SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR

8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR

1/74

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE

STATE OF FLORIDA

NEIL J. GILLESPIE

Petitioner, Case No.: SC11-1622

Lower Tribunal No(s).: 2D10-5197

05-CA-7205

vs.

BARKER, RODEMS & COOK, P.A. and

William J. Cook,

Respondents.

________________________________________/

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

APPENDIX, VOLUME 14

Respondents’ Representation of Petitioner in Florida Vocational Rehabilitation

Exhibit 1 2001, 03-22-01, Letter, Gillespie to Mr. Cook, Barker, Rodems &

Cook, Florida Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR), DLES CASE NO: 98-066-DVR

Exhibit 2 Second Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing, 06-07-98

Exhibit 3 Third Amended Petition for Administrative Hearing, 07-02-98

Exhibit 4 Petitioner’s Motion for Final Summary Order, 10-02-98

Exhibit 5 Petitioner’s Notice of Withdrawal Of Request for Hearing, 11-09-98

Exhibit 6 Order Dismissing and Closing the File, Final Order, 11-12-98

Exhibit 7 2001, 03-27-01, Mr. Cook, Barker, Rodems & Cook, to Gillespie, re DVR


2/74

•

Neil

J

illespie

1121 Beach Drive NE, Apt. C-2

St. Petersburg, Florida 33701-1434

Telephone and Fax: (727) 823-2390

March 22, 2001

William

1

Cook, Attorney at

Law

Barker, Rodems Cook, PA

300 West Platt Street, Suite 150

Tampa, Florida 33606

Dear Bill,

Thank you for agreeing

to

consider my claim

of

discrimination/negligence against

the State of Florida and its Vocational Rehabilitation Program. Enclosed please find the

following:

1 My

Second nd Third

(final)

Amended Petitions for Administrative Hearing

These documents set forth much of my claim.

2. My Motionfor Summary Final Order The Administrative Law Judge (Johnston)

failed

to

rule on my motion. The

state s

response was

to

try and expand the issues and

compel another psychiatric exam. Seeing this was going nowhere, I motioned to

withdrawal the request. (See my motion, the order and

final

order, enclosed).

3. October 5, 1998 letter from Douglas Ligibel, Fla. DVR. This addendum letter

sets forth the

state s

claim that I was

not

cooperative as a reason to deny services.

4. Binder with the Fla. Vocational Rehabilitation web site printed out. (not current)

5 Photo of me taken June 6, 1994 (at 150 pounds) before afilicted with depression

(current weight 290 pounds).

6. A briefmedical history relevant

to VR.

In essence, the state discriminated against me based on disability and refused

services as set forth in the petitions.

As

a result I became severely depressed. The state is

negligent because its own psychologist (Dr. Justice) warned of my depression risk, a

warning the state ignored. The state also misdiagnosed my condition(s). There may be a

breach ofprivacy relevant to my file. During the time referenced by Mr. Ligibel in his

October 5, 1998 letter (item 3, above) my contact with the state was monitored by a

private lawyer, Mark Kamleiter, who disputes the allegations contained therein.

N e ~ f : ~ ~

en

o s u r ~ i

t

Ps. Bill, these are mostly original documents, please copy and return needed. Thanks.

1


3/74

RECEIVED

M R 2001

BY


4/74

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

NEIL

J

GILLESPIE,

Petitioner,

vs.

DLES CASE NO: 98-066-DVR

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND

~ O Y M N T

SECURITY, DIVISION

OF VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION,

Respondent.

SECOND AMENDED PETITION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING

NEIL J GILLESPIE petitions the Division ofAdministrative Hearings for an

administrative hearing against the DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND ~ O Y M N T

SECURITY, DIVISION OF VOCATIONAL REHABILITION, Respondent.

I. nterest in Action

Petitioner is Neil

J

Gillespie, 1121 Beach Drive NE, Apt., C-2, St. Petersburg,

Florida, 33701-1434. Respondent's determination affects peti tioner's substantial interests

by denying

him

the vocational rehabilitation services he needs

to

return to employment.

II. Notice

of

Agency Decision

Respondent notified petitioner

of

its decision on December 4, 1997, by letter.

(Attached as Exhibit 1). Respondent's employee, Douglas M.

i g i e ~

Vocational

Rehabilitation Consultant, hand delivered the letter to petitioner during a meeting at the

Division ofVocational Rehabilitation (DVR) office located at 3251 3

r

Ave. North,

St. Petersburg, Florida. The meeting was

also

attended by petitioner's representative, Mark

Kamleiter, Attorney at Law, and another DVR employee.

Page - 1

2


5/74


6/74

In an effort to secure competitive employment consistent with his unique strengths,

priorities, concerns, abilities, capabilities, career interests, and informed choice, petitioner

applied for VR services with respondent on May 17, 1993. During the course

of

contacts

between the parties, respondent acted unlawfully in the provision

ofVR

services to

petitioner. Respondent 's unlawful behavior ultimately led petitioner to contact the Client

Assistance Program (CAP) for assistance. The CAP interceded

on

petit ioner's behalf:

compelling respondent

to

develop an Individual Written Rehabilitation Program

~ W R P ,

which it signed with petitioner on March 29, 1994. The IWRP lists petitioner's vocational

goal as General Practitioner. (Attached as Exhibit 2). Respondent also prepared a

vocational screening supporting petitioner's vocational retraining and medical restoration.

(Attached as Exhibit 3). Nonetheless, the

WRP

was never implemented, and now, four

years later, respondent 's internal case notes reveal it as a sham, a smoking gun document

pointing toward respondent's unlawful and discriminatory behavior.

n

his original application for

VR

services, petitioner sought restoration

of

a physical

disability (speech) which respondent interpreted as

an

indication ofa psychological disorder

and chose not

to

accommodate. n assessing peti tioner's physical disability and treatment

options, respondent's employees became angry with petitioner over his request

to

make

informed choices. One of respondent's internal documents refers

to

petit ioner's disability

with an offensive epitaph instead

of

appropriate medical terminology. Respondent's

psychologist complained about petitioner' s disability determination by Social Security

during the assessment process. Respondent's own statistics reveal that speech disabilities

are its least served category of

disability, more smoking

gun

documentary evidence that

petitioner was in a class

of

persons not served, or under served, by DVR.

Page - 3


7/74

Respondent's unlawful behavior toward petitioner severely damaged the agency

client relationship. Respondent's employee counseled petitioner to seek services n a more

liberal state. Respondent also viewed petitioner as a non-Floridian with insufficient·

residency to receive services. Petitioner ultimately went to l y m p ~ s h i n g t o ~ where in

October, 1994, he was promptly determined eligible for

VR

services

on

the basis

of

the

same medical and psychological data available to Florida DVR. Petitioner obtained a year of

college training through the Washington

VR r o r ~

and other services. Petitioner also

obtained a temporary speech prosthesis through Medicare After meeting

all

terms and

conditions

of

his plan, petitioner returned to his home in Florida where he currently resides.

Upon arriving in St. Petersburg petitioner again sought the VR services he needs to

obtain competitive employment consistent with his unique strengths, priorities, concerns,

abilities, capabilities, career interests, and informed choice.

To

facilitate the process,

petitioner obtained the assistance

of

a

p r s ~ n l

representative, but to no avail. The Client

Assistance Program has once again determined that respondent acted unlawfully toward

petitioner. CAP determined that the current case closure

is

unlawful. Petitioner has filed a

charge ofdisability discrimination against respondent with the EEOC because respondent

admits that it closed petitioners case because

of

its perception ofhis disability.

v Respondent's Determination s Unlawful

A.

Petitioner

is

eligible for

VR

services as a matter

of

law.

1

. Petitioner receives Social Security Disability benefits pursuant to

Title II of the Social Security Act. Petitioner is therefore eligible for VR

services pursuant to Florida statutory law, FS § 413.30, Eligibility for

vocational rehabilitation services.

Page - 4


8/74

a.

FS § 413.30(1) states,

A

person

is

eligible for vocational

rehabilitation

if

the person

h s

a disability and requires vocational

rehabilitation services to prepare for, enter, engage

in

or

retain gainful

employment. Petitioner meets this criteria ab initio, because FS § 413.30(2)

states (substantive portion) Individuals determined to have a disability

pursuant to either Title II or Title XVI of the Social Security Act shall be

considered to have a physical or mental impairment that constitutes

or

results in a substantial impediment to employment and a severe physical

or

mental impairment that seriously limits one

or

more functional capacities in

terms

of

an employment outcome.

b.

Petitioner

is

presumed to benefit from

VR

services pursuant to

FS § 413.30(3) which states,

An

individual shall be presumed to benefit in

terms

of

an employment outcome from vocational rehabilitation services

under this part unless the division can demonstrate by clear and convincing

evidence that the individual is incapable

of

benefiting from vocational

rehabilitation services in terms

of

an employment outcome. To demonstrate

that an individual cannot benefit from vocational rehabilitation services due

to the severity

of

the individual's disability, the division shall conduct an

extended evaluation, not to exceed 18 months. The evaluation must

determine the eligibility

of the individual and the nature and scope

of

needed

vocational rehabilitation services. The extended evaluation must be reviewed

once every 90 days to determine whether the individual is eligible for

vocational rehabilitation services.

