17-003921FL Agency For Persons With Disabilities vs. Smooth Living Group Home Inc. Status: Closed Recommended Order on Wednesday, March 21, 2018.

Summary: Agency established that licensee violated statutes and rules and that existing license should be revoked.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

AGENCY FOR PERSONS WITH

DISABILITIES,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No . 17 - 3921FL

SMOOTH LIVING GROUP HOME INC.,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

SMOOTH LIVING GROUP HOME INC.,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 17 - 3922FL

A GENCY FOR PERSONS WITH

DISABILITIES,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Administrative Law Judge D. R. Alexander conducted a

hearing in these cases by video teleconf erence at sites in

St. Petersburg and Tallahassee, Florida, on December 19, 2017.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Trevor S. Suter, Esquire

(Agency) Richard A. Levasseur, Jr., Esquire

Agency for Persons with Disabilities

Suite 3 15C

4030 Esplanade Way

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0950

For Respondent: M. Sean Moyles, Esquire

(Smooth Living) Langston, Hess , Augustine,

Sojourner & Moyles, P.A.

600 Druid Road East

Clearwater, Florida 33756 - 3912

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE S

The issues are (1) whether the group home facility license

of Smooth Living, Inc. (Smooth Living), should be revoked; and

(2) whether the application of Smooth Living for a license to

operate a second group home facility should be approved.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On June 9, 2017, the Agency for Persons with Disabilities

(Agency) issued a three - count Administrative Complaint

(Complaint) alleging that Smooth Living, which operates a group

home facility under the name Smooth Living Group Home, has three

verified findings of neglect and has violated numerous statutes

and rules. As a sanction, the Agency proposes to revoke Smooth

Living's active license. Smooth Living timel y requested a

hearing to dispute the charges, and the matter was referred by

the Agency to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) and

assigned Case No. 17 - 3921FL.

On June 9, 2017, the Agency also issued a Notice of License

Application Denial for Group Home (Notice), which denies Smooth

Living's application for a new license to operate a second group

home facility. The Notice relies on the charges in the

Complaint as the bases for denying the application. Smooth

Living timely requested a hearing, and the matter was referred

by the Agency to DOAH and assigned Case No. 17 - 3922FL. The two

cases were consolidated by Order dated July 25, 2017.

At the hearing, the Agency presented the testimony of three

witnesses. Agency Exhibits 1 through 5, 7, 10, 1 1, and 13

through 15 were accepted in evidence, some with limitations

discussed below. Smooth Living presented the testimony of two

witnesses. Smooth Living Exhibit 50 was accepted in evidence.

A two - volume Transcript of the hearing has been prepared.

T he parties filed proposed recommended orders (PROs) on

February 26 and 27, 2018, and they been considered in the

preparation of this Recommended Order.

FINDING S OF FACT

A. Background

1. The Agency is charged with regulating the licensing and

operation o f group home facilities pursuant to chapter 393,

Florida Statutes.

2. Section 393.063(19), Florida Statutes, defines a

group home facility as "a residential facility licensed under

[chapter 373] which provides a family living environment

including sup ervision and care necessary to meet the physical,

emotional, and social needs of the resident."

3. When Case No. 17 - 3921FL arose, Smooth Living held a

license to operate a group home facility at 200 South Arcturas

Avenue, Clearwater, Florida. Its owner and president is Willie

Sams, a former Agency employee. The license became effective on

March 1, 2017, and by its terms, was set to expire on

February 28, 2018. For the reasons described in the Complaint,

the Agency seeks to revoke the license.

4. On February 23, 2017, Smooth Living also submitted an

application for a new (expansion) license to operate Smooth

Living Group Home II at 1321 Oxford Court, Clearwater, Florida.

Willie Sams is designated as the owner of the new facility. As

part of i ts review of the application, the Agency conducted a

search of Department of Children and Families (DCF) records.

The search revealed verified findings of neglect against the

owner in 2017. In Case No. 17 - 3922FL, the Agency proposes to

deny the applicati on for the same reasons set forth in the

Complaint.

B. The Alleged Violations

5. Smooth Living is a behavior - focused facility that

serves more difficult or challenging clients. Its full capacity

is six residents. According to Mr. Sams, "most" of the

re sidents are what he characterizes as "kids," presumably

meaning they are less than 18 years of age. Because its clients

have significant behavioral issues, Smooth Living must ensure

that staffing requirements, both in terms of numbers and

male/female make up, are maintained at all times.

