20-000767PL Richard Corcoran, As Commissioner Of Education vs. Ivonne Ortiz Status: Closed Recommended Order on Tuesday, January 19, 2021.

Summary: Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent submitted a false workers' compensation claim and that her educator's certificate should be suspended.

S TATE OF F LORIDA

D IVISION OF A DMINISTRATIVE H EARINGS

R ICHARD C ORCORAN , A S C OMMISSIONER

OF E DUCATION ,

Petitioner ,

vs. Case No. 20 - 0767PL

I VONNE O RTIZ ,

Respondent .

/

R ECOMMENDED O RDER

Pursuant to notice, a final hearing was conducted in this case on

October 30 , 2020, via Zoom teleconference , before Lawrence P. Stevenson, a

duly - design ated Administrative Law Judge (Ñ ALJ Ò ) of the Division of

Administrative Hearings.

A PP EARANCES

For Petitioner: Ron Weaver, Esquire

Post Office Box 770088

Ocala, Florida 34477 - 0088

For Respondent: Steve Rossi, Esquire

Law Offices of Steve Rossi

533 Northeast 3rd Avenue, Suite 2

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

S TATEMENT OF T HE I SSUE S

The issue s in this proceeding are whether Respondent should be subject to

discipline as a result of the violations of section 1012.795 (1)(j) , Florida

Statutes and Florida Administrative Code R ule 6A - 10.081(2)(c)1. and 8.,

alleged in the Admi nistrative Complaint and, if so, what is the appropriate

sanction for those violations.

P RELIMINARY S TATEMENT

On September 5, 2019, the Commissioner of Education issued a three -

count Administrative Complaint against Respondent which alleged that:

On or ab out October 24, 2018, Respondent engaged

in inappropriate and deceitful conduct when she

gave a false statement indicating that a student

had rammed into her to push out her [sic] of the

way during the workday, which resulted in her

school filing a workerÔ s compensation claim.

On September 19, 2019, Respondent , through her attorney , timely filed an

Election of Rights in which she requested a formal hearing. On or about

February 12, 2020, Respondent filed a Revised Election of Rights. On

February 13, 2020, the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative

Hearings for a formal evidentiary hearing.

The case was scheduled for hearing on April 30, 2020. On March 19, 2020,

Petitioner filed an unopposed motion to continue based on the GovernorÔs

declarat ion of a state of emergency and closure of the public schools due to

the spread of Covid - 19. The hearing was rescheduled for hearing via Zoom

teleconference on September 30, 2020. On September 9, 2020, a joint motion

to continue was filed based on Petition erÔs recent discovery of an additional

school surveillance video of the incident in question. The continuance was

granted and the hearing was rescheduled for October 30, 2020, on which date

it was convened and completed. Prior to the hearing, the parties s ubmitted a

Joint Pre - hearing Stipulation, which has been accepted and incorporated into

the Findings of Fact in this Recommended Order.

At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of Brittany Brooks,

A ssistant School Leader at KIPP Voice Academy (Ñ KIPP VoiceÒ) in

Jacksonville; Leighton Roye, Jr., Campus Manager at KIPP Voice; Jessica

Brown, Dean of School Operations at KIPP Voice ; and Dr. Melissa Fullmore,

Chief Schools Officer at KIPP Jacksonville Schools (ÑKIPPÒ) . PetitionerÔs

Exhibits 3, 7, 10, 1 2, 18 - A, and 18 - B were accepted into evidence. Respondent

testified on her own behalf and offered no exhibits.

The one - volume T ranscript of the hearing was filed at the Division of

Administrative Hearings on December 2, 2020. By Order dated December 14,

2 020, RespondentÔs unopposed motion to extend the time for filing p roposed

r ecommended o rders was granted and the filing date was extended to

December 28, 2020. The parties timely filed their Proposed Recommended

Orders on December 28, 2020.

