Findings Of Fact The Parties Lan-Mac Pest Control-Englewood, Inc. and Lan-Mac Pest Control-Fort Myers, Inc. (Lan-Mac) are pest control operators conducting business in the general area of each individual respondent regarding whom they have requested a formal hearing. Larry McKinney owns these companies and has over 4,000 customers, nine pest control routes, six lawn care routes and a termite crew, all servicing the west coast from Collier County up through Sarasota County. Certified Operators of SW Florida, Inc. and Florida Pest Control Association, Inc. (FPCA) are trade associations with members who are pest control operators conducting business in the geographical area of each individual respondent regarding whom they have petitioned for a formal hearing. The members of these associations are substantially affected by the issues raised in this proceeding. As stipulated by the parties, the petitioners described above have standing to petition and participate as parties in this proceeding. (Prehearing Stipulation, page 12) Each of the individual respondents has submitted to the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DACS) an application for registration as an especially pesticide-sensitive person, together with the statutory fee and a purported physician's certificate. Each individual respondent's claim is addressed more specifically below. The DACS is the state agency responsible for administering and maintaining the pesticide-sensitive persons' registry as provided in section 482.2265(3), F.S. The Registry Upon payment of a fee and submittal of an appropriate physician's certificate, pesticide-sensitive persons are placed on a list of persons who are entitled to 24-hour advance notice when a pest control operator is going to make an exterior application on property adjacent or contiguous to the pesticide- sensitive person's primary residence. The certificate must be from a physician qualified in a category established by department rule. The department has adopted rule 5E-14.146, F.A.C. specifying the categories. The DACS may designate a person "especially pesticide-sensitive" if, in addition to the submittal described above, the person provides "clear and convincing proof" that he or she is so sensitive to pesticides that the standard notice is not enough, and notification of applications at greater distance is necessary to protect the person's health. The notification distance requirement may not exceed one-half mile from the boundaries of the property where the hypersensitive person resides. The required notice is limited to use of a pesticide or pesticide class to which sensitivity is documented or for which the department determines sensitivity is scientifically probable. The department may limit notice requirements in applications in excess of a stipulated quantity and may not require notice of applications at a distance beyond the minimum distance required to prevent endangerment of the health of the individual. Section 482.2265, F.S. requires the individual registrant (pesticide- sensitive person) to notify the department of the properties or residences falling within the notice parameters (either adjacent or extra distance) so that the department can supply this necessary information to the pest control operators. Without this information, the operators cannot know whether a specific application is subject to notice. Pest control operators who fail to provide the notice required by section 482.2265, F.S. are subject to administrative sanctions by DACS, including fines and license suspension or revocation. Violations of the Pest Control Act are third degree misdemeanors. John Mulrennan, Ph.D. is the Bureau Chief of DACS' Bureau of Entomology and Pest Control, which bureau administers the requirements of Chapter 482, F.S. Dr. Mulrennan has a Ph.D. in entomology from Oklahoma State University. Dr. Mulrennan has delegated the day-to-day administration of the registry to Philip Helseth, Administrator of the Pest Control Section; and to Cherie Decker, Philip Helseth's secretary. Mr. Helseth, and more often, Cherie Decker, review applications from persons seeking to be placed on the registry. They determine whether the application is complete, the fee is attached or waived, and the physician signing the certification is properly qualified under the rule. The department has no medical personnel on staff to review medical records and it relies entirely on the physician's certification for the determination of eligibility for the registry. Dr. Mulrennan considers that a physician who is licensed and board-certified should be able to make the necessary diagnosis and the department is in no position to question that diagnosis. There are several versions of the application form/physician's certification that have been used by the agency, DACS, and its predecessor agency, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), but the current version is a one-page form with blanks to be completed on the front and printed guidelines on the back. The form elicits the person's name and primary residence address, with day and night telephone numbers. The form includes this "Physician's Certification:" I certify that the individual named above is a patient of mine and should be placed on the list of pesticide-sensitive persons. This individual has a documented sensitivity to a particular pesticide or class of pest- icides. The specific pesticide or class of pesticides to which registrant is sensitive: [blanks provided] The individual named above is currently under my care for a diagnosed condition or ailment for which I have proof that the normal appli- cation of a pesticide would aggravate the condition or ailment to such an extent that placement on the registry for prior notification is necessary to protect that person's health. Diagnosed condition or ailment: [blanks provided] (FPCA Exhibit #17) For persons registering as especially pesticide- sensitive, the form requests the special distance required: one block, two blocks, 1/4 mile, up to 1/2 mile limit. The certifying physician's signature, address, telephone number and the signature of a witness follows this statement: I further certify that I am a qualified physician, board certified and recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties in the specialty of toxicology, allergy or occupational medicine. I have diagnosed this patient's sensitivity based on the guidelines set forth by the department (see reverse side). Board certification will be verified by this Bureau. (FPCA Exhibit #17) The guidelines on the reverse of the form were developed with the assistance of the State Health Director, Dr. Mahan, and the Florida Medical Association. The guidelines are: GUIDELINES FOR DIAGNOSING PESTICIDE SENSITIVITY The department recommends the following basic steps be considered in diagnosing an individual as pesticide sensitive: good evidence of exposure history clinical manifestations from a particular exposure body testing related to an exposure, such as x-ray, blood test, urine test, etc., necessary to make a diagnosis environment [sic] examination of the site where the exposure occurs, such as a person's place of work, to determine the existence of exposure in the environment (FPCA Exhibit #17) According to FPCA expert, Dr. Ronald Gots, these guidelines, with minor modifications, are appropriate in determining whether or not someone has sustained a pesticide exposure and reaction and whether there is a causal relationship between a more distant application and endangerment to health. In Dr. Gots' view, the clinical manifestations ought to be the kind that have been specifically associated with the particular substance at issue. Dr. Gots also contends that specific laboratory evidence is not always required to determine pesticide toxicity. Guideline number four is particularly important in dealing with symptoms from remote applications. DACS does not require that the certifying physician use the guidelines provided on the form, as they are only intended as an aid. The agency only intends that the physicians make a diagnosis and reflect that fact in the certificates by their signature. DACS also does not require that the applicant provide actual addresses within the notification area. Instead, if there is a complaint that an operator made a pesticide application without the required notice, the agency will have to determine in that case whether the operator should be held accountable. Placement on the registry for extra distance notice is based solely on the physician's certificate, and whether the individual provides specific addresses or simply distances for the notice is immaterial, according to Dr. Mulrennan, until the agency is confronted with an enforcement issue. DACS checks the qualifications of the doctors who are making the certification. The secretary who checks the applications, Cherie Decker, has a phone number for the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) to call to check on physicians. Examples of qualifications that have been rejected include academic doctorates. The agency has specifically accepted certificates from osteopathic physicians who are certified by the American Osteopathic Association but are not certified by the ABMS. That acceptance was based, in part, on correspondence from the ABMS, American Osteopathic Association, and Albert F. Robbins, D.O. (Department's Exhibits #3-8). Nothing in that correspondence establishes that one board certification is considered equivalent to another by the ABMS or is "recognized" by the ABMS. The Certifying Physicians The individuals at issue in this consolidated proceeding were all certified by one of the following: Albert F. Robbins, D.O.; Michael J. Waickman, M.D.; Neil Ahner, M.D.; Rory P. Doyle; S. J. Klemsawesch M.D.; Hana T. Chaim, D.O.; Paul F. Wubbena, Jr., M.D.; Linda A. Marraccini, M.D.; and Caren B. Singer, M.D. Dr. Robbins practices at the Robbins Environmental Medical Center, 400 South Dixie Highway, Boca Raton, Florida. He has a doctorate of Osteopathic Medicine from Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine; he is board-certified by the American Osteopathic Board of Preventative Medicine, with a sub-specialty in Occupational and Environmental Medicine; he has a Master of Science in Public Health from the University of Miami. He is not board-certified by the ABMS but he strongly avers that his board certification is equivalent to the specific requirement of the DACS rule referenced in paragraph 7, above. Dr. Waickman practices in Akron, Ohio. A medical doctor, he is board- certified in pediatrics, in allergy and clinical immunology and in environmental medicine. He practices with his son, who is also a medical doctor and who is board-certified in internal medicine and in allergy and clinical immunology. Dr. Ahner is a medical doctor who practices in Jupiter, Florida. The only evidence of his qualifications is his certificate on a patient's application for registration as a pesticide-sensitive person. The certificate, dated February 16, 1993, has all of the language regarding board-certification crossed out. Rory P. Doyle is the name appearing on a certificate for Carol Arrighi's application for registration. Nothing on that certificate indicates whether R. Doyle is a physician. The signature appears beneath the printed statement described in paragraph 16, above. Dr. Klemsawesch is a medical doctor who is board-certified in internal medicine and in allergy and immunology. Dr. Chaim is an osteopathic physician practicing primarily in the areas of family practice and environmental medicine. She is board-certified under the ABMS in family practice. She is a member of several professional organizations, including the American Academy of Occupational and Environmental Medicine and the American Academy of Environmental Medicine. She is not board- certified in any areas other than family practice. Dr. Wubbena is a medical doctor practicing in Jacksonville, Florida. He is board-certified in pediatrics and in allergy and immunology and he practices primarily in the specialty of allergy. The only evidence of qualifications of Drs. Marraccini and Singer is what purports to be their signatures beneath the certificate statement on the DACS application form. Both indicate they are medical doctors. Dr. Singer's signature has the handwritten notation, "Board certified internal medicine only"; Dr. Marraccini's signature has the handwritten notation, "family practice 1989." (Department Exhibit #1) The Individual Applicants Cheryl Mansker's application for registration was certified by Dr. Robbins on March 24, 1993. According to the certificate, she is sensitive to the following: organophosphates, carbamates and pyrethrum. The certification states that notification of 1/2 mile radius is required. Ms. Mansker has been a patient of Dr. Robbins since 1987. He considers her one of the most highly allergic individuals he has seen in his practice. He attributes the onset of her sensitivity to an occasion when she was employed in a bank when, in the process of repairing an air conditioner, a worker ripped the lining of a fiberglass duct and sent fiberglass throughout the entire building. This occasion, according to Dr. Robbins, subjected the patient to mold, formaldehyde and fiberglass. He has no record of any incidents of pesticide exposure, but believes her extreme chemical sensitivity qualifies her as eligible for certification. Dr. Robbins concedes that the amount of dosage is a factor in deciding whether a person is going to react, and whether it is necessary to protect that person. Thomas Milo has been a patient of Dr. Robbins since at least 1986. The certification by Dr. Robbins states that this patient "becomes very ill when exposed to pesticides and other chemicals - Pt. has been advised to avoid exposure to any and all pesticides." (Department exhibit #1) Mr. Milo used to have a florist shop but had to let his son take over because he could not continue to be exposed to pesticides or the flowers in the shop. Although he is functioning better, he must avoid fragrance products, pesticides or automobile exhaust fumes. Generally, when Mr. Milo visited Dr. Robbins with a reaction, the patient gave an exposure history. Sometimes the physician surmised the reaction was to cumulative exposures. Dr. Robbins recalls only one outdoor exposure incident, when a lawn was sprayed, but has no notes to evidence the date or specifics, including distance. According to Dr. Robbins, Mr. Milo needs at least a quarter mile notice to protect his health. This distance is based on the history, apparently given to the doctor by Mr. Milo, that he had reactions to pesticides that affected his health within a quarter of a mile. Joyce Charney has been a patient of Dr. Robbins since approximately 1982. On his certification on her application he listed these classes of pesticides to which she is sensitive: "Organophosphates, chlorinated [sic] and pyrethrum." Someone else apparently added the words "pesticides" and "Dursban" to the certification form. Dr. Robbins has tested Ms. Charney extensively for her multiple severe allergies to pollen, dust and mold. He does not test for allergies to pesticides, but for this and other patients he relies on their history with regard to exposures. In his words: ...