|
|
OAH 12-1800-20608-2 |
STATE OF MINNESOTA
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
FOR THE COMMISSIONER OF HUMAN SERVICES
|
In the Matter of the Order of Conditional License and Order to Forfeit
a Fine against the License of Linda Larson |
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION |
This matter came on for hearing before
Administrative Law Judge Steve M. Mihalchick at 10:30 a.m. on Monday, August 24,
2009, at the Clay County Attorney's Office,
On September 3, 2009, Ms. Larson submitted information and argument regarding this matter. The ALJ accepted the filing as a posthearing brief and provided the County with an opportunity to respond. On September 14, 2009, the County responded, declining to offer further argument, but requesting that any factual information be excluded. Ms. Larson submitted additional facts and argument by letter dated September 13, 2009.
On September 17, 2009, the ALJ ruled that the September 3, 2009 submission would be included in the record. The September 13, 2009, letter has been excluded from the record and not considered in arriving at the findings or conclusions in this report. The ALJ has accorded the factual information included in the September 3, 2009, letter less weight, since the County lacked the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses regarding that evidence. The hearing record for proceedings before the ALJ closed on September 17, 2009.
1. Did the Licensee have a substitute provide care to children, including an infant, when that substitute did not have a completed background check and did not complete either the Sudden Infant Death Syndrome or Shaken Baby Syndrome training. If so, should two fines of $200 each be imposed on the Licensee for this noncompliance?
The Administrative Law Judge concludes that the Licensee violated both the background check and training standards. However, the circumstances surrounding the violations and the Licensee’s financial condition may warrant staying or forgiving a portion of the total fine.
2. Should the Licensee’s family child care license be made conditional?
The Administrative Law Judge concludes that the license should be made conditional because of the Licensee’s demonstrated failures to comply with the standards imposed by daycare laws and rules that are related to the health and safety of children in care.
Based upon all of the proceedings herein, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following:
1. The Licensee applied for a family child care license in September 2007. She has provided family child care in her home since obtaining a license in 2007.[1]
2. On April 17, 2008, the County received a complaint that the Licensee had left the daycare children unattended in the yard while changing a diaper. While unattended, the daycare children left the yard, heading toward nearby train tracks. The complaint also noted that the Licensee had given one child a “two hour timeout” and had spanked another child as punishment for the incident.[2]
3. Based on the complaint, Kathleen Cardinal, the County License Worker assigned to the Licensee at the time, visited the Licensee’s day care on April 21, 2008. The Licensee indicated that she knew why Ms. Cardinal was there. The Licensee related that she had taken on a new family with an eight year old girl, a two year old boy, and a six month old infant. That family just terminated the daycare relationship. The Licensee noted that the 8-year-old suffered from Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), but that child was “an angel.” The Licensee noted that the infant cried much of the time and wanted to be held all the time. The Licensee described the 2-year-old child as “a monster.” The Licensee indicated that the 2-year-old had torn her curtains, would scream, had refused to eat, had jumped on furniture, and had bitten or hit the other children.[3]
4. Ms. Cardinal asked what had happened on April 15, 2008. The Licensee indicated that she had taken the children outside in the daycare’s fenced-in back yard. In care that day were two children age two, one child age three and one infant. The Licensee said that she had just gotten them outside when the infant’s diaper needed changing. She brought the infant back inside to change the diaper. The Licensee said that she had been gone a minute and, when she came back out, the children were no longer in the back yard. The Licensee described her response as grabbing the infant and calling out for the other children. The Licensee found the other children on the other side of the fence.[4]
5. The children told the Licensee that the 3-year-old had opened the gate. The Licensee told Ms. Cardinal that for punishment, she had given the 3-year-old a time out for two hours on the couch. The Licensee said she sat in a chair and talked to him over part of that time. The Licensee told Ms. Cardinal that the child’s father was informed of the punishment and that he was “alright” with the time out. The Licensee described her motive as wanting the 3-year-old to understand how serious the action was. The Licensee told Ms. Cardinal that she “never hit a child.” The Licensee indicated that on one occasion she had been wrestling with the boys on the floor and they put their butts in the air and she patted them and they all laughed. She described that event as a “dog pile.” She stated it was a game and no one got hurt.[5]
