18-006497FL Loving Touch &Quot;Dynamic&Quot; Home, Owned And Operated By Zulia Brenovil, Loving Touch Adult Family Care, Inc. vs. Agency For Persons With Disabilities
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Tuesday, May 28, 2019.


View Dockets  
Summary: Petitioners' license application should be denied by the agency.

1STATE OF FLORIDA

4DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

8LOVING TOUCH " A BRIGHTER FUTURE "

13HOME, OWNED AND OPERATED BY

18ZULIA BRENOVIL, LOVING TOUCH

22ADULT FAMILY CARE, INC.,

26Petitioner,

27vs. Case No . 18 - 6496FL

34AGENCY FOR PERSONS WITH

38DISABILITIES,

39Respondent.

40_____ __________________________/

42LOVING TOUCH " DYNAMIC " HOME,

46OWNED AND OPERATED BY ZULIA

51BRENOVIL, LOVING TOUCH ADULT

55FAMILY CARE, INC.,

58Petitioner,

59vs. Case No. 18 - 6497FL

65AGENCY FOR PERSONS WITH

69DISABILITIES,

70Respondent.

71________________ _______________/

73RECOMMENDED ORDER

75On March 28 and 29, 2019, a final hearing was held in this

88matter pursuant to section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2018).

96The hearing took place via video teleconference with sites in

106Tallahassee, Florida , and Fort Pierce, Florida. The hearing was

115conducted by Administrative Law Judge Robert L. Kilbride of the

125Division of Administrative Hearings.

129APPEARANCES

130For Petitioner: Trevor S. Suter, Esquire

136Agency fo r Persons w ith Disabilities

1434030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380

148Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0950

153For Respondent: Lance O. Leider, Esquire

159The Health Law Firm

1631101 Douglas Avenue

166Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714

170STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

174Whether Petitioners ' applications to license their group

182ho me facilities should have been approved by Respondent, Agency

192for Persons with Disabilities ( " APD " or "Respondent" ).

201PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

203In December of 20 17, Petitioners submitted licensure

211ap plications to Respondent. The applic ations were for new group

222homes and were the initial applications for those group homes.

232On March 2, 2018, APD notified Petitioner s in writing that each

244of Petitioner s' application s for licensure was denied. Taking

254exception to this action, Petitioners timely filed requests for

263administrative hearings to contest the denial of their

271applications.

272On December 10, 2018, the matters were referred to the

282Division of Administrative Heari ngs ( " DOAH " ) and assigned DOAH

293C ase Nos. 18 - 6496FL and 18 - 6497 FL . By O rder of the undersigned,

311the matters were consolidated on December 18, 2018.

319On March 28 and 29, 2019, a final hearing was held pursuant

331to section 12 0.57(1) . Petitioners presente d the testimony o f

343their corporate officer Zulia Brenovil and APD employee Cordroy

352Charles. APD presented the testimony of Department of Children

361and Families ( " DCF " ) employees Tiffany Perry ("Perry") ,

372Charlie Parker ("Parker") , Virginia Snyder ("Snyder") , and

383Michelle Windfelder ("Windfelder") . Respondent also presented

392the testimony of its own employees , Maria Rubin and Cordroy

402Charles.

403Regarding exhibits considered at th e hearing, Petitioner

411withdrew E xhibit 12, and admitted the remaining E xhibi ts 1

423through 34 and 39 without objection. Over objection,

431Petitioner ' s E xhibit s 40 and 41 were also admitted. The

444undersigned asked Petitioners to submit additional documents

451post - hearing, which were admitted as Petitioners ' Exhibits 42

462through 47.

464Respondent admitted E xh ibits 1 through 4 without objection.

474Respondent ' s Exhibits 5 through 10 were also admitted over

485objection, on the condition that th e undersigned may exclude

495third - party statements contain ed in Exhibits 5 through 10,

506unless there was an evidentiary basis to consider them. 1/

516A T ranscript of the heari ng was filed with DOAH on

528April 16, 2019. By agreement of the parties , and a subsequent

539extension granted by the undersigned, proposed recommended

546orders were due on May 6, 2019. APD timely filed its proposed

558recommended order on May 6, 2019. Petitioner filed a proposed

568recommended order on May 7, 2019. It was incorrectly labeled as

" 579Respondent ' s " Proposed Recommend Order. 2/ The proposed

588recommended orders from the parties were rev iewed and considered

598in the preparation of this Recommended Order.

