18-002143PL Department Of Health, Board Of Clinical Social Work, Marriage And Family Therapy And Mental Health Counseling vs. Gerard Kruse, L.C.S.W. Status: Closed Recommended Order on Friday, August 16, 2019.

Summary: The Department failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent committed "sexual misconduct."

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. 18 - 2143PL

GERARD KRUSE, L.C.S.W.,

Respondent.

_______________________ ________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

The final hearing in this matter was conducted before

J. Bruce Culpepper, Administrative Law Judge of the Division of

Administrative Hearings, on December 19 through 21, 2018,

February 15, 2019, a nd April 11, 2019 , 1 / in Orlando, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Andrew James Pietrylo, Esquire

Kristen M. Summers, Esquire

Department of Health

4052 Bald Cypress Way , Bin C - 65

Talla hassee, Florida 32399 - 3265

For Respondent: Carol C. Schriefer, Esquire

The Health Law Firm

1101 Douglas Avenue

Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue in this matter is whet her the Department of

Health should discipline Respondent Ó s clinical social worker Ó s

license.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On September 27, 2017, Petitioner, Department of Health,

Board of Clinical Social Work, Marriage and Family Therapy and

Mental Health Counse ling (the Ð Department Ñ ), issued an

Administrative Complaint notifying Respondent, Gerard Kruse

( Ð Respondent Ñ ), that the Department intended to discipline him

for alleged misconduct that occurred on or about July 19, 2017. 2 /

The Department seeks to sanctio n Respondent for committing

Ð sexual misconduct Ñ in violation of section 491.0111, Florida

Statutes (2017), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 64B4 -

10.002. 3/

Respondent timely requested an administrative hearing

challenging the Department Ó s action. On April 30, 2018, the

Department referred the matter to the Division of Administrative

Hearings ( Ð DOAH Ñ ) and requested assignment to an Administrative

Law Judge ( Ð ALJ Ñ ) to conduct a chapter 120 evidentiary hearing.

The final hearing began on December 19 thro ugh 21, 2018.

The final hearing was continued to February 15 , 2019, then to

April 11, 2019, at which time it was completed. 4/ The Department

presented the testimony of L.P. (the complainant), Kode Hulett

(a / k / a Hewlett), and Ashlyn Douglass - Barnes, L.C.S .W.

Respondent presented the testimony of Jessica Rosado, Erika Ana

Camacho, Dalys Melendez, Karina Flores, Luz Rosa, Barbara Ann

Parsons, Roberta Ann Wildblood, Marta Lopez, and Earl

Taitt, Jr., M.D. Joint Exhibits 1 through 3 were admitted into

evidenc e. Department Exhibits 1 through 5 were admitted into

evidence. Respondent Ó s Exhibits 5, 9, 12, 15, 19, 23, 25

through 30, 32 through 34, 37, 38, 42, 44 through 48, 5 0

through 53, 55 through 62, and 65 through 75 were admitted into

evidence. 5/

A seven - volume Transcript of the final hearing was filed

with DOAH on May 13, 2019. At the close of the hearing, the

parties were advised of a ten - day timeframe following receipt of

the hearing transcript at DOAH to file post - hearing submittals.

At the final hea ring, both parties requested a 20 - day extension

of the filing deadline, which was granted. 6/ Both parties timely

filed Proposed Recommended Orders, which were duly considered in

preparing this Recommended Order.

FINDING S OF FACT

1. The Department is the state agency charged with

regulating the practice of clinical social work in Florida.

See § 20.43 and ch s . 456 and 491, Fla. Stat.

2. Respondent is a licensed clinical social worker in the

State of Florida, having been issued license number SW 14255 on

February 14, 2017. Respondent received his Licensed Master

Social Work degree in New York in May 2006.

3. Between August 2013 and August 2017, Respondent worked

as a clinical social worker/psychotherapist at Compas s

Counseling Services, LLC ( Ð Compass C ounseling Ñ ) , in Orlando,

Florida.

4. The Department seeks to discipline Respondent based on

an incident that occurred on July 19, 2017. The Department

accuses Respondent of committing Ð sexual misconduct Ñ with a

patient. The Administrative Complaint spec ifically alleges

that, during a counsel ing session in his office, Respondent:

1) told Patient L.P. [ 7/ ] that she was

attractive,

2) followed Patient L.P. to the door and

grabbed her buttocks with his hand, and,

3) grabbed Patient L.P. Ó s arm, pulled h er

towards him, and attempted to kiss her.

5. Ð S exual misconduct Ñ in the practice of clinical social

work, mental health counseling, or psychotherapy is prohibited

under section 491.0111. Ð Sexual misconduct Ñ is defined by rule

64B4 - 10.002 , which provides:

(1) It is sexual misconduct for a

psychotherapist to engage, attempt to engage,

or offer to engage a client in sexual

behavior . . . whether verbal or physical,

which is intended to be sexually arousing,

including kissing; . . . or the touching by

either the psychotherapist or the client of

the other Ó s breasts, genital areas, buttocks,

or thighs, whether clothed or unclothed.

Section 491.009(1)(k) authorizes the Department to discipline

Respondent for Ð sexual misconduct Ñ up to and including permanent

rev ocation of his clinical social worker Ó s license.

6. In July 2017, L.P. was 27 years old. She was (and is

currently) living with a trans gender man , Kode Hulett.

L.P. refers to Mr. Hulett as her husband, although they are not

legally married as of yet.

7. At the final hearing, L.P. testified that she suffers

from a number of mental health conditions including Attention -

Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder ( Ð ADHD Ñ ), auditory processing

disorder, and bipolar disorder, as well as anxiety, anger issues,

depression, insomnia, and mood disorder. In addition, L.P.

experiences post - traumatic stress disorder ( Ð PTSD Ñ ) stemming from

past sexual abuse.

8. During her testimony, L.P. also disclosed that she has a

very bad memory and gets confused very easily. She urged,

however, that her ailments do not affect her mental awareness.

Conversely, L.P. is considered fully Ð disabled Ñ in that she

cannot work due to her mental health illnesses. L.P. explained

that she has received mental health counseling since she was

young.

9. In June and July 2017, L.P. received psychotherapy

services from Respondent at Compass Counseling. L.P. relayed

that she was searching for a new therapist and (to the best of

her memory) her insurance company recommended Compass Counseling.