The events a t issue in this proceeding occurred on October 24, 2018. This

proceeding is governed by the law in effect at the time of the commission of

the acts alleged to warrant discipline. See McCloskey v. DepÔt of Fin. Servs. ,

115 So. 3d 441 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). Ac cordingly, all statutory and regulatory

references shall be to the 2018 versions, unless otherwise noted .

F INDINGS OF F ACT

Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the

following Findings of Fact are made:

1. The Education Prac tices Commission is the state agency charged with

the duty and responsibility to rev oke or suspend, or take other appropriate

action with regard to teaching certificates as provided in sections 1012.795

and 1 012.796 . § 1012.79(7), Fla. Stat.

2. Petitioner , as Commissioner of Education, is charged with the duty to

file and prosecute administrative complaints against individuals who hold

Florida teaching certificates and who are alleged to have violated standards

of teacher conduct. § 1012.796(6) , Fla. Stat.

3. Respondent, Ivonne Ortiz, holds Florida EducatorÔs Certificate 1258585,

covering the areas of Pre - kindergarten/Primary Education, which is valid

through June 30, 2022.

4. At the time of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint,

Ms. Ortiz was em pl oyed as a third - grade teacher by KIPP , a charter school

organization in Duval County. She was assigned to KIPP Voice, one of three

academies operated by KIPP. Ms. Ortiz was employed at KIPP Voice from

July 18, 2016 , through November 8, 2018.

5. When a KI PP employee is injured on the job, the employee must notify

his or her manager and complete an Employee Accident Report form. The

form is an official K IPP document used to assist management and their

insurance carrier in determining eligibility for workers Ô compensation

benefits.

6. On October 24, 2018, Ms. Ortiz reported to Assistant School Leader

Brittany Brooks that she was injured when a student ÑrammedÒ into her , and

that she needed to see a doctor. Ms. Brooks asked Ms. Ortiz to complete an

Employee A ccident Report detailing the incident. The report would be

forwarded to KIPPÔs Human Resources Department (Ñ HR Ò) for further

consideration .

7. In the Employee Accident Report that she completed on October 24,

2018, Ms. Ortiz wrote that Ñ [Student M.S.] was throwing a tantrum. He ran

down the stairs and rammed into me to push me out of his way. He then took

a snack from the bin and slammed it on the floor. I am in intense pain right

now.Ò

8. Ms. Ortiz told Ms. Brooks that she was in a lot of pain due to the

interaction with the student and needed to see a doctor. After her discussion

with Ms. Brooks, Ms. Ortiz left school for the day.

9. After receiving the written report from, and discussing the incident

with Ms. Ortiz , Ms. Brooks informed Dean of School Op erations

Jessica Brown about the incident as reported by Ms. Ortiz. Ms. Brooks

advised Ms. Brown that the student would have to be suspended for injuring

a teacher .

10. Ms. Brown informed Ms. Brooks that she was a witness to the incident

and that it did n ot happen as Ms. Ortiz reported .

11. On October 25, 2018, Ms. Brown submitted a written statement about

the incident . In her statement, Ms. Brown wrote that Ms. Ortiz came down

the stairs carrying a large black crate. M.S. came down the stairs behind her.

M.S. was visibly upset. Ms. Brown took M.S. aside and learned that he was

upset because Ms. Ortiz would not unlock the classroom to let him retrieve

his backpack and homework. M.S. had been in in - school suspension all day

and wanted to get his things so h is mother would not be upset with him.

Ms. Brown took M.S. upstairs to get his backpack.

12. Ms. Brown wrote, ÑI was shocked when Brooks came to me because

Ortiz never made contact with the student [M.S.]. [M.S.] never hit her and

never touch her [sic] he was just upset that Ortiz would not allow him to get

his backpack so that he could do his homework.Ò

13. Due to the discrepancy in the accounts of Ms. Ortiz and Ms. Brown ,

Ms. Brooks asked Campus Manager Leighton Roye to pull video footage of

the incident from the schoo l surveillance camera. Due to the technical

limitations of the schoolÔs surveillance system, Mr. Roye was forced to record

the footage with his cell phone and forward that recording to Ms. Brooks.