605All statutory references herein are to the 2018 version of

615the Florida Statutes, unless otherwise noted.

621FINDING S OF FACT

625The undersigned makes the following findings of fact:

6331. APD is the state agency that licenses foster care

643facilities, group home facilities, residential habilitation

649centers, and comprehensive transitional education programs.

655§ 393.067 , Fla. Stat . APD is charged with reviewing all

666applications and ensur ing compliance with the requirements for

675licensure. Id.

677Stipulated Facts Submitted by the Parties

6832. The parties st ipulated to the following facts.

692• Loving Touch Dynamic Group Home and Loving

700Touch A Brighter Future Group Home are owned

708and operat ed by Loving Touch Adult Family

716Care, Inc.

718• Zulia Brenovil is Loving Touch Adult

725Family Care, Inc. ' s sole shareholder.

732• Loving Touch ' s applications for

739licensure of the A Brighter Future and

746Dynamic homes were ultimately complete and

752met all require ments for licensure.

758However, APD exerc ised its discretion to

765deny the a pplications pursuant to

771Section 393. 0673(2) (b), Florida Statutes.

777The parties dispute whether such discretion

783was correctly applied in this case.

789• Until the denial of the A Bright er Future

799and Dynamic home applications, APD had not

806previously denied a license application

811submitted by Loving Touch Adult Family Care,

818Inc.

819• Loving Touch Adult Family Care, Inc., has

827never had a license revoked or suspended by

835APD.

836• The Notice o f License Application

843Denial/Administrative Complaint does not

847charge Loving Touch Adult Family Care, Inc.,

854with making false statements or omitting

860material facts in its license application

866under Section 393.0635(2)(a)1, Florida

870Statutes.

871• Loving Touc h Adult Family Care, Inc., also

880owns three additional homes licensed by APD:

887Loving Touch " My Place, " Loving Touch

" 893Transition, " and Loving Touch " Unity. " See

899also (Pet. Ex s. 24 - 26 .)

907• APD renewed the licenses of My Place,

915Transition, and Unity after Ma rch 2, 2018.

923• APD had previously renewed and/or issued

930the licenses of My Place, Transition, and

937Unity after the alleged verified findings by

944the Florida Department of Children and

950Families.

9513. Petitioners are the applicants for licensure of t w o

962group home facilities. Resp . Ex s . 1 and 3 . Petitioners '

976corporate officer and operator is Zulia Brenovil. She prepared

985and submitted both group home licensure application s for Loving

995Touch " A Brighter Future " Home and Loving Touch " Dynamic " Home

1005to AP D in December of 2017. Pre - Hr'g Stip. 3.(e); Resp . Ex s . 1

1023and 3 .

10264. Upon receipt, APD reviewed Petitioners ' applications

1034for licensure and took steps to verify the accuracy of the

1045information provid ed in the applications. As part of the

1055review, APD conducted a search of the Department of Children and

1066Families ( " DCF " ) records on the Florida Safe Families Network.

1077Resp . Ex. 2, pp. 80 - 81; Resp. Ex. 3, pp. 186 - 197 .

10935. APD ' s search of DCF records revealed four DCF reports

1105that contained verified findings of abuse, neglect, or

1113exploitation against Brenovil. Resp. Ex s . 6, 7, 8, and 10 .

1126Those cases are outlined in more detail below.

1134DCF Case Number 2015 - 147636

11406. DCF case number 2015 - 147636 resulted in a verified

1151finding of maltreatment/threa tened harm against Brenovil. Resp .

1160Ex. 6, p. 190 . Tiffany Perry was the DCF investigator assigned

1172to investigat e the allegations in this case. The initial report

1183to DCF alleged that minor child E.L., a resident of one of

1195Brenovil ' s group homes, was bein g bullied by other children and

1208w as not receiving enough food.

12147. Perry began her i nvestigation by performing backg round

1224checks on the pe rsons involved in the report. Perry then

1235visited Brenovil ' s group home. Perry interviewed all the

1245children in the home . Perry noted that E.L. ' s bedroom door had

1259locks on the outside of the door that would allow someone to

1271lock E.L. inside his bedroom.

