The Issue Whether Respondents committed the violations set forth in the Administrative Complaint, as amended, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the operation of the pest control industry pursuant to Section 482.032, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this case, Joyce Beard was the Certified Operator in Charge (COIC) of Atlas Termite and Pest Control Of Cantonment, Inc. Counts 1 and 2 Counts 1 and 2 of the Administrative Complaint allege as follows: Count 1 During an inspection on July 11, 2003, the Department found that Atlas Termite and Pest Control of Cantonment operated an unlicensed business location at 9100 Hamman Avenue, Pensacola, at which sales solicitations were made and remuneration received. This is a violation of Chapters 482.071(1) and (2), Florida Statutes. Count 2 During an inspection on July 11, 2003 the Department found that Atlas Termite and Pest Control of Cantonment phone numbers terminated in an unlicensed location as 9100 Hamman Avenue. This is a violation of Chapter 5E-14.142(3)(b). Atlas Termite and Pest Control of Cantonment, (hereinafter Atlas) is physically located at 4141 Pine Forest Road in Cantonment, Florida, and is listed at this address on its application for business license filed with the Department. Cantonment is located in Escambia County near Pensacola, Florida. Two other pest control companies, Environmental Security of Okaloosa, Inc., and Killingsworth Environmental, Inc., a/k/a KEFL, Inc., are located at the same address. On July 11, 2003, the Department conducted an inspection of a company called Home Services Marketing and Management, LLC, (hereinafter Home Services) which is located at 9100 Hamman Avenue in Pensacola. Clifford Killingsworth and Clinton Killingsworth2/ are the managers of Home Services. The record is unclear as to whether Atlas ever entered into any written agreement with Home Services. However, Home Services did perform certain services for Atlas. Atlas has a full-time employee, Angie Foster, who answers the phones and performs administrative tasks at 4141 Pine Forest Road. When Ms. Foster has to leave the office, the calls to Atlas may be forwarded to Home Services. When the phone call is forwarded, the telephone number for Atlas listed in the local telephone directory terminates at Home Services. Home Services also answers calls for Environmental Security of Okaloosa, Inc. and Killingsworth Environmental, Inc. Home Services employees do not make "cold calls" to new customers. They contact customers with active accounts to set up renewals. They also contact homeowners whose homes were treated during construction and whose initial accounts were with the builder of the home. If a new customer calls, a Home Services employee answers the call, gets the contact information from the potential new client, and then calls the appropriate technician who would then call or visit the potential customer. The appropriate technician is generally determined by the geographic location of the caller. While a Home Services employee might send a preprinted contract to the technician to take to the job site or mail a contract to a customer, Home Services does not enter into any contract to perform pest control services. No pest control trucks or chemicals are stored at Home Services. Home Services also has a payment processing component. Home Services sends bills to pest control customers which instruct customers to make out the check to the appropriate pest control company, not to Home Services. Payments from customers for pest control services are deposited into the account of the appropriate pest control company, including Atlas when appropriate. No evidence was presented that 9100 Hamman Avenue is an advertised permanent location of Atlas from which business was solicited, accepted, or conducted. After the July 11, 2003, inspection of Home Services, Clinton Killingsworth, a manager of Home Services, took steps to get Home Services licensed as a pest control company. He did this because it was his understanding that the Department took the position that Home Services was in the business of practicing pest control services. He employed his brother, Daniel Killingsworth, to be the required licensed person in charge, and contacted several insurance companies to obtain the required insurance. He had difficulty in obtaining the required insurance since Home Services does not offer pest control services. Despite these difficulties, Home Services was issued a license in December 2003. Count 4 Count 4 of the Administrative Complaint reads as follows: During inspections conducted on July 11, 2003 and July 16, 2003, the Department found that service vehicles are marked with unregistered fictitious name-Atlas Environmental Pest and Termite Control. This is a violation of Chapter 5E- 14.142(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code. During inspections, Department investigators saw trucks with the logo, "Atlas Environmental Pest and Termite Control" on the side of the trucks. When shown a photograph of those trucks, Ms. Beard believed the trucks to be Alabama trucks, not Florida trucks. Ms. Beard is also licensed in Alabama although the name of the company in Alabama is not clear from the record. The word "Environmental" is not in the name of the company, Atlas Termite and Pest Control of Cantonment, licensed to do business in Florida. Many of the trucks used by Atlas at the time of the inspection had defective brakes and transmission problems. Both Florida trucks and Alabama trucks had these problems. Many of the trucks were recalled and were taken off the road. According to Ms. Beard, the trucks shown parked in one of the photographs were parked waiting until they would be repaired. Alabama trucks were parked in the same area as the Florida trucks that were being recalled. However, when asked why a truck with Atlas Environmental Pest and Termite Control was parked at 1830 Galvez Road in Gulf Breeze, she responded that it was being used to transport chemicals to a man in that area. One photograph taken by an investigator clearly shows a man inside one of the trucks standing next to a large barrel inside the truck. The word "Environmental" is clearly written on the truck as part of the company logo. Atlas has sold some of their trucks. When asked at her deposition taken on December 9, 2004, whether Atlas still owned any trucks, Ms. Beard responded, "I believe we have a couple of smaller ones. I don't know that we have any of the larger ones left that are not up for sale." Unnumbered Count of Amended Administrative Complaint The Amended Administrative Complaint contains one additional count which reads in pertinent part as follows: Joyce Beard does not perform the duties of a certified operator as set forth in Section 482.152, Florida Statutes. There is only one other employee of Atlas and her duties are limited to clerical duties in the office. Virtually all of the actual pest control treatments done in the name of Atlas are performed by the company by which they are employed, not Ms. Beard. Atlas is in fact a shell company consisting of Ms. Beard who does not work full time and a clerical employee. She is not in charge of the pest control activities of the licensee, Atlas in the categories covered by her certificate. This constitutes a misuse of her certificate by Ms. Beard and also by Atlas, which is a violation [sic] Section 482.121, Florida Statutes. The Amended Administrative Complaint also references Section 482.152, Florida Statutes. Atlas has only two employees: Joyce Beard and Angie Foster. In addition to being Atlas' COIC, she is Atlas' only corporate officer, serving as president, secretary, and treasurer. Ms. Beard has been in the pest control business for over 30 years. Atlas does not employ any pest control technicians. Atlas subcontracts with Killingsworth Environmental, Inc., a/k/a KEFL, to perform the actual pest control services. The employees of KEFL actually go out into the field to perform the jobs that are subcontracted by Atlas to KEFL. The last time Ms. Beard performed pest control treatment was approximately 1999 or early 2000. However, she "goes behind them a lot" to check to see that the work has been done. Ms. Beard has a physical disability that interferes with or prevents her from doing pest control work. Her disability impedes her ability to climb stairs, work all day without a nap, and maintain her equilibrium. She acknowledges that she is "not as sharp as she used to be." Subcontractors for Atlas primarily provide treatment for residential customers, and some commercial customers. Atlas presently does not accept new customers, but services current customers under contract. Ms. Beard lives across the street from the business location of 4141 Pine Forest Road. She has the ability to keep in communication with technicians out in the field through a computer, fax machine, and by using mobile phones which are equipped with radios and cameras. Technicians of the subcontracting company carry radios and phones with cameras on them on which a picture can be transmitted to her on her mobile phone or via the Internet. Ms. Beard's level of participation and supervision can best be described in her words: Q: Are you currently in charge of all of the business activities of Atlas Termite and Pest Control of Cantonment, Inc.? A: Yes. Q: Are you currently a full-time employee of Atlas Termite and Pest Control of Cantonment, Inc.? A: Yes. Q: Have you been a full-time employee of Atlas since you've become a CPO? A: Yes. Q: Is your employment with Atlas your primary occupation? A: Yes, absolutely. Q: Since your certification of Atlas CPO, has your employment with Atlas always been your primary occupation? A: Yes, absolutely. Q: Have you always or do you now personally supervise and participate in the pest control activities of Atlas regarding the selection of the proper chemicals for particular pest control work performed? A: I did do all of that when there was nobody doing the work except strictly Atlas employees. Now that it is subcontracted out, I supervise, but I'm not always the primary one to make that determination. I can do it, but I have no need to do it. Q: If Atlas had subcontracted the job to another company, who is the CPO then that would be in charge of the chemical side of the whole thing? A: Whoever is the CPO with that company. And I might add that, you know, I don't deal with anybody that's---except CPO's with expertise in a lot of different fields including building construction and biology and chemistry. And they're not just simply CPO's. They are degreed professionals with the expertise to do it. Q: Let me ask you: Have you always and do you now personally supervise and participate in the pest control activities of Atlas regarding the safe and proper use of pesticides? A: Well, there again, I have in the past entirely. I could in the future, but I do not presently do that because that is passed on to the subcontractor. Q: Atlas has employees, doesn't it? A: Yes. Q: But presently it doesn't have any employees that apply pesticide? A: No. Q: During the time that Atlas had employees that applied pesticide, did you supervise and participate in the training regarding the correct concentration in the formulation of those pesticides? A: Yes, I did absolutely every day. Q: And secondly, the same question-- A similar question is: Do you now and did you then supervise and participate in the pest control activities of Atlas regarding the training of personnel in the proper and acceptable methods of pest control? A: I did then to the extent of seeing that it was done. It was a lot of times done in a group format with other companies, so I was not always the one who was doing the presentation. Although, the presentation was done by people who were sanctioned by the Department, and then I do it entirely for Atlas myself. Although they can't get their CPU's [sic] from me, but we held training sessions and so forth. At the present time, I do not because I'm not over those employees. Q: What are some of the ways that an employee of yours at Atlas could get their appropriate, proper and acceptable training, I guess you would call then the CEU's? A: If they were an employee of Atlas? Q: Yes. A: You can get them over the Internet easily now.