10. L .P. and Respondent met on three occasions, June 23,

2017, July 6, 2017, and July 19, 2017. Each appointment started

at 1:00 p.m. and lasted approximately an hour. During all

sessions, L.P. met with Respondent alone in his office, with the

door closed.

11 . At L.P. Ó s first visit, Respondent initially informed

L.P. that he was leaving Compass Counseling shortly for another

job. Therefore, he offered to refer her to another mental health

therapist (Ashlyn Douglass - Barnes, L.C.S.W. ) if she so desired.

Until he left, however, he was willing to meet with her. (In

August 2017, Respondent departed Compass Counseling for a job

with Magellan Behavioral Health. There, he manages a customer -

provider call center and does not treat patients.)

12. During their fi rst session on June 23, 2017, Respondent

colloquially introduced himself as Ð Dr. G. Ñ Respondent then

conducted an initial evaluation of L.P. and prepared a Complete

Evaluation/Biopsychosocial Assessment. In his assessment,

Respondent recorded that L.P. c hiefly complained of Ð mood swings,

anxiety, insomnia, attentional issues, auditory processing

issues, and post traumatic stress. Ñ He added that L.P. had

experienced panic attacks two to three times a month for years,

as well as depressive disorder. Respo ndent also wrote that L.P.

experienced anxiety symptoms Ð a few times a week. Ñ Finally,

Respondent noted that L.P. Ó s PTSD resulted from several instances

of physical and sexual abuse she suffered as a youth and a young

adult.

13. Despite her issues, Respo ndent wrote that L.P.

appeared:

[C] alm, friendly, happy, attentive,

communicative, well groomed, overweight, and

relaxed. . . . [L.P. Ó s] behavior in the

session was cooperative and attentive with no

gross behavioral abnormalities.

14. Respondent recor ded the following diagnoses: bipolar

II disorder, panic disorder [episodic paroxysmal anxiety], and

(chronic) PTSD. Regarding L.P. Ó s PTSD, Respondent remarked that

L.P. suffered from flashbacks to the traumatic event, which

resulted in feelings of detach ment or estrangement from others.

15. Respondent also documented that L.P. was prescribed

several psychotropic medications including Effexor and Lamictal.

(Other medical records from 2017 indicate that L.P. was also

prescribed and/or taking Alprazolam, BuSpar, Concerta, Doxepin,

Geodon, Hydrocodone/Acetaminophen, Lamotrigine, Meclizine,

Omeprazole, Oxycodone, Quetiapine Fumarate, Promethazine,

Robaxin, Rozerem, Seroquel, Sucralfate, Venlafaxine, Xanax, and

Zyprexa.)

1 6 . As part of his assessment, Res pondent formulated a six -

month treatment plan for L.P. , which included ongoing individual

psychotherapy sessions.

17. During their second psychotherapy session on July 6,

2017, Respondent again wrote that L.P. appeared:

[C] alm, friendly, happy, attentiv e,

communicative, casually groomed, over weight,

and relaxed. . . . Mood presents as normal

with no signs of either depression or mood

elevation . . . thinking is logical, and

thought content appears appropriate. . . .

Judgment appears fair.

18. Respo ndent recorded that L.P. mainly discussed her

issues coping with depression and impulsivity. Respondent

responded by providing Ð unconditional positive regard, as well as

support and encouragement in [L.P. Ó s] therapeutic endeavors. Ñ

Respondent identified Ð Anxiety Ñ and Ð Depressed Mood Ñ as L.P. Ó s

active problems in need of treatment.

19. L.P. and Respondent met for their third (and final)

appointment on July 19, 201 7 . During this session, Respondent

recorded in L.P. Ó s Progress Notes that she appeared stabl e and

made no psychiatric complaints. Respondent described L.P. as:

[C] oherent and spontaneous. Mood presents as

normal with no signs of either depression or

mood elevation. Affect is appropriate, full

range, and congruent with mood. Associations

are i ntact and logical. There are no

apparent signs of hallucinations, delusions,

bizarre behaviors, or other indicators of

psychotic process. Associations are intact,

thinking is logical, and thought content

appears appropriate. . . . Judgment appears

fair . There are no signs of hyperactive or

attentional difficulties.

20. Respondent, once again, identified Ð anxiety Ñ as L.P. Ó s

active problem, which manifested in PTSD. Respondent wrote

that Ð Clinician provides unconditional positive regard, as

well as support and encouragement in [L.P. Ó s] therapeutic

endeavors. . . . A Client - Centered and Empowerment therapeutic

approach was used in session to assist [L.P.] in recognizing

personal strengths, as well as how to use them to manage

presenting problems. Ñ

21. The incident in question occurred just after L.P. and

Respondent finished their final session. As was typical, L.P.

and Respondent were alone in his office, and the door was closed.

Initially, although Respondent was leaving Compass Counseling

soon, he asked if L.P. would schedule one last appointment with

him. L.P. agreed. She stood by his desk as they selected

another date on his computer calendar.

22. At that point, L.P. turned and walked to the door to

leave the room. Just as she reached th e door, L.P. testified

that she felt Respondent Ó s hand grab her right buttock in a Ð very

sexual Ñ manner. L.P. spun around, swatted his hand away, and

exclaimed, Ð What the f***? I Ó m married. Ñ She then pivoted back

to the door. L.P. asserted that w hen sh e reached for the door

knob, however, Respondent grabbed her wrist. L.P. stated that

she then heard Respondent say , Ð You Ó re just really attractive. Ñ

L.P. expressed that she turned toward Respondent, he leaned in

close to her. She sensed (by her Ð intuiti on Ñ ) that he wanted to

kiss her, but he did not. L.P. testified that she pushed him

away and again said, Ð What the f***? I Ó m married. Ñ L.P. was

then able to open the door and leave Respondent Ó s office.

23. When L.P. exited Respondent Ó s office, he acc ompanied

her down the hallway. They walked together through the office

lobby and out of the building. In the parking lot, they

separated. L.P. walked to her car, where Mr. Hulett was waiting

in the driver Ó s seat. Respondent went to his car and retrieve d a

business card for an auto shop. Respondent then walked over to

L.P. Ó s car. He approached Mr. Hulett in the driver Ó s seat and

offered him the business card. Mr. Hulett cracked down the

window and accepted the card. At that point, Mr. Hulett and L.P.

drove away from Compass Counseling for a trip they had previously

planned for St. Augustine.