Page - 5


9/74

c. Respondent has not demonstrated by clear and convincing

evidence that petitioner is too severely disabled for

VR

services to result in

employment. Petitioner seeks a review

of

the rehabilitation counselor

determination pursuant to 34 CFR

§

361.57.

VI. Evidence

of

respondent's unlawful

and

discriminatory behavior.

A Petitioner receives copies is VR files and internal case notes.

1 Excerpt from case notes

of

Robert E. Williams, VR Counselor:

a. 7/15/93 I also felt that a congenital disability and extensive

surgeries have had psychological effects that need to be explored.

i Respondent was hostile to petitioner's exercise of informed

choice pursuant to 34 CFR

§

361.52.

ii Respondent failed to assess petitioner consistent with is

strengths, resources, priorities, concerns, abilities,

capabilities, and informed choice, pursuant to 34 CFR

§

361.42(a)(1)and(2) and § 361.45.

2. Respondent used an offensive epithet to describe petitioner's

disability instead

of

appropriate medical terminology.

a. Respondent described petitioner's primary disability as cleft

palate/harelip on its vocational rehabilitation acceptance form dated

7/30/93. The term harelip is offensive and not appropriate medical

terminology.

Page - 6


10/74

3.

Respondent's

psychological assessments of petitioner are negligent,

discriminatory, and without informed choice pursuant to 34 CFR § 361.52.

a. Negligent assessments

produced

different diagnoses from the same

facts, and the lack of an accurate diagnosis has harmed petitioner.

b.

Respondent's

psychologist challenged petitioner's Social Security

determination during assessment, a move hostile to FS § 413.30 (2).

4. Excerpts from case notes

of

Brad

Meyer,

VR

Counselor:

a. 9/1/93 In any event there appears to be severe damage between

the relationship of the agency to this client.

i This damage stems from respondent's unlawful behavior

described above in VI.(A)(I)(a)(i) and (ii).

Respondent's

behavior inflicted psychological injury on petitioner.

b. 3/24/94

There was

some discussion about commuting for medical

care and continuing to reside here. This option is

still

open.

i This

option

was necessary because

of

the severe damage to

the client relationship.

c. 3/29/94 I

informed Tessie [sic] I would write

an

IWRP for

planning purposes only

and

it would labeled as such. This

IWRP

would be a working document and would

not

bind the agency

n

any

way.

i Because respondent acted unlawfully toward him, petitioner

contacted the Client Assistance Program (CAP) for help.

Page

- 7


11/74

ii. Tessa (Mary Little), a CAP employee, interceded on

petitioner's behalf: resulting in the development ofan IWRP.

iii.

The IWRP was not labeled for planning purposes only,

and was presented to petitioner as a bona fide document

binding the agency. Moreover, petitioner was never notified

ofhis

case closure pursuant to this IWRP, which provides for

services through February, 2003. (Exh. 2).

d. 6/1/94 Mr. Gillespie contacts me and informs me not to close his

case as he will be returning to Florida.

i Respondent is kept informed

of

petitioner's whereabouts

and his continued interest in vocational rehabilitation.

e. 6/10/94 Mr. Gillespie contacts the office indicating he

will

be

returning to Florida We discussed at length the pros and cons of

coming back to Florida. Neil is still exploring options

of

moving to

the State

o f s h i n g t o ~

where residency and

V

services are more

liberal.

i Respondent counsels petitioner not to return to Florida and

to seek services in a more liberal state. Respondent's action

is contrary to the Supremacy Clause of the United States

Constitution (Article VI) and the fourteenth amendment.

li. ...once a state elects to establish a program ofpublic

assistance, it must meet constitutional standards, and may not

Page - 8


12/74

arbitrarily deny to some of its citizens the benefits of such a

program (57 Fla Jur 2d, Welfare, page 37).

5

Petitioner received VR services in the State

of

Washington.

a. Washington

DVR

provided services to petitioner

on

the basis

of

the same medical and psychological data available to Florida DVR.

Washington

DVR

promptly determined petitioner eligible for

services, and his

file

indicates that he met all program requirements.

6. Petitioner returned to his home in St. Petersburg,

l o r i ~

November,

1996, and contacted respondent to continue the VR process.

a Respondent's Mirror Lake DVR office failed to process and assess

petitioner pursuant to FS § 413.30(2) and (3). Instead, respondent

sent petitioner to its Pinellas Park

DVR

office.

b. On December 16, 1996, petitioner met with respondent's

employee Eugene Marbeiter in its Pinellas Park

DVR

office.

Mr.

Marbeiter refused to process and assess petitioner pursuant to FS §

413.30(2) and (3). Mr. Marbeiter greeted petitioner's efforts with

fighting words, inflicting psychological injury on petitioner.

c. On January 15, 1997, respondent's employee Tracy Van Ess wrote

petitioner a letter that was clearly offensive. Respondent's clearly

offensive letter inflicted psychological injury on petitioner.

d. Petitioner's attorney responded to the unlawful behavior cited in

the preceding three paragraphs by letter dated March 17, 1997.

(Attached as Exhibit 4).

Page - 9


13/74

7 Petitioner's current case: Douglas M. Ligibel acts unlawfully.

a Respondent failed to process and assess petitioner pursuant to FS

§ 413.30 (2) and (3). Mr. Ligibel unlawfully required petitioner to

document

his

disability above and beyond the Social Security

determination prescribed by FS § 413.30 (2). Mr. Ligibel unlawfully

closed petitioner's case as

too

severe without demonstrating the

clear and convincing evidence required by FS § 413.30 (3).

b

Respondent failed to allow petitioner the opportunity

to

make

informed choices pursuant

to

34

CFR §

361.52 concerning

assessment services.

i Petitioner's IWRP dated July 31, 1997, was made without

informed choice. Petitioner disaffirmed the document the

following day by telephone call to Mr. Ligibel, and by letter

to

him

dated August 3, 1997.

c. Mr. Ligibel failed

to

develop

an

IWRP with petitioner pursuant

to

34 CFR § 361.45 and 361.46.

d. Information in petitioner's record

of

services is inaccurate or

misleading, specifically Mr. Ligibel's case notes regarding:

i

Petitioner 's historical information concerning employment,

e d u t i o ~ medical, personal and other data.

li

Petitioner's current case information.

e. Some information and documents in petitioner's record of services

were obtained under false pretenses, including documents and

Page - 10


14/74

information obtained in conjunction with respondent's demand that

petitioner meet eligibility standards other or above and beyond,

those set forth by FS

§

413.30 (2) and (3).

£

Mr.

Ligibel's behavior was hostile and outrageous dwing the

December 4, 1997, meeting pursuant to

FR §

361.43 (a). (This

example is illustrative and not inclusive).

i Mr.

Ligibel stated that petitioner's dismissal from

ajob

with

Yellow Cab Company was evidence that he was ' 'too severely

disabled," even though petitioner's exposure

to

second hand

tobacco smoke while working made

him ill

Respondent's

position violates the Americans with Disabilities Act.

li Mr.

Ligibel rejected petitioner's plea that the

job

was a

health hazard because the company ignored the Florida Clean

Indoor

ir

Act, FS

§

386.

Mr.

Ligibel's callous disregard for

petitioner's health inflicted psychological injury

on

him

iii

Petitioner wants the record

to

reflect that he sued the cab

company pro se over the dismissal and prevailed at trial. A

copy of the Final Judgment

s

attached as Exhibit 5.

iv. Petitioner also wants the record

to

reflect that Florida

State Representative Margo Fischer supports petitioner's

position relative

to

the Florida Clean Indoor

Air

Act and the

cab company. A copy ofher letter is attached as Exhibit 6.

Page -

11


15/74

B

Respondent refuses to provide petitioner the

VR

services he needs to

return to competitive employment and contribute to society.

1

Respondent interpreted petitioner's initial 1993 request for treatment

of a physical disability (speech) as an indication

of

a mental disorder which

respondent chose not to accommodate.

2. Speech disabilities are the least served disability by respondent, and

its 1996 statistics show that only

21

individuals with speech disabilities were

rehabilitated out

of

a total

of

8,850 persons rehabilitated.

DVR

speech

rehabilitation amounts to less that

of

1

%

of

all

persons it rehabilitated.

3. Respondent continues to unlawfully deny petitioner

VR

services

because of its interpretation ofhis disability. Respondent's December 4,

1997, letter to petitioner states the following:

It

has been determined that

you are not eligible for vocational rehabilitation services because your

disability is too severe at this time for rehabilitation services to result in

employment.

4. Respondent has

an

obligation under the 1973 Rehabilitation Act, as

amended, to serve individuals with most severe disabilities.

5. Respondent has acted n bad faith toward petitioner throughout the

vocational rehabilitation process.

In

addition to the information already

provided, respondent views petitioner as a non-Floridian with insufficient

residency, a violation of34 CFR § 361.42(b)(I).

Page - 12


16/74


17/74

WHEREFORE petitioner demands the following relief:

1 Notification to the Secretary pursuant to 34 FR § 361.1 (a)(2) to withhold

funds because in the administration of the State plan there

h s

been a failure to

comply substantially with provisions of the plan. (And to withhold funds until such

time as respondent fully complies with the State plan and 1973 Rehabilitation Act).