14. The silent video footage was entered into evidence in two parts. The

first part was an eight second clip that shows Ms. Ortiz carrying a wheeled

crate down the stairs near the building entrance. At the bottom of the stairs,

she stopped and sat the crate on the ground. A table faced the stairs. On the

table was a crate containing snacks. As students passed between the stairs

and the table on their way out of the building, they could pick up a snack.

15. Ms. Brown stood at the table. She was directly facing the stairs. Two

other teachers, Hannah Hug hes and Madelaine Riley , were at , or near , the

table but neither had the unobstructed, direct view of the stairs that

Ms. Brown had.

16. The video shows that as Ms. Ortiz was placing her crate on the

ground, M.S. came down the stairs behind her. As M.S. p assed, Ms. Ortiz

appeared to recoil slightly with her right arm, but it is unclear whether this

movement was in response to a touch from M.S. or simply an adjustment of

her arm after releasing the weight of the crate.

17. The angle of the video is to the s ide of the participants, making it

impossible for the viewer to state definitely whether or not M.S. made contact

with Ms. Ortiz. It is possible to state that any contact was minimal, no more

than a brushing as M.S. went past. Ms. Brown, who was directly f acing

Ms. Ortiz and M.S., credibly testified that M.S. did not touch Ms. Ortiz.

18. The second part of the video was 81 seconds long. It began a second or

two before the end of the first video and showed what occurred in the

subsequent minute or so. M.S. p icked up a snack and started to go outside.

He dropped a portion of the snack, apparently without realizing it. An adult

stepped in to pick up the dropped snack as M.S. proceeded to the door. M.S.

stopped at the door and walked back into the building to an area out of

camera range. Ms. Brown followed him. As this was happening, Ms. Ortiz

remained standing at the bottom of the stairs with her crate at her feet. She

turned her head to see where Ms. Brown was going.

19. A few seconds after Ms. Brown passed out of camera range, Ms. Ortiz

began to roll her crate toward the building entrance, then stopped and turned

around to hug another woman who walked into camera range. After the hug,

Ms. Ortiz rolled her crate out of the building.

20. Roughly 45 seconds later , Ms. Brown and M.S. walked back into the

frame. Ms. Brown had her arm around the childÔs shoulder as they walked

back up the stairs. The second video ended as they walked up and out of the

frame.

21. Mr. Roye testified that he first recorded the eight sec ond segment and

sent that to Ms. Brooks. After viewing the video, Ms. Brooks asked Mr. Roye

to go back and retrieve more footage to ensure that nothing was missed. 1

Mr. Roye was uncertain whether he provided the 81 - second video to

Ms. Brooks later the same day, but was certain that he provided it no later

than the next day.

22. Ms. BrownÔs testimony was consistent with the videos. She was

looking directly at both Ms. Ortiz and M.S. as they were coming down the

stairs. Ms . Brown testified that M.S. did not t ouch Ms. Ortiz in any way when

he came down the stairs. M.S. ÑabsolutelyÒ never touched Ms. Ortiz. He never

came within six inches of her.

23. Ms. Brown noted Ms. OrtizÔ s recoiling gesture as M.S. passed.

Ms. Brown believed that Ms. Ortiz gestured because she was Ñaggravated

with him.Ò

24. Ms. Ortiz alleged that M.S. reached the bottom of the stairs, turned to

face her, and kicked the crate at her feet. Ms. Brown testified that this did

not happen. Ms. Brown wa s positive about it because ÑI was standing ri ght

there.Ò

25. The videos do not show M.S. turning back to face Ms. Ortiz at the

bottom of the stairs.

26. The other adult witnesses to the incident, Ms. Hughes and M s. Riley ,

provided written statements. Neither of these individuals was called as a

witn ess at the hearing. Their hearsay written statements were not offered

into evidence.

1 The record is unclear whether Ms. Brooks directly asked Mr. Roye for the videos or whether

Ms. Brown acted as an intermediary. The diff erence is irrelevant because the record is clear

that Ms. Brooks was the initiator of the request.

