Findings Of Fact Respondent, Hugenna D. Outar, operates a twelve-bed adult congregate living facility (ACLF) under the name of Moorehead House Retirement Center at 1405 Northeast Eighth Street, Homestead, Florida. The facility is licensed by petitioner, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), and as such, is subject to that agency's regulatory jurisdiction. Outar serves as administrator of the facility. On or about August 15, 1987, Paul Grassi, an HRS fire inspector, conducted a routine annual inspection of respondent's facility. The purpose of the inspection was to determine if the facility was in compliance with the fire safety requirements of Chapter 10A-5, Florida Administrative Code (1987). The inspec- tion was made in the presence of Outar's mother since Outar was not at the facility that day. Grassi requested documentation showing that all facility fire alarms and smoke detectors had been checked by facility personnel on a quarterly basis. Also, he requested documentation to evidence that all employees had been given monthly training in procedures to be followed in the event of a fire. The former set of records is required by Department of Insurance Rule 4A-40.017, which has been adopted by reference by HRS. The latter requirement is imposed by Rule 10A-5.023(15)(b) and pertains to ACLF's having thirteen or more licensed beds. Because Outar's mother did not know where such documentation was kept, she was unable to comply with Grassi's request. Next, Grassi observed that Room D had a "pocket type" door with no hinges. According to Grassi, a state fire marshal regulation prohibits the use of this type of door in a resident's room and requires instead that a resident's room located by an exit have a door mounted on a hinge that swings outwardly to the corridor. The Classification of Deficiencies refers to the regulation imposing this requirement as "L.S.C. 85, 17-3.6.2" but the regulation itself is not of record or officially noticed. Finally, Grassi observed two residents' rooms with no door closures. According to Grassi, such closures are required on all residents' rooms, pursuant to a state fire marshal regulation, for the purpose of containing and confining a fire in the event of a fire in a room. The regulation was not identified at hearing nor made a part of the record but is referred to in the Classification of Deficiencies as "N.F.P.A. 101-85, 17.3.6.3." After noting these violations, Grassi explained them to the mother and gave her a brief explanation as to how they might be corrected. Each of the three deficiencies were categorized as Class III deficiencies. By letter dated September 24, 1987, HRS advised Outar in writing of the nature of the violations. Although the letter was not prepared until September 24, it instructed Outar to correct the deficiencies by September 14, 1987, or ten days earlier. Attached to the letter was a copy of the Classification of Deficiencies which identified the deficiencies, their class and the date by which they had to be corrected. On October 29, 1987 Grassi made a follow-up survey of respondent's facility. Since Outar was not at the facility that day, the survey was conducted in the presence of Outar's mother. Grassi found none of the deficiencies had been corrected. Accordingly, Outar was sent a letter by HRS on November 6, 1987 advising her that a second follow-up visit would be made. On December 14, 1987 Grassi returned for a third visit. This time Outar was present. Again, Grassi found none of the deficiencies corrected to his satisfaction. However, he conceded that the documentation pertaining to monthly fire drills and quarterly checks of fire alarms and smoke detectors was available for inspection but maintained it was unsatisfactory because all reports were identical and did not vary from month to month. He reasoned that this was contrary to the "intent" of the rule. During the inspection, Outar requested specific advice as to how to comply with the door regulations for which she had been cited. After receiving advice, these changes were made, and her doors now meet all fire safety requirements. Outar operates a small facility with only twelve beds. She pointed out that she had difficulty in installing closures on the two doors in question since two residents used walkers and had placed door "jams" on the doors to give them easy access through the doorway. As to the other door violation, the building was purchased with an archway leading into Room D which made it difficult to install a door mounted on hinges. Outar attempted to comply with Grassi's instructions but her carpenter was unable to make the necessary changes until Outar received specific advice from Grassi on December 14. Finally, Outar stated that the fire drill documentation was available for inspection on August 15 and October 29 but her mother did not know where it was. Outar did not learn it was filled out improperly until she personally spoke with Grassi on his third visit. She now has satisfactory records.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaint filed against respondent be dismissed with prejudice. DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of September, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 30th day of September, 1988.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a firesafety inspector should be denied based on Petitioner's criminal convictions, in the 1980s, on drug related charges.
Findings Of Fact The Denial of Petitioner's Application. On May 23, 2008, Petitioner Joseph Edgerton ("Edgerton") submitted an application to the Department of Financial Services (the "Department" or "DFS") seeking approval to sit for the state certification examination that must be passed to become licensed as a Firesafety Inspector. The next month, DFS verbally notified Edgerton that he would not be permitted to take the certification examination because of his criminal record, which includes two felony convictions, from the 1980s, for drug-related offenses. The Department took the position that each of the crimes of which Edgerton was convicted involved moral turpitude. Edgerton did not dispute the convictions, but he did object to the characterization of his criminal conduct as base and depraved, and he pressed the Department for a formal decision, in writing, on his application. By letter dated March 5, 2009, the Department denied Edgerton's application, "based upon the following factual allegations:"1 On May 22, 1980, you pled [guilty to] and were adjudicated guilty . . . [of] felony possession of cocaine with intent to sell, . . . a crime of moral turpitude, in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida . . . . On April 29, 1988, you pled [guilty to] and were adjudicated guilty [of] felony conspiracy to distribute cocaine, . . . a crime of moral turpitude, in the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, . . . were committed to