2. Stop the closure

of

petitioner s case, provide

him

a change

of

counselor, and

implement petitioner s IWRP attached hereto as Exhibit 2.

3. In the alternative to providing the relief requested in paragraph two of the

prayer for relief: respondent shall compensate petitioner for his losses suffered,

under any of the following: the Americans with Disabilities Act (as amended), The

1973 Rehabilitation Act (as amended), the Civil Rights Act of

1964 (as amended),

FS § 760, Civil Rights, and any

other

means available.

4. Amend petitioner s record of services to correct inaccurate and

misleading information pursuant to 34

FR

§

361.38(c)(4). Petitioner demands the

following:

a. Removal of inaccurate information from peti tioner s case notes, file,

or

other storage medium, with a notation in the file of this action.

b. Removal from pet itioner s file all documents obtained by respondent from

petitioner under false pretenses, including documents and information obtained in

conjunction with respondent s demand that petitioner meet eligibility standards other

than,

or

above and beyond, those set forth by FS § 413 (2) and (3). Petitioner

demands return of the information and documents, and destruction of all copies in

respondent s possession, with a notation in the file of this action.

Page - 14


18/74

c Clarification o misleading information in the case notes, with a notation in

the

file

o this action.

d Inclusion

o

education records pursuant to 34 CFR

§

361.42 (c)(1),

specifically comments from narrative academic evaluations.

e

Inclusion o comments from petitioner's work site assessment, pursuant to

34 CFR

§

361.42 (c)(2), with Kelly Services, specifically that his supervisor found

him

to e great , reliable , and one o her favorites , and that Mr. Gillespie was

always available when she called and looks forward to working with

him

again.

5 Transportation pursuant to 34 CFR

§

361.48 (a)(8), in connection with the

travel and relocation expenses required to obtain vocatiorial rehabilitation services in

Washington State. Respondent's employee counseled petitioner to relocate and

obtain services in a liberal state. Out-of-State services are authorized under 34

CFR

§

361.50. Petitioner demands $5,012.

6. Maintenance pursuant to 34 CFR

§

361.48 (a)(7),

in

connection with the

extraordinary expenses that petitioner incurred by participating in vocational

rehabilitation services in Washington State. Respondent's employee counseled

petitioner to relocate and obtain services in a liberal state. Out-of-State services

are authorized under 34 CFR

§

361.50. Petitioner demands $7,451.

7 Physical restoration services pursuant to 34 CFR

§

361.48 (a)(5) for

services needed relative to petitioner's speech prosthesis, and as provided in

petitioner's IWRP attached as Exhibit 2. Petitioner demands $950.

8

Tuition and books for petitioner's current studies at St. Petersburg Junior

College, pursuant to 34 CFR

§

361.48 (a)(6). Petitioner's IWRP, attached as

Page -

15


19/74

Exhibit 2, provides for tuition, books, and supplies through May, 2002, provided he

maintain a 3.0

GPA

Petitioner's

GPA s

3.2. Petitioner demands 1,634.

9. Reimbursement

of

costs paid to Operation

PAR

authorized by Mr. Ligibel

n

is

December 4, 1997, letter. (Exh. 1). Petitioner demands 110.

10. Costs

of

postage, copying, and telephone calls, This

expense

s

provided for by Maintenance,

4 CFR §

361.28(a)(7).

11. Petitioner demands protection and relief under FS

§

415 et seq., Adult

Protective Services Act, for the nonaccidental infliction

of

psychological injury

on

petitioner by respondent's social workers.

12. Expense incurred

to

Mark S. Kamleiter, Attorney

at

Law, petitioner's

personal representative. Services required

to

participate n the

VR

program because

of

respondent's prior unlawful and discriminatory behavior, and

the

nonaccidental

infliction

of

psychological injury

on

petitioner by respondent's social workers. (Exh.

4). This expense is provided for by Maintenance,

4 CFR

§ 361.28(a)(7). Petitioner

demands 1278.

13. All remedies available to petitioner for respondent's unlawful and

discriminatory acts including, but not limited to, tort law, the Americans with

Disabilities Act (as amended), The 1973 Rehabilitation Act (as amended), the Civil

Rights Act

of

1964 (as amended), and FS

§

760 et seq., Civil Rights.

14. All remedies available to petitioner for respondent 's infliction of

psychological injury including, but not limited to, tort law, the Americans with

Disabilities Act (as amended), The 1973 Rehabilitation Act (as amended), the Civil

Page - 16


20/74

Rights Act of 1964 (as amended), FS § 760 et seq., Civil Rights, and FS § 415 et

seq., Adult Protective Services.

15. Punitive damages as permitted by law to punish and discourage respondent s

outrageous, unlawfu4 and discriminatory behavior.

Certificate of Service

~ R Y

CERTIFY that a true and correct copy hereofh s been furnished by

United States Express Mail, Return Receipt Requested, Article Number EI727514856US,

to: Michael A Greif: Senior Attorney, Florida Department of Labor and Employment

Security, The Hartman Building, Suite 307, 2012 Capital Circle, S.E., Tallahassee, l o r i ~

32399-2189, this 7th day of June, 1998.

Page - 17


21/74

xhibit1


22/74

Florida Department of Labor and Employment Security

Division t VOCItionai Rehabil itlti on

Bay Park Exeaaive

rt r

18840

us 19

N St

•

420

CleerwIt....

FL 33764

Phone: (813) 538-7220 Fcc (813) 538 n17

December 4,1997

Neil Gillespie

1121 Beach Dr. N. E. Apt. C-2

St. Petersburg,

FL

33701

Dear Neil:

During our meeting we thoroughly reviewed and discussed your evaluation reports. It has been

determined that you are not eligible for vocational rehabilitation services because your disability is too

severe

at

this

time

for rehabilitation services

to

result in. employment. This decision

was

reached

12/4/1997. .

Should you not agree with this decision, you have the right

to

appeal. You have 21 days after receipt of

this letter

to

appeal by requesting, in writing, an Adminis trative Review with

the

Distri ct Director, Mar ia O.

Risco, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, 4221 North Himes Avenue, Suite 205, Tampa, FI. 33607

6209.

In

the

event you are still not satisfied after

the

Administrative Review or you wish

to

skip

the

Administrative

Review, you may request a Fair Hearing conducted by the Division of Administrative Hearings by filing a

petition

for

a Fair Hearing with Ms. Tainara Allen, Director, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation 2002 Old

St. Augustine Road, Bid. A, Tallahassee, FI

32399-0696 within 21

days

after

your

receipt

of this

letter or

if

you had an Administrative Review, within

21

days after your receipt of the Administrative Review decision

letter.

If you need advice, assistance or an explanation of your rights, you may contact the Client Assistance

Program

at

1-800/342-0823 (voice) or 1-8001346-4127(TDD). Their address is 2671 Executive Center

West, Suite 100,

Webster

Bid., Tallahassee, Florida 32301.

This

is a federally funded program

to

assure

that you understand your rights.

I believe that the following agencies could be of assistance

to

you and I would strongly encourage you

to

contact them for help.

1.

Suncoast Center for Community Mental Health 4040 Central Av. St. Petersburg,

FL

327-7656 Individual

&

Group Therapy

2. Directions for Mental Health 1437 Belcher Rd. Clearwater, FL Individual & Group Therapy 524-4464

3. Operation PAR Adult Outpatient 4914 Creekside Dr ive Clearwater, FL 570-5085

4. Sunshine Behavioral Health Services, Inc. 4908 B Creekside Drive Clearwater, FL 573-9797

5.

Gulf

Coast

Community

140411cot Blvd. Clearwater,

FL

538-7460

6. Morton Plant Mease Health Care 323 Jeffords St. Clearwater, FL 469-5499

7. Family Service Centers 120866

Street N. St. Petersburg,

FL

Central Intake 536-9427 (Sliding

Scale) does not accept Medicare at this time.

8. If your condition changes and you believe you are ready to secure employment you

may

reapply for

services. In any event your record will be reviewed in

one

year

to

determine the feasibility of you

returning

to

work.

Sincerely.

: : : C b ~ Vocational

Rohabll;tation

Consultant

Florida Telephcmc Relay System TOO 1 · 8 0 0 - 9 ~ ~ - 8 7 7 1 • Voice

1 · 8 ) ) 9 ~ ~ · 8 7 7 0


23/74

xhibit

2


24/74

~ : . Division 01 Vocational HchllLJllltallOI1

. ~ INDIVIDUALIZED WRITTEN REHABILITATION PROGRAM

= = = = =

,

,

,

/,,/,.

. .

NAME NEIL GILLESPIE SOCIAL SECURITY

NO 160525117

You

have

been determined eligible for:

Extended

Evaluation" X Vocational

Rehabilitation Services Post-Employment Servic

Vocational Goal GENERAL

PRACTIONER

Amendment

1.

OBJECTIVe NEIL WILL BE

ABLE

TO

SPEAK

FOR UP TO 8

HOURS

WITHOUT

REST OR

COMPLAINT

OF

PAIN

AND

DETERIORATION

OF VOCAL

QUALITY

.

\

;'

EVALUATION CRITERIA:

NEIL

WILL EVIDENCE IMPROVED SPEAKING

ABILITY ND

INCREASED TOLERANCE

TO

SPEECH

AS

CONFIRMED BY CLIENT AND/OR

TREATING

PHYSICIAN REPORT

DURING

MONTHLY

VR GUIDANCE AND

COUNSELING SESSIONS.