27. Ms. Ortiz testified that the incident occurred as follows:

MS came down the stairs. I went to the bottom of

the stairs. I never said that he pushed me. I never

said t hat he hit me. He came down. He was very

close to me. It was very quick. He came -- he took a

snack, threw it on the floor. He stood in front of me.

I felt the kick. It was like a ram kick. And that's

how I explained it. No one ever asked me to explain

wha t a ram kick was. But that's what I felt. He

went and got a second snack and then went

through the blue curtains where they receive -- the

packages that come in are received. I gasped for

air. I felt a little dizzy. I felt my body leaning

towards the left. I was trying as best I could to deal

with the pain because there were still students

there and, as a teacher you don't want the students

to see you weak. But I never said that he hit me. I

felt a ram kick as if to push me.

* * *

He turned and stood dire ctly in front of me, kicked

the crate that hit my foot, that sent the shock pain

up my leg to my thigh, my waist. Caused me to feel

dizzy. It caused me to feel I was losing my balance

and feel my body shifting to the left side.

28. Ms. Ortiz conceded that the video did not corroborate her testimony

that M.S. kicked her or the crate in front of her. She contended that the video

only shows Ñclips,Ò not the sequence of events as they actually occurred.

29. Ms. Brown testified that the videos showed the sequen ce of events

exactly as they occurred. Mr. Roye testified that he had no ability to edit or

alter the surveillance footage. After repeated viewing s of the videos, the

undersigned accepts the testimony of Ms. Brown and Mr. Roye on this point.

While the vide os do not include time stamps that would definitively establish

their continuity, there is nothing about them that causes suspicion of

alteration or editing.

30. Ms. OrtizÔs testimony is not credible. M.S. did not kick her crate. On

the video, Ms. Ortiz gi ves no outward indication that she is in pain. She hugs

the other woman and appears to easily roll her crate out the buildingÔs

entrance.

31. As noted above, Ms. Ortiz stated in her Employee Accident Report that

Ñ[M.S.] ran down the stairs and rammed into me to push me out of his way. Ò

Based on all the evidence presented, it is found that Ms. Ortiz made a false

statement on the Employee Accident Report.

32. Dr. Melissa Peoples - Fullmore is the Chief of Schools at KIPP,

functioning essentially as an assistant superintendent . After reviewing the

video s , Dr. Peoples - Fullmore a nd Ms. Brianna Odom, KIPPÔs HR A ssociate,

notified the workerÔs compensation c arrier that they did not think Ms. OrtizÔs

accident claim was legitimate.

33. In consultation with KIPP attorne ys and the workers Ô compensation

carrier Ô s attorney, Dr. Peoples - Fullmore made the decision to deny Ms. OrtizÔs

claim .

34. Dr. Peoples - Fullmore also made the decision to terminate Ms. OrtizÔs

employment because of the false statements in the Employee Accid ent

Report. Dr. Peoples - Fullmore testified that while the false report was

significant, it was not the most important factor in her termination decision.

Dr. Peoples - Fullmore was more concerned that Ms. Ortiz was willing to allow

her false report to cause M.S. to be wrongfully disciplined by the school.

ÑLying on a childÒ was the worst ethical infraction committed by Ms. Ortiz

and a firing offense in the opinion of Dr. Peoples - Fullmore.

35. On November 7, 2018, Ms. Odom communicated with her HR superior

reg arding Ms. OrtizÔs continued em ployment. On the same day, a Notice of

Denial was issued on Ms. OrtizÔs worke rs Ô compensation claim. On

November 8, 2018, Ms. OrtizÔs employment with KIPP was terminated.

36. At the hearing, Petitioner presented documentary evidence and

testimony regarding past workers Ô compensation claims filed by Ms. Ortiz.

There was no assertion that any of Ms. OrtizÔs prior claims were false or

fraudulent. Mere evidence of past claims has no bearing on whether

Ms. OrtizÔs claim in this ca se was credible and has played no part in the

findings of this Recommended Order.

