The Issue The primary issues for determination are whether W.R. “Buddy” Braren, III, (Respondent) engaged in the unlicensed practice of architecture contrary to the proscription contained in Section 481.223(1)(a), Florida Statutes; and secondarily, if Respondent committed such a violation, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact The Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Petitioner), is a state agency charged with the duty and responsibility of regulating the practice of architecture pursuant to Chapters 20, 455, and 481, Florida Statutes. Respondent has not been certified or licensed as an architect pursuant to Chapter 481, Part I, Florida Statutes, and has not represented himself as such, at any time material to these proceedings. Respondent is a self-employed residential designer with over 28 years’ experience, but no formal education beyond graduation from high school. Sometime in 2002, while on an errand to the Health Department of Jefferson County, Florida, Respondent met Carrie Howard, who was waiting there to get minnows for her small fish pond to combat a mosquito problem. Howard struck up a conversation with Respondent, learned that Respondent was a draftsman, and asked him for assistance in drafting a set of plans for an addition to her church, as well as a renovation of that building. As Howard explained at the final hearing, she had obtained the concept for the plans, for which she sought Respondent’s assistance, in a vision. She had a sketch of what she envisioned and showed the sketch to Respondent. Respondent agreed to assist Howard and her church by preparing plans which the church could then use to obtain cost figures and contractor bids to aid the membership of the church in determining whether the proposed addition and renovation to the church building (the project) was financially feasible. At no time did Respondent presume to act as an architect in violation of Florida Statutes. Howard’s church is the Mount Pleasant Baptist Church. The proposed addition and renovation of the church (the project) per plans drawn by Respondent consisted of 3,247 square feet of heated area, 121 feet of covered entry foyer, and 68 square feet of covered landing. Respondent’s drawings consisted of eight pages; two pages of elevations, a third page of floor plan, a fourth plan with basic construction details, a fifth page with electrical layouts, a sixth floor dealing with the finish flooring, a seventh page exhibiting typical cross sections and a partial left side, and the eighth page depicting the foundation plan. Each page of the project plans sets forth Respondent’s name and also the cautionary warning or caveat that the builder is to supply all required engineering, comply with all local and state codes, and verify all dimensions and details prior to commencing construction. Respondent, operating as an employee of the church in his capacity as a draftsman, delivered the project plans to the church representatives. They, in turn, used the plans in the formulation of the church’s financial decision and discussions with building contractors. A contractor was selected. Upon the filing of the project plans with the county building department by someone unconnected with Respondent, a permit was issued for construction. Respondent received a “donation” according to Howard of $1,000 for his efforts on behalf of the church. Respondent’s candid testimony is that he expended 90 hours on the project and would normally have received in excess of $3,000 for his efforts. He accepted the lesser amount in an effort to assist the church. Barry Wilson, a Florida licensed architect and the complainant that initiated the chain of events leading to this proceeding, specializes in church design. Observing activity at the church construction site, he went to the county building department on August 23, 2004, and requested to see the plans. Observing no imprimatur of a licensed architect on the plans, Wilson proceeded to file his complaint. In view of his conflicting dual role as complainant and as expert witness for Petitioner, Wilson's testimony relating to matters of expertise is not credited. Respondent was very creditable at the final hearing. He was not aware that his activity on behalf of the church would be construed as the practice of architecture, and maintains that he did not knowingly violate any law prohibiting the unlicensed practice of architecture. In an appropriate exhibition of remorse, Respondent stated that he had only provided design services in connection with one other church and certainly would not have provided such services in this instance if he had known that such action was considered illegal.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of June, 2005.