Boginning

SERVICE(S)

dale

SURGERY DR.HABAL

MEDICAID/VR

6/9 J

H

OSPITALIZATION MEDICAID/VR

Bt9

.

A

NESTHESIA,LAB,XRAY MEDICAID/VR

a/94

M

EDICATIONS

MEDICAID/VR

6 / 9 ~ i

S

PEECH THERAPY MEDICAID/VR

~ / 9 5

COMPARABLE SERVICES

ND BENEFITS:

MEDICAID

Projected

end dale

6/95

6/95

6/95

6/95

12/95

2 OBJECTIVe

NEIL

WILL DEVELOP

A

MARKETABLE

SKILL

AS

A GENERAL

PRACTIONER

EVALUATION CRITERIA:

NEIL

WILL DEMONSTRATE MASTERY

OF

TRAINING MATERIAL AS

CONFIRMED B ~ · S E M E S T E R GRADE REPORTS

REFLECTING

3.0 AVERAGE OR B ~ T T E R

~ i n n i n ~ f

ERVICE{S)

Projecled

dale

end dale

TUITION,BOOKS,SUPPLIES

VR/PELLfGSL/CLIENT

9/94

5/2002

S T T B ¥ I ~ ~ E D ~ O · YBC llF T F Q ~ n . C ~ F M F ~ F ~

COMPARABLE SERVICES ND BENEFITS: PELL/GSL/CLIENT

3 OBJECTIVE NEIL WILL

OBTAIN EMPLOYMENT

AS A

GENERAL

PRACTIONER

EVALUATION CRITERIA: NEIL WILL

OBTAIN

AND MAINTAIN EMPLOYMENT

FOR

9 MONTHS

AS CONFIRMED BY CLIENT AND OR EMPLOYER

REPORT

D U ~ I N G MONTHLY VR GUIDANCE

Projected

SERVICE(S)

end date

JOB PLACEMENT VR/FSES

TJTC (IF IN EFFECT)

COMPARABLE

SERVICES ND BENEFITS:

(SEE

IMPORTANT INFORMATION ON REVERSE SIDE)

DISTRIBUTION OF

COPIES:

WHITE-CHcnl :; C

YELLOW-File

Cop

LES Forrn

OVR/Del

- 3014 (2/92)


25/74

N IL GILL SPI

~ ¥ E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ S ~ J L S E U R I ~ O ~ 1 _ 6 _ _ 5 _ 2 _ 5 _ 1 _

4 . OBJECTIVE:

EVALUATION

CRITERIA:

SERVICE(S)

Beginning

date

Projec

end d

COMPARABLE

SERVICES

AND BENEFITS:

5 . OBJECTIVE:

EVALUATION

CRITERIA:

SERVICE(S)

Beginning

date

Projec

end d

COMPARABLE

SERVICES

AND BENEFITS:

eVENT S RESPONSIBIUTIES: (Also see Your Responsibilit ies on reverse side)

CIJENT S VIEWS REGARDING THIS

PROGRAM:

Please sign below to show

that

you

have helped

to develop

thi,S,..,PtOQr Cltm

Date

Date

f

(SEE IMPORTANT INFORMATION ON REVERSE SIDE)

DISTRIBUTION OF COPIES

WHITE-Client's

YELLOW-File

Co

LES Form O V R J B C l ~ (Rev. 9/89)

PAGE 2


26/74

WRP

Attachment

My

c o u n ~ e l o r BII aa' A and I have discussed y r igh

and dut1es as

they

re l te to th1s program.

th is program.

I am in

agreement

w

The following

are my

comments

goals,

the

services

I

am to

services.

about

how we

receive and

chose

my

rehabi l i ta t i

who

will- provide tho

Comments follow here

.u -. f

u .5

tj.., / t t '

·

_ C c . . o ~ h e f i . T T r

Date

i ~ h ~

Y

Checklist

Rehabil i tat ion

technology

services were considered

and discussed:

Yes

__

Not

Appropria

The

individual

requires

on-the-job

or

related personal

ss i s t n t services.

yes

(see WRP}

The need for post

employment services

was assessed.

yes (see WRP}

No

The individual

wil l

require

extended services.

yes (see WRP}

No


27/74

Exhibit 3


28/74

STATE OF FLORIDA

DEP RTMENT

0[

L BOR ND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY

Division

of

Vocational Rehabilitation

VOCATIONAL SCREENING

OF

Mr. Nei l Gil le sp ie

266 7 th Avenue North

St .

e t e ~ s b u r g

F l

33701

SSN:

160525117

Div is ion of Vocat ional Rehabi l i t a t ion

525 Mirror

Lake

Dr

Rm

145

St . Pete rsburg , FI 33701

813 893-2261


29/74

VOCATIONAL SCREENING

CLIENT INFORMATION

Neil Gil lespie is a 38 year old white male currently

residing

a t 266 7th Avenue, North, St. Petersburg,

FI

33701. Mr

Gil lespie s

disabi l i ty i s congenital c le f t palate . He l ives

alone and does

have

regular contact

with

his immediate

family. He possesses

a

val id

drivers

l icense

and has independent

t ransportat ion.

He

was a se l f

re fer ra l to the Division of Vocational

Rehabil i tat ion. He requested

assistance with

medical treatment

re la t ing to repair of the c le f t

palate

and

ass is tance in determining an appropriate

vocational

direct ion. Mr

Gil lespie

has

completed

two years

of

college study

a t the

University of

Pennsylvania, Wharton School

of

Business. He

maj ored in Business a t

th is

time. Subsequently, Mr Gillespie

worked

as

a car

salesman

and'

progressed

to

owner

of

two

separate

care dealerships

in

the Philadelphia area. These businesses were

la te r

dissolved.

SCREENING RESULTS

Mr Gil lespie has

held

Most

of these have been

management.

a

in

variety

of

posit ions

the

area

of

sales

in

and

the past .

business

Past work his tory includes:

Uti l i ty

worker 3

months

Manager/Owner Auto Dealership

98

months

Auto

Salesperson

48

months

Assistant Manager Retai l Trade

6

months

Laborer Steel Industry

10

months

An

unadjusted

vocational

profi le was developed from

the

job

history. In order to confirm or deny

these

abi l i t ies the following

information and t es t s were ut i l ized:

Medical

Information

from Pamela Kynkor M S dated 6/15/93

Jane Scheuerle Ed D dated 6/2/93

Noreeen

Frans

M S

dated

7/2/93

Mutaz Habal M D dated 5/5/93

Wide Range

Achievement

Test

Shipley

Ins t i tu te of Living Scale

Myers-Briggs

General

Aptitude Test

Battery

United States Employment Service Interest

Inventory

Bender-Gestalt


30/74

TEST RESULTS:

WRAT-R2

READING

12+

SPELLING 12B

ARITHMETIC

7.4

BENDER-GESTALT

SUGGESTS

AN

INDIVIDUAL WITH TRENDS TOWARD HAVING HIS ENVIRONMENT

BOTH HOME

AND WORK

ORDERLY. THERE WERE SUGGESTIONS

OF

EXPANSIVE

TYPE OF INDIVIDUAL

AND

SOME SUGGESTION OF ACTING

OUT

BEHAVIOUR.

THESE

WERE

MINIMAL ND

IF

PRESENT COULD

BE

SEEN

AS

OR USE

OF

EXISTING PROCEDURES WITHIN COMPANIES,

AGENCIES, ETC TO REDRESS

GRIEVANCES.

SOCIAL ACTIVISM

SOCIAL

SERVICE

USES-II

SEE GATB/USES

SECTION

MYERS-BRIGGS

INTP exhibi ts great preC1Slon in thought language. Continuous

in te l lec tua l scanning tends to see inconsistencies immediately. Has

excel lent concentrat ion. Authority does not impress

the

INTP;

dis l ikes

redundancy.

Desires to understand

the universe

and

constant ly looks for universal laws

principles . Can become

in te l lec tua l snob show impatience with

those

less endowed. This

is perceived

as arrogance

and

generates

hos t i l i ty

defensive

behaviors from

others.

INTP i s the

mathematician

philosopher

scientis

t ; any job requiring archi tecture of ideas; but INTP i s not

in teres ted

in

the

implementation.

Tend

not

to

be

sales

people

or

wri ters ; make

excellent

teachers but can be demanding

on

the i r

students.

Not good a t

c le r ica l tasks impatient with rout ine

deta i l s

Prefer

to work quiet ly without in terrupt ion and alone.

Do not welcome

constant social act iv i ty

or disorganization in

the

home. The mate. of an INTP probably manages the social

l i fe

INTP

tends to re t rea t into books emerges only when physical needs

are

imperative.

Has di f f i cu l ty

expressing

emotions verbally; so the

mate may

feel taken for

granted.

Home is usually

calm

low

key and

well ordered. INTP deals with the environment primarily through

in tu i

t ion; thinking

tends

to be complicated

and remains

hidden

except in close associat ions; the i r reserve i s d i f f icu l t to

penetrate .

This

makes INTP diff icul t to know.

Tend to

be shy

except

with

close

friends.

Very

adaptable

unt i l

principles

are

violated.

