The Issue The issues to be resolved are as follows: With regard to Count Four of the Amended Petition, whether the Petitioners have sufficiently alleged a rule challenge and more particularly whether sufficient facts have been alleged to identify the challenged rule, whether existing, proposed, or unpromulgated; and whether, through an unpromulgated rule, the Department (Respondent) has prohibited the installation of "pest control insulation" or borate containing insulation by anyone other than a card-carrying employee of a certified pest control operator or licensee. If so, it must be determined whether such action is outside the Respondent's rulemaking authority, whether it is contrary to statute, whether it disregards the exceptions proved in Section 482.211(9), Florida Statutes, and whether it violates Section 482.051, Florida Statutes. With regard to Count Five of the Amended Petition, whether the Petitioners have sufficiently alleged a rule challenge to a proposed or existing rule or have offered evidence legally sufficient to establish a rule, proposed, or existing, which the Petitioners are challenging relating to the Respondent allegedly having selectively investigated pest control operators performing 100 or more pre-construction termite treatments annually, and whether such action is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. With regard to Count Six of the Amended Petition, whether the Petitioners have sufficiently alleged a rule challenge to a proposed or existing rule or have offered evidence legally sufficient to establish a rule, proposed, existing, or unpromulgated, which the Petitioners are challenging relating to the Respondent's alleged enforced application of termiticide arbitrarily and capriciously by not requiring the best available technology and not regulating according to acceptable standards in the manner in which it conducts field investigations. With regard to Count Seven of the Amended Petition, whether the Petitioners have sufficiently alleged a rule challenge based on a proposed or existing rule or have offered legally sufficient evidence to establish a rule, proposed, existing, or unpromulgated, which the Petitioners are challenging relating to the Respondent's enforcement of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, as it relates to preventive soil treatments for new construction and its alleged failure to protect the public. With regard to Counts Two, Three, and Eight of the Amended Petition, whether the Petitioners have alleged any facts or presented any evidence to establish a proposed, existing, or unpromulgated rule substantially affecting the interests of the Petitioners. Whether either the Petitioners or the Respondent are entitled to recovery of attorney's fees and costs.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners conceded at hearing that the Order on the Motion to Dismiss, prior to the hearing, concerning the mootness caused by the withdrawal of the above-referenced agency memos not only disposed of Count One of the Amended Petition, but had rendered moot Counts Two and Three, as well. No evidence was presented as to the those counts. Neither was any evidence or argument presented regarding Count Eight of the Amended Petition. Thus, Counts Two, Three, and Eight, as well as Count One, should be dismissed. The Petitioners, with regard to Count Four of the Amended Petition, did not allege the text of any statement or description of one which could be construed as an unpromulgated rule by the agency, which prohibited the installation of insulation containing borate by anyone other than a "card- carrying" employee of a certified pest control operator or licensee. There was no evidence to establish the existence of such an unpromulgated statement or rule of general application. Cliff Killingsworth testified that he was an officer and party representative of the Petitioners' companies in this case. "In-cide" is a cellulose fiber with borate or borate- containing materials for fire retardancy and fungal control. The manufacturer had increased the borate content in the material so that it could make claims with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the product's pest control value. Mr. Killingsworth acknowledged that it was a licensed and registered "pest control product." While Mr. Killingsworth agreed that claims to the public about the pest control value of the product should be done by a pest control operator, he felt that should not prevent him from subcontracting the installation of the insulation material to a professional insulation installer so that the material would be properly installed in a home or other building. Mr. Killingsworth met with Steve Dwinell and Joe Parker, representatives of the Respondent agency, in Jacksonville, Florida, in the summer of 1997. He provided them with a 30-to-40-page report regarding installation of the insulation with its pest control properties. He received no communication from the Respondent following this meeting and sought no written opinion from the Respondent about the use of the material before he began using it. Mr. Killingsworth invited George Owens, a field inspector for the Respondent in the Northwest Florida area, to observe the product being installed in a structure. Mr. Killingsworth testified that Mr. Owens, thereafter, sent him a letter stating that the Respondent was not going to regulate that material. Mr. Killingsworth, however, did not produce that letter or a copy of it. Mr. Owens testified that he had visited a site in Destin, Florida, at Mr. Killingsworth's invitation, where "Green Stone" insulation was being applied by being blown into a small section of a wall. He did not know that a subcontractor was making the application when he visited the site. He thought that an employee of Mr. Killingsworth was performing the installation of the material. Mr. Owens did not recall telling Mr. Killingsworth or any of his representatives that application of the product by an agent other than Mr. Killingsworth's own company would be prohibited. It was not Mr. Owens' belief that he had authority to make those decisions. He did not believe that he had authority to approve or disapprove the application of a pesticide. Mr. Killingsworth invited Mike McDaniels, another field investigator with the Respondent in the Gainesville, Florida, area to observe the installation of the product in the spring of 1998. Mr. McDaniels commented to Mr. Killingsworth that he was glad that they were doing it, but he made no report. After the Petitioners' companies had been operating for two or three months in the Gainesville area, sharing space with Green Stone Industries, the company producing the insulation, Mr. McDaniels returned. He informed Mr. Killingsworth that the Respondent agency had changed its position on the application of the product. Because it was a "labeled material," that is, labeled and promoted as a certified pest control product, for purposes of EPA regulations, it had to be installed and handled only by a pest control operator meeting the definition of an employee under Chapter 482, Florida Statutes. Mr. McDaniel was shown the insulation in question by Mr. Killingsworth and how it was installed at a job site. He never told Mr. Killingsworth whether he could use the product or not, but during a "non-adversarial inspection," he told him that he had to have "ID cardholders" (i.e., employees of a licensed pest control operator) install the insulation, since it had advertised pesticide qualities. Mr. McDaniel was shown a warehouse with two different types of insulation. One had borate advertised as a fire retardant. The other had a higher content of borate which was advertised to have pesticide qualities. Mr. McDaniel determined that employees applying the second type of product were conducting pest control by installing that product and should, therefore, have pest control operator identification cards. He explained that to Mr. Killingsworth and thought he may have written that opinion on an inspection form which he supplied to Mr. Killingsworth. He also believes he notified his supervisor, Phil Helseth. His normal practice, when a new material is reported to him or observed, is to inform his superior of the facts concerning that product. He never told Mr. Killingsworth or his representatives that they could not install the product in question. He informed them that since it was listed as a pesticide that they would have to be have employees of a licensed pest control operator to legally install the product. Mr. McDaniel did not consult with anyone at the Respondent agency about this, but rather relied on his own judgment as to agency policy and the interpretation of the statutes and rules enforced by the Respondent. He testified that he had no central direction from his superiors at the Department on the