16-006322PL Department Of Health, Board Of Clinical Social Work, Marriage And Family Therapy And Mental Health Counseling vs. Kathryn Lee Friedman, Lmhc Status: Closed Recommended Order on Monday, June 19, 2017.

Summary: Mental health counselor's borrowing of $85,000 from her patient under counseling for the death of her son failed to meet minimum standards of performance.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, BOARD OF

CLINICAL SOCIAL WORK, MARRIAGE

AND FAMILY THERAPY , AND MENTAL

HEALTH COUNSELING,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 16 - 6322PL

KATHRYN LEE FRIEDMAN, LMHC,

Respondent.

__________________ _____________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

On April 20, 2017, a duly - noticed hearing was held in West

Palm Beach, Florida, before F. Scott Boyd, an Administrative Law

Judge assigned by the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) .

AP PEARANCES

For Petitioner: Elana J. Jones, Esquire

Candace R. Rochester, Esquire

Department of Health

4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C - 65

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

For Respondent: Richard H. Levenstein, Esquire

Kramer, Sopko & Levenstein

2300 Southeast Monterey Road, Suite 100

Stuart, Florida 34996

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE S

Whether Respondent failed to meet minimum standards in the

performa nce of professional activities when measured against

generally prevailing peer performance, in violation of section

491.009(1)(r), Florida Statutes (2012 ) 1/ ; and, if so, what is the

appropriate sanction.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On February 12, 2015, the Flor ida Department of Health

(Department or Petitioner) filed an Administrative Complaint

against Ms. Kathryn Lee Friedman 2/ (Ms. Friedman or Respondent) on

behalf of the Board of Clinical Social Work, Marriage and Family

Therapy, and Mental Health Counseling (the Board), alleging that

Respondent had violated section 491.009(1)(r) through her

interactions with Patient M.M.

The case was set for hearing on January 5 and 6, 2017. After

two motions for continuance were granted, the case was heard on

April 20, 2017 . At hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony

of Patient M.M. and that of Dr. Oren Wunderman, e xecutive d irector

of the Family Resource Center of South Florida and licensed

mental health counselor. Petitioner offered ten exhibits, P - 1

through P - 10, al l of which were admitted without objection.

Respondent testified on her own behalf and offered the testimony

of Ms. Angie Rosillo, a licensed mental health counselor.

Respondent ' s E xhibits R - 1 through R - 8, R - 12, R - 13, R - 16, R - 17,

R - 25 through R - 28, R - 34 through R - 37, R - 43, R - 46, R - 48, R - 49,

R - 52, R - 54, R - 55, R - 57, R - 59, R - 60, R - 68, R - 88, R - 91, R - 97, R - 107,

R - 116 through R - 118, R - 132, R - 134, R - 137, R - 140, R - 149, R - 151,

and R - 154 through R - 156 were admitted without objection.

Exhibit R - 161 -- a copy of a Rele ase and Settlement Agreement in a

related civil case between Patient M.M. and Respondent -- was

admitted as a late - filed exhibit, solely for consideration as to

penalty if a violation was found, over objection of Petitioner.

Respondent ' s E xhibits R - 162 thro ugh R - 164 were also late - filed,

without authorization, and were rejected on that basis by a post -

hearing O rder issued on April 25, 2017.

The two - volume Transcript was filed on May 22, 2017. In

response to Respondent ' s unopposed request at hearing, the

dea dline to file proposed recommended orders was set at 15 days

after receipt and posting of the Transcript at DOAH.

Both parties timely filed proposed recommended orders, which

were carefully considered.

FINDING S OF FACT

1. The Department is the State agenc y charged with the

regulation of the practice of mental health counseling pursuant to

s ection 20.43 and c hapter s 456 and 491, Florida Statutes.

2. Pursuant to section 491.004(6), the Board carries out

applicable provisions of chapter 456 with respect to d iscipline

against mental health counselors under chapter 491.

3. Ms. Friedman is a licensed mental health counselor in the

s tate of Florida, having been issued license MH 3430.

4. Ms. Friedman ' s address of record is 600 Sandtree Drive ,

No. 108, Palm Beac h Gardens, F lorida , 33403.

5. Patient M.M. ' s son was born with a rare, aggressive brain

tumor. Doctors told her that her son might not live beyond the

age of two. A co - worker of Patient M.M. ' s mentioned Ms. Friedman

as a mental health counselor, and Pat ient M.M. began regularly

seeing Ms. Friedman in about 2002 or 2003 to help her cope with

the tragedy.