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered revoking the certificate of Ms. Beard and the license of Atlas. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of May, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of May, 2005.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Lan-Mac Pest Control-Englewood, Inc. and Lan-Mac Pest Control-Fort Myers, Inc. (Lan-Mac) are pest control operators conducting business in the general area of each individual respondent regarding whom they have requested a formal hearing. Larry McKinney owns these companies and has over 4,000 customers, nine pest control routes, six lawn care routes and a termite crew, all servicing the west coast from Collier County up through Sarasota County. Certified Operators of SW Florida, Inc. and Florida Pest Control Association, Inc. (FPCA) are trade associations with members who are pest control operators conducting business in the geographical area of each individual respondent regarding whom they have petitioned for a formal hearing. The members of these associations are substantially affected by the issues raised in this proceeding. As stipulated by the parties, the petitioners described above have standing to petition and participate as parties in this proceeding. (Prehearing Stipulation, page 12) Each of the individual respondents has submitted to the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DACS) an application for registration as an especially pesticide-sensitive person, together with the statutory fee and a purported physician's certificate. Each individual respondent's claim is addressed more specifically below. The DACS is the state agency responsible for administering and maintaining the pesticide-sensitive persons' registry as provided in section 482.2265(3), F.S. The Registry Upon payment of a fee and submittal of an appropriate physician's certificate, pesticide-sensitive persons are placed on a list of persons who are entitled to 24-hour advance notice when a pest control operator is going to make an exterior application on property adjacent or contiguous to the pesticide- sensitive person's primary residence. The certificate must be from a physician qualified in a category established by department rule. The department has adopted rule 5E-14.146, F.A.C. specifying the categories. The DACS may designate a person "especially pesticide-sensitive" if, in addition to the submittal described above, the person provides "clear and convincing proof" that he or she is so sensitive to pesticides that the standard notice is not enough, and notification of applications at greater distance is necessary to protect the person's health. The notification distance requirement may not exceed one-half mile from the boundaries of the property where the hypersensitive person resides. The required notice is limited to use of a pesticide or pesticide class to which sensitivity is documented or for which the department determines sensitivity is scientifically probable. The department may limit notice requirements in applications in excess of a stipulated quantity and may not require notice of applications at a distance beyond the minimum distance required to prevent endangerment of the health of the individual. Section 482.2265, F.S. requires the individual registrant (pesticide- sensitive person) to notify the department of the properties or residences falling within the notice parameters (either adjacent or extra distance) so that the department can supply this necessary information to the pest control operators. Without this information, the operators cannot know whether a specific application is subject to notice. Pest control operators who fail to provide the notice required by section 482.2265, F.S. are subject to administrative sanctions by DACS, including fines and license suspension or revocation. Violations of the Pest Control Act are third degree misdemeanors. John Mulrennan, Ph.D. is the Bureau Chief of DACS' Bureau of Entomology and Pest Control, which bureau administers the requirements of Chapter 482, F.S. Dr. Mulrennan has a Ph.D. in entomology from Oklahoma State University. Dr. Mulrennan has delegated the day-to-day administration of the registry to Philip Helseth, Administrator of the Pest Control Section; and to Cherie Decker, Philip Helseth's secretary. Mr. Helseth, and more often, Cherie Decker, review applications from persons seeking to be placed on the registry. They determine whether the application is complete, the fee is attached or waived, and the physician signing the certification is properly qualified under the rule. The department has no medical personnel on staff to review medical records and it relies entirely on the physician's certification for the determination of eligibility for the registry. Dr. Mulrennan considers that a physician who is licensed and board-certified should be able to make the necessary diagnosis and the department is in no position to question that diagnosis. There are several versions of the application form/physician's certification that have been used by the agency, DACS, and its predecessor agency, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), but the current version is a one-page form with blanks to be completed on the front and printed guidelines on the back. The form elicits the person's name and primary residence address, with day and night telephone numbers. The form includes this "Physician's Certification:" I certify that the individual named above is a patient of mine and should be placed on the list of pesticide-sensitive persons. This individual has a documented sensitivity to a particular pesticide or class of pest- icides. The specific pesticide or class of pesticides to which registrant is sensitive: [blanks provided] The individual named above is currently under my care for a diagnosed condition or ailment for which I have proof that the normal appli- cation of a pesticide would aggravate the condition or ailment to such an extent that placement on the registry for prior notification is necessary to protect that person's health. Diagnosed condition or ailment: [blanks provided] (FPCA Exhibit #17) For persons registering as especially pesticide- sensitive, the form requests the special distance required: one block, two blocks, 1/4 mile, up to 1/2 mile limit. The certifying physician's signature, address, telephone number and the signature of a witness follows this statement: I further certify that I am a qualified physician, board certified and recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties in the specialty of toxicology, allergy or occupational medicine. I have diagnosed this patient's sensitivity based on the guidelines set forth by the department (see reverse side). Board certification will be verified by this Bureau. (FPCA Exhibit #17) The guidelines on the reverse of the form were developed with the assistance of the State Health Director, Dr. Mahan, and the Florida Medical Association. The guidelines are: GUIDELINES FOR DIAGNOSING PESTICIDE SENSITIVITY The department recommends the following basic steps be considered in diagnosing an individual as pesticide sensitive: good evidence of exposure history clinical manifestations from a particular exposure body testing related to an exposure, such as x-ray, blood test, urine test, etc., necessary to make a diagnosis environment [sic] examination of the site where the exposure occurs, such as a person's place of work, to determine the existence of exposure in the environment (FPCA Exhibit #17) According to FPCA expert, Dr. Ronald Gots, these guidelines, with minor modifications, are appropriate in determining whether or not someone has sustained a pesticide exposure and reaction and whether there is a causal relationship between a more distant application and endangerment to health. In Dr. Gots' view, the clinical manifestations ought to be the kind that have been specifically associated with the particular substance at issue. Dr. Gots also contends that specific laboratory evidence is not always required to determine pesticide toxicity. Guideline number four is particularly important in dealing with symptoms from remote applications. DACS does not require that the certifying physician use the guidelines provided on the form, as they are only intended as an aid. The agency only intends that the physicians make a diagnosis and reflect that fact in the certificates by their signature. DACS also does not require that the applicant provide actual addresses within the notification area. Instead, if there is a complaint that an operator made a pesticide application without the required notice, the agency will have to determine in that case whether the operator should be held accountable. Placement on the registry for extra distance notice is based solely on the physician's certificate, and whether the individual provides specific addresses or simply distances for the notice is immaterial, according to Dr. Mulrennan, until the agency is confronted with an enforcement issue. DACS checks the qualifications of the doctors who are making the certification. The secretary who checks the applications, Cherie Decker, has a phone number for the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) to call to check on physicians. Examples of qualifications that have been rejected include academic doctorates. The agency has specifically accepted certificates from osteopathic physicians who are certified by the American Osteopathic Association but are not certified by the ABMS. That acceptance was based, in part, on correspondence from the ABMS, American Osteopathic Association, and Albert F. Robbins, D.O. (Department's Exhibits #3-8). Nothing in that correspondence establishes that one board certification is considered equivalent to another by the ABMS or is "recognized" by the ABMS. The Certifying Physicians The individuals at issue in this consolidated proceeding were all certified by one of the following: Albert F. Robbins, D.O.; Michael J. Waickman, M.D.; Neil Ahner, M.D.; Rory P. Doyle; S. J. Klemsawesch M.D.; Hana T. Chaim, D.O.; Paul F. Wubbena, Jr., M.D.; Linda A. Marraccini, M.D.; and Caren B. Singer, M.D. Dr. Robbins practices at the Robbins Environmental Medical Center, 400 South Dixie Highway, Boca Raton, Florida. He has a doctorate of Osteopathic Medicine from Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine; he is board-certified by the American Osteopathic Board of Preventative Medicine, with a sub-specialty in Occupational and Environmental Medicine; he has a Master of Science in Public Health from the University of Miami. He is not board-certified by the ABMS but he strongly avers that his board