37. Petitioner has demonstrated, by clear and convincing evidence, that

Ms. Ortiz gave a false statement to her superiors, accusing a student of

actions that could have had s erious detrimental consequences for the student

and resulting in the filing of a false workers Ô compensation claim.

C ONCLUSIONS OF L AW

38 . The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the subject

matter of and the parties to this proceeding . §§ 120.569 and 120.57(1), Fla.

Stat.

39. The Education Practices Commission is the state agency charged with

the certification and regulation of Florida educators, pursuant to chapter

1012.

40. This is a proceeding in which Petitioner seeks to disciplin e Ms. OrtizÔs

educator certificate. Because disciplinary proceedings are considered to be

penal in nature, Petitioner is required to prove the allegations in the

Administrative Complaint by clear and convincing evidence. DepÔt of Banking

& Fin. v. Osborne Stern & Co., Inc. , 6 7 0 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996); Ferris v.

Turlington , 510 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987).

41. Clear and convincing evidence Ñrequires more proof than a

Ópreponderance of the evidenceÔ but less than Óbeyond and to the exclusion of a

reasonable doubt. ÔÒ In re Graziano , 696 So. 2d 744, 753 (Fla. 1997). The

Florida Supreme Court further enunciated the standard:

This intermediate level of proof entails both a

qualitative and quantitative standard. The

evidence must be credible; the memories of the

witnes ses must be clear and without confusion; and

the sum total of the evidence must be of sufficient

weight to convince the trier of fact without

hesitancy.

Clear and convincing evidence requires that the

evidence must be found to be credible; the facts to

wh ich the witnesses testify must be distinctly

remembered; the testimony must be precise and

lacking in confusion as to the facts in issue. The

evidence must be of such a weight that it produces

in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or

conviction, w ithout hesitancy, as to the truth of the

allegations sought to be established.

In re Davey , 645 So. 2d 398, 404 (Fla. 1994) (quoting Slomowitz v. Walker ,

429 So. 2d 797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)). ÑAlthough this standard of proof

may be met where the evide nce is in conflict, it seems to preclude evidence

that is ambiguous.Ò Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Shuler Bros., 590 So. 2d 989

(Fla. 1st DCA 1991).

42. Section 1012.795 and rule 6A - 10.081 are penal in nature and must be

strictly construed, with any ambigui ty construed against Petitioner. Penal

statutes must be construed in terms of their literal meaning, and words used

by the Legislature may not be expanded to broaden the application of such

statutes. Beckett v. DepÔt of Fin. Servs. , 982 So. 2d 94, 100 (Fla . 1st DCA

2008); Latham v. Fla. CommÔn on Ethics, 694 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997).

43. The allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint are those

upon which this proceeding is predicated. Trevisani v. DepÔt of Health , 908 So.

2d 1108, 1109 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Cottrill v. DepÔt of Ins. , 685 So. 2d 1371,

1372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Due process prohibits Petitioner from taking

disciplinary action against a licensee based on matters not specifically alleged

in the charging instruments, unless those ma tters have been tried by

consent. See Shore Vill. Prop. OwnerÔs AssÔn v. DepÔt of Envtl. Prot. , 824 So. 2d

208, 210 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Delk v. DepÔt of ProfÔl Reg. , 595 So. 2d 966, 967

(Fla. 5th DCA 1992).

44. Count 1 of the Administrative C omplaint seek s to discipline Ms. Ortiz

on charges that she violated section 1012.795(1)(j), which states:

(1) The Education Practices Commission may

suspend the educator certificate of any person as

defined in s. 1012.01(2) or (3) for up to 5 years,

thereby denying th at person the right to teach or

otherwise be employed by a district school board or

public school in any capacity requiring direct

contact with students for that period of time, after

which the holder may return to teaching as

provided in subsection (4); m ay revoke the educator

certificate of any person, thereby denying that

person the right to teach or otherwise be employed

by a district school board or public school in any

capacity requiring direct contact with students for

up to 10 years, with reinstatem ent subject to the

provisions of subsection (4); may revoke

permanently the educator certificate of any person

thereby denying that person the right to teach or

otherwise be employed by a district school board or

public school in any capacity requiring dir ect

contact with students; may suspend the educator

certificate, upon an order of the court or notice by

the Department of Revenue relating to the

payment of child support; or may impose any other

penalty provided by law, if the person:

* * *

(j) Has vi olated the Principles of Professional

Conduct for the Education Profession prescribed by

State Board of Education rules.

