Findings Of Fact Respondent, Real Estate Rentals, Inc., operates a licensed public lodging establishment known as Ippolito Apartments. These apartments are located at 112 S. Brevard, Tampa, Florida. On July 30, 1982, a routine inspection of the apartment building was made by a representative of the Division of Hotels and Restaurants. On that date, the following deficiencies or violations existed: There were no ABC type fire extinguishers within 75 feet travel distance of each apartment or inside each apartment. There were no fire extinguishers in the building. Several jalousie window panes were either broken or missing. Interior walls of the common areas needed scraping and painting. There were torn screens which needed repair. The building had roaches and needed to be sprayed for these and other pests. The current license was not displayed on the premises. These deficiencies were listed on a public lodging inspection record (see Petitioner's Exhibit 1) and a copy of this inspection record was provided to the Respondent. The Respondent was instructed by this document to correct the violations or deficiencies prior to the next routine inspection. The next routine inspection of the premises took place on March 21, 1983. At that time, the deficiencies cited in the July 30, 1982, inspection record had not been corrected. In addition to those deficiencies found on July 30, 1982, the following deficiencies existed on March 21, 1983: There was not a properly installed hall light outside Unit No. 2. Unit No. 5 did not have a properly installed and operating refrigerator. Broken plaster board walls needed repair. The front exit door did not have properly installed self-closing hardware. The ceiling, floors and stairs of the interior needed to be swept. Respondent was provided with a copy of the March 21, 1983, public lodging inspection record (see Petitioner's Exhibit 2) and was given until April 11, 1983, to make the necessary corrections. The premises were again inspected on April 22, 1983, and the corrections of the deficiencies noted in the two previous inspections had not been made. On June 9, 1983, all corrections except for the required fire extinguishers had been made at the licensed premises.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Division of Hotels and Restaurants enter a final order imposing a fine of $150 for the violations cited above. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, 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 29th day of November, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: William A. Hatch, Esquire 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Fl 32301 E. L. Ippolito 901 S. Rome Tampa, Florida 33606 Gary R. Rutledge, Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sherman S. Winn Division of Hotels and Restaurants 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Mary Anne Shiell, is a licensed real estate salesman holding license No. 0044116. The Petitioner, the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Real Estate, is an agency of the State of Florida, having jurisdiction over licensing and the regulation of licensure status of real estate salesmen. This dispute arose out of a business transaction involving the showing by the Respondent and others of a piece of residential real property to the complaining witnesses, William G. and Geraldine Fellows (son and mother). On March 6, 1979, the Respondent, Juanda Marsh and Skip Mark were employed as real estate salesmen by Mannix, Inc. On that day Juanda Marsh, while attempting to find residential property listings, became aware of a home owned by Paul E. Phipps and his wife which was for sale. After talking to the owners of the house, Mr. and Mrs. Phipps, Ms. Marsh went back to the Mannix realty office where she spoke to the Respondent and advised the Respondent of the Phippses' home being for sale. Ms. Marsh then met the complaining witnesses, the Fellowses, and took them to meet Mr. Phipps at the home in question. This was late in the afternoon of March 6, 1979, and the electricity had been turned off in the home. Mr. Phipps was then in the process of wallpapering and painting the dwelling, which he used as rental property. After leaving the home that evening, the complainants decided to offer the Phippses $37,000 for the property. The complainants and Ms. Marsh prepared the contract, which was executed that evening by the complainants. The sellers executed the contract the following day, and the transaction was closed March 15, 1979. The complainants did not take possession of the premises until sometime in April of 1979. On March 6, 1979, when the complainants first viewed the premises, the Respondent, Marsh, Mark, as well as Phipps, the seller, were present. The complainant addressed the group of people generally, asking what kind of condition the roof was in. All concerned looked toward Mr. Phipps; he nodded his head, assenting that the roof was in good condition. There was a general agreement that the house appeared to be in good condition. Neither the Respondent nor Ms. Marsh nor Skip Mark had any additional knowledge regarding the condition of the house other than that which they saw that day in the presence of the complainants. All were seeing it for the first time. The Respondent did not give any assurance to the complainants that the roof was in good condition; she relied, as did all present, on the assurance given by Mr. Phipps at the time. Immediately prior to the drafting of the contract on that evening, the complainants were advised by the Respondent that if an "as is" clause were placed in the contract it might induce the seller to accept the lower offer which the complainants had in mind, and the complainants agreed. Accordingly, Ms. Marsh inserted in the contract the "as is" clause on the face of the contract, meaning that the purchasers, the Fellowses, would buy the property in the condition it was in at the time for the price they were offering and which, ultimately, the owner accepted. Prior to the closing of the transaction, the Fellowses called the Respondent by telephone to ascertain that all checks had been made pursuant to the Buyer Protection Plan and the Respondent advised that she thought everything was in good working condition, but she would attempt to inspect the premises to ascertain for sure if all equipment and appliances were working. The Respondent