STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION ) OF LICENSING, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NOS. 95-3553

) 95-4775

INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES ) INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED, and ) ROBERT C. SEITZ, PRESIDENT, )

)

Respondents. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, Claude B. Arrington, held a formal hearing in the above-styled case on May 22, 1996, in Miami, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Douglas D. Sunshine, Esquire

Department of State, Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station No. 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250

For Respondent: Jeffrey A. Norkin, Esquire

Jeffrey A. Norkin, P.A.

44 West Flagler Street, Suite 412 Miami, Florida 33130

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

As to each case, whether the Respondents committed the offenses alleged in the respective administrative complaints and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Petitioner filed two separate administrative complaints against the Respondents, a licensed investigative agency and its president. The Respondents timely requested a formal hearing to challenge each administrative complaint.

The matters were referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings, assigned the case numbers reflected above, and consolidated.

The administrative complaint that underpins DOAH Case 95-3553 contains certain factual allegations as to an investigation for a client named Jacqueline Alfaro. Based on those factual allegations, Petitioner charged Respondents with multiple violations of the laws regulating investigative activities. Count One charges that Respondents violated Section 493.6118(1)(f), Florida Statutes, by

failing or refusing to provide a written report of the subject investigation after being requested to do so. Count Two charges that Respondents violated Section 493.6118(1)(f), Florida Statutes, by failing or refusing to provide an itemized billing of time and expenses incurred during the investigation after being requested to do so by the client. Count Three charges that Respondents violated Section 493.612(12), Florida Statutes, by failing to maintain investigative notes of surveillance activity of the investigation at issue.

Count Four charges that Respondents violated Section 493.6118(1)(f), Florida Statutes, by committing misconduct, fraud, or deceit in the practice of regulated activities by charging the client for computer research that was not authorized by the client nor related to the subject of the investigation. Count Five charges that Respondents violated Section 493.6118(1)(f), Florida Statutes, by committing misconduct, fraud, or deceit in the practice of regulated activities by returning only a portion of the refund to which the client was entitled. Count Six charges that Respondents violated Section 493.6118(1)(f), Florida Statutes, by committing misconduct, fraud, or deceit in the practice of regulated activities by charging the client for mileage to Dade County, Florida, from Broward County, for an investigation that took place entirely within Dade County.

The administrative complaint that underpins DOAH Case 95-4775 contains certain factual allegations as to the employment by Respondent, Investigative Services International, Incorporated (ISI) of an investigative intern named Robin Bloodworth. Based on those factual allegations, Petitioner charged Respondents with multiple violations of the laws regulating investigative activities. Count One charges that Respondents violated Section 493.6118(1)(t), Florida Statutes, by failing to report the hiring of the intern to the Petitioner as required by Section 493.6112(2), Florida Statutes. Count Two charges that Respondents violated Section 493.6118(1)(t), Florida Statutes, by employing the intern without first submitting a "Notice of Intent to Sponsor" form to the Petitioner as required by Section 493.6112(2), Florida Statutes.

Count Three charges that Respondents violated Section 493.6118(1)(t), Florida Statutes, by failing to report to the Department the termination of the employment of the intern, and the reasons for such action, as required by Section 493.6112(2), Florida Statutes. Count Four charges that Respondents violated Section 493.6118(1)(r), Florida Statutes, by failing to certify to Petitioner a biannual progress report pertaining to the intern. Count Five charges that Respondents violated Section 493.6118(1)(f), Florida Statutes, by failing to supervise, direct, or control a private investigator intern during assignments as required by Section 493.611(3), Florida Statutes.

At the formal hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of John Michael Schulgen, Robin Ann Bloodworth, Jacqueline Alfaro, and Reynaldo Alfaro. Mr.

Schulgen is an investigator employed by the Petitioner. Ms. Bloodworth is the investigative intern referred to in DOAH Case 95-4775. Jacqueline Alfaro is the client who ordered the investigation referred to in DOAH Case 95-3553 and Reynaldo Alfaro is her nephew. Petitioner offered four exhibits, each of which was admitted into evidence. Respondents presented the testimony of Mr. Seitz and of Michael Graff, an investigator employed by ISI. Respondents offered seven exhibits, each of which was admitted into evidence.