the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons for a term of forty-two (42) months, and upon release were placed on supervised release for a term of thirty-six (36) months. The foregoing allegations of historical fact concerning Edgerton's convictions are true and undisputed. (In contrast, the Department's characterization of the offenses as crimes involving moral turpitude is sharply contested, but that particular dispute is not outcome determinative and need not be decided, for reasons that follow.) The Circumstances Surrounding the Criminal Incidents. Edgerton's state court conviction followed his arrest in late 1979, when he was discovered in an airport to be in possession of five ounces of cocaine. Edgerton testified that the cocaine was for personal use, and that he did not intend to sell or distribute the drug. While Edgerton's testimony in this regard was credible as far as it went, the fact that he pleaded guilty, in 1980, to the charge of possession with intent to sell gives rise to a conflict in the evidence regarding his criminal intent. Even assuming the worst, however, what matters more at present is that Edgerton genuinely accepts responsibility for, and is remorseful about, his very old criminal misconduct, which he readily acknowledges was "stupid" and "wrong." Edgerton further insists (and the undersigned finds that) he "is a different person now," at age 50, than the "kid" who "partied too much" 30 years ago. With regard to the federal conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine, Edgerton testified that his role consisted of lending money to another person for use in a narcotics transaction. Edgerton denies having handled, carried, or delivered any drugs, and the undersigned accepts his testimony on this point, which was not contradicted by conflicting evidence. Consistent with his statements concerning the other matter, Edgerton accepts responsibility for this crime while maintaining, credibly, that he is "not the same guy" who committed it and declaring that he "wouldn't do it again." The History of the Applicant Since the Incident. Edgerton committed the subject crimes a long time ago—— nearly 30 years in the case of the trafficking charge and approximately 22 years in reference to the conspiracy charge. Edgerton thus has had ample time fully to restore his reputation and usefulness to society as a law abiding citizen following his felony convictions. There is persuasive evidence that he has done just that. In 1993, Edgerton became licensed by the Florida Department of Health as a paramedic. His license, numbered PMD 13086, was active as of the final hearing in this case. In October 1995, Edgerton received a Certificate of Compliance from the State Fire Marshal authorizing him to work as a firefighter in this state. As of the final hearing in this case, Edgerton continued to be a state-certified firefighter. For more than 15 years, Edgerton has worked without adverse incident as a first responder in the emergency medical and fire rescue fields. He has done so under the constant regulatory supervision of two separate state agencies. These facts demonstrate persuasively (and the undersigned finds) that Edgerton——who has not, as far as the evidence shows, harmed or endangered actual persons served in the past decade-and-a-half—— is, at this time, an honest man whom the public can safely trust, and who will not present a danger in the future, should he become licensed as a Firesafety Inspector. The Restoration of Edgerton's Civil Rights. By Executive Order dated July 2, 1987, the Governor and Cabinet, exercising the governor's constitutional authority to grant clemency, restored all of Edgerton's civil rights, with the exception of the specific authority to possess or own firearms, which were lost by reason of any prior felony convictions. By Executive Order dated September 1, 1993, the Governor and Cabinet restored all of Edgerton's civil rights, with the exception of the specific authority to possess or own firearms, which were lost by reason of his felony conviction in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Ultimate Factual Determinations. The undersigned has determined, based on the greater weight of the evidence, including the circumstances surrounding Edgerton's prior convictions and the persuasive evidence of his full and complete rehabilitation, that Edgerton currently conforms his behavior to societal norms, possesses good moral character, and is otherwise morally fit to serve as a Firesafety Inspector. Edgerton meets all of the requirements for certification as a Firesafety Inspector except one: a passing score on the state certification examination, which DCF has not yet permitted him to take.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a Final Order approving Joseph Edgerton to sit for the firesafety examination, which he must pass to satisfy the last remaining requirement for his certification as a Firesafety Inspector. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of June, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 19th day of June, 2009.
The Issue The issue posed for decision herein is whether or not the Respondent properly denied Petitioner's request to be certified as a fire fighter.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Petitioner, Ronald J. Pastuch, is employed as a fire fighter by the City of Palm Bay. Petitioner was denied certification as a fire fighter by the State Fire Marshal because he has a history of diabetes which is being controlled by insulin medication. Petitioner was hired by the Chief of the Palm Bay Fire Department, David P. Green. Chief Green was unaware of the requirement that candidates for the fire-fighter classification were required to take and pass a physical examination prior to being employed. Chief Green is now aware of the requirement and acknowledged that an applicant in the fire-fighter classification cannot be certified if said applicant has diabetes. (See Respondent's Exhibit No. l.) Several of Petitioner's coworkers appeared and testified that they had acknowledged no inability on the part of Petitioner's on-the-job performance as a fire fighter. (Testimony of Chief David P. Green; Captain Tom Knecht; Captain Arthur Fawcett; Lieutenant Jim R. Green, Training Officer and Shift Manager, and Lieutenant Robert Erario, all employees of the Palm Bay Fire Department.) Dennis "Buddy" Dewar, Chief of the Fire Fighting Standards Commission, was received as an expert herein in the qualifications for certification of a fire fighter. Diabetes Mellitus is not considered a disease, but rather a metabolic disorder. Diabetes is a major contributor to cardiovascular disorders. According to Chief Dewar, diabetes is a bona fide occupational qualification (bfoq) and, in his opinion, to certify a diabetic, compounds the existing problems related to a diabetic's cardiovascular disorders. Chief Dewar unequivocally stated that an insulin dependent diabetic, as Petitioner, should not be certified as a fire fighter based on the standards and pertinent rules and regulations which do not permit such an applicant to he certified. Moreover, Chief Dewar noted that the tasks of a fire fighter were demanding, unpredictable and stressful. He, therefore, concluded that an insulin dependent candidate should not be certified due to the stress and uncertainties connected with fire fighting.