22-000853PL Department Of Health, Board Of Nursing vs. Jessica R. Volpe, A.P.R.N.
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Friday, September 23, 2022.


View Dockets  
Summary: Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent violated prohibition on sexual misconduct by emailing sexual photos of herself to a patient.

1S TATE OF F LORIDA

6D IVISION OF A DMINISTRATIVE H EARINGS

13D EPARTMENT OF H EALTH , B OARD OF

21N URSING ,

23Petitioner ,

24vs. Case No. 22 - 0853PL

30J ESSICA R. V OLPE , A.P.R.N. ,

36Respondent.

37/

38D EPARTMENT OF H EALTH , B OARD OF

46N URSING ,

48Petitioner,

49vs. Case No. 22 - 0854PL

55J ESSICA R. V OLPE , R.N. ,

61Respondent.

62/

63R ECOMMENDED O RDER

67Pursuant to notice, a final hearing was conduct ed in th ese case s on

82June 28, 2022, in Jacksonville, Florida, and on August 18, 2022, via Zoom

95teleconference, before Lawrence P. Stevenson, a duly - designated

104Administrative Law Judge (ÑALJÒ) of the Division of Administrative Hearings

114(ÑDOAHÒ).

115A PPEARANCE S

118For Petitioner: Philip Aaron Crawford, Esquire

124Shannon Nelson, Esquire

127Department of Health

130Bin C - 65

1344052 Bald Cypress Way

138Tallahassee, Florida 32399

141For Respondent: Megan M. Blancho, Esquire

147The Law Office of Megan Blancho, P.A.

1541512 East John S ims Parkway, Suite 378

162Niceville, Florida 32578

165S TATEMENT OF T HE I SSUE S

173The issues are whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in

183the Administrative Complaints (ÑAdministrative ComplaintsÒ) and, if so,

191what is the appropriate disciplinary act ion to be taken against her licenses to

205practice advanced practice registered nursing and/or registered nursing.

213P RELIMINARY S TATEMENT

217On February 1, 2021, Petitioner, Department of Health, Board of Nursing

228(ÑDepartmentÒ), filed substantively identical Ad ministrative Complaints

235seeking to impose discipline on the licenses of Respondent, Jessica R. Volpe,

247A.P.R.N., R.N. (ÑRespondentÒ or ÑMs. VolpeÒ). The Administrative Complaints

256alleged that Respondent violated section 456.072(1)(v), Florida Statutes

264(2020 ), 1 by engaging , or attempting to engage , in sexual misconduct as

277defined and prohibited in section 456.063(1). The specific factual allegation is

288that Ms. Volpe emailed photos of herself to a patient Ñwhich were sexual in

302nature, including of her breasts and/or buttocks.Ò

309Respondent timely contested the allegations. On March 18, 2022, the

319Department referred the cases to DOAH for the assignment of an ALJ and

332the conduct of a formal hearing. By Order dated March 22, 2022, the cases

346were consolidated for he aring. The final hearing was initially scheduled for

358May 25, 2022.

361After one continuance, the final hearing was convened on June 28, 2022.

373The unexpected unavailability of an essential witness necessitated that the

3831 Unless otherwise noted, references to the Fl orida Statutes are to the 2020 edition.

398hearing be continued and reconvened on A ugust 18, 2022, on which date it

412was completed. At the hearing, the Department presented the testimony of

423Ms. Volpe; Patient B.F.; and, via deposition, the expert testimony of Barbara

435Thomason, A.P.R.N. The DepartmentÔs Exhibits A, B, D through F, I

446throug h M, and O were admitted into evidence.

455Respondent testified on her own behalf and presented the testimony of

466Taylor Daniels, her former nursing assistant. RespondentÔs Exhibits 1

475through 6 were admitted into evidence.

481The two - volume Transcript of the fi nal hearing was filed with DOAH on

496August 29, 2022. Both parties timely filed their Proposed Recommended

506Orders on September 8, 2022. The Proposed Recommended Orders have been

517thoroughly considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order.

526F INDINGS O F F ACT

532Based on the Amended Joint Pre - hearing Stipulation, the evidence

543adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact

557are made:

5591. The Department, through the Board of Nursing (ÑBoardÒ), is the entity

571charged with establishi ng or modifying standards of practice for advanced

582practice registered nurses (ÑAPRNÒ) and registered nurses (ÑRNÒ) and with

592the licensure and discipline of APRNs and RNs. C h. 464, p t. I, Fla. Stat.

6082. At all times material to the allegations in the Admini strative

620Complaints, Ms. Volpe was a licensed APRN in the state of Florida, having

633been issued license number APRN 9202467 in 2017. She was issued RN

645license number RN 9202467 in 2003. Prior to this proceeding, Ms. Volpe had

658never been disciplined by the B oard. At the time of the hearing, Ms. Volpe

673was 43 years old.