attempted to make an inspection of the premises a day or two before closing and there was no electricity or water turned on so that the various appliances could not be tested. She informed the complainants of this, but they said they could not afford to have the utilities turned on. The Respondent then called Mr. Phipps and explained the situation to him. She asked if he was in a position to tell the complainants what condition everything was in and he told her that so far as he knew the only thing in the house that might not function properly was the dishwasher. Mr. Phipps told the Respondent that the air conditioner functioned properly and indeed the vents were in the walls or ceiling and appeared to be in order. The Respondent looked in the oven door of the range in the kitchen and the oven element appeared to be in good condition, although it was impossible to test it because the utilities were not on. The Respondent removed the kitchen range elements and visually inspected them. Again, no electricity was available to test them after this fact had been disclosed to the complainants. Upon taking possession of the property in April, 1979, the complainants discovered certain defects consisting of: a leaky roof; duct work missing from the air conditioning system; the oven was inoperable; the range had several inoperative elements; the plumbing in the toilets leaked; the hot water heater was inoperable; and the disposal was not connected. Witness Ralph Porch inspected the air conditioning system and found that no duct work existed in the hall ceiling to connect the air conditioning system to the mechanical unit. He did not try to turn on the air conditioner. He did recall seeing the air supply grills and stated that the only way one could find out that there were no ducts in place was to climb up in the attic and look; that it was not a defect observable from the normal living areas of the house. The Respondent, in addition to inspecting the kitchen appliances, inspected but saw no evidence of a mineral deposit or other symptoms of leaks around the toilets. Mr. Phipps had represented that the hot water heater was not very old and so the Respondent had no reason to believe that the hot water heater was inoperable. She looked beneath the sink to examine the garbage disposal and did not notice any pipes or electrical wiring absent. The complainants maintained that the Respondent represented to them that the electricity had been turned on for one day and that all the appliances had been checked out and were in working order. The Hearing Officer finds this testimony not credible inasmuch as the Respondent testified that she had never made such a representation, but rather had visually inspected them to the best of her ability with no electricity available to actually test the functioning of the appliances, which testimony was corroborated by the testimony of Bernice Shackleford from the Orlando Utilities Commission, who established that the electricity was turned off March 5, 1979, the day before the property was first shown to the Fellowses and to the Respondent. Ms. Shackleford also testified that the utilities were inactive continuously until April 20, 1979, long after the closing and long after the alleged inspection of the appliances took place. The undersigned thus finds that the Respondent never represented to the Fellowses that the electricity had been turned on for a day, nor that she had thus tested the appliances and found them all in working order. The Respondent did not make any statement to the effect that the roof did or did not leak. A reasonable inspection of the residence would not disclose that the air conditioning vents or air supply grills were not connected by ducts to the mechanical portion of the air conditioning system. Subsequent to their taking possession of the house and initially complaining to the Respondent and Mannix, Inc., concerning the defects in the dwelling, the complainants filed a civil action regarding their complaints. The complainants sued the Phippses, who were the sellers; Juanda Marsh; Mannix, Inc.; the Respondent; and Electronic Realty Associates, Inc. Although the complainants denied settlement of the case, in their testimony in the instant proceeding, the civil litigation was in fact dismissed by their attorney (see Notice of Voluntary Dismissal; Respondent's Exhibit A). In that civil action, only Juanda Marsh and Skip Mark were alleged to have made false representations to the complainants. In summary, the Respondent was not shown to have had any knowledge regarding the condition of the premises which she failed to reveal to the complainants and sometime after the controversy arose, the Respondent offered, on behalf of Mannix, Inc., to purchase the property back from the complainants for what they had paid for it, but this offer was rejected.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of counsel, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed herein against Mary Anne Shiell be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 1982, at Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of July, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph Doherty, Esquire 3220 Chelsea Street Orlando, Florida 32803 Charles N. Prather, Esquire 17 South Lake Avenue, Suite 103 Orlando, Florida 32801 Frederick H. Wilsen, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 C. B. Stafford, Executive Director Florida Real Estate Commission Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Official recognition is taken of the contents of the file in DOAH case number 86-3477 and the following facts from that file: On July 31, 1986, the Respondent denied the renewal of the Petitioner's license for an adult congregate living facility at the Clinton Crest Retirement Hotel, and advised him of his right to a formal administrative hearing as to relicensure. On August 8, 1986, the Respondent amended its basis for the proposed denial of licensure, alleging that on April 11, 1986, May 14, 1986, and July 18, 1986, Petitioner did not have a fixed fire extinguisher at the cooking appliance, did not have a three compartment sink or other approved system in use for the purpose of proper sanitation of kitchen utensils, and did not have a week's supply of non-perishable food based upon the number of weekly meals the facility had contracted to serve, and alleging that these were violations