issue and was unaware what other districts or regions under the Department's regulation were doing to address this question. He simply determined that if the Petitioners' personnel were applying a product that was a registered pesticide insulation that, under his understanding of the broad statutory definition of pesticides as anything that "curbed, mitigated, destroyed, or repelled insects," then the installers would have to be employees of a registered pesticide operator. Mr. Dwinell testified as the bureau chief for the Bureau of Entomology and Pest Control. He met with Mr. Killingsworth along with Mr. Parker, another employee of the bureau. Mr. Killingsworth made a presentation regarding the product in dispute, the borate-impregnated cellulose insulation. He determined that the product was a pesticide because it was advertised as a registered pesticide and performed pesticide functions, in addition to its insulation function. He did not recall that the precise issue of subcontracting with a non- licensed pest control operator or insulation installer was a topic of their conversation. Following that meeting, he may have discussed the question with Mr. Helseth, in a general way, but does not recall discussing it with any other person. He recalls some discussion concerning the Gainesville office of the Killingsworth companies and whether Mr. Killingsworth, or that office of his company, was licensed as a certified operator. He believes he recalls that a cease and desist letter informing the Killingsworth companies of the need to have the application of the product performed by someone licensed to do pest control may have been sent, although he is not certain. Mr. Dwinell established that the Respondent agency had never published anything regarding pest control insulation. He noted that a pesticide was a pesticide under the statutory definition, whether a corn bait, insulation, or mixed in a jug. The same laws applied to it and under Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, a pesticide must be applied by a licensed applicator. Mr. Killingsworth insisted that the insulation product, though a registered pesticide, was exempt from the provisions of Section 482.211(9), Florida Statutes, because it was a derivative wood product. He agreed that the product in question was a wood by-product and not wood. If a product did not meet the statutory definition of being exempt, then it would be appropriate for the Respondent to issue a cease and desist directive until the Petitioners came into compliance with Chapter 482, Florida Statutes. Mr. Dwinell opined that the subject insulation product was not exempt under the provisions of Section 482.211(9), Florida Statutes. Unlike pre-treated lumber, which is exempt, the installation product at issue is a registered pesticide. Pre-treated lumber, though treated with pesticide in the manufacturing process, is not intended to be used as pesticide, nor is it a registered pesticide. The Petitioners have not stated a basis for a rule challenge pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, as to Counts Five and Six of the Amended Petition. Although references were made to alleged "actions" by the Respondent agency, the Petitioners have not alleged with particularity, nor adduced any competent, substantial evidence of any rule provisions alleged to be invalid, nor have they shown, in an evidential way, any to be invalid. The evidence does not show that there is a rule, either proposed, existing, or as an unpromulgated agency statement of general applicability, which is actually being challenged by the Petitioners. There has not been a definitive showing by preponderant evidence that such exists concerning the product and operation at issue. The Petitioners in Count Seven of the Amended Petition have not stated any basis for a rule challenge in accordance with Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. There are numerous references to provisions of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, but it is not alleged with any particularity which rule provisions are purported to be invalid, nor has preponderant evidence been adduced to establish any rule provisions either proposed, existing, or as unpromulgated agency statements, which have imposed a substantial effect on the Petitioners. In this regard, the Petitioners' counsel argued at the hearing: Your Honor, what we have suggested is that the rule that's being challenged is the Department's statutory obligation under the statute as it relates to their promulgated Rule 5E-14.105, and as it relates to their treatment guarantees or warranties that are required by that regulation for a treatment that just doesn't work. The Department rule requires a certain warranty and requires a renewable warranty, placing that upon the pest control operator under the guise of protecting the consumer, but the fact of the matter is, it doesn't protect the consumer, and it just endangers the pest control operator. And so I guess the actual rule is the 5E-14.105. In addition to that we have the statutory obligations of the Department, which is to provide a protection to the public health and the economic benefit of the consumer and evaluate these chemicals that they are requiring warranties for. That's the basis of the rule challenge, and admittedly, this one is a little bit nebulous, but there is a regulatory, I guess, mandate of these preconstruction soil treatments as a method, as the preferred method, and to the extent that the operators, who are the regulated entity in this case are required to--is mandated to require a warranty for a method they know doesn't work . . . . Mr. Killingsworth acknowledged in his testimony that he was not contending that there should not be a warranty requirement for treatments of subterranean termites, as stated in the above-cited Rule 5E-14.105, Florida Administrative Code. He also acknowledged that he was not contending that the Respondent should require warranties from pest control companies for every kind of pest control performed. He thought there were a lot of factors not within a pest control operator's control affecting particular wood fungi, but what was in the pest operator's control was the opportunity to do a preventive treatment for more than just subterranean termites and they, in his view, should not be prevented from doing so. When asked what preventive treatment he had been prevented from doing by the Respondent, his reply was: The effect of memos and other actions prevented us from doing our choice of preventative treatment, the borate application, through the effects of raising questions in building officials' eyes, through the effects of increasing the economic impact to us to get it done. Builders will not pay enough to do both soil treatment and bait and borate. The memoranda referred to as preventing Mr. Killingsworth from doing his choice of preventive treatment were not actually identified in the record, however. Mr. Dwinell testified that the EPA guidelines require an efficacy standard for soil treatments which states: "Data derived from such testing should provide complete resistance to termite attack for a period of five years." The EPA also provides guidelines for preventive treatment/wood impregnation: "When acceptable data derived from testing for at least two years, or less than five years, shows complete resistance to termite attack, the product may be registered." The efficacy standard for borate, thus, was not five years, but two years. Mr. Dwinell had concerns about the type of data that had been relied upon by the EPA for registration and how that data related to the situation in Florida. That was the basis for the negotiated rulemaking process that the Respondent was engaged in at the time of the hearing in this case. The purpose of the negotiated rulemaking process was to comply with the statute that required a rule, but ultimately the purpose was to have a mechanism in the State of Florida where the product was registered for use under construction and a reliable set of data that could show whether the product would actually protect against termites when applied. The ultimate goal of the statute at issue is to protect the consumer, which is the Respondent's statutory duty. Borate pesticides are registered for use, with label directions for use during construction. They are one of three categories of materials for use in construction, including soil- applied pesticide materials, baiting products, and wood treatments, the last being the borates. There are no directives issued by the Respondent that specifically preclude the use of either borate as a stand-alone treatment or a baiting system as a stand-alone treatment. The Respondent does not require soil treatments only. Mr. Dwinell has never told any licensee that he could not use borate products if he were licensed.