certification is equivalent to the specific requirement of the DACS rule referenced in paragraph 7, above. Dr. Waickman practices in Akron, Ohio. A medical doctor, he is board- certified in pediatrics, in allergy and clinical immunology and in environmental medicine. He practices with his son, who is also a medical doctor and who is board-certified in internal medicine and in allergy and clinical immunology. Dr. Ahner is a medical doctor who practices in Jupiter, Florida. The only evidence of his qualifications is his certificate on a patient's application for registration as a pesticide-sensitive person. The certificate, dated February 16, 1993, has all of the language regarding board-certification crossed out. Rory P. Doyle is the name appearing on a certificate for Carol Arrighi's application for registration. Nothing on that certificate indicates whether R. Doyle is a physician. The signature appears beneath the printed statement described in paragraph 16, above. Dr. Klemsawesch is a medical doctor who is board-certified in internal medicine and in allergy and immunology. Dr. Chaim is an osteopathic physician practicing primarily in the areas of family practice and environmental medicine. She is board-certified under the ABMS in family practice. She is a member of several professional organizations, including the American Academy of Occupational and Environmental Medicine and the American Academy of Environmental Medicine. She is not board- certified in any areas other than family practice. Dr. Wubbena is a medical doctor practicing in Jacksonville, Florida. He is board-certified in pediatrics and in allergy and immunology and he practices primarily in the specialty of allergy. The only evidence of qualifications of Drs. Marraccini and Singer is what purports to be their signatures beneath the certificate statement on the DACS application form. Both indicate they are medical doctors. Dr. Singer's signature has the handwritten notation, "Board certified internal medicine only"; Dr. Marraccini's signature has the handwritten notation, "family practice 1989." (Department Exhibit #1) The Individual Applicants Cheryl Mansker's application for registration was certified by Dr. Robbins on March 24, 1993. According to the certificate, she is sensitive to the following: organophosphates, carbamates and pyrethrum. The certification states that notification of 1/2 mile radius is required. Ms. Mansker has been a patient of Dr. Robbins since 1987. He considers her one of the most highly allergic individuals he has seen in his practice. He attributes the onset of her sensitivity to an occasion when she was employed in a bank when, in the process of repairing an air conditioner, a worker ripped the lining of a fiberglass duct and sent fiberglass throughout the entire building. This occasion, according to Dr. Robbins, subjected the patient to mold, formaldehyde and fiberglass. He has no record of any incidents of pesticide exposure, but believes her extreme chemical sensitivity qualifies her as eligible for certification. Dr. Robbins concedes that the amount of dosage is a factor in deciding whether a person is going to react, and whether it is necessary to protect that person. Thomas Milo has been a patient of Dr. Robbins since at least 1986. The certification by Dr. Robbins states that this patient "becomes very ill when exposed to pesticides and other chemicals - Pt. has been advised to avoid exposure to any and all pesticides." (Department exhibit #1) Mr. Milo used to have a florist shop but had to let his son take over because he could not continue to be exposed to pesticides or the flowers in the shop. Although he is functioning better, he must avoid fragrance products, pesticides or automobile exhaust fumes. Generally, when Mr. Milo visited Dr. Robbins with a reaction, the patient gave an exposure history. Sometimes the physician surmised the reaction was to cumulative exposures. Dr. Robbins recalls only one outdoor exposure incident, when a lawn was sprayed, but has no notes to evidence the date or specifics, including distance. According to Dr. Robbins, Mr. Milo needs at least a quarter mile notice to protect his health. This distance is based on the history, apparently given to the doctor by Mr. Milo, that he had reactions to pesticides that affected his health within a quarter of a mile. Joyce Charney has been a patient of Dr. Robbins since approximately 1982. On his certification on her application he listed these classes of pesticides to which she is sensitive: "Organophosphates, chlorinated [sic] and pyrethrum." Someone else apparently added the words "pesticides" and "Dursban" to the certification form. Dr. Robbins has tested Ms. Charney extensively for her multiple severe allergies to pollen, dust and mold. He does not test for allergies to pesticides, but for this and other patients he relies on their history with regard to exposures. In his words: ...[G]enerally, when I fill out those forms I just - if a patient is very chemically sensitive and very allergic I put all classes. It is hard for me to determine which one of the -- If they have said they have had reactions when they go by lawns, or have been in someplace like a Home Depot and they get around the pesticide and they have reactions, or they were spraying with some- thing and have a reaction, it is hard to tell which ones. * * * So if they have had multiple exposures and multiple reactions I just put the full class. (Deposition of Albert Robbins, page 59-60) Dr. Robbins designated two blocks as the required notice distance for Ms. Charney based on her explanation to him that if she gets in the wind drift of a pesticide that has been sprayed, she gets a reaction. He also considered the fact that Ms. Charney and her husband own and live at a motel a few miles from the doctor's office. The motel is an "allergy-free" motel patronized by some of Dr. Robbins' patients who come from out of town and are very chemically sensitive and allergic. He feels that it is appropriate for these patients to have some protection against significant exposures to that motel. Carrietta Kelly was never a patient of Dr. Robbins and he never met her. He signed the certification on her application for registration as a pesticide-sensitive individual after she and her husband, a physician, called him. Her husband is a medical doctor in Naples, Florida, but not a physician qualified according to the DACS rules. Dr. and Mrs. Kelly sent Dr. Robbins a two-page letter describing her health history and describing the symptoms she experienced after her apartment was treated six years prior to the letter, and her condominium was sprayed with Cynoff and Orthane a year prior to the letter. Dr. Robbins classifies those products as fungicides. Based on the history he received from Dr. and Mrs. Kelly, Dr. Robbins identified on the certification form these groups to which she is sensitive: organophosphates, carbamates and pyrethrum; and he designated a 1/2 mile notification distance. Charlene McClure has been a patient of Dr. Robbins since July of 1993. Skin testing reveals that she is food sensitive, pollen sensitive, dust and mold sensitive; and she is sensitive to terpenes, which are the odors from flowering plants. When she comes to Dr. Robbins' office she is generally in a state of collapse. Because of the general sensitivities, Dr. Robbins certified on Ms. McClure's application that she is sensitive to three classes of pesticides: organophosphates, carbamates and pyrethrum. He further certified that she needs notification within a 1/2 mile radius. As part of the exposure history which Ms. McClure gave Dr. Robbins, she stated that in the summer of 1992 there was an aerial application of Decromal 14 mosquito spray over her house. She told him that as a result she suffered from severe headaches, exhaustion, nausea and stomach cramps. Dr. Robbins does not know whether droplets from the spray landed on his patient; he assumes that the Decromal is an organophosphate. The evidence does not establish that it is. Marilyn Friedman has been a patient of Dr. Robbins since 1989. He signed the certification on her application for registration and stated that she is sensitive to these specific pesticides or pesticide classes: organophosphates, carbamates and chlorinated pesticides. At his deposition he indicated that pyrethrums should also be on the list. As with his other patients, the list is based on her history of being severely allergic and chemically sensitive. Ms. Friedman's allergies include pollens, dust, mites, insects, molds, terpenes and foods. According to Dr. Robbins, she cannot tolerate someone coming in the office with a fabric softener on clothing. Dr. Robbins' determination that Ms. Friedman requires one block distance notification is based on his patient's request. His records, as he testified in deposition, do not document specific exposures and reactions but he believes that his certification probably resulted from her request to him and her desire to be protected. The application for Sally B. Platner, dated October 2, 1992, includes a certificate by Michael Waickman, M.D., the son and partner of Francis Waickman, M.D. The certificate includes this description of the pesticides or class of pesticides to which Ms. Platner is sensitive: Fungicides including "Twosome" Chem-lawn Fertilizer application liquid. (Department exhibit #1) There is some further notation, but the evidence fails to establish who made those notes. Dr. Francis Waickman treated Ms. Platner, and his son saw her in his absence. She had previously been treated and tested by Dr. Bill Rea in Texas and she was determined to have many allergies and sensitivities. Sometime in 1982, she was living in an apartment complex in Ohio and reported that she was exposed to some pesticide application by a company called Chem-lawn. Dr. Francis Waickman surmised she had both dermal and respiratory absorption since she developed a skin rash within two hours of the exposure. He is not certain what chemical was implicated, but he is confident that it was a pesticide because he has personally observed that company's practices in the area. Dr. Francis Waickman's regimen of treatment for Ms. Platner included one thousand milligrams of vitamin C hourly, until she improved or got a loose stool from too much vitamin C. The record does not establish whether this treatment was successful for Ms. Platner. The certification in 1992 was based on Ms. Platner's phone call to the Ohio doctors' office and her description of the exposure. Dr. Waickman believes she was exposed to the fungicide, "Twosome," when it was sprayed on a golf course across the street from her residence in Florida. He surmised that since she had angina and other problems with other chemical exposures, she was also sensitive to "Twosome" as a related chemical and through what he described as a "spreading phenomena." Jesse Naglich has been a patient of Dr. Klemsawesch since 1992. She is allergic to a multitude of medicines, has allergic rhinitis and asthma. Dr. Klemsawesch certified her application for registration on November 16, 1993, stating that she is sensitive to Diazinon and organophosphates. She requires two blocks' notice of any application of those substances. Dr. Klemsawesch's assessment of Ms. Naglich's condition and requirements is based on her history. She reported to the doctor that she had adverse reactions after exposure to various chemicals. Sandra Metzger is also a patient of Dr. Klemsawesch. He