6. The importance of appropriate staffing was impressed

upon Mr. Sams by an Agency inspector in January 2017, after a

staffing incident occurred.

7. The Complaint and Notice allege that three incidents

occurred at the facility in February, March, and April 2017,

which resulted in verified findings of neglect against Mr. Sams.

The incidents also form the basis for allegations that t he

licensee/ applicant violated various statutes and rules. After

each incident occurred , Smooth Living submitted to the Agency an

Incident Reporting Form, as required by Florida Administrative

Code Rule 65G - 2.010(5)(a) and (b).

a. Count I

8. Count I alleges generally that on the morning of

February 26, 2017, 1/ staff inspected a room shared by two male

residents, C.B. and E.A., both minors, and observed "[C.B.]

engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior with [E.A.]"; E.A.'s

shirt was ripped; and there were several scratches on E.A.'s

neck. The Complaint alleges that the incident was not repor ted

to the Florida Abuse Hotline until 2:00 p.m. that day. It also

alleges "most staff members" were not aware of C.B.'s history of

inappropriate sexual behavior. Finally, it alleges that a DCF

investigation resulted in verified findings of neglect of a

child against Mr. Sams, a Class I violation, the most serious

type of violation by a group home. Besides the verified finding

of neglect, the Complaint alleges the actions violate applicable

rules and statutory provisions.

9. The record shows that in Ap ril 2016, C.B. was placed in

the Smooth Living facility. When the first incident occurred on

February 26, 2017, C.B. shared a room with E.A., a nonverbal

minor. Mr. Sams and the group home manager, Ms. DiPino,

acknowledged that C.B had a history of inapp ropriate sexual

behavior, including frequent attempts to masturbate in the

common area of the home. Also, Ms. DiPina reported that C.B.

had a history of placing his hands onto another person's

"private area over clothing." Ms. Stanganelli, a former DCF

c hild protective investigator, added that before C.B. came to

Smooth Living, he had "performed oral sex on other minor

children" in other homes. Given this background, C.B.'s

behavior analyst service plan plainly indicated that he had a

history of "inappro priate sexual behavior [with] other peers."

The fact that C.B. was funded by the Agency at a moderate rather

than a high risk level does not mean that his history of

inappropriate sexual behavior could be ignored.

10. Although C.B.'s behavior normally would require him to

be placed in a private room, his behavior plan, effective

July 11, 2016, did not have this requirement. It provided that

he "needs to be under visual supervision at all times except

while in the bathroom or bedroom by himself" and that he "should

never be in a bedroom with another peer with the door closed at

any time." Although C.B.'s behavior analyst visited the home

each week and was aware that he shared a room, the analyst did

not recommend any change to this arrangement.

11. Ms. Jackson, a direct care staffer when C.B. was a

resident, testified that the door to C.B.'s room was always

"cracked" so that staff could peek into the room without

disturbing the residents.

12. A resident with a history of inappropriate sexual

beh avior should have his room checked by a staff member more

frequently than other residents. This was confirmed by

Ms. Jackson, who acknowledged that C.B. "required more

supervision" and "needed more checkups than normal." Therefore,

it was appropria te to check the room every 15 to 20 minutes,

rather than the usual 30 to 45 minutes.

13. At hearing, both Ms. Jackson and Mr. Sams testified

that bed checks on C.B.'s room were made every 15 or 20 minutes.

This time frame was contradicted by Ms. DiPino , who performed

bed checks on the night the incident occurred, and Ms. Floyd,

the other staffer on duty. In her interview with the DCF

investigator, Ms. DiPino stated that C.B's room was checked

every 30 to 45 minutes, while Ms. Floyd stated she was told to

make checks every 30 minutes. Their statements are accepted as

being the most credible on this issue.

14. While making a random check on C.B.'s room around

5:00 a.m. on February 26, 2017, Ms. DiPino and Ms. Floyd

observed C.B. performing oral sex o n E.A. This was the first

known time that C.B. engaged in sexual behavior towards his

roommate. After pulling C.B. off of E.A., the employees

observed that E.A. had a ripped shirt and scratches on his upper

shoulder area.