24. Mr. Hulett testified at the final hearing in support of

L.P. Ó s story. Mr. Hulett and L.P. have lived together for over

nine years. He Ð believed Ñ he accom panied L.P. on her visit to

Compass Counseling on July 19, 2017.

25. During L.P. Ó s counseling session , Mr. Hulett waited in

his car in the parking lot. While he did not witness L.P. Ó s

encounter with Respondent, Mr. Hulett described L.P. Ó s behavior

and de meanor immediately following her appointment.

26. Mr. Hulett saw L.P. and Respondent exit the Compass

Counseling building together after her appointment. He then

observed Respondent motion for L.P. to come to his car. He

watched as L.P., instead of fo llowing Respondent, headed to their

car and climbed into the passenger seat. He stated that

Respondent then approached their car and offered him a business

card for a car mechanic through his driver Ó s side window.

(Mr. Hulett confirmed that his car was h aving engine troubles.)

27. During this interaction, Mr. Hulett testified that he

immediately noticed that L.P. was not acting Ð regular. Ñ She

seemed nervous, and he sensed something was wrong. L.P.,

however, stayed silent. He then drove away from Compa ss

Counseling. Mr. Hulett explained that they had planned to leave

for St. Augustine immediately after L.P. Ó s appointment.

28. After they started driving, however, Mr. Hulett noticed

that L.P. appeared Ð physically upset. Ñ Therefore, he repeatedly

aske d her what was wrong. Around 20 minutes later, after they

reached the highway (I - 4), L.P. opened up to him. Mr. Hulett

testified that L.P. told him what had happened in Respondent Ó s

office. Mr. Hulett specifically recalled that L.P., who had

started cry ing, said that Respondent touched her inappropriately;

she told him to stop , but he was persistent.

29. At that point, Mr. Hulett and L.P. discussed what to do

next. They decided to press on with their vacation. They would

deal with the matter when they returned to Orlando. Mr. Hulett

disclosed that they did not report the incident until after their

trip ended, five days later.

30. At the final hearing, L.P. testified that she waited to

tell Mr. Hulett what had transpired in Respondent Ó s office

becau se she feared his reaction. She was afraid Mr. Hulett would

angrily and rashly confront Respondent. Instead, after she

recounted Respondent Ó s conduct , L.P. and Mr. Hewlett continued on

their vacation to St. Augustine.

31. On the other hand, L.P. asser ted that she called

Compass Counseling 20 to 30 minutes after they drove away to

cancel her next appointment with Respondent.

32. L.P. Ó s cell phone records document three calls to

Compass Counseling on July 19, 2017. Two were placed prior to

her 1:00 p .m. appointment (12:18 p.m. and 12:23 p.m.). A third

call was made at 2:04 p.m., approximately nine minutes after

Respondent Ó s Progress Notes record that he finished L.P. Ó s

counseling session (1:55 p.m.). The final call lasted one minute

and 29 seconds. No evidence was presented documenting the

subject matter of the 2:04 p.m. call. During her testimony, L.P.

hesitantly agreed that the 2:04 p.m. call was the one during

which she cancelled her appointment. (L.P. was under the

impression that she met with Respondent from 12:00 p.m. to

1:00 p.m. on July 19, 2017. However, she conceded that she would

not have phoned Compass Counseling at 12:18 p.m. or 12:23 p.m. if

she was actually in her therapy session with Respondent at that

time.)

33. Other than the phone call to Compass Counseling at

2:04 p.m., L.P. did not contact any person or entity to report

the incident until five days later on July 24, 2017.

34. After leaving Respondent Ó s care, L.P. received

psychotherapeutic counseling from Ashlyn Douglass - Ba rnes, a

licensed clinical social worker who currently works at Jewish

Family Services in Winter Park, Florida. Before Jewish Family

Services, Ms. Douglass - Barnes worked at Compass Counseling from

March 2014 through February 2017, where she met Respondent.

35. Respondent referred L.P. to Ms. Douglass - Barnes during

their first meeting on June 23, 2017. He contacted Ms. Douglass -

Barnes through Facebook messenger. Respondent wrote:

I have an intake today that would like to

work with a female clinician. I have advised

her that I am not going to be here much

longer, and that I Ó d happily connect her with

someone who is empathic, caring, and warm. I

think this would be a perfect fit. . . .

She Ó s 27 y.o. as well and is very sweet.

36. Before Ms. Douglass - Barnes met L.P. for their first

appointment, however, L.P. called her on J uly 24, 2017.

Ms. Douglass - Barnes testified that L.P. expressed that Ð I need to

tell you something, but it has to stay between us. Ñ With

Ms. Douglass - Barnes Ó s encouragement, L.P. c onfided that Ð last

Wednesday [June 19, 2017], Dr. G. [Respondent] grabbed my butt

and tried to kiss me. Ñ Ms. Douglass - Barnes also recalled L.P.

telling her that when Respondent grabbed her, she Ð turned around

and yelled at him. Ñ Ms. Douglass - Barnes invit ed L.P. to come to

her office that day.

37. When L.P. arrived at Ms. Douglass - Barnes Ó s office, L.P.

repeated that Respondent made a sexual advancement towards her.

Ms. Douglass - Barnes specifically recalled L.P. telling her the

following: Respondent tou ched her butt as their therapy session

ended. L.P. then slapped his hand away, and screamed, Ð What the

hell, I Ó m married. Ñ Respondent also tried to kiss her.

Respondent subsequently told L.P., Ð I Ó m so sorry. I Ó m just so

attracted to you. Ñ

38. Ms. Do uglass - Barnes reviewed with L.P. all available

options to report the incident (law enforcement, complaint to the

Department, and Compass Counseling Ó s insurance carrier). L.P.

wanted to exercise all options. Therefore, with L.P. Ó s

acquiescence, Ms. Dougla ss - Barnes called 911 to report a sexual

assault. A deputy sheriff from the Orange County Sheriff Ó s

Office arrived at Ms. Douglass - Barnes Ó s office approximately 90

minutes later. L.P. provided a written statement to the deputy

stating:

On Wednesday July 1 9, 2017 I had an appt. w/

[Respondent]. When I arrived to the appt he

brought me into his office and we began our

session. When we were done with the session

he told me he wanted one more appt with me.