12768. Initially, Brenovil denied knowing that the locks had

1285been switched, but Brenovil ultimately admitted t o Perry that

1295Brenovil ' s maintenanc e man had switched the locks. Resp . Ex. 6,

1309p. 191 .

13129 . Perry verified the findings against Brenovil because

1321the locks on E.L. ' s bedroom were on the outside of the door and

1336this allowed E.L. to be locked in his bedr oom. Resp . Ex. 6,

1350p. 191 . This also resulted in the other children locking E.L.

1362in his bedroom. Resp . Ex. 6 , p. 191 .

137210 . Additionally, if E.L. was locked in his bedroom she

1383concluded that his ability to quickly and safely escape the

1393house in the event of an emergency, such as a fire, would be

1406impaired. Resp . Ex. 6 , p. 191 .

1414DCF Case Number 2016 - 297713

142011 . DCF case number 2016 - 297713 resulted in a verified

1432finding of maltreatment/inadequate supervision against Brenovil.

1438Resp . Ex. 7 , pp. 209 - 210 . Charlie Parker was the DCF

1452investigator assigned to investigate the allegations in this

1460case.

146112. The initial report to DCF alleged that minor child

1471L.K., a resident of one of Brenovil ' s group homes, was using a

1485cell phone to send pictures of L.K. cutting herself and to send

1497other explicit pictures. Resp . Ex. 7 , p. 209 . There was also

1510an allegation that another minor child resident, O.W., was not

1520being closely monitored.

152313 . Parker began his investigation by visiting

1531Petitioner s ' grou p home. Upon inspection, Parker found that

1542L.K. ' s safety plan was not in L.K. ' s file, as required.

155614 . Parker testified that L.K. ' s status was " to be seen,

1569sight and sound. " " Sight and sound " means that L.K. was

1579supposed to be within sight of the house parents at Petitioners '

1591group home at all times , and L.K. was n ever to be left

1604unsupervised.

160515 . Parker stated that he made verified findings against

1615Brenovil because the safety plans for O.W. and L.K. were not

1626properly located in the group h ome as required, and that staff

1638members of the group home did not know the contents of the

1650plans. Brenovil admitted to Parker that she was aware that the

1661proper information was not available to the staff members at the

1672group home.

167416 . Based on Bre novil ' s comments and Parker ' s

1687investigation and interviews of other staff members, Parker

1695closed the case with a verified finding of

1703maltreatment/inadequate supervision against Brenovil. Resp .

1709Ex. 7, p. 211 .

1714DCF Case Number 2017 - 125783

172017 . DCF cas e number 2017 - 125783 resulted in five verified

1733findings of maltreatment/inadequate supervision against

1738Brenovil. Resp . Ex. 8, pp. 228 - 229 . Virginia Snyder was the

1752DCF investigator assigned to investigate the allegations in this

1761case. The initial report to DCF alleged that five minor

1771children at two of Brenovil ' s group homes were not b eing

1784adequately supervised. Resp . Ex. 8, pp. 227 - 228 .

179518 . Snyder began her investigation by interviewing the

1804minor children residents of the group homes and the sta ff

1815members, including Breno vil. Part of the allegations involved a

1825child not receiving a ride back to the group home. The child

1837alleged that she called the group home and no one would pick her

1850up.

185119 . Brenovil informed Snyder the staff member at the group

1862home could not pick the child up, and Brenovil could not pick

1874the child up because she had taken headache medicine. Brenovil

1884and Brenovil ' s staff member both admitted to the investigator

1895that the minor child had been dropped off at another foste r home

1908without contacting the foster mother of that foster home in

1918advance.

191920 . Snyder verified findings against Brenovil that

1927children were going between Brenovil ' s group home and another

1938group home without staff adequately determining or knowing w h ere

1949the children were going or located. Additionally, one child was

1959left at a home and neither Brenovil , nor her employees, we re

1971able to pick the child up.

1977DCF Case Number 2009 - 146042

198321 . DCF case number 2009 - 146042 resulted in a verified

1995finding of maltreatment/inadequate supervision against Brenovil.

2001Resp . Ex. 10 , pp. 248 - 249 . In that case , two residents of

2016Brenovil ' s group home had improper sexual relations, d ue to

2028inadequate supervision. Resp. Ex. 10 , p. 248 .

2036Brenovil ' s Response to the DCF Ve rified Findings

204622 . Brenovil denied switching or having someone switch the

2056locks with respect to DCF case number 2015 - 147636.