15. Smooth Living's Incident Reporting Form filed with the

Agency shortly after the incident also confirms that C.B.

sexually assaulted his roommate. The form states, however, that

bed checks on the room were made every 20 minutes, even though

the group home manager on duty that even ing stated otherwise.

16. The Complaint alleges that Smooth Living did not

immediately notify the Florida Abuse Hotline following the

incident. There is no evidence as to when notification was

actually given.

17. On February 27, 2017, Ms. Stanganelli, who testified

at hearing, began her investigation of the incident. During the

investigation, she interviewed the residents, staff, and owner.

All statements made by the employees were in the course of their

employment. After Ms. Stanganelli completed h er investigation,

she recommended that a finding of inadequate supervision on the

part of Mr. Sams be verified.

b. Count II

18. Count II alleges that on March 29, 2017, C.B., then

sharing a room with G.M., "destroyed several personal items

belonging to [G.M.] as well as bedroom furniture." It further

alleges that later that day, an altercation between the two

ensued, and C.B. "receive[d] skull lacerations which required

treatment at a hospital emergency room." It goes on to allege

that only one staf f person, Mr. Bryant, was on duty and

responsible for supervising four residents with significant

behavioral issues, and that a DCF investigation resulted in

verified findings of neglect of a child against Mr. Sams.

Finally, it alleges that after the inci dent, C.B. was required

to sleep on a couch in the living room for a month. Like

Count I, the Complaint alleges the actions by the home violate a

number of rules and statutes.

19. The record shows that on March 29, 2017, C.B. was

sharing a bedroom with G.M., a minor. According to Smooth

Living's Incident Reporting Form, C.B. destroyed personal

property of G.M.; an altercation between the two ensued later

that day; C.B. suffered a two - inch laceration on the back of his

head; and C.B. was taken to an eme rgency room for medical

treatment. The form does not address the issue of whether the

facility was properly staffed when the incident occurred. At

hearing, Mr. Sams characterized the destruction of the room as a

tantrum. He added that later that day, G. M. punched C.B. "real

quick" before staff could intervene but they were quickly

separated.

20. An investigation by the Agency revealed that C.B.'s

destruction of the room was "massive," only Mr. Bryant was

present at that time to oversee four residents, and the staff

member was unable to physically restrain C.B. from destroying

the property. While C.B. continued to destroy the room, the

staffer stood by "trying to keep the other clients out of the

way so that C.B. would not hurt them." These facts are drawn

from statements made by Mr. Bryant to Ms. Liles, an Agency

inspector.

c. Count III

21. Count III alleges that, due to a history of violent

behavior, G.M.'s behavior plan restricted access to weapons and

cell phones and required daily checks of hi s backpack and

bedroom. It alleges that on April 27, 2017, G.M. threatened a

student at school with a pair of scissors and showed the student

a picture of him (G.M.) holding a gun; and a search of G.M.'s

backpack at school revealed a pair of scissors and two cell

phones. The Complaint further alleges that later on that day, a

search of G.M.'s bedroom revealed he had a pellet gun, cell

phone, knife blade without a handle, scissors, a water gun, a

razor blade wrapped in paper, a foot - long key chain, a

screw driver set, a sewing kit with needles, and material used in

constructing an explosive device. It also alleges that Mr. Sams

was unaware of the behavior plan, other staffers "knew very

little about the supervision requirements found within [G.M.'s]

behavio r plan," and Mr. Sams admitted that the facility was

short - staffed at times. Finally, the Complaint alleges a DCF

investigation resulted in verified findings of neglect of a

child against Mr. Sams. Again, the Complaint alleges that these

actions violate numerous rules and statutes.

22. G.M.'s behavior plan was in the process of being

modified shortly before the incident occurred and did not become

final until May 1, 2017, or three days after the incident.

Prior to May 1, G.M.'s behavior plan did not res trict access to

weapons or cell phones, and it did not require bedroom and

backpack inspections when he left for school each day and when

he returned. Mr. Sams testified that it only required a room

check each morning after G.M. left for school.

