20-001773FL Agency For Persons With Disabilities vs. Angel Heart Support Services, Inc., Group Home, Owned And Operated By Angel Heart Support Services, Inc.
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Monday, July 20, 2020.


View Dockets  
Summary: APD failed to properly serve Respondent with 3 of 4 related administrative complaints. Equitable tolling applies to excuse Respondent's late request for hearing and precludes license revocation of group homes without a hearing on the merits.

1P RELIMINARY S TATEMENT

5Respondent, Angel Heart Support Services, Inc. ( " Angel Heart " ) , is the

17owner and operator of five group homes for disabled adults in Miami - Dade

31County, Florida. Petit ioner, Agency for Persons with Disabilities ( " APD " ) is

44the State agency responsible for licensing and regulating group homes for

55disabled adults.

57On January 23, 2020, APD issued four Administrative Complaints ( " ACs " )

69to A ngel Heart ' s group homes 1 throug h 4. All four ACs were sent by certified

88mail and arrived at Angel Heart ' s administrative office. The ACs for group

102homes 1, 2, and 3 arrived on January 30, 20 20, and were signed for by

118Odra Kok, an employee of Angel Hea rt. The AC for group home 4 arrived on

134February 4, 2020, and was also signed for by Ms. Kok. Ms. Kok informed the

149principal of Angel Heart, Eartha Ma ys, about the AC for group home 4, but

164did not inform her about the ACs for group homes 1, 2, and 3 and, in fact, lost

182those documents.

184Ms. M ays made a timely request for the AC for group home 4 on

199February 20, 2020. Ms. Mays did not timely appeal the ACs for group

212ho mes 1, 2, and 3 because she was not aware of their existence in time to

229make a timely request for hearing. On March 9, 2020, APD issued Final

242Orders revoking Angel Heart ' s license to operate group homes 1, 2, and 3 for

258failure to timely request a hearing. Ms. Mays first became aware of the

271existence of the ACs for group homes 1, 2, and 3 when she received the Final

287Orders.

288On Marc h 16, 2020, Angel Heart filed a Motion to Vacate Final Orders

302with the Agency. APD granted that Motion by Order dated April 9, 2020, and forwarded the matters to the Division of Administrative Hearings ( " DOAH " )

328f or an evidentiary hearing. The three cases w ere consolidated by Order dated

342April 24, 2020. On May 21, 2020, the parties submitted an Amended Joint

355Pre - Hearing Stipulation, including a statement of undisputed facts. To the

367extent that the stipulated facts are relevant, the facts are adopted and inco rporated herein as necessary.

384The hearing commenced as scheduled on May 27, 2020. APD presented

395the tes timony of Danielle Thompson, A PD 's Agency Clerk. APD ' s Exhibits 1

411through 10 were admitted. Angel Heart presented the testimony of Odra Kok

423and Eartha M ays. Angel Heart ' s Exhibits 1 through 12 were admitted.

437The hearing T ranscript was filed on June 17, 2020. Both parties timely

450submitted their proposed recommended orders, and each has been considered

460in the preparation of this Recommended Order. Except as otherwise

470indicated, citations to the Florida Statute s refer to the version that was in

484effect during the time in which the facts of this case occurred.

496F INDINGS OF F ACT

5011 . APD is the state agency charged with regulating the licensing and

514operation of group home facilities pursuant to section 20.197 and c hapter 393, Florida Statutes.

5292 . Angel Heart is a Florida registered corporation . Its corporate officers

542are Eartha Mays and Azjah Temple. Responde nt ' s registered agent is

555Eartha Mays. The address for A zjah Temple, Eartha Mays, and the

567corporation is 18901 Southwest 10 6 Avenue, Suite A - 111, Miami, Florida

58033157.

5813 . On January 23, 2020, AP D filed AC s against the licenses of Angel

597Heart ' s group homes 1 through 4.

6054 . According to the United State s Postal Se rvice, the ACs for group

620homes 1 thro ugh 3 were delivered to 18901 Southwest 106 Avenue,

632Suite A - 111 , Miami, Florida 33157 , and signed for by Odra Kok at 12:06 p.m. ,

648on January 30, 2020.

6525 . Odra Kok is the group home manager for Angel Heart ' s group home 3 .

670On January 30, 2020, Ms. Kok happened to be in Respondent ' s

683administrative office and received and signed the certified mail receipts for

694the ACs related to group homes 1, 2, and 3. Ms. Kok placed the ACs on a

711table in the office and they were subsequent ly lost. Neither Ms. Mays nor

725Ms. Temple was in the office at the time Ms. Kok received the ACs.