[G]enerally, when I fill out those forms I just - if a patient is very chemically sensitive and very allergic I put all classes. It is hard for me to determine which one of the -- If they have said they have had reactions when they go by lawns, or have been in someplace like a Home Depot and they get around the pesticide and they have reactions, or they were spraying with some- thing and have a reaction, it is hard to tell which ones. * * * So if they have had multiple exposures and multiple reactions I just put the full class. (Deposition of Albert Robbins, page 59-60) Dr. Robbins designated two blocks as the required notice distance for Ms. Charney based on her explanation to him that if she gets in the wind drift of a pesticide that has been sprayed, she gets a reaction. He also considered the fact that Ms. Charney and her husband own and live at a motel a few miles from the doctor's office. The motel is an "allergy-free" motel patronized by some of Dr. Robbins' patients who come from out of town and are very chemically sensitive and allergic. He feels that it is appropriate for these patients to have some protection against significant exposures to that motel. Carrietta Kelly was never a patient of Dr. Robbins and he never met her. He signed the certification on her application for registration as a pesticide-sensitive individual after she and her husband, a physician, called him. Her husband is a medical doctor in Naples, Florida, but not a physician qualified according to the DACS rules. Dr. and Mrs. Kelly sent Dr. Robbins a two-page letter describing her health history and describing the symptoms she experienced after her apartment was treated six years prior to the letter, and her condominium was sprayed with Cynoff and Orthane a year prior to the letter. Dr. Robbins classifies those products as fungicides. Based on the history he received from Dr. and Mrs. Kelly, Dr. Robbins identified on the certification form these groups to which she is sensitive: organophosphates, carbamates and pyrethrum; and he designated a 1/2 mile notification distance. Charlene McClure has been a patient of Dr. Robbins since July of 1993. Skin testing reveals that she is food sensitive, pollen sensitive, dust and mold sensitive; and she is sensitive to terpenes, which are the odors from flowering plants. When she comes to Dr. Robbins' office she is generally in a state of collapse. Because of the general sensitivities, Dr. Robbins certified on Ms. McClure's application that she is sensitive to three classes of pesticides: organophosphates, carbamates and pyrethrum. He further certified that she needs notification within a 1/2 mile radius. As part of the exposure history which Ms. McClure gave Dr. Robbins, she stated that in the summer of 1992 there was an aerial application of Decromal 14 mosquito spray over her house. She told him that as a result she suffered from severe headaches, exhaustion, nausea and stomach cramps. Dr. Robbins does not know whether droplets from the spray landed on his patient; he assumes that the Decromal is an organophosphate. The evidence does not establish that it is. Marilyn Friedman has been a patient of Dr. Robbins since 1989. He signed the certification on her application for registration and stated that she is sensitive to these specific pesticides or pesticide classes: organophosphates, carbamates and chlorinated pesticides. At his deposition he indicated that pyrethrums should also be on the list. As with his other patients, the list is based on her history of being severely allergic and chemically sensitive. Ms. Friedman's allergies include pollens, dust, mites, insects, molds, terpenes and foods. According to Dr. Robbins, she cannot tolerate someone coming in the office with a fabric softener on clothing. Dr. Robbins' determination that Ms. Friedman requires one block distance notification is based on his patient's request. His records, as he testified in deposition, do not document specific exposures and reactions but he believes that his certification probably resulted from her request to him and her desire to be protected. The application for Sally B. Platner, dated October 2, 1992, includes a certificate by Michael Waickman, M.D., the son and partner of Francis Waickman, M.D. The certificate includes this description of the pesticides or class of pesticides to which Ms. Platner is sensitive: Fungicides including "Twosome" Chem-lawn Fertilizer application liquid. (Department exhibit #1) There is some further notation, but the evidence fails to establish who made those notes. Dr. Francis Waickman treated Ms. Platner, and his son saw her in his absence. She had previously been treated and tested by Dr. Bill Rea in Texas and she was determined to have many allergies and sensitivities. Sometime in 1982, she was living in an apartment complex in Ohio and reported that she was exposed to some pesticide application by a company called Chem-lawn. Dr. Francis Waickman surmised she had both dermal and respiratory absorption since she developed a skin rash within two hours of the exposure. He is not certain what chemical was implicated, but he is confident that it was a pesticide because he has personally observed that company's practices in the area. Dr. Francis Waickman's regimen of treatment for Ms. Platner included one thousand milligrams of vitamin C hourly, until she improved or got a loose stool from too much vitamin C. The record does not establish whether this treatment was successful for Ms. Platner. The certification in 1992 was based on Ms. Platner's phone call to the Ohio doctors' office and her description of the exposure. Dr. Waickman believes she was exposed to the fungicide, "Twosome," when it was sprayed on a golf course across the street from her residence in Florida. He surmised that since she had angina and other problems with other chemical exposures, she was also sensitive to "Twosome" as a related chemical and through what he described as a "spreading phenomena." Jesse Naglich has been a patient of Dr. Klemsawesch since 1992. She is allergic to a multitude of medicines, has allergic rhinitis and asthma. Dr. Klemsawesch certified her application for registration on November 16, 1993, stating that she is sensitive to Diazinon and organophosphates. She requires two blocks' notice of any application of those substances. Dr. Klemsawesch's assessment of Ms. Naglich's condition and requirements is based on her history. She reported to the doctor that she had adverse reactions after exposure to various chemicals. Sandra Metzger is also a patient of Dr. Klemsawesch. He has treated this "very complex patient" since 1986. On his most recent certification on Ms. Metzger's application for registration, he notes that she is sensitive to "organophosphates, pyrethrins and petrochemical-based compounds." Her diagnosed condition for purposes of the registration is "respiratory allergies and chemical sensitivity," and she requires a two-block notice, according to her physician. Dr. Klemsawesch prefers the term "sensitivity" instead of "allergy" with regard to his patients' reactions, because there is no specific test to determine an allergy to pesticides. Ms. Metzger had to leave her employment because of her reactions to insecticides sprayed in her workplace. She was exposed in 1991 at the same time that her office was being painted. In order to have an adverse reaction, in Dr. Klemsawesch's view, the patient must actually receive a dermal or respiratory exposure, or contact with the mucus membranes of the mouth or eyes. Mere olfactory detection (smell) might be an unpleasant event, but an olfaction reaction is not an allergic or toxic reaction unless the substance is being absorbed into the mucus membranes. Dr. Paul Wubbena has treated Pia Valentine since 1987. She is currently ten years old and suffers from asthma and allergic rhinitis; and, according to Dr. Wubbena's certification dated December 29, 1993, she is sensitive to pyrethrums, Diazinon and Dursban. She had recurring problems when riding her bicycle to the grocery store with her mother, and when pesticides were being sprayed she would start wheezing and coughing and getting sick. Also, based on her history given to the physician, she reacted to pyrethrums in flying insect spray. Dr. Wubbena based his conclusions regarding the specific chemicals on the history given to him by his patient and her mother and on his knowledge that Dursban and Diazinon are commonly used for lawn spraying. Miss Valentine has been tested for reactions to pollens and molds and is allergic to things of that type. Her allergic reactions are similar to her reactions in the presence of the specific pesticides listed by Dr. Wubbena. Jeanne Pellegrino has been treated by Dr. Hana Chaim for multiple chemical sensitivity and pesticide sensitivity since July of 1992. Dr. Chaim signed the certificate on Ms. Pellegrino's application for registration on June 2, 1993, indicating that she is sensitive to "organophosphates, pyrethrums, cypermethrin, especially Dursban" and that she needs 1/2 mile distance notification of application of those pesticides. The determination of what chemicals to put on the certificate was based on discussion with the patient, whom Dr. Chaim understood had established the specific pesticides she had been exposed to in the past. The distance determination was based on Dr. Chaim's understanding that sprays can go from a 900 to 1500-mile radius and the 1/2 mile notice is the maximum required by law. Although she suspected organophosphates were involved in Ms. Pellegrino's first exposure between April and June of 1993, this was not confirmed. Within the files of DACS for Kathryn Kaeding are two physician's certifications, dated February 16, 1993 and June 12, 1992, by Dr. Ahner. On the forms it is noted that she is sensitive to "Hydrocarbons, all pesticides, chlorinated compounds." Her diagnosed condition is "allergy - hypersensitivity - immune dysfunction." There is no other evidence in the record, from the individual or her physician, regarding Ms. Kaeding's condition or eligibility for registration. Nor is there any evidence, other than her application, regarding the eligibility of Carol Arrighi. From the form in the record it is impossible to determine whether the individual or her physician completed the application, or whether the signature on the certification is that of a physician. The certification for Kayleigh Marie Nunez is signed by Dr. Chaim. It states that she is sensitive to "organophosphates, all pesticides and herbicides, one-half mile limit requested." The certification for Estelle Greene, dated July 2, 1993, is signed by Linda Marraccini, M.D. The class of pesticides to which the individual is sensitive is noted as "All." Dr. Robbins appears to have signed certifications for Betty Jane Napier and for Susan and Donald Maxwell (both Maxwells are included on a single application form). The notation typed on Ms. Napier's form states: "Known to react to ethylene oxide." The pesticides or class of pesticides listed on Mr. and Mrs. Maxwell's form are "organophosphates, organochlorines, pyrethroids." The certification by Dr. Chaim on Barbara Rauker's application states that she is sensitive to "all classes of pesticides." The certification by Caren B. Singer, M.D. on Judith Lessne's application states that she is sensitive to "Pesticides in general, Petroleum based products." Pesticide Industry Practice A reliable pest control operator will determine the nature and extent of a problem before attempting a treatment. The operator must consider the surroundings of the area to be treated and the environmental factors such as rain, wind and sun. Treatment is tailored to reduce drift, which not only can cause harm but also causes needless expense due to waste. Good industry practice includes training technicians and carefully following the manufacturer's instructions regarding the most safe and effective use of the product. While careful use can control drift, unexpected wind gusts can disperse the product beyond its target, and even Petitioners' expert concedes that a post-application vapor of pesticide could drift for a half mile. Pesticide Sensitivity According to the Department's expert, Dr. Teaf, pesticide sensitivity by definition relates only to the substance that was the subject of an initial exposure and subsequent exposure that causes a reaction in an individual. The medical and toxicological link for pesticide sensitivity is much tighter than for the condition referred to as "multiple chemical sensitivities" or "MCS". There is no generally accepted definition in the scientific community of what constitutes pesticide sensitivity and there is no simple blood test to establish pesticide sensitivity. While there is commonly a psychological or psychogenic factor in pesticide sensitivity just as there is with other health conditions like heart problems, pesticide sensitivity is not solely a psychogenic or psychological condition. Pesticide sensitivity can be reasonably determined, even through the mechanism by which an individual acquires that condition is not clearly understood. A reaction to a specific chemical or pesticide class can be documented and quantified by a physical change in the body. Exposure histories are significant so long as the pesticide or pesticide class is identified. However, exposure histories alone are insufficient unless other causes are reasonably ruled out. Specifically, many individuals in the cases here were determined to be sensitive to many different agents: molds and pollens, food, animals, petroleum products and perfumes. It is impossible to deduce that an individual's symptoms are caused by exposure to one, rather than another agent, unless there is some process of elimination or isolation of the suspect agent. Summary of Findings Evidence of the process for diagnosis for the individual respondents in this proceeding is meager. Not one individual applicant testified, and only eleven applicants were addressed through the deposition testimony of their certifying physicians. Not one of the certifying physicians could testify that he or she actually followed the guidelines provided by the department, which guidelines, although non-binding, are accepted by experts for both sides of the dispute as important to good diagnosis. Dr. Klemsawesch, a very credible and competent witness and specialist in allergy and immunology, conceded that in order to respond to questions regarding the connection between exposures to pesticides and subsequent reactions, from a scientific point of view, you would need to test people by exposures in a controlled fashion and determine their physiological response. For Dr. Klemsawesch's patients, Ms. Naglich and Ms. Metzger, the specific events reported to him stood out beyond the background of their other common allergies to lead him to his conclusion that the chemicals he listed on their certificates were having an effect. That conclusion falls short of the finding required by law for the extra distance notice. Dr. Klemsawesch's conclusion, like that of the other certifying physicians, was based primarily on the individual's history. While that is an appropriate and accepted method of diagnosis, the histories described in the record of this proceeding are wholly lacking in the detail necessary for the determination required by law. No individual in the multiple cases consolidated presented adequate proof of the need for notification at greater distance than that specified for pesticide-sensitive persons.