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Department), is a state agency charged with the duty and responsibility of regulating the practice of architecture pursuant to Chapters 20, 455, and 481, Florida Statutes. At no time material hereto has Respondent been certified or licensed as an architect pursuant to Chapter 481, Part I, Florida Statutes. On March 9, 2002, Respondent contracted with Reverend Earnest Jackson, pastor of the Church of the Apostolic Faith, to provide services specified as follows: . . . design and composing of blue prints and specifications for securing permits from permitting agencies. Such work may involve civil, architectural or sign design . . . . Mr. Lee agreed to design all necessary [sic] drwgs. and designs for securing all permits for construction of the church and drainage of surface water. The contract referenced the "projected cost for design & delivery of plans @ approx. $7,000.00." There is also reference in the contract to "seven and one half percentage of market" but the remainder of that line on the copy of the contract in evidence is illegible as to the context of that reference. Reverend Jackson understood the contract to be for a total of $7,000.00. The contract was also signed by Robert Roundtree, a deacon of the Church of the Apostolic Faith. Respondent prepared two sheets of preliminary study designs for the Church of the Apostolic Faith dated April 10, 2002, for which Reverend Jackson paid Respondent $1,300.00. As time passed and the church plans were not finished, Reverend Jackson became concerned. Because of his concerns and because Respondent asked him for more money beyond the $7,000.00, which he understood to be a total contract price, Reverend Jackson verbally told Respondent that his services were terminated. In September 2002, Respondent filed a lien against Reverend Jackson and the Apostolic Faith Church. The lien was for "$15,000.00 of which there remains to be paid $13,700.00" for "700 hours in consulting & travel." Respondent later released Reverend Jackson from the lien. During this transaction, Respondent did not clearly inform Reverend Jackson that an architect or engineer would have to review and approve any plans that Respondent drew. The contract made no reference to any review of Respondent's work by either architects or engineers. Reverend Jackson would not have contracted with Respondent if he had been told that Respondent was not in a position to start and finish the church project. Respondent acknowledged that he is not an architect and that the preliminary plans submitted to Reverend Jackson were not reviewed by an architect. Respondent attempts to rely on notifications he received in the late 1980's from the State of Florida indicating he was qualified for certain job classifications, including the classification as Engineering Tech IV, for job opportunities within state government. Respondent's reliance on these notifications that he was eligible for certain job classifications within state government employment is misplaced to the extent they are intended to defend his actions. After terminating his relationship with Respondent, Reverend Jackson hired a firm to complete the plans for the church. The total cost of the plans for the church was $1,000.00.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a final order finding that Respondent violated Subsection 481.223(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and that an administrative penalty of $1,000.00 be imposed. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of August, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ___________________________________ BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of August, 2003.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Petitioner should be issued a Consumer Certificate of Exemption from Florida sales tax.
Findings Of Fact By stipulation prior to the taking of any testimony, the parties agreed that the only option upon which Petitioner seeks an exemption from sales tax is that relating its status as an administrative office of the organization. Petitioner agrees that it does not conduct regular church services within the meaning of Section 212.08(7)(o), Florida Statutes. At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Construction for Worldwide Evangelism, Inc., was a non-profit corporation registered as such with the Florida Secretary of State, which has been granted exemption from Federal Income Tax under Section 501(c)3, of the Internal Revenue Code. It was established in 1991, and its purpose is to build churches in Third World countries for church mission boards and other missionary organizations, including Baptist International Missionaries, Inc. (BIMI). BIMI trains and places missionaries and provides stewardship of individual members’ funds and insurance. Petitioner also builds facilities for the Association of Baptists for Worldwide Evangelism (ABWE). BIMI and ABWE are the largest and second largest missionary sponsoring organizations in the country with each sponsoring more than 1,000 missionaries in the field. Petitioner also works with other Baptist missionary organizations which are not as large as those previously mentioned. These organizations all have the same purpose -- to spread the word of redemption and salvation through Jesus Christ. Since its inception, Petitioner has been guided in its work by its mission statement and its statement of faith. Both are taken from scripture and are included in the basic tenets of Christian faith. It was founded specifically to fulfill God’s great purpose -- to preach to the world. The missionary organizations referenced above do not build their own missions but look to churches and organizations