206623 . Brenovil testified that the safety plans for O.W. and

2077L.K. were properly in the group home during Investigator

2086P arker ' s investigatio n in DCF case number 2016 - 297713.

209924 . Brenovil denied talking to an investigator with

2108resp ect to DCF case number 2017 - 125783.

211725 . Brenovil testified that she submitted both

2125applications to APD in full in December of 2017. However, the

2136Comprehensive Emergency Management Plans, submitted as part of

2144the applications, were dated January 2018. Resp . Ex. 2, p. 23 .

2157Brenovil did not sign the Comprehensive Emergency Management

2165Plan until February 16, 2018. Resp . Ex. 2 , p. 37 . S imilarly,

2179the Sexual Activities Policy, another document submitted as part

2188of the licensure application, was not s igned by Brenovil until

2199January 18, 2018. Resp . Ex. 2 , p. 103 .

220926 . Similarly, the Sexual Activ ity Policy submitted as

2219part of A Brighte r Future ' s application for licensure was not

2232signed by Bre novil until January 18, 2018. Resp . Ex. 4 ,

2244pp. 184 - 185 .

224927 . After being confronted with the late documents,

2258Brenovil admitted that the completed applications were not

2266submitted until after De cember of 2017. 3/

227428 . As part of the DCF investigati on in case number 2015 -

2288147636, Perry interviewed Brenovil ' s board m ember, Mr. Phillip

2299Alexander ("Alexander") . Resp . Ex. 6 , p. 194 . Alexander

2312informed Perry that the locks had been reversed for y ears.

2323Resp. Ex. 6 , p. 194 .

232929. When confronted with this at the hearing, Brenovil

2338stated that Alexander did no t make this statement to DCF.

2349Brenovil later testified that she knew Alexander did not make

2359that statement because Bre n ovil was present fo r the conversation

2371between Alexander and Perry. However, on re - direct, Brenovil

2381acknowledged that she was not present for the conversation

2390between Alexander and Perry.

239430 . Brenovil testified that she voluntarily gave up her

2404licenses for her DCF lice nsed group homes, and that there had

2416been no threat of ad ministrative action from DCF.

242531 . However, Michelle Windfelder, a DCF licensing

2433specialist, testified that Brenovil relinquished her l icense s i n

2444lieu of revocation. Windfelder testified that , because of

2452problems in Brenovil ' s home, DCF contacted Brenovil and advised

2463Brenovil that she had the option of relinquishing her license s ,

2474otherwise DCF was going to revoke the license s . Windfelder

2485testified that because of the impending revocation by D CF,

2495Brenovil decided to volunt arily relinquish the license s .

250532 . Petitioners offered no compelling or persuasive

2513evidence to show that APD wrongly denied their license

2522applications, or abused the discretion afforded to it under

2531section 393.0673(2) ( b) , Florida Statutes .

253833 . The undersigned finds the t estimony and evidence of

2549the DCF investigators and the DCF licensing specialist more

2558compelling and credible than that of B r enovil.

256734 . Ultimately, the Petitioners did not carry their burde n

2578of proof to show that APD abused its discretion or when it

2590denied th eir initial applications .

2596CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

259935 . The Division of Administrative Hearings has

2607jurisdiction over the subject matter and parties to this

2616proceeding. §§ 120.569, 120 . 57(1), Fla. Stat.

262436 . Generally, the applicant for licensure has the burden

2634of proof to demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence,

2644that it satisfies the requirements for licensur e and is entitled

2655to receive a license. Dep ' t of Banking & Fin. v . Osborne Stern

2670& Co . , 670 So. 2d 932, 934 (Fla. 1996).

268037 . Thus, Petitioners were required to prove by a

2690preponderance of the evidence that their applications for

2698licensure should have been approved.

2703Applicable Law and Regulations

27073 8 . Section 393.067 sets forth APD ' s responsibilities

2718regarding application procedures and provider qualifications.

2724Another section, section 393.0673, outlines factors and

2731considerations pertaining to licensure.

273539 . Section 393.0673(2) provides that the agenc y may deny

2746an initial application for licensure submitted pursuant to

2754section 393.067 , if the Department of Children and Family

2763Services has verified that the applicant is responsible for the

2773abuse, neglect, or abandonment of a child or the abuse, neglect,

2784or exploitation of a vulnerable adult. § 3 93.0673(2),

2793Fla. Stat. 4/

279640 . Other provisions of chapter 393 are relevant as well.