6773. At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative

688Complaints, Ms. Volpe practiced at the Family Medical CentersÔ Argyle

698(ÑFMC ArgyleÒ) location at 7855 Argyle Forest Boulevard, S uite 601,

709Jacksonville, Florida. She practiced as a family APRN under the supervision

720of James Fetchero, M.D. The parties stipulated that Ms. Volpe worked at

732FMC Argyle from August 2018 until on or about August 19, 2020.

7444. Patient B.F., a male who was 43 years old at the time of the hearing,

760was a patient at FMC Argyle. The medical records indicate that his first visit

774was on January 25, 2019. B.F. had just moved to Florida from Texas and

788requested a referral for pain management related to back surgery he had

800undergone three months previously. He presented at FMC Argyle again on

811April 5, 2019, with complaints of anxiety and high blood pressure. B.F.Ôs back

824pain (and the pharmaceutical management thereof), anxiety, and high blood

834pressure were continuing con cerns throughout his treatment at FMC Argyle.

8455. On March 15, 2020, B.F. went to the emergency room at Orange Park

859Medical Center complaining of abdominal pain and nausea possibly related to

870recent heavy lifting. After extensive testing, the emergency roo m physician

881recorded an impression of constipation and non - obstructive kidney stones.

892The examination also recorded a ventral hernia, for which B.F. received a

904referral to a surgeon.

9086. On advice of the emergency room physician, B.F. made a follow - up

922appo intment to visit his primary care physician, Dr. Fetchero. On March 16,

9352020, B.F. went to FMC Argyle for his appointment and was seen by

948Ms. Volpe because Dr. Fetchero was not available. This was the first meeting

961between B.F. and Ms. Volpe.

9667. The medica l record s show that Ms. Volpe saw B.F. again on June 15,

9822020. His chief complaint was pain in his right jaw. His blood pressure was

996extremely high and Ms. VolpeÔs notes indicate B.F. had gone a month without

1009his blood pressure medications. He was referred to a cardiologist and

1020prescribed hypertension medications.

10238. The medical record s contain notes of a July 16, 2020 visit by B.F. to

1039FMC Argyle at which he was seen by Ms. Volpe. The recorded reason for this

1054visit was Ñanxiety flaring up [due to] home issu es.Ò Ms. Volpe recorded the

1068following in B.F.Ôs general history: ÑAssociated features include increased

1077stress at home due to breakdown of relationship, poor financial situation, and

1089inability to leave current living situation.Ò B.F. stated that a chief st ressor in

1103his life was the worsening state of his marriage. 2 Ms. VolpeÔs treatment notes

1117state that she counseled B.F. Ñto remove himself from current living situation

1129asap.Ò

11309. The medical record s contain a letter on FMC ArgyleÔs stationery, dated

1143July 2 0, 2020, stating that Ms. Volpe saw B.F. in her office that day and that

1160B.F. would be unable to return to work until the following day. The medical

1174record s signed by Ms. Volpe states that the reason for the appointment was

1188Ñnurse visit.Ò B.F.Ôs vital sign s were taken. His blood pressure was still high

1202but lower than it had been on his July 16, 2020 visit. No other procedures,

1217diagnoses, or instructions to the patient were recorded.

122510. On July 27, 2020, Ms. Volpe saw B.F. for the final time at FMC

1240Argyle. This was not an appointment but an emergency presentation. B.F.

1251had received a bug bite of some sort while doing yardwork and feared he

1265might be having an allergic reaction. Ms. VolpeÔs examination revealed no

1276acute symptoms, such as airway compromise, to indicate an anaphylactic

1286reaction. B.F. was given steroid injections and instructed to take Benadryl.

129711. The record evidence established, and Ms. Volpe did not dispute, that

1309she emailed two photographs of herself to B.F. One was of Ms. Volpe facing

1323the ca mera with her bare breasts showing. The second was of Ms. VolpeÔs

1337buttocks. Ms. Volpe was wearing underpants that partially covered her

1347buttocks.

13482 B.F. has since gone through a divorce. At the hearing, it was established that his then - wife

1367had also been seen as a patient by Ms. Volpe at FMC Argyle prior to his first encounter with

1386Ms. Volpe. It was also esta blished that B.F.Ôs wife sent the photos of Ms. Volpe to the

1404Department.

140512. The record evidence established, and Ms. Volpe did not dispute, that

1417she and B.F. engaged in a brief roman tic relationship that included sexual

1430intercourse.

143113. The factual dispute in this case is over the circumstances and timing

1444of the relationship between Ms. Volpe and B.F. Ms. Volpe contends that the

1457relationship with B.F. did not commence while B.F. was a patient in her care.

147114. Ms. Volpe testified that B.F. had Ñhit onÒ her during the July 16, 2020

1486visit but that she had turned him down flat because she was in a

1500relationship. During that visit, B.F. told Ms. Volpe that his marriage was

1512over and he was g etting a divorce.

152015. On or about July 24, 2020, Ms. Volpe broke up with her longtime live -

1536in boyfriend. She testified that she was more amenable to B.F.Ôs

1547blandishments on his July 27, 2020 visit.