like the Petitioner to raise funds and build facilities including churches, medical clinics, bible institutes, and other educational buildings. When the Petitioner was founded, it was obvious that funds would be needed to do this work. There are other missionary organizations around the country which build facilities as Petitioner does. The difference between these organizations and Petitioner is that Petitioner has no paid staff, and it takes a project from design conception through completion. Other organizations seem to do their projects in stages, based on the availability of volunteers to do the required work. Nothing requires Petitioner to limit approval of requests to those from recognized missionary boards. Other denominational churches make requests to Petitioner but most are turned down because the other denominations have their own funding. Petitioner tries to limit itself to “independent” churches, but it has no formal agreement, other than the Bible, with any of the recognized missionary boards. The missionary boards do not provide their own funds to Petitioner. Financial support comes from individual churches which provide money to their missionary boards which is earmarked for mission construction. Requesters need not be a particular denomination of Baptist congregation. Petitioner will talk with any organization that will agree with its Statement of Faith. However, Petitioner’s Board of Directors has the final authority to decide if a request will be granted. Need for a specific project is communicated to Petitioner through the various missionary boards operating in this country; through direct contact from missions in the field; and from individual churches which need help in organizing a project they want to do. When Petitioner receives a request, because of the volume of requests received, the Board of Directors tries to evaluate the need in the area, the requester’s doctrinal position, and the availability of resources to the local group which will do the work if approved. The Petitioner sends evaluators to the field to examine the proposed facilities. All procedures are included in its Project and Guideline Manual which details with particularity how Petitioner will do each step from evaluation, through purchasing of supplies after design, through securing and forwarding of volunteers to completion, close-down, and the return of the volunteers. Each proposed project is evaluated in accordance with the terms of the Manual. In a typical project, a determination is first made whether the applicant is an existing church which needs help. This is a requirement because Petitioner does not start churches. Once they are satisfied the applicant is an existing church, the evaluators determine how much of a project is needed and how much resources the local organization has, and then look to further evaluation against the twenty-five or so other factors for consideration. Most of this information is gathered from the applicant or a mission board either by Mr. Puleo, an electrical contractor who is president of the Petitioner organization, or by the vice-president of the organization. Once all pertinent information is on hand and the project deemed worthy, a project profile is developed. Petitioner has several projects ongoing at the same time. The initial step is to pray for guidance from God as to which project to do. Once a project is approved, an on-site inspection is conducted to develop information as to whether there is a real need for Petitioner to be involved or whether the local people can accomplish the project by themselves. This on- site inspection is usually done by a member of the Petitioner’s Board and by a committee chairperson. The on-site survey determines what is available at the site, and information is developed as to the logistics needed and the personnel required. Another part of the planning relates to the ministry to be supported. An evaluation is conducted of the on-site missionary and how well that individual operates, how long he plans to stay there, and whether he is flexible enough to work with both locals and volunteers. After this evaluation is completed, a conclusion is drawn as to whether Petitioner can take on the project and what will be needed. After prayer and consideration, a decision is made as to whether to go forward with the project. The funds to do the work and to buy the required materials come from Baptist churches across the country, businesses, other organization, and individuals. All the workers come from individual churches who support Petitioner’s program. They work on a volunteer basis without pay. When a church contacts Petitioner to have a facility built, a representative of the Petitioner goes to that church, conducts a service, and tries to enlist the financial and volunteer support of the church membership. In addition, periodically, conferences of pastors seek a presentation from Petitioner. Any funds received as a result of those presentations usually come from the specific church’s general fund and volunteers for the project from that church’s membership. In support of its fund and volunteer raising activities, Petitioner publishes a brochure regarding its activities which is widely distributed through supporting