19-003203 Ben Masters vs. Board Of Nursing Status: Closed Recommended Order on Wednesday, October 16, 2019.

Summary: Petitioner, an RN who has a history of drug abuse and license suspension and revocation for nursing related crimes, failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence his entitlement to a multi-state RN license.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

BEN MASTERS,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 19 - 3203

BOARD OF NURSING,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a formal administrative hearin g was

conducted before Administrative Law Judge Mary Li Creasy by video

teleconference with locations in Lauderdale Lakes and

Tallahassee, Florida, on September 4, 2019.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Ben Masters , pro se

2760 Northwest 1st T errace

Pompano Beach, Florida 33064

For Respondent: Deborah B. Loucks, Esquire

Office of the Attorney General

Plaza Level - 01

The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

ST ATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether Respondent properly denied Petitioner ' s application

for a multi - state nursing license based upon his criminal and

disciplinary history.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Petitioner submitted an application for a multi - state

registered nur sing license that was received by Respondent, Board

of Nursing ( " the Board " ), on December 31, 2018. On March 15,

2019, the Board issued a Notice of Intent to Deny ( " NOID " )

Petitioner ' s application. Petitioner timely filed a request for

formal hearing , wh ich was transmitted to the Division of

Administrative Hearings ( " DOAH " ) on June 12, 2019.

The final hearing was conducted as scheduled on September 4,

2019. Petitioner testified on his own behalf and presented the

testimony of two witnesses, Larry Hinto n and Jamey Hawkins.

Petitioner ' s Exhibits 1, 2, 2A, 3 through 5, 6A though E, 8

through 10, 10A, 11 through 21, and 28 were admitted into

evidence. Respondent presented the testimony of Barbara

Thomason, MSN, APRN, FNP - BD, who was accepted as an expert

witness in the practice of professional nursing. Respondent ' s

Exhibits 1 and 2 were admitted.

The one - volume Transcript was filed with DOAH on

September 20, 2019. Petitioner filed a Summary Statement and

Respondent filed a proposed recommended order, bot h of which were

considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order. All

references to the Florida Statutes are to the 2019 version unless

otherwise stated.

FINDING S OF FACT

1. The Department is the state agency charged with

regulating the practice of nursing on behalf of the State of

Florida, pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 464,

Florida Statutes. The Board is charged with final agency action

with respect to nurses licensed pursuant to chapter 464.

2. Petitioner was previously licens ed in South Carolina and

Maryland as a Registered Nurse ( " RN " ). 1/ Petitioner also

previously held a conditional license as an RN in Florida.

3. Petitioner applied for a multi - state RN license with the

Board on December 31, 2018. Section 464.0095, Articl e III

(3)(g), prohibits a state from issuing a multi - state license to a

person who has been convicted or found guilty, or has entered

into an agreed disposition other than a nolle prosequi , of a

felony offense. In his application, Petitioner disclosed a

variety of crimes including: exploitation of a vulnerable adult;

credit card fraud; assault/battery of high and aggravated nature

(misdemeanor) , concurrent with a second credit card

theft/probation violation; attempted identity theft; and petty

theft.

4. All applicants are required to submit fingerprints with

the application and the Board receives criminal history

background reports. In addition to the crimes disclosed by

Petitioner, his background screen revealed additional charges

of: driving under th e influence; defrauding hotel, inn, cafe,

etc.; obtaining property by false pretenses; reckless driving;

driving under suspension; and receiving stolen goods.

5. Petitioner also disclosed that his South Carolina RN

license was suspended in 2004 and then v oluntarily surrendered in

2011. His Maryland RN license was revoked in 2009.

6. Petitioner applied for a n RN license in Florida in 2012

and was approved for a license conditioned upon entering into a

five - year contract with the Intervention Project for N urses

( " IPN " ), meeting the terms of the program, including frequent

drug – testing, and completing a board approved remedial course.

Petitioner voluntarily relinquished his conditional license in

September 2013 due to his inability to participate in the IPN due

to financial reasons.

7. Petitioner applied for reinstatement of his conditional

license in 2015 and his application was rejected by the Board

based on prior discipline and his criminal history.