I said OK let Ó s make the appt. We made the

appt an d when I walked out of his office he

grabed [sic] my butt. I slaped [sic] his

hand away and said what the f[***] I am

married. [Respondent] said he was sorry.

You are just really attractive. Then he

tried to kiss me and I pushed him away and

said what the f[***] dude I am married again.

He said he [was] sorry your [sic] just really

attractive. I walked out of his office and

he walked me out to my car. When I told him

I was fine he tried to get me to go with him

to his car. I said no I will meet you in my

car. . . . He walked up to my car and gave

my husband a card for [a] car fixing place.

I DID NOT GIVE HIM ANY PERMISSION TO TOUCH ME

AT ALL!! I want to prosecute and am willing

to go to court for this. [ 8/ ]

39. L.P. also told the police that Resp ondent had never

attempted to touch her before the July 19, 201 7 , incident.

40. Also on July 24, 2017, Ms. Douglass - Barnes, again with

L.P. Ó s consent, prepared a formal complaint with the Department.

On the Complaint Form, Ms. Douglass - Barnes indicated Ð abuse Ñ and

Ð sexual contact Ñ were the reasons for L.P. Ó s complaint. L.P.

signed the form. Ms. Douglass - Barnes faxed the Complaint Form to

the Department that day and attached L.P. Ó s statement to the

Sheriff Ó s Office.

4 1. In addition, in August 2017, L. P. contacted a personal

injury law firm. On March 19, 2018, the law firm wrote Compass

Counseling on L.P. Ó s behalf complaining about the July 19, 2017,

incident. The letter demanded $275,000 to settle L.P. Ó s case.

42. Over the next few days, Respondent reached out to

Ms. Douglass - Barnes expressing an urgent need to talk to her.

Respondent did not explain his reasoning, although she suspected

he was simply seeking support and un a wa re of her involvement.

Ms. Douglass - Barnes avoided directly speaking wit h Respondent.

43. At Compass Counseling, Ms. Douglass - Barnes considered

Respondent a friend and colleague with whom she consulted and

talked two to three times a week. Based on their time together,

Ms. Douglass - Barnes described Respondent as a very eff ective

therapist and passionate about his practice. She commented that

he went over and above to help his clients. However, in light of

L.P. Ó s accusations, on July 26, 2017, she informed Respondent

that it was in their best interest not to communicate an y

further. Ms. Douglass - Barnes has had no contact with Respondent

since that date.

44. After meeting on July 24, 2017, L.P. continued to see

Ms. Douglass - Barnes for cognitive behavior therapy . They met

ap proximately every month from August 1, 2017 , th rough June 5,

2018. L.P. first discussed her encounter with Respondent on

October 4, 2017, during their third session. They also talked

about the incide nt on April 9, 2018, May 8, 2018 , and June 5,

2018.

45. As part of her testimony, Ms. Douglass - Barne s also

provided her insight into how L.P. Ó s mental health conditions

affected her ability to perceive and understand what was

happening around her in July 2017. Ms. Douglass - Barnes conveyed

that L.P. has been diagnosed with auditory processing disorder.

With this condition, L.P. has difficulty processing information

or instructions when she is under emotional pressure or stressed .

Auditory processing disorder can also cause L.P. to become

confused. Consequently , L.P. Ó s ability to interact with others

is affected.

46. Ms. Douglass - Barnes also commented that L.P. is not

manic, but does exhibit some traits of mania. This ailment is

evident in L.P. Ó s impulsiveness. But, it does not affect her

perception. Similarly, L.P. presents some traits of borderline

personality disorder, but has not been diagnosed with this mental

illness. (At the final hearing, Ms. Douglass - Barnes explained

that borderline personality disorder is a mental condition

characterized by pervasive abnormalities of perception, behavior,

t hinking, and relationships. Borderline personality disorder

causes a person to operate in their own world, i.e., not in

reality.) Finally, L.P. does not suffer from psychosis, which

would substantially affect her ability to comprehend what is

happening a round her.

47. Despite these mental health disorders, Ms. Douglass -

Barnes testified that she never doubted L.P. Ó s ability to

accurately recognize and understand what happened to her in

Respondent Ó s office on July 19, 2017. Neither does she believe

that L .P. Ó s mental health conditions impair her ability to tell

the truth. Ms. Douglass - Barnes testified that, based on her

interactions with L.P. and the consistency with which L.P.

described the facts and circumstances of the encounter, she

believes that L.P. accurately reported that Respondent Ð sexually

touched/assaulted her inappropriately. Ñ

48. After L.P. reported the incident to Ms. Douglas - Barnes,

on July 25, 2017, Compass Counseling received a phone call from a

caller who did not identify herself. Luz Rosa was working the

receptionist desk and took the call. Although the caller did not

provide her name, Ms. Rosa was able to match the phone number to

L.P. based on the information in her office records. Therefore,

Ms. Rosa typed up a report of the call to include in L.P. Ó s file.

(L.P. Ó s cell phone records from that date document a call that

was placed to Compass Counseling at 2:46 p.m., which lasted

approximately 10 minutes.)

49. According to Ms. Rosa Ó s typed report, as well as her

testimony at the fin al hearing, the caller (L.P.) asked about the

cost of a first time visit, as well as the amount of the co - pay

for follow - up appointments. Ms. Rosa relayed that the first

appointment, without a medical plan, was priced at $75.00. The

cost of follow - up vis its differed depending on the plan. At that

point, Ms. Rosa expressed that the caller became very upset. The

caller threatened to sue Compass Counseling for charging too much

to her medical plan. The report did not include, nor did

Ms. Rosa remember, an y complaint from the caller regarding

Respondent Ó s services or an incident on July 19, 2017.

50. O n August 8, 2017, L.P. called Compass Counseling

again. She left a voice mail canceling an appointment. On her

message, L.P. relayed that Ð something else came up. Ñ

51. On August 16, 2017, Compass Counseling received another

call from someone who did not identify herself. Dalys Melendez

was the front desk coordinator that day and answered the call.

Although the caller did not provide her name, Ms. Melend ez was

able to match L.P. to the phone number through caller ID.