155416. Ms. Volpe testified that after the July 27, 2020 visit , which occurred

1567late in the day, B.F. stopped her in the parking lot as she was leaving the

1583office. He flattered her, told her that she was a good listener, that she was

1598pretty, and that he would like to spend time with her. Ms. Volpe testified that

1613she c ould not recall her exact response but that she did not turn him down.

1629She testified that they talked about their children and their work situations.

1641She stated that the romantic relationship began a few days later.

165217. Ms. Volpe had given her 60 - day noti ce of resignation from FMC Argyle

1668in June 2020. Ms. Volpe testified that July 27, 2020 , was at Ñthe very end of

1684my employment there.Ò As noted above, the parties stipulated that Ms. Volpe

1696worked at FMC Argyle until on or about August 19, 2020.

170718. Ms. Volp e was uncertain as to the date her relationship with B.F.

1721became romantic, but stated that it was definitely after the last time she saw

1735him as a patient on July 27, 2020. She stated that they dated only for a few

1752weeks. The relationship was fraught and em otional. They broke up a time or

1766two before their final separation on September 17, 2020.

177519. B.F. testified that his sexual relationship with Ms. Volpe commenced

1786within ten days of their first meeting. He was certain they had already had

1800sex by the t ime he came in for the bug bite on July 27, 2020. B.F. testified

1818that he discussed his marriage with Ms. Volpe on his first visit with her. He

1833told Ms. Volpe that he needed something for anxiety because his wife had

1846another man.

184820. B.F. stated that after his first visit, Ms. Volpe texted him about a

1862prescription that she needed permission to fill from B.F.Ôs pain management

1873physician. B.F. stated that the text was from ÑJessÒ and he was confused at

1887first as to who was texting him because he had never befo re received a direct

1903text from a doctor or APRN.

190921. B.F. stated that within a few days of this text, Ms. Volpe sent him the

1925photos of herself baring her breasts and buttocks. B.F. then began seeing her

1938every day from 5:30 to 6:30 p.m., after she finished work at FMC Argyle.

1952They would talk and Ñmake outÒ in one of their vehicles. B.F. testified that on

1967the day he saw Ms. Volpe for the bug bite, she offered him oral sex instead of

1984treatment.

198522. B.F.Ôs version of the circumstances of his relationship wit h Ms. Volpe

1998is not entirely credible. The undersigned finds that B.F. must, at best, have

2011elided much of what occurred between them prior to her sending him the

2024nude photos. It does not make sense that Ms. Volpe would send such photos

2038out of the blue to a patient she had just met. B.F. was obviously not a mere

2055passive recipient of Ms. VolpeÔs unsought sexual advances and showed no

2066indications of having been traumatized by the experience.

207423. However, B.F.Ôs chronology of events is more credible than Ms. Vo lpeÔs.

2087His version is supported by the fact that his cell phone information indicated

2100that he received the photos of Ms. Volpe no later than July 23, 2020. This fact

2116belies Ms. VolpeÔs insistence that nothing untoward occurred before her last

2127treatment of B.F. on July 27, 2020.

213424. Ms. Volpe tried several tacks to support her insistence that the

2146romantic relationship with B.F. did not commence while he was her patient.

2158She argued that B.F. was never really her patient, that she only stepped in to

2173pinch - hit for Dr. Fetchero, who was in fact B.F.Ôs primary healthcare

2186provider. This argument appears to be trying to distinguish Ms. VolpeÔs

2197position as a family practice APRN working under a physicianÔs supervision

2208from an autonomous APRN registered pursuant to se ction 464.0123, Florida

2219Statutes, who practices independently and has her own patients.

222825. Ms. VolpeÔs argument is not persuasive. Section 456.063(1) prohibits

2238sexual misconduct in the practice of a healthcare profession, which means in

2250relevant part , Ñ vi olation of the professional relationship through which the

2262healthcare practitioner uses such relationship to engage or attempt to engage

2273the patient or client È or to induce or attempt to induce such person to

2288engage in, verbal or physical sexual activity outside the scope of the

2300professional practice of such health care profession.Ò No distinction is made

2311between healthcare practitioners who treat patients under the supervision of

2321another practitioner and those practitioners who operate independently.

2329Ms. Volpe used information about the parlous state of B.F.Ôs marriage,

2340gleaned through the nurse - patient relationship, to induce B.F. into a sexual

2353relationship.