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the agency enter its final order denying the petition in Case #94-3237 (Carol Ann Rodriguez) as moot (see preliminary statement); and granting the remaining petitions by denying the applications for designation as "especially pesticide-sensitive." RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 31st day of May, 1995. MARY W. CLARK, 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 31st day of May, 1995. APPENDIX A INDIVIDUAL CERTIFYING DOAH CASE# RESPONDENT PHYSICIAN 94-2801 Cheryl Mansker Robbins 94-2802 Sally Platner Waickman 94-2803 Thomas Milo Robbins 94-2805 Kathryn Kaeding Ahner 94-2852 Carol Arrighi Doyle 94-2853 Jessie Naglich Klemsawesch 94-2855 Joyce Charney Robbins 94-2858 Carietta Kelly Robbins 94-2859 Kayleigh Nunez Chaim 94-2862 Pia Valentine Wubbena 94-2864 Sandra Metzger Klemsawesch 94-2865 Charlene McClure Robbins 94-2866 Estelle Greene Marraccini 94-2867 Jeanne Pellegrino Chaim 94-2869 Marilyn Friedman Robbins 94-2871 Betty Jane Napier Robbins 94-2872 Susan Maxwell Robbins 94-3235 Carietta Kelly (see 94-2858) 94-3236 Susan Maxwell (see 94-2872) 94-3237 Carol Ann Rodriguez (moot) 94-4243 Barbara Rauker Chaim 94-6376 Judith Lessne Singer APPENDIX B The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Florida Pest Control Association, Inc. Adopted, or adopted in substance or in summary form: #1-7, 11-18, 22-28, 38, 41, 48-49, 62-82, 88-90, 93-105, 107-109, 115-121, 124-126, 129-133, 137, 140-147, 158. Accepted, but not incorporated, as unnecessary or immaterial: #8-10, 19- 21, 29-37, 39-40, 42-47, 50-61, 83-87, 91, 106, 110-114, 122-123, 127-128, 134- 136, 138-139, 148-157. Rejected, as inconsistent with or unsupported by the weight of evidence: #92. Certified Operators of Southwest Florida, Inc., Lan-Mac Pest Control-Englewood,Inc. Lan-Mac Pest Control-Ft. Myers, Inc. Adopted, or adopted in substance or in summary form: #1-5, 8-11, 13-15, 18-22, 24-25. Rejected, as inconsistent with, or unsupported by the weight of evidence: #27. (The remaining numbered paragraphs are designated as conclusions of law.) The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Adopted, or adopted in substance or in summary form: #1-4, first sentence of #5, 6, 8-10. Accepted, but not incorporated, as unnecessary or immaterial: #7. Rejected, as inconsistent with or unsupported by the weight of evidence: Second sentence of #5. Individual Respondents Adopted, or adopted in substance or in summary form: #2-7, 10, 12-14, 22, 24-33, 40, 42, 47-56, 58-63, 66, 69-71, 80, 82-86, 90-95, 101, 106-109, 111-113. Accepted, but not incorporated, as unnecessary or immaterial: #8-9, 11, 15-21, 23, 34-38 [the issue is not the patient's sensitivity, but the extra distance notice requirement], 43, 46, 67 (not the required Board), 68, 72, 74- 77, 81, 88, 98, 99, 100, 115. Rejected, as inconsistent with or unsupported by the weight of evidence: #1, 39, 41, 44-45, 57, 64, 65, 73, 78-79, 87, 89, 96-97, 102-105, 110, 114, 116- 117. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler General Counsel The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Robert G. Worley, Esquire Dept. of Agriculture & Consumer Services 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Jonathan A. Glogau, Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol, PL-01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Lance McKinney, Esquire O. Box 88 Cape Coral, Florida 33910-0088 Howard J. Hochman, Esquire 1320 S. Dixie Highway Suite 1180 Coral Gables, Florida 33146
The Issue The primary issue for determination is whether Emerald Shores Heath Care Associates, LLC, d/b/a Emerald Health Care Associates (Respondent) committed the deficiencies as alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated September 17, 2004. Secondary issues include whether Petitioner should have changed the status of Respondent's license from Standard to Conditional for the time period of July 16, 2004 until August 13, 2004; and whether Petitioner should impose administrative fines for alleged deficiencies that are proven to be supported by the evidence.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating nursing homes in Florida pursuant to Section 400.23(7), Florida Statutes. Respondent is licensed to operate a nursing home located at 626 North Tyndall Parkway, Panama City, Florida 32404 (the facility). Petitioner conducted a survey of Respondent's facility on July 16, 2004. Upon completion of that survey, Petitioner prepared a report that charged Respondent with violations of various nursing home regulations. This report organized each of the charged violations under “Tags,” which are shorthand references to the regulatory standards that Petitioner alleges were violated. Additionally, Petitioner assigned, as required by law, Class I severity ratings and widespread scope ratings to the two deficiencies or Tags (F224, and F469) at issue in this proceeding. On July 8, 2004, one of Petitioner’s surveyors observed that a patient in Respondent’s facility had approximately 60 ant bite pustules on her face, arms, neck, and chest. Investigation revealed that the patient had been discovered with fire ants in her bed at about 4 p.m. on July 7, 2004. Personnel of the facility had, at that time, taken appropriate steps to care for the injured patient. That care and treatment is not at issue in this proceeding. Petitioner initiated another survey of Respondent’s facility on July 16, 2004. A primary objective of that survey team was to ascertain the extent of the ant bite situation in the facility. There had been other incidents in the past involving ants. One incident involved harmless, non-biting “sugar” ants, covering a patient’s sandwich left by the patient on a nightstand. The sandwich was removed, the room sprayed and the patient admonished about leaving food in the room. Later, ants were again discovered in the room, requiring further spraying and maintenance. In the course of the July 16th survey, dead ants were found in the room of the patient who had been bitten. Additionally, a couple of ant beds were found in the lawn outside the facility. As a consequence of the findings of ant nests outside the facility and dead ants inside the facility, coupled with the previous incidents involving the sandwich attacking ants and other ant incidents, Petitioner cited Respondent for “immediate jeopardy” on July 16. The surveyor report found Respondent had not dealt adequately with its pest problem and cited Respondent for violation of Tag F224, abuse and neglect, and Tag F469, pest management. Before Respondent erected the facility, a contract was executed with A to Z Pest Control to provide a termite barrier effective against termites, as well as other all arthropods, including ants. A to Z Pest Control is a certified, licensed pest control company with certifications in entomology and pest control. Respondent’s continuing contract with the pest control company required that the pest control barrier be renewed in December of every year. After opening the facility, Respondent entered into a regular pest control contract with A to Z. The contract was for integrated pest control management. Under the integrated pest management approach, the pest control company continually changed its approach to eliminating and preventing insect problems depending on the nature of the problem and its location within the facility. Monthly routine service and “call-backs” as needed were provided under the contract. The pest control company used EPA approved and laboratory-tested chemicals at the facility. No adverse incidents occurred at the facility as the result of ants or other insects from 1999 through 2003. From time to time, ant mounds were discovered in the yard to the facility, but were treated by maintenance personnel or the pest control company. Typical of insects in Florida, activity of insects increased in the spring and summer months. In addition to monthly treatment and Friday drop-bys, the pest control company personnel would treat pests at the facility whenever they were called. The first adverse incident related to ants at the facility occurred in August 2003, concluding a summer of an unusual amount of insect activity. In August, a patient was discovered in her bed with ant bites and pustules. Respondent then asked A to Z for a solution to the problem. The pest control company recommended a “barrier” treatment which involved placing insecticide in all openings in the facility, digging a trench around the building and placing granular insecticide in the trench, and finally spraying the lawn area in a band five to ten feet around the entire building. Despite the extra cost of such a treatment, Respondent approved the treatment and the additional payment. Notably, Respondent conducted a complaint survey in response to the August 2003 ant bite incident and determined that no deficient practices had occurred to cause the incident. Respondent assumed its pest control practices were adequate and continued to use the same pest control company, A to Z until the conclusion of July 2004. The barrier treatment, or grounds treatment, provided after the 2003 ant bite incident remained effective, in conjunction with the annual termite treatment, through the fall of 2003 and into the winter and spring of 2004. After that, it might have started breaking down due to rain and exposure to the elements. As previously noted, the afternoon of July 7, 2004, presented the patient with fire ants in her bed and approximately 60 ant bites on her head and upper body. The patient was removed from the room and thorough treatment for ants applied to the room while the patient was being treated. A survey was made of all of the rooms in the facility to determine if there were ants anywhere else. The grounds were inspected and all ant beds were treated. A to Z Pest Control was called, but couldn’t get out to the facility until the next day. On the following day, A to Z treated the entire inside of the building, but could not treat the grounds because it was raining. Personnel of A to Z returned and treated the outside of the facility on the following day, July 9. Thereafter, the “sugar” ant sandwich attack occurred. The room was immediately sprayed with pesticide. Several days later, the ants were again found in the same room and the room was cleaned and sprayed again. At this point, Respondent sought more aggressive treatment of ants to ensure that everything possible was being done to keep patients safe. Further, facility management created an “Action Plan” on July 7 to deal with this issue. This plan included daily rounds of the grounds; inspections of every resident’s room for signs of ants three times per shift (nine times per day); educating residents and staff of the necessity of keeping all food items tightly sealed; and implementation of a pest control log. Respondent also began the process of reevaluating its contract with A to Z after this incident. Several other local pest control operators were contacted and asked for a plan of treatment. The proposal to include an annual barrier treatment as a part of regular pest control services was made to Respondent for the first time. Shortly thereafter, Respondent terminated its routine pest control contract with A to Z (although A to Z retains the termite contract), and hired Panama Pest Control to provide both interior and exterior treatment with regular barrier treatment. Patients of Respondent’s facility were not at risk or in “immediate jeopardy” from insects on July 16, 2004. Petitioner requires nursing home facilities to adopt specific policies and procedures. Fla. Admin. Code R. 59A-4.106. Although pest control is not one of the required policies and procedures, Respondent has had since 2002, a policy and procedure on pest control. Respondent followed those policies and procedures. Among the pest control activities of Respondent before either ant bite incident were daily checks of every room, so-called “Angel Rounds," and regular monitoring of the grounds. Pest control is not part of the curriculum for Nursing Home Administrators. Neither Petitioner nor the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services have issued any regulations, guidance, or advisories with regard to pest control. The term “effective” as is used in the regulation requiring “effective pest control” isn’t defined anywhere. It is impossible to be certain that fire ants will not enter any building. The owner of A to Z Pest Control Company, bearing certifications in entomology and pest control, opined that no matter what you are doing to prevent ant bites, you can still do more. Even then, you cannot be sure of success “because you are trying to control something that is based in nature.” You can only provide pest “control” as opposed to pest “elimination.”