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner's request for State certification as a fire fighter by the State Fire Marshal, be DENIED. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of September, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of September, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald J. Pastuch Palm Bay Fire Department 175 North West Palm Bay Road Palm Bay, Florida 32905 L. Terrye Coggin, Esquire Department of Insurance Room 428-A, Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues are: (1) whether Respondent properly scored Petitioner's retake of the Practical Examination for Firefighter Retention; and (2) whether Petitioner's application for firefighter recertification was properly denied.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has worked in the fire service for almost 28 years. During that time, Petitioner served as the assistant fire marshal and the fire marshal for the City of Orlando. After Petitioner retired from the City of Orlando, he served as fire chief, building official, and code enforcer officer of Eatonville, Florida. After more than a three-year time period of not working as a firefighter or in the fire service field, Petitioner accepted a job as fire marshal in Hillsborough County, Florida. Although there is no legal requirement that a fire marshal be certified as a firefighter, a condition of Petitioner's employment with Hillsborough County was that he be recertified as a firefighter. In Florida, a firefighter retains his firefighter certification if he remains an active firefighter with an organized fire department. However, a firefighter who has not been active for a period of three years must successfully complete the Retention Examination in order to retain his certification. The Retention Examination is the practical portion of the examination given to new applicants. Because Petitioner has not been an active firefighter for the past three years, in order to be recertified as a firefighter, he was required to successfully complete the Retention Examination. The Retention Examination consists of the following four parts: Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus ("SCBA"), Hose Operations, Ladder Operations, and Fireground Skills. To pass the Retention Examination, a candidate must achieve a score of at least 70 percent on each part. Petitioner applied for and took the Retention Examination that was given on May 16, 2007. He successfully completed the Fireground Skills part, but did not earn a passing score on the SCBA, the Hose Operations, and the Ladder Operations parts.2/ Petitioner applied for and took the September 13, 2007, Retention Examination re-test. During this re-test, Petitioner took only the SCBA, the Hose Operations, and the Ladder Operations parts, the ones that he had not successfully completed in May 2007. Petitioner passed the Hose Operations part of the Retention Examination re-test, but did not successfully complete the SCBA and the Ladder Operations parts, because he did not complete those components within the maximum allotted time. Each part of the Retention Examination has certain elements or skills that are graded. The SCBA and the Ladder Operations parts of the Retention Examination are each comprised of eleven skills or steps that the examinee must complete within the specified time. Ten of the 11 skills or steps for each part of the Retention Examination are assigned a point value of ten.3/ The other skill (the 11th skill or step) under each part is designated as a "mandatory step" for which the examinee is awarded a score of either "pass" or "fail".4/ Under the scoring system described in paragraph 10, an examinee receives ten points for each of the ten skills he successfully completes and a passing score for the one skill designated as mandatory. The SCBA and Ladder Operations parts of the Retention Examination have an established maximum time allotted for the examinee to complete a minimum of 70 percent of the skills. The time requirements are a mandatory criterion/requirement. In order to successfully complete the Retention Examination, an individual must not only complete a minimum of 70 percent of the ten skills or steps for each part, but he must also successfully complete the two mandatory criteria for that part. If an examinee completes a minimum of 70 percent of the skills in a particular part, but fails to do so within the maximum allotted time specified for that part, he has not met the mandatory time requirement and, thus, is not awarded any points for that part. The Division established the minimum time requirements for completing the various parts of the practical examination for firefighters after consulting the NFPA standards and soliciting input from fire departments, fire chiefs, and other individuals in firefighter profession. Among the factors that were considered in establishing the minimum time frames were the nature of fires (i.e., how quickly they spread) and the need for firefighters to perform their job duties both safely and quickly. The Division uses these time requirements in testing the 3,500 to 3,800 firefighters a year that go through the testing process. On the September 13, 2007, re-test, Petitioner exceeded the maximum time allotted for the SCBA and the Ladder Operations parts. The maximum time allotted for completion of the SCBA part of the Retention Examination is one minute and 45 seconds. Petitioner's completion time on the September 2007 Retention Examination re-test was three minutes and ten seconds. The maximum time allotted on the Ladder Operations part of the Retention Examination is two minutes and 45 seconds. Petitioner's completion time on the September 2007 Retention Examination re-test was three minutes and ten seconds. Because Petitioner failed to complete a minimum of 70 percent of the skills in the SCBA and the Ladder Operations parts of the Retention Examination within the maximum time allotted, the Bureau properly awarded him no points. Therefore, Petitioner did not earn a passing score on the Retention Examination re-test. As a result of Petitioner's failing to pass the Retention Examination, his Firefighter Certificate of Compliance No. 3381 expired as of September 13, 2007. The Division's Bureau of Fire Standards and Training ("Bureau of Standards") employs field representatives to administer the Retention Examination to examinees in accordance with the applicable rules and procedures. Philip D. Oxendine is and has been a field representative