8. Petitioner contends that his criminal history is

un related to the practice of nursing. He argues that his crimes

are directly related to his previous crack cocaine addiction.

Petitioner has maintained long periods of sobriety and believes

that his crimes, committed prior to his 2012 grant of a

conditiona l license by the Board, should not be considered in

weighing his current application.

Petitioner ' s Prior Crimes and Licensing History

9. On May 21, 2003, the South Carolina State Board of

Nursing entered an Order of Temporary Suspension of Petitioner ' s

li cense to practice as a registered nurse. The Order was based

on Petitioner ' s: criminal charges of exploitation of a

vulnerable adult and swindling; denial that he had been charged

with a crime on his renewal application for reinstatement of a

lapsed lice nse; administering an antibiotic four hours late and

falsely entered the time of administration in the medical record;

and being arrested for Financial Transaction Card Theft.

10. This Order of Temporary Suspension was superseded by a

Final Order rendered by the Board on August 12, 2004. By this

Final Order, the South Carolina Board of Nursing indefinitely

suspended Petitioner ' s license.

11. On March 9, 2009, the South Carolina Board of Nursing

entered another Final Order against Petitioner that indefini tely

suspended his license to practice nursing. This Final Order

cited as grounds that: his prior license had been suspended and

lapsed; he failed to disclose a criminal conviction on his August

2004 license application; he entered a South Carolina hospi tal,

impersonated a plastic surgeon, asked a technician for $60, and

manipulated her breast with his hand after a discussion of breast

augmentation , which resulted in an arrest for Assault and Battery

of a High and Aggravated Nature for which he was incarc erated for

three years; after this release from prison, he was incarcerated

in North Carolina for obtaining money by false pretenses; and he

was then convicted of Attempted Identity Theft.

12. The March 2009 South Carolina Final Order incorporated

a Memor andum of Agreement between Petitioner and the State of

South Carolina and outlined conditions precedent for license

reinstatement and probationary terms to be imposed upon

reinstatement. Petitioner never met the reinstatement conditions

imposed by the Mar ch 2009 Final Order and the South Carolina

Board of Nursing accepted Petitioner ' s Agreement of Voluntary

Surrender of his nursing license on July 5, 2011.

13. Petitioner contends these crimes were not related to

the practice of nursing. He did not divert drugs from patients

or medical facilities. However, he entered hospital staff

lounges and stole scrubs and lab coats to impersonate medical

personnel. He then pretended to be a doctor who lost or forgot

his wallet. He would ask other medical profession als for cab

fare which he then used to buy crack. While pretending to be a

plastic surgeon, Petitioner claims that a young woman from whom

he solicited money, asked him to examine her newly augmented

breast because she was concerned th at something was not right

with the implant.

14. Regarding the conviction for exploitation of a

vulnerable adult, Petitioner claims that he was arrested while in

a car borrowed from a woman with whom he regularly got high.

When she was questioned, she told the police that P etitioner

stole her car. Petitioner claims he was charged with exploiting

a " vulnerable adult " only because the woman was bipolar and on

antipsychotic medications. According to Petitioner, " It had

nothing to do with nursing. She was basically my accompl ice. " 2/

15. Petitioner also admitted that while he was on

probation, he stole credit cards from hospitals (presumably

patients and co - workers) to buy merchandise to give to his drug

dealers, and that he pretended to be a doctor by dressing in

scrubs to sc am restaurants into giving him cash back from

fraudulent transactions.

16. By Final Order dated October 27, 2009, the Maryland

Board of Nursing revoked Petitioner ' s license to practice as a n

RN.

17. The Maryland Board cited as grounds for the revocation

that Petitioner: was disciplined by a licensing, military, or

disciplinary authority in this State or any other state for an

act that would be grounds for disciplinary action in Maryland;

knowingly performed an act that exceeds the authorized scope of

pra ctice; commits an act that is inconsistent with generally

accepted professional standards of practice; is addicted to, or

habitually abuses, any narcotic or controlled dangerous

substance; and engaged in conduct that violates the professional

code of ethic s, specifically, knowingly participating in or

condoning dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation and

patient abandonment.