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint and issuing a standard rating to Respondent’s facility, and further finding that no deficiencies stemming from the survey of July 16, 2004, as described under the tags and regulations cited and discussed above, have occurred. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of May, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of May, 2005.
The Issue As stated by the Hearing Officer the issue in this case is whether the District should issue a surface water management permit to Russell E. and Marilyn F. Scott, and Caloosa Television Corporation for the construction and operation of a surface water management system to serve a television signal tower and control building in Southeast Lee County, Florida. There are no significant water resource impacts related to the management of surface water by the proposed project. The harm at issue in this case is the potential for wood storks and other wading to strike the tower and guy wires which are not structures related to management and storage of waters. The parties disagree as to whether the District has jurisdiction to consider the bird impacts related to collisions with the tower and guy wires, and if so, whether the tower and guy wires will have a significant adverse impact on the water resources of the state through a reduction of wood storks, an endangered species, and other wading birds which through feeding on fish remove biomass from such water, thereby maintaining water quality. In determining jurisdiction in this case, the parties disagree on the meaning of "works" and "surface water management system" as used in Chapter 373, F.S. and Rule 40E-4, F.A.C. The petitioners argue that since one set of guy wires will be placed across one end of the cypress wetland located on the subject property, the entire project including the guy wire and tower is a "works" and part of the surface water management system, which is subject to the permitting jurisdiction of the District. The District and respondent Caloosa Television Corporation contend that the tower and guy wires are not structures related to surface water management and are not "works" nor part of the surface water management system, and therefore, bird mortality, as a result of hitting the tower and guy wires, is not subject to the permitting jurisdiction of the District. FINDINGS ON EXCEPTIONS At the Governing Board meeting of October 6, 1988, the petitioners waived Findings of Fact exceptions 1 and 2 of Petitioners' Exceptions to Finding of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommended Order. Therefore, Findings of Fact exceptions 1 and 2 are rejected. The petitioners' exceptions 1, 2, and 3 to Conclusions of Law of the Recommended Order are rejected as set forth in the District's Response To Exceptions Filed by Petitioners filed on September 27, 1988, and attached hereto as Exhibit B and made part of this Final Order. The Governing Board accepts the exceptions filed by the District and the respondent, Caloosa Television Corporation, as set forth herein under Conclusions of Law.
Findings Of Fact On or about September 14, 1987, Caloosa filed Application Number 09147- B, for a surface water management permit, with the District. This application was for the construction and operation of a surface water management system to serve a 1249 foot high television transmission tower and control building in southeast Lee County, Florida. The proposed location of Caloosa's project is approximately one mile north of the boundary of the Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, which is owned and operated by Audubon, and specifically, approximately two and one-half miles north of a wood stork colony located within the Sanctuary. This rookery is the largest rookery of wood stork, a federally endangered wading bird, in the United States. The project site is 60 acres in size, and approximately square in shape. It is improved agricultural land, with a circular cypress wetland of about 5.5 acres located near the center of the site. Extending outward from the cypress wetland are two ditches, one running due east and the other due west. The existing surface water flow varies with the seasons and intensity of storm events. During dry seasons, the rainfall runoff flows into the cypress wetland and percolates into the ground. However, during wet seasons, water builds up in the cypress wetland and flows into the two ditches. In larger storm events, the project site is entirely under water, and sheet flows occur to the southwest. The proposed project should have a negligible impact on the existing surface water system since the total impervious area will only be approximately one acre, or 1.7 percent of the total project area of 60 acres. The project consists of a radio tower and guy wires, a 3150 square foot control building, fill pad and parking area, guy wire anchor slabs, and approximately 1650 feet of lime rock road with an equalizer culvert to maintain existing flow. Three sets of six guy wires will extend from the 1249 foot high tower and connect to the ground at anchor slabs located near the edge of the project site. The entire project is located outside of the limits of the existing wetland, but one set of guy wires does cross the western edge of the cypress wetland. Caloosa proposes to use the tower as a "community tower" which will be capable of supporting more than one transmitting antennae. In addition to Caloosa's antennae, the tower will be able to support up to five commercial radio stations and up to sixty two-way communication antennae. Caloosa has had contacts from several commercial radio stations and governmental agencies which have expressed interest in co-locating their antennae on Caloosa's tower. After review of this application, District staff advised Caloosa, on November 23, 1987, that it was recommending approval of the application since it was felt that any impact from the project on wood storks would not result from the construction and operation of this project. At hearing, the District supported the issuance of this permit, but urged that the tower and guy wires are not a part of the surface water management system over which the District has any permitting jurisdiction. Audubon timely filed its request for a hearing on the District's intent to issue this permit, and at hearing opposed the issuance of this permit to Caloosa, urging that the tower and guy wires were an integral part of the surface water management system, and therefore subject to the District's permitting jurisdiction. The wood stork and other wading birds are an important link in the biological and ecological chain. They are the main mechanism for removing certain species of fish from ponds, lakes and waters of the state. If there is no predation by wading birds, then an increase in the biomass of the water system would be expected, water quality would decrease, and fish kills would result. Ponds that receive biomass reduction by wading birds have a reduction in fish biomass of approximately 75%, with no loss in species, while ponds that do not receive wading bird predation lose almost all individual aquatic animals through reduced water quality resulting from retention of up to 94% of the biomass from dead fish. The reduction in biomass is in direct proportion to the number of birds feeding in a pond, and therefore a 5% reduction in birds will result in a 5% lessening of the biomass reduction. Water quality will be reduced by a lowering of oxygen levels in such waters due to the excessive retention of nutrient laden biomass. During the nesting season, wood storks feed in various ponds and wetland areas that surround the rookery. Their primary feeding areas are within ten miles of the rookery. The proximity of these sites allow the birds to make several flights per day between the colony and the feeding site, and to do so with less energy expended than with feeding sites that are farther away. Caloosa's project site is located between the rookery and a primary feeding area to the north that is within ten miles of the rookery. The proximity of this feeding area allows the birds to fly low, at tree top level, to the site, without the use of thermal updrafts that they use to attain altitudes of up to 5000 feet when traveling greater distances. Thus, if the tower is built, it would be likely that wood storks would fly in the direction of, and at the height of, the tower to reach this primary feeding area. However, it was not established how many such birds actually feed in this nearby area, or how many fish are in these ponds and wetlands. The wood stork colony at Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary has been experiencing a decline in productivity from approximately 6000 nesting pairs in 1960 and 1966, there has been a steady decline in the number of nesting pairs in the colony, and in 1987, there were no nesting pairs in the colony. During 1988, 750 nesting pairs have been observed. The steady decline in the wood stork colony population is the result of already existing developmental pressures and changes in drainage patterns which have adversely affected the birds' feeding habitats. For nesting to be successful, two adult birds are required per nest during the nesting season, which usually occurs from November to March. This allows one adult bird to be away from the nest obtaining food while the other adult keeps the nest warm and safe from predators. If a nest is left unattended through the loss of one adult bird, it is likely that the entire nest will be lost since the fledglings are very vulnerable throughout the nesting season to predators and changes in temperature. There are usually two or three fledglings per nest. For this reason, the loss of five adult birds per year, for example, results in a total loss to the colony of between ten to fifteen fledglings. This loss compounds each year, as birds lost one year are not available to reproduce in following years. Generally, transmission towers can pose a hazard to birds due to the potential for collisions. Illuminating such towers at night does not decrease this danger since the birds are simply attracted to lights. Strobe lighting has also been tried, but it appears that birds ignore, or are not deterred, by strobes. In this case, Caloosa has agreed to accept conditions placed upon the approval of this project by the Lee County Board of Zoning and Adjustments on March 16, 1987, which include placement of aircraft warning balls on the guy wires and the tower itself, habitat improvement including the creation of a wetland and a wildlife through way, if necessary, and commencement of a monitoring system to identify any problems with wood stork mortality as soon as possible. A very extensive study of bird kills and transmission towers was conducted over a thirty year period involving the WCTV tower in Tallahassee, Florida. The WCTV tower was found to kill 3.9 wading birds per year on average. Based in part upon this data, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that wood stork collisions with the tower will not result in significant mortality, and an "incidental take" of five wood storks per year should result. This is a level of mortality which is noteworthy, since any loss to an endangered species is significant, but is clearly below that which would cause jeopardy to the species. Although Audubon correctly pointed out that the conditions present in the WCTV study do not exactly match those present in this case, such as the fact that there are almost three times as many wading birds in the area of the Caloosa tower as were in the area of the WCTV tower, as well as the differences in the geographical relationship of the tower to nearby wading bird colonies and feeding areas, nevertheless, the WCTV study is relevant and should be considered by the District since it is the most exhaustive study of its kind ever conducted. Caloosa presented evidence of a study it conducted over approximately a one month period in May and June, 1988, of a comparable existing radio tower, the WHEW tower, located near the subject property to the east. Although substantial wood stork and other wading bird activity was observed around the WHEW tower, there were no collisions of wood storks with this 1010 foot high tower. While not a scientific study in the strictest sense, and although it was not conducted for as extensive a period as the WCTV study, nevertheless, the District should consider the WHEW study conducted by Caloosa since it involves a comparable tower in close proximity to the subject property, and the person who conducted the study for Caloosa and who testified at hearing, Robert E. Gatton, appeared particularly credible. The Federal Communications Commission has approved the location of Caloosa's tower. I5. The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission has recommended that the proposed location for Caloosa's tower be changed to an alternate site which would present a less serious obstacle to the Corkscrew wood stork nesting colony and other wading birds. This recommendation is based on the policy that the mortality of even one wood stork is too much and may present a danger to the population of the wood stork rookery. It was not shown, however, that a basis in fact exists for concluding that the loss of five or fewer wood storks per year would present such a danger. The Commission's recommendation is also based upon a concern that transmission towers will proliferate in the area, and thereby further interfere with the flight paths of wood storks and other wading birds to their feeding locations. However, the fact that Caloosa is seeking to construct a "community tower" to be shared with several governmental agencies, as well as broadcasting stations, will actually serve to decrease this potential proliferation. While there is a potential for wood storks or other wading birds in the area to be killed or injured by striking Caloosa's tower or the guy wires while in flight, the extent of this danger is speculative, but would not appear to exceed five wood storks per year. Under these circumstances, there would not be a significant threat to the population, or continued viability, of the Corkscrew rookery. It has not been shown, by the evidence in this record, that any loss of wood storks and other wading birds caused by this project will result in fish kills through a significant reduction of predation and the resulting failure to remove accumulated biomass in ponds and waters in the area. It was not demonstrated that a fish kill will, or is even likely, to occur. While the loss of five wood storks would result in a certain amount of biomass not being removed from the area's wetlands, nothing in the record suggests that this amount will have an adverse impact on the state's water resources or will otherwise be significant. Therefore, any relationship between the tower proposed by Caloosa and impacts associated with biomass accumulation is purely speculative and de minimis. Fish kills occur naturally as water levels in seasonal marshes and ponds lower in the dry season. The water quality impact of such kills is relatively short-lived, lasting up to two months or until the next wet season begins, at which time water quality parameters return to normal. The evidence produced at hearing does not establish that the project and its surface water management system will have any significant or measurable effect on drainage of surface water runoff from the subject property, or on adjacent properties. The drainage system proposed by Caloosa will utilize the existing ditches and the natural cypress pond on the property. It was established that the post-construction effect of the project on drainage would be insignificant. There are, therefore, no drainage impacts associated with this project.