has treated this "very complex patient" since 1986. On his most recent certification on Ms. Metzger's application for registration, he notes that she is sensitive to "organophosphates, pyrethrins and petrochemical-based compounds." Her diagnosed condition for purposes of the registration is "respiratory allergies and chemical sensitivity," and she requires a two-block notice, according to her physician. Dr. Klemsawesch prefers the term "sensitivity" instead of "allergy" with regard to his patients' reactions, because there is no specific test to determine an allergy to pesticides. Ms. Metzger had to leave her employment because of her reactions to insecticides sprayed in her workplace. She was exposed in 1991 at the same time that her office was being painted. In order to have an adverse reaction, in Dr. Klemsawesch's view, the patient must actually receive a dermal or respiratory exposure, or contact with the mucus membranes of the mouth or eyes. Mere olfactory detection (smell) might be an unpleasant event, but an olfaction reaction is not an allergic or toxic reaction unless the substance is being absorbed into the mucus membranes. Dr. Paul Wubbena has treated Pia Valentine since 1987. She is currently ten years old and suffers from asthma and allergic rhinitis; and, according to Dr. Wubbena's certification dated December 29, 1993, she is sensitive to pyrethrums, Diazinon and Dursban. She had recurring problems when riding her bicycle to the grocery store with her mother, and when pesticides were being sprayed she would start wheezing and coughing and getting sick. Also, based on her history given to the physician, she reacted to pyrethrums in flying insect spray. Dr. Wubbena based his conclusions regarding the specific chemicals on the history given to him by his patient and her mother and on his knowledge that Dursban and Diazinon are commonly used for lawn spraying. Miss Valentine has been tested for reactions to pollens and molds and is allergic to things of that type. Her allergic reactions are similar to her reactions in the presence of the specific pesticides listed by Dr. Wubbena. Jeanne Pellegrino has been treated by Dr. Hana Chaim for multiple chemical sensitivity and pesticide sensitivity since July of 1992. Dr. Chaim signed the certificate on Ms. Pellegrino's application for registration on June 2, 1993, indicating that she is sensitive to "organophosphates, pyrethrums, cypermethrin, especially Dursban" and that she needs 1/2 mile distance notification of application of those pesticides. The determination of what chemicals to put on the certificate was based on discussion with the patient, whom Dr. Chaim understood had established the specific pesticides she had been exposed to in the past. The distance determination was based on Dr. Chaim's understanding that sprays can go from a 900 to 1500-mile radius and the 1/2 mile notice is the maximum required by law. Although she suspected organophosphates were involved in Ms. Pellegrino's first exposure between April and June of 1993, this was not confirmed. Within the files of DACS for Kathryn Kaeding are two physician's certifications, dated February 16, 1993 and June 12, 1992, by Dr. Ahner. On the forms it is noted that she is sensitive to "Hydrocarbons, all pesticides, chlorinated compounds." Her diagnosed condition is "allergy - hypersensitivity - immune dysfunction." There is no other evidence in the record, from the individual or her physician, regarding Ms. Kaeding's condition or eligibility for registration. Nor is there any evidence, other than her application, regarding the eligibility of Carol Arrighi. From the form in the record it is impossible to determine whether the individual or her physician completed the application, or whether the signature on the certification is that of a physician. The certification for Kayleigh Marie Nunez is signed by Dr. Chaim. It states that she is sensitive to "organophosphates, all pesticides and herbicides, one-half mile limit requested." The certification for Estelle Greene, dated July 2, 1993, is signed by Linda Marraccini, M.D. The class of pesticides to which the individual is sensitive is noted as "All." Dr. Robbins appears to have signed certifications for Betty Jane Napier and for Susan and Donald Maxwell (both Maxwells are included on a single application form). The notation typed on Ms. Napier's form states: "Known to react to ethylene oxide." The pesticides or class of pesticides listed on Mr. and Mrs. Maxwell's form are "organophosphates, organochlorines, pyrethroids." The certification by Dr. Chaim on Barbara Rauker's application states that she is sensitive to "all classes of pesticides." The certification by Caren B. Singer, M.D. on Judith Lessne's application states that she is sensitive to "Pesticides in general, Petroleum based products." Pesticide Industry Practice A reliable pest control operator will determine the nature and extent of a problem before attempting a treatment. The operator must consider the surroundings of the area to be treated and the environmental factors such as rain, wind and sun. Treatment is tailored to reduce drift, which not only can cause harm but also causes needless expense due to waste. Good industry practice includes training technicians and carefully following the manufacturer's instructions regarding the most safe and effective use of the product. While careful use can control drift, unexpected wind gusts can disperse the product beyond its target, and even Petitioners' expert concedes that a post-application vapor of pesticide could drift for a half mile. Pesticide Sensitivity According to the Department's expert, Dr. Teaf, pesticide sensitivity by definition relates only to the substance that was the subject of an initial exposure and subsequent exposure that causes a reaction in an individual. The medical and toxicological link for pesticide sensitivity is much tighter than for the condition referred to as "multiple chemical sensitivities" or "MCS". There is no generally accepted definition in the scientific community of what constitutes pesticide sensitivity and there is no simple blood test to establish pesticide sensitivity. While there is commonly a psychological or psychogenic factor in pesticide sensitivity just as there is with other health conditions like heart problems, pesticide sensitivity is not solely a psychogenic or psychological condition. Pesticide sensitivity can be reasonably determined, even through the mechanism by which an individual acquires that condition is not clearly understood. A reaction to a specific chemical or pesticide class can be documented and quantified by a physical change in the body. Exposure histories are significant so long as the pesticide or pesticide class is identified. However, exposure histories alone are insufficient unless other causes are reasonably ruled out. Specifically, many individuals in the cases here were determined to be sensitive to many different agents: molds and pollens, food, animals, petroleum products and perfumes. It is impossible to deduce that an individual's symptoms are caused by exposure to one, rather than another agent, unless there is some process of elimination or isolation of the suspect agent. Summary of Findings Evidence of the process for diagnosis for the individual respondents in this proceeding is meager. Not one individual applicant testified, and only eleven applicants were addressed through the deposition testimony of their certifying physicians. Not one of the certifying physicians could testify that he or she actually followed the guidelines provided by the department, which guidelines, although non-binding, are accepted by experts for both sides of the dispute as important to good diagnosis. Dr. Klemsawesch, a very credible and competent witness and specialist in allergy and immunology, conceded that in order to respond to questions regarding the connection between exposures to pesticides and subsequent reactions, from a scientific point of view, you would need to test people by exposures in a controlled fashion and determine their physiological response. For Dr. Klemsawesch's patients, Ms. Naglich and Ms. Metzger, the specific events reported to him stood out beyond the background of their other common allergies to lead him to his conclusion that the chemicals he listed on their certificates were having an effect. That conclusion falls short of the finding required by law for the extra distance notice. Dr. Klemsawesch's conclusion, like that of the other certifying physicians, was based primarily on the individual's history. While that is an appropriate and accepted method of diagnosis, the histories described in the record of this proceeding are wholly lacking in the detail necessary for the determination required by law. No individual in the multiple cases consolidated presented adequate proof of the need for notification at greater distance than that specified for pesticide-sensitive persons.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the agency enter its final order denying the petition in Case #94-3237 (Carol Ann Rodriguez) as moot (see preliminary statement); and granting the remaining petitions by denying the applications for designation as "especially pesticide-sensitive." RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 31st day of May, 1995. MARY W. CLARK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 1995. APPENDIX A INDIVIDUAL CERTIFYING DOAH CASE# RESPONDENT PHYSICIAN 94-2801 Cheryl Mansker Robbins 94-2802 Sally Platner Waickman 94-2803 Thomas Milo Robbins 94-2805 Kathryn Kaeding Ahner 94-2852 Carol Arrighi Doyle 94-2853 Jessie Naglich Klemsawesch 94-2855 Joyce Charney Robbins 94-2858 Carietta Kelly Robbins 94-2859 Kayleigh Nunez Chaim 94-2862 Pia Valentine Wubbena 94-2864 Sandra Metzger Klemsawesch 94-2865 Charlene McClure Robbins 94-2866 Estelle Greene Marraccini 94-2867 Jeanne Pellegrino Chaim 94-2869 Marilyn Friedman Robbins 94-2871 Betty Jane Napier Robbins 94-2872 Susan Maxwell Robbins 94-3235 Carietta Kelly (see 94-2858) 94-3236 Susan Maxwell (see 94-2872) 94-3237 Carol Ann Rodriguez (moot) 94-4243 Barbara Rauker Chaim 94-6376 Judith Lessne Singer APPENDIX B The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Florida Pest Control Association, Inc. Adopted, or adopted in substance or in summary form: #1-7, 11-18, 22-28, 38, 41, 48-49, 62-82, 88-90, 93-105, 107-109, 115-121, 124-126, 129-133, 137, 140-147, 158. Accepted, but not incorporated, as unnecessary or immaterial: #8-10, 19- 21, 29-37, 39-40, 42-47, 50-61, 83-87, 91, 106, 110-114, 122-123, 127-128, 134- 136, 138-139, 148-157. Rejected, as inconsistent with or unsupported by the weight of evidence: #92. Certified Operators of Southwest Florida, Inc., Lan-Mac Pest Control-Englewood,Inc. Lan-Mac Pest Control-Ft. Myers, Inc. Adopted, or adopted in substance or in summary form: #1-5, 8-11, 13-15, 18-22, 24-25. Rejected, as inconsistent with, or unsupported by the weight of evidence: #27. (The remaining numbered paragraphs are designated as conclusions of law.) The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Adopted, or adopted in substance or in summary form: #1-4, first sentence of #5, 6, 8-10. Accepted, but not incorporated, as unnecessary or immaterial: #7. Rejected, as inconsistent with or unsupported by the weight of evidence: Second sentence of #5. Individual Respondents Adopted, or adopted in substance or in summary form: #2-7, 10, 12-14, 22, 24-33, 40, 42, 47-56, 58-63, 66, 69-71, 80, 82-86, 90-95, 101, 106-109, 111-113. Accepted, but not incorporated, as unnecessary or immaterial: #8-9, 11, 15-21, 23, 34-38 [the issue is not the patient's sensitivity, but the extra distance notice requirement], 43, 46, 67 (not the required Board), 68, 72, 74- 77, 81, 88, 98, 99, 100, 115. Rejected, as inconsistent with or unsupported by the weight of evidence: #1, 39, 41, 44-45, 57, 64, 65, 73, 78-79, 87, 89, 96-97, 102-105, 110, 114, 116- 117. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler General Counsel The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Robert G. Worley, Esquire Dept. of Agriculture & Consumer Services 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Jonathan A. Glogau, Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol, PL-01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Lance McKinney, Esquire O. Box 88 Cape Coral, Florida 33910-0088 Howard J. Hochman, Esquire 1320 S. Dixie Highway Suite 1180 Coral Gables, Florida 33146