18. The Board ' s expert, Barbara Thomason, MSN, APRN, FNP -

BD, credibly testified that these crimes all constitute

unprofessiona l conduct that relate directly to the practice of

nursing. Nurses are required to adhere to a strict standard of

professionalism and honesty so that their vulnerable patients are

not victims of opportunity. Nurses are also required to ensure

the safety a nd well - being of their patients. Impersonating

medical professionals, committing battery, fraud, theft, and

failing to timely disclose these crimes to the licensing board,

all relate to one ' s ability to practice nursing professionally.

19. Petitioner ' s t estimony regarding his crimes was, " I

didn ' t do anything major. So it was wrong. " 3/ Regarding the

young woman whose breast he manipulated, Petitioner speculated

that she was coming on to him and claimed that the investigating

police officer described the victim as " stupid, " " an idiot " and

" an airhead. "

20. It does not take expert testimony to understand that

Petitioner lacks remorse, has no concept of the seriousness of

his myriad offenses, and that these directly call into question

his ability to prac tice as a nurse.

Petitioner ' s Florida Licensing History

21. On April 18, 2012, a Notice of Intent to Approve with

Conditions was filed with the Department of Health Clerk.

Petitioner was approved for licensure as a n RN conditioned upon

his signing an a dvocacy contract with the IPN and complying with

any and all terms and conditions imposed by the IPN. IPN is the

impaired practitioners program of the Board, designated pursuant

to section 456.076. IPN monitors the evaluation, care, and

treatment of impa ired nurses. IPN also provides for the exchange

of information between treatment providers and the Department for

the protection of the public. Petitioner was also required to

complete a remedial course within 12 months.

22. Approximately one year into the IPN program, and after

completing the remedial course, Petitioner had two urinalysis

drug screens in a month that were suspicious due to excessive

temperatures. As a result, he was requested by IPN to undergo a

psychiatric evaluation.

23. Petitioner checked prices for such an evaluation in his

area and found that the least expensive evaluation would cost

$600.00. Petitioner was only working part time earning $400.00 a

month and could not afford the evaluation. Petitioner called the

Board and was adv ised by administrator William Spooner to write a

letter to the Board asking to voluntarily relinquish his license

due to financial reasons. Mr. Spooner allegedly told Petitioner

that when Petitioner was able to resume the program, he could ask

for reinsta tement. Petitioner was under the assumption that his

reinstatement would be automatic. 4/

24. Petitioner applied for reinstatement of his license in

2014. On October 8, 2014, a NOID for Petitioner ' s application

for endorsement as a n RN was filed with the Department of Health

Clerk. The Board based this denial on the grounds that

Petitioner: entered a guilty plea to a charge of assault and

battery; was convicted of identity theft by impersonating a

physician; ha d his South Carolina RN license suspend ed; and had

his Maryland license revoked. After conducting a hearing not

involving disputed issues of material fact in accordance with

sections 120.569 and 120.57(2), Florida Statutes, on the

allegations contained in the NOID , the Board voted to deny the

lice nsure application. The Final Order was filed on January 14,

2015.

Petitioner ' s Criminal History since 2015 and Rehabilitation

25. After the license denial, Petitioner relapsed and began

using drugs again. Between 2015 and June 2017, he pled no

contest a nd was convicted of three more misdemeanor thefts.

26. Prior to this relapse, Petitioner was sober for 9 years

and 11 months. Petitioner testified that during 2015 through

2017, he stole to feed himself. Petitioner has been sober again

since December 16 , 2017.

27. Petitioner has made significant efforts to maintain his

sobriety. Petitioner moved into a halfway house, rejoined AA,

has a sponsor, serves as clergy and a lay minister to inmates at

the Broward County jail and detention center, and is involv ed in

his church. Petitioner works as a telemarketer and his

vocational rehabilitation job counselor, Larry Hinton, testified

that Petitioner is a reliable worker who is also working hard on

his recovery.