churches. It outlines how readers of the brochure can assist or seek other information. Petitioner also published a newsletter which is circulated to any volunteer who has gone on a project with it, to churches, and to others on the organization’s mailing list. This newsletter describes what is happening in the organization and what is planned. A tract is also passed out to the public by which Petitioner seeks to raise funds and attract disciples. No one who works with Petitioner is paid. All funds raised go to the cost of constructing the building, to the cost of travel and support of personnel at the building site, and to the cost of transportation of supplies. In that regard, a portion of the supplies and equipment needed for a project is often donated as is the cost of transporting that material to the job site. It should be noted that when Petitioner works on a project in a foreign country, often volunteers from that local church subsequently help with work and funds on other projects within that country. Included in every program is a devotional component. Guidelines exist which cover the duties and responsibility of the devotional committee of each work force, the chairman, and the individuals. These guidelines are prepared for each day of the program’s existence and call for a thirty minute to one hour devotional each night. Petitioner, which originated in Florida, now has branches in both Georgia and Michigan which are recognized by those states. Both the Georgia and Michigan organizations do work identical to that done by the Florida group, but everything they do is coordinated and controlled through the Petitioner’s Tampa office. Since its inception in 1991, Petitioner has built seventeen or eighteen facilities - ten or eleven were churches, two were Bible institutes, and one a radio station in the Caribbean area and South America. The average church costs between $45,000 and $50,000, although one church in Bolivia was built for $15,000 and one will be built for $20,000. Medical facilities are more expensive. The facilities constructed by Petitioner have a positive impact on the mission for which they are constructed. They tend to enhance the success of the mission and improve its local standing. Petitioner previously held a Certificate of Exemption from sales tax from the Department. Neither the Petitioner’s organization nor the statute under which certificates are granted has changed in the interim between the granting of the prior certificate and the denial of the current application for renewal.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Revenue enter a Final Order denying Petitioner an exemption from sales and use tax. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of August, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 26th day of August, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark M. Schabacker, Esquire Schabacker, Simmons and Dunlap Suite 2500 100 North Tampa Street Tampa, Florida 33602 William B. Nickell, Esquire Department of Revenue Suite 304 501 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Larry Fuchs Executive Director Department of Revenue 104 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100 Linda Lettera General Counsel Department of Revenue 204 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0100
The Issue May Petitioner be granted an exemption to work in a position of special trust?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was arrested and charged with battery on a spouse under Section 784.03(1)(a), F.S., on April 11, 1992. The incident arose when Petitioner's husband approached her in a threatening manner. The two had been having marital problems. Although he had never hit her, Petitioner's husband was threatening to hit her on this occasion. Petitioner was afraid. She attempted to escape and tried to telephone her pastor for advice. In the meantime, while she was telephoning, her husband approached her again and she hit him on the right side of the head with the telephone receiver. There is no evidence to suggest Petitioner's husband was a minor at the time. Petitioner's husband sustained bruises, and the side of his head was swollen. Petitioner was arrested and jailed. She spent two weeks in jail because she was unable to post bond. Her husband attempted to withdraw the charges. Adjudication was withheld. Petitioner was formerly employed by Vistakon, a cleaning service, but she left that employment in 1993 due to disability arising from an arthritic hip. Petitioner and her husband finally separated February 1, 1996, and there is no reason to believe the 1992 incident will be repeated. Although she and her husband have remained married, Petitioner has been involved in no further violent incidents since 1992, nor has she had any involvement with law enforcement in that period. Petitioner presently is taking classes toward completion of her GED certificate. Petitioner is an active member of the True Way Bible Deliverance Church. She sporadically cares for children of friends and children in Sunday School. She hopes to qualify for a child care license someday.