Feeling

qual i t ies

tend

to be underdeveloped make INTP insensi t ive

to the needs of

others.

About 1 of

the

population.

SHIPLEY

SHIPLEY RESULTS SHOW ESTIMATED IQ

OF 93.

THIS IS CONSIDERED TO BE

AN

UNDERESTIMATE

OF

MR. GILLESPIE'S TRUE

POTENTIAL.

SOLID ABILITIES

EVIDENCED IN

CULTURAL

PART OF TASK. SLIGHT DIFFICULTY WITH ABSTRACT


31/74

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART

OF

SHIPLEY.

16PF

RESULTS

SUGGEST

AN INDIVIDUAL WITH HIGH NEED TO BE INDEPENDENT AND

FREE OF EXTERNAL CONSTRAINTS. THIS INDIVIDUAL

MAY

USES HIS FEELINGS

IN

ORDER

TO MAKE

DECISIONS.

HIGH INTERESTS

IN

HUMANITARIAN

ENDEAVOURS

AND

PRODUCTIVE CREATIVITY. INDICATIONS

OF

INTEREST

SHOW

HOLLAND CODE TYPE (ASI)

GATE/USES

PART

R W

- A

P T I T U ES

OAP

-

NO

SCORE

GGG

VVV

NNN

SSS

PPP

000

KKK FFF

O H M

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

[ 49]

[ 18]

[ 22]

[ 31]

[ 33]

[ 11]

[ 30]

20

67

26

123

70

19

117

67

58

118

Ar 01

Sc 02

Pa 03

Pr

04

Me 05

In 06

BD

07

[Y]

[ ]

[Y]

[Y]

[Y]

[Y]

[Y]

[ ]

[ ]

[Y]

[ ]

[Y]

[ ]

[Y]

8

9

10

11

12

[ 70]

[ 90]

[ 94]

[ 29]

[ 28]

101

42

57

23

72

Se

Ac

Hu

LI

PP

08

09

10

11

12

[Y]

[Y]

[Y]

[Y]

[ ]

[Y]

[ ]

[ ]

[Y]

[ ]

APT

SCORE

[113] [123] [ 89] [117] [125] [118] [101] [ 99] [ 95]

High

Score Line

SEM

6 6 6 8 9 9 7 12 11

Std. Error Line

APT +

SEM

[119] [129] [ 95] [125] [134] [127] [108] [111] [

106]

Med. Score Line

DOT

SCORE

[2 -] [2+] [4+] [2=] [2+] [2=] [3=] [3=] [3 -]

High

Score

Line

DOT SEM

[2+] [1-]

[3-]

[2+] [1=] [1-] [3+]

[2-]

[3+]

Med. Score Line

G.A.T.B.

APTITUDE

GRAPH

CLUSTER . I

APT

00\ - 10\ 1 10\ - 33\ 1 33\ - 67\ 1

67\ -

90\ 1 90\ -

100\

---+---+---+---+---+---+---+-*-+---+---+---+---+---+---+--

G

IGGG=======>1

COGNITIVE

1 VVV===>

-N-

I NNN===> 1 1

- - - - - - - - - -

-+-

- - - - - - - - - -+- - - - - - - - - - -+- - - - - - - - - - -+- - - - - - - - - -

-

S-

1 SSS===>1

PERCEPTUAL

- P

I PPP=======>

0

1 1 1

OQQ=======>

- - - - - - - - - - -+- - - - - - - - - - -+- - - - - - - - - - -+- - - - - - - - - - -+- - - - - - - - - -

K-

KKK===>1 1

PSYCHOMOTOR -F

1 FFF=======> 1

M

1 IMMM=======>1 1

---+---+---+---+---+---+---+-*-+---+---+---+---+---+---+--

*

DOT RANGE

5-1 5=1 5+1 4-1 4=1 4+1 3-1

3=1

3+1 2-1 2=1 2+1 1-1

1=1

1+

COMMON APTITUDE-INTEREST OVERLAP REPORT

*** HIGH APTITUDES WITH AVERAGE

INTERESTS

(Inventory) ***

OAP GOE - INTEREST -AREA GOE - GOE - WORK -GROUP -TITLE DATA

JOBS

GOE-PG

9 MEDICAL

SCIENCES 02.03 MEDICAL SCIENCES

2 51

27

12 PLANTS

&

ANIMALS 03.03

Animal

Training

&

Service 2 6

57

13

PLANTS &

ANIMALS 03.03 Animal Training

&

Service

3-6

11

57

14 PLANTS & ANIMALS

03.04

Elemental: Plants &

Animals All

157

59

21 MECHANICAL 05.05 Craft Technology 2-6 617

88

23 MECHANICAL 05.08 Land

& Water

Vehicle Operation All 41

108

24 MECHANICAL 05.09 Materials

Control 1-4 93 110


32/74

25 MECHANICAL 05.09 Materials Control 5 34

110

26

MECHANICAL 05.10 Crafts

1-4 269

115

27

MECHANICAL

05.10

Crafts 5-6

148

115

28

MECHANICAL 05.11 Equipment Operation All

130

123

29 MECHANICAL

05.12

Elemental Work: Mechanical All 431

127

MEDIUM

APTITUDES

WITH AVERAGE INTERESTS

(Inventory)

OAP

GOE-INTEREST-AREA GOE- GOE-WORK-GROUP-TITLE

DATA

JOBS

GOE-PG

11

PLANTS

&

ANIMALS 03.01 Managerial: Plants

&

Animals 1-3 49

51

22

MECHANICAL 05.07

Quality

Control

1-2 .28

104

TRANSFERABLE SKILLS

ANALYSIS

Based

on the

above

information and

tes t ing

an adjusted

vocational

profi le

was

developed.

Information was

obtained

from

OASYS in

an

attempt

to discover

t ransferable

sk i l l s

On

the

primary

search

level 0 occupations emerged.

Further search

on levels

4-8

yielded

69

job t i t l e s Of

these jobs

many

were

involved in the

medical, psychological, and counseling

arena.The

cl ient explored

these areas and selected

Podia t r i s t

079.101-022

General

Pract i t ioner

070.101-022

RECOMMENDATIONS

This

is a 38

year old white

male

with c le f t

palate which

s ignif icantly affects

long term

abi l i ty to use

verbal

communication.

Repair

or

revision

of

the c le f t palate

to preserve

and

remediate Mr. Gil lespie s abi l i ty to

speak

is indicated. From

information obtained from his t reat ing

physician,

in i t i a l

assessment, t ransferable

sk i l l s

analysis,

labor

market survey, and

vocational tes t ing

t

is this

counselors

opinion Mr. Gillespie

wil l

need

retraining.

Completion of

a 4 year degree is

indicated.

Should

Mr. Gillespie

have di f f icul ty with

college based t raining to

a

degree

which

would

make

entry

in to

the

medical

f ie ld

not

feasible, t is

suggested

he

examine areas such as counseling,

chemistry, and

teaching.

Should you have any questions or

i f

I may be

of

any further

assistance

please do not hes i ta te to contact me a t

DVR

525

Mirror

Lake Dr.

R 145,

St. Petersburg,

Fl

33701 Tel 813

893-2261.

Sincerely

~ t t J ~ t ~

Brad L. Meyer CRC

Senior

VR Counselor


33/74

Exhibit 4


34/74

M RK S.

K MLEITER

ATIORNEY AT L W

Courthouse Square

Office:

813)

824 8

600

First Avenue

N. Suit.

206

Fax: 813)

824 6

St. Petersburg. FL 33701

March 17, 1997

Jura Philpot, Supervisor

Division of Vocational Rehabilitation

525 Mirror Lake Drive N., Rm 145

St Petersburg, FL 33701

Re: Neil

J

Gillespie: Application for Vocational Rehabiliative Services

Dear

Ms Philpot:

Please

be advised that I ha\'e been consulted by

Mr.

Neil

J.

Gillespie.

Mr

Gillespie feels that

he

has not

been treated correctly by your division and

he

believes that your office may have

discriminated against him due to the particular nature ofhis disability.

I have reviewed Mr Gillespie's file, including correspondence between himself, yourselfand

a Ms Van Ess. I must be

frank

when I say that I can understand Mr Gillespie's frustration and

irritation with the treatment he

has

received. I am not at this time entirely certain as to why he has

received this type of treatment, but I feel that Mr Gillespie deserves more direct and courteous

treatment. This being the case I would like

to

request several things:

1 That

Mr Gillespie's

letter Ms. Van Ess,

dated

January 16, 1997, be

disregarded

to

the

extent that it may be interpreted

as

withdrawing his prior request for services. Mr Gillespie

r e m ~ s determined to seek and obtain the vocational rehabiliative services that he has a right

to.

2

Mr

Gillespie expects that the Individualized Written Rehabilitation Program produced by

your office (3/24/94) and which

took

nine months

of

effort on

Mr

Gillespie's part to get

produced, be implemented. If

for

any reason your office C8IU ot or will not implement this

plan, then I expect to be notified

of

that decision and the reasons therefore.

3

That

a

correction to

Ms

Van

Ess's

letter dated

1 15197

be

made with an

appropriate

apology to Mr ~ l l ~ s p i e This letter was clearly offensive, suggesting dishonesty and lack

of

cooperation on Mr Gillespie's part.