2807These sections strong ly suggest and signal that the a gency must

2819consider and evaluate key management personnel of the lice nsee

2829before issuing a license.

283341 . F or instance, section 393.067(4), entitled " Facility

2842licensure , " directs that the application must be under oath and

2852contain " the name of the person or persons under whose

2862management or supervision the facility or program will be

2871conducted. "

287242 . Likewise, subsection (5) of that same section requires

2882that a license may not be issued or renewed if the applicant " or

2895any manager, supervisor, or staff member " of the direct service

2905provider has failed background scr eenings as required under

2914section 393.0655.

291643 . It is clear, and the undersigned concludes, that th e

2928Legislature intended for the a gency to consider the background

2938and character of individuals who own or intend to operate these

2949facilities, regardles s of who the actual applicant may be.

295944 . In addition to the language of c hapter 393, the

2971pertinent Florida Administrative Code Rule defines " applicant "

2978to mean " a person or entity that has submitte d a written

2990application to the a gency for the purpos es of obtaining an

3002initial residential facility license or renewing an existing

3010residential facility license. " Fla. Admin. Code R. 65G -

30192.001(2).

302045. This language reasonably covers or addresses a

3028situation where the license would be issued to a corp oration,

3039but the application is prepared and submitted by a person who

3050may be closely related to the company.

305746 . T he primary legal dispute in these particular case s

3069revolves around the question of whether or not the DCF findings

3080against B r enovil , in dividually , should be imputed or attributed

3091to the corporate applicant ' s. In other words, can the verified

3103findings against her be considered and used by the a gency to

3115deny licensure to corporate entities she owns or operates.

312447 . Petitioner corpor ations emphatically argue that they

3133are separate " applicants ," and the findings against B r enovil

3143individually may not be considered as a basis to reject their

3154corporate applications under section 393.0673(2) (b).

316048 . APD, on the other hand, argues tha t the statute and

3173rule should be interpreted to allow misconduct and the DCF

3183findings against B r enovil to be imputed or attributed to the

3195corporate applicants she owns or operates; therefore , providing

3203a valid basis to deny their initial applications under

3212section 393.0673(2) (b).

321549 . A related issue concerns whether or not APD is

3226estopped from rejecting the initial license applications of

3234these two companies , since they renewed applications for several

3243other companies owned by B r enovil, despite knowi ng that DCF

3255verified findings against B r enovil already existed.

3263Discussion

326450 . As the sole operator of the two companies , and the

3276sole shareholder of their parent corporation, Brenovil prepared,

3284signed , and submitted the appli cations for both group homes.

3294Resp . Ex. 2, p. 97; Resp . Ex. 4 , p. 197 . It was clear that

3311Brenovil would be closely and actively overseeing the operations

3320of both applicants.

332351 . The interp retation of section 393.0673(2) (b) and

3333Florida Administrative Code Rule 65G - 2.001(2 ) proposed by

3343Petitioners, particularly , its interpretation of the word

" 3350applicant ," would permit a corporate applicant to seek an

3359initial license , despite the fact that its sole operator, who

3369filled out and submitted the application, had previously been

3378f ound to have verified findings of child neglect or abuse. This

3390argument is made , despite the fact that it is undisp uted, and

3402the undersigned finds , that B r enovil would be actively and

3413closely involved in the day - to - day operations of the applicants.

3426Statut ory Interpretation Analysis

343052 . To accept Petitioners ' argument and ignore B r enovil ' s

3444previous violations would lead to an illogical result. APD

3453could not exercise its lawful discretion to deny an initial

3463licensure for findings of child abuse or neg lect by the

3474operator , so long as a corporation , formed and owned by the same

3486operator , is the " applicant. " Under Petitioners ' interpretation

3494of the word " applicant , " B r enovil could figuratively hide behind

3505the veil of the corporations. A statute should n ot be construed

3517or interpreted to bring about an absurd or ridiculous result.

3527Dep ' t of Rev . v. Sch. Bd . , 62 So. 3d 686 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011).