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the District enter a Final Order approving Caloosa's application for surface water management permit number 09147-B, subject to the conditions, agreed to by Caloosa, which were imposed by the Lee County Board of Zoning and Adjustment in its approval of this proposed development. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-5578 Rulings on Audubon's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 3. 2-3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4, but otherwise Rejected as a conclusion of law rather than a finding of fact. 4-5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5, but otherwise Rejected as unnecessary, irrelevant and as a summation of testimony. 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 7-8. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. 9-10 Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. 12-15. Adopted and Rejected, in part, in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Findings of Fact 8, 10, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Adopted in Findings of Fact 10, 12, but otherwise Rejected as cumulative and as argument on the evidence. Rejected in Finding of Fact 13, and otherwise as simply a summation of the testimony and argument on the evidence. 20-21. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 22-23. Rejected in Findings of Fact 15-17. 24. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Rulings on Caloosa's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted In Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5, but otherwise Rejected as a conclusion of law and as simply a summation of testimony. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. 9-10. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Adopted in Findings of Fact 12, 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 15. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 15-16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17. 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 18, but otherwise Rejected as irrelevant and as cumulative. Rulings on the District's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1-2. Adopted in Finding-of Fact I. 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. 4-5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 8. Adopted in Findings of Fact 12, 14, 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 12. 11. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. 12. Adopted in Finding of Fact 16. 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. 15. Rejected as irrelevant. 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 11. 17. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. 18-19. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Lee Senior Vice President Florida Audubon Society 1101 Audubon Way Maitland, Florida 32751 Russell P. Schropp, Esquire Post Office Box 280 Fort Myers, Florida 33902 James K. Sturgis, Esquire Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416 John R. Wodraska Executive Director South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416 =================================================================
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent violated regulatory requirements to maintain and to implement a written policy that prohibits the neglect of nursing home residents; whether Petitioner should have changed the status of Respondent's license from Standard to Conditional; and whether Petitioner should fine Respondent $2,500 and recover investigative costs.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating nursing homes in Florida pursuant to Subsection 400.23(7), Florida Statutes (2003). Respondent is licensed to operate a nursing home located at 710 North Sun Drive, Lake Mary, Florida 32746 (the facility). The facility admitted Resident 1 on November 20, 2000. Resident 1 was immobile and could not communicate verbally. She depended on a feeding tube for nourishment. On August 10, 2003, facility staff found ants in Resident 1's room. The ants had not bitten Resident 1. Staff sprayed the room with bug spray and then called the pest control company responsible for providing pest control at the facility (the pest control company). On August 12, 2003, the pest control company treated all of the rooms on the affected wing of the facility with ant bait gel and noted in the facility's pest control log that the problem in the affected area was "resolved." On the same day, another company treated the grounds outside the facility. During the early morning of August 20, 2003, facility staff found Resident 1 in her bed with ants and ant bites on her body. Staff immediately removed Resident 1 from her bed, showered her, called her doctor, and obtained orders for medications to treat the ant bites. Facility staff also treated the room and removed any ants that staff observed. Resident 1 went to the hospital briefly and then returned to the facility. Respondent notified Petitioner of the incident, and Petitioner sent two surveyors to the facility on August 22, 2003. Thereafter, Petitioner charged that the facility committed a Class II violation of 42 C.F.R. Section 483.13(c)(1). The relevant federal regulatory requirements are also set forth in what is identified in the record as Tag F224. Tag F224 requires the facility to maintain and to implement written policies and procedures that prohibit the neglect, abuse, and mistreatment of residents (an anti-neglect policy). Respondent does not dispute that the ant bites to Resident 1 on August 20, 2003, constituted harm sufficient to support a Class II violation, if Respondent violated the requirements to maintain and to implement an anti-neglect policy. The preponderance of evidence does not show that Respondent violated those requirements. Respondent maintained an anti-neglect policy that satisfied the requirements in Tag F224. In relevant part, the policy sets forth the standards and processes for identifying potential incidents of neglect of residents; investigating those incidents; and reporting them to appropriate agencies. Petitioner was unable to identify any component of Respondent's anti-neglect policy that violated the requirements of Tag F224. Petitioner also was unable to identify any other required policy that Respondent failed to maintain. Respondent implemented its anti-neglect policy. Facility staff identified the potential risk of harm, investigated the risk, implemented professional pest control treatments to all rooms on the same wing of the facility as the affected room, and treated the lawn outside the facility. The facility reported the incident to Petitioner. Petitioner was unable to identify any component of the anti-neglect policy, or that of any other policy, that Respondent did not implement to prevent the incident involving Resident 1. Irrespective of the anti-neglect policy that Respondent maintained and implemented, Petitioner sought to prove at the hearing that Respondent violated quality of care requirements. The Administrative Complaint does not allege that Respondent violated a quality of care requirement. If it were determined that the ALJ has authority to find Respondent guilty of violating a quality of care requirement not alleged in the Administrative Complaint, the preponderance of evidence does not show that the quality of care exercised by facility staff after they discovered ants on August 10, 2003, was deficient. Petitioner sought to prove that Respondent violated quality of care requirements by failing to provide adequate pest control service to the affected room. Petitioner did not identify any additional pest control procedures that applicable law required the facility to provide. Nor did Petitioner identify any pest control treatment or service that the facility could or should have provided to prevent the ant bites to Resident 1 on August 20, 2003. Petitioner also sought to prove that Respondent violated quality of care requirements by failing to increase monitoring of Resident 1. Petitioner failed to cite any legal standard that required facility staff to increase their monitoring of Resident 1 between August 10 and 20, 2003. The standard of practice in nursing homes is to monitor residents every two hours. No standard required a higher level of monitoring after August 10, 2003. There was no evidence that Respondent failed to monitor Resident 1 every two hours between August 10 and 20, 2003. Strict liability is not the appropriate standard for determining whether Respondent is responsible for the harm suffered by Resident 1 on August 20, 2003. The preponderance of evidence does not show that Respondent failed to provide any required goods or services to Resident 1. The ant bites on August 20, 2004, occurred despite the reasonable care undertaken by Respondent to prevent the ant bites.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order deleting the disputed deficiencies from the Survey Report for August 20, 2003; replacing the Conditional rating from August 22, 2003, until October 15, 2003, with a Standard rating; finding Respondent not guilty of the remaining allegations in the Administrative Complaint; and denying the proposed fine and recovery of investigative costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of June, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald L. Pickett, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Sebring Building, Suite 330K 525 Mirror Lake Drive, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Donna Holshouser Stinson, Esquire Broad and Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1300 R. Davis Thomas, Jr. Broad and Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1300 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations set forth in the Administrative Complaint, as amended and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the operation of the pest control industry pursuant to Section 482.032, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this case, Clinton Killingsworth was the owner and Certified Operator in Charge (COIC) of Environmental Security of Okaloosa, Inc., a licensed pest control company in Cantonment, Florida. Counts 4 and 6 2. Counts 4 and 6 of the Administrative Complaint allege as follows: Count 4 During an inspection on July 11, 2003, the Department found that Environmental Security of Okaloosa operated an unlicensed business location at 9100 Hamman Avenue, Pensacola, at which sales solicitations were made and remuneration received. This is a violation of Chapters 482.071(1) and (2), Florida Statutes. Count 6 During an inspection on July 11, 2003 the Department found that Environmental Security of Okaloosa phone numbers terminated in an unlicensed location as 9100 Hamman Avenue. This is a violation of Chapter 5E-14.142(3)(b). Environmental Security of Okaloosa, Inc., d/b/a Environmental Security, is physically located at 4141 Pine Forest Road in Cantonment, Florida, and is listed at this address on its application for business license filed with the Department. Cantonment is located in Escambia County near Pensacola, Florida. Two other pest control companies, Killingsworth Environmental, Inc., and Atlas Termite and Pest Control of Cantonment, Inc., are located at the same address. On July 11, 2003, the Department conducted an inspection of a company called Home Services Marketing and Management, LLC, (hereinafter Home Services) which is located at 9100 Hamman Avenue in Pensacola. Clifford Killingsworth and Clinton Killingsworth2/ are the managers of Home Services. On March 26, 2002, entered into a Management and Marketing Agreement with Home Services, executed by Clinton Killingsworth on behalf of Environmental Security of Okaloosa and by Clifford Killingsworth on behalf of Home Services. Since that agreement was signed, the telephone number for Environmental Security of Okaloosa listed in the local telephone directory terminated at Home Services. Home Services also answers calls for Killingsworth Environmental, Inc. and Atlas Exterminating. Home Services employees do not make "cold calls" to new customers. They receive calls from existing customers. They contact customers with active accounts to set up renewals. They also contact homeowners whose homes were treated during construction and whose initial accounts