A transcript of the proceedings has been filed. At the request of the parties, the time for filing post-hearing submissions was set for more than ten days following the filing of the transcript. Consequently, the parties waived the requirement that a recommended order be rendered within thirty days after

the transcript is filed. Rule 60Q-2.031, Florida Administrative Code. Rulings on the parties' proposed findings of fact may be found in the Appendix to this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent, Robert C. Seitz, held a valid Class "C" Private Investigator License, Number C88-00643 and Respondent, Investigative Services International, Incorporated (ISI), held a valid Class "A" Investigative License. Mr. Seitz is the president of ISI. All acts described in this Recommended Order committed by Mr. Seitz were in his capacity as an employee and officer of ISI.

   
   

   CASE NO. 95-3553

   
   

2. On December 30, 1994, Mr. Seitz executed a contract on behalf of ISI by which he agreed that his agency would perform investigative services for Jacqueline Alfaro. The nature of the investigation was the surveillance, videotaping, and documentation of the activities of Ms. Alfaro's sister-in-law. Ms. Alfaro suspected that her sister-in-law was engaged in an extramarital affair and wanted proof of her suspicions to give to her brother, who was incarcerated on federal drug charges.

   
   

3. Ms. Alfaro gave to Mr. Seitz a retainer of $1,000 in cash, as requested by Mr. Seitz.

   
   

4. The contract for services executed by Ms. Alfaro authorized ISI to bill for the expenses of computer research. Petitioner asserts that Ms. Alfaro provided Mr. Seitz with all pertinent information that was required for the investigation and that additional computer research was not necessary. Mr. Seitz testified, credibly, that some computer research was appropriate to assist him in preparing for his surveillance of Ms. Alfaro's sister-in-law by identifying suspects and possible locations of meetings. Consequently, it is concluded that some of the computer research done by Mr. Seitz was appropriate. In addition to the computer research that was in furtherance of the investigation, Mr. Seitz conducted computer research on his own client. The computer research on Jacqueline Alfaro was inappropriate and was not in furtherance of the investigation of the sister-in-law. The records of ISI for the Alfaro investigation consists of a bookkeeping entry that merely reflects that expenses in the lump-sum amount of $100.00 were incurred for computer research. This record is insufficient to substantiate what was being billed.

   1/ Mr. Seitz testified that his company's records of the expenses for the computer research excluded the time he spent researching his own client. This testimony is accepted and, consequently, it is concluded that Petitioner failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the bill to Ms. Alfaro 2/ included expenses for inappropriate computer research.

   
   

5. The contract authorizes charges for mileage incurred outside of Dade County at the rate of 45 per mile. Ms. Alfaro was told by Mr. Seitz that she would not be charged mileage because the investigation would be exclusively within Dade County. The bill submitted to Ms. Alfaro included a charge for mileage of $33.75 incurred on January 5, 1995. This mileage was purportedly incurred for 75 miles driven by Mr. Seitz in Broward County. There was also a billing of $32.50 for one-half hour driving time on the same date. Respondent's testified that he was spending time on a weekend with his family in Broward County when he was summoned by Ms. Alfaro back to Dade County. He further testified that he billed for only the mileage he incurred while in Broward

   County traveling to Dade County. This explanation is rejected as lacking credibility for two reasons. First, January 5, 1995, fell on a Thursday, not on a weekend. Second, it is doubtful that Mr. Seitz would have traveled 75 miles going from Broward County to Dade County. It is concluded that Ms. Alfaro was inappropriately billed for the 75 miles that Mr. Seitz allegedly drove in Broward County on January 5, 1995.

   
   

6. Petitioner did not establish that the billing of $32.50 for driving time on January 5, 1995, was inappropriate since that was for time spent driving within Dade County, Florida.

   
   

7. Ms. Alfaro frequently spoke with Mr. Seitz about the investigation, requesting details. She came to believe that Mr. Seitz was not performing his investigation and sent her nephew to check on him. On different occasions, the nephew went to the locations where Mr. Seitz had told Ms. Alfaro he would be conducting a surveillance of the sister-in-law. The nephew reported to Ms. Alfaro that Mr. Seitz was not at those locations.

   
   

8. On or about January 9, 1995, Ms. Alfaro instructed Mr. Seitz to terminate the investigation because her nephew caught his stepmother with another man.