354553 . Similarly, to interp ret the word as narrowly as

3556Petitioners suggest would lead to an unreasonable result o r a

3567manifest incongruity. Vrchota Corp. v. Kelly , 42 So. 3d 319

3577(Fla. 4th DCA 2010). If consideration of an " applicant " was

3587limited only to the company actually submitting it s name for a

3599license, then the a gency would be obligated to overlook and

3610ignore the past conduct of officers closely related to the

3620company and actively involved in its operations.

362754 . This would lead to an unreasonable result, subjecting

3637children and other vulnerable young adults to a potentially

3646unstable or unsafe group home . See also O.I.C.L. v. Dep ' t of

3660Child . & Fams . , 169 So. 3d 1244 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). Th is

3675unsafe course of action and illogical result was not intended by

3686the Legislature.

3688Principles of Corporate Law

369255 . Time - honored principles of corporate law als o must be

3705considered. They indicate that the corporate applicants must be

3714bound by B r enovil ' s misconduct and the verified findings against

3727her by DCF.

373056 . More specifically , and based on the evidence

3739presented, the undersigned concludes that B r enovi l was the

" 3750alter ego " of the two corporate applicants. Under the

3759circumstances in these cases , h er identity cannot be separated

3769from the corporate applicants .

377457. As such, her actions, conduct , and the verified

3783findings against her sh ould be imputed or attributed by APD to

3795the corporate applicants as a basis to deny their applications.

3805There are a myriad of cases addressing and explaining the " alter

3816ego " concept in a corporate setting. A few case citations make

3827the point.

382958 . For instance, in Sky Cable, LLC v. DIRECTV, Inc. , 886

3841F.3d 375 (4th Cir . 2018) , the court utilized the " alter ego "

3853theory of corporate law, and found that a court may disr egard

3865the corporate identity if it would be inequitable for the c ourt

3877to uphold a legal distinction b etween the corporation and its

3888sole member. Id. at 386.

389359 . Under Sky Cable , when an entity, such as a corporation

3905or LLC, is determined to be the alter ego of its sole member,

3918this finding permits a court to treat the corporate entity as

" 3929identic al " to its member . Id. at 389. Disregarding the

3940corporate identity under the alter ego theory is particularly

3949appropriate when a single individual or entity completely

3957dominates and controls another entity. Id. at 390.

396560 . This is precisely wha t h appened in these case s .

3979B r enovil owned, dominated , and controlled all the Loving Touch

3990entities, including the new corporate applicants.

399661 . When a company is an alter ego of its sole member, the

4010alter ego and the member are effectively the same en tity. See

4022also Dehres LLC v. Underwriters at Interest at Lloyds London ,

4032826 F. Supp. 2d 1338 (S.D. Fla. 2011); Phillips v. Englewood

4043Post No. 322 Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. , Inc. , 13 9

4056P.3d 639 (Colo. Supreme Court 2006).

4062Collateral Estoppel

406462 . The Loving Touch applicants also argue that collateral

4074estoppel bars APD from denying their initial applications

4082because APD renewed licenses for other Loving Touch entities

4091when it knew , or should have known , that DCF had made verified

4103findings agai nst B r enovil.

410963 . In Zikofsky v. Marketing 10, Inc. , 904 So. 2d 520

4121( Fla. 4th DCA 2005) , the c ourt explained the concept as follows:

4134In Florida, collateral estoppel bars re -

4141litigation of the same issue between the

4148same parties which has already been

4154determined by a valid judgment. Stogniew v.

4161McQueen , 656 So. 2d 917, 919 (Fla. 1995).

4169Collateral estoppel applies even when a

4175present and former cause of action are

4182different and it bars re - litigation of

4190specific issues -- " that is to say points and

4199questi ons " -- that were actually litigated and

4207decided in the former suit. See Gordon v.

4215Gordon , 59 So. 2d 40, 44 (Fla. 1952); GLA &

4225Assoc., Inc. v. City of Boca Raton , 855 So.

42342d 278, 281 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). " Florida

4242has traditionally required that there be a

4249mutuality of parties in order for the

4256doctrine to apply. Thus, unless both

4262parties are bound by the prior judgment,

4269neither may use it in a subsequent action. "

4277E.C. v. Katz, 73 1 So. 2d 1268, 1269 (Fla.

42871999) (quoting Stogniew, 656 So. 2d at 919).

429564 . The undersigned is not persuaded or convinced

4304that the doctrine of collateral estoppel applies or

4312controls the outcome of these cases . The parties are not

4323re - litigating the same issues, nor is there any previous

4334ruling or judgment they are bound by.