with the Bureau of Standards for four years. As a field representative, Mr. Oxendine administers and scores the minimum standards examination for firefighters, including the Retention Examination. Prior to being employed as a field representative, Petitioner worked as a firefighter for 27 years, having retired as a lieutenant. He also has ten years of experience as an instructor in the fire science division of the then South Technical Institution in Palm Beach County, Florida. Mr. Oxendine administered and scored the three parts of the Retention Examination re-test that Petitioner took on September 13, 2007, in accordance with the Division's procedures. All examinees at the September 17, 2007, Retention Examination re-test location, were assigned a number. In an effort to avoid bias, throughout the testing process, examinees' assigned numbers were used instead of their names. On the day of the Retention Examination re-test, Petitioner was assigned a number by which he was identified. When Mr. Oxendine administered and scored Petitioner's re-test, he did not know Petitioner's name or anything about him. Prior to Petitioner's starting the Retention Examination re-test, Mr. Oxendine took Petitioner and other examinees to each station and told them what they had to do at that station. Mr. Oxendine also told the examinees, including Petitioner, how each part of the Retention Examination would be graded.5/ Mr. Oxendine's usual practice is to instruct examinees to touch the apparatus when they are ready for time to begin on a particular part of the examination. He also gives specific instructions to the examinees regarding how they should indicate that they have completed each part. Once an examinee touches the apparatus and says he is ready to begin, Mr. Oxendine starts the stop watch. Mr. Oxendine instructed the examinees to indicate that they had completed the SCBA part by standing up and clapping their hands. The examinees were told that the Ladder Operations part was considered completed when they were behind the ladder and holding it and when they announced that the ladder was ready to be climbed. Mr. Oxendine used the procedures described in paragraph 30 in timing Petitioner on the three parts of the Retention Examination re-test. Mr. Oxendine timed Petitioner's performance on each part of the Retention Examination re-test using a stop watch. This is the method that Mr. Oxendine was trained to use when timing the examinees' performances on the practical portion of the examination. An individual is allowed to re-take the Retention Examination one time. If the person does not pass the re-test, he must repeat the Firefighter Minimum Recruit Training Program before he is eligible to re-take the Retention Examination. See § 633.352, Fla. Stat., and Fla. Admin. Code R. 69A-37.0527. As noted above, Petitioner did not pass the SCBA and the Ladder Operations parts of the Retention Examination re- test. Therefore, before he is eligible to re-take that examination, he must repeat the Firefighter Minimum Recruit Training Program. Petitioner failed to establish that he was entitled to a passing grade for his performance on the Retention Examination re-test. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that Petitioner's performance on the Retention Examination re-test was appropriately and fairly graded.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order denying Petitioner's application to retain his certification as a firefighter in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 20th day of May, 2008.
Findings Of Fact At all times, material to this case, Petitioner has been licensed by the Department to operate an adult congregate living facility (ACLF) which is located at 6200 West Fairfield Drive, Pensacola, Florida, and is known as the Warrington House. Francis Cooper is the sole shareholder and operator of the Warrington House. Prior to 1984, the Warrington House was known as the Heritage House and was owned by a Mr. Mitchell. Sometime in 1984, Mr. Mitchell was criminally charged with elderly abuse on his residents and the Heritage House went into receivership. Another branch of HRS who was represented by Esther Ward, asked Ms. Francis Cooper to take over the facility. HRS was apparently well satisfied with Ms. Cooper's qualifications in running an ACLF since she had another such facility. When Ms. Cooper took over the Heritage House the electrical power to the facility was about to be turned off. Only by Ms. Cooper's pleading with Gulf Power was that circumstance forestalled. There were only thirteen (13) patients at the facility out of the sixteen (16) that were supposed to have been there. Three (3) of the patients had been mysteriously removed during the night. The residents that were at the house could not identify themselves and very few resident records were at the facility. The building was infested with roaches, there was raw sewage in the yard and the sewage system was completely blocked to the extent that sewage came up through the showers when a toilet was flushed. There was urine in every carpet. None of the appliances in the house worked. There were no air conditioners, fans or plastic dishes. The floors were in bad shape. In fact, Ms. Cooper fell through two of the bathroom floors. When Ms. Cooper questioned HRS representatives about the appalling conditions of the facility, she received no responsive answer. After Ms. Cooper had taken over the facility, she discovered that Mr. Mitchell had absconded with three months advance rent from the residents. Ms. Cooper, therefore, had to operate the premises for three months without income from the residents that were there. She used her own money. Ms. Cooper started with the air conditioning, flooring and carpeting. All these items were replaced. The bathrooms were tiled and additional bathrooms were added. She put in a $6,000.00 sewage system, a lift station and paid $1,000.00 to hook the building onto city sewage. She also brought in an exterminator to get rid of the bugs. All of this took place over a period of two years wherein Ms. Cooper worked diligently to bring the building up to "snuff." In fact, in the time since she has had the facility she has accomplished wonders in improving conditions at the house. These conditions clearly did not appear overnight, but over several years and were apparently overlooked by Respondent until the crisis with Mr. Mitchell had occurred. Ms. Cooper went into the house with the understanding that the corporation would eventually build another facility and close what had become the Warrington House. The reason for the new construction was that the current building, regardless of the amount of repair, was still an old building not worth maintaining and which was allowed to deteriorate badly prior to her stewardship. However, due to a falling out with her brother, who was then a co- shareholder of the corporation, Ms. Cooper was unable to