235426. The undersigned is cognizant of the fact that B.F. required very little

2367inducement to commence the sexual relationship with Ms. Volpe. However,

2377even if Ms. VolpeÔs version of events is entirely credited and it is found that

2392B.F. was the avid pursuer in the relationship, it is Ms. Volpe who had the

2407professional obligation to refrain from a sexual re lationship in the situation

2419presented. In the final analysis, there is simply no way to characterize

2431Ms. VolpeÔs sending photos of her bare breasts and buttocks to a patient as

2445anything other than an inducement to engage in a sexual relationship,

2456regardles s of what the patient said to her before she sent them. 3

247027. Ms. Volpe argued that this situation was really no different than a

2483medical professionalÔs treating her spouse or live - in partner. Ms. Volpe

2495argued that in those cases, as in this one, there is a sexual relationship

2509between the professional and the patient and she could see no reason to treat

2523her situation differently. Ms. Volpe rightly points out that there are ethical

2535concerns when a physician or nurse treats a family member, but fails to

2548ackno wledge the distinction present in her case: section 456.063(1) is not a

2561general prohibition on sexual relations between practitioner and patient but

2571a prohibition on using the professional relationship to induce or engage in

2583sexual activity with a patient. While other ethical considerations would

2593apply, section 456.063(1) would not where the romantic or sexual relationship

2604was established before the nurse - patient relationship commenced.

261328. Finally, Ms. Volpe argued that she genuinely believed that B.F. wa s no

2627longer her patient at the time the romantic relationship commenced. She was

2639at the very end of her notice period with FMC Argyle and had no reason to

2655believe she would ever see B.F. as a patient again. She just happened to be

2670the only person available to see B.F. when he appeared without an

2682appointment on July 27, 2020.

268729. There is no merit to this argument. Ms. Volpe is again attempting to

2701make fine distinctions as to which patients of FMC Argyle were and were not

2715her patients, the latter apparently being fair game for romantic overtures.

2726B.F. was a patient of FMC Argyle and Ms. Volpe was an APRN working for

2741FMC Argyle at the time she sent the suggestive photos to B.F. Ms. Volpe

2755knew that B.F. was a patient of FMC Argyle at the time she sent the photo s.

2772She had personally treated B.F. as of July 23, 2020, and had no way of

27873 The Department offered expert testimony on this point, which was admitted over

2800Ms. VolpeÔs objection. In retrospect, the undersigned finds the expert testimony to have been

2814redundan t because the ultimate finding as to the purpose of the photos is glaringly obvious.

2830knowing that she would not treat him again before her employment at FMC

2843Argyle concluded in August 2020. She testified that she had sex with B.F. in

2857early August 2020, when she was still employed by FMC Argyle and B.F. was

2871still a patient there.

287530. The specific factual allegations of the Administrative Complaints are

2885that on or about July 23, 2020, Ms. Volpe Ñemailed patient B.F. photos of

2899herself which were sexual in nature, incl uding of her breasts and/or

2911buttocks,Ò and that Ms. Volpe again treated B.F. at FMC Argyle on or about

2926July 27, 2020. Based on all the evidence, it is found that the Department

2940proved these factual allegations by clear and convincing evidence and thereby

2951p roved that Ms. Volpe violated section 456.072(1)(v) by engaging or

2962attempting to engage in sexual misconduct as defined and prohibited in

2973section 456.063(1).

297531. At times during her testimony, Ms. Volpe appeared abashed and

2986embarrassed by what she had don e. She conceded that the relationship with

2999B.F. was a mistake that she would never make again. She was fearful of

3013losing her licenses, which are her only source of income and for which she

3027still owes $40,000 in student loans. However, at other times , she w as oddly

3042defensive of her actions and argued that somehow the plain statutory

3053prohibition on sexual misconduct should not apply to her.

306232. Ms. Volpe testified as to the emotional turmoil she was experiencing at

3075the time of these events. Her long - term rel ationship was falling apart and

3090because of that she felt a kinship to B.F., who was undergoing his own

3104marital problems. She portrayed herself as having fallen prey to B.F.Ôs

3115smooth - talking charm at a time she was extremely vulnerable.

312633. By every indica tion, Ms. Volpe is an excellent APRN. Her medical

3139assistant at FMC Argyle, Taylor Daniels, testified that Ms. VolpeÔs patient

3150care was Ñamazing.Ò Ms. Daniels recalled B.F. as a patient and saw nothing

3163unusual occur between him and Ms. Volpe. Ms. Volpe subm itted numerous

3175statements from former colleagues, both nurses and physicians, attesting to

3185her skill, dedication, and consideration as a nurse. She conceded that the

3197authors of these statements were not aware of the nature of the charges

3210against her in thi s proceeding.

321634. Dmitriy Model, M.D., is the vice president of Avecina Medical,

3227Ms. VolpeÔs employer since March 2020. 4 Ms. Volpe testified that Dr. Model is

3241aware of the charges against her in these cases. Dr. Model submitted a letter

3255that glowingly desc ribed her as a Ñreliable, compassionate, and clinically

3266excellent provider.Ò She goes Ñabove and beyond in her patient care.Ò Dr.

3278Model described her as a Ñmodel employeeÒ whose Ñprofessional ethics are

3289above reproachÒ and who is Ñtrusted by myself and our management team

3301without reservation.Ò

3303C ONCLUSIONS OF L AW

330835. DOAH has jurisdiction of the subject matter of and the parties to this

3322proceeding. §§ 120.569 and 120.57(1), Fla. Stat.