7396 . Angel Heart d id not respond to the ACs for group homes 1, 2, and 3

757within 21 days of January 30, 2020.

7647 . On March 9, 2020, APD entered default final order s that revoked the

779licenses of group homes 1, 2, and 3 . APD vacated the final orders in response

795to a motion filed by Respondent.

8018 . Eartha Mays timely appealed the AC for group home 4.

8139 . At the time the ACs were issued in January 2020, Angel Heart was

828al ready operating under a settlement agreement with APD regarding group

839homes 1 through 4 that resulted from one AC issued in May 2019 against all

854four group homes.

85710 . The settlement agreement placed a number of requirements on

868Angel Heart, including attend ance at quarterly meetings with APD officials

879to review compliance issues. The four identical ACs issued in January 2020

891allege that Angel Heart failed to comply with certain terms of the settlement

904agreement.

90511 . On February 5, 2020, one day after receiv i ng the AC for group home 4,

923Eartha Mays emailed the AC to Kirk Ryon, APD ' s Regional Program

936Supervisor for South Florida , to get more information. Mr. Ryon did not

948inform Ms. Mays that three identical ACs had been issued for group homes 1

962through 3.

96412 . On February 14, 2020, Ms. Mays met with Kirk Ryon and other APD

979officials in person to conduct a quarterly meeting. The purpose of the

991quarterly meetings was to address any problems or complaints APD had with

1003Angel H eart, including compliance issues. None of the APD officials at that

1016meeting mentioned to Ms. Mays that there were a total of four ACs issued in

1031January.

103213 . On February 20, 2020, Ms. Mays filed her Request for Administrative

1045Hearing with the APD Agency Clerk, Danielle Thompson, in response to the AC for group home 4 . Although Ms. Thompson was aware of the existence of

1072the other three ACs at the time of receiving the Request for Hearing on group

1087h ome 4, Ms. Thompson did not call or correspond with Ms. Mays to inquire as

1103to why she did not appeal th e other three ACs.

111414 . After filing her Request for Administrative Hearing, Ms. Mays emailed

1126Trevor Suter, the APD attorney who authored all of the ACs, to make sure

1140that her Request for Administrative Hearing had been received. Mr. Suter

1151responded to that email later that same day, saying that he would make sure

1165the clerk received it. Even though he had authored all four ACs, Mr. Suter

1179did not call or correspond with Ms. Mays as to why she did not appeal the three other ACs.

119815 . The allegations in all four ACs are identical as to Count I, and make

1214no distinctions as to which allegations apply to which facility.

122416 . Ms. Thompson found that the Request for Administrative Hearing

1235filed by Ang el Heart as to group home 4 was legally sufficient, including

1249listing the facts alleged in the AC which were in dispute.

126017 . Ms. Thompson testified that the only thing Angel Heart would have

1273had to do to make the Request for Administrat ive Hearing applicable to all

1287four ACs was to list the additional license numbers or styl e the title so it was

1304clea r that the appeal included all four group homes.

131418 . Ms. Thompson explained that it is APDs standard procedure to give

1327appellants who file timely, but legally deficient requests for hearing, multiple opportunities to amend their h earing requests to address deficiencies .

1349Ms. Thompson will often call pro se appellants to advise of any deficiencies

1362and permit them extra time to refile or amend their filing. Ms. Thompson

1375indicated that as long as the petition for hearing was filed time ly, she would

1390allow appellants extra time to amend their petition even after the 21 days to

1404appeal had expired.

1407C ONCLUSIONS OF L AW

141219 . The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the

1423subject matter of and parties to this proceeding. §§ 1 20.569, 120.57(1), Fla.

1436Stat. (2019).

143820 . APD has the burden to show that notice of intended action was

1452received and that Respondent ' s request for hearing was untimely.

1463Respondent, as the party seeking equitable tolling, has the burden of proof as

1476to that issue. Menominee Indian Tribe of Wis. v. U.S. , 136 S. Ct. 750, 755 - 56

1493(2016). The standard of proof for each of the parties is a preponderance of the

1508evidence. § 120.57(1)(j), Fla. Stat.

151321 . In relevant part, section 120.60(5) , Florida Statutes, provides:

1523No revocation, suspension, annulment, or

1528withdrawal of any license is lawful unless, prior to

1537the entry of a final order, the agency has served, by

1548personal service or certified mail, an administrative complaint which affords reasonable notice to the licen see of facts or conduct which warrant the

1571intended action and unless the licensee has been

1579given an adequate opportunity to request a

1586proceeding purs uant to ss. 120.569 and 120.57.