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 granting Petitioner an exemption to work in a position of special trust. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of September, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of September, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 96-1745 The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), F.S., upon the Respondent's proposed findings of fact. Petitioner's three unnumbered paragraphs are accepted in substance, without the argumentation. Respondent's nine proposed findings of fact are accepted as slightly modified to more accurately reflect the record. COPIES FURNISHED: Ethel R. Denson 6951 West Virginia Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32209 Roger L.D. Williams, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services Post Office Box 2417 Jacksonville, Florida 32231-0083 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Blvd., Ste. 204-X Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Richard Doran, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Blvd., Ste. 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Elder Care Retirement Home violated certain statutes and rules as alleged in the administrative complaints, and if so, to what extent penalties should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this matter, Eldercare, Inc. of Maine was appropriately licensed by the Department to operate a 20 bed adult congregate living facility (ACLF), Elder Care Retirement Home, in Ocala, Florida. Lon W. Walters and his wife are the sole owners of Eldercare, Inc. of Maine, the corporate entity which owns and operates Elder Care Retirement Home. Mr. Walters is president of the corporation. Case No. 89-2058 On December 9, 1987, Pat Reid, a Human Services Program Analyst and the authorized representative of the Department, performed a general inspection of Elder Care Retirement Home for purposes of re-licensure. Ms. Reid identified five operating deficiencies which she discussed with the administrator of the facility. Ms. Reid also established dates by which time corrections were required. A handwritten list of the alleged deficiencies was provided to the administrator of the facility. On December 17, 1987 a nutritional inspection was performed by Leota Spencer, a Senior Public Health Nutritionist for the Department. Ms. Spencer identified five alleged deficiencies requiring correction. Although Department witnesses testified that it is standard practice to advise the facility administrator of deficiencies at the time of the inspection, the evidence did not establish that Ms. Spencer, who did not testify, did so. On January 25, 1988, the Department issued a letter confirming the findings of the re-licensure surveys conducted by Ms. Reid and Ms. Spencer. Enclosed with the letter was a form "Classification of Deficiencies for ACLF Licensure Requirements," which noted the deficiencies, the correction deadlines, and included citation to the administrative rules allegedly violated by the deficiencies. Of the ten alleged deficiencies noted by the inspections, the deadlines for correction of seven deficiencies had already passed. The deadline for the remaining three was January 31, 1988, six days from the date of the letter. On February 18, 1988, Ms. Reid again inspected the facility to determine whether corrective action had been taken. Seven of the deficiencies had been corrected. Ms. Reid cited three which remained, including the lack of financial records available for review at the time of the inspection, the failure to indicate that all residents were free from communicable disease, and the failure to provide that a food management employee had completed a food service management course. On February 15, 1989, the Department issued an administrative complaint based upon the failure of the facility to correct the alleged deficiencies within the required time periods. The administrative complaint alleged that Eldercare "failed to provide or make available facility financial records for review at the time of the survey," in violation of Section 400.419(4), Florida Statutes, and Rule 10A- 5.021(1), Florida Administrative Code. The complaint states that such violation is cause for an administrative fine of $250. The evidence does not establish that the failure to make such records available at the time of a survey is a violation of administrative rule. Rule 10A-5.021(1), Florida Administrative Code, provides that the administrator or owner of a facility shall be responsible for maintaining fiscal records, and mandates the type of information which such records shall contain. The rule does not specifically require that the fiscal records must be maintained at the facility. The administrative complaint alleged that Eldercare "failed to ensure that all residents are free from communicable disease as evidenced by the physical examination (health assessment) of one resident identified as B. H. does not indicate that the resident is free from communicable disease," in violation of Section 400.419(3)(c), Florida Statutes, and Rule 10A- 5.0181(2)(a)4d, Florida Administrative Code. The complaint states that such violation is a Class III deficiency with a civil penalty of $150. Rule 10A-5.0181(2)(a)4d, Florida Administrative Code, provides that prior to admission to an ACLF, a prospective resident must be