If

Mr Gillespie's application is examined it is very clear

that

Mr

Gillespie i n f o ~ e your office ~ t his disabilities were related to Velopharyngeal

incompetence, Personality Disorder (Schizoid) (overweight

&

high BP). This would make

Ms Van Ess's assertion that Mr Gillespie had not truthfully indicated his mental health

issues.

Mr

Gillespie's Social Security disability letter indicated only the recognition ofhis

disability and not the grounds for the recognition. In any case the fact

of

Mr. Gillespie's .


35/74

disability

for

Social Securit}' purposes is not

in

question.

4. Because there seems

to have

been a hostile attitude displayed toward

Mr. i l e s p i e ~

I

am

asking your office to correspond with

Mr.

Gillespie through

my

office. I will be monitoring

the timeliness, professionalism and the appropriateness of the your

office's

handling

of

Mr.

Gillespie's

file.

5.

Apparently there has been some misunderstanding relative to the interplay. between Mr.

Gillespie's

velopharyngeal incompetence

and his

personality disorder.

It

would appear that

this lack of understanding has caused Mr. Gillespie to be forced to l.Uldergo evaluations and

counseling

y individuals

who

are completely unqualified to understand, relate to and to help

Mr. Gillespie (Marbeiter). This treatment has not only not been helpful to

Mr.

Gillespie and

not advanced his application to the granting of services, but has directly created a high level

offcustration, aggravating his disability. For this reason I am asking that each time Mr.

Gillespie is asked to participate in counseling, guidance, or interviews related

to

his

application, that I

e

advised in advance

as

to the purpose of the session, the name, title

and

qualifications of the cOWlselor or interviewer.

Please

Wlderstand

that my purpose is not to interfere or

to

create greater conflict than now

exists, but

it is

my hope that I

can

serve to improve communications and facilitate

Mr.

Gillespie

receiving the services which

he

has a right to and which he needs in order to successfully integrate

productively into the work

force_

I am asking that this past history of

problems

be set aside

and

that

a

fresh

unbiased focus be given

to Mr. Gillespie's

application. I

am

asking that we not allow Mr.

Gillespie's disability (personality disorder) cause us to treat him differently or with less respect than

we would give

any

other candidate

for

services.

f

I

am

able

to

help in

achie -ing

this, I will feel that

I have contributed something very positive

to

your \vork.

I thank you

in

advance for your kind consideration

of my

requests and I await your

compassionate response.

Sincerely,

Mark

S.

Kamleiter


36/74

Exhibit 5


37/74

, ,

IN THE

COUNTY

COURT

FOR PINELLAS

COUNTY,

FLORIDA

SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION

NEIL

J .

GILLESPIE.

INST #

98-037481

Plaintif f (s) ,

FEB

6, 1998 9:21PM

vs.

CASE

NO.97-7329SC

YELLOW

CAB COMPANY

OF ST. PETERSBURG, I ~ C

Defendant(s).

_

/

.'

,

FINAL

JUDGMENT

, :"

-'

......

~ ~

; ; ==


38/74

Exhibit 6


39/74

loridaHouse Representatives

MARGO FISCHER

696 - 1st Avenue North, Suite 302

St.

Petersburg,

FL 33701 3610

REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT

52

407

House Office

Building

Tallahassee,

FL

32399-130

813 893 1700

850-488-5719

April 6 1998

NIr.

Neil

J

Gillespie

1121

Beach Drive NE Apt. C-2

St. Petersburg Florida 33701

Dear Mr. Gillespie:

Thank you so much for your excellent letter

in

support ofH 3379 and strengthening the

Florida Clean Indoor Air Act. I appreciate your sharing your experiences as a cab driver

in

St. Petersburg. Your story

is

a perfect illustration demonstrating why this legislation

is

so necessary.

Please be assured that I am conlmitted to this issue and will continue to work to ensure

that all Floridians can breathe clean smoke-free air

in

public places.

Again I truly appreciate your taking the time to write. You are to be commended for

getting involved

in

the legislative process. If I can ever be of assistance

in

the future

please do not hesitate to contact me

Sincerely

MF/cef

COMMITTEES:

EciJcation

K-12

Environmental

Protection Law

Enforcement

Public

Safety


40/74

Exhibit 7


41/74

42 USC Sec. 12101 (01116/96)

Page 1

of2

§

12101 Findings and purpose

• (a) Findings

The Congress finds that

• (1) some 43,000,000 Americans have one

or

more physical

or

mental disabilities, and

this number

is

increasing as the population as a whole

is

growing older;

• (2) historically, society

h s

tended to isolate and segregate individuals with disabilities,

and, despite some improvements, such forms

of

discrimination against individuals with

disabilities continue to be a serious and pervasive social problem;

• (3) discrimination against individuals

wit disabilities persists in such critical areas as

employment, housing, public accommodations, education, transportation,

communication, recreation, institutionalization, heahh services, voting, and access to

public services;

• (4) unlike individuals who have experienced discrimination on the basis of race, color,

sex, national origin, religion, or age, individuals who have experienced discrimination on

the basis of disability have often had no legal recourse to redress such discrimination;

• (5) individuals with disabilities continually encounter various forms

of

discrimination,

including outright intentional exclusion, the discriminatory effects of architectural,

transportation, and communication barriers, overprotective rules and policies, failure to

make modifications to existing facilities and practices, exclusionary qualification

standards and criteria, segregation, and relegation to lesser services, programs, activities,

benefits, jobs, or other opportunities;

• (6) census data, national polls, and other studies have documented that people with

disabilities, as a group, occupy an inferior status in our society, and are severely

disadvantaged socially, vocationally, economically, and educationally;

• (7) individuals with disabilities are a discrete and

insular

minority who have been faced

with restrictions and limitations, subjected to a history

of

purposeful unequal treatment,

and relegated to a position ofpolitical powerlessness in our society, based on

characteristics that are beyond the control

of

such individuals and resulting from

stereotypic assumptions not truly indicative of the individual ability of such individuals to

participate in, and contribute to, society;

• (8) the Nation's proper goals regarding individuals with disabilities are to assure equality

of

opportunity, full participation, independent living,

nd

economic self-sufficiency for

such individuals; and

• (9) the continuing existence

of

unfair and unnecessary discrimination and prejudice

denies people with disabilities the opportunity to compete on an equal basis and to

pursue those opportunities for which our free society is justifiably famous, and costs the

United States billions

of

dollars in unnecessary expenses resulting from dependency and

nonproductivity.

• (b) Purpose

t

is the purpose of this chapter

• (1) to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of

discrimination against individuals with disabilities;

• (2) to provide clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination

against individuals with disabilities;

• (3) to ensure that the Federal Government plays a central role in enforcing the standards


42/74

42

USC Sec.

121 1

(01/16/96)

Page 20f2

established in this chapter on behalf

of

individuals wit disabilities; and

• (4)

to

invoke the sweep

of

congressional authority, including the

power to

enforce the

fourteenth amendment and

to

regulate commerce, in order to address the major areas

of

discrimination faced day-to-day by people with disabilities.


43/74

Exhibit 8


44/74

AGENCY

CHARGE

NUUBER

CH RGE OF DISCRIMIN TION

0

FEPA

Th1s form 1s affected

by

the

Pr1vacy

Act

of

1974; See Pr1vacy Act Statement

before

complet1ng th1s form.

IX

EEOC

FLORIDA

COMMISSION

ON HUMAN REL.

and

EEOC

State

or local

Agency,

if any

NAUE

(Indicate Hr., Hs., Hrs.)

HOUE TE.LEPHONE (Include Area Code

Mr.

Neil J .

Gil lesoie

8 1 ~ )

8 2 ~ - 2 1 q o

STREET

ADDRESS

CITY. STATE

AND

ZIP CODE

DATE

OF

BIRTH

1121 Beach

Drive N.E. Aoartment

C-2

St.

PetersburQ:

FL "1"1701

0 ~ / 1 q / 5 6

NAMED

IS

THE

EMPLOYER,

LABOR

ORGANIZATION,

EMPLOYMENT AGENCY

APPRENTICESHIP

COMMITTEE,

STATE OR

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

AGENCY

WHO DISCRIMINATED

AGAINST

ME

Ir more

than

one l i s t beloit .)

NAIIE

INUUBER OF EIIPLOYEES. IIEIIBERS ITELEPHONE (Include Area Code

State

Of Florida/Div.

Of

Voc.

Rehab

Cat

D

(501 +)

STREET ADDRESS

CITY.

STATE

AND ZIP

CODE

COUNTY

"1251

"1rd

Avenue

North

St. Petersburll

FL

~ ~ 7 1

10"1

NAIIE

TelEPHONE

NUIIBER (Include Area Code

STREET ADDRESS

CITY.

STATE

AND ZIP

CODE

COUNTY

CAUSE OF DISCRIIIINATION

BASED ON

(Check appropriate box(es))

DATE DISCRIIIINATION TOOK

PLACE

EARLIEST

LATEST

DRACE

o COLOR

DSEX

o RelIGION o

NATIONAL ORIGIN

12/04/91

RETALIATION

DAGE

IX] DISABILITY o OTHER (Spectt;y)

0

CONTINUING

ACTION

THE PARTICULARS ARE

Ir additional space i s needed,

attach

extra sheet(s)):

I . Personal Harm:

On December

4 ,

1991,

I was

denied vocational rehabi l i ta t ion

services.