28. Petitioner received no fines or orders of res titution

related to his crimes. He served his prison time and

successfully completed probation and has a full restoration of

his voting rights.

29. Petitioner waited for a year of sobriety and after his

most recent conviction of theft before reapplying f or licensure.

On March 15, 2019, the Board issued a NOID on Petitioner ' s

application.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

30. DOAH has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this

proceeding and the parties thereto, pursuant to s ection

120.57(1). Pursuant to s ection 120 .57(1)(k), this proceeding is

conducted de novo .

31. An applicant for licensure carries the ultimate burden

of persuasion of entitlement, by a preponderance of the evidence

pursuant to s ection 120.57(1)(j), at each and every step of the

licensure proceedi ngs, until final action has been taken by the

agency. Espinoza v. Dep ' t of Bus. & Prof ' l Reg . , 739 So. 2d 1250

(Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Dep ' t of Banking & Fin., Div. of Sec. and

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

1996); Fla. Dep ' t of Transp . v. J.W.C. Co. , 396 So. 2d 778 (Fla.

1st DCA 1981). See also , Astral Liquors, Inc. v. Dep ' t of Bus.

Reg., Div. of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco , 432 So. 2d 93 (Fla.

3d DCA 1983); Balino v. Dep ' t of Health & Rehab . Servs . , 348 So.

2d 349 (Fla. 1st D CA 1977).

32. The Board must apply the licensing statute in effect at

the time that the Board makes its decision on the application.

Bruner v. Dep ' t of Bus. & Prof ' l Reg . , 399 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 5th DCA

1981); Lavernia v. Dep ' t of Bus. & Prof ' l Reg . , 616 So. 2d 53

(Fla. 1st DCA 1993).

33. Chapters 456 and 464 regulate the licensure and

practice of nursing in Florida, along with the rules promulgated

b y the Board which are found in Florida Administrative Code

C hapter 64B - 9.

34. Section 464.002 sets out the purpose of the nurse

practice act and states:

The sole legislative purpose in enacting this

part is to ensure that every nurse practicing

in this state meets minimum requirements for

safe practice. It is the legislative intent

that nurses who fall below m inimum competency

or who otherwise present a danger to the

public shall be prohibited from practicing in

this state.

35. Section 464.018(1)(c) states:

(1) The following acts constitute grounds

for denial of a license or disciplinary

action, as specified in s. 456.072(2) and

464.0095:

(c) Being convicted or found guilty of or

entering a plea of guilty or nolo contendere

to, regardless of adjudication, a crime in

any jurisdiction which directly relates to

the practice of nursing or the ability to

practice nursing.

36. Section 456.072(2)(a) states:

(2) When the board, or the department when

there is no board, finds any person guilty of

the grounds set forth in subsection (1) or of

any grounds set forth in the applicable

practice act, including conduct co nstituting

a substantial violation of subsection (1) or

a violation of the applicable practice act

which occurred prior to obtaining a license,

it may enter an order imposing one or more of

the following penalties:

(a) Refusal to certify, or to certify w ith

Crimes Directly Related to Nursing restrictions, an application for a license.

37. The first issue to be decided is whether the crimes to

which Petitioner pled guilty are directly related to the practice

of or the ability to practice nursing. The p ractice of nursing

is defined in section 464.003(18) as follows:

[T] he performance of those acts requiring

substantial specialized knowledge, judgment,

and nursing skill based upon applied

principles of psychological, biological,

physical, and social scien ces which shall

include, but not be limited to:

(a) The observation, assessment, nursing

diagnosis, planning, intervention, and

evaluation of care; health teaching and

counseling of the ill, injured, or infirm;

and the promotion of wellness, maintenance of

health, and prevention of illness of others.

(b) The administration of medications and

treatments as prescribed or authorized by a

duly licensed practitioner authorized by the

laws of this state to prescribe such

medications and treatments.

(c) The supervision and teaching of other

personnel in the theory and performance of

any of the acts described in this subsection.

A professional nurse is responsible and

accountable for making decisions that are

based upon the individual ' s educational

preparatio n and experience in nursing.