examined to ascertain that there are no signs of infectious disease present. The evidence indicates that the allegation of the administrative complaint is correct. There is no evidence which would suggest that the $150 penalty assessed by the Department is inappropriate. The administrative complaint alleged that Eldercare "has failed to ensure that a management person has completed the Food Services Management course," in violation of Section 400.419(3)(c) Florida Statutes, and Rules 10A- 5.020(1)(m) and 10D-13, Florida Administrative Code. The complaint states that such violation is a Class III deficiency with a civil penalty of $100. The failure of the Elder Care facility to employ management personnel who met the training requirement is a violation of administrative rule. However, because there is no evidence which establishes that the Department investigator discussed the violation with the Elder Care administrator, there is no evidence that the facility had notice of the violation prior to the letter of January 25, 1988, even though the "Classification of Deficiencies for ACLF Licensure Requirements" which was enclosed with the Department's letter of January 25, 1988, establishes January 16, 1988, as the deadline for correction. There is no evidence that an approved training course was available and scheduled so as to provide an Elder Care employee a timely opportunity to complete the course and satisfy the Department's requirement. Case No. 89-2059 On December 16, 1987, an authorized representative of the Department, Dick Kolb, a Fire Protection Specialist, performed a fire safety inspection of Elder Care Retirement Home. According to Mr. Kolb's survey, the facility lacked automatic door closers on bedroom doors and electrically-wired smoke detectors. At hearing, Mr. Kolb testified that the lack of automatic door closers and electrically-wired smoke detectors violates fire safety regulations. On the date of the inspection, Mr. Kolb discussed the deficiencies with the administrator of the facility. A handwritten list of deficiencies was provided to the administrator. Mr. Kolb and the administrator established a deadline of February 12, 1988, for correction of the situation. On January 25, 1988, the Department issued a letter reiterating the findings of the fire safety survey conducted by Mr. Kolb. Enclosed with the letter was a typewritten notice, (the "Classification of Deficiencies for ACLF Licensure Requirements"), which lists the deficiencies and related correction deadlines, and includes citation to the administrative rules allegedly violated by the deficiencies. On February 29, 1988, Mr. Kolb again inspected Elder Care Retirement Home. The purpose of the inspection was to determine whether automatic closers had been installed on the bedroom doors and whether an electrically wired smoke detector system had been installed. Neither deficiency had been corrected. On February 15, 1989, the Department issued an administrative complaint based upon the failure of the facility to correct the alleged deficiencies within the required time periods. The administrative complaint alleged that Eldercare "failed to ensure that smoke detectors are electrically operated," in violation of Section 400.419(3)(c), Florida Statutes, and Rule 10A-5.023(15)(a) and 4A-40.017, Florida Administrative Code. The complaint states that such violation is a Class III deficiency with a civil penalty of $200. The evidence does not establish that the lack of electrically operated smoke detectors constitutes a violation of the Department's rules. The Department has adopted the National Fire Protection Association standards by administrative rule, but such standards are neither specifically stated in the Florida Administrative Code nor were they introduced or admitted as evidence at hearing. The administrative complaint further alleged that Eldercare "failed to ensure that bedroom doors are equipped with self-closing devices" in violation of Section 400.419(3)(c), Florida Statutes, and Rules 10A-5.023(15)(a), 4A- 40.005 and 4A-40.010(8), Florida Administrative Code, and "Chapters 5-2.1.2.3 and 17-3.6.3 NFPA 101 LSC." The complaint states that such violation is a Class III deficiency with a civil penalty of $200. The evidence does not establish that the lack of the door closing devices constitutes a violation of the Department's rules. As stated supra, the Department has adopted the National Fire Protection Association standards by administrative rule, but such standards are neither included in the Florida Administrative Code nor were they introduced or admitted as evidence at hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order imposing against Eldercare, Inc. of Maine d/b/a Elder Care Retirement Center an administrative fine of $150 in Case No. 89-2058 and dismissing Case No. 89-2059. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 19th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 19th day of October, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Lon W. Walters 5762 South West 60th Avenue Ocala, Florida 32674 Arthur R. Shell, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services District 3 Legal Office 1000 North East 16th Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