434165. Likewise, the other corporate entities owned by

4349B r enovil who had their licenses rene wed are not parties to

4362this action.

436466 . Similarly, and as alluded to by APD during the

4375hearing, those other license matters involved renewals of

4383existing lic enses. These case s involve initial licensing.

4392The undersigned is mindful of the fact that license

4401renewal cases raise fundamentally different property

4407concepts , arguments, and considerations than initial

4413licensing cases .

441667 . The undersigned conclud es that APD provided

4425sufficient reasons why its consideration of these initial

4433applications was fundamentally different and driven by

4440different considerations than in the case of the renewal

4449of other group home licenses for Brenovil.

445668 . Accordingly, after considering all the facts,

4464circumstances , and the applicable statutes, rules , and case law,

4473the undersigned concludes that APD was justified in denying

4482Petitioners ' applications.

4485RECOMMENDATION

4486Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Concl usions of

4497Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Agency for Persons with

4507Disabiliti es, enter a final order denying the license

4516applications of Petitioners, Loving Touch " A Brighter Future "

4524and Loving Touch " Dynamic ."

4529DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of May , 2019 , in

4539Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

4543S

4544ROBERT L. KILBRIDE

4547Administrative Law Judge

4550Division of Administrative Hearings

4554The DeSoto Building

45571230 Apalachee Parkway

4560Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

4565(850) 488 - 9675

4569Fa x Filing (850) 921 - 6847

4576www.doah.state.fl.us

4577Filed with the Clerk of the

4583Division of Administrative Hearings

4587this 28th day of May , 2019 .

4594ENDNOTE S

45961/ The undersigned did consider relevant statements of third

4605parties in those documents to the extent they supplemented , or

4615explained , other admissibl e evidence. § 120.57 (1) (c) ,

4624Fla. Stat .

46272/ As previously directed, the Loving Touch applicants are to be

4638referred to as Petitioners, not Respondents.

46443/ This admission , and other inconsistencies in her tes timony,

4654raised questions in the mind of the undersigned regardin g her

4665and the accuracy of her testimony and credibility.

46734/ There was no evidence presented by Petitioners to suggest or

4684prove that these previous verified findings of abuse or neglect

4694made by DCF against B r enovil had been a ppealed or overturned.

4707COPIES FURNISHED:

4709Lance O. Leider, Esquire

4713The Health Law Firm

47171101 Douglas Avenue

4720Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714

4724(eServed)

4725Trevor S. Suter, Esquire

4729Agency for Persons with Disabilities

47344030 E splanade Way , Suite 380

4740Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0950

4745(eServed)

4746Danielle Thompson

4748Senior Attorney/Agency Clerk

4751Agency for Persons with Disabilities

47564030 Esplanade Way, Suite 309

4761Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0950

4766(eServed)

4767Richard Ditschler, Genera l Counsel

4772Agenc y for Persons with Disabilities

47784030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380

4783Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0950

4788(eServed)

4789Barbara Palmer, Director

4792Agenc y for Persons with Disabilities

47984030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380

4803Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0950

4808(eServed)

