convincing.

She considered at least some of the perceived touching as

unintentional, and at best could not confirm that it was in fact

D r. Read touching her. While she may have believed something or

someone was touching her, her demeanor while testifying about

this very intimate type of contact seemed almost casual, as

opposed to exhibiting any type of distress or concern with the

subject matter. She did not appear to have any real concern

about much of the incident. Similarly, her testimony that she

engaged in Ðsmall talkÑ with Dr. Read after his examination of

her in the rehabilitation room is not consistent with what would

be expected from a patient who believes that her physician has

just touched her inappropriately or made a pass at her.

40 . Dr. ReadÓs testimony, on the other hand, was direct,

consistent, and consistent with his medical records, which were

dictated and signed at a t ime when he had no idea that K.W.

perceived that he had touched her inappropriately. His

description of the events is simply more plausible than K.W.Ós

and more believable.

4 1 . It is found that Dr. Read did not, accidentally or

otherwise, touch K.W.Ós va gina during his examination of her on

April 23, 2014.

4 2 . It is found that Dr. Read did not engage or attempt to

engage K.W. in sexual activity.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

4 3 . The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this

proceeding pursuant to sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida

Statutes (2016).

4 4 . This is a proceeding whereby the Department seeks to

suspend RespondentÓs license to practice chiropractic medicine.

The Department has the burden to prove the allegations in the

Administrative Complaint by clear and convincing evidence. Dep't

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

1996); Ferris v. Turlington , 595 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987). As

stated by the Supreme Court of Florid a:

Clear and convincing evidence requires that

the evidence must be found to be credible;

the facts to which the witnesses testify must

be distinctly remembered; the testimony must

be precise and lacking in confusion as to the

facts at issue. The evidenc e must be of such

a weight that it produces in the mind of the

trier of fact a firm belief or conviction,

without hesitancy, as to the truth of the

allegations sought to be established.

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

v. W alker , 429 So. 2d 797, 800 (Fla. 4 th DCA 1983)). This

burden of proof may be met where the evidence is in conflict ,

but it Ð seems to preclude evidence that is ambiguous.Ñ

Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Shuler Bros. , 590 So. 2d 986, 988

(Fla. 1 st DCA 1991).

4 5 . The Administrative Complaint charges Respondent with

violating section 460.413(1)( i ) by violating section 460.412,

which prohibits sexual misconduct in the practice of chiropractic

medicine. Specifically, the Administrative Complaint states:

19. Sec tion 460.413(1)( i ), Florida Statutes

(2013), subjects a chiropractor to discipline

for failing to perform any statutory or legal

obligation placed upon a licensed

chiropractic physician.

20. Section 460.412, Florida Statutes

(2013), provides that sexual misconduct in

the practice of chiropractic means violation

of the chiropractic physician - patient

relationship through which the chiropractic

physician uses said relationship to induce or

attempt to induce the patient to engage, or

to engage or attempt to e ngage the patient,

in sexual activity outside the scope of

practice or the scope of generally accepted

examination or treatment of the patient.

Sexual misconduct in the practice of

chiropractic medicine is prohibited .

Pursuant to Section 460.412, Florida Statutes

(2 01 3), sexual misconduct in the practice of

chiropractic medicine is prohibited .

21 . Respondent used his relationship as

K.W.Ós chiropractic physician to induce or

attempt to induce K.W. to engage, or to

engage or to attempt to engage K.W., in

sexual activity outside the scope of practice

or the scope of generally accepted

examination or treatment by:

a. Touching K.W.Ós vagina; and/or

b. Attempting to kiss K.W.

22. Based on the foregoing, Respondent has

violated Section 460.413(1)( i ), Flo rida

Statutes (2013), by violating Section

460.412 , Florida Statutes (2013) .

(emphasis added).

4 6 . As a preliminary matter, it is doubtful that the facts

alleged, even if proven, could form the basis for a violation of

section 460. 413(1)(i). Although a gencies generally have

discretion in interpreting statutes they administer, Ðthis

discretion is somewhat more limited where the statute being

interpreted authorizes sanctions or penalties against a personÓs

professional license.Ñ Elmariah v. DepÓt of Prof Ól Reg . , 574

So. 2d 164, 165 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990). S tatutes that are penal in

nature must be strictly construed, with any ambiguity interpreted

in favor of the licensee. Id. In particular, agencies are not

permitted to extend the requirements of such sta tutes by

construction. Capital NatÓl Fin. Corp. v. DepÓt of Ins. &

Treasurer , 690 So. 2d 1335, 1337 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997). This

restriction on agency discretion is necessary to ensure that those

whose conduct is regulated by such statutes have fair notice o f

what conduct is proscribed. Beck e tt v. DepÓt of Fin. Servs. , 982

So. 2d 94, 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008).

4 7 . Section 460.413(1)(i), by its express terms, makes

Ð failing to perform any statutory or legal obligation placed upon

a licensed chiropractic physi cianÑ a basis for discipline. This

section specifically refers to Ðfailing to performÑ a statutory or

legal obligation, which necessarily leads to the conclusion that

the legal obligation is something that a licensee is affirmatively

required to complete. Omissions such as failing to complete

continuing education, failing to update practitioner profiles, or

failing to report criminal convictions would be examples of legal

obligations that are appropriately charged under this section.

4 8 . Section 460.412 , however, prohibits sexual misconduct .

It does not describe a legal obligation. To interpret this

section as providing a legal obligation that has not been

performed requires that the violation be characterized as failing

to perform the responsibility t o refrain from committing sexual

misconduct. It makes little sense to cast a clear prohibition in

terms of an affirmative obligation. Moreover, doing something

that is prohibited is not the same as failing to do something that

is required. It would make much more sense to charge sexual

misconduct under section 460.413(1) (ff), which makes it a basis

for discipline to Ðviolat[e] any provision of this chapter or

chapter 456, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto.Ñ

4 9 . In any event, the facts proven at hea ring do not support

a conclusion that Respondent engaged in any conduct that would be

a violation of section 460.412 , much less a violation of

section 460.413(1)(i) .

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is REC OMMENDED that the Board of Chiropractic Medicine

enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint.

DONE AND ENTERED this 2 9 th day of September , 2016 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

LISA SHEARER NELSON

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 2 9 th day of September , 2016 .

COPIES FURNISHED:

Kevin Mercer, Esquire

Wicker Smith

Suite 2700

50 North Laura Street

Jacksonville, Florida 32202

(eServed)

Octavio Simoes - Ponce, Esquire

Prosecution Services Unit

Florida Department of Healt h

4052 Bald Cypress Way , Bin C - 65

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

(eServed)

Candace Rochester, Esquire

Prosecution Services Unit

Florida Department of Health

4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C - 65

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

(eServed)

Nichole C. Geary, General C ounsel

Department of Health

4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 1701

(eServed)

Anthony B. Spivey, DBA, Executive Director

Board of Chiropractic Medicine

Department of Health

4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C07

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3257

(eServed)

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

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

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will iss ue the Final Order in this case.