45. Count 1 cannot constitute an independent violation, but rather is

dependent upon a correspo nding violation of the Principle s of Pr ofessional

Conduct , codified at rule 6A - 10.081 .

46. Count 2 of the Administrative Complaint seeks to discipline Ms. Ortiz

for violating rule 6A - 10.081(2)(c)1. Count 3 of the Administrative Complaint

seeks to discipline Ms. Ortiz for violating rule 6A - 10.0 81(2)(c)8. The cited

provisions of the Principles of Professional Conduct state as follows:

(2) Florida educators shall comply with the

following disciplinary principles. Violation of any of

these principles shall subject the individual to

revocation or su spension of the individual

educatorÔs certificate, or the other penalties as

provided by law.

* * *

(c) Obligation to the profession of education

requires that the individual:

1. Shall maintain honesty in all professional

dealings.

* * *

8. Shall not submit fraudulent information on any

document in connection with professional activities.

47. Rule 6A - 10.081(2)(c)1 . does not define the term Ñhonesty.Ò If a term is

not defined in rule or statute, its common ordinary meaning applies. Cole

Vision Corp. v. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Reg ., 688 So. 2d 404, 410 (Fla. 1st DCA

1997) . It is appropriate to refer to dictionary definitions when construing

statutes in order to ascertain the plain and ordinary meaning of the words

used therein. Sch. Bd. of Palm Beach Cty. v. Survivors Charter Sch . , Inc. ,

3 So. 3d 1220, 1233 (Fla. 2009). Merriam WebsterÔs online dictionary defines

ÑhonestyÒ as Ñadherence to the facts; fairness and straightforwardness of

conduct.Ò It cites the following terms as synonyms: integrity, probity,

truthfulness, veracity, and verity. See https://www.merriam -

webster.com/dictionary/honesty ( l ast visited January 9, 2021) .

48. The evidence established that Ms. Ortiz submitted a false Employee

Accident Report that wrongfully accused a student of actions that could have

led to that studentÔs suspension from school. Ms. OrtizÔs false report also led

to the submission of a false workers Ô compensation claim. It has been

established that Ms. Ortiz failed to maintain honesty in her professional

dealings and th erefore committed the violation alleged in Count 2.

49. Rule 6A - 10.081(2)(c)8 . does not define the term Ñfraudulent.Ò Merriam

WebsterÔs online dictionary defines ÑfraudulentÒ as Ñ done to trick someone for

the purpose of getting something valuable. Ò See h ttp://www.merriam -

webster.com/dictionary/fraudulent (last visited January 9, 2021) . Thus,

Ñf raudulent information Ò would not simply be false or incorrect information;

it must be information offered with the intent to mislead the recipient.

50. This definit ion is consistent with the elements of common law fraud.

Ñ The essential elements of a fraud claim are: (1) a false statement concerning

a specific material fact; (2) the maker Ô s knowledge that the representation is

false; (3) an intention that the represen tation induces another Ô s reliance; and

(4) consequent injury by the other party acting in reliance on the

interpretation. Ò Ward v. Atlantic Sec. Bank , 777 So. 2d 1144, 1146 (Fla. 3d

DCA 2001).

51. Ms. OrtizÔs submission of a false report meets the definit ion of a

fraudulent act. Her statement s on the Employee Accident Report were

dishonest and intended to deceive in order to obtain undeserved workers Ô

compensation benefits. School administrators relied on the information

provided by Ms. Ortiz. The process to suspend the student was commenced

and the workers Ô compensation claim process was initiated. The school likely

would have continued to act in reliance on Ms. OrtizÔs false claim if not for

the coincidence that the main witness, Ms. Brown, also happened to be in the

chain of command for processing the claim and in a position to stop the

process before it went any farther.