Findings Of Fact Respondent Turner is engaged in the business of pest control, including the application of termiticide to the soil of pre-construction sites for the prevention of subterranean termites. Respondent is licensed by the Petitioner under Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, as a pest control business and maintains its primary place of business in Jacksonville, Florida. Respondent Kincade is employed by Turner as a pesticide applicator technician. The Petitioner is the state agency with jurisdiction to regulate and license pest control businesses and technicians. On June 12, 1993, Mr. Phil Helseth and Mr. Montgomery, employees of the Petitioner, were returning from lunch and observed one of Respondent Turner's trucks turning onto the Blodgett construction area in Jacksonville, Florida. Helseth surmised the Respondent's truck was there to do a pretreatment for termites. Helseth then observed activities by a Turner Pest employee, later identified as Mr. Kincade, who was spraying a substance on the soil on foundation areas at sites one and two. Mr. Helseth concluded the Respondent's agent was engaged in termite pretreatment. When the Turner employer concluded his activities, he drove his truck to the construction trailer on the building site where he was confronted by Mr. Helseth and Mr. Montgomery. At that time a third employee of the Department, Mr. Parker, had arrived, bringing calibration equipment to measure the rate of discharge from the Turner Pest pumper truck. Petitioner's inspectors introduced themselves to Kincade and identified themselves. Petitioner's representative requested Kincade to produce the identification card issued to him by Petitioner. Mr. Kincade did not do so. Petitioner's representative asked Kincade questions about what he was doing, and Kincade demurred, stating it was Turner's policy for him to call a supervisor who would answer their questions. Kincade called his office, and shortly thereafter Joe Turner arrived on site. The spraying equipment utilized by Kincade was then calibrated to determine the amount of pesticide mixture being emitted. Joe Turner, President of Turner Pest Control, Inc., denied that they were performing a pre-construction treatment for termites. Mr. Turner testified that the purpose of spraying the Dursban 2E on the site in question was to empty the tank and that this was proper disposal of the chemical in accordance with the label instructions. A local pest control operator testifying for Respondents stated that the disposal of the pesticide Dursban 2E in this manner was perfectly in accordance with the label and that he has emptied tanks of Dursban 2E on construction sites twenty to thirty times in the last two or three years. Petitioner did not offer any testimony that this method of disposal was contrary to the label. Petitioner concluded that Turner Pest was conducting a termite pretreatment, although informed by Joe Turner at the time such was not the case, and filed the initial Administrative complaint. The Blodgett site contractor's job superintendent, Joe Wilson, testified. Sites prepared for construction at Blodgett Homes would receive termite pretreatment and pest control. Joe Turner had consulted with Wilson about spraying the Dursban 2E to dispose of the chemical. The job superintendent knew the operator, Kincade, was not performing a pretreatment for termites. Dursban 2E is a general insecticide. It, according to its label, can be used in a variety of concentrations, for a variety of insects, but termites are not one of those insects. Disposal, according to the labels, is by spraying the chemical on soil such as to lawn or a building site.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services dismiss the charges against Turner Pest Control, Inc. and impose an administrative fine in the amount of $100.00 against Respondent, William D. Kincade. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of April, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 14th day of April, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 93-6624 Both parties filed Proposed Recommended Orders which were read and considered. The following states which of these proposed findings were adopted and which were rejected and why. Petitioner's PFOF: Paragraph 1 and 2 Adopted. Paragraph 3 True, but irrelevant. Paragraph 4 Respondent's paragraph 3 et seq. better states the facts. Last part adopted as paragraph 5. Paragraph 5 Adopted RO paragraph 5. Paragraph 6 Adopted RO paragraph 6. Paragraph 7 Adopted RO paragraph 7. Paragraph 8 Rejected as argument. Paragraph 9 Contrary to better evidence. Mr. Helseth conclusions were based upon his conclusion that Dursban 2E was being used as a termite pre- treatment, not being disposed of. Paragraphs 10, 11 RO paragraph 8. Last sentence is rejected because it was accepted that use and disposal was controlled by the instructions on the label. The label indicates disposal by spraying on soil was appropriate. Respondent's PFOF: Paragraph 1 RO paragraph 3. Paragraph 2 RO paragraph 4 and RO paragraph 9. Paragraph 3 Irrelevant. Paragraph 4 Restated in RO paragraph 5 and 6. Paragraph 5 RO paragraph 11. Paragraph 6 RO paragraph 11. Paragraph 7 RO paragraph 12. COPIES FURNISHED: Bob Crawford, Commissioner Department of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, Esquire Department of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Robert G. Worley, Esquire Department of Agriculture Room 515, Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 William G. Cooper, Esquire COOKER MYERS 136 East Bay Street Post Office Box 1860 Jacksonville, FL 32201
The Issue The issue in this case is whether an application for a pest control employee-identification card filed by Respondent, Larry Kravitsky, with Petitioner, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, should be denied for the reasons stated in Administrative Complaint # A61227, BEPC Case # 09-0850.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Bureau of Entomology and Pest Control (hereinafter referred to as the “Department”), is charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the provisions of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, the “Structural Pest Control Act.” Among other duties, the Department is responsible for issuing pest control employee-identification cards. On or about February 13, 2007, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint and Settlement Agreement, Notice to Cease and Desist, BEPC Case Number 06-1951, Administrative Complaint Number A47018, against Larry Kravitsky (hereinafter referred to as the “Disciplinary Administrative Complaint”). It is alleged in Count 1 of the Disciplinary Administrative Complaint that Mr. Kravitsky committed a violation of Section 482.165(1), Florida Statutes (2006), by “practicing pest control in the State of Florida without a Pest Control Business License . . . .” In Count 2 it is alleged that Mr. Kravitsky violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 5E- 14.106(1) by “[a]pplying a pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its labeling ” On or about February 28, 2007, Mr. Kravitsky disputed the facts upon which the Disciplinary Administrative Complaint is based and requested a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Sections 120.569, and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. On December 4, 2007, the matter was filed by the Department with the Division of Administrative Hearings requesting that an administrative law judge be assigned to conduct the formal hearing requested by Mr. Kravitsky. The matter was designated DOAH Case No. 07-5600PL and was assigned to the undersigned. An evidentiary hearing was held in DOAH Case No. 07- 5600PL on December 18, 2008. On June 2, 2009, a Recommended Order was entered in DOAH Case No. 07-5600PL. The Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and recommendation in that case are hereby incorporated by reference into this Recommended Order. In the Recommended Order Mr. Kravitsky was found to have violated Section 482.165, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 5E- 14.106(6), as alleged in the Disciplinary Administrative Complaint. On July 14, 2009, a Final Order was entered by the Department in the disciplinary Administrative Complaint case. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth in the Recommended Order were adopted “in their entirety” and Mr. Kravitsky was ordered to pay a fine of $4,000.00. On or about January 6, 2009, subsequent to the issuance of Disciplinary Administrative Complaint and prior to the entry of the Recommended Order in DOAH Case No. 07-5600PL, Mr. Kravitsky applied with the Department for a pest control employee-identification card. By Administrative Complaint # A61227, BEPC Case # 09- 0850, the Department notified Mr. Kravitsky that his January 6, 2009, application for a pest control employee-identification card was being denied based upon the following: A copy of an Administrative Complaint and Settlement Agreement against Larry Kravitsky dated February 13, 2007, Administrative Complaint Number A47018, BEPC Case Number 06-1951 is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The factual allegations against Mr. Kravitsky in Exhibit A are incorporated by reference herein. Based on the factual allegations in Exhibit A, Larry Kravitsky practiced pest control on or about June 5, 2006, in the State of Florida without a pest control business license and without an identification card in violation of Section 482.165(1), Florida Statutes. Based on the factual allegations in Exhibit A, Larry Kravitsky applied a pesticide on or about June 5, 2006, in a manner inconsistent with its labeling in violation of Section 5E-14.106(1), Florida Administrative Code. The Department is authorized by Florida Statutes, Section 482.161(1)(a) to deny the application for licensure of an identification cardholder for the violation of any provision of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes or of any rule adopted by the Department pursuant to Chapter 482, Florida Statutes. The alleged violations against Larry Kravitsky set forth in Exhibit A were tried in an administrative hearing on December 8, 2008, before Honorable Larry Sartin Administrative Law Judge in Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) Case Number 07-5600. A Recommended Order has not yet been issued in that case. Mr. Kravitsky disputed the foregoing allegations and requested a formal administrative hearing. His request was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings and designed DOAH Case No. 09-2300.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services denying the application for a pest control employee-identification card filed by Larry Kravitsky due to his violation of Section 482.165, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 5E-14.106(6), as alleged in the Disciplinary Administrative Complaint and found in DOAH Case No. 07-5600PL. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of August, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of August, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: David W. Young, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Suite 520 407 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Larry Kravitsky 3300 South Ocean Boulevard, Apartment 917 Highland Beach, Florida 33487 Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Suite 520 407 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Honorable Charles H. Bronson Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