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be issued a Pest Control Identification Card pursuant to Chapter 482, Florida Statutes. Petitioner James C. Melvin appeared at the hearing without counsel. After being advised of his rights under Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, he indicated that he understood such rights and did not desire to be represented by counsel.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner made application for a Pest Control Identification Card through Guardian Termite and Pest Control Company of Tampa, Florida, a certified operator, on February 13, 1978. By letter of March 2, 1978, to that organization, the Respondent's Director, Office of Entomology, advised that the application was denied because of Petitioner's previous noncompliance with Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, and Pest Control Regulations of the then Florida State Board of Health. (Exhibits 7, 8) Petitioner was employed by several pest control firms in Tampa during the period 1956 to 1962, and 1964 to 1965, during which periods he held a Pest Control Identification Card issued by Respondent. (Testimony of Bargren) On December 12, 1962, Petitioner was found guilty of violating State Board of Health structural pest control rules in the County Judges Court of Hernando County and sentenced to $15.00 costs and a suspended five-day confinement. On June 21, 1967, Petitioner pleaded guilty to a pest control violation in the Criminal Court of Record in and for Hillsborough County, Florida, and was sentenced to pay a fine of $200.00 or be confined in the county jail at hard labor for a period of sixty (60) days. Again, on September 11, 1967, in the Criminal Court of Record in and for Polk County, Florida, Petitioner pleaded guilty to engaging in structural pest control without a license and, on December 8, 1967, was sentenced to pay a fine of $200.00 or be confined in the county jail for a term of ninety days. (Exhibits 1, 4, 5)
Recommendation That the application of James C. Melvin for a Pest Control Identification Card be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 1st day of June, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: William Park, Esquire W. T. Edwards Facility 4000 West Buffalo Avenue Fourth Floor Tampa, Florida 33614 James C. Melvin 1310 West Rambla Street Tampa, Florida 33612 Steven W. Huss, Esquire Central Operations Services Department of HRS 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES JAMES C. MELVIN, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 78-645 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. / ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER A hearing was held in the above styled administrative cause before a Hearing Officer Thomas C. Oldham, Florida Division of Administrative Hearings, on May 23, 1978, upon the Petition of James C. Melvin which contested the denial of his application for a pest control identification cared through Guardian Termite and Pest Control Company of Tampa, Florida. Present at the hearing were the Petitioner, James C. Melvin and William M. Park, Attorney for the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, District VI. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services has reviewed the recommended order by Thomas C. Oldham, Hearing Officer, and adopts said order as follows:
The Issue Whether or not an Administrative fine may be imposed upon proof of allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint dated June 6, 1986, wherein Respondent is charged with violations of Section 482.226(1), (2)(f) and (g), and 482.161(1)(a),(e) and/or (f) Florida Statutes. Petitioner presented the oral testimony of Roger Gagnon and Frederick Hassut, Jr., and had 3 exhibits admitted in evidence (P-1, P-2, and P-4). Respondent presented her own oral testimony and that of Susan Rickenbach and had admitted 1 exhibit (R-1). At the close of Petitioner's case in chief, and at the conclusion of her own case. Respondent moved to dismiss for failure to prove the allegations of the Administrative Complaint. Ruling on same was reserved for disposition in this recommended order. No transcript was filed. Both parties have filed post-hearing proposals. To the extent they contain proposed findings of fact, these proposals are ruled on pursuant to Section 120.59(2), F.S., in the appendix hereto. Respondent's post-hearing Motion for Dismissal is ruled on in the course of this recommended order.