6. On April 21, 2008, Ms. Cardinal issued a Correction Order to the Licensee. The Correction Order cited a violation of Minn. Rule 9502.0395, subps. 2 and 7, for giving a preschool child a two-hour time out. Another cited violation was of Minn. Rules 9502.0315, subp. 6, and 9502.0365, subp. 5, because “three preschoolers were left outside alone while provider changed a diaper, all three were found outside the fence.” The Licensee indicated that she corrected these violations by only giving “time outs in compliance with age – 3 minutes for [a] 3 year old” and “having all children inside if I need to come in.” The Licensee also indicated that she “placed extra security on gate.”[6]
7. On July 23, 2008, Clay County Social Services received a letter from a parent in which the parent indicated that the Licensee was observed to “spank a boy and drag him into a timeout “ The parent was contacted and she related that she had been talking to Licensee at the daycare when a child interrupted them and the Licensee responded by spanking the child and putting him in a timeout. In the parent’s opinion, the Licensee had overreacted. The parent also related that she had seen the Licensee “smack” that child’s hands on one occasion.[7]
8. Upon receiving the information from that parent, Ms. Cardinal visited the Licensee’s daycare. Ms. Cardinal asked children in care if anyone was naughty in the day care. The children indicated that one child was (by pointing at him). Ms. Cardinal asked what the Licensee did when that child was “naughty.” A six year old girl slapped her buttock and said Linda hit him and then put him into timeout.[8]
9. When Ms. Cardinal discussed this information with the Licensee, the Licensee explained this child was very difficult to manage. The Licensee said that this child had been in five other day cares and no one could deal with his behavior. The Licensee indicated that she had been keeping a journal of this child’s behaviors. The Licensee said she only hit him as a “last resort.” Ms. Cardinal asked the Licensee when she last spanked him and she responded, “Not today.”[9] The Licensee was very angry during Ms. Cardinal’s visit and continually told Ms. Cardinal how difficult the child was. The child was present at the time. Ms. Cardinal told the Licensee it was not appropriate to say this in front of the child.[10]
10.
The Licensee told Ms. Cardinal that a substitute
was running the daycare on Monday of that week and this child had also “acted
out” for the substitute. Ms. Cardinal
noted that the substitute named was not on the Licensee’s list of approved
substitutes. The Licensee told Ms.
Cardinal that this person was a licensed child care provider in
11. Upon returning to her office, Ms. Cardinal determined that the unlisted substitute had closed her child care four years earlier. The Sudden Infant Death (SIDS) prevention training performed by the substitute was not recent enough to meet the training requirement. The substitute had never taken Shaken Baby training, which is required when an infant is in care. Based on her visit and subsequent investigation, Ms. Cardinal wrote a correction order (July 23, 2008 Correction Order) citing the Licensee for violations of Minn. Stat. § 245A.50 (using a substitute without SIDS or Shaken Baby Training with an infant in care on July 21, 2008), Minn. Stat. § 245.04 (using a substitute without a background check on July 21, 2008), and Minn. Rule 9502.0395, subd. 2A (Preschooler was spanked on several occasions).[12]
12. The Licensee immediately asked for reconsideration of the July 23, 2008 Correction Order. The Licensee indicated that she thought the substitute had the appropriate training and asserted that the substitute had since obtained that training. The Licensee noted that she had paid for the background study and provided the form and a stamped envelope for submission of the background study form. The Licensee maintained that she did not truly spank any of the children in her care, describing what she did as a “three finger swat.”[13]
13. On July 24, 2008, Ms. Cardinal wrote to the Department of Human Services stating that the County was recommending that the Licensee be fined and her license made conditional for one year and include a condition that the Licensee be required to receive an additional six hours of training relating to discipline. The recommendation was based upon the County’s determination that a child had been given a two-hour time out; the Licensee had failed to adequately supervise the preschoolers; the Licensee had spanked a preschooler on several occasions; and the Licensee had used a substitute to care for infants before a background check was conducted and before the substitute received SIDS or shaken baby syndrome training.[14]
14. Licensee had previously sent in a check to pay for the background check for her substitute. The substitute did not send in an authorization form until after the correction order was issued. The authorization form was received by the County soon after the correction order was issued.[15]
15. On September 3, 2008, Ms. Cardinal again visited the Licensee’s daycare. Ms. Cardinal observed a number of areas where the Licensee’s daycare was not operated in compliance with the rule. Many of the items involved missing paperwork to certify various things that had been done. A smoke detector was not functioning and an emergency radio lacked batteries. Baby bottles lacked identifying labels listing whose food the bottle contained. Kitchen implements were not kept out of reach of daycare children. Ms. Cardinal wrote a correction order for these items. The Licensee corrected all of the listed items by September 8, 2008.[16]
