The Department of Public Health sought revocation of Rochelle George’s registered nursing and advanced practice nursing licenses at a hearing where the Department argued evidence shows Medlife Institute Naples issued associate of science nursing diplomas to students who did not complete the program’s required in-person clinical hours.

Department counsel told the hearing officer that the Department received information from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Office of Inspector General and introduced affidavits and program outlines they say show the Medlife Naples associate degree was approved for in-person instruction only. "None of the individuals ... who were issued the associate of science diploma and transcript from Medlife Naples had completed the required program hours and training necessary to obtain an associate of science nursing degree," counsel said when summarizing the Tanis affidavit and related exhibits.

The Department outlined a chronology of attendance Ms. George reported — three days in April 2016, three days in May 2016 and additional days in July 2016 — and used those dates to estimate roughly 63 hours of instruction from the Naples campus, which the Department contrasted with program materials indicating a larger in-person-hour requirement. The Department also cited an affidavit from Sherry Sutton Johnson of the Florida Board of Nursing stating the approved associate program required campus delivery and "was not approved for online instruction."

In response, defense counsel Tony Mitchell argued the Department had not met its burden of proof and questioned the probative value of the affidavits offered against Ms. George. "She did everything by the book," Mitchell said, noting Ms. George disclosed her attendance at Medlife on licensing applications and that the Department previously reviewed applications and permitted testing. Mitchell described the Tanis affidavit as not specific to Ms. George and labeled the affidavit’s author unreliable for purposes of deciding Ms. George’s individual licensing status.

Counsel and the hearing officer also debated the appropriate scope of documentary proof and whether additional exhibits should be admitted; defense counsel objected to line-of-memory questioning about events nine years earlier, and the hearing officer sustained some objections while allowing other testimony to stand. The Department referenced multiple exhibits (Department Exhibits 1–9) including an investigator’s report, transcripts, program outlines and an affidavit by Medlife’s owner, Cleofat Tanis.

The hearing did not conclude with a final ruling. The hearing officer kept the record open to permit possible admission of additional documents and said she would rule on a pending motion to strike the respondent’s special defenses in a written order that would set a briefing schedule. The hearing officer indicated she planned to review the record and issue an order but did not announce a decision at the session’s close.

The procedural posture is that the record remains open and the officer will rule on the motion to strike and any related scheduling in a forthcoming order. Counsel requested copies of the transcript for their records; the officer said the order and directions on next steps will be mailed to the parties.