Ms. Melendez typed a record of the call and added it to L.P. Ó s

file. (L.P. Ó s cell phone records also document a call placed to

Compass Counseling at 10:40 a.m. that day, which lasted one

mi nute and 34 seconds.)

52. During the call, the caller (L.P.) asked if Respondent

was working at Compass Counseling. After Ms. Melendez responded

that he was not there, the caller became angry, screamed a

profanity, then hung up the phone.

53. At the con clusion of her testimony, L.P. stated that,

in response to the July 19, 2017, incident, she wants

Respondent Ó s license taken away. She would also like to see him

go to jail. L.P. called Respondent Ó s actions Ð disgusting Ñ and

Ð sick. Ñ She voiced that she s hould have been able to fully trust

Respondent and feel safe with him during her therapy sessions ,

but Respondent violated that trust. L.P. expressed that what

Respondent did to her should never happen to anyone else.

54. Respondent elected not to testi fy at the final

hearing. 9/ Instead, Respondent contested the Department Ó s

allegations by attacking the veracity of L.P. Ó s story.

Respondent challenged L.P. Ó s testimony on two fronts. First,

Respondent argues that the facts and circumstances surrounding

the event do not support L.P. Ó s narrative. Second, Respondent

asserts that L.P. has credibility issues which prevent the

Department from meeting its burden of proof based on her

testimony.

55. To present a more comprehensive picture of the Compass

Coun seling office at the time of L.P. Ó s appointment, Respondent

offered the testimony of two individuals who were working in

Compass Counseling o n the afternoon of July 19, 2017 .

56. Karina Flores is a psychotherapist who has provided

counseling services at Compass Counseling since 2016. Ms. Flores

initially described the Compass Counseling office layout.

Compass Counseling operates in a two - story building.

Respondent Ó s office is located on the first floor. The first

floor includes a lobby with a recepti onist desk. Through a door

behind the receptionist desk is a hallway that connects three

offices. Office 1 is located at the end of the hall with a door

that faces the lobby. Office 2 is the middle office. Office 3

is adjacent to Office 2 and is closes t to the lobby. Respondent

used the second/middle office. It s hared walls on both sides

with O ffices 1 and 3.

57. On July 19, 2017, as Respondent was finishing his

session with L.P., Ms. Flores was sitting in O ffice 3 waiting to

confer with him about one of her clients. Her door was ajar, and

she had a clear view of the hallway leading from Respondent Ó s

office to the lobby.

58. Ms. Flores described the hallway as a small, tight

location. She also relayed that the office walls were very thin.

Cons equently, she could Ð absolutely Ñ hear conversations coming

from other offices, as well as the hallway. Ms. Flores has used

all three offices for appointments, and her experience is the

same : she can Ð hear anything Ñ that was said in the adjoining

offices. Ms. Flores expounded that, although she might not be

able to make out individual words, she has clearly heard people

crying, laughing, talking, or yelling through the doors and

walls.

59. Ms. Flores testified that, while waiting to speak with

Respondent , she heard two voices talking back and forth in his

office. The conversation was conducted in normal tones.

Occasionally, she heard Ð giggling. Ñ Ms. Flores further recalled

that she did not hear either person raise their voice or yell or

scream. Neithe r did she hear any cries of distress. Ms. Flores

confidently asserted that if someone had shouted Ð what the f*** ?

I Ó m married Ñ twice while standing at the door of Office 2 , she

would have heard it . Ms. Flores declared that she did not hear

any such outb urst.

60. What Ms. Flores did hear was the door to Respondent Ó s

office open at the end of his appointment. Then, in her

peripheral vision, she saw Respondent walk with a woman wearing a

blonde ponytail to the lobby. Ms. Flores recalled that the two

wer e talking Ð in a friendly manner Ñ as they passed her door.

61. Shortly, thereafter, Respondent returned, and she met

him in his office. Ms. Flores Ð particularly Ñ recalled that

Respondent commented that he had just offered his patient

information about a n auto mechanic. Respondent also mentioned

that he met his patient Ó s spouse and dog. (L.P. Ó s dog was in the

back seat of Mr. Hulett Ó s car.)

62. Finally, Ms. Flores offered her observations of

Respondent Ó s psychotherapy practice. She found him friendl y and

professional. He was well - liked and considered a good therapist.

Ms. Flores also recalled that Respondent called her about a week

after the incident and divulged that he had been accused of

sexual misconduct. Ms. Flores testified that Respondent a ppeared

shocked and surprised by the allegations.

63. Dr. Roberta Wildblood was also present at Compass

Counseling on July 19, 2017, when L.P. met with Respondent.

Dr. Wildblood is a clinical psychologist who has provided

services at Compass Counseli ng since 2015.

64. On July 19, 2017, Dr. Wildblood was scheduled to meet a

patient at 2:00 p.m. in Office 1 (her office). However, she did

not recall whether she was actually present when L.P. walked out

of Office 2 with Respondent. She did not see or hear L.P. in the

building that afternoon.

65. However, similar to Ms. Flores, Dr. Wildblood testified

that voices can be heard through the office walls. Dr. Wildblood

echoed Ms. Flores in that she is not able to discern exact words

while sitting in Offi ce 1. Nevertheless, she has heard

exclamations from counselors and clients. She has also heard a

ball bouncing in another office.

66 . Dr. Wildblood also offered her experience working with

Respondent. She described him as professional and highly

rega rded by his peers. She stated that he is gentle, kind, and

an effective counselor.

67 . For her part, Ms. Douglass - Barnes agreed that voices

can be heard through the office walls at Compass Counseling. To

try and maintain privacy, Ms. Douglass - Barnes rec alled that

counselors routinely used noise machines in their rooms, and a

radio played in the reception area.

68. To counterbalance Ms. Douglass - Barnes Ó testi mony

regarding the effect of L.P.Ós mental health conditions ,

Respondent called Earl P. Taitt, Jr ., M.D., to testify.

Dr. Taitt is a psychiatrist who currently runs a private practice

in Orlando, Florida. He is board - certified in psychiatry and

neurology, as well as forensic medicine. Dr. Taitt testified as

an expert in psychiatry.

69. At the fi nal hearing, Dr. Taitt described in detail the

effect of the various mental health conditions from which L.P.

suffers. He also offered his opinion on how L.P. Ó s mental

illnesses affected her interpersonal functions with Respondent.

