Case Name: DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Petitioner, v. Patricia MORMAN, d/b/a Patti Cake Nursery, Respondent
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1998-08-07
Citations: 715 So. 2d 1076
Docket Number: No. 97-4587
Parties: DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Petitioner, v. Patricia MORMAN, d/b/a Patti Cake Nursery, Respondent.
Judges: ERVIN, J., concurs with written opinion.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 715
Pages: 1076–1079

Head Matter:
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Petitioner, v. Patricia MORMAN, d/b/a Patti Cake Nursery, Respondent.
No. 97-4587.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Aug. 7, 1998.
Gregory D. Venz, Assistant General Counsel, Department of Children and Families, Tallahassee, for Petitioner.
Bruce A. Tischler, Fort Myers, for Respondent.

Opinion:
BOOTH, Judge.
The issue before us on appeal is whether the administrative law judge (ALJ) erred in sua sponte dismissing a particular charge in Petitioner's administrative complaint alleging that Respondent failed to have properly trained employees working in her day care facility. The ALJ reasoned that because the complaint did not specifically allege which employees had deficient training, the complaint failed to provide Respondent with the proper notice necessary for her to mount her defense.
We hold that the complaint sufficiently alleged the charged training violations so that Respondent had proper notice of the nature of the charge, thereby allowing her to mount a meaningful defense, as required under the law. Libby v. Department of State, 685 So.2d 69, 71 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Seminole County Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Long, 422 So.2d 938, 940 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982), rev. denied, 431 So.2d 989 (Fla.1983); Florida Bd. of Massage v. Thrall, 164 So.2d 20, 22 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964). The complaint alleges, inter alia, the nature and dates of the violations, i.e., training deficiencies, occasions of inspectors' discovery of the noted deficiencies, and cites to pertinent rules. We also note that Respondent failed to object based on any lack of specificity. Furthermore, the hearing transcript shows that Respondent was not confused as to either the nature of the training requirements alleged to have been violated or the identity of the pertinent employees.
The ALJ's order is hereby vacated, and the ease is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
ERVIN, J., concurs with written opinion.
BENTON, J., dissents with written opinion.
. The only issue presented on appeal and briefed by the parties is the notice issue mentioned above; thus, our review is limited accordingly.