4809NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

4815All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

482515 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

4836to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

4847will issue the Final Ord er in this case.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 08/01/2019
Proceedings: Agency Final Order
PDF:
Date: 08/01/2019
Proceedings: Agency Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/28/2019
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 05/28/2019
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held March 28 and 29, 2019). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 05/28/2019
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
PDF:
Date: 05/07/2019
Proceedings: Respondents' Proposed Recommended Order (filed in Case No. 18-006497FL).
PDF:
Date: 05/06/2019
Proceedings: Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/25/2019
Proceedings: Order Granting Extension of Time.
PDF:
Date: 04/25/2019
Proceedings: Agency's Agreed Motion for Extension of Time to File Proposed Recommended Orders filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/17/2019
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Transcript.
PDF:
Date: 04/16/2019
Proceedings: Agency's Notice of Filing Hearing Transcript filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/16/2019
Proceedings: Notice of Confidential Information Within Court Filing filed.
Date: 04/16/2019
Proceedings: Hearing Transcript Volume III filed (medical information, not available for viewing).  Confidential document; not available for viewing.
PDF:
Date: 04/16/2019
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Transcript.
Date: 04/16/2019
Proceedings: Hearing Transcript Volume II filed (medical information, not available for viewing)  Confidential document; not available for viewing.
Date: 04/16/2019
Proceedings: Hearing Transcript Volume I filed (medical information, not available for viewing).  Confidential document; not available for viewing.
PDF:
Date: 04/09/2019
Proceedings: Petitioners' Notice of Filing Supplemental Exhibiits (filed in Case No. 18-006497FL).
Date: 03/29/2019
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
Date: 03/28/2019
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
Date: 03/27/2019
Proceedings: Petitioner's Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
PDF:
Date: 03/26/2019
Proceedings: Order Denying Motion for Summary Decision.
PDF:
Date: 03/26/2019
Proceedings: Respondents' Suggestion to Correct Case Caption (filed in Case No. 18-006497FL).
PDF:
Date: 03/26/2019
Proceedings: (Joint) Pre-Hearing Stipulation filed.
Date: 03/25/2019
Proceedings: Petitioner's Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
PDF:
Date: 03/25/2019
Proceedings: Agency for Persons with Disabilities' Response in Opposition to Petitioner's Motion for Summary Decision filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/25/2019
Proceedings: Agency's Notice of WItnesses and Exhibits filed.
Date: 03/25/2019
Proceedings: Respondent's Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
Date: 03/21/2019
Proceedings: Respondent's Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
PDF:
Date: 03/21/2019
Proceedings: Order Granting Joint Motion to Vacate First Day of Hearing (hearing set for March 28 and 29, 2019; 9:00 a.m.; Fort Pierce and Tallahassee, FL; amended as to dates).
PDF:
Date: 03/21/2019
Proceedings: Joint Motion to Vacate First Day of Hearing (filed in Case No. 18-006497FL).
PDF:
Date: 03/18/2019
Proceedings: Respondent's Motion for Summary Decision (filed in Case No. 18-006497FL).
PDF:
Date: 03/15/2019
Proceedings: Respondents' Notice of Service of Discovery Responses (filed in Case No. 18-006497FL).
PDF:
Date: 03/15/2019
Proceedings: Respondents' Response to Petitioner's First Requests for Admissions (filed in Case No. 18-006497FL).
PDF:
Date: 03/13/2019
Proceedings: Respondents' Notice of Filing Proof of Service (filed in Case No. 18-006497FL).
PDF:
Date: 02/07/2019
Proceedings: Notice of Service of APD's First Discovery Requests filed.
PDF:
Date: 02/07/2019
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing by Video Teleconference (hearing set for March 26, 28, and 29, 2019; 9:00 a.m.; Fort Pierce and Tallahassee, FL; amended as to location).
PDF:
Date: 01/23/2019
Proceedings: Respoindent's Notice of Service of Discovery (Dynamic) filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/23/2019
Proceedings: Respondent's Notice of Service of Discovery (A Brighter Future) filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/22/2019
Proceedings: Notice of Intent to Serve Non-Party Subpoena Duces Tecum without Deposition filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/17/2019
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Discovery Responses in Prior Related Case filed.
PDF:
Date: 01/17/2019
Proceedings: Notice of Service of Discovery in Prior Related Case filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/21/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Unavailability filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/21/2018
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 12/21/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing by Video Teleconference (hearing set for March 26, 28, and 29, 2019; 9:00 a.m.; Port St. Lucie and Tallahassee, FL).
PDF:
Date: 12/18/2018
Proceedings: Order of Consolidation (DOAH Case Nos. 18-6496FL, and 18-6497FL).
PDF:
Date: 12/17/2018
Proceedings: Agency's Unopposed Motion to Consolidate filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/17/2018
Proceedings: Agency's Agreed Response to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/17/2018
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Lance Leider) filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/10/2018
Proceedings: Initial Order.
PDF:
Date: 12/10/2018
Proceedings: Notice of License Application Denial filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/10/2018
Proceedings: Response to Notice of License Application Denial filed.
PDF:
Date: 12/10/2018
Proceedings: Notice (of Agency referral) filed.

Case Information

Judge:
ROBERT L. KILBRIDE
Date Filed:
12/10/2018
Date Assignment:
12/10/2018
Last Docket Entry:
08/01/2019
Location:
Fort Pierce, Florida
District:
Southern
Agency:
ADOPTED IN TOTO
Suffix:
FL
 

Counsels

Related Florida Statute(s) (5):