332936. The Department, through the Board, is the entity charged with

3340establ ishing or modifying standards of practice for nurses and with the

3352licensure and discipline of nurses. §§ 464.004 and 464.018, Fla. Stat.

336337. This is a proceeding in which Petitioner seeks to discipline Ms. VolpeÔs

3376licenses to practice as an APRN and RN. Be cause disciplinary proceedings

3388are considered to be penal in nature, Petitioner is required to prove the

3401allegations in the Administrative Complaints by clear and convincing

3410evidence. DepÔt of Banking & Fin. v. Osborne Stern & Co., 60 So. 2d 932 (Fla.

34261996 ); Ferris v. Turlington , 510 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987).

343738. Clear and convincing evidence Ñrequires more proof than a

3447Ópreponderance of the evidenceÔ but less than Óbeyond and to the exclusion of a

34614 Ms. Volpe began working part time at Avecina Medical while she was still working full time

3478at FMC Argyle. When she left FMC Argyle in August 2020, she started working f ull time at

3496Avecina Medical.

3498reasonable doubt.ÔÒ In re Graziano , 696 So. 2d 744, 753 (Fl a. 1997). The

3512Florida Supreme Court further enunciated the standard:

3519This intermediate level of proof entails both a

3527qualitative and quantitative standard. The

3532evidence must be credible; the memories of the

3540witnesses must be clear and without confusion; an d

3549the sum total of the evidence must be of sufficient

3559weight to convince the trier of fact without

3567hesitancy.

3568Clear and convincing evidence requires that the

3575evidence must be found to be credible; the facts to

3585which the witnesses testify must be distinctl y

3593remembered; the testimony must be precise and

3600lacking in confusion as to the facts in issue. The

3610evidence must be of such a weight that it produces

3620in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or

3632conviction, without hesitancy, as to the truth of the

3641al legations sought to be established.

3647In re Davey , 645 So. 2d 398, 404 (Fla. 1994)(quoting Slomowitz v. Walker , 429

3661So. 2d 797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)). ÑAlthough this standard of proof may be

3676met where the evidence is in conflict, it seems to preclude evi dence that is

3691ambiguous.Ò Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Shuler Bros., 590 So. 2d 989 (Fla.

37031st DCA 1991).

370639. Section 456.072 is penal in nature and must be strictly construed, with

3719any ambiguity construed against Petitioner. Penal statutes must be

3728construed in terms of their literal meaning, and words used by the

3740Legislature may not be expanded to broaden the application of such statutes.

3752Beckett v. DepÔt of Fin. Servs. , 982 So. 2d 94, 100 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008); Latham

3768v. Fla. CommÔn on Ethics, 694 So. 2d 83 ( Fla. 1st DCA 1997).

378240. The allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint s are those

3794upon which this proceeding is predicated. Trevisani v. DepÔt of Health , 908 So.

38072d 1108, 1109 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005); Cottrill v. DepÔt of Ins. , 685 So. 2d 1371,

38231372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Due process prohibits Petitioner from taking

3834disciplinary action against a licensee based on matters not specifically alleged

3845in the charging instruments, unless those matters have been tried by

3856consent. See Shore Vill. Prop. OwnerÔs AssÔn v. DepÔt of Env Ô t Prot. , 824 So. 2d

3873208, 210 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Delk v. DepÔt of Pro . Reg ul . , 595 So. 2d 966, 967

3893(Fla. 5th DCA 1992).

389741. The Administrative Complaints seek to discipline Ms. Volpe on a

3908charge that she violated section 456.072(1)(v ), which provides:

3917(1) The following acts shall constitute grounds for

3925which the disciplinary actions specified in

3931subsection (2) may be taken:

3936* * *

3939(v) Engaging or attempting to engage in sexual

3947misconduct as defined and prohibited in

3953s. 456.063(1).

395542. Section 456.063(1) provides:

3959(1) Sexual misconduct in the practice of a health

3968care profession means violation of the professional

3975relationship through which the health care

3981practitioner uses such relationship to engage or

3988attempt to engage the patient or client, or an

3997immediate family member, guardian, or

4002representative of the patient or client in, or to

4011induce or attempt to induce such person to engage

4020in, verbal or physical sexual activity outside the

4028scope of the professional practice of such health

4036care profession. Sexual misconduct in the practice

4043of a health care profession is prohibited.

405043. The Administrative Complaints allege that Ms. Volpe engaged or

4060attempted to engage in sexual misconduct with patient B.F. by emailing him

4072photos of herself Ñwhich were sexual in nature, including of her breasts

4084and/or buttocks.Ò The Administrative Complaints allege that Ms. Volpe

4093treated B.F. before and after sending the photos to him.

410344. The Department proved by clear and convincing evidence that

4113Ms. Volpe committed the acts alleged and that her actions constituted sexual

4125misconduct in violation of section 456.072(1)(v).