159422 . The requirement that a hearing must be requested within 21 days of

1608rec eipt of the notice of agency action is clear. Florida Administrative Code

1621Rule 28 - 106.111 provides in relevant part:

1629(2) Unless otherwise provided by law, persons

1636seeking a hearing on an agency decision which does

1645or may determine their substantial interes ts shall

1653file a petition for hearing with the agency within 21

1663days of receipt of written notice of the decision.

1672* * *

1675(4) Any person who receives written notice of an agency decision and who fails to file a written

1693request for a hearing withi n 21 days waives the

1703right to request a hearing on such matters. This

1712provision does not eliminate the availability of

1719equitable tolling as a defense.

172423 . Section 120.569(2)(c) provides that a request for hearing " shall be

1736dismissed if it has been untim ely filed. " The statute expressly notes that

1749this does not eliminate the availability of equitable tolling as a defense.

176124 . In this case, the parties dispute whether the ACs were properly

1774served . It is undisputed that the Request for Hearing was returned more

1787than 21 days after service of the ACs for group homes 1 through 3.

1801Notice Was Not Properly Served

180625 . Process against a private corporation may be served on: the president,

1819vice president, or other head of the corporation; in their absence, the cashie r,

1833treasurer, secretary , or general manager; in the absence of the previous two

1845categories, any director; in the absence of the previous three categories, any

1857officer or business agent residing in the state. § 48.081(1), Fla. Stat.

186926 . Alternatively, servi ce of process can be performed on the designated

1882registered agent. § 48.081(3)(a), Fla. Stat. However, service can be made on

1894any employee of the corporation at the corporation ' s principal place of

1907business if service cannot be made " because of a failure t o comply with section

192248.091, Florida Statutes . " (emphasis added ). § 48.081(3)(a), Fla. Stat.

1933A person attempting service of process can serve any employee of the

1945registered agent even if the registered agent is temporarily absent from the

1957office. § 48.081 (3)(a), Fla. Stat.

196327 . APD argues that Ms. Mays serves as both the director and the

1977registered agent of the company and Ms. Temple serves as a member. All

1990share the same addres s with the corporation, 18901 Southwest 106 Avenue,

2002Suite A - 111, Miami, Florida — the location where the complaints were served.

2016Ms. Mays and Ms. Temple were, at least temporarily, away from the office at

2030the time of service. Ms. Kok is an employee of Ms. Mays because Ms. Mays is

2046the 100 percent owner of Angel Heart for which Ms. Kok wo rks . APD argues

2062that service on Ms. Kok was proper in this circumstance.

207228 . However , APD failed to demonstrate that Angel Heart did not comply

2085with section 48.091, Florida Statutes, which provides in relevant part:

2095Every corporation shall keep the registe red office

2103open from 10 a.m. to 12 noon each day except Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays, and shall keep one or more registered agents on whom process may be served at the office during these

2137hours. The corporation shall keep a sign posted in

2146the off ice in some conspicuous place designating the

2155name of the corporation and the name of its

2164registered agent on whom process may be served.

217229 . The evidence shows that Ms. Kok signed for the ACs at 12:06 p.m . No

2189evidence was presented regarding whether Ms. Mays, as registered agent,

2199was availabl e to accept service between 10:00 a.m . and noon or whether the

2214appropriate signage was in the office. Accordingly, APD failed to demonstrate

2225that notice as to group homes 1 through 3 was properly served.

2237Equitable Tol ling is Appropriate

224230 . Assuming arguendo that service on Ms. Kok was sufficient to

2254constitute proper service on Angel Heart, the doctrine of equitable tolling

2265would excuse Angel Heart ' s delay in requesting an administrative hearing for

2278group homes 1 throu gh 3.

228431 . In Machules v. Department of Administration , 523 So. 2d 1132, 1134

2297(Fla. 1988), the Florida Supreme Court stated, " [g]enerally, the tolling

2307doctrine has been applied when the plaintiff has been misled or lulled into

2320inaction, has in some extraord inary way been prevented from asserting his

2332rights, or has timely asserted his rights mistakenly in the wrong forum. "

234432 . Regarding the use of equitable tolling in administrative proceedings ,

2355the Machules Court explained:

2359The tolling doctrine is used in th e interests of

2369justice to accommodate both a defendant ' s right not

2379to be called upon to defend a stale claim and a

2390plaintiff ' s right to assert a meritorious claim when

2400equitable circumstances have prevented a timely

2406filing. Equitable tolling is a type of e quitable

2415modification which ' focuses on the plaintiff ' s

2424excusable ignorance of the limitations period and on [the] lack of prejudice to the defendant. ' Cocke v.