Findings Of Fact On October 16, 1985, Diane M. Jellen, representing Terminix International, Inc., Cocoa, inspected the property consisting of 12 units which is located at 141 Bluff Terrace, Melbourne, Florida. The inspection was for purposes connected with a real estate transfer. Ms. Jellen issued a report of findings on a Wood-Destroying Organisms Inspection Report (HRS Form 1145, May 1983) dated October 16, 1985. At the time of making the inspection, Ms. Jellen felt herself to be sexually harassed by an individual representing the seller who obstructed her entry into certain units, and she did not complete the inspection of each and every unit for this reason. The top portion of the report issued by Ms. Jellen indicates that Ms. Jellen is the "inspector" and states: "Specific structures inspected: 12 units; Structures on property NOT inspected: none; Areas of structures NOT inspected: none." Essentially the report goes on to indicate that no wood destroying organisms existed. However, at the bottom on the COMMENTS line, Respondent wrote "not all apts accessable" and "low crawl." She made the latter comments in reliance on instructions from her Terminex supervisor that this was sufficient. 1/ Thereafter, partly in reliance on Ms. Jellan's report, Mr. Roger Gagnon purchased the 12 units previously inspected. On May 14, 1986 Mr. Roger Gagnon, owner of the property, filed a written complaint alleging that the inspection performed by Ms. Jellen on October 16, 1985, had failed to detect evidence of wood destroying organisms which were present within the structure at the time of the October 16, 1985 inspection, and which wood destroying organisms Mr. Gagnon had subsequently discovered. On May 15, 1986 Frederick Hassut, Jr., Entomologist-Inspector for the State of Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services performed a wood-destroying organism inspection of the premises which revealed wood-decaying fungus damage present in wood braces and overhang located above apartments No. 3. and No. 4; in several wood members of the stairway and railing adjacent to apartments No. 3 and No. 4; in several floor joists located within the storage room of building No. 2; in the baseboard located in the bathroom of apartment No. 10; and in several wood members of the stairway adjacent to apartment No. Further, he found drywood termite fecal pellets and damage in the east window frame located in the living room of apartment No. 3. Mr. Hassut determined, within his expert education, training and experience, that the old wood decay, fungus damage and the dry-wood termite evidence and damage had to have been present and visible on October 16, 1985, when Ms. Jellen issued the inspection report indicating an infestation. Terminex International subsequently repaired all losses incurred by Roger Gagnon at its own expense. Prior to the time of the inspection, October 16, 1985, Respondent had filed an application to become a pest control employee identification cardholder. Petitioner did not affirmatively show that the card was issued prior to the October 16, 1985 inspection, however Ms. Jellan's application, admitted in evidence as P-4, specifies the agency policy that: "The effective date of this ID Card when issued will be the date of receipt of post- mark if mailed, of this application." The application bears two receipt dates: "10-3-85" and "October 07, 1985," both of which pre-date the inspection at issue. The parties agree that an identification card was subsequently issued. Accordingly, Respondent is found to have been an identification cardholder as contemplated by Chapter 482 F.S. 2/ and therefore subject to Petitioner's jurisdiction at all times relevant. Respondent's unrebutted testimony that she was hired by Terminex International as an office salesperson and was insufficiently trained by that employer to do wood-destroying organism inspections is accepted but deemed irrelevant and immaterial. In mitigation, it is noted that Respondent has, at her own initiative, recently completed 5 days training in pest control with an eye to continued competent employment in this field.
Recommendation That DHRS issue a final order of private reprimand to Respondent for negligent performance of a pest control inspection. DONE and ORDERED this 24th day of October 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 24th day of October 1986.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is and at all material times has been a certified pest control operator in the category of fumigation. He works for Thumb Pest Control, Inc. He was the supervisor present when the company performed the tent fumigation of a residential structure located at 11 West Muriel Street, Orlando, Florida, on May 29, 1987. On May 28, 1987, Respondent gave Petitioner and the Orlando Fire Department written notice of the details of the job, including his night telephone number. The night number was for Respondent's home telephone. Respondent lived in Tampa. His telephone number was in the "813" area code, not the "305" area code of Orlando. The notice did not disclose Respondent's area code. However, the form bore the address of Thumb Pest Control, Inc., which was in Tampa. It was Respondent's understanding-- uncontradicted by Petitioner-- that he was required by law to give this notice only to Respondent; he gave the notice to the Orlando Fire Department as an added precaution. Respondent and Tim Lightner, a certified operator and the Orlando branch manager of Thumb Pest Control Inc., testified that the tent did not have tears when they released the fumigant at around 3:00 p.m. on May 29, 1987. Their testimony is credible and unrebutted. The fumigant that they used was methyl bromide. The fumigant also included chloropicrin, which is a warning odorant accompanying the odorless methyl bromide. The commercial formulation of the fumigant in this case was Brom-O-Gas. This is a highly toxic gas which causes nausea, convulsions, and death to humans exposed to it. The manufacturer states in a booklet accompanying Brom-O-Gas that "two persons trained in the use of this product must be present at all times when worker exposure exceeds 5 PPM. . . ." Petitioner's Exhibit Number 4, page 1. In another document, entitled "Structural Fumigant: A guide for fumigating effectively with Bromo-O-Gas," the manufacturer emphasizes, as the title suggests, methods designed to increase the killing efficiency of the pesticide. The manufacturer suggests frequent monitoring during fumigation when persons are occupying an adjacent building sharing a common wall with the building being fumigated. Petitioner's Exhibit Number 5, page 2. By negative implication, the manufacturer does not suggest monitoring when persons occupy buildings that are nearby but not sharing a common wall. At around 8:30 p.m., the Orlando Fire Department received a telephone call from a neighbor living nearby the tented house. She reported that fumigant was escaping from the tent. Members of the Orlando Fire Department responded to the call and found that the tent had approximately ten tears in it with some as much as one foot long. It took six firemen about two hours to repair the tears with duct tape. Prior to making the repairs, the firemen contacted their dispatcher and directed him to try to reach a representative of Thumb Pest Control, Inc. There was no admissible evidence concerning precisely how the dispatcher or dispatchers, who did not testify, tried to reach Respondent or other representatives of Thumb Pest Control, Inc. In any event, the Orlando Fire Department was unable to reach anyone with Thumb Pest Control, Inc. that evening. Respondent testified that he, his wife, and one-year old child were home all evening on May 29, 1987, and that he received no calls. He also testified that he uses a telephone answering machine when away from home and, even though he was home all night, he had no messages from that evening. There does appear to have been some confusion concerning area codes. There also was no positive testimony that anyone tried to telephone the night number of Respondent, as shown on the fumigation notice that he had delivered the prior day, together with the "813" area code.