The Issue Whether Respondent, Elite Inspectors, LLC, d/b/a EliteInspectors.com, engaged in the unlicensed practice of pest control, in violation of sections 482.071, 482.161, and 482.165, Florida Statutes (2015)1/; whether Respondents, Tamer Kekec and Stephen Franco, engaged in pest control services in violation of sections 482.071, 482.165, and 482.191; and, if so, what penalties should be imposed against Respondents.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Petitioner or Department), is the state agency charged with administering the Structural Pest Control Act, chapter 482, Florida Statutes (the Act). Respondent, Elite Inspectors, LLC, d/b/a EliteInspectors.com (Elite), is a Florida Limited Liability Company, whose principal place of business is 9951 Atlantic Avenue in Jacksonville, Florida. Elite is a residential structural inspection company offering home inspections in northeast Florida and southeast Georgia. Elite has never been licensed by the Department to engage in the business of pest control, pursuant to section 482.071. Respondents, Tamar Kekec and Stephen Franco (the Individual Respondents), are the managers, and only members, of Elite, which was formed in 2004. Pest Control Activities Petitioner is authorized to issue licenses to qualified businesses to engage in the business of pest control in this state. See § 482.071(1), Fla. Stat. Petitioner is likewise authorized to issue employee identification cards to persons employed by licensees to perform pest control services. See § 482.091, Fla. Stat. It is unlawful for any person, partnership, firm, corporation, or other business entity to engage in the unlicensed practice of pest control as that term is defined in section 482.021(22). See § 482.165(1), Fla. Stat. "Pest control" is broadly defined in section 482.021(22) to include: (b) The identification of or inspection for infestations or infections in, on, or under a structure, lawn, or ornamental; * * * (e) The advertisement of, the solicitation of, or the acceptance of remuneration for any work described in this subsection, but does not include the solicitation of a bid from a licensee to be incorporated in an overall bid by an unlicensed primary contractor to supply services to another. Thus, both the conduct of wood-destroying organism (WDO) inspections, and advertising for the conduct of WDO inspections, are “pest control” activities regulated by the Act. Section 482.191(1) makes unlawful the advertisement of pest control services except as authorized under chapter 482. Absent limited circumstances not applicable here, persons or entities engaging in such advertisement must be licensed by Petitioner to practice pest control. Petitioner is further authorized to take disciplinary action against licensees and identification cardholders, pursuant to section 482.161, and to issue fines against persons who engage in the unlicensed practice of pest control, pursuant to section 482.165. WDO Inspections by Elite Prior to April 10, 2014 Between January 3 and April 10, 2014, Elite, through its member Mr. Franco, performed 99 WDO inspections, in addition to residential structural inspections, for its customers. During that timeframe, Elite billed its customers $6,850.00 for WDO inspections performed by Mr. Franco. During that same timeframe, Mr. Kekec performed 49 WDO inspections, in addition to residential structural inspections for Elite customers, billing them a total of $6,290.00. All customer payments for WDO inspections conducted by the Individual Respondents were deposited into Elite’s business banking account with BBVA Compass Bank. DL and the Individual Respondents Florida Quality Services, Inc., d/b/a DL (DL), is a Florida corporation licensed to engage in the business of pest control, and whose business address is 7008 Bayard Road, Ft. Pierce, Florida. William R. Miles is DL’s president and holds a pest control operator’s certificate, pursuant to section 482.111. In the language of the licensing statute, Mr. Miles is the Certified Operator in Charge (COIC) at DL. Every employee who performs pest control for a licensee must have an identification card. See § 482.091(1)(a), Fla. Stat. On April 5, 2014, Mr. Miles applied to Respondent for pest control employee identification cards for Respondents Kekec and Franco. In the application, Mr. Miles stated that the Individual Respondents would begin conducting WDO inspections for DL on April 22, 2014. The Individual Respondents signed a portion of the application certifying that they were not “currently employed by any other pest control licensee.” They also certified that they were previously employed by another unnamed licensee with a termination date of April 21, 2014. Mr. Kekec was “employed” by a number of pest control companies concurrent with his operation and management of Elite, including FK Pest Control from January to March 2014, DL Pest Control from June 2011 to December 2013, CS Pest Control from April 2009 to May 2011, TI Pest Control for an unspecified period, and A1 Pest Control from May 2005 to October 2006. Curiously, all these companies had the same business address as DL--7008 Bayard Road, Ft. Pierce, Florida.2/ The Individual Respondents were issued pest control employee-identification cards by the Department on April 10, 2014, identifying them as employees of DL. In August 2014, DL applied to renew its license for the 2014-2015 license year, listing the Individual Respondents as employees to be issued identification cards as WDO inspectors for DL. DL and Respondent Elite Following issuance of employee-identification cards to the Individual Respondents, Elite continued to conduct WDO inspections, as well as residential inspections, for its clients, and bill those clients for WDO inspections. All payments received by Elite from its customers for whom it conducted WDO inspections were deposited into Elite’s business bank account. Between January 3 and December 31, 2014, Elite conducted over 300 WDO inspections for its customers, billing them in excess of $48,000 for said inspections. Elite continued to conduct WDO inspections for its customers, bill its customers for those WDO inspections, and accept payment for those WDO inspections, in 2015 as it had in 2014. Elite obtained customers through its website, and through referrals from both previous customers and real estate agents. Elite’s customers scheduled their home and WDO inspections directly with Elite through Mr. Kekec or Mr. Franco. Elite set the price per inspection based upon the size, age, and the type of construction of the customer’s property. Elite provided the ladders, flashlights, screwdrivers, extension probes, and, with the exception of a short period in 2015, the vehicle, used by the Individual Respondents to conduct WDO inspections. When Elite did not provide the vehicle for a brief period in 2015, Elite used a vehicle personally owned by Mr. Kekec. Elite also paid the fuel cost to travel to and from inspections of customer properties, which is Elite’s only operating expense. After issuance of employee-identification cards to the Individual Respondents, Elite entered into an arrangement with DL by which Elite would pay DL $38 for each WDO inspection conducted by the Individual Respondents. In turn, DL paid the Individual Respondents $10 for each WDO inspection they conducted. For the 2014 tax year, DL paid Mr. Kekec $1,160 and issued him a W-2 wage and tax statement. That same year, DL paid Mr. Franco $1,130 and issued him a W-2 wage and tax statement. For each WDO inspection conducted, the Individual Respondents prepared and signed a WDO inspection report on a form required by the state. Each inspection report listed DL as the inspection company. Each report was reviewed by Mr. Miles after-the-fact in his office in Ft. Pierce. Mr. Miles testified that he provided constructive criticism via email once a month to his WDO inspectors regarding completion of the reports. However, if an inspector had completed inspection reports for three consecutive months, Mr. Miles suspended monthly review of their reports and only conducted “spot checks.” Respondents introduced no document to evince review and criticism of any report completed by either Mr. Kekec or Mr. Franco. Whether DL provided ongoing training in WDO inspections to the Individual Respondents was a contested issue at hearing. Respondents attempted to introduce a composite exhibit consisting of two manuals, two posters of termites, and a “flip-book” produced by University of Florida. When asked whether DL provided the manuals to Mr. Kekec, he testified, “[W]ell, the last version of the manuals, I believe it was provided in 2013, but I think there was four or five different versions of it. It’s been updated over the years.” The evidence was not clear whether DL provided the manuals to the Individual Respondents or they were obtained by other means. Even if the manuals were provided by DL to the Individual Respondents, there is insufficient evidence to find that DL provided any ongoing relevant training to the Individual Respondents. The parties stipulated that the Individual Respondents met the training requirements to qualify to be identification cardholders. The only equipment issued to the Individual Respondents by DL for their use in conducting WDO inspections was a magnifying glass. Elite Website During all times relevant hereto, Elite maintained a website whose address was www.eliteinspectors.com. Elite noted “WDO Inspections” as one of its services and areas of expertise. Under “About Us” on its website, Elite stated, “In addition to home inspections, we do . . . wood destroying organism (termite) inspections (performed by DL employees).” With regard to WDO inspections, the website included the following: Our inspectors are State Certified WDO inspectors with several years of experience and meet all of the Florida continuing education requirements. We perform the WDO inspection while performing the home inspection so one additional step can be eliminated, which saves time and money. WDO inspections are performed by DL employees. In the “Inspector Biographies” section, the website reported that Mr. Franco was a “Certified Pest Operator- Termite” and that Mr. Kekec was “a licensed WDO inspector under DL pest services.” At final hearing, Mr. Kekec was unable to identify any reason why Elite would want to identify Mr. Franco to its customers as a licensed pest control operator. The website did not identify what DL was or its relationship with either Elite or its managers, Mr. Franco and Mr. Kekec.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order finding: Respondents, Elite Inspectors, LLC, d/b/a EliteInspectors.com, Tamer Kekec, and Stephen Franco, violated sections 482.071(1) and 482.165(1), by engaging in the business of pest control in 2014 and 2015 without a license from the Department, and impose an administrative fine of $4,500 against the Respondents, jointly; Respondent, Elite Inspectors, LLC, d/b/a EliteInspectors.com violated section 482.161(1)(h), by engaging in misleading advertising relating to pest control, and issue a warning letter thereto; and, Respondents, Tamer Kekec and Stephen Franco, violated section 482.091(2)(a), by conducting WDO inspections in 2014 and 2015 as independent contractors to DL, and revoking the Individual Respondents’ identification cards, pursuant to section 482.161. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 22nd day of March, 2016.