16. On September 19, 2008, the Department affirmed the July 23, 2008 Correction Order. The Department noted that the Licensee had taken prompt action to address two of the three deficiencies cited in that Order.[17]
17. After six months without a response from the Department regarding her recommendation to impose a fine and a conditional license, Ms. Cardinal inquired and discovered that a Department staffer had temporarily set aside the recommendation pending resolution of the Licensee’s challenge to the July 23, 2008 Correction Order. After Ms. Cardinal inquired, the Department resumed processing of the recommended fine and conditional license.[18]
18. On May 5, 2009, the Department issued an Order to Forfeit a Fine and Order of Conditional License imposing a $400 fine on the Licensee and making her license conditional. In the Order to Forfeit a Fine, the Department assessed a $200 fine for violation of Minn. Stat. § 245C.03, subd. 1(2)(6), and Minn. Stat. § 245C.04, subd. 1(f). The violation was described as having a person providing care prior to submission of a background study. The other $200 fine was assessed based on one violation of Minn. Stat. § 245A.50, subd. 5. The violation was described as having a person providing care to infants prior to receiving training on reducing the risk of Sudden Incident Death Syndrome and Shaken Baby Syndrome. These actions were the subject of the July 23, 2008 Correction Order. [19]
19. The Order of Conditional License relied upon Minn. Stat. § 245A.06, subd. 1(a), which allows the Commissioner of Human Services to issue a correction order and an order of conditional license if a license holder has failed to comply with applicable law or rule and this failure does not imminently endanger the health, safety, or rights of the persons served by the program. The Order of Conditional License also cited Minn. Stat. § 245A.50, subd. 5, and Minn. Stat. § 245C.03, subd. 1(a).
20. In addition to the training and background study violations, the Order of Conditional License cited the violations from the September 3, 2008 Correction Order as a basis for issuing a Conditional License, stating:
Due to the serious and chronic nature of the above violations including failing to submit a background study on all required caregivers; failing to ensure that all caregivers received training to reduce the risks of SIDS/SBS before caring for infants; failing to use appropriate behavior guidance techniques; failing to ensure adequate supervision of children in care; failing to complete safety inspections of cribs in your program; and in order to protect the health, safety, and rights of children receiving services in DHS-licensed programs, your license to provide family child care is placed on conditional status for a period of one year.[20]
21. The Order of Conditional License allowed the Licensee to continue to operate with a conditional license with the following conditions:
1. You follow and comply with all applicable Minnesota Rules and Laws.
2. No variances to age distribution or capacity will be granted during the conditional period.
3. You submit a written plan to Clay County Social Services by May 22, 2009, regarding your plan for routine care as well as substitute care, including emergency situations. Your plan must list each caregiver, substitute, and helper; include documentation that they have completed all required training hours including SID/SES training and First Aid/CPR training as required; and document that a background study has been submitted. Your plan must indicate that you will not use a substitute for more than 30 days in any 12-month period. The plan must be approved by Clay County Social Services.
4. You submit a detailed written plan to Clay County Social Services by May 22, 2009, describing how you will use behavior guidance that is constructive, positive, and suited to the age of the child.
5. You obtain a minimum of six hours of additional training by August 1, 2009. The training is in addition to the annual training requirements as listed in Minnesota Statutes, Section 245A.50. This training must be in the area of child development and behavior guidance of children. Prior to attending training, you must obtain approval from Clay County Social Services that the training is appropriate. You must submit documentation of your attendance to Clay County Social Services.
6. You must either provide a copy of the Order of Conditional License to parents of children in care or document that all parents have been given an opportunity to review the Order of Conditional License. You must obtain parent signatures for each currently enrolled child, verifying they have either received a copy of the conditional order or had an opportunity to review the conditional order. You must provide this documentation to Clay County Social Services by [May 22], 2009. For new families, you must submit documentation of compliance with this term to Clay County Social Services within 5 days of any child’s admission to your child care program.[21]
22. On May 15, 2009, the Licensee mailed her appeal of the Order to Forfeit Fine and Order of Conditional License.[22] On June 18, 2009, the County mailed the Notice of and Order for Hearing, setting this matter on before the Administrative Law Judge for hearing.