I I .

Respondent 's

Reason

for

Adverse Action:

Douglas

Ligibel ,

Vocational

Rehabi l i ta t ion

Consultant ,

sta ted:

"you

are

not

e l ig ib le

for vocat ional

rehabi l i t a t ion

services because your

di sab i l i t y

is too

severe at th is time for

rehabi l i ta t ion

services

to

resu l t

in

employment.

I I I . Discriminat ion

Statement:

I

bel ieve that

I

have

been discriminated

agains t

on

the

basis of

my

di sab i l i t y

in

viola t ion of the

Americans

with Disabi l i t ie s

Act

of 1990

(ADA)

.

o I want

th1s

charge f1led w1th both

the

EEOC and the State or

NOTARY· (When necessary for State and Local Requ1rements)

local

Agency, 1f any. I w1l l adv1se

the

agenc1es 1f I Change my

address

or

telephone number and

cooperate

fully w1th them

1n the

I swear

or

aff1rm that I have read

the

above Charge and that

1t

1s true to the

best

of

my

knowledge, 1nformat10n and

bel1ef.

processing of mv charge 1n accordance w1th the1r procedures.

I

declare

under

penalty

of perjury that

the

foreg01ng 1s true

SIGNATURE OF COMPLAINANT

.,

•..

oot.

SUBSCRIBED

AND

SWORN

TO BEFORE

ME

THIS

DATE

(Day, month,

and

year)

DatJ '",,,',g

"",

13

..

.=

EEOC

FORM

l

(Rev.

06/92

CH RGING P RTY COPY


45/74

STATE OF

FLORIDA

C SE

N IlE

G i l l e s p i e vs S t a t e 0

CITY/COUNTY

OF St . Pe t e r s b u rg / P i n e l l a s

C SE NUMBER _

FFID VIT

I,

Nei l

J .

G i l l

e s

p i e

being first duly sworn

upon my oath

affirm and hereby say:

Name)

I

have

been

given assurances by an Agent

of

the

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

that

this

Affidavit will be considered confidential by the United States Government and will not be disclosed as long as

the

case remains open unless it becomes necessary for

the Government to

produce the affidavit in a formal

proceeding. Upon the closing

of

this case,

the

Affidavit may be subject to disclosure in accordance with

Agency policy.

I am years of age, my gender

is Ma

1e and

my

racial identity

is ...

o . . : t ~ e i ; _

sex) race)

Iresideat

1121

Beach Drive

N.E.

Apartment

C-2

Number/Street)

City of St .

Pe

t e r s

burg

, County

of = P =i:.=.n.:.;:e::..:l=l= a=s

_

State

of

-- F - L==-- ,

Zip Code ....

3

....7 L ~ 1 ~ _

My telephone number

is

( tnclud ing area code) . . . l ~ 8 : : . . : : 1 : . . . 3 J . . . J . . . 8 - = 2

- - ~ 2 = - 3 . L . 9 L O ~ _

My statement

concerns

- - - - = = S ~ t ~ a ~ t ~ e : : . . . . . . . . : O ~ f - - - = - F - = l : . . : : o ~ r - i : . : d ~ a ~ / ~ D , . = i ~ v : _ : : . , . . . . . . . . : O ~ f = - - . , V ~ o . . . : : : c ; . . : . ~ R ~ e ~ h = a . . : : : b ~

which

is

Name

o

Union/Company/Agency)

located at

3251

3rd Avenue North

Number/Street)

St .

Pe t e r sbu r g

FL 33703

City)

State)

Zip)

My job classification

is

If

app l icab le) .... . .... :--:-. -- - _

job tit/e)

My

immediate supervisor is

If appl icable)'_.....I...;c:-;----:- ---: ....,-:-:-:;--;-- _

Name) job tit/e)

I b e l i e v e t h a t I have been d i sc r imin a t ed ag a i n s t on t he

b a s i s

o f my

d i s a b i l i t y , p e r s o n a l i t y

d i s o rd e r and speech d i s a b i l i t y ,

in v i o l a t i o n o f

the

Americans

wi th

D i s a b i l i t i e s

Act o f 1990 (ADA).

Respondent

employs

over

f i f t e e n

(15)

employees .

On December 4, 1997, I

was denied

v o ca t io n a l r e h a b i l i t a t i o n

s e rv i c e s

by

Douglas L i g i b e l , Voca t iona l R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Co n su l t an t . Mr. L i g i b e l

s t a t ed : you a r e

not

e l i g i b l e fo r v o ca t io n a l r e h a b i l i t a t i o n s e r v i c e s

because you r d i s a b i l i t y i s too severe a t t h i s

t ime

fo r r e h a b i l i t a t i o n

s e r v i c e s to r e s u l t in employment . I did

appea l

t he

a g e n c y s d ec i s i o n .

V -

K l ; f ~

Page 1

of

ijitia/s)

E:E:OC Att-A (Utl/89)


46/74

•

STATE OF F . : : L : . > : : O ~ R : . = I : . = D ~ A ~

_

CASE NAME G

e s p 1e v t

a t e

0

CASE

NUMBER

CITY/COUNTY OF St Pe te r sburg /P ine l l a s

AFFIDAVIT cent.)

I have read and had an opportunity

to correct this Affidavit consisting of · 2--h,andwritten 0

typed g pages and swear that these

facts are true and correct to the best of

my

knowledge and belief.

~ f / ~ r

Subscribed and sworn to before m

this

~ y

of

:I1z IL e (

9

) ~ ~

1.2

.

AfF B

6/211969)


47/74

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION

OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

NEIL

J

GILLESPIE,

Petitioner,

vs.

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND

EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, DIVISION

OF VOACTIONAL REHABILITATION,

Res ondent.

Case No. 98-066-DVR

THIRD

AMENDED PETITION FOR

ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING

Petitioner pro se, NEIL

J

GILLESPIE, petitions the Division

of

Administrative

Hearings for an administrative hearing against respondent, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

AND EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, DIVISION OF VOCATIONAL

REHABILITATION (hereafter DVR ), and alleges:

I.

Interest

in Action

Petitioner is Neil J Gillespie, 1121 Beach Drive NE, Apt., C-2, St. Petersburg,

Florida, 33701-1434. Respondent' s determination affects peti tioner's substantial interests

by denying im the vocational rehabilitation services he needs to return to employment.

II. Notice

of

Agency Decision

Respondent notified petitioner

of

its decision

on

December 4, 1997, by letter.

(Attached as Exh. 1). Respondent's employee, Douglas M. Ligibel, Vocational

3


48/74

Rehabilitation Consultant, hand delivered the letter to petitioner during a meeting at the

DVR

office located at 3251

e

Ave. North, St. Petersburg, Florida.

III. Disputed Issues of Material Fact

Petitioner disputes respondent's determination which states, It h s been

determined that you are not eligible for vocational rehabilitation services because your

disability

is

too severe at this time for rehabilitation services to result in employment.

IV. Background Information

Petitioner

is

disabled pursuant to Title II

of

Social Security.

In

an effort to become

employed consistent with his unique strengths, priorities, concerns, abilities, capabilities,

career interests, and informed choice, petitioner applied for

VR

services with respondent

on

May 17, 1993. Respondent prepared and signed an Individual Written Rehabilitation

Program (IWRP) with petitioner on March 29, 1994. (Attached as Exh. 2). Respondent

also prepared a vocational screening supporting petitioner's IWRP. (Attached as Exh.

3).

V Respondent's Determination is Unlawful

A

Petitioner

is

eligible for

VR

services as a matter

of

law.

1

Petitioner is determined to have a disability pursuant to Title II of

the Social Security Act. Petitioner

is

therefore eligible for

VR

services

pursuant to Florida statutory law.

a

FS § 413.30(1) states,

A

person is eligible for vocational

rehabilitation

if

the person h s a disability and requires vocational

rehabilitation services to prepare for, enter, engage

in,

or retain gainful

employment. Petitioner meets this criteria because FS § 413.30(2) states


49/74

(substantive portion) Individuals determined to have a disability pursuant

to either Title II or Title XVI of tile Social Security Act shall be considered

to have a physical or mental impairment that constitutes or results in a

substantial impediment to employment and a severe physical or mental

impairment that seriously limits one or more functional capacities in terms

of

an employment outcome.

b. Petitioner is presumed to benefit from

V

services pursuant to

FS 413.30(3) which states,

An

individual shall be presumed to benefit in

terms

of

an employment outcome from vocational rehabilitation services

under this part unless the division can demonstrate by clear and convincing

evidence that the individual is incapable ofbenefiting from vocational

rehabilitation services in terms of an employment outcome. To demonstrate

that

an

individual cannot benefit from vocational rehabilitation services due

to the severity of the individual's disability, the division shall conduct an

extended evaluation, not to exceed 18 months. The evaluation must

determine the eligibility of the individual and the nature and scope

of

needed vocational rehabilitation services. The extended evaluation must be

reviewed once every 90 days to determine whether the individual is eligible

for vocational rehabilitation services.

c. Respondent has not demonstrated by clear and convincing

evidence that petitioner is too severely disabled for V services to result

in employment.