2442Merrill Lynch & Co. , 817 F.2d 1559, 1561 (11th Cir.

24521987)(quoting Naton v. Bank of California , 649

2459F.2d 691, 696 (9th Cir. 1981)). . . The doctrine [of

2470equitable tolling] serves to ameliorate harsh results

2477that sometimes flow from a strict, literalistic

2484construction and application of administrative time

2490limits contained in statutes and rules.

2496Id. at 1134.

249933 . The initial AC that Ms. Mays received in May 2019 addressed all four

2514group homes in a single document. This led Ms. Mays to believe that APD ' s

2530ACs address all facilities subject to the complaint in one document.

254134 . Ms. Mays had multiple conta cts and communications with APD

2553representatives, prior to the deadline for ap pealing the ACs for group

2565homes 1, 2 and 3, all of whom were aware of the existence of those ACs and

2582all of whom failed to make her aware of the ACs in time to appeal them.

259835 . On February 20, 2020, Ms. Mays filed her Request for Hearing at

261210:50 a.m. a s to group home 4. Ms. Thompson testified that, at the time she

2628received the Request for Hearing, she was aware of the existence of the other

2642three ACs but made no attempt to contact Ms. Mays to inquire whether sh e

2657intended to appeal the other three ACs. Ms. Thompson testified that she did

2670not do this because she assumed Angel Heart was only disputing the fourth

2683one. Yet, she also testified that she routinely contacts other persons wh o file

2697petitions with deficiencies and gives them several opportunities to amend

2707their petitions, particularly pro se appellants like Ms. Mays because " they

2718need a little bit of procedural help with it. "

272736 . On the same day, Ms. Mays re ceived emails from T revor Suter ,

2742counsel for APD in this case, acknowledging that he would make sure the

2755clerk received her appeal. As the author of all four ACs, Mr. Sute r was aware

2771of the existence of all four and also that the appeal he received was only for

2787one AC. He cou ld have, but did not, reach out to Ms. Mays to find out why she

2806had only appealed one.

281037 . There is no reason to believe any of these APD representatives acted

2824intentionally to preve nt Ms. Mays from appealing all four ACs. Nevertheless ,

2836their conduct misle d and lulled Ms. Mays into inaction by believing that

2849there was only one AC.

285438 . License revocation for group homes is an unacceptable harsh result

2866given Angel Heart ' s clear intention to di s pute the allegations of the ACs .

2883Accordingly, the doctrine of equ itable tolling applies to excuse Angel Heart ' s

2897late filing of a request for hearing as to groups homes 1 through 3.

291139 . APD will not be prejudiced by accepting a late appeal from Angel

2925Heart for group homes 1, 2, and 3, particularly because these ACs are

2938v irtually identical to the AC for group home 4, for which there is already a

2954pending appeal.

2956R ECOMMENDATION

2958Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is

2971R ECOMMENDED that the Agency for Persons with Disabilities treat the

2982pending Re quest for Hearing for group home 4 as an appeal of all four

2997Administrative Complaints or, in the alternative, allow Angel Heart Support

3007Services, Inc. , an additional 21 days from the date of the Final Order to

3021appeal the Administrative Complaints for group homes 1, 2 , and 3.

3032D ONE A ND E NTERED this 20th day of July, 2020 , in Tallahassee, Leon

3047County, Florida.

3049M ARY L I C REASY

3055Administrative Law Judge

3058Division of Administrative Hearings

3062The DeSoto Building

30651230 Apalachee Parkway

3068Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

3073(850) 488 - 9675

3077Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

3083www.doah.state.fl.us

3084Filed with the Clerk of the

3090Division of Administrative Hearings

3094this 20th day of July , 2020 .

3101C OPIES F URNISHED :

3106Michael Paul Gennett, Esquire

3110Polsinelli, P.C.