23. On August 21, 2009, Karen Hellem (Licensee’s current License Worker) visited the Licensee’s daycare. Ms. Hellem observed several conditions that she believed did not comply with the rules and wrote a correction order on those items.[23] Due to the proximity of the visit and the hearing in this matter and the Licensee’s lack of an opportunity to respond to the correction order, the contents of the correction order have not been considered in this proceeding.
24. These Findings are based on all of the evidence in the record. Citations to portions of the record are not intended to be exclusive references.
25. To the extent that the Memorandum that follows explains the reasons for these Findings of Fact and contains additional findings of fact, including findings on credibility, the Administrative Law Judge incorporates them into these Findings.
26. The Administrative Law Judge adopts as Findings any Conclusions that are more appropriately described as Findings.
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following:
1. The Commissioner of Human Services and the Administrative Law Judge have jurisdiction to consider this matter.[24]
2. The Department gave proper and timely notice of the hearing and has complied with all procedural requirements of law and rule.
3. The Commissioner may impose a fine of $200 on a license holder for each occurrence of a violation of law or rule governing matters of health, safety, or supervision, $1,000 for each determination of maltreatment, and $100 for each occurrence of a violation that is not subject to a $200 or $1,000 fine.[25]
4. When the Commissioner has ordered a license holder to pay a fine, the license holder may, upon timely proper notice, appeal the fine by requesting a contested case proceeding. The Licensee in this matter made a timely and proper request for a contested case proceeding to appeal the fine imposed by the Commissioner.
5. If the Commissioner finds that the applicant or license holder has failed to comply with an applicable law or rule and this failure does not imminently endanger the health, safety, or rights of the persons served by the program, the Commissioner may also issue an order of conditional license to a licensee. When issuing a conditional license, the Commissioner must consider the nature, chronicity, or severity of the violation of law or rule and the effect of the violation on the health, safety, or rights of persons served by the program.[26] When the Commissioner issues a dual order of both a fine and a conditional license, the scope of an ensuing contested case hearing includes both the fine and the conditional license.[27]
6. Minn. Stat. § 245C.03, subd. 1(a), provides, in relevant part:
Subdivision 1. Licensed programs. (a) The commissioner shall conduct a background study on:
(1) the person or persons applying for a license;
(2) an individual age 13 and over living in the household where the licensed program will be provided;
(3) current or prospective employees or contractors of the applicant who will have direct contact with persons served by the facility, agency, or program;
(4) volunteers or student volunteers who will have direct contact with persons served by the program to provide program services if the contact is not under the continuous, direct supervision by an individual listed in clause (1) or (3);
(5) an individual age ten to 12 living in the household where the licensed services will be provided when the commissioner has reasonable cause;
(6) an individual who, without providing direct contact services at a licensed program, may have unsupervised access to children or vulnerable adults receiving services from a program, when the commissioner has reasonable cause; …
7. Minn. Stat. § 245C.04, subd. 1(h), provides:
(h) Applicants for licensure, license holders, and other entities as provided in this chapter must submit completed background study forms to the commissioner before individuals specified in section 245C.03, subdivision 1, begin positions allowing direct contact in any licensed program.
8. The Order to Forfeit a Fine alleged that the Licensee failed to submit a background study for a substitute provider who cared for day care children. While the Licensee had paid for the background study to be performed and provided the substitute with the form and an envelope to send it in, the background check information had not been submitted at the time the substitute was used to provide care. This constitutes a violation of Minn. Stat. § 245C.04, subd. 1(f).
9. Minn. Stat. § 245A.50, subd. 5(a), provides:
Subd. 5. Sudden infant death syndrome and shaken baby syndrome training. (a) License holders must document that before staff persons, caregivers, and helpers assist in the care of infants, they are instructed on the standards in section 245A.1435 and receive training on reducing the risk of sudden infant death syndrome and shaken baby syndrome. The training in this subdivision may be provided as initial training under subdivision 1 or ongoing training under subdivision 7.
10. “Substitute” is defined in Minnesota Rule 9502.0315 as follows:
Subp. 29. Substitute. "Substitute" means an adult at least 18 years of age who assumes the responsibility of the provider as specified in part 9502.0365, subpart 5.