23. Th e evidence shows that on April 27, 2017, Mr. Sams

received a call from the school principal advising that G.M. was

being sent home because he had a gun in his possession, he was

threatening students, and he was having "behavior concerns." As

it turned out , G.M. had been expelled from school for those

actions. After G.M. returned to the facility, a search of his

room revealed that he had in his possession the items described

in the Complaint. The search was conducted in the presence of

Agency personnel an d a DCF investigator. An Agency inspector

noted that no one on the staff was "taking it seriously to

actually do the searches the way they should have been done."

And after expressing surprise to learn that scissors were found

in G.M.'s guitar case, Mr. Sams stated "he would never have

thought to look in the guitar case." He also acknowledged that

the facility was short - staffed during that period of time. Even

though G.M.'s plan required only a morning search of his room

each day, a thorough search of h is room by staff should have

uncovered the contraband. The DCF investigator testified that

the investigation was closed with verified findings of

maltreatment/inadequate supervision against Mr. Sams.

24. Mr. Sams contends that no contraband was in the ro om

when G.M. left for school and that all items must have been

obtained from outside the home. He further surmises that the

items were hidden by G.M. after he returned from school.

However, these assertions are simply speculation, without

evidentiary sup port. Mr. Sams also pointed out that the gun was

merely a broken pellet gun, but in today's environment, even a

fake gun can be threatening to other residents and staff.

25. In Agency interviews with staff that day, members of

the staff acknowledged th at they did not routinely check

backpacks of residents when they left the facility in the

morning for school and when they returned that afternoon.

Comprehensive inspections are especially important for a

resident who exhibits signs of violent behavior.

2 6. Smooth Living's Incident Reporting Form is somewhat

vague. The form acknowledges that DCF advised Mr. Sams that it

intended to close the investigation with a verified finding of

inadequate staff supervision. DCF also informed him that "staff

[should] start looking for another job because [the facility]

would be closed down in a couple of months." However, the form

fails to include any information regarding the items uncovered

during the search of G.M.'s room or acknowledge that staff

failed to perfor m a thorough search of his room in the morning,

as required by the behavior plan.

27. Based on the violations associated with the three

incidents, Smooth Living closed its facility in June 2017. If

its appeal in this case is successful, Smooth Living pre sumably

intends to reopen the facility.

C. The Abuse Reports, Statements, and Incident Reports

28. To support the allegations, the Agency relies upon the

abuse reports on the theory they are business records and

admissible as an exception to the hearsa y rule. See Pet'r Ex. 3

and 11. At hearing, it also relied on employee/owner statements

made to Ms. Stanganelli and two Agency employees, Ms. Liles

and Ms. Leitold, and statements contained in the Incident

Reporting Forms filed with the Agency after ea ch incident.

Smooth Living objects to each category of statements/documents

on the ground they constitute hearsay, not subject to an

exception.

29. To lay a foundation for the business record exception,

Ms. Stanganelli testified that 1) she prepared the abuse reports

and 2) they were prepared near or at the time the events

occurred. There is no testimony that these reports are kept in

the ordinary course of DCF's business, or that it is a regular

practice of DCF to make such a record. Also, no showing w as

made that she is a qualified person to make those assertions.

As to statements made by employees to the DCF and Agency, they

concern a matter connected to a duty within the scope of

employment. The statements by Mr. Sams to DCF and the Agency,

and his written reports to the Agency after each incident, are

obviously statements made by an adversary.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

30. This case combines a Complaint seeking to revoke

Smooth Living's license with Smooth Living's challenge to a

denial of an application for a second license.

31. In the enforcement case, the Agency has the burden of

proving the alleged violations by clear and convincing evidence.

Dep't of Banking & Fin. v. Osborne Stern & Co. , 670 So. 2d 932,

935 (Fla. 1996). In the initial license app lication case, the

Agency has the burden of proving the licensee's lack of fitness

to hold a license by a preponderance of the evidence. If it

does, Smooth Living must prove by a preponderance of the

evidence that its application should be approved,

notwi thstanding any violations that are proven. Fla. Dep't of

Child. & Fam. v. Davis Fam. Day Care Home , 160 So. 3d 854, 857

(Fla. 2015)(Canady, J., dissenting).

32. The Agency is authorized to revoke a license or deny

an application for licensure if the li censee or applicant has

failed to comply with the applicable requirements of chapter 393

or applicable rules in chapter 65G - 2. § 393.0673(1)(a)3., Fla.