   
   

9. There was a dispute as to whether Ms. Alfaro requested a written report of the investigation and copies of video tapes taken during the investigation. Ms. Alfaro testified that she wanted a written report and copies of videotapes because she did not believe that Mr. Seitz had conducted an investigation. Mr. Seitz testified that she did not ask for a written report because she did not want her brother to know that she had been investigating his wife. This conflict is resolved by finding that Ms. Alfaro did ask for a written report of the investigation and that she wanted copies of any video tapes. This finding is reached, in part, because Ms. Alfaro clearly did not believe that Mr. Seitz had performed an investigation as he had verbally reported to her. A request for a written report would be consistent with that belief. The finding is also based on an evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses offering the conflicting testimony.

   
   

10. On or about January 12, 1995, Mr. Seitz left Ms. Alfaro a handwritten note and $170.00 cash under the door of her business. The note reflected that the total of time and mileage for the investigation was $830.00. The $170.00 purported to represent the difference between the amounts incurred by Ms. Alfaro pursuant to the contract and the amount of the retainer.

    
    

11. Ms. Alfaro requested an itemized statement to substantiate this billing. She never received a written report, any videotape, or an itemized billing.

    
    

12. Mr. Seitz and ISI failed to maintain investigative notes of the surveillance activities on behalf of Ms. Alfaro.

    
    

13. Mr. Seitz produced to Petitioner's investigator what purports to be a computer record of the charges incurred by Ms. Alfaro. The hourly rate specified by the contract was $65.00. The charges reflected by the computer record are as follows:

    
    

    A. 1-4-95	Computer Research	$100.00
    B. 1-5-95	Surveillance	130.00
    C. 1-5-95	Travel Time	32.50

    D. 1-5-95 Mileage (75 @ 45 )	33.75
    E. 1-6-95 Surveillance	325.00
    F. 1-6-95 Travel Time	65.00
    G. 1-7-95 Standby Time	65.00
    	$751.25

    
    

14. The computer records also reflected that the agency agreed to absorb taxes in the amount of $48.83. Mr. Seitz rounded these figures and determined that Ms. Alfaro was entitled to a refund of $250.00. Mr. Seitz testified that he actually returned to Ms. Alfaro the sum of $250.00 in the note he left for her on January 12, 1995. He testified that his note reflecting that the sum of

    $170.00 was being returned to her was an error on his part. Ms. Alfaro's testimony was that she was returned only $170.00. Since Ms. Alfaro's testimony is consistent with Mr. Seitz's handwritten note, the conflicting evidence is resolved by finding that Mr. Seitz returned to Ms. Alfaro the sum of $170.00.

    His testimony that he simply made a mistake as to the amounts due to be refunded is found to be credible and is, consequently, accepted.

    
    

    CASE 95-4775

    
    

15. At the times pertinent to this proceeding, Robin Bloodworth held a Class "CC" Private Investigator Intern license issued by Petitioner.

    
    

16. Prior to January 17, 1995, Ms. Bloodworth was told by a friend of hers that he knew someone who might be interested in employing her. This friend asked her to fax to him a copy of her resume.

    
    

17. On January 17, 1995, Ms. Bloodworth was contacted by telephone twice by Mr. Seitz. She faxed to him her resume in response to the request he made during the first conversation. He thereafter called a second time, at approximately 10:15 p.m. and asked whether she could be available for a surveillance the following Sunday (January 22, 1995). In response, Ms. Bloodworth told him that she could be available for that assignment on Sunday.

    
    

18. On January 18, 1995, Ms. Bloodworth received another telephone call from Mr. Seitz. He asked if she could be on a surveillance by 11:00 a.m. that day in Hollywood, Florida. Ms. Bloodworth accepted that assignment after Mr. Seitz told her what he wanted her to do, thereby beginning her employment with ISI.

    
    

19. Ms. Bloodworth did not meet Mr. Seitz in person until 6:30 p.m. on January 18, 1995. During that first meeting, Ms. Bloodworth gave to Mr. Seitz a copy of her Class "CC" Private Investigator Intern license and was told by him that he was going to fill out her sponsor forms and send them to the Petitioner.

    
    

20. Mr. Seitz knew that Ms. Bloodworth was a novice investigator with little field experience, other than process serving.