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondents, Hugh H. Warnock and Terminix International Company, L.P. (Terminix), should be administratively disciplined by the Department Of Agriculture and Consumer Services, (Department), because of the matters alleged in the Notice to Impose Fine dated September 10, 1996.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services was the state agency responsible for the licensing of pest control companies and applicators in Florida. Respondent, Terminix, was licensed as a pest control company and Respondent, Warnock, was licensed as a pest control applicator in Florida, and was employed by Terminix International Company, L.P. On January 22, 1996, Mr. Warnock conducted a termite inspection at property owned by Gordon C. Williamson located at 704 Court Street in Clearwater, at Mr. Williamson’s request. The property was a single story commercial building. Upon completion of his inspection, Mr. Warnock prepared and issued to the owner a wood-destroying organisms inspection report on which he certified he had inspected the premises, except for the attic which was inaccessible. Mr. Warnock noted that he found no visible evidence of wood destroying organisms, no evidence of visible damage and no visible evidence of previous treatment. He noted, however, that in January 1988, the premises previously had been treated for dry wood termites. As a matter of record, the January 1988 inspection and treatment was conducted by ARAB Pest control which, since that time, had been taken over by Terminix. Mr. Warnock qualified his inspection report by the comment, “This report is based on what was visible to me at the time of inspection.” The purpose of a wood destroying organism report is to note existing or present activity of wood destroying organisms, or damage done as a result of that activity. Most frequently, the inspection is done for buyers of property or those who are lenders to those who buy, though quite often owners of property have it done as a part of or in preparation for a treatment program to protect against the organisms. On the visit in issue, Mr. Warnock did the inspection by himself. Having seen vents in the lower portion of the outer wall on his way up to the property, he thought there might be an air space, not necessarily a crawl space, under the floor. After speaking with the owner, and telling him what was intended, Warnock started his inspection at the north end of the building where he found sheet rock against the walls and a dropped ceiling. This particular area was one where old furniture was stored. Mr. Warnock went from area to area in the building, and was able to do his inspection better in some places than in others because of the clutter inside. He also inspected around the outside of the building, after which he went to ask Mr. Williamson how he could get to the space beneath the floor in the center of the building. In response, according to Respondent, Mr. Williamson said he didn’t know of any access to that area and suggested Warnock ask someone else. With that, Warnock inquired of the other individual working in the building, who, Warnock asserts, also said he didn’t know of an access. Though Warnock claims he looked as best he could throughout those portions of the building accessible to him, because of sawdust and lumber on the floor, and the wood working machinery there, he could not see any access ports. It was subsequently determined that there are three crawl spaces located under the north part of the building which are separated by concrete footings. These spaces are accessible through access ports in the floor above them. Mr. Warnock definitively states that had he known of any access ports to the crawl space, he would have gone down into it to look for damage or organisms. It is so found. Mr. Warnock takes exception to the photographs introduced by the Department, taken by Mr. Caudill several months after his initial visit, contending they do not accurately reflect the conditions he encountered during his January 1996 visit. The major difference is that at that time, sawdust and machinery covered the floor access panels that appear unencumbered in the pictures, and they were not visible to him when he looked. Admittedly, he did not ask that any of the equipment or wood be moved or that the sawdust be swept away. Subsequent to Warnock’s inspection, Mr. Williamson called the Terminix office and advised he had discovered damage at the north end of the building. This damage was found by Warnock on a return visit to be behind the drywall previously mentioned, and was determined to have been caused by drywall as opposed to subterranean termites. The treatment done under the contract with ARAB in 1988 was for drywall termites, and there was no contract to treat for subterranean termites. On the second visit Warnock again asked Mr. Williamson about any access ports, and, according to Respondent, Williamson again denied knowing of any. A second inquiry of the other gentleman on the premises met with the same response again, but on this occasion, when he looked down at the floor, Warnock saw an access hole in the floor, and when asked directly about it, the man admitted he had cut it into the floor about two years previously. Warnock claims that when he asked if there were other holes, the man said there were not, but this individual did not appear or present testimony at hearing. The hole was no more than a series of cuts across the floor boards between the floor joists which, since there was no handle, were removed one at a time by being pried up. When Respondent and his assistant manager, who was present with him on this visit, got down into the crawl space, they found no evidence of infestation. At that time, the other access holes subsequently found to exist were not known to be there. Respondent steadfastly contends that none of the access holes were visible to him or pointed out to him on inquiry of the occupants at the time of his January 1996 visit. As such, he claims, they were not accessible to him at that time. It was only after the second visit my Mr. Warnock that on June 4, 1996, Williamson submitted his complaint to the Department. In response, on June 7, 1996, Todd Caudill, a pest control environmentalist with the Department, went to the site and re-inspected it. During his inspection, done some six months after Warnock’s initial visit, Mr. Caudill found termite tubes and other evidence of infestation in the crawl space under the building when he went into it. He took photographs of what he saw. Mr. Caudill is 5’11’ tall and weighs about 260 pounds. Notwithstanding, he had no trouble getting down into the crawl space through the existing access holes. Mr. Caudill could easily see the termite tubes, and in his opinion, they were there before Warnock’s January 1996 inspection of the property. He bases this opinion on the dryness of the tubes, the lack of active termites there, and the extent of the damage existing. He could look up into the rafter area because the ceiling had been removed due to renovation, but could see no termite activity there. Mr. Caudill returned to the property for a second visit on June 25, 1996, at which time he took additional photographs. This second series of pictures included the second crawl space, on the East side of the building, and several additional access holes in the floor of the building. Mr. Caudill indicates that when he asked about additional access holes, he was directed to a portion of the building where, when he went there, he was able easily to find the portals without having them pointed out to him. He could not see where any of the access portals had been covered by machinery nor did it appear to him that any of the machinery recently had been moved. The machinery was not so big that it would cause a major obstruction. It was on this second that Mr. Caudill procured an affidavit from Mr. Williamson which indicates that when Mr. Warnock