were with the builder of the home. If a new customer calls, a Home Services employee answers the call, gets the contact information from the potential new client, and then calls the appropriate technician who would then call or visit the potential customer. The appropriate technician is generally determined by the geographic location of the caller. While a Home Services employee might send a preprinted contract to the technician to take to the job site or mail a contract to a customer, Home Services does not enter into any contract to perform pest control services. No pest control trucks or chemicals are stored at Home Services. Home Services also has a payment processing component. Home Services sends bills to pest control customers which instruct customers to make out the check to the appropriate pest control company, not to Home Services. Payments from customers for pest control services are deposited into the account of the appropriate pest control company. No evidence was presented that 9100 Hamman Avenue is an advertised permanent location of Environmental Security of Okaloosa from which business was solicited, accepted, or conducted. After the July 11, 2003, inspection of Home Services, Clinton Killingsworth took steps to get Home Services licensed as a pest control company. Mr. Killingsworth did this because it was his understanding that the Department took the position that Home Services was in the business of practicing pest control services. He employed his brother, Daniel Killingsworth, to be the required licensed person in charge, and contacted several insurance companies to obtain the required insurance. He had difficulty obtaining the required insurance since Home Services does not offer pest control services. Despite these difficulties, Home Services was issued a license in December 2003. Count 5 Count 5 of the Administrative Complaint, as amended, reads as follows: During an inspection on July 16, 2003, the Department found that Environmental Security of Okaloosa, Incorporated stored pesticides at an unlicensed business location at 1830 Galvez Road, Gulf Breeze, Florida, which is a violation of Chapter 5E-14.142(5)(f) and (g), Florida Administrative Code. That in addition, the Respondent, Environmental Security of Okaloosa, Inc., regularly parked trucks containing pesticide at that location during nighttime hours, published in the 2002-2003 Bell South Telephone Directory under Pest Control Services in the yellow pages of the telephone directory, a listing for "Environmental Security", a name under which it did business, and its employees received by facsimile daily work assignments that were sent to them at that location. That the Respondent, Environmental Security of Okaloosa, Inc operated an unlicensed business location at 1830 Galvez Road, Gulf Breeze, Florida, in violation of Section 482.071(2)(a), Florida Statutes.[3/] The property located at 1830 Galvez Drive is surrounded by a fence and contains a structure. The structure is not enclosed. Both Environmental Security of Okaloosa and Killingsworth Environmental park trucks there overnight. They entered the property when the pest control employees arrived. The Department conducted an inspection of 1830 Galvez Drive on July 16, 2003. The gate to the property was locked and the trucks were locked. On the day of the inspection, the Department's inspectors found unmixed chemicals in the trucks. Clinton Killingsworth acknowledges that at the time of the inspection, company trucks parked at the Galvez Drive location overnight and pesticides were in the locked trucks. Company records or contracts are not stored at the Galvez Drive location. No customer contact takes place at or from the Galvez Drive location. The Pest Control Business License Application Form contains a space in which the licensee must respond to the following: "Designate location where pest control records and contracts will be kept and the exact location address for storage of chemicals if other than licenses business location." The applications for business license for Environmental Security of Okaloosa do not reference 1830 Galvez Road as a location where storage of chemicals occurs. Environmental Security of Okaloosa does not have a license for operating a business at this location. The yellow pages for the Pensacola area contains a listing in red ink for "Environmental Security, Inc." It lists an address of 4141 Pine Forest Road with the telephone number 473-1060. There is another reference to "Environmental Security" in black ink in smaller type which lists the address 1830 Galvez Drive with the number 916-7731.4/ Clinton Killingsworth brother, Clifford Killingsworth, arranged to have a phone line for a fax machine to be located in a trailer at the Galvez Drive location. The purpose of installing a fax line at Galvez Drive was for employees to receive daily schedule assignments. The 916-7731 number listed in the yellow pages is the number of the fax machine. Clinton Killingsworth did not request a listing for the number of the fax machine. However, the telephone company listed it in the phone book. Clinton Killingsworth has requested the local telephone company to remove the erroneous listing a number of times.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered assessing a fine against Respondent Environmental Security of Okaloosa, Inc., in the amount of $2,600.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of May, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of May, 2005.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was the holder of Pest Control Business License No. 875, Pest Control Operator's Certificate No. 667, and Identification Card No. 6415. Respondent's business was and is located at 512 South Eighth Street, Fernandina Beach, Florida. The anniversary date for purposes of renewal of Respondent's Pest Control Business License was November 30, 1978. Those persons holding identification cards issued in connection with the operation of H & K Pest Control were Respondent, Dolphus Lee White, Donna Kay Young and George Morrison Young. Respondent was licensed to conduct pest control business only in the category of Lawn and Ornamental pests. On November 28, 1978, two days before Respondent's pest control business license was to expire, HRS received an Application for Pest Control Business License and Identification Cards from Respondent requesting renewal of the aforementioned licenses and identification cards. However, the Certificate of Insurance attached to the renewal application failed to meet the requirements for minimum financial responsibility for property damage contained in Section 482.071, Florida Statutes. The Certificate of Insurance in question indicated that the limits of liability for property damage were $50,000 for each occurrence, and $50,000 in the aggregate. The statutory requirements are $50,000 for each occurrence and $100,000 aggregate. As a result, by notice dated November 29, 1978, HRS returned Respondent's application, indicating that the Certificate of Insurance did not meet the statutory standard. In addition, the November 29, 1978 letter specifically informed Respondent that . . . it is unlawful to operate a pest control business that is not licensed." HRS received a corrected Certificate of Insurance on February 27, 1979. However, this Certificate of Insurance did not indicate the name of the insured pest control business, and was, accordingly, returned to Respondent's insurance agent. Respondent's name was then apparently inserted in the Certificate of Insurance by the agent, and the corrected Certificate of Insurance was received by HRS on March 3, 1979. As a result, Respondent's application for renewal of his licenses and identification cards was not, in fact, complete until March 3, 1979. The renewal licenses and identification cards were thereafter issued on June 4, 1979. The delay between receipt of the completed application and issuance of the licenses and identification cards was apparently due to work load in the HRS Office of Entomology. Notwithstanding the fact that Respondent was licensed only in the area of Lawn and Ornamental Pest Control, H & K Pest Control performed pest control services inside buildings at the Florida Marine Welcome Station in Fernandina Beach, Florida, for the period July 1, 1978 through and including two days prior to the hearing in this cause on September 28, 1979. The State of Florida, Department of Commerce, Office of Administrative Services was billed ten dollars monthly on H & K Pest Control statements for this service, and payment was remitted by the State of Florida for these services to H & K Pest Control. In addition, on at least two occasions H & K Pest Control performed pest control services inside buildings at the Florida Welcome Station on Interstate Highway 95 in Yulee, Florida. One of these occasions occurred in November, 1978 for which H & K Pest Control billed the Florida Welcome Station in Yulee, Florida, thirty dollars on its statement dated January, 1979. At no time during the performance of pest control services inside the Florida Marine Welcome Station in Fernandina Beach, Florida, and the Florida Welcome Station on Interstate Highway 95 in Yulee, Florida, was Kinsey C. Haddock or any other employee of H & K Pest Control licensed in the category of General Household Pests and Rodents, or in any other category that would have allowed them to treat the inside of buildings for pests. Although Respondent was never observed to have personally sprayed the insides of buildings at either Welcome Station, persons identifying themselves as employees of H & K Pest Control did perform those services, the State of Florida was billed on statement forms of H & K Pest Control for these services, and payment was remitted by check to H & K Pest Control. On December 27, 1978 an inspector from HRS visited the business location of H & K Pest Control at 512 South Eighth Street, Fernandina Beach, Florida. The business office was open and being operated by a person claiming to be an employee of H & K Pest Control who identified herself as Joyce French. Ms. French advised the inspector that she had been trained in the category of General Household Pest Control, and had performed these services inside the Florida Welcome Station on Interstate Highway 95 in Yulee, Florida. Records maintained by the Office of Entomology indicate that no identification card or other license had ever been issued to a "Joyce French" in the area of General Household Pest Control. Respondent denied that he had ever employed a "Joyce French", nor was Miss French called as a witness in this proceeding. Further, other than the statement attributed by the inspector to Ms. French, there is no evidence in this proceeding to corroborate that Ms. French did, in fact, perform pest control services of any description. Further, on December 27, 1978, Respondent did not have displayed in his business office a certified operator's certificate renewal or a current business license, as required Chapter 482, Florida Statutes. Finally, the record in this proceeding establishes, and Respondent has, in fact, admitted, that he is not a full- time employee of H & K Pest Control. In fact, the record clearly establishes that Respondent has been a full-time employee of Container Corporation of America as an engineer in the Power Department of that company since December 9, 1937. Respondent works rotating shifts in his employment at Container Corporation of America, but usually works the 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. shift an average of only five days per month. When not working the 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. shift at Container Corporation of America, Respondent operates his pest control business at the address above mentioned.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: At all times material to the instant case, Respondent operated the House of India (Restaurant), an eating establishment located in Coral Gables, Florida. Respondent is now, and was at times material to the instant case, the holder of a license issued by Petitioner (license number 2313769) authorizing it to operate the Restaurant as a public food service establishment. On the morning of September 28, 2006, Douglas Morgadanes, a Sanitation and Safety Specialist with Petitioner, conducted an inspection of the premises of the Restaurant. His inspection revealed, among other things, that there were, what he believed to be, "rodent droppings" present in the Restaurant, creating "an unsanitary condition [that] could lead to food borne illnesses" if the food served to patrons became contaminated with these droppings. Before leaving the establishment, Mr. Morgadanes advised Respondent that this "unsanitary condition" had to be corrected within 24 hours. The Restaurant closed immediately following the inspection and an extensive cleanup operation was undertaken. In addition, Respondent had "[its] pest control company," Rentokil Pest Control (Rentokil), come to the Restaurant during or around the early morning hours of September 29, 2006, to perform "follow-up" rodent control services. (Rentokil had just made a "routine service" call to the Restaurant on September 27, 2006.) Mr. Morgadanes conducted a "callback" inspection of the Restaurant on September 29, 2006. His inspection revealed that, notwithstanding Respondent's cleanup and rodent control efforts, there were, what appeared to him to be, rodent droppings4 in an unused attic area above, and "a little bit to the side" of, the Restaurant's kitchen. Respondent was unable to produce for Mr. Morgadanes during the "callback" inspection documentation reflecting that Rentokil had been to the Restaurant to provide rodent control services. Respondent subsequently sent such documentation to Mr. Morgadanes' office by facsimile transmission. The documentation for the September 29, 2006, service call (9/29 Documentation) contained the following entries under "Service Performed by Rentokil" and "Cooperation Requested from Customer": Service Performed by Rentokil: Inspected and service[d] facility for pest[s]. Found no activity. Put out glue in kitchen underneath kitchen sink around hole near the back door. Cooperation Requested from Customer: Proofing Adequate? ? Yes ? No Please fix hole underneath sink to prevent rodent harborage. Sanitation Needed? ? Yes ? No Please clean dishwashing station. These entries on the 9/29 Documentation clearly and convincingly establish that, although Respondent had done cleanup work and retained the services of Rentokil in an effort to minimize the presence of rodents in the Restaurant, it had not eliminated harborage conditions on the premises.5 After receiving the documentation from Respondent, Petitioner issued the Administrative Complaint that is the subject of the instant controversy. This was the second time in less than a year that Petitioner had charged Respondent with violating Section 6-301.14 of the Food Code. A prior charge (filed in DBPR Case No. 2005064978) had been disposed of by stipulation, the terms of which were "adopted and incorporated" in a Final Order issued by Petitioner on January 12, 2006. There was no admission or finding of guilt. The "stipulated disposition" of the charge was Respondent's payment of a fine of $500.00 and attending a hospitality education program.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner issue a final order finding that Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and disciplining Respondent therefor by imposing a fine of $1,000.00 and directing that Respondent attend, at its own expense, a hospitality education program. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of August, 2007.