31121111 Brickell Avenue , Suite 2800

3117Miami, Florida 33131

3120(eServed)

3121Trevor S. Suter, Esquire

3125Agency for Persons with Disabilities

31304030 Esplanade Way, Suite 315C

3135Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0950

3140(eServed)

3141Danielle Thompson

3143Senior Attorney/Agency Clerk

3146Agency for Persons with Disabilit ies

31524030 Esplanade Way, Suite 3 09

3158Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0950

3163(eServed)

3164Barbara Palmer, Director

3167Agency for Persons with Disabilities

31724030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380

3177Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0950

3182(eServed)

3183Francis Carbone, General Counsel

3187Agency f or Persons with Disabilities

31934030 Esplanade Way , Suite 380

3198Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0950

3203(eServed)

3204N OTICE OF R IGHT T O S UBMIT E XCEPTIONS

3215All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15 days from

3228the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended

3239Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this

3254case.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 08/11/2020
Proceedings: Agency Referral Notice filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/20/2020
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 07/20/2020
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
PDF:
Date: 07/20/2020
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held May 27, 2020). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 06/29/2020
Proceedings: Agency's Proposed Recommended Order (filed in Case No. 20-001774FL).
PDF:
Date: 06/29/2020
Proceedings: Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order (filed in Case No. 20-001773FL).
PDF:
Date: 06/29/2020
Proceedings: Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/18/2020
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Transcript.
Date: 06/18/2020
Proceedings: Transcript of Proceedings (not available for viewing) filed.
Date: 05/27/2020
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
Date: 05/26/2020
Proceedings: Respondent's Additional Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
PDF:
Date: 05/22/2020
Proceedings: Agency's Notice of Filing Exhibits (filed in Case No. 20-001773FL).
Date: 05/22/2020
Proceedings: Petitioner's Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
PDF:
Date: 05/21/2020
Proceedings: Amended Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation (filed in Case No. 20-001774FL).
PDF:
Date: 05/21/2020
Proceedings: Amended Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation (filed in Case No. 20-001773FL).
PDF:
Date: 05/21/2020
Proceedings: Amended Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/21/2020
Proceedings: Amended Pre-Hearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/21/2020
Proceedings: Amended Notice of Hearing by Zoom Conference (hearing set for May 27, 2020; 9:00 a.m.; amended as to zoom information).
Date: 05/21/2020
Proceedings: Respondent's Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
PDF:
Date: 05/20/2020
Proceedings: Defendants' Notice of Filing Transcript of the Deposition of Danielle Thompson (filed in Case No. 20-001774FL).
PDF:
Date: 05/20/2020
Proceedings: Defendants' Notice of Filing Transcript of the Deposition of Danielle Thompson (filed in Case No. 20-001773FL).
PDF:
Date: 05/20/2020
Proceedings: Defendants' Notice of Filing Transcript of the Deposition of Danielle Thompson filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/20/2020
Proceedings: Order Granting Respondent's Motion to Add Issues to DOAH Case.
PDF:
Date: 05/15/2020
Proceedings: Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/12/2020
Proceedings: Respondent's Motion to Add Issues to DOAH Case filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/30/2020
Proceedings: Respondent's Notice of Serving First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Petitioner (filed in Case No. 20-001774FL).
PDF:
Date: 04/30/2020
Proceedings: Respondent's Notice of Serving First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Petitioner (filed in Case No. 20-001773FL).
PDF:
Date: 04/30/2020
Proceedings: Respondent's Notice of Serving First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Petitioner filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/29/2020
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Telephonic Deposition (filed in Case No. 20-001774FL).
PDF:
Date: 04/29/2020
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Telephonic Deposition (filed in Case No. 20-001773FL).
PDF:
Date: 04/29/2020
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Telephonic Deposition filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/24/2020
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 04/24/2020
Proceedings: Notice of Telephonic Final Hearing (hearing set for May 27, 2020; 9:00 a.m.).
PDF:
Date: 04/24/2020
Proceedings: Order of Consolidation (DOAH Case Nos. 20-1772, 20-1773, and 20-1774)
PDF:
Date: 04/21/2020
Proceedings: Joint Response to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/14/2020
Proceedings: Initial Order.
PDF:
Date: 04/09/2020
Proceedings: Administrative Complaint filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/09/2020
Proceedings: Final Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/09/2020
Proceedings: Respondent's Second Amended Motion to Vacate Final Orders filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/09/2020
Proceedings: Order Granting Respondent's Motion to Vacate Final Order Pending Evidentiary Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/09/2020
Proceedings: Notice (of Agency referral) filed.

Case Information

Judge:
MARY LI CREASY
Date Filed:
04/09/2020
Date Assignment:
04/13/2020
Last Docket Entry:
08/11/2020
Location:
Tallahassee, Florida
District:
Northern
Agency:
Agency for Persons with Disabilities
Suffix:
FL
 

Counsels

Related Florida Statute(s) (6):