52. It has been established that Ms. Ortiz submitted fraudulent

information on a document in connection with her professional activitie s and

therefore committed the violation alleged in Count 3.

53. By establishing the specific violations alleged in Counts 2 and 3,

Petitioner has established the general violation of the Principles of

Professional Conduct alleged in Count 1.

54. Florida Ad ministrative Code R ule 6B - 11.007(2) establishes the range

of penalties for violations of section 1012.795(1) (j) and rule 6A - 10.081(2)(a)1.

The version of the rule in effect at the time of Ms. OrtizÔs offenses provided as

follows: 2

(2) The following discipl inary guidelines shall apply

to violations of the below listed statutory and rule

violations and to the described actions which may

be basis for determining violations of particular

statutory or rule provisions. Each of the following

disciplinary guideline s shall be interpreted to

include Ñprobation,Ò ÑRecovery Network Program,Ò

Ñrestrict scope of practice,Ò Ñfine,Ò and

Ñadministrative fees and/or costsÒ with applicable

terms thereof as additional penalty provisions in

each case in which neither a suspensio n or

revocation is imposed, the penalty shall include a

letter of reprimand. The terms ÑsuspensionÒ and

ÑrevocationÒ shall mean any length of suspension or

revocation, including permanent revocation,

permitted by statute, and shall include comparable

denia l of an application for an educatorÔs

certificate.

* * *

(j) Violating the Principles of Professional Conduct

in violation of Section 1012.795(1)(j), F.S., by:

* * *

15. Failing to maintain honesty in all professional

dealings. [subparagraph 6A - 10.081 (2)(c)1., F.A.C.]

Reprimand -- Revocation .

* * *

2 The rule was amended to its current form on December 10, 2019, subsequent to the events

at issue in this proceeding. The range of penalties for Ms. OrtizÔs offenses did not change.

22. Submitting fraudulent information on any

document in connection with professional activities.

[subparagraph 6A - 10.081(2)(c)8., F.A.C.]

Suspension -- Revocation .

55. Petitioner recommends that Ms. Ort izÔs e ducatorÔs certificate be

suspended fo r two years from the date of the f inal o rder ; that she be placed

on probation for a period of two years after her suspension , with conditions to

be determined by the Education Practices Commiss ion ; that Ms. Ortiz be

required to take a college level course in professional ethics for educators ; and

that she pay a $750.00 fine.

56. The undersigned agrees with all aspects of the recommendation except

for the fine, which the undersigned concludes would be needlessly pun itive in

light of the severity of the other penalties.

R ECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the

undersigned hereby R ECOMMENDS that the Education Practices Commission

enter a final order finding that : Respondent vi olated the statutes and rules

listed above; RespondentÔs educatorÔs certificate be suspended for a period of

two years from the date of the f inal o rder; Respondent be placed on probation

for a period of two years after her suspension, with conditions to be

determined by the Education Practices Commission ; and prior to the

reinstatement of her educatorÔs certificate , Respondent be required to take a

college level course in professional ethics for educators .

D ONE A ND E NTERED this 19th day of January , 2021 , in Tallahassee, Leon

County, Florida.

S

L AWRENCE P. S TEVENSON

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.stat e.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 19th day of January , 2021 .

C OPIES F URNISHED :

Steve Rossi, Esquire

Law Offices of Steve Rossi

Suite 2

533 Northeast 3rd Avenue

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

(eServed)

Ron We aver, Esquire

Post Office Box 770088

Ocala, Florida 34477 - 0088

(eServed)

Lisa M. Forbess, Interim Executive Director

Education Practices Commission

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 316

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

(eServed)

Matthew Mears, General Counsel

Department of Education

Turlington Building, Suite 1244

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

(eServed)

Randy Kosec, Jr., Chief

Office of Professional Practices Services

Department of Educ ation

Turlington Building, Suite 224 - E

325 West Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0400

(eServed)

N OTICE OF R IGHT T O S UBMIT E XCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15 days from

the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended

Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this

case.