was there for his inspection, the access ports were not obstructed and had not been obstructed for the six years the tenant has occupied the space. Mr. Williamson was not present at the hearing to testify in person nor was his absence explained by counsel for the Department. No explanation was given by the Department as to why Williamson could not be present or his testimony preserved by deposition. Therefore, it is found that Mr. Williamson’s affidavit is inadmissible as hearsay evidence and is not considered. In Mr. Caudill’s opinion, Warnock’s report of his inspection of the Williamson property in January 1996 is not a complete report since it did not cover the area of the crawl space. Based on his investigation of the situation, Mr. Caudill recommended a fine of $500.00, after which, on September 10, 1996, the Department issued its Notice of Intent on which the alleged violations found are listed. At the time Mr. Caudill did his investigation of Mr. Warnock’s inspection, he had been employed by the Department less than a year. He is not licensed as a pest control operator, but had been trained in the classroom and in on the job training with other operators, and had done three inspections on his own. According to Mr. Chandler, the Terminix branch manager who went with Mr. Warnock to the Williamson property in May 1996 as a result of Mr. Williamson’s call, termite damage was discovered in the walls of the building when the covering was removed for repairs and renovation. Williamson seemed to feel that this area had been missed by Respondent when he was there in January. In response, Mr. Chandler supported Respondent, indicating the damage, as it existed and where it was, could not have been found by Respondent’s inspection. He offered to put in place a new treatment plan. Whether Mr. Chandler also spoke with Mr. Williamson about access holes is questionable. On one hand, Chandler said he did speak with him about them, yet at another point in his testimony, he could not recall asking Williamson about access ports. When the ports were discovered and opened, and Chandler went down into the crawl space, he found no evidence of infestation in that crawl space. The only evidence of termite damage observed by Chandler did not extend up from the crawl space, but existed in a beam which rested on a concrete slab in the area opened for renovation. Dr. John Mangold has worked in the pest control industry for seventeen years and is familiar with the laws and rules relating to wood destroying organism reports. To his understanding, equipment on the floor of a building renders the area underneath it inaccessible, and an inspector cannot deface an area in order to do an inspection. The inspection report done in 1988 reflects that a crawl space was not inspected at that time because it was N/A. Counsel agree this means “not accessible.” The second report, done by Mr. Warnock, is consistent with the former in that it also reflects the crawl space was not inspected because it was inaccessible. Since the vents on the side of the exterior wall, near the ground give rise to a presumption there is a crawl space there, if the inspector cannot find access ports, he should note that fact in the report and indicate why he could not get to it. Though Respondent did not do this, it does not invalidate a finding that at the time of his inspection, the crawl space was not reasonably accessible to him.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order dismissing its Notice of Intent to Impose Fine. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of May, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of May, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Linton B. Eason, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 James M. Nicholas, Esquire 1815 South Patrick Drive Indian Harbour Beach, Florida 32937 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, Plaza Level Ten Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level Ten Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
Findings Of Fact James Dale Cooley, Respondent herein, is a certified pest control operator doing business as Tropical Pest Control and Closing Inspection Services Company. On December 6, 1990, Respondent inspected a residential property located at 1222 Stimson Street, Jacksonville, Florida, and issued a Wood- Destroying Organisms Inspection Report, HRS Form 1145. That report indicated that wood fungi was present in the subfloor and was caused by a moisture condition in the crawl space. The block under "Report of Findings" on that report for "visible evidence of wood-destroying organisms observed" was marked, "Yes." Under "comments," Respondent stated "Mature home; minor deterioration bottom of siding and trim of detached utility." Subsequently, Respondent issued a second Wood-Destroying Organisms Inspection Report for the same residence, bearing an inspection date of December 7, 1990. The second report indicated that no visible evidence of wood destroying organisms was observed. The "comments" portion was modified to read, "mature home has moisture condition in crawl space, common problem may be considered minor." The issuance of the second report clearly contradicted the first report as to existence of damage from wood-destroying organisms. The property was subsequently purchased based on the report of findings dated December 7, 1990. Mrs. Robinson, the realtor who commissioned the Respondent's inspection and report, testified that this second report was seen by the buyers and co-signer, and probably by the mortgagor, but that the earlier one was not. Eleven months later and after an above-average period of rainfall, on November 25, 1991, an HRS inspector visited the subject property and determined that evidence of damage caused by wood decay fungi was present in the substructure area. The primary cause of wood-destroying fungus growth is moisture. During this on-site investigation, Respondent was cooperative with the HRS inspector and provided him with a copy of his December 6, 1990 report. Receipt of a copy of the earlier report signalled to the department that there had been possible fraud in the sale of the house. Departmental personnel reached that conclusion because the first report had stated that there were wood-decaying organisms present, one day later the second report indicated that there were not such organisms present, and eleven months later wood- decaying organisms were found to be present. According to Respondent, when he made his inspection on December 6, 1990, he had observed only mold, mildew, and moisture stains, but no wood destroying organisms. Respondent's explanation for issuing two reports totally contrary to each other was that he intentionally made out a "very objectionable report" on December 6, 1990 showing that "wood fungi" and "wood destroying organisms" were present because he wanted the buyers to be fully informed about what was really wrong with the house and because he felt the "very objectinable report" would induce the buyers or the realtor to phone him, personally. His explanation for why he wrote in "wood fungi" on the first inspection report was that he was trying to signify only "wood fungi" but not "wood destroying fungi" or "wood destroying organisms." Respondent's testimony on this score is contradicted by the first inspection report itself whereon he had checked the box indicating that he had observed "wood destroying organisms." Respondent also had no plausible explanation for why he did not simply make a full and accurate explanation in the "comments" section of the first report. Also, according to Respondent, he filled out the new report not on December 7, 1990 but sometime thereafter around December 10 after receiving assurances from Mrs. Robinson that the buyers had been informed by somebody else of the true condition of the house. Respondent testified that he made out the second inspection report to reflect the truth of what he had seen on December 6th, not to defraud anyone by substituting a "good" report for the previous "bad" report. Nonetheless, Respondent