413145. Section 464.018(2)(a) provides that the Board may enter an order

4142imposing any of the penalties in section 456.072(2) against any nurse who is

4155found guilty of violating section 456.072(1).

416146. Section 456.079(1) requires boards within the DepartmentÔs

4169jurisdiction to adopt Ñdisciplinary guidelines applicable to each ground for

4179disciplinary action which may be imposed by the board.Ò Penalti es imposed

4191must be consistent with any disciplinary guidelines prescribed by rule. See

4202Parrot Heads, Inc. v. DepÔt of Bus. & Pro. Reg ul . , 741 So. 2d 1231, 1233 - 34

4221(Fla. 5th DCA 1999). In compliance with the statutory mandate, the Board

4233has adopted Florida Administrative Code R ule 64B9 - 8.006, which sets forth

4246disciplinary guidelines, range of penalties, and aggravating and mitigating

4255circumstances for violations of section 456.072.

426147. Because the events in these cases occurred in 2020, the version of

4274rule 64B9 - 8.006 adopted on June 11, 2020, is applicable. 5 The specific

4288guidelines for violations of section 456.072(1)(v) are found at rule 64B9 -

43008.006 (3)(u) of the rule. The minimum penalty for a first offense is a $250 fine,

4316suspension, and IPN evaluation. 6 T he maximum penalty for a first offense is

4330a $500 fine and suspension, or revocation.

433748. Rule 64B9 - 8.006(5) permits the Board to deviate from the guidelines

4350upon a showing of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, which include ,

4360but are not limited to:

43655 The rule was subsequently amended on February 10, 2022.

43756 The Intervention Project for Nurses (ÑIPNÒ) is the BoardÔs impaired practitioner program

4388adopted pursuant to section 456.076. Section 456.076(1) defines ÑimpairmentÒ to mean Ñ a

4401potentially impairing health condition that is the result of the misuse or abuse of alcohol,

4416drugs, or both, or a mental or physical condition that could affect a practitionerÔs ability to

4432practice with skill and safety. Ò There was no evidence p resented that Ms. Volpe suffers from

4449an impairment. She has practiced with skill and distinction both before and after the episode

4464with B.F.

44661 . The danger to the public.

44732. Previous disciplinary action against the licensee

4480in this or any other jurisdiction.

44863. The length of time the licensee has practiced.

44954. The actual damage, physical or otherwise,

4502caused by the violation.

45065. The deterrent effect of the penalty imposed.

45146. Any efforts at rehabilitation.

45197. Attempts by the licensee to correct or stop

4528violations, or refusal by the licensee to correct or

4537stop violations.

45398. Cost of treatment.

45439. Financial hardship.

454610. Cost of disciplinar y proceedings.

455249. There appears to be little danger to the public posed by Ms. VolpeÔs

4566continued licensure. It is extremely unlikely that she will repeat her mistake,

4578given the consequences she has already suffered and those recommended

4588here. This factor is neutral in the consideration of whether to deviate from

4601the guidelines.

460350. There has been no previous disciplinary action against Ms. Volpe in

4615this or any other jurisdiction. This factor weighs in favor of mitigation.

462751. Ms. Volpe has practiced as an RN since 2003 and as an APRN since

46422017, with a clean disciplinary record and good job reviews. This factor

4654weighs in favor of mitigation.

465952. The Ñactual damageÒ caused by the violation appears to have been

4671suffered mostly by Ms. Volpe herself. B.F. did not blame her for his

4684marriageÔs dissolution, which appeared to have been well underway when he

4695met Ms. Volpe. This factor is neutral in the consideration of whether to

4708deviate from the guidelines.

471253. In mitigation of revocation, the undersigned recommend s a $500 fine

4724and a suspension of Ms. VolpeÔs APRN and RN licenses for one year. The

4738undersigned concludes that this penalty is appropriate considering the

4747underlying facts behind the violation and will have an adequate deterrent

4758effect on Ms. VolpeÔs futu re behavior. Revoking Ms. VolpeÔs license would be

4771draconian under all the circumstances. Prior to these cases, Ms. VolpeÔs

4782record as an APRN and RN was spotless. Her licenses are her sole source of

4797income and deprivation of that income for one year will b e sufficient to ensure

4812that she never makes a similar error.

481954. As to rehabilitation efforts, Ms. VolpeÔs counsel suggested at the

4830hearing that Ms. Volpe would be willing to submit to IPN for a psychosexual

4844evaluation. As noted in footnote 7 above, the u ndersigned does not conclude

4857that Ms. Volpe suffers from an Ñimpairment , Ò as defined by section

4869456.076(1). She exercised staggeringly poor judgment by throwing herself

4878into an affair with a patient, but that poor judgment did not and should not

4893in the fut ure affect her ability to practice with skill and safety. This factor is

4909neutral in the consideration of whether to deviate from the guidelines.

492055. The factor of licensee efforts to correct or stop violations is not

4933applicable and therefore neutral.