complete her plans for moving the residents of the Warrington House to a new facility. She continues to attempt to obtain financing to build a new facility. At least once a year, HRS does a full survey on a ACLF like the Warrington House. A full survey is simply an inspection of the property in order to determine the degree of compliance with HRS rules and regulations. Upon completing the inspection, the inspector goes through an exit briefing with the ACLF's management. During the exit briefing, the inspector will go over any deficiencies he or she has discovered and attempt to establish mutually agreeable correction dates. The inspector also explains that these time periods are the best estimates that they can come up with at that point to allow a reasonable amount of time for the required corrections to be made. If any problems should arise, the inspector requests that the manager communicate with his or her office and ask for an extension. Extensions are not always forthcoming. After the full survey inspection is done, a follow-up visit is normally scheduled to determine whether the earlier cited deficiencies have been corrected. If, after the follow-up survey there are items that are still not corrected, the inspector will explain to the person in charge that they are subject to administrative action and that he or she will report he facility's noncompliance to his or her office. Whether or not administrative action is taken is determined at a level above the inspector. However, it appears that the customary practice of the office is to pursue an administrative fine for any noncompliance after the correction date has been passed. After the first follow-up survey has been made it depends on the particular factual situation whether or not further follow-up surveys are made until compliance is achieved. If there are efforts being made to correct the problems further follow-up surveys will be made. If not, further follow-up surveys may not be made. In this case, James Temkin, an HRS Fire Protection Specialist, performed a full survey fire safety inspection on the Warrington House on September 24, 1986. During that survey, he cited 11 deficiencies. Various compliance dates were established for the deficiencies. A follow-up survey was conducted by Mr. Temkin on January 14, 1987. During that survey, he noted that 6 of the previously cited deficiencies had not been corrected. He recommended administrative action on all the uncorrected deficiencies. The six remaining uncorrected deficiencies were as follows: No up to date fire plan and the July 7th fire drills were not documented; No fire alarm test since July 1986 and fire alarm zones were not shown on the actuator panel; Smoke detectors not working in four (4) rooms; Exit sign lights burned out at the front and center exits, emergency lights not working at the front, rear and upstairs exit halls; Sleeping rooms had hollow core doors; and There was no documentation of fire safety on the wood paneling and tile ceilings on the first and second floors. All other deficiencies cited during the September 24, 1986 full survey were corrected. As to the alleged deficiencies contained in the latter half of (b) and (c)-(f) above, none appear at any point in HRS' rules governing ACLF's. Supposedly, these deficiencies are cited in the NFPA life safety code, which is incorporated by reference in the Fire Marshal's rule on ACLF's, Rule 4A-40, Florida Administrative Code. The 1984 version of Rule 4A-40, Florida Administrative Code is incorporated by reference in HRS' rule, Rule 10A-5, Florida Administrative Code. Both HRS' rule and the Fire Marshal's rule are contained in the Florida Administrative Code. However, the 1984 version of NFPA is nowhere to be found in the Administrative Code. The current Fire Marshal's rule adopts portions of the 1985 NFPA life safety code. However, the HRS' rule adopts the 1984 version of the Fire Marshal's rule. No showing was made by Respondent as to what the 1984 version of the NFPA code contained. The HRS inspector's testimony regarding a particular deficiency's inclusion in the NFPA cannot be relied on since both inspectors apparently used the 1985 version of the NFPA which is not the 1984 version included in HRS's rule. Without proof of the contents of the NFPA, HRS has failed to prove any deficiencies for which it may take administrative actions. As to the other deficiencies, attempts to comply were in fact made by the Warrington House. The facility's personnel in fact thought they had complied with HRS' desires based upon previous inspections. However, for one reason or another, these attempts were rejected by the HRS inspector and the deficiency was cited again, but because of another reason. The lack of an up- to-date fire plan (cited in (a) above) was met by the Warrington House when they obtained a fire plan prior to the established correction date from another arm of HRS responsible for devising such plans. However, upon the January 14th follow-up inspection, the plan obtained from HRS by Petitioner was considered insufficient in that it did not outline staff responsibilities during a fire. The same thing occurred with the lack of fire alarm tests, cited in the latter part of (a) and the first part of (b) above. The Warrington House obtained the testing document and test from another branch of HRS responsible for such testing. However, the inspector at the follow up survey did not deem his own agency's testing documents sufficient since it did not show a different type sending unit was being tested at least once a year. 1/ These are simply not repeat deficiencies since in each instance the earlier grievance had been met and it was another grievance which cropped up. On July 9, 1987, a second follow-up survey to the Temkin September 24, 1986, full survey was performed by O.B. Walton, an HRS fire safety inspector. The evidence was not clear as to any remaining uncorrected deficiencies, if any, he found. Therefore, Respondent failed to establish any repetitive deficiencies as a result of the July 9 follow-up survey. Apparently, however, Mr. Walton, did perform another full survey on July 9, 1987. Several additional deficiencies were cited by him. A follow-up visit was conducted by Mr. Walton on October 23, 1987. Four alleged deficiencies remained uncorrected as follows: Ceiling not repaired in hot water heater closet, i.e. not taped; Kitchen fire door latch was jammed open so it would not latch, but it would stay closed; Plug by hot water heater had no cover; No documentation that drapes were fire retardant. Again, none of the above alleged deficiencies appear in HRS' rules or in the fire marshal's rule and a reasonable person could not glean from any of the other provisions contained in HRS' rules that the above conditions might be included in these provisions. The lack of clarity or uniformity in interpretation of HRS' rules is especially born out in this case since two different