6. Patient M.M. moved to Boston with her husband in 2008 to

obtain specialized treatment for her son. Through the next few

years, Patient M.M. continue d to receive counseling and therapy

from Ms. Friedman through the use of Skype transmissions on a

couple of occasions and from scheduled appointments conducted when

she periodically returned to Palm Beach County.

7. In April of 2012, Patient M.M. learned that her son ' s

tumor had returned and metastasized throughout his body. Patient

M.M. ' s son passed away on June 29, 2012, and Patient M.M. moved

back to Florida in August.

8. Patient M.M. began to have appointments with Ms. Friedman

once or twice a week f or assistance with her grief over the loss

of her only child and with her marital problems. Conversations

were not always strictly professional in nature, and their

conversations also came to include discussions of Ms. Friedman ' s

problems. They began to go out to eat together after

appointments.

9. Patient M.M. had few friends and spent little time with

them, due to their involvement with their own families. Patient

M.M. considered her therapist as her friend. She described

Ms. Friedman as her " lifelin e. "

10. Patient M.M. ' s husband asked her for a divorce in

October or November of 2012. Patient M.M. subsequently found out

that he was having an affair. She discussed his infidelity with

Ms. Friedman.

11. Ms. Friedman referred Patient M.M. to a friend who was

an attorney. Patient M.M. disclosed to Ms. Friedman that she was

worried about filing for divorce even though her husband had asked

her for one, because she thought she might lose $85,000 that she

had started saving when she was in high school, he r life ' s

savings.

12. Ms. Friedman and Patient M.M. communicated often by text

messaging. These communications involved health issues, marital

relations, scheduling of meetings, business, and other topics.

They appear to reflect a mutual friendship, wit h Ms. Friedman

confiding in Patient M.M. and seeking personal advice from her.

13. Patient M.M. was very grateful to Ms. Friedman for the

help that Ms. Friedman was giving her. She also listened and

gave advice to Ms. Friedman on financial matters, Ms. F riedman ' s

extra - marital affair, and other personal problems that

Ms. Friedman was having. She told Ms. Friedman that she was

willing to " help back " for the assistance that Ms. Friedman was

giving her.

14. The two now frequently made arrangements to have dinner

together. Regarding these dinner engagements, Ms. Friedman

testified as follows:

Q. So after [Patient M.M. ' s] son died, you

had dinner with her several times?

A. And only because she was losing weight and

she didn ' t want to go home and I am an e ating

disorder specialist.

Q. So you never initiated any of these

dinners for personal purposes?

A. Not at all. She asked me to go to dinner

because she didn ' t want to go home. And she

said it ' s late, it ' s eight o ' clock, why don ' t

we just go grab a b ite, so we did. I

shouldn ' t have, but I did. And I did it

primarily because I wanted her to eat. She

had lost ten pounds, she ' s not that big a

woman.

Q. So you never initiated any of these dinner

invitations?

A. I did not.

Ms. Friedman ' s testimony is not credible in light of all of the

other evidence, especially the text messages by Ms. Friedman to

Patient M.M. It is clear that Ms. Friedman and Patient M.M. had

dinner together on numerous occasions at restaurants as well as at

Ms. Friedman ' s home, not always following a therapy session, often

planned long in advance, and sometimes initiated by Ms. Friedman.

15. On June 10, 2013, shortly before the anniversary of the

passing of Patient M.M. ' s son, Ms. Friedman messaged Patient

M.M.: 3/

Good morning, I need some help and I ' m going

to ask you. This year as you know has been

extremely stressful on me. I want to grow the

business in some areas but lack the working

capital to do so. I ' ve applied for a business

loan for 50,000. My credit is good but not

quite strong enough from a business stand

point and they are asking me to have a co -

signer. If you will do this for me I would be

so grateful. I never miss payments on

anything. This money will give the business

the ability to grow, but also give me so me

peace of mind.

I hope you don ' t mind me asking. You know I

love you and would never not make good on this

loan.

Hugs

16. In an e - mail dated June 12, 2013, to Patient M.M.,

Ms. Friedman reiterated her request for financial assistance.

She further d escribed her desire to " grow the business " as

involving purchase of needed equipment and a change to electronic

records. In the e - mail, she expanded the reasons for the loan to

include increased personal expenses due to her husband ' s illness

and due to he r moving out, replenishment of her exhausted

savings, and her own unmet medical and dental needs.

Ms. Friedman assured Patient M.M. that she would always make the

payment on the loan before anything else.