493756. T he Ñcost of treatmentÒ factor is not applicable and therefore neutral.

495057. Revocation would cause insuperable financial hardship to Ms. Volpe

4960and is a reason why the undersigned recommends the lesser penalty of a

4973$500 fine and one year suspension in mitiga tion of the revocation penalty. A

4987one year suspension will impose a significant financial burden, appropriate to

4998the violation she committed, without permanently depriving Ms. Volpe of her

5009livelihood and the public of her services as a skilled APRN.

502058. Se ction 456.072(4) provides that, in addition to any other discipline

5032imposed for violation of a practice act, any board under the DepartmentÔs

5044jurisdiction shall assess costs related to the investigation and prosecution of

5055the case. The Board should therefo re also assess the costs of the

5068DepartmentÔs investigation and prosecution of Respondent in this matter.

5077R ECOMMENDATION

5079Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is

5092R ECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Board of Nursing, is sue a

5105final order: finding that Respondent violated section 456.072(1)(v) by

5114engaging or attempting to engage in sexual misconduct as defined and

5125prohibited in section 456.063(1); imposing a fine of $500; suspending

5135RespondentÔs licenses for a period of on e year; and assessing the costs of the

5150DepartmentÔs investigation and prosecution of Respondent.

5156D ONE A ND E NTERED this 23rd day of September , 2022 , in Tallahassee,

5170Leon County, Florida.

5173S

5174L AWRENCE P. S TEVENSON

5179Administrative Law Judge

51821230 Apalachee Pa rkway

5186Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

5191(850) 488 - 9675

5195www.doah.state.fl.us

5196Filed with the Clerk of the

5202Division of Administrative Hearings

5206this 23rd day of September , 2022 .

5213C OPIES F URNISHED :

5218Megan M. Blancho, Esquire Philip Aaron Crawford, Esquire

5226(eServed) (eServed)

5228Shannon Nelson, Esquire Joe Baker, Jr., Executive Director

5236( eServed) (eServed)

5239Deborah McKeen, BS, CD - LPN John Wilson, General Counsel

5249Board Chair (eServed)

5252(Address of Record)