Findings Of Fact Hammock Dunes is a parcel of land located on the east coast of Florida approximately half way between Daytona Beach and St. Augustine. With the exceptions of a few small parcels separated from the main area, the area in question in this case is that bounded by Malacompra Road to the north, the Atlantic Ocean to the east, and State Road A1A to the south and west. The property is cut at several places from the west boundary, State Road A1A to the east by 16th Road, Jungle Hut Road, and the approach road to the Sheraton Hotel. All of the property at issue in this hearing is owned by either Admiral or its parent company, ITT. The natural terrain is a series of ridges and swales which contain to the west, sea oats, salt palmetto, and coastal scrub in the drier areas. The lower interior ridges contain alternating growth of the above vegetation until one gets to the immediate area of State Road A1A where, because of the fill, oak and other upland vegetation is in evidence. Ditches exist on both sides of each of the cross roads mentioned above. In addition, ditches have been dug in a generally north - south direction following the ridge and swale run of the land and there is also evidence of spoil banks in the southern portion of the property resulting from the dredging of the Florida East Coast Canal. The north/south ditches in question were dug as a part of the mosquito control program carried out over several years starting in 1953 to remove the seasonal breeding ground of salt marsh mosquitoes. In addition to these north/south control ditches, there are other ditches leading away from them which form a part of that system, and there are some permanent waters on the property, primarily at the southern end near the Sheraton Hotel and at the coquina quarry. The dominant vegetation adjacent to the ditches includes a mixture of plants including weeds, disturbance plants, and persistent vegetation. Aerial photographs taken at various times over the period of the last 40 years reflect that the vegetation includes cat tails, bunch grass, wax myrtle, cabbage palms, and salt brush. Many of these ditches are encroached by the growth surrounding them. The existence of cabbage palms serves as a tool to define the swale areas because water conditions are not suitable for these plants in the swales. The swales in question, which basically were the areas in which the drainage ditches were dug, were natural and not man made. According to Dr. Durbin C. Tabb, a consultant in environmental assessment, whose work emphasizes the location, siting, and sensitivity of aquaculture projects, vegetation in areas such as this goes through a progression of species and this progression is used in relic analysis. Dr. Tabb performed a relic analysis on the area in question and based on this, as well as an analysis and examination of extensive aerial photography done of the area, he concluded that prior to the ditching activity, the plant community in the area could be described as a "wet prairie." This is an area of virtual treeless grasses and shrubs growing in an area periodically inundated by water. The zonation of the plants caused by this periodic inundation, as determined by Dr. Tabb, is consistent with wet prairie and that condition, prior to the ditching for mosquito control purposes, was consistent with mosquito breeding. In his analysis, Dr. Tabb found that numerous plants, such as cat tails, maiden cane, pickerel weed, saw grass, spike rush, soft rush, switch grass, button bush, and coastal plain willow, all of which need a moist environment, were extant in the area. Dr. Tabb also concluded that the water in the swales was primarily fresh water. In dry periods, however, in the lower areas, some salt could be sucked up from below ground by capillary action. Another survey of the area was conducted by Jeremy Tyler, the supervisor of the dredge and fill section of the Northeast District of DER, who has performed more than 3,000 jurisdictional determinations over the past 10 years, and who performed the jurisdictional determination for the property in question here. In making his determination, Mr. Tyler looked at various maps, aerial photographs, and information supplied by Admiral Corporation and conducted at least three recent on-sight visits to the property in addition to others conducted in the past. Based on all of this information available to him, Mr. Tyler concluded that certain portions of the Hammock Dunes area were exempt from DER dredge and fill permitting requirements. His conclusions were that the canal running to the intra-coastal waterway and the waterway itself were jurisdictional. Mr. Tyler determined that at least two ditches went through the uplands portion of the area as a part of the mosquito control operation. These ditches were the one at the west side of Malacompra Road which entered into the intra-coastal waterway; another was the westernmost ditch running south into the barge canal at the southeast corner of the property. Both were exempt. The third ditch in the area, that on the most eastern side, was not cut in the mosquito control operation and therefore did not meet the criteria for exemption. On the basis of this, he concluded that DER's jurisdiction extended to the sides of the jurisdictional ditch up about half way northward on the lake in the southeast corner of the property. North of that point, the ditch was cut through a non-jurisdictional uplands area. Mr. Tyler indicated that he would normally follow each ditch up-stream, but, having been made aware of the extent of the mosquito control operation, and the relationship of that operation to the ditches, he concluded that the majority of the ditches in the area were dug during the mosquito control operation and met the criteria for exemption, and, as a result, he did not have to follow them to their source. If he had not been satisfied that the mosquito control district exemption applied, he would have gone up each and every ditch to see where jurisdiction stopped. Prior to publishing an opinion as to jurisdictional limitations, ordinarily the agency will request a legal review of the proposed determination. This was done in the instant case by agency counsel Richard Lee. However, Mr. Tyler made the ultimate determination that the exemption applied in this case. He did not examine the question of whether the ditches constituted a series of lakes connected, so as to support jurisdiction, because since he was satisfied they were dug in mosquito control operations, the exemption applied which obviated any other jurisdictional issue. Robin D. Pyne, a consulting engineer in water resources, has studied the Hammock Dunes property since 1977 when his company was hired to do a water use plan for a neighboring community. Since 1979, he has had substantial opportunity to study the water situation there. Over the years, he has specifically tried to determine if standing water existed between the swales prior to the beginning of the digging of the mosquito control ditches in 1953. In doing his analysis, he relied on historical data, site topography data collections, reports of other agencies, and the work done by other experts. Considering all this, Mr. Pyne found that the soil in the Hammock Dunes area was basically well drained beach sand. Any rainfall on this area would seep in quickly and not run off, as the sand is very porous. During periods of sustained rainfall, the water table rises into the low part of some of the swales. Once the rains stop, however, the water drains off quickly through the ditches, and before they were in place, through the underground drainage which went west to east to the ocean as well as through evaporation. Extrapolation of this theory and its application to known data revealed that prior to the beginning of the mosquito control ditch program in 1953, wet soils were found in the swale bottoms only periodically and the swale bottom water level was determined by the level of the water table in the area. Generally, the swale bottoms would not be wet under average or dry weather prior to the digging of the ditches. The several mathematical calculations made by Mr. Pyne for the period prior to the ditches revealed that generally the average water table was below the bottom of the swale and there is no standing water in the bottom of a majority of the swales. Mr. Pyne concluded that the digging of the ditches may have lowered the water table by approximately one foot overall, but this would not affect his thesis. It is accepted here over that of Mr. Frazee who testified for Petitioner, and whose testimony is discussed in Para 24, infra. Other analysis was conducted by Mr. James H. Humphrey, an aerial cartographer who analyzed photographs of the area in question taken in 1943, 1952 and 1983. The use of a stereo plotter in these analyses delineated swales, ditches, roadways and other features important to the project. Based on the technical tools and procedures available to and used by him in his analysis, Mr. Humphrey is convinced the swales he identified are accurate and using his plotter, the textures of grasses, the tones of grey on the picture, and other like considerations, he was able to determine this outline. Dr. Thomas H. Patton, a geologist with a specialty in geomorphlogy, a study of why land looks as it does, and the relationship of soils to geomorphology, performed studies on the property in question to determine if the swales contained soils indicative of inundated conditions. To determine this, he looked for certain characteristics of the soils in the area to determine if the soils had been inundated for a period of time. In doing so, he first used aerial photographs to get the lay of the land from an overview standpoint defining general trends and the general outline of the land, roads, and other impacts by man. He then took soil samples from the major, the intermediate, and the minor swales and tried to get samples from between the swales to see if there was any interconnection between them. He took samples from soil across the entire width of each swale studied. Soil samples contain and maintain within themselves indications of sustained emergence or saturation. Studying these indicia can show how long the soil was dry (above the water table or below it). If the soils were inundated for a long period, they would show a preservation of a surface decomposed organic layer reflected by a dark grey to black color. This is the primary indication. There are others such as a blue-grey/green coloring of the subsurface and a mottling or sign of reduced condition. This test has been adopted by the Department of Natural Resources and the United States Corps of Engineers. Certain horizons have been defined and identified by letter. These are: O - the top, made up of leaf litter A - the elevated layer - transfer level B - just at or above the water table (normal dark brown color), and BH - the water table level - no clay or organics According to Dr. Patton, it takes a long time for the BH level to accumulate. The process is quicker in a porous soil than a dry soil and the Hammock Dunes area has porous soil. One would not find a BH horizon, however, in a saturated or inundated soil. If the soil is saturated, even a large part of the year, there would be no BH horizon. At the Hammock Dunes site, the emergent soil has a diffused, darker upper surface. Below that comes a much cleaner, greyer sand and beneath that, the zone of accumulation. Dr. Patton's survey revealed to him that soils in the swales were not inundated throughout the year. They were inundated during periods of high rainfall, but because of the porosity of the soil, would drain quickly. On the entire property, he saw only four isolated areas that could be considered wetlands. In the majority of the area, the soils appeared to be emergent soils. Most met the typical horizon picture including a BH zone. Using a specific site as an example, Dr. Patton traced to the BH horizon starting at approximately 42 inches down. The soil started lighter on top and proceeded to get darker as one went down to the zone of accumulation. That indicated that the water table was at or near 42 inches sufficiently during the year to achieve accumulation. Had the water table been nearer the surface more of the year, that would not occur. In Dr. Patton's opinion, this situation, including the water table level, stayed just about at that point all the time for at least a couple of hundred years if not for 1,000 years. This is not to say that the water table will not move during periods of drought and over rain. It will, but those periods are relatively short and the general level of water table where the BH horizon is is just about normally at 42 inches throughout the Hammock Dunes property. In preparing his analysis, Dr. Patton compared the swales work described above with the soils found in what he considered a wetlands area just north of 16th Road to see what a real wetlands soil in this area looked like. He found