charged $55.00 for the inspection and what he called a false report on December 6 and $25.00 for the "update" which he called a true report bearing the December 7 date. He admittedly did not re-inspect the premises. According Respondent every benefit of the doubt, it is clear from his own testimony that he intentionally falsified one report which ultimately resulted in an unnecessary fee of $25.00 which someone had to bear when the sale of the property was closed. Competent expert and lay testimony are in accord that mildew and mold are not fungi; neither organism is a wood decay fungus; neither organism metamorphoses into a wood decay fungus when exposed to prolonged moisture, and neither organism is an algae. Mr. Phillip Helseth testified competently and credibility that it is commonly understood that if one cites "wood fungi" as the Respondent did on the first wood-destroying organisms report it is commonly understood within the inspection industry to mean "wood decaying fungi." Mr. Helseth's testimony is also credible to the effect that there would be no reason to report "wood fungi" which is not decaying/destroying on such a report. Moreover, the HRS form utilized for both reports explicitly defines "wood-destroying organism" as, "arthropod or plant life which damages a structure, namely termites, powder-post beetles, wood-boring beetles, wood-boring wasps, carpenter bees and wood- decaying fungi." Mr. Helspeth also testified competently and credibly that "wood decaying fungi" constitutes a "wood destroying organism" and that to call mildew and mold "wood fungi" is inaccurate and falls below the standards of the profession. The competent credible evidence as a whole supports a finding that Respondent issued a false report which was not in accordance with good industry practice and standards. Having made that finding of fact, the undersigned may consider his prior disciplinary record (three cases) and has done so for purposes of penalty, only.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of the statutory violations charged in the administrative complaint, and suspending Respondent's Pest Control Certificate No. 2236 in the category of "Termite and Other Wood-Destroying Organism Control" for a period of three months. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 11th day of September, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The De Soto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of September, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 92-1055 The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to S120.59 (2), F.S., upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF) Petitioner's PFOF: 1-8 Accepted 9-10 Accepted as modified to reflect the greater weight of the admissible evidence. Penalty matters are relegated to the conclusions of law. Respondent's PFOF: 1 Rejected as a conclusion of law. 2, 4-12 Accepted except as to unnecessary, subordinate, and cumulative material. 3 Rejected as not suppported by the record. 13-15 Rejected as mere legal argument and not dispositive of the material issues in the case. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Slye, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Scott D. Leemis Assistant District Legal Counsel P. O. Box 2417 Jacksonville, Florida 32231-0083 Griffin Helwig, Esquire 3030 Harley Road #190 Jacksonville, Florida 32257
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Larry Kravitsky, as alleged in Petitioner’s Administrative Complaint issued by Petitioner, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, on February 13, 2007, provided pest control services in violation of Section 482.165(1), Florida Statutes (2006), whether he applied a pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its label in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 5E- 14.106(1), and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Bureau of Entomology and Pest Control (hereinafter referred to as the “Bureau”), is charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the provisions of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, the “Structural Pest Control Act.” At the times relevant to this matter, Respondent Larry Kravitsky was not licensed to perform pest control services. While he had applied for an identification card with the Bureau, that application had been denied. At the times relevant to this matter, Cara Beth Walker resided at 6485-4 Bay Club Drive, Fort Lauderdale, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the “Property”). At the times relevant, Sears Pest Control Incorporated, d/b/a Ship Shape Pest Control (hereinafter referred to as “Ship Shape”), was a licensed pest control business in the State of Florida. Ship Shape, owned by Mr. Kravitsky’s brother, Alan J. Kravitsky, was qualified to conduct pest control at the times relevant through Lori Kelley. The evidence failed to prove that anyone at Ship Shape had authorized Mr. Kravitsky to perform pest control services in June 2006. On June 5, 2006, John McDonough, then in the employ of Ship Shape, arrived at the Property, where he had previously provided treatment for ants. Mr. McDonough, who applied for a Pest Control Employee-Identification Card on June 9, 2006, which was approved as of June 10, 2006, was not a certified operator in charge or even familiar with rodent control, came to the Property because of a problem Ms. Walker was having with what she believed were rodents. When Mr. McDonough arrived, he told Ms. Walker that he had to wait for Mr. Kravitsky and the equipment necessary to perform any treatment to arrive. Ms. Walker was unable to remain at the Property because of her employment, so she left before the treatment was completed. While Ms. Walker testified as to Mr. Kravitsky’s arrival and initial involvement in the treatment, that testimony has been rejected as unconvincing. There were simply too many inconsistencies in Ms. Walker’s testimony concerning what took place on June 5, 2006, and with the more convincing testimony of Carlos Rojas to be given any credence by this finder of fact. What the evidence did prove, however, is that at some time after Mr. McDonough arrived at the Property, Mr. Kravitsky and Mr. Rojas arrived in separate vehicles. Mr. Rojas was also employed by Ship Shape but did not have a Pest Control Employee- Identification Card or pest control license. Mr. Rojas had been directed by Mr. Kravitsky to go to the Property that morning. Mr. Kravitsky brought electrical cords, a drill, and an electric duster to the Property. The electric duster was filled with Ditrac, a powder used to eliminate rodents. Mr. Rojas was not aware of what the powder was and had no experience using an electric duster. Mr. Kravitsky did not try to explain what the electric duster was for or how to use it. Instead, Mr. Kravitsky instructed Mr. Rojas to follow Mr. McDonough’s instructions. Mr. Kravitsky then left the Property, leaving Mr. McDonough in charge. Mr. Rojas was told by Mr. McDonough to drill holes in the walls. Next, Mr. Rojas was told to plug the electric duster into an electric outlet and then place a nozzle from the electric duster in the holes that had been drilled. Mr. Rojas was told to turn the duster on and to leave it on from one to three minutes in each hole. Mr. Rojas followed these instructions. The operation took approximately an hour to complete, at which time Mr. Kravitsky returned. All three men then left the Property. The evidence failed to prove that anyone other than Mr. Kravitsky was involved in authorizing the treatment of the Property on June 5, 2006. Lori Kelly, the certified operator in charge of Ship Shape knew nothing about the job until after it was completed. At no time did Ms. Kelly direct or authorize the use of Ditrac at the Property. Ms. Kelly became aware of the treatment of the Property when Mr. Kravitsky told her that she would be contacted about the job. While she could not recall at hearing whether she had been asked by Kravitsky to say that she had been present during the treatment, she signed a statement on