5255N OTICE OF R IGHT T O S UBMIT E XCEPTIONS

5266All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within 15 days from

5279the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended

5290Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the Final Order in this

5305case.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
PDF
Date
Proceedings
PDF:
Date: 09/23/2022
Proceedings: Recommended Order
PDF:
Date: 09/23/2022
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
PDF:
Date: 09/23/2022
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held June 28 and August 18, 2022). CASE CLOSED.
PDF:
Date: 09/08/2022
Proceedings: Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 09/08/2022
Proceedings: Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/29/2022
Proceedings: Notice of Final Hearing Transcript.
PDF:
Date: 08/29/2022
Proceedings: Transcript of Proceedings (Volume II, not available for viewing) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/29/2022
Proceedings: Transcript of Proceedings (Volume I, not available for viewing) filed.
PDF:
Date: 08/19/2022
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
Date: 08/18/2022
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
PDF:
Date: 07/18/2022
Proceedings: Notice of Court Reporter filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/08/2022
Proceedings: Order Rescheduling Hearing by Zoom Conference (hearing set for August 18, 2022; 9:30 a.m., Eastern Time).
PDF:
Date: 07/07/2022
Proceedings: Joint Status Update filed.
PDF:
Date: 07/06/2022
Proceedings: Order Continuing Final Hearing (parties to advise status by July 8, 2022).
Date: 06/28/2022
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Partially Held; continued to date not certain.
PDF:
Date: 06/24/2022
Proceedings: Motion to Determine Confidential Information Within Court Filing filed.
Date: 06/24/2022
Proceedings: Petitioner's Response to Respondent's Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert Testimony of Barbara Thomason, APRN filed.  Confidential document; not available for viewing.
PDF:
Date: 06/23/2022
Proceedings: Amended Respondent's Notice of Filing Exhibits (amended to include 4f) filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/23/2022
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
PDF:
Date: 06/22/2022
Proceedings: Respondent's, Jessica R. Volpe, RN, APRN's Motion in Limine to Exclude Expert Testimony of Barbara Thomason, APRN filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/21/2022
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Petitioner's Proposed Exhibits filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/21/2022
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
PDF:
Date: 06/21/2022
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
PDF:
Date: 06/21/2022
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
PDF:
Date: 06/21/2022
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
PDF:
Date: 06/21/2022
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
PDF:
Date: 06/21/2022
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
PDF:
Date: 06/21/2022
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
PDF:
Date: 06/21/2022
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
PDF:
Date: 06/21/2022
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
PDF:
Date: 06/21/2022
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
PDF:
Date: 06/21/2022
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
PDF:
Date: 06/21/2022
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
PDF:
Date: 06/21/2022
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
PDF:
Date: 06/21/2022
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
PDF:
Date: 06/21/2022
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
PDF:
Date: 06/21/2022
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
PDF:
Date: 06/21/2022
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
PDF:
Date: 06/21/2022
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
PDF:
Date: 06/21/2022
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
PDF:
Date: 06/21/2022
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
PDF:
Date: 06/21/2022
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
PDF:
Date: 06/21/2022
Proceedings: Amended Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation filed.
Date: 06/21/2022
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
Date: 06/21/2022
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
Date: 06/21/2022
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
Date: 06/21/2022
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
Date: 06/21/2022
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Proposed Exhibits filed (exhibits not available for viewing).
PDF:
Date: 06/21/2022
Proceedings: Respondent's Notice of Filing Exhibits filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/16/2022
Proceedings: Joint Pre-Hearing Stipulation filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/16/2022
Proceedings: Petitioner's Motion for Official Recognition filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/13/2022
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition in Lieu of Live Testimony filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/09/2022
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/09/2022
Proceedings: Notice of Intent to Seek Admission of Records Pursuant to Section 90.803(6)(c), Florida Statutes filed.
PDF:
Date: 06/02/2022
Proceedings: Notice of Serving Petitioner's Response to Respondent's First Request Admissions, First Set of Interrogatories, and First Request for Production filed.
Date: 06/01/2022
Proceedings: Verified Return of Service filed by Respondent.  Confidential document; not available for viewing.
PDF:
Date: 05/27/2022
Proceedings: Respondent's Jessica R. Volpe, RN, APRN's Request for Judicial Notice filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/26/2022
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition (Volpe) filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/19/2022
Proceedings: Notice of Respondent's First Supplemental Answers to Petitioner's First Request for Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/13/2022
Proceedings: Notice of Respondent's Second Supplemental Responses to Petitioner's First Request for Production of Documents filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/11/2022
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Petitioner's First Request for Admissions, First Set of Interrogatories, and First Request for Production filed.
PDF:
Date: 05/10/2022
Proceedings: Order Rescheduling Hearing (hearing set for June 28, 2022; 9:00 a.m., Eastern Time; Jacksonville).
PDF:
Date: 05/02/2022
Proceedings: Joint Status Update filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/28/2022
Proceedings: Notice of Respondent's First Supplemental Responses to Petitioner's First Request for Production of Documents (filed in Case No. 22-000854PL).
PDF:
Date: 04/27/2022
Proceedings: Notice of Respondent's First Supplemental Responses to Petitioner's First Request for Production of Documents filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/20/2022
Proceedings: Notice of Cancellation of Deposition filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/20/2022
Proceedings: Order Granting Continuance (parties to advise status by May 2, 2022).
PDF:
Date: 04/20/2022
Proceedings: Notice of Respondent's Responses to Petitioner's Request for Production of Documents filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/20/2022
Proceedings: Notice of Respondent's Answers to Petitioner's Request for Admissions filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/20/2022
Proceedings: Notice of Respondent's Answers to Petitioner's Request for Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/20/2022
Proceedings: Notice of Respondent's Responses to Petitioner's Request for Production of Documents filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/20/2022
Proceedings: Notice of Respondent's Answer to Petitioner's Request for Admissions filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/20/2022
Proceedings: Notice of Respondent's Answers to Petitioner's Request for Interrogatories filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/18/2022
Proceedings: Motion for Continuance of Final Hearing filed.
PDF:
Date: 04/12/2022
Proceedings: Respondent's Jessica R. Volpe, A.P.R.N.'s First Set of Interrogatories, First Request for Production of Documents, and First Set of Admissions filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/30/2022
Proceedings: Notice of Taking Deposition (Volpe) filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/29/2022
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for May 25, 2022; 9:00 a.m., Eastern Time; Jacksonville).
PDF:
Date: 03/29/2022
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
PDF:
Date: 03/28/2022
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Megan Blancho) filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/25/2022
Proceedings: Joint Response to Initial Order filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/23/2022
Proceedings: Notice of Appearance (Shannon Nelson) filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/22/2022
Proceedings: Initial Order (DOAH Case No. 22-0854).
PDF:
Date: 03/22/2022
Proceedings: Initial Order (DOAH Case No. 22-0853).
PDF:
Date: 03/22/2022
Proceedings: Order of Consolidation (DOAH Case Nos. 22-0853 and 22-0854)
PDF:
Date: 03/21/2022
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Petitioner's First Request for Admissions, First Set of Interrogatories, and First Request for Production filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/18/2022
Proceedings: Election of Rights filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/18/2022
Proceedings: Administrative Complaint filed.
PDF:
Date: 03/18/2022
Proceedings: Agency referral filed.

Case Information

Judge:
LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON
Date Filed:
03/18/2022
Date Assignment:
03/22/2022
Last Docket Entry:
09/23/2022
Location:
Jacksonville, Florida
District:
Northern
Agency:
Department of Health
Suffix:
PL
 

Counsels

Related Florida Statute(s) (8):