17. Ms. Friedman and Patient M.M. continued to ex change

numerous texts over the next month on various topics, including

the loan. Patient M.M. indicated initial reluctance to co - sign

and offered alternatives. Ms. Friedman repeated her request.

18. Patient M.M. agreed to co - sign a loan for Ms. Friedma n.

Patient M.M. believed that Ms. Friedman was obtaining the loan and

would have legal responsibility to pay it back, and that, as co -

signer, Patient M.M. would be asked to pay only if Ms. Friedman

did not.

19. Ms. Friedman contacted Direct Business Lend ing through

the Internet and subsequently began working with Shawn Kinney of

Presta Funding Group.

20. Subsequent messages from Ms. Friedman to Patient M.M.

asked for pay stubs, bank statements, W - 2 forms, access

information for Patient M.M. ' s financial a ccounts, and similar

information from Patient M.M. These requests are interspersed

among texts that reflect plans for the two to have dinner, go to

movies, and even spend the night. Patient M.M. gave Ms. Friedman

information to complete a b usiness c redit a pplication.

21. Ms. Friedman testified that her new business software

" went live " on July 1, 2013. She testified that there were

glitches and that because there was no billing, her " remittances

went to zero " at that time. (In contrast, by letter dated

October 10, 2013, Ms. Friedman told Patient M.M. that her cash

flow had " basically stopped " on the first of September.)

22. On July 16, 2013, Ms. Friedman received $24,000 from the

Navy Federal Credit Union (Navy) . Ms. Friedman testified that she

used t his money to get out of personal debt, paying amounts owed

on her rent, her car, and her daughter ' s car. The first minimum

payment of $482 was due on August 22, 2013.

23. On July 16, 2013, Ms. Friedman received a cash advance

of $ 19,500 from Pentagon Fed eral Credit Union (Penfed) . The first

minimum payment of $391 was due on September 1, 2013.

24. On July 23, 2013, Ms. Friedman sent an e - mail to Patient

M.M. asking her to call USAA and register to get a loan.

Ms. Friedman explained to Patient M.M. that she had tried to get a

loan approved online, but was unable to do so because USAA

indicated that Patient M.M. already had an existing account.

Ms. Friedman asked Patient M.M. to re - register and then provide

Ms. Friedman with the account number, user name , and password.

25. A little over an hour later, Patient M.M. e - mailed

Ms. Friedman the requested information, as well as answers to the

security questions on the account. Patient M.M. then asked

Ms. Friedman: " How much is total loan? How much from Nav y? How

much from USAA? Anywhere else? "

26. On August 2, 2013, Ms. Friedman received $19,800 from

USAA. The first minimum payment of $400 was due on September 4,

2013.

27. Ms. Friedman spent money on major renovations to her

home, as Patient M.M. was aware. On August 6, 2013, Ms. Friedman

messaged Patient M.M. regarding a loan from Bank of America,

urging her to contact the bank and tell them " the business is

expanding. " Several texts later, she messaged Patient M.M.: " Can

we get this done B4 you l eave If this falls through I can ' t

finish my house. So I ' m nervous. " Shortly thereafter, Patient

M.M. replied to Ms. Friedman: " Called. Done. Everything is good

to go! "

28. On August 9, 2013, Ms. Friedman received $19,000 from

Bank of America. The first minimum payment of $195 was due on

September 19, 2013.

29. The credit card cash advance arrangements that were

made in conjunction with the loans obligated only Patient M.M. to

repay, and not Ms. Friedman. Patient M.M. was not a " co - signer "

on the loans.

30. Ms. Friedman testified that she only received the money

and did not know when the payments were due or how much they

were. Her testimony that she could not have found out this

information from the lenders or from Patient M.M. was not

credibl e.

31. Although Patient M.M. had agreed to " co - sign " for a

loan of $50,000, Ms. Friedman received more than this amount.

Ms. Friedman testified:

Q. So Ms. Friedman, the amount of the loan

that M.M. agreed to was to cosign for $50,000,

correct?

A. Corr ect.

Q. And she never authorizes the increase of

that loan above that amount, did she?

A. Not that I know of.

Q. However, the amount that you end up

borrowing through these cash advances ends

being $85,000, correct?

A. Yes, But I have to say that i t was almost

like kind of magical money, it wouldn ' t stop,

and finally it stopped.

Q. I don ' t understand what you mean by

magical money?