11. The Order to Forfeit a Fine alleged that the Licensee failed to submit documentation on the completion of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and Shaken Baby Syndrome training for a substitute before that substitute began caring for an infant in the Licensee’s daycare. The Licensee acknowledged that her substitute had not completed either training, but maintained that the web-based Shaken Baby Syndrome training was flawed. The Licensee also asserted that she should have been able to rely on her substitute’s earlier training and overall demeanor regarding this required training.
12. The Licensee utilized a substitute who lacked required training. There is no exception or special treatment for formerly licensed daycare operators regarding required training. The Department has shown that there was a violation of Minn. Stat. § 245A.50, subd. 5, by the Licensee.
13. In determining appropriate sanctions, the Commissioner must consider the nature, chronicity, or severity of the violation of law or rule and the effect of the violation on the health, safety, or rights of persons served by the program.[28] The violations were not severe and the Licensee had attempted to obtain compliance with each of the requirements. Considering these criteria, a total fine of $200 is the appropriate sanction for the Licensee's violations.
14. The imposition of a Conditional License is based upon the violations of the background study requirement, the Sudden Infant Death Syndrome and Shaken Baby Syndrome training requirement, and the violations listed in the September 3, 2008 Correction Order.
15.
Although the Licensee is a relatively recent
Licensee, the number of violations occurring so soon after she opened her
daycare supports making her license conditional. This action should provide the Licensee an
incentive to achieve compliance with the standards and rules governing daycares
in
16. The Administrative Law Judge adopts as Conclusions any Findings that are more appropriately described as Conclusions.
17. The Memorandum that follows explains the reasons for these Conclusions, and the Administrative Law Judge therefore incorporates that Memorandum into these Conclusions.
Based upon the foregoing Conclusions, and for the reasons set forth in the attached memorandum, the Administrative Law Judge makes the following:
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the Department’s Order to Forfeit a Fine be MODIFIED to specify a fine of $200 and that its Order of Conditional License be AFFIRMED.
Dated: September 29, 2009
_/s/ Steve M. Mihalchick _
STEVE M. MIHALCHICK
Administrative Law Judge
Reported: Digital Recording, No Transcript Prepared.
This report is a recommendation, not a final
decision. The Commissioner of Human
Services will make the final decision after a review of the record. The Commissioner may adopt, reject or modify
the Findings of Fact, Conclusions, and Recommendations. Under Minn. Stat. § 14.61, the final decision
of the Commissioner shall not be made until this Report has been made available
to the parties to the proceeding for at least ten days. An opportunity must be afforded to each party
adversely affected by this Report to file exceptions and present argument to
the Commissioner. Parties should contact
the office of Cal Ludeman, Commissioner, Department of Human Services,
If the Commissioner fails to issue a final decision within 90 days of the close of the record, this report will constitute the final agency decision under Minn. Stat. § 14.62, subd. 2a. In order to comply with this statute, the Commissioner must then return the record to the Administrative Law Judge within 10 working days to allow the Judge to determine the negative licensing action, if any, to be imposed. The record closes upon the filing of exceptions to the report and the presentation of argument to the Commissioner, or upon the expiration of the deadline for doing so. The Commissioner must notify the parties and the Administrative Law Judge of the date on which the record closes.
Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 14.62, subd. 1, the Commissioner is required to serve his final decision upon each party and the Administrative Law Judge by first class mail.
At the hearing the Licensee acknowledged many of the items cited (such as the unlabelled baby bottles and the nonfunctioning radio and smoke detector), but maintained that there were circumstances that rendered the noncompliance unimportant. The Licensee acknowledged that some of the cited items for paperwork were accurate because she is “not good with paperwork.”[29] The Licensee asked, “if you get busy with kids, is it more important to take care of the kids or label the bottles?”[30]
The purpose of the rules, including requirement for labeling bottles, is to protect the health and safety of the children. That is why providing direct care for children is not an excuse for not following these rules. Where the Licensee cannot get the parents to comply with the rules when sending food, the Licensee must either label the food when it arrives (or use a permanent marker on the container) or terminate the daycare relationship with that parent.