50/74

WHEREFORE petitioner demands that respondent stop the closure his case

provide a change counselor and implement the IWRP attached hereto as Exhibit 2.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy hereofhas been furnished to Michael

A

Greif: Office the

General Counsel The Hartman Bldg. Suite 307 2012 Capital Circle S.E. Tallahassee

32399-2189 by first class mail postage prepaid this 2nd day July 1998.


51/74

Exhibit 1


52/74

Florida

DepartmentrA

Labor

andEmploymentSecurity

DMIIon

GlVoc:atclMI

R

1on

8IIyPIrk Celt

18840 us 18 N St•. 420

CIMIwIt.,

Fl33784

Phone:

(113) 538-7220

Fa:

(113) 538-7217

December4,1997

NeilGillespie

1121 Beach

Or.

N. E. Apt.C-2

St.Petersburg, FL 33701

DearNeil:

Duringourmeetingwe thoroughlyreviewedanddiscussedyour evaluationreports. Ithasbeen

determinedthatyouarenot eligiblefor vocationalrehabilitationservicesbecauseyourdisabilityistoo

severe

at

thistime for rehabilitationservicesto resultinemployment. Thisdecisionwas reached

1214/1997, .

Shouldyounotagreewiththisdecision,youhavethe rightto appeal.Youhave21 daysafterreceiptof

thisletterto appealby requesting,inwriting,anAdministrativeReviewwiththeDistrictDirector,MariaO.

Risco,Divisionof VocationalRehabilitation,4221 NorthHimes Avenue,Suite205,Tampa,FI. 33607

6209.

Intheeventyouarestillnotsatisfiedafter

the

AdministrativeReviewor youwish

to

skiptheAdministrative

Review,

you

may

request aFair Hearingconductedby

the

Division

c

AdministrativeHearings

by

filinga

petitionfor aFairHearingwithMs.TainaraAllen,Director,Division

of

VocationalRehabilitation,2002Old

St.AugustineRoad,Bid.A,Tallahassee,FI. 32399-0696within21 daysafteryourr p t

of

thisletter

or if

youhadanAdministrativeReview,within21 daysafteryourreceipt

of

the AdministrativeReviewdecision

letter.

If youneedadvice,assistanceor anexplanationof yourrights,youmay contacttheClientAssistance

Programat 1-8001342-0823(voice)or

1-800/346-4127(IDD).

Theiraddressis 2671 ExecutiveCenter

West,Suite100,WebsterBid.,Tallahassee,Florida32301. Thisis afederallyfundedprogramto assure

that

you

understandyourrights.

Ibelievethatthefollowingagenciescouldbe

of

assistance

to

youandIwouldstronglyencourageyouto

contactthemfor help.

1.

SuncoastCenterforCommunityMentalHealth4040CentralAv.St.Petersburg,

FL

327-7656Individual

&

GroupTherapy

2. Directions

for

MentalHealth1437BelcherRd. Clearwater,FL Individual&GroupTherapy 524-4464

3. OperationPAR AdultOutpatient4914CreeksideDriveClearwater,FL 570-5085

4. SunshineBehavioralHealthServices,Inc.4908B CreeksideDriveClearwater,FL 573-9797

5. Gulf CoastCommunity14041 lcot Blvd.Clearwater,FL 538-7460

6. MortonPlantMeaseHealthCare323JeffordsSt. Clearwater,FL 469-5499

7. Family ServiceCenters120866

111

StreetN. St.Petersburg,FL CentralIntake536-9427(Sliding

Scale)doesnotacceptMedicareat thistime.

8. If yourconditionchangesandyoubelieveyouarereadyto secureemployment youmay reapplyfor

services. Inany eventyourrecordwillbereviewedinoneyearto determinethe feasibilityof you

returning

to work.

Sincerely,

: : ~ b ~ VocationalRehabilitation onsu_

Florida Telqmme Relay SyIlan -

TOO

I-S00-95S-8771 • Voice 1-800-95SeS770

_'.

_

. .. , ,

_

,_ ,. ,.-

,,...

.'-:- 1 .,..,

-


53/74

xhibit

2


54/74

Division of Vocnliollnl Rchnbililalion .

...

I N D l V I D U A L I Z E D W R I ~ E N REHABILITATION PROGRAM

. ~

.

.

NEIL GILLESPIE

SOCIAL

SECURITY NO.160525117

have

been

determined eligible

for:

Extended Evaluation- X Vocational Rehabilitation Services Post-Employment Services

Goal GENERAL

PRACTIONER Amendme.nt

OBJECTIVE

NEIL

WILL

BE

ABLE TO SPEAK

FOR

UP TO

8

HOURS

WITHOUT

REST OR

COMPLAINT OF

PAIN

AND

D E T E R ~ O R A T I O N

OF

VOCAL

QUALITY

.

..

EVALUATION CRITERIA: NEIL

WILL EVIDENCE

IMPROVED

SPEAKING

ABILITY AND

INCREASED

TOLERANCE

TO SPEECH AS CONFIRMED

BY CLIENT

AND/OR TREATING

PHYSICIAN

REPORT

DURING MONTHLY VR GUIDANCE

AND

COUNSELING

SESSIONS.

OBJECTIVe

NEIL

WILL DEVELOP

A

MARKETABLE

SKILL

AS

A

GENERAL PRACTIONER

EVALUATION CR.ITERIA: NEIL WILL DEMONSTRATE MASTERY OF TRAINING MATERIAL AS

CONFIRMED

B ~ · S E M E S T E R

GRADE REPORTS REFLECTING 3.0 AVERAGE OR B ~ T T E R

S T T R ¥ I ~ E D

~ O · usc A

14''J11t!R

1t AC'" ~ 1 t M 1 t ~ J 1 ~ R

SERVICE S)

~ g i n n i n

dale

Projected

end date

TUITION,

BOOKS,

SUPPLI,ES VR/PELL!GSL/CLIENT

/

9/94

h-..'

5/2002

COMPARABLE SERVICES AND BENEFITS: PELL/GSL/CLIENT

i

c}

/ '

OBJECTIVe

NEIL

WILL

OBTAIN EMPLOYMENT AS A

GENERAL PRACTIONER

EVALUATION CRITERIA: NEIL

WILL OBTAIN

AND

MAINTAIN EMPLOYMENT FOR 9 MONTHS

AS CONFIRMED

BY CLIENT AND

OR EMPLOYER REPORT D U ~ I N G MONTHLY

VR GUIDANCE

Projected

SERVICE S)

end date

.JOB

PLACEMENT VR/FSES

·TJTC (IF IN EFFECT)

SERVICE S)

Boginning

dale

SURGERY DR.HABAL

MEDICAID/VR

HOSPITALIZATION

MEDICAID/VR

ESTHESIA,LAB,XRAY

MEDICAID/VR

EDICATIONS MEDICAID/VR

SPEECH THERAPY MEDICAID/VR

AN

M

.

3/9 i

~ t 9 4

~ / 9 4

3 / 9 ~ :

~ / 9 5

COMPAIMBLE

SERVICES

AND

BENEFITS:

MEDICAID

Projected

end dale

6/95

6/95

6/95

6/95

12/95

COMPARABLE SERVICES AND BENEFITS:

SEE

IMPORTANT INFORMATION

ON REVERSE SIDE)

DISTRIBUTION

OF

COPIES: WHITE-Clionl s

Cop

YEllOW-File

Copy

LES Forrn

OVR/Del· 3014 2192)


55/74

·

...

NEIL GILLESPIE

~ M E _ · · ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ S ~ ~ L S E C U ~ ~ N Q ~ 1 _ 6 _ _ 5 _ 2 _ 5 _ 1 _ 1 _ 7 ~ _

4 OBJECnVE:

EV LU TION CRITERIA:

SERVICE(S)

Beginning

date

Projected

end date


5 • OBJECTIVE:

EV LU TION CRITERIA:

SERVICE S)

Beginning

date

Projected

end date


CUENT S RESPONSIBIUTIES: (Also see Your Responsibil ities on reverse side)

/

\ -.

eUENT'S

VIEWS REGARDING THIS PROGRAM

Please

sign below to

show that you have helped to develop

t h i l ~ g y r l l J l

Date

Date '

(SEE

IMPORTANT

INFORMATION ON REVERSE SIDE)

DISTRIBUTION OF COPIES:

WHITE-eJient's

Copy

YELLOW-File Copy

LES Form DVRlBCL-3Q14 (Rev.

9/89

PAGE

2

. -.- - • - . .. . . - . . _


56/74

WRP Attachment

My counselor e -ad and I have discussed my r ights

and duties

as

they re l te to

th i s

program. I am in

agreement

with

th i s

program.'

The following are

my

comments about how we

chose

my

rehabi l i ta t ion

goals,

the

services

I

am

to

receive

and

who will ·

provide those

services.

Comments follow here.

d ~ C / 1 h e d

~ I - -

Yh ...5

f - - ~

t ·

Checklist

Rehabilitation. technology

services were

considered

and

discussed:

Yes

~

Not

Appropriate

The

individual

requires

on-the-job

or

related personal

ss i s t n t services.

Yes (see

WRP}

o ~

The

need

for

post

employment services

was assessed.

Yes

(see

WRP} No_

The

individual

wil l

require exten

Documents

SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR