Findings Of Fact Respondent is a non-instructional employee of the School Board and has been employed by the School Board of Brevard County for approximately nine (9) years. Respondent is a small engine mechanic and is assigned to the Maintenance Division of the School Board. Respondent's duties are to repair and maintain lawnmowers, edgers and other equipment in the North and Central areas of the Brevard County School District. Respondent was assigned School Board Vehicle No. 271 for transportation during working hours. Vehicle No. 271 is a pickup truck with distinctive School Board markings and a county government license tag. No other person was assigned the use of Vehicle 271. Three (3) sets of keys were maintained for Respondent's vehicle. One set was assigned to Respondent, one set is kept by the Maintenance Division in a key locker and one set is kept by the School Board Vehicle Maintenance Shop on State Road 520 in Cocoa, Florida. On or about February 27, 1989, Leon Cowling, Assistant Superintendent for Facilities and Support Services received a telephone call from Assistant Superintendent, Jerry Copeland, concerning Vehicle 271. Mr. Copeland had been contacted by two civilian employees from Patrick Air Force Base who stated that on or about February 22, 1989, they had seen Vehicle No. 271 in the Cape Canaveral area being driven in an erratic manner by a person holding a pistol and a large amount of cash. Mr. Cowling telephoned the Maintenance Department and relayed this information to Johnny Romans, Maintenance Coordinator, who confirmed that Vehicle 271 was assigned to Respondent and was parked in the maintenance yard. Respondent was on sick leave that day and Cowling asked Romans to secure the truck. Romans checked Vehicle 271 and found it locked. He went to the key locker for the extra set of keys but found them missing. Romans then called the Vehicle Maintenance Shop for their set of keys but those keys were also missing. Romans decided to take the matter up with his supervisor, Henry Hartrich, the next day and left Hartrich a memo on the incident. On or about February 28, 1989, Henry Hartrich returned to work from a conference and read the memo. Hartrich looked in the locked vehicle and observed several key rings and keys hanging on knobs on the dash board and on the console. Hartrich asked the locksmith, Bob Dunkinson, to open the vehicle and bring him all keys found inside. Dunkinson unlocked the vehicle and delivered the keys to Hartrich. Hartrich then asked Dunkinson to identify the various keys found in the vehicle. Dunkinson identified the keys and determined that one ring contained keys to the truck, as well as, keys to Mr. Hartrich's office, Mr. Buckner's office, Bobby Young's office, the warehouse, and the big forklift in the maintenance yard. Respondent was not assigned any of these keys except the truck keys. On March 6, 1989, a meeting was scheduled by the Maintenance Division to discuss the reported sighting of Respondent with a handgun and money in the School Board vehicle. Present at the meeting were the two civilian employees from Patrick Air Force Base who reported the incident, Mr. Cowling, Mr. Hartrich, Mr. Romans, Mr. Buckner and Respondent. At the meeting, Respondent was identified by the Air Force employees as the person they observed in Vehicle 271. Respondent denied having a handgun or cash in the vehicle. The Air Force employees were dismissed from the meeting and Mr. Hartrich then confronted Respondent with the keys found in his School Board vehicle. At first Respondent denied the keys were his, but then admitted that they were. Mr. Cowling suspended Respondent for the remainder of March 6 and March 7 with pay. On March 8, 1989, Respondent was recommended for termination of employment for misconduct for having unauthorized keys in his possession and suspended without pay. The School Board's Maintenance Division is entrusted with millions of dollars of equipment, tools and other public property. Theft of School Board property from the Maintenance Division is a serious problem and access to the areas where the property is stored is strictly controlled. Keys to the equipment storage areas and offices in the Maintenance Division are assigned only to those employees who require access to these areas. Respondent was not assigned the keys to the offices in the Maintenance Division or the warehouse and forklift. He had no reason to have those keys in his truck. Respondent's possession of the unauthorized keys was a serious violation of School Board policy. There have been documents and property stolen from the Maintenance Division in the past several years. The area from which these items were taken were secured by lock and key. Keys to the offices of Mr. Buckner, Mr. Hartrich, and the warehouse were among those discovered in Respondent's vehicle. The unauthorized keys in question were in Respondent's locked vehicle. Respondent was not assigned these keys or authorized to have them in his possession. Respondent was the only person who drove Vehicle 271. There was no evidence presented that any other person had the opportunity or motive to place the keys in Respondent's truck. Respondent did not present any evidence that showed the existence of a conspiracy by his immediate supervisor, Ed Buckner, or others to place the keys in his truck or to cause his termination from employment. Neither the Respondent's testimony nor that of his witnesses showed bias against the Respondent nor motive on the part of any of his supervisors to conspire against him.
Recommendation Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth herein, it is recommended that Respondent's suspension, effective March 8, 1989, be upheld and that he be terminated from employment with the School Board of Brevard County. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of November, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Burton J. Green, Esquire Post Office Box 320087 Cocoa Beach, Florida 32932-0087 William C. Walker, Jr., Esquire 1260 S. Florida Avenue Rockledge, Florida 32955 Harold T. Bistline, Esquire Building I, Suite 10 1970 Michigan Avenue Cocoa, Florida 32922 Abraham L. Collinsworth Superintendent School Board of Brevard County 1260 S. Florida Avenue Rockledge, Florida 32955 Hon. Larry C. Williamson, Chair School Board of Brevard County 1260 S. Florida Avenue Rockledge, Florida 32955
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Petitioner should be licensed as an independent motor vehicle dealer in Florida.
Findings Of Fact By stipulation of fact, the parties agreed: Petitioner applied for a motor vehicle dealer's license for a dealership to be operated at 2401 Central Avenue in St. Petersburg, Florida. The application was denied by the Department because it appears the applicant has no experience in the motor vehicle business and, in fact, applied for the license to allow an individual by the name of Lloyd Blocker to operate and have continued involvement in the motor vehicle business. Petitioner was aware at the time of his application that Mr. Blocker had been denied a motor vehicle license in Florida in February 1994 and had been convicted of a felony in Alaska involving the unlawful rolling back of odometers in motor vehicles. In addition, Mr. Rinier was aware that the Department of Motor Vehicles would not allow Mr. Blocker to hold a license to deal in motor vehicles in Florida. Mr. Rinier and Mr. Blocker have an ongoing business dealing with the sale of motor vehicles. Mr. Rinier knows and knew at all times pertinent hereto that Mr. Blocker could not operate such a business on his own. The Department of Motor Vehicles contends that Mr. Blocker cannot operate or be involved in any facet of the motor vehicle business in any capacity. If Mr. Rinier were to provide written assurances that Mr. Blocker would not be involved in any way with a business operated under a license if issued, it would issue a license, assuming Mr. Rinier were otherwise qualified for licensure. Mr. Rinier is unwilling to provide that assurance in writing. However, Petitioner contends his sole desire is to make money from the operation of a dealership. If the license were issued, ownership of the business would be and remain in the Petitioner's name. He had already paid lease costs and all other costs relating to the business, and he will not operate it without Mr. Blocker's participation in some form. The present relationship with Mr. Blocker involves sale of the buildings where the dealership would operate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles enter a Final Order denying a motor vehicle dealer license to Petitioner, Harvey G. Rinier. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of September, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: John L. Waller, Esquire John L. Waller, P.A. 467 Second Avenue, North _ 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 10th day of September, 1997. St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Michael J. Alderman, Esquire Gabrielle L. A. Taylor, Esquire Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building, Room A-432 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0504 Charles J. Brantley, Director Division of Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Room B-439 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500 Enoch Jon Whitney General Counsel Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles Neil Kirkman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0500
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent should be sanctioned for failure to renew his registration as a motor vehicle repair shop for the current year.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to the Florida Motor Vehicle Repair Act, Sections 559.901 through 559.9221, Florida Statutes, the Department regulates the repair of motor vehicles in this state. Mr. Flowers held a motor vehicle repair shop license issued by the Department which was valid through February 8, 2000. On January 9, 2000, Mr. Flowers was provided with notice that his license was required to be renewed by February 8, 2000. In order to have his license renewed, Mr. Flowers was required to pay a renewal fee of $50.00. He did not pay the renewal fee by the due date. During the period January 9, 2000, through September 21, 2000, in a continuing effort to persuade Mr. Flowers to renew his license, the department sent Mr. Flowers four letters, made three visits to the premises, and contacted the business at least nine times telephonically. Subsequent to his failure to renew his license, Mr. Flowers has continued to operate his vehicle repair facility and has, on at least three occasions, operated his motor vehicle repair shop by working on motor vehicles for compensation.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of operating a motor vehicle repair shop without a license on three occasions, imposing a fine of $3,000, and ordering the Respondent to cease and desist engaging in the repair of motor vehicles. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of November, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. HARRY L. HOOPER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of November, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Howard Flowers Tallahassee Truck Service 3321 Garber Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Harold McLean, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street Mayo Building, Room 515 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Tony Meehan's Auto Repair, Inc., is a Florida corporation doing business as Burnie's Auto Service. Essentially, it is the family business of a man and woman who are husband and wife, Anthony and Cheryl Meehan. Before moving to Florida to begin doing business as Burnie's Auto Service, the Meehans lived in New Jersey. In New Jersey, Anthony Meehan worked as an auto mechanic for approximately 15 years. He is an ASE-certified master mechanic and also holds several other auto mechanic and repair competency certifications. Prior to leaving New Jersey, he was half owner of a small auto repair business. He and his partner did all of the work in the two-bay shop. Over the years, he built up a $15,000 equity in the business. In addition, he had an auto repair manual worth about $30, which he planned to contribute to the new business, and he had his own personal tool box worth about $10,000 to $15,000, which he planned to use in connection with the operation of the business. Cheryl Meehan was not in the auto repair business in New Jersey. She worked for several different employers in an office administrator capacity. In her most responsible position, she essentially reported to a business executive daily and received daily assignments. During her employment, the company grew. Cheryl was exposed to, and gained valuable experience, in several areas of bookkeeping, accounting, banking, finance and personnel matters. Burnie's Auto Service was a relatively large ongoing auto repair business in Tampa, Florida. It had five employees and 14 work bays. In approximately September, 1989, the Meehans negotiated to buy the business for $275,000, $50,000 down and the balance amortized over a period of years at ten percent interest. The seller took back a purchase money mortgage on the business property to secure payment of the balance. Both of the Meehans are liable, jointly and severally, on the note and mortgage to the seller. The Meehans used the $15,000 Tony got for the sale of his interest in his New Jersey auto repair business as part of the down payment. In addition, they used a certificate of deposit in the amount of approximately $30,000. The CD had been obtained by use of funds that had been paid to Cheryl before their marriage as a result of a personal injury lawsuit. It is not clear whether the CD was held solely in Cheryl's name or in the names of both of the Meehans. In addition, $10,000 from the sale of Cheryl's automobile also went towards the purchase of the business. It was not clear from the evidence whether the automobile was titled in the name of Cheryl only, or in the name of both of the Meehans. Nor is it clear whether the automobile was purchased by Cheryl before the marriage. The purchase of the business was to close in November, 1989, but the closing was postponed to January, 1990. The Meehans incorporated Tony Meehan's Auto Repair, Inc., as a Florida corporation on or about December 20, 1989. The Meehans were named as the sole members of the initial board of directors of the corporation. The Meehans moved to Tampa on Christmas day, 1989. The initial meeting of the board of directors of Tony Meehan's Auto Repair, Inc., was held on December 28, 1989. At the meeting, the Meehans were confirmed as the sole members of the board of directors. Tony was named chairman of the board, and Cheryl was named secretary. 500 shares of stock were issued, all to "Anthony R. Meehan and Cheryl A. Meehan, husband and wife." In addition, Tony was made president of the corporation, and Cheryl was made secretary/treasurer. When the Meehans took over the business, they decided to keep the shop foreman, master mechanic and two auto mechanics already employed there. They decided to use suppliers Tony had used when he was in business in New Jersey. They decided to contract out towing and transmission service to companies in Land O' Lakes, Florida. These were joint decisions based in large part on Tony's expertise. Cheryl has practically no training or experience in auto mechanics or auto repairs. She has no auto mechanic certifications. She has only recently begun to learn something about auto mechanics and about how to do certain auto repairs. Hiring and firing continued to be joint decisions made by the two of them. To the extent that they were made based on an evaluation of the employee's skills in auto mechanics, they were based in large part on Tony's expertise. Since the beginning of the business, they have had to fire one employee, and they have hired two. Tony's primary role in the daily operations of the business is to generally supervise the quality and efficiency of the auto repair work. He also sometimes diagnoses (or helps diagnose) mechanical problems, directs (or helps direct) the performance of repairs, and test drives vehicles after repairs are done. In connection with these functions, he sometimes orders (or directs the ordering of) parts. Sometimes, he will estimate repair costs. Cheryl is the office administrator for the business. In this role, she handles all bookkeeping, accounting, banking, payroll and personnel matter details. She often bills jobs and operates the business cash register. She physically places orders for parts, at the direction of Tony or the employees, and pays for them. She generally will not countermand a parts order but may ask her husband or, if he is not there, the master mechanic to verify an order if she questions it. She makes sure parts get billed. As she became more familiar with the auto repair business, she began to estimate some jobs by reference to standard estimates manuals and was able to say which parts would have to be ordered for some jobs. The corporation opened a business bank account with a local bank. Both Cheryl and Tony have signature authority on the account. Cheryl writes virtually all checks on the account and does all the banking. Tony only writes a check on the account on the rare occasions when Cheryl is not available when one has to be written. Initially, the Meehans decided that Tony would be paid approximately $700 a week and that Cheryl would be paid approximately $300 to $350 a week. Tony did not have as much Social Security credit as Cheryl from their work in New Jersey, and they wanted to try to equalize their credits. Otherwise, as a practical matter, the relative size of their salaries did not matter to the Meehans. Cheryl deposited both checks into their joint personal bank account for the use of both of them, as needed. The business pays for a $200,000 whole life insurance policy on the life of Cheryl, and one on the life of Tony. It is not clear from the evidence who are the beneficiaries under those policies. The business also pays for a $2 million major medical insurance policy for Cheryl, and one for Tony. As the business continued, Cheryl assumed increasing duties and responsibilities, and Tony assumed fewer. Cheryl worked harder, and Tony worked less. Also, Cheryl's mother persuaded Cheryl that she should have a greater share of the equity in the business to reflect her greater initial financial contribution. Tony agreed. In January, 1991, additional stock in the company was issued. 135 shares went to Cheryl and 65 went to Tony. No changes were made in the constitution of the board of directors or in the officers of the corporation at that time. Tony Meehan's Auto Repair, Inc., d/b/a Burnie's Auto Service, applied to the Department 3/ for certification as a minority business enterprise on or about May 13, 1992. By letter dated September 16, 1992, the Department denied the application. The denial was based, in part, on the Department's determinations (1) that Cheryl's compensation was not commensurate with her ownership interest in the business and (2) that minorities (i.e., Cheryl) did not make up more than 50 percent of the board of directors. In reaction to the denial letter, and to improve their company's chances of being certified as a minority business enterprise, the Meehans decided to alter their respective salaries. Starting no earlier than December, 1992, Cheryl has been paid $725 a week, and Tony has been paid $450 a week. As before, as a practical matter, except for the Social Security credit, the relative size of their salaries does not matter to the Meehans. Cheryl deposits both checks into their joint personal bank account for the use of both of them, as needed. Also in reaction to the denial letter, and to improve their company's chances of being certified as a minority business enterprise, the Meehans met as the board of directors on or about March 18, 1993, to change the constitution of the board of directors and to change the officers of the corporation. They made Cheryl the chairman and sole member of the board of directors, and the president of the corporation. They made Tony the vice-president, secretary, and treasurer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Management Services enter a final order denying the application of Tony Meehan's Auto Repair, Inc., d/b/a Burnie's Auto Service, for certification as a minority business enterprise. RECOMMENDED this 13th day of May, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of May, 1993.
The Issue Are the allegations of the Administrative Complaint true, and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings are made: The Department is the agency of the State of Florida responsible for the enforcement of the Florida Motor Vehicle Repair Act. Respondent 98 Trans Service Inc. was, at pertinent times, a corporation doing business as AAL Transmission World. Respondent Michael Crisante, Sr. is the president and owner of 98 Trans Service, Inc. d/b/a AAL Transmission World. Respondent 98 Trans Service, Inc. d/b/a AAL Transmission World (AAL) is located at 5526 North Highway 98, Lakeland, Florida. AAL is registered with the Department as a motor vehicle repair shop that does transmission repair and has been assigned registration number MV-17033 by the Department. AAL advertised to the public a $14.95 coupon special for a multi-point transmission tune-up which included new fluid, clean pan, clean screen, replace gasket, adjust band and linkage, road test, check for leaks and check u-joints. Several witnesses testified that the reason they brought their vehicles to AAL was because they had seen the advertisement for the $14.95 special. On or about May 4, 1993, Lee Baker took his 1982 American Eagle Sport station wagon 4 wheel drive to AAL to be serviced using the $14.95 coupon. Baker was not experiencing any problem with the transmission but was concerned about a particular noise he was hearing while driving the vehicle. Baker left the vehicle with an AAL employee with instructions to service the vehicle using the $14.95 coupon and that if there was any problem to call him. Late the next day someone from AAL called Baker to advise him that there was a problem with the transmission. The next morning Baker went to AAL and was shown some debris (steel shavings, etc.) that supposedly came from his transmission and was told that the transmission needed an overhaul. Baker was not given a repair estimate or disclosure statement form at this time. Baker did not give AAL a written waiver of his right to receive a written estimate. 10 Baker went home, and after discussing the matter with his wife went back to AAL to pick up the vehicle, but was told by AAL that the vehicle was unsafe to drive. After some discussion, AAL told Baker it would cost $300 to overhaul the transmission, and that the transmission would be in first class condition after overhaul. With this assurance from AAL, Baker authorized AAL to overhaul the transmission. Again, Baker was not given a written repair estimate or disclosure statement by AAL. Two days later AAL called Baker and advised him that the torque converter needed an overhaul. After some discussion with AAL about why the torque converter needed an overhaul, Baker, still somewhat confused, told AAL that he would not authorize the torque converter overhaul but to call him when the car was ready. Again, Baker was not given a written repair estimate or disclosure statement by AAL and had no idea what AAL was going to charge for the repair. When Baker went to pick up his vehicle he was presented with a bill by AAL for $697.48 which indicated, along with some minor repairs, that AAL had install a reconditioned automatic transmission, a rebuilt torque converter and replaced the right front axle. The bill, which Baker paid, came to $697.48. Other than this summary repair bill, Baker did not receive a repair estimate or disclosure statement in writing from AAL before AAL proceeded to repair his vehicle. Likewise, Baker has never received from AAL an itemized description of all labor, parts, and merchandise supplied and the costs for such items. On or about September 6, 1994, Peggy Graham took her 1986 Buick to AAL to have the transmission serviced with the $14.95 coupon. Graham had the Buick serviced on a regular basis and the oil changed every 3,000 miles. Prior to taking the Buick to AAL on September 6, 1994 to have the transmission serviced, Graham was not having any trouble with the car or the car's transmission. In fact, Graham had just recently driven the car 4,000 miles while on vacation. John Waterman, Service Manager for AAL, had the transmission pan pulled outside the presence of Graham. Thereafter, Graham was shown some alleged metal shavings that supposedly was in the pan of the transmission when it was pulled, and was told that the car was unsafe to drive. Graham signed a repair estimate and disclosure statement form to the effect that AAL was to give her a repair estimate in writing if the repair costs exceeded $50. Although Graham's final bill on repairing the transmission in the Buick was $901, she was never given a repair estimate even though the amount exceeded the $50 she had authorized. Likewise, Graham was never given an itemized description of all labor, parts, and merchandise supplied and the costs for such items. On February 18, 1994, Evelyn Smith took her 1987 Oldsmobile to AAL to have the fluid changed using the $14.95 coupon. Smith purchased the car in August, 1993, and had experienced no problems with the car or the transmission prior to taking the car to AAL. In fact, the information filled in by Smith on the disclosure statement (Department's exhibit no. 11) on February 18, 1994, indicates that she brought the car in for service and was experiencing no problems with the transmission. Also, the car had been serviced about a month earlier, and there was no indication of any problem with the transmission at that time. Dean Curtis, Service Manager for AAL, test drove the Smith vehicle and advised Smith that there was a problem when shifting from first gear to second gear. Smith had never experienced this problem before with the car's transmission. Curtis then had the transmission pan pulled outside the presence of Smith. Thereafter, Smith was shown some alleged metal shavings that supposedly was in the transmission pan at the time it was pulled, and was also told that the transmission fluid had a burnt smell. Based on her conversation with Curtis, Smith was under the impression that AAL could dismantle the transmission, determine the problem and repair the transmission for $262. With this understanding, Smith signed a repair estimate and disclosure statement form (Department's exhibit no. 11) indicating that she did not require a written estimate so long as the repair costs did not exceed $262, and left the car at AAL for the transmission to be repaired. Although this repair estimate and disclosure statement form (Department's exhibit no. 11) has what might be considered an estimate of labor and parts totalling $1,282.11 on the back, this information was not on the form at the time Smith signed on February 18, 1994. Later, AAL called Smith to advise her that it would cost $1,209.54 to repair the transmission and that if she did not want it repaired that there would be a charge of $262 for the diagnostic work and for reassembling the transmission. Although Smith had understood that the $262 would be the cost of repairs, she authorized AAL to repair the transmission at a cost of $1,209.54, because otherwise she would have wasted the $262. Subsequently, AAL repaired Smith's transmission at a cost of $1,264.69, which Smith paid. On October 13, 1993, Robert Weiss took his 1990 Jeep Cherokee Laredo to AAL to be serviced using the $14.95 coupon. Weiss's only reason for going to AAL was to have the Jeep's transmission serviced using the coupon. Prior to taking his Jeep to AAL for service, Weiss regularly serviced his Jeep and changed the engine oil every six thousand miles. Weiss had never experienced any problem with the Jeep's transmission prior to taking the Jeep to AAL and had never had to have the Jeep's transmission repaired. Weiss left the Jeep at AAL for the service set out in the coupon while he went shopping. Upon returning from shopping, Weiss was informed by an AAL employee that the Jeep's transmission pan contained metal shavings and that the fluid had a burnt smell. Weiss was shown the alleged metal shavings that supposedly were in the Jeep's transmission pan when the pan was removed. Weiss was not present when the transmission pan was removed from the Jeep's transmission. Weiss was informed by this AAL employee that the presence of metal shavings and the burnt smell of the fluid were signs of serious problems, and if not fixed could result in the transmission falling apart. Based upon these representations, Weiss agreed to have the transmission repaired. Weiss was advised verbally as to the cost of the transmission repair but did not sign a waiver of the requirement for a written repair estimate. Weiss did not receive a written repair estimate and did not sign any thing authorizing the repair of the transmission. Weiss did not receive an itemized description of all labor, parts, and merchandise supplied and the costs of such items from AAL. The only document received by Weiss from AAL was a copy of a repair estimate and disclosure form with Weiss' signature on the disclosure statement with no date and with none of choices checked. Weiss' signature does not appear on the authorization for inspection service section or the authorization for repair section. However, Weiss did sign the completion certification section. The final bill in the amount of $1,482.32 was paid by Weiss. On May 25, 1994, Mary Curry took her 1991 Buick Regal to AAL to have the fluid changed using the $14.95 coupon. Curry purchased the Buick in September, 1993. Curry had experienced no problems (no leaking, no slipping or no locking up) with the transmission prior to taking the car to AAL on May 25, 1994. The Buick's odometer showed a reading of approximately 35,000 miles. An employee of AAL took Curry's car back in the service area for service. Subsequently, Curry was shown a transmission pan with metal shavings and a bolt which supposedly was in the Buick's transmission pan when it was removed. Curry was not present when the transmission pan was removed by AAL. Curry was advised by AAL that it would cost $262 to remove, dismantle, inspect parts, reassemble and install transmission. Curry agreed to this and gave AAL written authorization to perform such work. Curry understood that she would be required to pay the $262 even if there was no repair required. After AAL dismantled the transmission, Curry was advised verbally that it would cost approximately $1,000 to repair the transmission. Curry did not waive the requirement for a written estimate. However, AAL did not give Curry a written estimate of the cost of the repairs. The costs ($1,398.95) set out on the back of Department's exhibit no. 15 were not there at the time Curry signed the front of that document authorizing AAL to dismantle, inspect and reassemble the transmission. Curry did not sign the authorization for repairs section on the front of the repair estimate and disclosure form. The final bill for the repair of the transmission was $1,336.45, which Curry paid. Sometime in June, 1995, Dennis Leonis took his 1968 Chevrolet Monte Carlo to AAL to have the transmission fluid changed. Leonis was the original owner of the car which had 200,000 miles on the odometer, but the car was in excellent working condition, with no transmission problems. AAL did not test drive the vehicle, but while the car was at AAL, and out of the presence of Leonis, the transmission pan was pulled. Subsequently, the manager advised Leonis that the pan contained debris (metal shavings) when it was pulled and that the transmission was falling apart. The manager quoted a price of $2,000 to repair the transmission. Dennis was told by the AAL employee that removed the pan that there was nothing wrong with the transmission. Leonis had the transmission pan, with the old fluid, placed back on the transmission and drove to another transmission repair shop to have the fluid changed. Leonis changed the transmission fluid every other week for a total of four times. Leonis drove the car for approximately 30,000 to 40,000 miles without any problems with the transmission. Heidi and Alvie Steelman had a 1983 Buick Regal that had developed a leak in the transmission. On November 23, 1994, the Steelmans took their Buick to AAL for the express purpose of having AAL determine the source of the leak. AAL found the source of the leak to be the O-ring where the dipstick enters the transmission but suggested that the Steelmans allow AAL to change the filter and fluid while in the shop at a cost of $14.00. The Steelmans agreed to have this service but did not agree to have AAL disassemble the transmission. Subsequently, and out of the presence of the Steelmans, AAL pulled the transmission pan on the Steelmans' Buick and showed them some alleged shavings that supposedly was in the transmission pan when it was pulled. AAL advised the Steelmans that the Buick needed a rebuilt transmission. The Steelmans advised AAL that they could not afford a rebuilt transmission and to reassemble the old transmission so they could take the car home. At this point, AAL advised the Steelmans that it would cost $185.00 to reassemble and if they didn't pay that the car would be moved to the AAL lot with the disassembled transmission. AAL advised the Steelmans that AAL could secure a loan for them to pay for the work. Alvie Steelman, assuming he was signing a request for a loan, signed a repair estimate authorization and disclosure statement that at the time of signing did not contain an estimate of the costs of repairs or costs of parts. After AAL's assurance to the Steelmans that a loan would be forthcoming, the Steelmans gave AAL permission to repair the transmission. AAL was unable to secure a loan for the Steelmans. The final bill was $583 which the Steelmans paid with funds borrowed from friends and family. AAL provided the Steelmans with a repair estimate and disclosure form at the time they paid for the repairs. However, this form did not itemize the costs for labor and parts. AAL did not provide the Steelmans with a itemized description of all labor, parts, and merchandise supplied and the costs of such items. AAL did not provide the Steelmans with any paper work until they had paid for the repairs. On June 9, 1995, Clyde Garretson drove his 1983 Chevrolet Truck to AAL. The truck could not be driven in drive gear but could be driven in second gear. Garretson left the truck with AAL with verbal instructions to check out the problem. AAL did not advise Garretson at this time as to the cost for diagnosing the problem and did not present Garretson with a repair estimate and disclosure form to be signed showing the estimated cost of diagnostic work. 41 Later on that day Garretson was advised by AAL, through his wife, that it would cost approximately $950 to fix the transmission. At first, Garretson decided not to have AAL fix the transmission, but when informed by AAL, through his wife, that there would be charge of $295 for diagnostic work, Garretson agreed, through his wife, to have the transmission repaired. Again, AAL did not prepare and present to Garretson a repair estimate for his approval. Furthermore, Garretson did not waive the require for a written repair estimate. The only paper work received by Garretson was the final bill for $1,046.22 which was not an itemized description of all labor, parts, and merchandise supplied and the costs for such items. On June 23, 1995, Daryl Gargus had his 1988 Dodge Ram D50 taken to AAL because the transmission was locked in gear. Gargus did not at any time receive an invoice with an itemized description of all labor, parts, and merchandise supplied and the costs for such items. Furthermore, it was later discovered by Gargus that a new clutch assembly and clutch disc that had been installed in the truck by Gargus had been removed and replaced by used parts. Gargus was told by AAL that the clutch had not been replaced. Also, a practically new direct drive starter that Gargus had observed prior to taking the truck to AAL had been removed and replaced by a used starter. Gargus was not told by AAL that the starter had been replaced. Edgar Pickett, Jr. and his son, Edgar Pickett, III, took the son's 1984 Fleetwood Cadillac to AAL for service and because it was slipping. The Picketts left the car with AAL. Edgar Pickett Jr. testified that he signed a repair estimate with a disclosure form on July 3, 1995, which required AAL to provide an estimate of repairs should the estimate of repairs exceeded $50. However, it appears that the repair estimate and disclosure form was signed by Edgar Pickett, Jr. on July 5, 1995, the date the car was picked up by Edgar Pickett, Jr. after being repaired by AAL. Furthermore, it appears that Edgar Pickett, III signed a repair estimate and disclosure form on June 30, 1995, authorizing diagnostic work and repair work on the transmission. Also, this form (Respondent's exhibit 1) shows an itemized statement of parts, labor and the costs of such items necessary for the repair of the transmission. Troy Spruill took his Dodge Dynasty to AAL for a $14.95 service. AAL test drove Spruill's car and told Spruill that the transmission was slipping from first to second, and that it might have to be rebuilt. Spruill left the car at AAL and went home. Later, AAL called Spruill and gave him a verbal estimate over the telephone of $1,122.83 to repair the transmission. The estimate included a CV joint. Subsequently, Spruill gave AAL authorization to make the repairs covered in the estimate which included the transmission and the CV joint. In fact, on July 19, 1995 Spruill signed a estimate of repairs and disclosure form authorizing the repair so long as the cost did not exceed $1,190.20 which was the cost of the repairs plus tax. Spruill paid AAL $1,190.20 and received a copy of the repair estimate and disclosure form. This form does not show an itemized description of all labor, parts and merchandise supplied and the costs of such items. However, Spruill was verbally furnished this information over the telephone prior to authorizing the repair on July 19, 1995.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is, accordingly, Recommended that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order revoking the registration (MV-17033) issued to Respondents' motor vehicle repair shop. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of October, 1996, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-66847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of October, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level - 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level - 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Lawrence J. Davis, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 515, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 John L. Woodard, III, Esquire 320 North Magnolia Avenue, Suite A-6 Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Debra Ann Vallancourt, was issued a Class "EE" Recovery Agent Intern License on August 12, 1992. Respondent has never held a Class "R" Recovery Agency License or a Class "E" Recovery Agent License. June MacWithey, who holds a Class "R" Recovery Agency License and a Class "E" Recovery Agent License, sponsored Respondent's internship beginning in April, 1992. Prior to that time, Respondent was sponsored under the Class "E" License of Septhanie MacWithey, one of June MacWithey's employees. The name of June MacWithey's recovery agency is Collateral Collection Corporation. The name was changed in February, 1993. The former name of the corporation was Midnight Auto Adjusters. In November, 1992, June MacWithey formally terminated her sponsorship of Respondent. At approximately the same time, Steve MacWithey had a conversation with Respondent regarding complaints made against her for allegedly contracting to perform repossessions without her sponsor's knowledge or permission. However, it is not clear whether she was informed at that time that her internship was being terminated. Steve MacWithey, June's husband, is a Class "EE" Recovery Agent Intern, and one of June's employees. Charles Mason is the manager of Auto Sports Center, Inc., in Apopka, Florida. In late summer, 1992, Sharon Landis introduced Respondent to Mason as a licensed repossessor. He hired Respondent to perform repossessions as an independent contractor, and paid her by check made payable to Debbie Vallancourt. He eventually hired Respondent as an employee in March or April of 1993. Respondent repossessed approximately 30-35 cars for Mr. Mason between October, 1992 and January, 1993. Respondent never advised Mason that she was working for Midnight Auto Adjusters or Collateral Collection Corporation. However, she would on occasion perform repossessions with Steve MacWithey who would pick her up at Mason's car lot. Some of the repossessions Respondent performed for Mason, between October and December, 1992, were done without the knowledge of her sponsor June MacWithey, and on some of the repossessions performed for Mason, Respondent would cash her check and split the money with Steve MacWithey, bypassing her sponsor. George Namlik, Sr. owns a used car dealership in Apopka, Florida. In early November, 1992, Respondent solicited Namlik for the purpose of performing repossessions for his dealership. She indicated to him that she was licensed to perform repossessions. She showed him her Class "EE" Recovery Agent Intern License, which he made a copy of, and told him that another license was in the mail. Next to the photocopy of the Class "EE" license, Respondent wrote her office number, her digital beeper number, and her quoted price for each repossession. Respondent did not tell Mr. Namlik that she was working with anyone else, and led him to believe that she had the necessary licenses to work as an independent contractor. Namlik assigned her two repossessions which she never completed. She returned the car keys to Namlik following numerous requests and his threat to complain to the Department of State, Division of Licensing. June MacWithey did not properly supervise and direct the activities of Respondent. Between October and December, 1992, Respondent solicited and performed repossessions independent of, and without the knowledge of, her sponsor. Petitioner's explanation for this conduct is not credible.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found GUILTY of violating Sections 493.6118(1)(g) and receive a written reprimand and pay an administrative fine in the amount of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000). DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of October, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of October, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-1885 The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1-19 Respondent's proposed findings of fact. Respondent did not submit proposed findings. COPIES FURNISHED: Henri C. Cawthon, Esquire Department of State Division of Licensing The Capitol, Mail Station #4 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Debra Ann Vallancourt (pro se) Post Office Box 269 Apopka, Florida 32712-0269 Honorable Jim Smith Secretary of State The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Phyllis Slater General Counsel Department of State The Capitol, PL-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, Respondent operated a motor vehicle repair shop in Melbourne known as A-New-Carb-O- Tronics. The shop has been registered with the Department since 2004 under registration number MV54037. In December 2005, Janet Shea started having problems with the back hatch of her 2001 Pontiac Aztek. The problems were attributed to the body control module (BCM), which is an electronic device that controls the vehicle's lights, door locks, and window motors. Ms. Shea consulted Respondent about the problems she was having with the Aztek because he had previously done repair work on another one of her vehicles. Respondent told Ms. Shea that he could make the necessary repairs to the BCM, and he picked up the vehicle from Ms. Shea's home to perform the repairs. On January 27, 2006, Ms. Shea paid Respondent $900 for the repairs that he claimed to have done to the BCM. Ms. Shea continued to have the same problems with the back hatch after the vehicle was returned to her by Respondent, so she took it back to Respondent for repairs. On February 14, 2006, Ms. Shea paid Respondent an additional $1,200 for repairs that he claimed to have done to the BCM. Ms. Shea continued to have the same problems with the back hatch after the vehicle was returned to her the second time, so she again took it back to Respondent for repairs. On February 18, 2006, while the vehicle was in Respondent's possession, it was involved in an accident that damaged the fuel pump. Respondent charged Ms. Shea $390 to repair the fuel pump. Ms. Shea continued to have the same problems with the back hatch of the vehicle after Respondent returned it to her the third time at the end of April or beginning of May 2006. At that point, Ms. Shea decided to sell the Aztek, but Respondent convinced her to let him take the car again for another evaluation. Respondent told Ms. Shea that the BCM that he installed must have been defective and that he would replace it under his warranty and that it would cost her nothing. On August 2, 2006, after Respondent failed to return the vehicle and refused to return her calls, Ms. Shea filed a stolen vehicle report with the Melbourne Police Department. During the course of the police investigation, Respondent produced two written invoices for repairs that he purportedly performed with Ms. Shea's authority, including charges for repairs to a 1992 Chrysler LeBaron owned by Ms. Shea's friend, Ron Shultz. Ms. Shea was never given these invoices by Respondent. The first invoice, dated July 13, 2006, was for $1,657. It included $343 of charges for repairs to Mr. Shultz's LeBaron. The remainder of the invoice was for repairs that Respondent claimed to have performed on Ms. Shea's Aztek, including replacement of the BCM. The second invoice, also dated July 13, 2006, detailed the $343 of repairs that Respondent purportedly made to Mr. Shultz's LeBaron. Ms. Shea did not authorize the repairs to Mr. Shultz's vehicle, nor did she authorize the charges for that vehicle to be included on her invoice. The handwritten notations on the invoices, which appear to show that Ms. Shea consented to the repairs, were not written by Ms. Shea, but rather were written by Respondent without Ms. Shea's authority. Ms. Shea did not pay these invoices. Respondent placed a mechanic's lien on Ms. Shea's vehicle for the $1,657 of repairs that he claimed to have performed, but for which Ms. Shea failed to pay. On December 4, 2006, the Circuit Court for Brevard County entered an Order finding the lien to be "wrongful" and declaring it "null and void." On or about December 11, 2006, Ms. Shea recovered her vehicle from Respondent with the assistance of the Melbourne Police Department. Respondent had abandoned the vehicle behind the warehouses near his shop. The vehicle was not in a drivable condition when it was recovered. Respondent had removed belts and other parts that he claimed to have installed on the vehicle. 23. On December 11, 2006, Ms. Shea's vehicle was towed to Lane Pontiac-Buick-GMC (Lane) for an estimate of the repairs needed to make it drivable. The estimate prepared by Lane identified almost $4,400 of necessary repairs, including a new BCM. The estimated charges related to the BCM were approximately $400--$252.46 for parts and $148.42 for labor--which is far less than the $2,100 that Ms. Shea paid Respondent for the repair work that he claimed to have done on the BCM. Ms. Shea filed a complaint with the Department in August 2006 concerning her dealings with Respondent. The complaint was investigated by Garrett Craig Moon, who has approximately eight years of experience investigating motor vehicle repair shops for the Department. On September 21, 2006, Mr. Moon conducted an onsite visit to Respondent's shop. The visit was conducted after 8:00 p.m., because that was during the time Respondent regularly conducted his motor vehicle repair business. During the onsite visit, Mr. Moon requested that Respondent provide the documents supporting any repairs that he made to Ms. Shea's vehicle, including documents showing her authorization for the repairs and receipts for the parts used to complete the repairs. Respondent told Mr. Moon that he did not have the documents at the shop on that date, but he agreed to produce them by fax. Respondent subsequently sent a letter to Mr. Moon by fax, but he did not produce any of the requested records. He told Mr. Moon on December 4, 2006, that he refused to produce any records. Respondent had not produced the motor vehicle repair records for inspection by the Department as requested by Mr. Moon as of the date of the final hearing. On seven separate occasions, Ms. Shea paid Respondent for motor vehicle repairs where the cost of the repair work exceeded $100. Those payments included the $900 and $1,200 payments for repairs to the BCM and the $390 payment for the fuel pump, as well as payments for other repairs. The only invoices that Respondent prepared for the work that he allegedly performed for Ms. Shea were those described above dated July 13, 2006. Respondent did not provide written estimates to Ms. Shea for any of the repair work that he allegedly performed, and at no time did Ms. Shea waive the preparation of a written estimate. The invoices described above did not include odometer readings for Ms. Shea's Aztek or Mr. Shultz's LeBaron, a statement indicating whether anything was guaranteed in connection with the repair work, or the registration number for Respondent's motor vehicle repair shop. Respondent did not appear at the final hearing despite having been given due notice of the date, time, and location of the hearing. Respondent operated a motor vehicle repair shop under registration number MV10590 from 1993 to 2001. Respondent has no disciplinary history with the Department. The Department's records identify only one other consumer complaint against Respondent. Mr. Moon's report states that the other complaint was in 1996 and that it was mediated by a Department investigator.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order that: Finds Respondent guilty of violating Sections 559.905(1), 559.911(1), (5), and (6), 559.915(2), and 559.920(2) and (3), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; Imposes an administrative fine of $12,000; and Revokes Respondent's motor vehicle repair shop registration. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of May, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 May, 2008.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether Touch Free Technology, LLC (Respondent), should be assessed a penalty, and, if so, in what amount, for an alleged failure to comply with workers' compensation requirements referenced herein.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to section 440.107, Florida Statutes (2014),1/ the Petitioner is the state agency charged with enforcing compliance with Florida’s workers’ compensation requirements. On October 21, 2014, Germaine Green, an investigator employed by the Petitioner, observed two individuals installing automated car wash equipment into a structure located at 5740 Ranch Lake Road, Lakewood Ranch, Florida 34202. Ms. Green identified the individuals performing the installation as Mark Hawkins and Randy Allore, and observed that they were being supervised by Timothy Smith. The Respondent is a business located at 6160 15th Street, East, Bradenton, Florida 34203. The Respondent was engaged in business activities during the period from October 22, 2012, through October 21, 2014, including the installation, maintenance and servicing of automated car wash equipment. Mr. Smith is the “managing member” of the Respondent. On October 21, 2014, Mr. Smith admitted to the inspector that the Respondent did not have workers’ compensation coverage or exemptions from coverage requirements. Ms. Green’s review of state workers’ compensation coverage records confirmed the admission. Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Allore advised the Petitioner’s investigator that they did not operate a business and that they did not have their own workers’ compensation coverage. The Respondent asserts that the services of Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Allore were supplied by “Tommy’s Car Wash Systems,” from whom the Respondent acquired the equipment, and that they were not directly employed by the Respondent. Pursuant to section 440.02(15)2, an uninsured subcontractor is considered an employee of the Respondent for purposes of workers’ compensation coverage. Under the statute, Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Allore were the Respondent’s employees. On October 21, 2014, the Petitioner’s investigator requested that Mr. Smith provide certain business records, and the Respondent complied with the request. The records were reviewed by Eric Ruzzo, the Petitioner’s penalty auditor. Mr. Ruzzo determined that, in addition to the three individuals observed by the Petitioner’s investigator on October 21, 2014, two additional individuals, Marie Smith and Don Meissner, Jr., were employed by the Respondent. The National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) assigns classification codes for various occupations related to levels of risk presented by the specific tasks performed by an employee. The codes are used to establish rates charged for workers’ compensation coverage. They are also used in determining the penalty assessed for violations of workers’ compensation requirements. NCCI Code 3724 (“Machinery or Equipment Erection or Repair NOC & Drivers”) specifically includes “automatic car washing equipment,” such as that which the Petitioner’s investigator observed being installed by the Respondent on October 21, 2014. Mr. Ruzzo properly determined that NCCI Code 3724 was applicable to the job duties of Mr. Smith, Mr. Meissner, Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Allore, and calculated the penalty assessment on that basis. The Respondent asserted that Mr. Ruzzo’s determination of the applicable NCCI Code was erroneous, but the assertion was not supported by the evidence. Mr. Hawkins and Mr. Allore were installing automatic car wash equipment when observed by Ms. Green. The evidence established that Mr. Smith and Mr. Meissner, when required to do so, performed repairs to such equipment. Installation and repairs of automatic car wash equipment are specifically included within NCCI Code 3724. Mr. Ruzzo determined that Ms. Smith was the Respondent’s office manager and properly assigned NCCI Code 8810 (“Clerical Office Employees NOC”) in calculating the penalty related to Ms. Smith. Mr. Ruzzo reviewed the business records submitted by the Respondent and initially calculated a penalty assessment of $20,480.86. Following a review of additional records provided by the Respondent, Mr. Ruzzo reduced the penalty assessment to $14,994.72. The employment classifications assigned to the Respondent's personnel were correct. The amended penalty assessment was properly calculated by Mr. Ruzzo.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner, Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation, enter a final order assessing a penalty of $14,994.72 against the Respondent, Touch Free Technology, LLC. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of October, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of October, 2015.