inspectors while inspecting the same building cited different deficiencies under their respective interpretation of the rules. When the experts differ it is difficult to see how a reasonable lay person could even begin to know or understand the contents of HRS or the Fire Marshal's rules. This lack is especially true since the relevant contents of the 1984 NFPA life safety code are not contained in the Florida Administrative Code and were not demonstrated by HRS. HRS, therefore, failed to prove any repeat deficiencies from the October 23, 1987 follow-up survey. A third fire safety follow-up visit was conducted by Pat Reid, a human services program analyst, on January 21, 1988. She has no expertise or license to perform fire safety inspections. She found all of the earlier cited uncorrected deficiencies corrected except for the documentation on the drapes. That alleged deficiency was partially corrected since Petitioner was replacing the drapery with metal blinds. However, as indicated earlier the lack of documentation for fire retardant drapes was not proven to be a violation by Respondent. Ms. Reid had previously conducted a full survey of Petitioner on August 17 and 18, 1987 in her area of expertise operation and general maintenance of an ACLF. Several deficiencies were cited and correction dates were established. Ms. Reid conducted a follow-up survey to the August 17 and 18 full survey on October 23, 1987. The following alleged deficiencies had not been corrected: Facility staff do not have documentation of being free of communicable diseases; The physical examination (Health Assessment) of resident identified as M. B. does not indicate that the resident is free from communicable disease; Broken or cracked window panes in windows of second floor exit door, both first floor bathrooms nearest kitchen, and resident rooms identified as C. W., W. S., and W. L.; Shower tile missing in second floor bathroom nearest exit door; Linoleum of first floor bathroom is loose as well as badly stained with cigarette burns; Hole in wall next to sink and toilet of second floor bathroom nearest exit door and square hole in wall of second floor blue bathroom; Faucet of first floor bathroom is loose; Carpeting in first floor resident room (#7) is badly stained; Three vinyl chairs in dining room have tears, exposing foam padding; Second floor bathroom faucet nearest exit does not clearly distinguish between hot and cold water taps. As to the alleged deficiency contained in (a) above, the regulations do not contain a requirement that any documentation be kept regarding staff members being free of communicable disease. The regulations only require that the facility administrator assure that staff is free of communicable disease. The evidence showed that Petitioner had in fact assured that the staff was free of communicable disease. Therefore, no violation occurred. The alleged deficiency cited in (b) above does constitute a violation of Rules 10-5.081(1)(b), (2)(a)4.d., and (2)(b), Florida Administrative Code. However, in this instance, there are several mitigating circumstances. Foremost is the fact that Petitioner attempted on several occasions to obtain this information from another arm of HRS who had M. B. under its care prior to his admission to Petitioner's facility and had actually failed to complete M. B.'s Health Assessment form properly. Petitioner received many assurances from HRS that it would obtain and forward the information. HRS failed to do so. Moreover, after several years of M. B. living at the Warrington House and after several years of HRS care prior to his admission, common sense would dictate that M. B. is free of communicable diseases. Petitioner has in fact received confirmation of that fact from an examining physician who certified M. B. free of communicable diseases. 2/ As to (c) above, the evidence showed that the windows were only cracked and not broken. No evidence was presented as to the severity of the cracks. Cracked windows are not included in Rule 10A-5.022(a), Florida Administrative Code, which only addresses broken window panes. Moreover, cracked windows without proof of the severity of the cracks is not sufficient evidence of the lack of good repair or other hazardous conditions similar to those listed in Rule 10A-5.022(a), Florida Administrative Code. The Rule requires proof of the hazardous nature of such a condition. Cracked windows are not hazardous in and of themselves and no showing was made that these cracked panes constituted a hazard. Nor do cracked window panes standing alone constitute a violation of Rule 10A-5.022(d). The rule requires evidence that such cracked panes are unreasonably unattractive and no showing was made that the cracks were unreasonably unattractive. Likewise, the missing shower tile in (d) above fails to constitute a violation of Rule 10A-5.022(a) since the deficiency is not listed, and no showing was made that the missing tile constituted a hazardous condition. Similarly, the missing tile, by itself, does not constitute a violation under Rule 10A-5.022(d) since no showing was made that the missing tile was unreasonably unattractive. The same failure of proof occurs with the alleged deficiencies listed in (e), (f), (g), (h) and (i). See Rules 10A-5.022(c), (e) and (i). The alleged deficiency cited in (j) above does constitute a violation of 10A-5.023(9)(e). However, the violation was not repeated after October 1, 1987, the effective date of Section 400.414(2)(d), Florida Statutes. Ms. Reid conducted a second follow-up survey to the August 17 and 18 full survey when she performed the fire safety follow-up on January 21, 1988. All previously cited deficiencies had been corrected except for: Facility staff do not have documentation of being free of communicable diseases. The physical examination (Health Assessment) of resident identified as M. B. does not indicate that the resident is free from communicable diseases. The following maintenance problems exist: broken or cracked window panes in windows of second floor exit door, both first floor bathrooms and resident room identified as W. S. A third follow-up was conducted by Ms. Reid on April 15, 1988. All the previously cited deficiencies had been corrected except for: The physical examination (Health Assessment) of resident identified as M. B. does not indicate that the resident is free from communicable disease. Broken or cracked window panes in windows of second floor exit door, both first floor bathrooms nearest kitchen, and resident rooms identified as C. W., W. S., and W. L.; Shower tile missing in second floor bathroom nearest exit door; Linoleum of first floor bathroom is loose as well as badly stained with cigarette burns; Hole in wall next to sink and toilet of second floor bathroom nearest exit door and square hole in wall of second floor blue bathroom. All of the alleged deficiencies cited in the January 21, 1988 follow- up and the April 