Dr. Taitt stated that he formed his impressions based on a review

of L.P. Ó s extensive medical and psychotherapy records, as well as

his observations of her deposition and live testimony.

70. Conversely, Dr. Taitt was careful to explain that he

was not opining on L.P. Ó s truthfu lness during her testimony at

the final hearing. Further, he readily acknowledged that he has

never personally examined or interviewed L.P. Neither does he

possess any personal information regarding L.P. Ó s interaction

with Respondent on July 19, 2017.

71. Dr. Taitt Ó s diagnostic impression, based on his limited

observations, is that L.P. suffers from borderline personality

disorder. Dr. Tait t identified signs of borderline personality

disorder in L.P. Ó s history of impulsivity, intense mood changes

incl uding anger (her most significant mood symptom), and unstable

interpersonal relationships.

72. Dr. Taitt explained that someone with borderline

personality disorder exhibits abnormalities of perception

relating to interpersonal relationships. Borderlin e personality

disorder creates an impediment to social interactions and a

person Ó s ability to accurately perceive the social interaction.

73. Dr. Taitt opined that L.P. Ó s borderline personality

disorder directly affected her ability to accurately relate t o

Respondent in his office on July 19, 2017. Consequently, when

Respondent informed L.P. that their counseling sessions would be

coming to an end, Dr. Taitt suggested that L.P. might have felt

Ð a real or imagined abandonment. Ñ Borderline personality

diso rder would have caused L.P. to experience a greater

vulnerability to the fact that Respondent was leaving her

treatment to another therapist. Therefore, L.P. Ó s report of

sexual abuse may have been her vindictive reaction to the

imagined abandonment. L.P. was lashing out at Respondent.

Dr. Taitt further remarked that borderline personality disorder

may have caused L.P. to misrepresent the facts of her narrative

based on how she (incorrectly) perceived her interaction with

Respondent in his office.

74 . Dr . Taitt also commented on the wide range of

psychotropic medications L.P. was taking before and after

July 19, 2017 . He expressed that these medications could have

impacted L.P. Ó s psychological conditions. Dr. Taitt further

noted that the medication dosa ges L.P. was prescribed indicate

that she was suffering from severe symptoms.

75. Finally, Dr. Taitt discussed L.P. Ó s decision to proceed

with her five - day trip to St. Augustine instead of immediately

reporting the incident. He believed that going on a v acation

following a sexual assault is atypical of someone who has

actually experienced such misconduct. If L.P. truly encountered

the inappropriate touching, Dr. Taitt thought that she would have

disclosed it earlier.

76. Lastly, Respondent presented th e testimony of several

former clients or parents of minor clients ( Jessica Rosado,

Erika Ana Camacho, and Marta Lopez). These witnesses described

Respondent Ó s counseling methods and personal interactions during

his therapy sessions. All were highly compl i mentary of his

professionalism, and stated that Respondent never acted

inappropriately with them.

77. None of these witnesses, however, had personal

knowledge of the allegations in this matter or knew L.P.

Respondent presented them primarily for mitig ation purposes.

78. Based on the competent substantial evidence presented

at the final hearing, the clear and convincing evidence in the

record does not establish that Respondent engaged in behavior

Ð which [was] intended to be sexually arousing Ñ or that he touched

L.P.Ós buttocks on July 19, 2017. Accordingly, the Department

failed to meet its burden of proving that Respondent committed

Ð sexual misconduct, Ñ which would support discipline under section

491.0111 and rule 64B - 10.002(1) .

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

79. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter of this

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

Statutes (2018) .

80. The Department brings this disciplinary action to

sanction Respon dent for an incident that allegedly occurred in

his office on July 19, 2017. The Department specifically

charges Respondent with Ð sexual misconduct. Ñ

81. S ection 491.0111 states that:

Sexual misconduct by any person licensed or

certified under this cha pter, in the

practice of her or his profession, is

prohibited.

Section 491.0111 further directs that the term Ð sexual

misconduct shall be defined by rule. Ñ

82. R ule 64B4 - 10.002(1) provides that:

It is sexual misconduct for a

psychotherapist to engag e, attempt to

engage, or offer to engage a client in

sexual behavior, or any behavior, whether

verbal or physical, which is intended to be

sexually arousing, including kissing; sexual

intercourse, either genital or anal;

cunnilingus; fellatio; or the touch ing by

either the psychotherapist or the client of

the other Ó s breasts, genital areas,

buttocks, or thighs, whether clothed or

unclothed.

83. For violations of section 491.0111 and rule

64B4 - 10.002, section 491.009(1)(k) authorizes the Department to

discipline a licensed clinical social worker , up to , and

including suspension or permanent revocation of a license. See

§ 491.072(2) , and Kruse v. Dep Ó t of Health , 270 So. 3d 475, 477

(Fla. 1st DCA 2019).

84. The Department Ó s action to sanction Respon dent is

penal in nature. Accordingly, the Department bears the burden

of proving the grounds for disciplinary action by clear and

convincing evidence. Dep Ó t of Banking & Fin., Div. of Sec. &

Investor Prot. v. Osborne Stern & Co. , 670 So. 2d 932, 935 (Fla .

1996); see also Fla. Dep Ó t of Child. & Fams. v. Davis Fam. Day

Care Home , 160 So. 3d 854, 856 (Fla. 2015).

85. Clear and convincing evidence is a heightened standard

that Ð requires more proof than a Ò preponderance of the evidence Ó

but less than Ò beyond and to the exclusion of a reasonable

doubt. ÓÑ Clear and convincing evidence is defined as an

intermediate burden of proof that:

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 explicit and

the witnesses must be lacking in confusion as

to the facts in issue. 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.

S. Fla. Water Mgmt. v. RLI Live Oak, LLC , 139 So. 3d 869, 872 - 73

(Fla. 2014)(quoting Slomowitz v. Walker , 429 So. 2d 797, 800

(Fla. 4th DCA 1983)). Further, Ð [a]lthough this standard of

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

to preclude evidence that is ambiguous. Ñ Westinghouse Elec.

Corp. v. Shuler Bros. , 590 So. 2d 986, 988 (Fla. 1991).