A. They said we could get this significant - Î

they just sent the money, it wasn ' t like you

had a chance to say no, no, no, no. It was

very little communication.

32. Yet on July 25, 2013, an e - mail from Abigail Douglas of

Presta Funding addressed to Ms. Friedman stated, " Total Funding as

of today $65,000 " ; indicated the subtotals from Navy, Penfed, and

Bank of Amer ica ; and asked regarding USAA, " Do you want me to

submit for additional funding? " Ms. Friedman responded, " Yes,

please, let ' s see what they will give us. " Contrary to

Ms. Friedman ' s testimony, this was a clear opportunity to say

" no. "

33. While Ms. Frie dman testified that she had previously

talked to Patient M.M. about increasing the amount of the loan,

this testimony was not credible. In a response to later messages

from Patient M.M. pointing out that the loans from Navy, Bank of

America, and USAA tota led $63,000, stating that " 63k is more than

what I agreed to co - sign, " and reminding Ms. Friedman that they

had spoken about $50,000, Ms. Friedman responded on August 26,

2013: " I didn ' t know that. I ' m working on getting money to pay

you back fast. "

34. Patient M.M. testified that she started receiving

notices from the loan and credit card companies that there had

been non - payments and advising of late payment charges.

35. On September 7, 2013, after preparing dinner at

Ms. Friedman ' s house, Patient M.M . messaged Ms. Friedman when she

arrived back at home, referencing the payment due to Navy:

M.M.: Home. Thanks 4 a nice nite. Hv a good

nite. I ' m off to bed.

K.F.: Me too. Exhausted. Thanks for coming

and cooking. I need a break. So I ' ll be out

a nd about from 12:30. Getting nails done then

may do some shopping before going to my

friends, the Friedman ' s for dinner. Text if

you want to meet. Love yo

M.M.: Just got notice of $482 non payment 2

acct as of 9/2

K.F.: No I paid it

M.M.: When pai d?

K.F.: 9/3 there was a problem with the

account number Don ' t worry I ' m on top of it.

M.M.: Good.

K.F.: Might

36. A week later, there was another text message

conversation about loan payments:

M.M.: Hi. How r u? Can we do dinner a

little bit e arlier like 530 or 6? I ' ve

already made the mushroom gravy 4 steak

tonight.

K.F.: No I don ' t think I ' ll get home till

6:00. It will have to be around 7:00. Can

you still come We are buying you a steak and

salad greens I just can ' t get back. I ' m on m y

way to Hannah ' s

M.M.: Yes I come. I ' ll b there 6:30

K.F.: Ok great

M.M.: USAA sent me payment reminder

K.F.: Do you want a potatoe. The accounts

are all paid

M.M.: No thanks on starch. Thanks 4 payment.

37. Patient M.M. credibly testified that she learned later

that Ms. Friedman actually never made any payments on any of the

loans. Ms. Friedman admitted at hearing that she lied to Patient

M.M. about making payments on the loans. She testified that she

did so because she was afraid to say that she could n o t pay them.

38. Ms. Friedman testified that the borrowed money was spent

on several things:

The first check I got was, I don ' t know the

exact date, but it was Navy Federal for, I

think it was $25,000, that check got me out of

debt, person al debt. It paid off my rent and

my landlord, it paid my cars. And then the

next checks that came in, we worked on paying

for the new billing system, we had to buy new

computers and I was working with another

person at the time. We just rent space. We

rented space together. He had his own

practice, I had my own practice, but I did all

the billing. So we had to get new computers

because we needed due spects (as transcribed)

Our computers were old.

I ' m not going to tell you -- I ' ll be very honest

with y ou; some of this money was used for

entertainment between M.M. and myself and my

husband. So if she said she never enjoyed the

money, she did.

39. Ms. Friedman testified that she did not have enough

money to make even the minimum payments on the loans , in spite of

her receipt of the four sizeable checks, because she had no income

due to the billing system failure. This testimony was not

credible.

40. Ms. Friedman testified that by October 2013, she again

had money coming in.

41. The actions of Ms. F riedman in borrowing $85,000 from

Patient M.M. and not paying it back impacted Patient M.M.

financially, damaged her credit, and prevented her from obtaining

credit cards.

42. Patient M.M. filed a lawsuit against Ms. Friedman

sometime around January 2014 , because Ms. Friedman had still not

made any payments on any of the loans.