38. The analysis of whether a crime is directly related to

the practice of or the ability to practice a profession is not

limited to acts specifically listed in the statutory definition

of nursing. Nor it is necessary to eva luate Petitioner ' s

" technical ability " to practice nursing. Case law has held that

the Board does not have to demonstrate that the criminal acts

committed are referenced in the definition of the practice of the

profession.

39. In Doll v. Dep ' t of Health , 969 So. 2d 1103, 1106 (Fla.

1st DCA 2007), the court held:

Several cases demonstrate that, although the

statutory definition of a particular

profession does not specifically refer to

acts involved in the crime committed, the

crime may nevertheless relate to the

profession. In Greenwald v. Department of

Professional Regulation , the court affirmed

the revocation of a medical doctors license after the doctor was convicted of

solicitation to commit first - degree murder.

501 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). The Fifth

District Court of Appeal has held that

although an accountants fraudulent acts

involving gambling did not relate to his

technical ability to practice public

accounting, the acts did justify revocation

of the accountants license for being

convicted o f a crime that directly relates to

the practice of public accounting. Ashe v.

Dep ' t of Prof ' l Reg . , Bd. of Accountancy , 467

So. 2d 814 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). We held in Rush v. Department of Professional

Regulation, Board of Podiatry , that a

conviction for conspiracy to import marijuana

is directly related to the practice or

ability to practice podiatry. 448 So. 2d 26

(Fla. 1st DCA 1984). These cases

demonstrate, in our view, that appellee did

not err by concluding Doll ' s conviction was

" related to " the pr actice of chiropractic

medicine or the ability to practice

chiropractic medicine. We therefore affirm

appellee ' s actions finding appellant in

violation of section 456.072(1)(c) and

revoking appellant ' s license.

40. Section 464.018(1)(d) identifies specif ic categories of

offenses under Florida law that could result in disciplinary

action or denial of a nursing license. The criminal offenses

that Petitioner committed before 2012 occurred in South Carolina.

If the offenses had occurred in Florida, the offe nses listed in:

(d)2. violations related to theft, robbery and related crimes;

(d)3. violations related to fraudulent practices;

(d)5. violations related to assault, battery, and culpable

negligence; and (d)7. violations related to protection from

abuse, neglect and exploitation, could have constituted grounds

for denial. It can be inferred that the Legislature finds that

these types of crimes are related to the practice of or the

ability to practice nursing, otherwise, they would not be

specifically and separately listed as a basis for disciplinary

action.

41. It is axiomatic that a nurse must be truthful and

honest and not take advantage of the patient as a potential

victim of opportunity.

42. Respondent ' s expert testified that the fraud - related

crim es which Petitioner committed are related to the practice or

the ability to practice nursing as they are listed as

unprofessional conduct violations in r ule 64B9 - 8.005.

43. Petitioner has a long history of criminal activity and

acknowledgment of a long - te rm substance abuse problem. Though

Petitioner had periods of sobriety, Petitioner experienced a

recent relapse and had to re - commit to a sober lifestyle. In

addition to the relapse, Petitioner was found guilty of three

separate misdemeanor petit theft cr imes. Theft is especially

egregious for a nurse who has access to patient ' s personal

belongings, and in some nursing settings, patient ' s bank

accounts.

44. While Petitioner ' s technical ability to care for

patients was never questioned or played any rol e in the NOID, his

crimes go to the heart of whether he can be trusted in a medical

setting with a vulnerable population.

Prior Discipline Against Petitioner ' s RN Licenses

45. The second issue to be decided is whether Petitioner

had " a license or the auth ority to practice nursing revoked,

suspended, otherwise acted against (including denial), by the

licensing authority of any jurisdiction . . . for a violation

that would constitute a violation under Florida law. "

§ 456.072(1)(f) , Fla. Stat .

46. Petitione r ' s South Carolina nursing license was

suspended for: crimes that related to the practice of nursing;

and acts that would constitute unprofessional conduct in Florida,

specifically, inaccurate recording and impersonating another

licensed professional. In accurate recording and impersonating a

physician constitute unprofessional conduct under Florida law.