86. It is well - established that Ð penal statutes . . . are

construed in favor of th e licensee and against the regulatory

authority. Ñ Djokic v. Dep Ó t of Bus. & Prof Ó l Reg., Div. of Real

Estate , 875 So. 2d 693, 695 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); see also

Griffis v. Fla. Fish & Wildlife Conser. Comm Ó n , 57 So. 3d 929,

931 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)(The law is well - settled that Ð [s]tatutes

imposing a penalty must always be construed strictly in favor of

the one against whom the penalty is imposed and are never to be

extended by construction. Ñ ) .

87. The competent substantial evidence in the record does

not pr ove, by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent

committed Ð sexual misconduct Ñ with L.P., by engaging in behavior

which was intended to be Ð sexually arousing Ñ or by touching her

buttocks . This case presents a Ð he said - she said Ñ scenario in

which onl y two people truly know what happened behind

Respondent Ó s closed door on July 19, 2017. Of the two

individuals, only L.P. testified at the final hearing.

Consequently, the weighing of the evidence focuses on how the

facts and circumstances surrounding th e incident support L.P. Ó s

account of that day .

88. At the final hearing, L.P. spoke with conviction and

unfalteringly levied very serious allegations against Respondent.

Her story has remained consistent, virtually word for word, from

her first telling on July 24, 2017, through the final hearing.

Further, her narrative, in isolation, was not effectively

impeached during her testimony. However, in light of all the

facts surrounding the incident, the evidence in the record does

not establish Ð sexual mis conduct Ñ by clear and convincing

evidence. 10/

89. For proof to be Ð c lear and convincing , Ñ the testimony

must be Ð precise and explicit and the witnesses must be lacking

in confusion as to the facts in issue. Ñ Further, t he evidence

must produce Ð a firm bel ief or conviction, without hesitancy, Ñ as

to the truth of the allegations sought to be established. The

undersigned finds that the credible evidence in the record is not

sufficiently persuasive to establish L.P Ó s version of events to

the level of clear an d convincing.

90. The facts found contain four essential ambiguities or

equivocations that preclude a Ð firm belief Ñ that Respondent

engaged in Ð sexual misconduct Ñ with L.P. in his office. These

incertitudes include the following:

a. When did L.P. cancel her final appoin tment with

Respondent on July 19 , 201 7 ?

91. L.P. testified that she called to cancel her final

counseling session after she drove away from Compass Counseling.

Based on the most credible evidence in the record (Respondent Ó s

Progress Not es), L.P. Ó s counseling session ended at 1:55 p.m.

Thereafter, Respondent escorted her out of the building; they

conversed with Mr. Hulett about an auto mechanic; then L.P. drove

away with her husband.

92. L.P. asserted that she called Compass Counselin g as

they reached the highway leading out of Orlando -- about 20 to 30

minutes after she left Respondent in the parking lot. The

evidence confirms a single call from L.P. Ó s cell phone to Compass

Counseling at 2:04 p.m. -- nine minutes after L.P. Ó s appointment

ended. Even giving L.P. latitude on the timeline, no evidence

documents the subject matter of this call. Further, and more

significantly, during her testimony, L.P. would not firmly commit

that this call was the moment she canceled her appointment. The

chronology is further confused by the fact that, at the final

hearing, L.P. was under the impression that her July 1 9, 2017 ,

counseling session lasted from noon to 1:00 p.m.

b. The length of time L.P. waited to officially report

the incident.

93. Eve n assuming that L.P. reacted to Respondent Ó s

inappropriate behavior by promptly canceling her appointment, the

fact that L.P. delayed an additional five days to report the

incident is too incongruous to infer an encounter with Ðsexual

misconductÑ as define d by rule 64B4 - 10.002(1). At times since

July 19, 2017, and certainly at the final hearing, L.P. clearly

expressed an abhorrence to the treatment she received from

Respondent. For example, L.P. reported to the Sheriff Ó s Office

her resentment to Responden t Ó s Ð TOUCH Ñ in all capital letters.

Further, at the final hearing, L.P. called Respondent

Ð disgusting Ñ and Ð sick. Ñ

94. Such a strong emotional reaction, however, does not

comport with a decision to wait five days to notify someone of

Ð sexual misconduct Ñ and proceed with a vacation instead. The

fact that L.P. did not take more assertive steps to report

Respondent Ó s behavior is inconsistent with her testimony that she

was offensively touched by someone who was sexually aroused.

c. L.P. Ó s actions from the end of her counseling session in

Respondent Ó s office through her departure from the

parking lot.

95. The credible testimony establishes that the walls

between the Compass Counseling offices are not soundproof. On

the contrary, talking, crying, laug hing, or yelling can all be

detected in the adjoining offices. Ms. Flores was present in an

adjacent office during the final interactions between Respondent

and L.P. Yet, she detected no shouts, cries of distress, or any

noise that would indicate untowar d conduct between a therapist

and a client. On the contrary, Ms. Flores testified that she

overheard talking in normal tones and Ð giggling Ñ coming from

Respondent Ó s office.

96. Further, when L.P. left Respondent Ó s office she did not

take any actions tha t would indicate that she had just been

victimized by Ð sexual misconduct. Ñ L.P. and Respondent walked

together as they exited the building. L.P. passed within a few

feet of Ms. Flores in Office 3, as well as the receptionist desk.

However, L.P. gave no sign that she felt abused or uncomfortable.

Consequently, as with the fact that L.P. did not report the

alleged Ð sexual misconduct Ñ until five days after her appointment

(following her vacation) , L.P. Ó s behavior during and just after

the alleged confronta tion causes some Ð hesitancy Ñ in concluding

that Respondent engaged in behavior which was intended to be

sexually arousing.

d. How loudly did L.P. say Ð What the f[***]? I Ó m married Ñ

in Respondent Ó s office?