15, 1988 follow-up survey were carried forward from the alleged deficiencies discussed above, cited in the October 23, 1987 follow-up survey. The same findings are made as to the alleged deficiencies which were carried forward. Only the physical health assessment of M. B. was cited by Respondent and shown to be a repeated deficiency since the information was not obtained by the established correction dates occurring after October 1, 1987. By the date of the hearing all the above alleged deficiencies had been corrected. Respondent notified Petitioner that it proposed to deny renewal of Petitioner's license to operate the Warrington House on December 23, 1987. The basis for the denial was Section 400.414(1) and (2)(d) which states: 400.414 Denial, revocation, or suspension of license; imposition of administrative fine; grounds. The department may deny, revoke or suspend a license or impose an administrative fine in the manner provided in chapter 120. Any of the following actions by a facility or its employee shall be grounds for action by the department against a licensee: * * * (d) Multiple and repeated violations of this part or of minimum standards or rules adopted pursuant to this part. The language of Subsection (d) was added to Section 400.414 F.S. on October 1, 1987. Prior to that date Respondent had no authority to take punitive action against the license of an ACLF licensee for multiple and repeated violations of Respondent's statutes and rules. The only action Respondent could take against a facility for such violations was in the form of a civil fine the amount of which could be raised if the violation was repetitive. Section 400.426, Florida Statutes. No multiple violations were shown by the evidence through the April 15, 1988 follow-up survey. More importantly, however, no multiple violations were shown by Respondent after October 1, 1987, the effective date of the statutory language at issue in this case. No showing was made by Respondent as to any legislative intent that the statute operate retrospectively. The statute operates only prospectively. Therefore, any alleged deficiencies cited prior to October 1, 1987 are irrelevant for purposes of imposing the punishment contemplated under Section 400.414, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services renew Petitioner's license. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 9th day of November, 1988.
The Issue Respondent's alleged violations of safety regulations, as set forth in Notice and Order to Show Cause, dated May 14, 1980. At the commencement of the hearing, the Hearing Officer granted Petitioner's Motion for Leave to Amend its complaint to substitute Baron Fun Frite's Castle, Inc. as Respondent in this proceeding, and to replace references to Charles Amara as an individual to Charles Amara as an officer of Baron Fun Frite's Castle, Inc.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Baron Fun Frite's Castle, Inc. is a Florida corporation which operates an amusement business at 1100 Main Street, Daytona Beach, Florida. The business is conducted in a two-story building owned by Amara Hotel, Inc. Charles R. Amara is the president of both corporations. The facility is operated as a "fun house" where customers pay an admission to walk through the premises in a period of ten to twenty minutes. There is approximately 1,000 square feet of space in the building with three exits, including an outside fire exit on the south side. The walls and ceilings of the interior of the building consist of sheetrock over which has been sprayed a polyurethane foam material manufactured by Chemetics Systems, Inc., with a tradename of CSI-9l52 Spray. The foam material is coated with an intumescent latex paint coating manufactured by United Paint Manufacturing, Inc. with a tradename of Thermogard. Although the building can accommodate between 50 to 55 persons in the period of one hour, it has never been occupied by more than 43 customers within that period in the past. (Testimony of Nelson, Amara, Stipulation, Respondent's Exhibit 1) On March 4, 1980, Petitioner's Regional State Fire Protection Specialist John R. Nelson inspected Respondent's premises pursuant to a request of the fire department of the City of Daytona Beach. Nelson determined that the building was a "place of assembly" which conferred jurisdiction under Petitioner's rules to enforce fire regulations, based on the building's occupant load of 150 persons as assigned by the City of Daytona Beach. A number of alleged deficiencies were discovered as to which Respondent was advised in a letter from Nelson dated March 10, 1980. The letter and accompanying inspection report required that corrective action be taken by April 7, 1980. Although the letter stated that the items noted were in violation of "Florida Statutes and/or the State Fire Marshal's Rules and Regulations," and that specific references would be provided upon request, neither the letter or the report specified statutes or rules alleged to have been violated. On May 5, 1980, Nelson conducted a re-inspection and found that three violations had not been corrected. Thereafter, on May 14, 1980, Petitioner filed its Notice and Order to Show Cause which constitutes the complaint in this proceeding. On June 11, 1980, Respondent requested a hearing under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. (Testimony of Nelson, Case Pleadings, Petitioner's Exhibit 1) The rear fire stairs of Respondent's facility on the exterior of the building provide headroom at a landing of six feet two inches. Petitioner's inspector found that such clearance was insufficient under pertinent regulations and could block the exit during an emergency, thereby creating a possibility of crowd panic and consequent danger to public safety. The stairs presently extend out from the building over property owned by the City of Daytona Beach and therefore was the subject of a variance from the City Fire Code when constructed. Although there are two other exits from the building, the rear fire stairs are required in order that the maximum travel from any point inside the building to an exit will net exceed 150 feet. (Testimony of Nelson, Amara, Petitioner's Exhibit 1) The inspection also disclosed that the maintenance and air conditioning rooms of the building had openings in the walls and ceiling which would allow smoke, fire, and toxic gases to spread in the event of a fire. These consisted of openings in duct work and electrical outlets. Respondent testified at the hearing that the openings have been covered since the date of re-inspection. (Testimony of Nelson, Amara, Petitioner's Exhibit 1) The urethane foam product on the walls and ceilings of Respondent' s building is recommended for use by the manufacturer whenever maximum insulation and flammable standards are required. It is safe when used as a "sandwich" material between the interior and exterior materials such as gypsum board or fir