Stat. The same action may be taken if the applicant/licensee

has a verified report of abuse. § 393.06 73(1)(b), Fla. Stat.

33. In its PRO, the Agency assumes the abuse reports are

admissible as business records under section 90.803(6), and, by

themselves, sustain the proposed agency action. The PRO does

not address any alleged rule violations cited in th e Complaint

or otherwise identify the rules that were violated and the

evidence adduced at hearing to support those charges.

34. Statements made by a party opponent are admissible as

substantive evidence. § 90.803(18), Fla. Stat. Therefore,

Mr. Sam s' statements and the Incident Reporting Forms may be

used to prove the allegations. Employee statements also are

admissible, so long as they concern a matter within the

employees' scope of employment and are made during the existence

of the employer - empl oyee relationship. § 90.803(18)(d), Fla.

Stat. Finally, because the four elements enumerated in

section 90.803(6)(a) were not satisfied, the undersigned

admitted the abuse reports as hearsay that could be used only to

supplement or explain other compet ent evidence. § 120.57(1)(a),

Fla. Stat. However, while the reports as a whole are not

admissible as a business record, employee/owner statements in

the reports made to Ms. Stanganelli during her investigations

are admissible. See , e.g. Lee v. Dep't of Health & Rehab.

Servs. , 698 So. 2d 1194, 1200 (Fla. 1997) (while investigative

report as a whole not admissible as a public record, employee

statements contained in report were admissible as a statement by

a party opponent). The rulings at hearing regardi ng the

disputed statements, and their use, are consistent with these

principles.

35. Regardless of whether the abuse reports are admissible

as substantive evidence, 2/ there is clear and convincing evidence

to revoke the license for failing to comply with the

requirements applicable to a group home licensee. Likewise,

there is sufficient competent and substantial evidence to deny

the application for an extended license.

36. The Complaint alleges that Smooth Living violated

various provisions within rule s 65G - 2.0041, 65G - 2.007,

65G - 2.009, and 65G - 2.010, as well as section 393.13(3)(a)

and (g). The foregoing rules and statutory provisions must be

strictly construed in favor of the one against whom the penalty

would be imposed. See , e.g. , Djokic v. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l

Reg., Div. of Real Estate , 875 So. 2d 693, 695 (Fla. 4th DCA

2004). If proven, a Class I violation is a sufficient basis to

revoke a license or deny an initial application. This is

because a Class I violation "cause[s] or pose[ s] an immediate

threat of death or serious harm to the health, safety, or

welfare of a resident and which require immediate correction."

Fla. Admin. Code R. 65G - 2.0041(4)(a)1.

Count I

37. Based on the February 26, 2017, incident, the

Complaint alleges that Smooth Living violated rules 65G - 2.0041

and 65G - 2.0041(4)(a), 65G - 2.009(a)(1), (1), (1)(d), (6)(a)

and (c), (9)(9), and (9)(c), and 65G - 2.010(5)(a), as well as

sections 393.13(3)(a) and (g). However, the citations to

rules 65G - 2.009(a)(1) and ( 9)(9) are incorrectly numbered, and

except for rule 65G - 2.0041(4)(a), it is unclear which portions

of rules 65G - 2.0041 and 65G - 2.009(1) are at issue.

38. There is clear and convincing evidence that Smooth

Living failed to perform a room check on a reside nt with a

history of inappropriate sexual behavior within the prescribed

timeframe (every 15 to 20 minutes), which resulted in a resident

being sexually assaulted. Given C.B.'s history of sexual

behavior, the home's failure to perform room checks in a tim ely

manner constituted an immediate threat of serious harm to

E.A.'s safety and welfare. Therefore, Smooth Living has

violated section 393.13(3)(a) and (g) and rules 65G - 2.0041(4)(a)

and 65G - 2.009(1)(d), (6)(d), and (9)(c), which are Class I

violations. The remaining violations have not been established.

Count II

39. Based on the March 28, 2017 incident, Count II

alleges Smooth Living violated rules 65G - 2.0041, 65G -

2.007(5)(f), and 65G - 2.009(1), (1)(a)1., (1)(d), (3)(b),

and (6)(a) and (c), as wel l as section 393.13(3)(a) and (g).