    
    

21. Ms. Bloodworth never actually saw any documentation from Mr. Seitz or ISI regarding forms pertaining to her employment that were required to be submitted to the Petitioner. She never received a copy of a letter notifying Petitioner that either Mr. Seitz or ISI intended to sponsor her.

    
    

22. Prior to being employed by ISI, Ms. Bloodworth had held her Class "CC" Private Investigator Intern license for approximately six months and had conducted only two or three surveillances. Ms. Bloodworth received no formal

    training from ISI. During the course of her employment with ISI, which lasted approximately three months, she conducted approximately 35 investigations.

    
    

23. Ms. Bloodworth was not directly supervised by Mr. Seitz or by anyone else while she was in the field conducting her investigations. Prior to undertaking an assignment, Mr. Seitz would explain to her the assignment and generally instruct her as to what she would need to do. He frequently told her to use her "judgment" as she was a "big girl". He told her that he did not have time to "baby-sit" her. Ms. Bloodworth had a cellular telephone at her disposal and she knew Mr. Seitz' pertinent telephone numbers at all times. She was instructed to only call him in the event of an emergency.

    
    

24. The only time Mr. Seitz visited Ms. Bloodworth in the field was on one assignment for approximately an hour. That visit was prompted by her needing batteries for a camcorder.

    
    

25. During the latter part of her employment with ISI, Ms. Bloodworth was told to contact Michael Graff, the lead investigator for ISI, and not Mr. Seitz.

    
    

26. During her employment with ISI, Ms. Bloodworth was assigned to conduct an investigation in Haiti. Prior to being sent to Haiti, Ms. Bloodworth was briefed as to the assignment, which included instructions as to where to go, who to meet, and what to do. Ms. Bloodworth was able to contact ISI personnel by telephone.

    
    

27. Petitioner does not regulate investigations outside of the United States.

    
    

28. Ms. Bloodworth's official Class "CC" Private Investigator Intern application file as maintained by the Department of State, Division of Licensing, does not contain a notification that ISI or Mr. Seitz intended to sponsor her. This file does not contain any documentation relating to Ms. Bloodworth's hiring by ISI, her termination, or an intern biannual report.

    
    

29. Mr. Seitz testified that he submitted to Petitioner a form notifying it that ISI intended to sponsor Ms. Bloodworth. He displayed to Petitioner's investigator a form that he represented was a file copy of the notification form. That form was dated January 13, 1995, which was four days before he first talked to Ms. Bloodworth and five days before he met her in person and received a copy of her license. He was unable to produce any other documentation as to this notification. Mr. Seitz's testimony as to this issue is rejected as lacking credibility.

    
    

30. Mr. Seitz admits that ISI did not submit any documentation relating to the termination of Ms. Bloodworth's employment and it did not submit an intern biannual report that would have been due as a result of her employment having been terminated. Mr. Seitz testified that he did not file these reports when Ms. Bloodworth's employment was terminated because she threatened him and he was awaiting the results of a police investigation before filing the reports. 3/

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

31. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the parties to and the subject matter of this proceeding. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

32. Petitioner seeks to revoke the licensure of Mr. Seitz and ISI pursuant to Section 493.6118(2)(e), Florida Statutes. Consequently, Petitioner has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence the allegations against Respondent. See Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987); Evans Packing Co. v. Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 550 So.2d 112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989).

    
    

33. Section 493.6118, Florida Statutes, provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

    
    

    1. The following constitute grounds for which disciplinary action specified in sub- section (2) may be taken by the department against any licensee, agency, or applicant regulated by this chapter.

       * * *

       (f) Proof that the . . . licensee is guilty of fraud or deceit, or of negligence . . . or misconduct, in the practice of the activities regulated under this chapter.

       * * *

       (r) Failure or refusal by a sponsor to certify a biannual written report on an intern or to certify completion or termination of an intern- ship to the department within 15 working days.

       * * *

       (t) Violating any provision of this chapter.

       * * *

    2. When the department finds any violation of subsection (1), it may do one or more of the following:

       * * *

       1. Issue a reprimand.

       2. Impose an administrative fine not to

          exceed $1,000 for every count or separate offense.