wood material. However, if it is exposed on the surface, it is highly flammable and combustible, and subject to rapid vertical spread of fire. At certain temperatures, hydrogen cyanide and carbon monoxide gases would be released. Intumescent paint such as Thermogard will not provide a 15 minute thermal barrier because the foam material will expand and swell when afire and the flame will cause an expansion which in turn causes the paint covering to pop off. The foam material can be adequately protected by spraying with a cement plaster material which will form a hard surface to prevent the formation of gas. At the time the foam material was placed on the interior of the building, it was inspected and approved by the City of Daytona Beach as meeting its existing fire code. The existence of the polyurethane foam material was the subject of one of the violations of applicable law found by Petitioner during its inspection of the premises in March 1980. (Testimony of Nelson, Hogan, Folsom, Petitioner's Exhibit 1, Respondent's Exhibit 1, Respondent's Exhibit 2)
Recommendation That Petitioner issue an order to Respondent directing that it cease and desist within 30 days from continued violation of Section 6-2.1.3 of the National Fire Protection Association No. 101 Life Safety Code (1976) , pursuant to Rule 4A-27.13, Florida Administrative Code and Section 633.161, Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 18th day of September, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel Y. Sumner, Esquire Office of Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner 428-A Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard R. Cook, Esquire 213 Silver Beach Avenue Daytona Beach, Florida 32018
The Issue The issue for determination is whether the application for an initial license to operate an Adult Family Care Home ("AFCH") should be denied because the applicant submitted fraudulent or inaccurate information in the application.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is owned by Ms. Marvell Lawton, R.N. (the "applicant"). On June 3, 1996, the applicant applied for a license to operate an AFCH at 550 East Division Street, Deland, Florida (the "facility"). Respondent is the state agency responsible for licensing AFCHs. Respondent requires several documents to be submitted with the application including: a Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("HRS") Community Residential Homes Sponsor Certification Form (the "HRS Form"); a statement by the local zoning office that the facility is properly zoned (the "zoning approval"); and a fire inspection report. The applicant altered the HRS Form, the zoning approval, and the fire inspection report to indicate that the facility was approved for a maximum capacity of five residents. Respondent initially denied the license application solely on the basis of the fire inspection report. However, the basis of denial was amended to include the HRS Form and the zoning approval pursuant to an order entered by Judge Stephen F. Dean on October 16, 1996. By letter dated July 11, 1996, Respondent notified the applicant that her application was denied. The letter stated, in relevant part, that the specific basis for denial was: . . . Submission of fraudulent or inaccurate information to the agency. The fire safety inspection report submitted with the application package was altered to indicate approval for five residents when the fire marshal's office had only approved three residents. The local fire marshal's office has verified that the original approval was for three residents because Ms. Lawton did not want to install a manual alarm system which is required for four or five residents. Submission of fraudulent or inaccurate information to the agency is grounds for denial of the AFCH application, s. 400.619(11)(e),F.S. On April 2, 1996, the applicant obtained a fire inspection report from the City of Deland Fire Department (the "Fire Department"). The fire inspection report limited the maximum capacity of the facility to three residents because the applicant did not have the manual alarm system required for four or five residents and did not wish to install such a system. The applicant altered the fire inspection report that she submitted with her application. She changed the number "3" to a "5" so that the fire inspection report appeared to approve the facility for a maximum capacity of five residents. As part of its review of the application, Respondent attempted to verify the fire inspection report included in the application by calling the Fire Department. When the Fire Department did not verify that the maximum capacity was five residents, Respondent obtained a copy of the original fire inspection report from the Fire Department. On March 22, 1996, the applicant obtained a zoning approval from the City of DeLand stating that the maximum capacity of the facility is three residents. The applicant added the phrase "to 5" after the number "3" in the zoning approval so that the zoning approval authorized a maximum capacity of "3 to 5" residents. On June 3, 1996, the applicant submitted the HRS Form to Respondent. The applicant amended the portion of the HRS Form requiring a designation of capacity for facilities with six or fewer residents as well as that for facilities with 7-14 residents. The latter category does not apply to Petitioner. The applicant did not submit fraudulent information to Respondent. The applicant did not intend to defraud Respondent. She misunderstood the application process. The facility has space for only three residents. It is physically impossible to house more than three residents in the facility. The applicant would have gained nothing from an authorized capacity of more than three residents. The applicant's refusal to add the manual alarm system required for four or five residents is consistent with the facility's limit of three residents. The applicant assumed that Respondent's minimum license category is for a license of 1-5 residents. The applicant altered the HRS Form, the zoning approval, and the fire inspection report under the mistaken belief that the capacity designation in each document should conform to the maximum capacity in Respondent's license category. In the HRS Form, the applicant even altered the licensed capacity for facilities with 7-14 residents. The applicant mistakenly submitted inaccurate information to Respondent within the meaning of Section 400.619(11)(e), Florida Statutes.1 The maximum licensed capacity of the facility must be consistent with fire safety requirements for the welfare of the residents. The licensed capacity of the facility must also conform to applicable zoning laws.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order and thereinGRANT a license to operate an AFCH for three residents. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of February, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of February, 1997.