July 7, 2006, indicating that she had been. While she acknowledged that the statement was given when her memory was probably better, she did not testify that the statement refreshed her memory. Mr. Kravitsky’s and Mr. McDonough’s account at hearing of what transpired on June 5, 2006, at the Property is rejected as not credible. The Bureau in proposed findings of fact 11, 12, 14 and 15 of Petitioner’s Proposed Recommended Order explain in detail some of the reasons why Mr. Kravitsky’s testimony has been rejected. Information obtained from David Beswick by the Bureau, however, has not been relied upon in making this or any other finding in this Recommended Order because that information is hearsay. Mr. Kravitsky admitted to Ms. Walker on or about June 16, 2006, that the powder used on June 5, 2006, was Ditrac. He also admitted to her that three pounds of Ditrac had been used. Several weeks after the treatment at the Property, Mr. Kravitsky admitted to Mr. Rojas that the treatment had been a disaster and warned Mr. Rojas that someone from Petitioner would be contacting him about the job. Mr. Kravitsky told Mr. Rojas to decline to talk about the treatment because he would be represented by legal counsel provided by Mr. Kravitsky. The Bureau, following established procedures, took samples from different areas of the Property on June 16, 2006. Additional samples were taken on June 26, 2006, by Mary Cohen, who was accompanied by Richard Lucas. Again, established procedures, described in detail by Ms. Cohen, were followed. The samples taken at the Property were tested by Patty Lucas, Director of the Bureau’s Pesticide laboratory. Ms. Lucas utilized procedures accepted in the scientific community to determine where Diphacinone, the active ingredient in Ditrac was present. Two of the samples taken on June 16, 2006, and two of the samples taken on June 26, 2006, tested positive for Diphacinone. These tests results are consistent with Mr. Kravitsky’s admission to Ms. Walker that Ditrac had been used in the treatment of the Property. The Ditrac label, Petitioner’s exhibit 3, contains the following “PRECAUTIONARY STATEMENTS HAZARDS TO HUMANS AND DOMESTIC ANIMALS WARNING” concerning use of the chemical” May be fatal if swallowed or absorbed through the skin. Do not get in eyes, on skin or on clothing. Wear protective clothing and rubber gloves. Wash arms and face with soap and water after mixing or handling and before eating, drinking, or using tobacco. Remove contaminated clothing and wash before reuse. The label also warns that Ditrac is a “RESTRICTED USE PESTICIDE Due to Acute Oral Toxicity” and that it is “[f]or retail sale to, and use only by, Certified Applicators, or persons under their direct supervision and only for those uses covered by the Certified applicator’s Certification.” Finally, of importance in this case, the Ditrac label includes the following instruction concerning “APPLICATION DIRECTIONS: . . . Do not use power dusting devices ” Mr. Kravitsky, contrary to the warnings and directions for use of Ditrac, without authorization by anyone at Ship Shape, and without any license or other authorization from the Bureau, directed Mr. Rojas to use an electric duster filled with Ditrac in the Property. His actions constituted the practice of pest control and the use of a pesticide in a manner inconsistent with the pesticide’s label.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services finding that Larry Kravitsky violated Section 482.165, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 5E-14.106(6), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and imposing a fine in the amout of $4,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 2nd day of June, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: David W. Young, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Suite 520 407 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Larry Kravitsky 3300 South Ocean Boulevard, Apartment 917 Highland Beach, Florida 33487 Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Suite 520 407 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Honorable Charles H. Bronson Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has a degree in pest control technology. On June 18, 1981, Respondent renewed Petitioner's Pest Control operator's Certificate No. 2303 until June 1, 1982, in the categories of general household pests and rodent control, termite and other wood-destroying organism control, and lawn and ornamental pest control. On May 6, 1982, Petitioner filed his annual Application for Renewal of his certificate in the same categories. On that application, Petitioner answered "yes" to the question: "Have you been convicted by any court of a felony or of a crime involving moral turpitude within the past year?" and he answered "no" to the question: "[H]ave your civil rights been restored?" By letter dated June 15, 1982, Respondent denied Petitioner's Application for Renewal based upon Petitioner's answers to those questions, and Petitioner timely requested a formal hearing on that denial. On December 16, 1982, Respondent wrote to the Division of Administrative Hearings advising that a Hearing Officer had not yet been assigned to hear this matter and attaching only a copy of a July 6, 1982, letter from Respondent requesting the Division to conduct a formal hearing in this cause. Since the July 6 letter had never been received by the Division of Administrative Hearings, and since the December 16 letter failed to transmit Petitioner's request for hearing or any other pleadings or papers setting forth the substance of the cause, the Staff Assistant of the Division telephoned Mrs. Cheryl Ganley of Respondent's Clerk's Office on December 23, 1982, and requested the documents required to open a case before the Division of Administrative Hearings. That telephonic request was followed up with a letter to Mrs. Ganley on January 4, 1983. No response to either the telephonic or written inquiry was made by Respondent until March 24, 1983, when Respondent again wrote to the Division of Administrative Hearings asking why the matter was not scheduled for hearing and attaching only a copy of its December 16, 1982, letter. On March 31, 1983, the Director of the Division wrote Respondent outlining the chronology of the letters to and from Respondent and again advising Respondent that the case could not be heard until Respondent transmitted the pleadings required to open a case file. On April 11, 1983, Respondent finally did so. Petitioner relies upon his licensure by Respondent as a Certified Pest Control Operator for his livelihood and has no other training or means for earning a living. Other than Petitioner's testimony that his involvement in the incident was minimal, the only evidence introduced regarding the circumstances surrounding his arrest and conviction is a letter from Petitioner's Probation Officer, which letter constitutes uncorroborated hearsay and, therefore, cannot support a finding of fact. Petitioner's probation should be terminated in approximately six months, at which time he will be able to seek restoration of his civil rights. He anticipates no problem in having his civil rights restored. At the formal hearing in this cause, the parties stipulated that the only bar to renewal of Petitioner's licensure is his conviction of a felony or of a crime involving moral turpitude without his civil rights being restored.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered approving Petitioner's Application for Renewal of his Pest Control Operator's Certificate No. 2303 for the annual period commencing June 1, 1983. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 17th day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 17th day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold L. Braynon, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 201 West Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Mr. Christopher M. Hagerty 1141 South West Sixth Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33315 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
