Download - 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
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & 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
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR
3/74
RECEIVED
M R 2001
BY
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR
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
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR
5/74
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR
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
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR
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
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR
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
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR
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
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR
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
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR
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
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR
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
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR
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
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR
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
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR
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
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR
16/74
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR
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
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR
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
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR
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
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR
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
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR
21/74
xhibit1
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR
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
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR
23/74
xhibit
2
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR
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)
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR
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
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR
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
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR
27/74
Exhibit 3
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR
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
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR
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
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR
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
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR
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
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR
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
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR
33/74
Exhibit 4
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR
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 .
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR
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
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR
36/74
Exhibit 5
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR
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
, :"
-'
......
~ ~
; ; ==
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR
38/74
Exhibit 6
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR
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
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR
40/74
Exhibit 7
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR
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
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR
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.
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR
43/74
Exhibit 8
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR
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
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR
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)
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR
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)
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR
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
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR
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
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR
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.
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR
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.
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR
51/74
Exhibit 1
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR
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 .,..,
-
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR
53/74
xhibit
2
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR
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)
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR
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
COMPARABLE SERVICES AND BENEFITS:
5 • OBJECTIVE:
EV LU TION CRITERIA:
SERVICE S)
Beginning
date
Projected
end date
COMPARABLE SERVICES AND BENEFITS:
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
. -.- - • - . .. . . - . . _
-
8/9/2019 SC11-1622 Appendix Vol 14, BRC & DVR
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