47. Petitioner ' s Maryland nursing license was revoked on

the grounds that: South Carolina acted against his nursing

license; he was addicted to, or habi tually abuse d any narcotic or

controlled dangerous drug (which would be a violation of s ection

464.018(1)(j)); and he committed unprofessional conduct,

specifically, practicing beyond the scope of his license and

patient abandonment.

48. The record also i ncludes a Final Order of denial of

Petitioner ' s licensure issued by the Florida Board of Nursing in

2014.

Conclusion

49. By his application, Petitioner seeks to obtain a

license with the same conditions imposed in 2012 -- that he undergo

an evaluation coord inated through IPN and comply with any and all

recommendations, and complete a board approved remedial course

(which is required pursuant to r ule 64B9 - 3.0025 because he had

not practiced nursing within the five years prior to his

application). Petitioner argues that because he was approved for

a conditional license in 2012, the Board cannot review his

criminal conduct which occurred prior to that time.

50. Every application is subject to a de novo review. Even

assuming the Board was willing to overlook P etitioner ' s lengthy

pattern of nursing - related crimes, and license revocation and

relinquishment prior to 2012, it cannot ignore the fact that

Petitioner failed to comply with the conditions of his

conditional licensure. Petitioner withdrew from his IPN c ontract

and relinquished his license, had a drug use relapse, and

committed three more misdemeanor thefts. Nothing in Petitioner ' s

past or recent history shows a likelihood of successfully

completing an IPN conditional license contract. Although

Petition er expressed regret regarding his past history, he paints

himself as a victim of bad circumstances and his drug addiction.

51. Petitioner is to be commended for his recently renewed

dedication to sobriety and his ongoing commitment to his

community and ch urch. Certainly he has much to offer in

counseling and mentoring others who face similar challenges.

However, Petitioner failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of

the evidence his entitlement to a multi - state nursing license.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on t he foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Florida Board of Nursing enter a

Final Order denying Petitioner ' s application for a multi - state RN

license.

DONE AND ENTERED this 1 6 th day of October , 2019 , in

Tallahassee, Leon C ounty, Florida.

MARY LI CREASY

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.s tate.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 1 6 th day of October , 2019 .

ENDNOTE S

1/ At final hearing, Petitioner testified that at one time, he

held 15 out - of - state licenses, however these were not identified

with any specificity. No information was provided by Petitioner

regarding in which states Petitioner was previously licensed as

an RN or the status of those licenses. Respondent ' s Exhibit 1

shows that Petitioner previously held RN licenses in a total of 8

sta tes.

2/ Transcript ( " Tr. " ) p.25, lines 23 - 24.

3/ Tr. 97/22 - 22.

4/ Neither the letter submitted to the Board nor testimony of

Mr. Spooner was presented at the final hearing.

5/ At the final hearing, Petitioner indicated that he never

sought a mult i - state license. A review of Petitioner ' s

application shows that the application is a default application

for a multi - state license which requires the applicant to check a

box to affirmatively select a single - state license. Petitioner

did not check this box. Further, in conjunction with his

application, Petitioner submitted a " Declaration of Primary State

of Residence Form , " which states that it is " For Multi - State

Licensure Only. "

It should be noted that the February 2019 report of the

Credentials Co mmittee states, " Mr. Masters applied for a multi -

state licensure, however, he does not qualify due to felony

offenses. He could be considered for single state licensure. "

The issue of Petitioner ' s eligibility for a single - state license

is not before the undersigned in this case.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Deborah B. Loucks, Esquire

Office of the Attorney General Plaza Level - 01 The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

(eServed)

Ben Masters

2760 Northwest 1st Terrace

Pompano Beach, Florida 33064

Joe Baker, Jr ., Executive Director

Board of Nursing

Department of Health

4052 Bald Cypress Way , Bin C02

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

(eServed)

Kathryn Whitson, MSN, RN , Board Chair

Board of Nursing

Department of Health

4052 Bald Cypress Way , Bin D 02

Tallahassee, Florid a 32399

Louise Wilhite - St. Laurent, General Counsel

Department of Health

4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C65

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

(eServed)

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15 days f rom the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.