The Issue Whether or not the Respondent, James D. Cooley, unlawfully operated a pest control business that is not licensed by the Petitioner, in violation of Section 482.071, F.S. Whether or not the Respondent, James D. Cooley, was in charge of the performance of pest control activities of a category by a licensee who was not properly certified, in violation of Section 482.111(4), F.S. Whether or not the Respondent, James D. Cooley, performed pest control without a current valid identification card, in violation of Section 482.091, F.S. Whether or not the Respondent, James D. Cooley, unlawfully solicited, practiced, performed or advertised for pest control in a fashion not provided by Chapter 482, F.S., in violation of Section 482.191, F.S. Whether or not the Respondent, James D. Cooley, was guilty of fraudulent or misleading advertising or advertising in an unauthorized category, in violation of Section 482.161(8), F.S.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, James D. Cooley, is the holder of pest control operator's certificate no. 2236 held with the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. This category of pest control operator's certificate qualifies the Respondent to perform treatment on termites and wood-infesting organisms. The thrust of this action by the Petitioner pertains to its stated intent to suspend the aforementioned pest control operator's certificate held by the Respondent for a period of six (6) months, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 482, F.S. It has as an aspect of the contention the failure of the Respondent to make a timely renewal of the pest control operator's certificate. The basis of the action by the Petitioner is premised upon a letter of August 8th, 1977, addressed to the Respondent, apprising him of the factual allegations and statutory references upon which its action is predicated. A copy of that letter is attached and made a part of the record herein. The facts reveal that the Respondent, James D. Cooley, entered into an agreement with the proprietors of the "Romp and Tromp Day Care Center" located at 143 State Road 13, St. Johns County, Florida, for purposes of spraying for roaches. At that time, James D. Cooley was operating under the name "Tropical Pest Control", located at 355 Monument Road, Jacksonville, Florida. He identified himself in the form of a business card, which is Petitioner's Exhibit 3 admitted into evidence, as a termite control and complete pest control service. Cooley did, in fact, spray the "Romp and Tromp Day Care Center" for the extermination of roaches. The sprayings took place in April and May, 1977. The substance being sprayed had a peculiar odor which the witnesses, Alice E. Stock and Ellen Perry Church indicated seemed like household bug spray. They also indicated that they noticed a resulting improvement with the roach problem after spraying. James D. Cooley, under the guise of "Tropical Pest Control", also sprayed the residence of Ellen Perry Church, which is at 1975 State Road 13, St. Johns County, Florida. He sprayed this premises for roaches and ants. Again the substance had an odor which was similar to retail bug spray. The ant and roach problem did not go away in her home. In both instances, when dealing with the proprietors of the "Romp and Tromp Day Care Center" and the residence of Ellen Perry Church, James D. Cooley had identified himself as the owner of "Tropical Pest Control" and a person qualified to perform complete pest control services. In fact, James D. Cooley was not qualified to perform general household pest control, which is the category of treatment he was performing in spraying for roaches and ants. By that, it is meant that James D. Cooley at the time he performed the functions for the proprietors of the "Romp and Tromp Day Care Center" and the residence of Ellen Perry church, was not the holder of a certified operator's certificate in the category of general household pest control, as contemplated by Chapter 482, F.S. Moreover, the company he was operating under, to wit "Tropical Pest Control", was not licensed with the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and no identification card was on file for James D. Cooley as an employee of "Tropical Pest Control". The only document on record pertaining to James D. Cooley was one pertaining to his certified operator's certificate for termites and other wood-infesting organisms, license no. 2236, which at the time of the investigation of Mr. Cooley's activities was due for renewal in accordance with the terms of Section 482.071, F.S. By his actions in dealing with the premises known as "Romp and Tromp Day Care Center" and the residence of Ellen Perry Church, the Respondent in performing these tasks as "Tropical Pest Control" was unlawfully operating a pest control business that was not licensed by the Petitioner, in violation of Section 482.071, F.S. Cooley was also in charge of the performance of pest control activities of a category in which he was not properly certified, namely general household pest control, thereby violating Section 482.111(4), F.S. In addition, James D. Cooley failed to have a valid pest control identification card as an employee of "Tropical Pest Control", because "Tropical Pest Control" was not licensed and no employee for that organization could have an identification card, thus caused a violation of Section 482.091, F.S. By his activities in dealing with the two permises, the Respondent was unlawfully soliciting, practicing, performing or advertising in pest control in a fashion that was not authorized by Chapter 482, F.S., in violation of Section 482.191(1), F.S. Finally, James D. Cooley, by holding himself out to be a certified operator in general household pest control, was guilty of fraudulent or misleading advertising or advertising in an unauthorized category, in violation of Section 482.161(8), F.S. For these violations, set forth above, sufficient grounds have been established for the Petitioner to suspend, revoke or stop the issuance or renewal of any certificate or identification card, under authority of Section 482.161, F.S. The Petitioner has taken action to bring about a suspension of certified pest control operator's license no. 2236, in keeping with the provisions of Section 482.171, F.S., and is warranted in suspending, revoking or stopping the issuance or renewal of any certificate or identification card.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED That the Respondent, James D. Cooley, have his pest control operator's certificate no. 2236, for performing pest control in the category of termite and wood-infesting organisms, suspended for a period of six months, after which time he shall be entitled to renew his certified operator's certificate in the stated category, upon the payment of fees contemplated by Section 482.111, F. S. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Robert M. Eisenberg, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 5920 Arlington Expressway Jacksonville, Florida Paul M. Harden, Esquire 2601 Gulf Life Tower Jacksonville, Florida 32207 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has a degree in pest control technology. On June 18, 1981, Respondent renewed Petitioner's Pest Control operator's Certificate No. 2303 until June 1, 1982, in the categories of general household pests and rodent control, termite and other wood-destroying organism control, and lawn and ornamental pest control. On May 6, 1982, Petitioner filed his annual Application for Renewal of his certificate in the same categories. On that application, Petitioner answered "yes" to the question: "Have you been convicted by any court of a felony or of a crime involving moral turpitude within the past year?" and he answered "no" to the question: "[H]ave your civil rights been restored?" By letter dated June 15, 1982, Respondent denied Petitioner's Application for Renewal based upon Petitioner's answers to those questions, and Petitioner timely requested a formal hearing on that denial. On December 16, 1982, Respondent wrote to the Division of Administrative Hearings advising that a Hearing Officer had not yet been assigned to hear this matter and attaching only a copy of a July 6, 1982, letter from Respondent requesting the Division to conduct a formal hearing in this cause. Since the July 6 letter had never been received by the Division of Administrative Hearings, and since the December 16 letter failed to transmit Petitioner's request for hearing or any other pleadings or papers setting forth the substance of the cause, the Staff Assistant of the Division telephoned Mrs. Cheryl Ganley of Respondent's Clerk's Office on December 23, 1982, and requested the documents required to open a case before the Division of Administrative Hearings. That telephonic request was followed up with a letter to Mrs. Ganley on January 4, 1983. No response to either the telephonic or written inquiry was made by Respondent until March 24, 1983, when Respondent again wrote to the Division of Administrative Hearings asking why the matter was not scheduled for hearing and attaching only a copy of its December 16, 1982, letter. On March 31, 1983, the Director of the Division wrote Respondent outlining the chronology of the letters to and from Respondent and again advising Respondent that the case could not be heard until Respondent transmitted the pleadings required to open a case file. On April 11, 1983, Respondent finally did so. Petitioner relies upon his licensure by Respondent as a Certified Pest Control Operator for his livelihood and has no other training or means for earning a living. Other than Petitioner's testimony that his involvement in the incident was minimal, the only evidence introduced regarding the circumstances surrounding his arrest and conviction is a letter from Petitioner's Probation Officer, which letter constitutes uncorroborated hearsay and, therefore, cannot support a finding of fact. Petitioner's probation should be terminated in approximately six months, at which time he will be able to seek restoration of his civil rights. He anticipates no problem in having his civil rights restored. At the formal hearing in this cause, the parties stipulated that the only bar to renewal of Petitioner's licensure is his conviction of a felony or of a crime involving moral turpitude without his civil rights being restored.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered approving Petitioner's Application for Renewal of his Pest Control Operator's Certificate No. 2303 for the annual period commencing June 1, 1983. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 17th day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold L. Braynon, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 201 West Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Mr. Christopher M. Hagerty 1141 South West Sixth Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33315 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Petitioners seek attorney's fees and costs from Respondent, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. The parties have stipulated that Petitioners are "small business parties" under that section, and that the fees and costs being sought are "reasonable." The issues remaining for disposition, therefore, are: Whether Petitioners "prevailed" in all four underlying cases, including the two that were settled prior to final hearing; Whether the Department "initiated" the procedures, or was merely a "nominal party"; Whether the Department had a "reasonable basis in law and fact" at the time that it initiated the proceedings; Whether special circumstances exist which would make an award unjust; and Whether the statutory $15,000 cap should be applied collectively or separately to the four underlying cases.