Without more specificity, it is unclear which parts of

rules 65G - 2.0041 and 65G - 2.009(1) are allegedly violated.

Also, rule 65G - 2.009(6)(c) simply tells us that a violation of

paragraph (6)(a) is a Class I violat ion.

40. There is clear and convincing evidence that Smooth

Living violated rule 65G - 2.009(6)(a), which requires each

facility to provide a level of supervision necessary to protect

residents from harm. By having only one staff member on duty to

oversee four residents with significant behavioral issues, this

caused or posed an immediate threat of serious harm to the

safety and welfare of the residents, in violation of rule 65G -

2.009(1)(d). And by failing to provide the proper supervision,

Smooth Living violated section 393.13(3)(g), which provides that

residents have a right to be free from harm. These are all

Class I violations. The remaining violations have not been

established.

Count III

41. The Complaint alleges that Smooth Living violated

rules 6 5G - 2.0041 and 65G - 2.0041(4)(a), 65G - 2.009(a)(1), (1),

(1)(d), (3)(b), (6)(a) and (c), and (9)(9), and 65G - 2.010(5)(a),

as well as section 393.13(3)(a) and (g). Again, citations to

rule 65G - 2.009(a)(1) and (9)(9) are incorrectly numbered. Also,

except for paragraph (4)(a) in rule 65G - 2.0041, it is unclear

which provisions in rules 65G - 2.0041 and 65G - 2.009(1) are

allegedly violated.

42. There is clear and convincing evidence that Smooth

Living's staff did not perform an adequate search of G.M.'s

bedroom on April 27, 2017, in violation of rules 65G -

2.0041(4)(a) and 65G - 2.009(6)(a). Because the possession of

dangerous items constituted a potential threat to the health

and safety of the residents and staff, this action also violated

rule 65G - 2.009(1)(d). Finally, by failing to keep all clients

in the facility free from harm, section 393.13(3)(g) was

violated. All are Class I violations.

43. Because the Notice relies on the same charges, the

Agency has established that Smooth Living is unfit for

licensur e, which evidence was not overcome by the applicant.

Therefore, its application for a new license should be denied.

44. In summary, by clear and convincing evidence, the

Agency has proven that Smooth Living is guilty of the above

Class I violations, and that revocation of its license is an

appropriate sanction. Also, by a preponderance of the evidence,

the Agency has established that Smooth Living is unfit for a new

license, which was not contradicted by the applicant.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoi ng Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is

RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Persons with Disabilities

enter a final order revoking Smooth Living's license in Case

No. 17 - 3921FL and denying its application for a new license in

Case No. 17 - 3922FL.

DON E AND ENTERED this 21st day of March , 2018 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

D. R. ALEXANDER

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Flor ida 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 21 st day of March , 2018 .

ENDNOTE S

1/ There is some confusion on when the first incident occurred.

The date of the incident is redacted from the Complaint and

Notice. Smooth Living's Incident Reporting Form reflects the

incident occurred at 5:25 a.m. on February 26, 2017. The DCF

investigator testified the incident occurred on February 27, the

same day th at she began her investigation. The undersigned has

used February 26 as the correct date of the incident.

2/ Ordinarily, Smooth Living would not be able to contest

verified findings in an abuse report. See Comfortable Living,

In Good Hands v. Ag. for P ersons with Disab. , Case No. 14 - 0689

(Fla. DOAH July 2, 2014; APD July 18, 2017). In this unusual

case, however, the abuse reports were not admitted as

substantive evidence.

COPIES FURNISHED:

M. Sean Moyles, Esquire

Langston, Hess, Augustine, Sojourne r & Moyles, P.A.

600 Druid Road East

Clearwater, Florida 33756 - 3912

(eServed)

Trevor S. Suter, Esquire

Agency for Persons with Disabilities

Suite 315C

4030 Esplanade Way

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0950

(eServed)

Gypsy Bailey, Agency Clerk

Agency for P ersons with Disabilities

4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 335E

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0950

(eServed)

Richard Ditschler, General Counsel

Agency for Persons with Disabilities

4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0950

(eServed)

Barb ara Palmer, Director

Agency for Persons with Disabilities

4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0950

(eServed)

Richard A. Levasseur, Jr., Esquire

Agency for Persons with Disabilities

Suite 315C

4030 Esplanade Way

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0950

(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.