43. Patient M.M. ' s divorce was final in August 2014.

44. In a Release and Settlement Agreement entered into

between Ms. Friedman and Patient M.M. on February 25, 2015,

Patient M.M. received payment from Respondent ' s professional

negligence insurance in full settlement and discharge of Patient

M.M. ' s claims. Patient M.M. testified that she has not used any

of the money she received to pay off the loans and that they

remain unpai d. There was no evidence that Ms. Friedman ever made

any payments on the loans or personally gave back any of the

$85,000 that she received.

45. An Administrative Complaint was filed against

Ms. Friedman in February 2015.

46. In July 2016, Ms. Friedman completed a three - hour online

course entitled " Ethics and Boundaries. "

47. In September 2016, Ms. Friedman participated in a three -

day course on professional boundaries and ethics provided by

Professional Boundaries, Inc. She testified that she continue s to

participate in weekly telephone conferences offered by this

company.

48. Ms. Friedman testified that she could not remember if

any of the ethics courses that she was required to periodically

take throughout the years of her licensure covered boundary

violations.

49. Dr. Oren Wunderman credibly testified that it is

substantially below the minimum professional standard for a

mental health counselor to solicit or borrow money from her

patient , a conclusion shared by Ms. Rosillo . Dr. Wunderman

discussed the concept of transferential gratitude, and explained

that it is not uncommon for a patient to become profoundly

grateful to her therapist and desire to find ways to " repay " the

therapist for the help that has been provided. He noted that a

therapist mu st observe her fiduciary responsibilities. A

therapist must ensure that she is " advocating for the client ' s

wellbeing above the therapist ' s wellbeing " and cannot allow an

additional relationship, such as debtor or friend, to overlay the

therapist - patient relationship.

50. While the evidence here showed that Ms. Friedman

solicited a loan from Patient M.M., as Dr. Wunderman explained,

even had Ms. Friedman not solicited the loan, it was improper for

her to accept it.

51. Ms. Friedman failed to meet the min imum standards of

performance in professional activities when measured against

generally prevailing peer performance by soliciting a loan from

Patient M.M. She also failed to meet those minimum standards in

accepting a loan from Patient M.M.

52. No evi dence was introduced that Ms. Friedman has ever

received any prior discipline.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

53. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction

over the subject matter and the parties to this proceeding under

sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2016).

54. Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the

mental health counseling license of Respondent. A proceeding to

impose discipline against a professional license is penal in

nature, and Petitioner bears the burden t o 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 , 510 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987).

55. Clear and convincing evidence has been said to require:

[T]hat 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 explicit and

the witnesses must be lacking in confusion as

to the facts in iss ue. The evidence must be

of such 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.

Walker , 429 So. 2d 797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)).

56. Disciplinary statutes and rules " must always be

construed strictly in favor of the one against whom the penalty

would be imposed and are never to be extended by construction. "

Griffis v. Fish & Wildlife Conserv. Comm ' n , 57 So. 3d 929, 931

(Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Any ambiguities must be construed in favor

of the licensee. Lester v. Dep ' t of Prof ' l Reg. , 348 So. 2d 923,

925 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).

57. Section 491.009(1)(r) provided:

(1) The fo llowing acts constitute grounds for

denial of a license or disciplinary action, as

specified in s. 456.072(2):

* * *

(r) Failing to meet the minimum standards of

performance in professional activities when

measured against generally prevailing p eer

performance, including the undertaking of

activities for which the licensee, registered

intern, or certificateholder is not qualified

by training or experience.

58. In the Administrative Complaint, it was alleged that

Respondent failed to meet minimu m standards in two ways: by

soliciting Patient M.M. to help her financially; and by borrowing

funds from Patient M.M.

59. As Dr. Wunderman testified, Respondent ' s conduct in

soliciting and borrowing money from Patient M.M. fell

substantially below the mi nimum professional standard for a mental

health counselor.

60. Respondent maintained that it was Patient M.M. who first

expressed a general desire to " help back " Respondent, suggesting

that if Patient M.M. did so, then no solicitation by Respondent

took place. But the evidence was clear that even if Patient M.M.

made such an offer months earlier, Respondent ' s message of

June 10, 2013, and her e - mail of two days later , clearly

constituted a direct solicitation from Respondent to Patient M.M.

to help her financially. Further, even if Respondent had not

solicited the loan, it would have been below professional

standards for her to accept it.

61. Respondent stood in a position of professional trust and

confidence with respect to Patient M.M. throughout all of their

financial interactions. Respondent continued this patient -

counselor relationship with Patient M.M. during a time when

Patient M.M. was experiencing extreme stress from the loss of her

only child and a divorce, while Respondent solicited and

impr operly obtained significant financial transfers to herself.