The Licensee expressed strong emotions at the hearing and in her posthearing brief. It is important for the Licensee to understand that the County is responsible for enforcing the rules governing daycare and that these rules are in place to protect the health and safety of children in care. As part of that enforcement, licensing workers must investigate complaints. While complaints may arise from improper motives, this does not change the County’s obligation to investigate, based on the information received. The mere fact that an investigation is initiated does not constitute an accusation by the County that the information received was true.
Much of the Licensee’s presentation at the hearing centered on the problems posed by the difficult children, and one child in particular, in her care. No one questioned that these children were difficult to care for. But the standards that the Licensee is obliged to meet do not change when children are ill-behaved. The Licensee must determine for herself whether any particular child poses too great of a challenge and control the enrollment of the child care accordingly.
The License also expressed her frustration with parents who failed to pay for the child care that had been received. The obligations to meet the standards for care are directed at the health and safety of children. There is no connection between meeting those standards and whether a provider is paid by a parent or guardian. The business aspects of daycare are not governed by the rules, but rather left to the discretion of the provider and parents or guardians.
At the hearing, the Licensee emphasized that she had initiated the process for her substitute to obtain the background check and complete the required training. But initiating the process is not sufficient to meet the rule requirements. The Licensee had a substitute caring for children in care, including an infant, before the background study was completed and before required training was obtained, and thereby violated the applicable statute and rules.
The Department has shown that the Licensee’s use of a substitute was in violation of the cited standards, which require that the required training and background study be completed before a sub is permitted to provide care. The imposition of a fine is supported by the evidence in this proceeding. The severity of the violations is low, the Licensee had taken significant steps toward compliance, and the Licensee had some reason to believe that her substitute had the actual knowledge required of substitute caregivers. In addition, the Licensee has shown that her financial situation supports a reduction in the amount of the fine to be imposed. For these reasons, the ALJ suggests that a portion of the total fine be.
The Licensee elaborated on her objections to the manner in which the County conducts its oversight role. The Licensee also described a number of health-related issues that she experiences in attempting to meet the standards that govern licensed child care. The standards in place governing the provision of licensed daycare are directed toward ensuring that children in care are afforded a safe and appropriate environment by the licensed provider. There is no exception to this standard for a licensee’s medical condition or any other reason. The Licensee’s objections do not demonstrate that she has been in compliance with the standards governing her daycare. The issuance of a conditional license is well supported on the record in this proceeding.
The Licensee explained at the hearing that prior abuse in her life has created many difficulties for her, one of which is in judging the intent of people she encounters. The Administrative Law Judge is not able to evaluate that fact fully, but it is clear that the Licensee has badly misjudged Ms. Cardinal’s intentions in performing her licensing functions in this case. Ms. Cardinal correctly found that the violations listed above existed and took appropriate action to guide the Licensee into compliance. The sanctions she proposed were quite mild. The Licensee mistakenly took Ms. Cardinal’s critiques as a personal attack and responded with totally unjustified and distorted personal attacks upon Ms. Cardinal.
S.M.M.
[1] Testimony of Kathleen Cardinal.
[2] Testimony of Cardinal; Exhibit 6.
[3] Testimony of Licensee; Testimony of Cardinal; Exhibit 6.
[4] Testimony of Licensee; Testimony of Cardinal; Exhibit 6.
[5] Testimony of Licensee; Testimony of Cardinal; Exhibit 6.
[6] Exhibit 6.
[7] Testimony of Cardinal; Exhibit 7.
[8] Testimony of Cardinal; Exhibit 7.
[9] Testimony of Licensee; Testimony of Cardinal; Exhibit 7.
[10] Exhibit 4.
[11] Testimony of Licensee; Testimony of Cardinal; Exhibit 7.
[12] Exhibit 7; Testimony of Cardinal.
[13] Testimony of Licensee; Exhibit 7, DHS September 19, 2008 Letter.
[14] Exhibit 4.
[15] Testimony of Licensee; Testimony of Cardinal.
[16] Exhibit 8.
[17] Exhibit 7.
[18] Testimony of Cardinal.
[19] Exhibit 1.
[20] Exhibit 1.
[21] Exhibit 1 (emphasis in original).
[22] Exhibit 3.
[23] Exhibit 9.
[24] Minn. Stat. §§ 245A.07, subds. 1 and 3; 14.50.
[25]
[26] Minn. Stat. § 245A.06, subd. 1.
[27]
[28]
[29] Testimony of Licensee.
[30]