Findings Of Fact (The facts are substantially uncontroverted and the facts established in the underlying cases nos. 94-2801, et al are incorporated by reference. The following facts are recounted to establish a background for the contested issues of law.) As stipulated, the Petitioners are small business parties within the meaning of Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. They are Florida corporations, with their principal offices in Florida, with less than 25 full-time employees and net worth of less than $2 million. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (department) is the state agency responsible for administering and maintaining the pesticide- sensitive and especially pesticide-sensitive person registries as provided in Section 482.2265(3), Florida Statutes (1993). Carol Ann Rodriguez, Jacqueline V. Dilworth, Susan L. Maxwell and Carrietta Kelly are four individuals, among approximately twenty-seven individuals, who applied to the department for designation as "especially pesticide-sensitive" pursuant to subsection 482.2265(3), Florida Statutes, (1993). The pesticide-sensitive and especially pesticide-sensitive registries are described in the department's final order entered August 4, 1995, adopting all but two findings of fact in the Hearing Officer's recommended order in Case No. 94-2801, et al. These findings, and the findings related to the department's review of applications, need not be repeated here. In summary, however, the department did not investigate the merits of the applications but merely determined whether the certifying physicians were qualified according to the department's liberal interpretation of its own rule. That review function was delegated primarily to the secretary for the administrator of the department's pest control section. After review, the department published quarterly notices in the Florida Administrative Weekly of its intent to grant applications of especially pesticide-sensitive persons. The notices listed the names and addresses of the applicants and described the process for pest control operators to request hearings pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. These were clear points of entry. Petitioners here, and the Florida Pest Control Association, Inc. filed their requests for hearings, challenging the department's proposed action. The underlying consolidated cases resulted. Prior to the formal hearing, several individual applicants, including Carol Ann Rodriguez and Jacqueline Dilworth, settled their cases by withdrawing their applications and agreeing to be placed on the less restrictive pesticide- sensitive registry. This outcome was favorable to Petitioners because they were thereby relieved of the more onerous notification requirements which attach when an individual is designated "especially pesticide-sensitive." This was the relief Petitioners sought. After vigorous prehearing motion and discovery activity, approximately twenty consolidated cases proceeded to formal hearing. Among those were the individual cases of Susan L. Maxwell and Carrietta Kelly. The department, through counsel, participated in the formal hearing. It presented evidence through exhibits and witnesses, and cross-examined witnesses presented by other parties. Evidence to support Susan Maxwell's application was limited to a certification signed by Dr. Albert Robbins, an osteopathic physician. The certification was not supported by any non-hearsay evidence. Evidence to support Carrietta Kelly's application was limited to Dr. Robbins' testimony that he signed her certificate after she and her physician husband called him and wrote him a letter. Mrs. Kelly was never Dr. Robbins' patient and he never met her. The outcome of the formal hearing was a recommended order which found that no individual in the multiple cases presented adequate proof of the need for notification at greater distance than that specified for pesticide-sensitive persons. In other words, the applicants failed to prove entitlement to designation as "especially pesticide-sensitive." The department entered its final order on August 4, 1995, and adopted all but two findings by the hearing officer. The first rejected finding was that nothing in evidence indicated that one of the certifying individuals, "Roy P. Doyle," was a physician. The second finding rejected by the department was that the department had failed to justify or explicate its policy for qualifying physicians other than those specified in its own rule. The department's final order removed all of the individual parties from the registry as "especially pesticide-sensitive" and left them on the pesticide-sensitive list. Petitioners thus prevailed on the central issue in dispute: whether the individuals were entitled to designation as "especially pesticide- sensitive." The fees and costs incurred by Petitioners in their successful defense, as well as fees incurred in pursuing the instant claims, are appropriately described in affidavits filed with the petitions and amended petitions. The department accedes to the reasonableness of the fees and costs, except where they are duplicated in more than one case. The affidavits establish that the Petitioners incurred $22,348.70 in attorney's fees and $4,085.26 in costs related to the four underlying cases. In addition, and not included in the above total, are minor fees incurred in individual cases: Rodriguez $374.00 Dilworth $368.50 Maxwell $115.50 $858.00 Petitioners also claim $2,530.00 (23 hours x $110/hour) for fees incurred in their Section 57.111 cases here. These costs and fees are reasonable, and amount to a total of $29,821.96. The calculation which leads to that total avoids duplication (charges for the same work computed more than once). The calculation also reflects that the three Petitioners joined together, two Petitioners each, in the four underlying cases, hired a single attorney and avoided duplication of effort by separate attorneys for each Petitioner.
The Issue Whether the practices and procedures set forth in paragraphs 6.1., 6.2, and 6.3 of the Challenge to Agency Statements filed by the Petitioner on December 28, 2005, constitute agency statements defined as rules but not adopted as such, in violation of Section 120.54, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the provisions of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, the "Structural Pest Control Act." The Director of the Division of Agricultural Environmental Services (Division) is appointed by the Commissioner of Agriculture and is given the responsibility by Section 570.45, Florida Statutes, to enforce the provisions of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes. The Bureau is created in the Division and is responsible for, among other duties, investigating violations of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes. The Bureau Chief makes the ultimate decision to file an administrative complaint against a certificate-holder or to preliminarily deny an application for certification as a pest control operator or for an identification card for a pest control employee.3 At one time, Mr. Kravitsky was certified by the Bureau as a pest control operator. When he applied for renewal of his certificate, the Bureau issued a notice in 2004 that it intended to deny the application because of alleged violations of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, committed by Mr. Kravitsky while he engaged in the business of a certified pest control operator. In 2005, the Bureau issued another notice that it intended to deny a second application for renewal of Mr. Kravitsky's pest control operator's certificate, based on the same allegations of wrong-doing. And, finally, the Bureau issued a notice in 2005 that it intended to deny Mr. Kravitsky's application for a pest control employee's identification card.4 Mr. Kravitsky is, therefore, substantially affected by the agency statements at issue herein. The Bureau Chief's decisions to file an administrative complaint against a certificate-holder for violations of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, or to deny preliminarily applications for a certificate, a renewal certificate, or an employee identification card are based on information gathered as part of an investigation of a licensee or an applicant. If the investigation is of a certificate- or card-holder, an investigation is initiated either as a routine enforcement action or as the result of a consumer complaint. A field inspector for the Bureau collects information, including statements, affidavits, photographs, videotapes, documents, and any information that pest control operators and employees are required to maintain. Once the information is gathered by the field inspector, the case file is sent to the inspector's supervisor, who reviews the case file for completeness. The supervisor requests additional information, if necessary. Once the supervisor considers the file complete, it is sent to the Bureau's office in Tallahassee, Florida, where the file is given a case number and assigned to a case reviewer who evaluates the evidence contained in the file to determine if there is a possible violation of the provisions of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes. If the case reviewer finds no violation, the case is closed. If it appears to the case reviewer that there is evidence of a violation, an administrative complaint is drafted, and the draft complaint and case file are sent to an enforcement administrator or to a case manager, who independently evaluates the evidence collected in the case. The enforcement administrator or case manager then makes a recommendation to the Bureau Chief regarding whether the draft administrative complaint should be filed. Anyone reviewing the case file can ask that additional information be gathered if he or she finds that the file is not complete. This investigation and review process is an internal process that is not applied outside the Department, it does not affect the private interests of any person, and it is not a procedure that is important to the public.