97. During the final hearing, the fact that Res pondent Ó s

office walls were not soundproof forced the Department to press

L.P. to describe exactly how loudly she expressed, Ð What the

f[***]? I Ó m married. Ñ If L.P. spoke clearly and conspicuously,

then Ms. Flores credibly testified that she would have h eard the

outburst. If L.P. spoke softly, then (as Respondent argues), the

question remains whether L.P. was truly subjected to Ðsexual

misconduct . Ñ

98. To buttress the credibility of L.P. Ó s story, the

Department points to L.P. Ó s written statement to th e Sheriff Ó s

Office in which she wrote that she merely Ð said Ñ Ð What the

f[***]. I Ó m married. Ñ Therefore, the Department argues that

L.P. uttered her indignation in a Ð normal Ñ tone that would not

have carried through office wall s . To counter this position ,

Respondent quotes Ms. Douglas s - Barnes , who attested that L.P.

told her that she Ð screamed Ñ and Ð yelled Ñ her objection. For her

part, L.P. Ó s depiction at the final hearing did not strengthen

her account . During her testimony, L.P. initially described he r

protestation in a loud voice Î - one that would have been heard

through a thin office wall. Later, when pushed on the matter,

L.P. did not satisfactorily explain how, and with what volume,

she simply Ð said Ñ Ð What the f[***]? I Ó m married. Ñ

99. Similar to the other ambiguities described above,

Respondent Ó s argument that L.P. would have screamed, yelled, or

at least , spoken loudly in response to Respondent Ó s allegedly

offensive behavior has merit. Accordingly, based on Ms. Flores

credible testimony that sh e heard nothing unusual from

Respondent Ó s office as he finished his appointment, L.P. Ó s

testimony is not sufficiently credible to produce a Ð firm belief

or conviction Ñ that Respondent committed Ð sexual misconduct. Ñ

100. In sum, after careful considerati on of all the

evidence and testimony presented at the final hearing, the

competent substantial evidence in the record does not establish,

by clear and convincing evidence, that Respondent committed

Ð sexual misconduct Ñ involving L.P. on July 19, 2017. Ther efore,

the Department did not meet its burden of proving that Respondent

violated section 491.0111 and rule 64B4 - 10.002 . 11/

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Boar d of

Clinical Social Work, Marriage and Family Therapy and Mental

Health Counseling , enter a final order dismissing the Amended

Administrative Complaint against Respondent, Gerard Kruse.

DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of August , 2019 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

J. BRUCE CULPEPPER

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 16th day of August , 2019 .

ENDNOTE S

1 / The April 11, 2019, hearing day was conducted via video

teleconference at sites in Altamonte Springs and Tallahassee,

Florida.

2 / On September 10, 2018, the Department filed an Unopposed

Motion for Leave to Amend Administrative Complaint, which was

granted. The Amended Administrative Complaint is the operative

charging document in this matter.

3 / This proceeding is governed b y the substantive law in effect

at the time of the commission of the acts alleged to warrant

discipline. See McCloskey v. Dep Ó t of Fin. Servs. , 115 So. 3d

441 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). Therefore, u nless otherwise stated,

all statutory references are to the 20 17 codification of the

Florida Statutes , and references to Florida Administrative Code

Rules are to the versions in effect at the time of the alleged

misconduct .

4 / This matter was initially scheduled for a final hearing on

June 28 and 29, 2018. Followi ng several unopposed motions from

both parties, the final hearing was ultimately continued to

December 19, 2018, on which date the matter was heard.

5 / Respondent also proffered Respondent Ó s Exhibits 1 through 4,

6 through 8, 10, 13, 14, 16 through 18, 20 through 22, 31, and

36 as mitigating evidence. The undersigned did not admit these

documents in evidence, nor do they serve as a basis for any

findings of fact. However, they have been placed in the record

in this matter.

6 / By requesting a deadline for filing post - hearing submissions

beyond ten days after the filing of the transcript , the 30 - day

time period for filing the recommended order was waived. See

Fla. Admin. Code R. 28 - 106.216(2).

7 / L.P. was a patient of a licensed psychotherapist in Fl orida.

Accordingly , her confidentiality is maintained in this

administrative proceeding. See §§ 39 4.4615, 456.057, 456.059,

491.0147, and 491.0148, Fla. Stat.

8 / The State of Florida charged Respondent with battery

(misdemeanor) on February 21, 2018, a lleging that Respondent

Ð did actually and intentionally touch or strike the said [L.P.],

against the will of the victim or did intentionally cause bodily

harm to [L.P.]. Ñ The State of Florida dropped this case (nolle

prosequi) on January 14, 2019. No cri minal charges remain

pending against Respondent based on this incident.

9 / Prior to presenting his case in chief, Respondent exercised

his right to remain silent under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution.

1 0 / The undersigned does not render an y finding regarding L.P. Ó s

mental state on the date of the incident or the effect of her

mental health issues on her ability to perceive social

interactions. Similarly, while Dr. Taitt explained certain

mental health terms and conditions, his testimony wa s not

persuasive enough to find that L.P. suffers from a particular

psychological illness. I nstead, this Recommended Order is based

on whether the facts and circumstances surrounding the encounter

establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that Responde nt

committed Ð sexual misconduct Ñ as defined in rule 64B4 - 10.002.

11/ The undersigned recognizes that section 120.81(4)(a) states

that the testimony of the victim need not be corroborated in a

proceeding against a licensed professional that involves

alleg ations of sexual misconduct. The undersigned further

acknowledges that, in considering the probative evidence in the

record, the administrative law judge may apply an adverse

inference based on Respondent Ó s decision to remain silent.

See Omulepu v. Dep Ó t of Health, Bd. of Med. , 249 So. 3d 1278,

1281 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018). However, the Department still bears

the burden of proving the alleged sexual misconduct. Further,

the finder of fact is not required to believe the testimony of

any witness, even if un rebutted. City of Orlando Police Dep Ó t

v. Rose , 974 So. 2d 554, 555 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). In this

matter, the competent substantial proof in the record simply

do es not meet the clear and convincing evidentiary threshold.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Carol C. Schr iefer, Esquire

The Health Law Firm

1101 Douglas Avenue

Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714

(eServed)

Andrew James Pietrylo, Esquire

Department of Health

Bin C - 65

4052 Bald Cypress Way

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3265

(eServed)

Christine E. Lamia, Esquire

D epartment of Health

Bin C - 65

4052 Bald Cypress Way

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3265

(eServed)

Kristen M. Summers, Esquire

Department of Health

Prosecution Services Unit

Bin C - 65

4052 Bald Cypress Way

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

(eServed)

Janet Hartman, Interim Exec utive Director

Board of Clinical Social Work, Marriage and

Family Therapy and Mental Health Counseling

Department of Health

4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C - 08

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3257

(eServed)

Louise Wilhite - St Laurent, Gen eral Counse l

Department of Health

4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C - 65

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

(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 except ions

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.