the latter to be black and mucky and typically wetland. He also took samples from Bonne Terre farms, which is a drained historical wetland. In this wetland, the soil was quite organic at the surface which showed sustained inundation of the surface. He also took samples at a place where Varn Lake comes close to State Road A1A and at that point, it was determined that there had been submergence, saturation, or inundation long enough to constitute a wetlands. The organic material was at a depth which indicated there that originally the area was wetlands but he cannot say when. In general, then, if the interdunal swales had been inundated prior to the dredging operation of the mosquito control ditches, there would have been organic materials still in the bottom of these swales. The time necessary to leach it out would have been several hundred years. Since the BH horizon, with its level of organic material, was located at 42 inches, this indicated that, for the most part, the Hammock Dunes areas with their swales included were not historic wetlands. Dr. Patton agreed with Mr. Pyne that the digging of the mosquito control ditches did not materially lower the water table nor does he believe that except in the worse conditions, in the rainiest of rainy seasons, that the water table in one swale was ever connected to the water table in another. In contrast to the above, Petitioner introduced testimony by various experts and residents which contradicted that referenced above. James M. Frazee, an employee of the St. Johns River Water Management District became familiar with the Hammock Dunes area in connection with a salt water intrusion problem he was working on while employed with the U.S. Geological Survey in 1978 to 1980. During that period, he entered the site at least once a month. Based on his visits at the time, he found the area in question to be a combination of relic dunes with an interdunal lake system which holds water during periods of average to high water levels. His measurements of the water depth between the ridges showed it to be anywhere from 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 feet down. This was during a period when the water table was between 5 1/2 to 6 feet above mean sea level, and was a period of above normal rainfall. During the period 1965 to 1980 there was a period of less than normal rainfall during which the water table fell from the high above to approximately 6 inches above mean sea level. Mr. Frazee contends that the interdunal swales are lakes and ditches dug by the mosquito control district have drained the area. In his opinion, were it not for these ditches, the ground in the swales would be much wetter, but Mr. Frazee cannot indicate by how much. His testimony, contradicted by that of Dr. Patton and Mr. Pyne, is not considered to be consistent with the weight of the evidence. John Labie, an employee of DER specializing in water quality assurance, is familiar with the Hammock Dunes area and examined it as to ditching by a review of numerous aerial photographs and surveys. In his study, he tried to determine what the area looked like originally. In addition to the documentation he reviewed, he also walked a great portion of the area, personally examining the property in question. On the basis of his inquiry, he concluded that the area was previously a wetlands which was dried out by the mosquito control ditches. He admits that his depictions of historical wetlands, on the maps utilized for demonstrative purposes at the hearing, was not based on the same degree of accuracy and sophistication as was the basis for Respondent, Admiral's expert testimony. Another evaluation was conducted by botanist Sydney T. Brinson, an employee of DER, whose job includes the preparation of jurisdictional determinations based on botanical studies. She visited the site herself and determined there are at least three connections to waters of the state and from these connections into the interior of the Hammock Dunes property. She contends then, that if there were not mosquito control exemption, at least some of the ditches would, at least partway up, be jurisdictional. It is her opinion that before the ditches were put in, based on old documentation, the area was a series of coastal dunal lakes and the lakes, as they existed, did not have much plantlife in them. Relying on the U.S. Coastal and Geodetic Survey maps, which refer to much of the areas as "open water," she contends that the area was a system of coastal lakes rather than marshes. Marshes contain vegetation. Lakes generally do not. It is her further opinion that the interdunal waters, as interdunal lakes, total approximately 270 acres. Not all of these are connected at the surface. She feels that all of the individual systems north of the Florida East Coast Canal are more than 10 acres in area and would have to be over 2 inches in depth because of the fact that they are reflected as open water on the USGS maps. Based on her research, she concluded that prior to the digging of the mosquito control ditches, the area was a historic wetland. This opinion is not supported by the weight of the evidence, however. Another expert in soils science, Dar Guam Cheng, visited the site on May 9, 1985, and, in addition, reviewed a 1918 soils map of the area. Back then the area consisted of hydric soils which is a wetlands soils. All types of soils found in the area in 1918 are considered hydric (wetlands) soils. Mr. Cheng, however, took no samples himself on the Hammock Dunes property. His evaluation was based solely on the 1918 map, and is not considered to be of substantial value to the determination of this issue. Burrell Miller, a 76 year old resident of Hammock Dunes since 1979, but who either lived or visited in the area since 1917, indicated that his family homesteaded the area around Malacompra Road in 1920. During the period 1917 through 1943, he recalled, there was always water storage in the Hammock Dunes area. There was, however, not always high water except in the 1926 hurricane. There is, however, fresh water generally there every time it rains and the water generally stays level with the sea level. Mr. Miller recalls that from time to time in years past, boats were needed to cross the savannah to the beach. On other occasions one could wade in water up to one's waist. As he recalls, some of the soil was wet all of the time and never dried out. Mr. Miller's testimony, however, was fragmented and capable of numerous interpretations. It is not given the same weight as the scientific evidence presented by other parties. Nonetheless, another resident, Petitioner, Gerald Schatz, started coming to the area in 1953 and settled there in 1954. Over the years, he has gone into the Hammock Dunes area quite frequently and it is his recollection that along Malacompra Road, there always seemed to be some water, at times, up to the floor board of his pickup truck. He can recall when the mosquito control ditches were started in 1953. Even before he came to the area, Mr. Schatz' father-in- law lived there and always considered it wet. He recalls hearing others also describing the area as being wetlands. During the 1926 hurricane, it was flooded and again in 1957. Before the ditches were installed, there was, to his recollection, substantial standing water. Mr. James J. Miller, state archaeologist for Florida and very familiar with the history of the area, is familiar with the Hammock Dunes area from the work he did on a Development of Regional Impact for the area. Having reviewed records and historical documents relating to this specific area, going back as far as 1605, he concluded that there was no natural waterway extending across the Hammock Dunes area. His study, however, dealt with the issues of navigability of waters not its hydrographics and his study did not deal with the issue of wetlands. Nonetheless, it is clear from the above, that the area was neither open water or a water course at any time in recorded history. The overwhelming weight of the evidence clearly indicated that the Hammock Dunes property was not a historical wetlands within the framework and the intent of the statute or the rule. Admittedly, the area was inundated from time to time, especially after such periods of high rainfall as hurricanes, tropical storms, or above average rainy seasons. During those periods, the standing water which remained for a relatively short period of time was often of such magnitude as to come to the floor board of a pickup truck, or require the use of a skiff or other surface transport over the water to cross it. This clearly accounts for the memory of Mr. Miller as to him using boats to get to the beach and for the recollection of Mr. Schatz who remembered water coming to the floor boards of his truck On the whole, however the scientific evidence presented by Admiral Corporation, including such expert testimony as that of Dr. Patton, Dr. Tabb, Mr. Pyne, and other highly qualified scientists who visited the site and conducted reliable scientific evaluations of the area, all clearly lead to the inescapable conclusion that the area was for the most part and over the long run not a submerged wetland. There can be little question that the majority of the "swales" on Hammock Dunes were either the result of or enhanced by mosquito control ditching operations of the East Flagler Mosquito Control District over the period from 1953 through completion. Though these ditches ultimately connect with the intercoastal waterway or the Florida East Coast Canal, both of which are waters of the state, these connections, with the exception of the ditch west of Varn Lake which is admittedly not exempt, are obviously due to mosquito control activities of EFMCD. According to the best evidence available, the land in question was not a surface water body nor was it connected to a water of the state prior to the construction of the mosquito control ditch system. For the most part, the interdunal swales, which constantly hold water, are less than 10 acres in size and have an average depth of less than 2 feet of water in them throughout the year.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that DER take final agency action adopting the preliminary determinations made by its Northeastern District of DER's permitting jurisdiction for the discharge of dredge and fill materials on Hammock Dunes as outlined in the DER Northeast District letter of August 9, 1984 to Admiral Corporation. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 23rd day of December, 1985. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of December, 1985. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 84-3604 In the preparation of this Recommended order, the proposed Findings of Fact submitted by Petitioner and Respondent were thoroughly considered and evaluated. As listed below, the individual proposed findings were accepted or rejected by the undersigned as indicated: For the Petitioner: 1) accepted and incorporated in para 30 (a)-(e) accepted but not dispositive of any issue - 6) accepted except for the last sentence of para 6 which is argument rejected as contra the weight of the evidence accepted accepted but immaterial 10 - 12) accepted but not dispositive irrelevant irrelevant irrelevant accepted rejected as irrelevant (a) - (d) accepted - 23) accepted but not controlling 24 - 25) rejected as argument, finding of fact 26 (a) (1) - (4) accepted but not conclusive or definitive 26 (5) rejected as a summary of documentation and not a mapped Findings of Fact 26 (b) - (d) rejected as a summary of testimony and not a finding of fact rejected as a summary of testimony and not a finding of fact rejected 29 (a) - (d) rejected as argument summarization of testimony rather than Findings of Fact rejected as a summary of testimony rather than Finding of Fact accepted 32 - 36) accepted rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence rejected as summary of testimony and not Finding of Fact rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence and argument rather than Finding of Fact rejected as summary of testimony and not Finding of Fact 1st and 2nd paras accepted, but 3rd paragraph rejected as not the better evidence rejected as argument and not Finding of Fact 43 - 44) accepted accepted rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence accepted as to the severance of Varn Lake from the major canal but rejected as to contra to the weight of the evidence as to the historical connection rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence accepted accepted that Mr. Labie made such a "finding" but the finding is rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence 51 - 52) rejected as recitations of testimony and not Findings of Fact 53) rejected as far as categorization of the periodic wet areas as "lake systems" 54) accepted as a statement of Mr. Schatz's recollection accepted as a statement of the contents of a writing not dispositive of the issue 57 - 59) accepted 60) rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence For the Respondent: accepted accepted accepted except for the term "swales" which is used merely descriptively and not binding as to definition accepted accepted 5 (a) - (c) rejected as recitations of testimony rather than Findings of Fact 5 (d) - (8) accepted rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence. Petitioner's witnesses' testimony was, in general, in disagreement with that of Respondent's witnesses. However, as stated in the Recommended Order, the weight and quality of Respondent's evidence prevailed. (o) - (q) accepted not as fact but as a recitation of the evidence presented by each witness (a) - (c) accepted - 11) accepted 12) accepted COPIES FURNISHED: Victoria Tschinkel Secretary Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Deborah Getzoff, Esquire Ross Burnaman, Esquire Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Randall E. Denker, Esquire Lehrman & Denker Law Offices 103 North Gadsden Street Post Office Box 1736 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Timothy Keyser, Esquire Post Office Box 92 Interlachen, Florida 32048 Carlos Alvarez, Esquire Carolyn S. Raepple, Esquire Hopping Boyd Green & Sams 420 First Florida Bank Bldg. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314 =================================================================