       3. Place the licensee on probation for a period of time and subject to such conditions as the department may specify.

       4. Suspend or revoke a license.

       
       

34. Section 493.6112(2), Florida Statutes, provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

    
    

    (2) Each agency . . . shall, upon the employ- ment or termination of employment of a licensee, report such employment or termination immediately to the department and, in the case of a termi- nation, report the reason or reasons therefor. The report shall be on a form prescribed by the department.

    
    

35. Section 493.6116, Florida Statutes, pertains to the sponsorship of interns and provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

    
    

    1. An internship may not commence until the sponsor has submitted to the department the notice of intent to sponsor. Such notice shall

       be on a form prescribed by the department.

    2. Internship is intended to serve as a learning process. Sponsors shall assume a training status by providing direction and control of interns. Sponsors . . . shall not allow interns to operate independently of such direction and control, or require interns to perform activities which do not enhance the intern's qualifications for licensure.

    * * *

    1. A sponsor shall certify a biannual progress on each intern and shall certify completion or termination of an internship to the department within 15 days after such completion or termi- nation. The report must be made on a form provided by the department and must include at a minimum:

       1. The inclusive dates of the internship.

       2. A narrative part explaining the primary duties, types of experiences gained, and the scope of training received.

       3. An evaluation of the performance of the intern and a recommendation regarding future licensure.

    
    

36. Section 493.6121(2), Florida Statutes, provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

    
    

    (2) In any investigation undertaken by the department, each licensed . . . person . . . shall, upon request of the department provide records and shall truthfully respond to question concerning activities regulated under this chapter. Such records shall be maintained in this state for a period of 2 years at the principal place of business of the licensee . . .

    
    

    COUNT ONE OF CASE 95-3553

    
    

37. Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that ISI violated Section 493.6118(1)(f), Florida Statutes, by failing or refusing to provide a written report of the Alfaro investigation after being requested to do so. This failure constitutes misconduct.

    
    

    COUNT TWO OF CASE 95-3553

    
    

38. Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that ISI violated Section 493.6118(1)(f), Florida Statutes, by failing or refusing an itemized billing of time and expenses incurred during the Alfaro investigation after being requested to do so. This failure constitutes misconduct.

    
    

    COUNT THREE OF CASE 95-3553

    
    

39. Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that ISI violated Section 493.6118(1)(f), Florida Statutes, by failing by failing to maintain investigative notes of the Alfaro surveillance activity as required by Section 493.6121(2), Florida Statutes.

    COUNT FOUR OF CASE 95-3553

    
    

40. Petitioner failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that ISI violated Section 493.6118(1)(f), Florida Statutes, by charging Ms. Alfaro for computer research that was not authorized nor related to the subject of the investigation.

    
    

    COUNT FIVE OF CASE 95-3553

    
    

41. Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that ISI or Mr. Seitz violated Section 493.6118(1)(f), Florida Statutes, by returning to Ms. Alfaro the sum of $170.00 where its own records reflect that she was entitled to a refund of $250.00. The explanation from Mr. Seitz that this was a simple error on his part is accepted and has been considered as mitigating evidence. This error does not excuse and does not mitigate the failure to provide an itemized billing after being requested to do so.

    
    

    COUNT SIX OF CASE 95-3553

    
    

42. Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that ISI violated Section 493.6118(1)(f), Florida Statutes, by charging Ms. Alfaro for mileage to Dade County, Florida, from Broward County, for an investigation that took place entirely within Dade County. This charge constitutes misconduct.

    
    

    COUNT ONE OF CASE 95-4775

    
    

43. Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that ISI violated Section 493.6118(1)(t), Florida Statutes, by failing to report the hiring of the intern to the Petitioner as required by Section 493.6112(2), Florida Statutes.

    
    

    COUNT TWO OF CASE 95-4775

    
    

44. Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that ISI violated Section 493.6118(1)(t), Florida Statutes, by employing the intern without first submitting a "Notice of Intent to Sponsor" form to the Petitioner as required by Section 493.6112(2), Florida Statutes.

    
    

    COUNT THREE OF CASE 95-4775

    
    

45. Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that ISI violated Section 493.6118(1)(t), Florida Statutes, by failing to report to the Department the termination of the employment of the intern, and the reasons for such action, as required by Section 493.6112(2), Florida Statutes as alleged in Count Three of Case 95-4775.