Respondent failed to meet the minimum standards of performance of

a mental health counselor as measured against generally prevailing

peer performance.

62. Petitioner proved by clear and convinci ng evidence that

Respondent violated section 491.009(1)(r).

Penalties

63. Section 456.079 provided that e ach board shall adopt by

rule and periodically review the disciplinary guidelines

applicable to each ground for disciplinary action which may be

impo sed by the board pursuant to the respective practice acts.

64. The Board adopted Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B4 -

5.001(1)(s). The rule provided , in part , that the penalty for a

first offense of f ailing to meet the minimum standards of

performance i n professional activities when measured against

generally prevailing peer performance, in violation of section

491.009(1)(r) shall normally range from a minimum of $250 fine and

reprimand to a $5 , 000 fine and/or probation, one year suspension

then probatio n, or permanent revocation.

65. Rule 64B4 - 5.001(3) provided:

(3) Aggravating and Mitigating

Circumstances. Based upon consideration of

aggravating and mitigating factors present in

an individual case, the Board may deviate

from the penalties recommended above. The

Board shall consider as aggravating or

mitigating factors the following:

(a) The danger to the public;

(b) The length of time since the date of the

violation(s);

(c) Prior discipline imposed upon the

licensee;

(d) The length of time th e licensee has

practiced;

(e) The actual damage, physical or

otherwise, to the patient;

(f) The deterrent effect of the penalty

imposed;

(g) The effect of the penalty upon the

licensee ' s livelihood;

(h) Any efforts for rehabilitation;

(i) The act ual knowledge of the licensee

pertaining to the violation;

(j) Attempts by the licensee to correct or

stop violations or failure of the licensee to

correct or stop violations;

(k) Related violations against the licensee

in another state, including find ings of guilt

or innocence, penalties imposed and penalties

served;

(l) Any other mitigating or aggravating

circumstances.

66. There was no evidence of previous disciplinary history ,

and Respondent has practiced a long time. In a Release and

Settlemen t Agreement entered into between Respondent and Patient

M.M., Patient M.M. received payment from Respondent ' s professional

negligence insurance in full settlement and discharge of Patient

M.M. ' s claims. Respondent has also completed continuing education

c ourses after these events. On the other hand, P atient M.M.

suffered emotional and financial damage, and Respondent received

direct and lasting pecuniary benefit from her actions.

67. The mitigating and aggravating circumstances here do not

warrant devi ation from the wide range of penalties already

permitted within the guidelines.

68. Section 456.072(4) provided that i n addition to any

other discipline imposed for a violation of a practice act, the

B oard shall assess costs related to the investigation a nd

prosecution of the case.

RECOMMENDATION

Upon consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact and

Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be

entered by the Department of Health, Board of Clinical Social

Work, Marriage and Family Therapy, and Mental Health Counseling:

Finding Kathryn Lee Friedman in violation of section

491.009(1)(r), Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative

Complaint ; revoking her license to practice as a mental health

counselor ; and assessing reasonable costs r elated to

investigation and prosecution of the case.

DONE AND ENTERED this 1 9 th day of June , 2017 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

F. SCOTT BOYD

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The De Soto 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 1 9 th day of June , 2017 .

ENDNOTE S

1/ Except as othe rwise indicated, references to statutes and

rules are to versions in effect during the summer and fall of

2013, when the incidents are alleged to have taken place. No

changes to the relevant provisions of Florida Statutes (2012)

were enacted during this t ime.

2/ During her relationship with Patient M.M., Respondent was also

known as Kathryn Sloan. In the interest of simplicity, she is

consistently referred to as Ms. Friedman in this Recommended

Order.

3/ All text messages are set forth verbatim as the y appeared,

without any attempt to correct grammar or put them in standard

English.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Elana J. Jones, Esquire

Candace R. Rochester, Esquire

Department of Health

4052 Bald Cypress Way , Bin C - 65

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

(eServed)

Rich ard H. Levenstein, Esquire

Kramer, Sopko & Levenstein

2300 Southeast Monterey Road, Suite 100

Stuart, Florida 34996

(eServed)

Jennifer Wenhold, Executive Director

Board of Clinical Social Work, Marriage and

Family Therapy, and Mental Heal t h Counseling

Department of Health

4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C - 08

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3257

(eServed)

Nichole C. Geary, General Counsel

Department of Health

4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A - 02

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 1701

(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 issue the Final Order in this case.