    
    

    COUNT FOUR OF CASE 95-4775

    
    

46. Petitioner established by clear and convincing evidence that ISI violated Section 493.6118(1)(r), Florida Statutes, by failing to certify to Petitioner a biannual progress report pertaining to the intern as alleged in Count Four of Case 95-4775.

    COUNT FIVE OF CASE 95-4775

    
    

47. Petitioner failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Seitz or ISI violated Section 493.6118(1)(f), Florida Statutes, by failing to supervise, direct, or control a private investigator intern during assignments as required by Section 493.611(3), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count Five of Case 95-4775. The record fails to establish the standard of supervision required or that the level of supervision given to Ms. Bloodworth failed to meet that standard.

    
    

48. Petitioner has not adopted disciplinary guidelines pertinent to the violations of Section 493.6118(1)(f), Florida Statutes, but it is authorized to impose discipline pursuant to Section 493.6118(2), Florida Statutes.

    
    

49. Petitioner has adopted certain disciplinary guidelines that are pertinent to the violations found in this proceeding. Rule 1C-3.113(1)(h), Florida Administrative Code, contains a guideline ranging from an administrative fine of $50-$150 to probation for a violation of Section 493.6112(2), Florida Statutes. Rule 1C-3.113(1)(y), Florida Administrative Code, contains a guideline penalty ranging from an administrative fine of $200-$700 to one month's suspension of license for a violation of Section 493.6121(2), Florida Statutes. Rule 1C-3.113(2)(t), Florida Administrative Code, contains a guideline penalty ranging from an administrative fine of $150-$350 for a violation of Section 493.6118(1),(r), Florida Statutes.

    
    

50. Based on the foregoing guidelines and the totality of the record, it is recommended that administrative fines be imposed as follows. For the misconduct in violation of Section 493.6118(1)(f), Florida Statutes, established by Counts One, Two, Five, and Six of Case 95-3553, it is recommended that Respondents be fined in the amount of $200.00 per count. For the violation of Section 493.6121(2), Florida Statutes, established by Count Three of Case 95- 3553, it is recommended that Respondents be fined in the amount of $200.00. For the violation of Section 493.6118(1)(t), Florida Statutes, established by Counts One and Three of Case 95-4775, it is recommended that Respondents be fined in the amount of $150.00 per count. For the violation of Section 493.6112(2), Florida Statutes, established by Count Two of Case 95-4775, it is recommended that Respondents be fined in the amount of $150.00. For the violation of Section 493.6118(1)(r), Florida Statutes, established by Count Four of Case 95- 4775, it is recommended that Respondents be fined in the amount of $150.00.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a final order containing the findings

of fact and conclusions of law contained herein. It is further recommended that Respondents, Investigative Services International, Inc., and Robert C. Seitz, be fined in the total amount of $1,600.00.

DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August, 1996.

ENDNOTES

1/ Respondents were charged with failure to provide an itemized billing in Count Two of Case 95-3553.

2/ Reference is to the handwritten note to Ms. Alfaro that was slipped under her office door with a cash refund of $170.00. She was never provided an itemized bill.

3/ This explanation does not establish a justification for the failure to file these reports, but may be considered as mitigating evidence.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER

The following rulings are made as to the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner.

1. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1-14, 15-23, 25-28, 30-45 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order or are subordinate to the findings made.

2. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 14 and 24 are subordinate to the findings that Ms. Bloodworth was not directly supervised while in the field.

3. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 29 are rejected as being contrary to the findings made.

The post-hearing submittal filed by Respondents, styled "Respondent's (sic) Closing Argument Brief" consists of argument and does not contain separately delineated proposed findings of fact.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Douglas D. Sunshine, Esquire Department of State, Division

of Licensing

The Capitol, Mail Station No. 4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250

Jeffrey Norkin, Esquire Jeffrey Norkin, P.A.

44 West Flagler Street, No. 412 Miami, Florida 33130

Honorable Sandra B. Mortham Secretary of State

The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250

Don Bell, General Counsel Department of State

The Capitol, PL-02

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this recommended order. All agencies allow each party at least ten days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this recommended order. Any exceptions to this recommended order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.

Docket for Case No: 95-003553

Orders for Case No: 95-003553