of specified statutes and rules. It further alleged that the fire extinguisher and the three compartment sink had remained uncorrected since June 20, 1985. The amended notice of proposed agency action cited the following provisions as the basis for the fire extinguisher requirement: sections 400.414 and 400.441, Fla. Stat., rules 10A-5.23(15)(a) and 4A-40.05, Fla. Admin. Code, and NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) 101, section 7-7.3 and NFPA 96. On August 11, 1986, the Petitioner requested a formal administrative hearing to contest the proposed denial of licensure. One year later, on August 14, 1987, the Respondent granted a renewal of license to the Petitioner. The Petitioner filed a motion for summary final order based upon issuance of the license. No response was filed by the Respondent. The Hearing Officer entered an order to the Respondent to show cause and to require a response. The Respondent filed a voluntary dismissal. The Petitioner moved to strike the voluntary dismissal, noting that he had requested the hearing, and requested attorneys' fees. The Respondent's response characterized the voluntary dismissal as a motion to dismiss for mootness, agreeing that the license had been issued. The Hearing Officer entered a recommended order recommending dismissal due to mootness, and noting that a request for attorneys' fees pursuant to section 57.111, Fla. Stat. (1987) would result in a final order and thus must originate with a separate petition to the Division of Administrative Hearings. The Respondent entered a final order dismissing the Petitioner's request for hearing as moot. The Petitioner then filed the instant petition for attorneys' fees and costs with the Division of Administrative Hearings. On June 20, 1985, Petitioner's facility was inspected. Two of the three violations set forth in the amended basis for denial of relicensure of August 8, 1986, were cited in the inspection report on June 20, 1985, and were reported as having not been corrected in a reinspection on September 26, 1985. P. Ex. 5. Those were the fire extinguisher issue and the three compartment sink issue. In the June 20, 1985, inspection report, the Respondent classified the three compartment sink violation as a class III violation, and required the violation to be corrected at the end of two months. The Respondent classified the fire extinguisher violation also as a class III violation, and required it to be corrected in three months. R. Ex. 5. An earlier administrative complaint had been filed against the Petitioner's facility on January 2, 1986. One of the allegations in that complaint was failure to have a fixed fire extinguisher at the kitchen stove. The Department classified this violation in the administrative complaint as a class III violation. The Petitioner entered into a stipulation in that administrative action paying, in part, a fine for this allegation of a fire code violation, and agreeing that if the deficiency was not corrected in thirty days, the result would be further administrative action, which might include "revocation proceedings." The stipulation did not clearly provide that failure to correct the violation would result in revocation of the license. The stipulation became embodied in the final order of the Respondent on March 19, 1986. R. Ex., 6. On April 11, 1986, and on May 14, 1986, the facility was inspected. Among other citations, the facility was cited for not have enough nonperishables to feed the 7 persons then living at the facility for a week, for not having a three compartment sink, and for not having a fire extinguisher over the cooking appliance. All three were classified as class III violations. R. Ex. 8. On reinspection on July 18, 1986, these items were still not corrected. In DOAH case number 86-3477, the Respondent admitted to requests for admissions that the three compartment sink issue and the non-perishable food issue were corrected by the date of the request for admissions, November 26, 1986. Thus, when that case closed, the only pending issue was the fire extinguisher over the stove. Based upon the testimony of James F. Schroeder, the Respondent's expert witness with respect to fire safety, the denial of relicensure in the letter of August 8, 1986, was primarily based upon the issue of fire extinguisher over the stove. The Petitioner's kitchen is small, approximately 6 to 8 feet in width and 10 to 12 feet in length. The stove is a residential electric stave having four burners. By design and construction, it is a domestic stove rather than what typically is thought of as a "commercial" stove. The stove is used commercially to prepare meals for residents of the adult congregate living facility for a fee. The stove is not located below a normal ceiling parallel with the floor, but is located under a lower slanted ceiling. The ceiling is only 4 to 6 feet above the front of the stove, and slants to within a few feet of the back of the stove. The ceiling is combustible, and a fire in the ceiling would spread to the rest of the adult congregate living facility unless extinguished by the automatic sprinkler system. The stove is near a window which could feed a stove fire with oxygen. The building is a wood frame building, and is highly susceptible to fire. There was a portable fire extinguisher at the stove. Additionally, the Petitioner installed fire sprinklers throughout the building at a cost of over $4,000. The automatic fire sprinklers were installed by the Petitioner to comply with the stipulated settlement dated March 19, 1986, and were installed after May 20, 1986. P. Ex. 3. The Petitioner thought he had been told by the Respondent that by installing the fire sprinkler system, he would satisfy the requirement that the stove have an automatic fire extinguisher. The fire sprinkler system that is installed included one in the kitchen, but the sprinkler in the kitchen is not located over the stove. R. Ex. 2. The kitchen fire sprinkler, which may be effective to impede a general fire in the kitchen, is not effective to smother a stove fire at the stove. Moreover, the one automatic sprinkler in the kitchen ceiling is not the same as an extinguisher at the stove because the stove fire extinguisher must have a manual operation capability as well as automatic capability, and must operate to shut off current to the stove in the event of fire. The lack of a fire extinguisher and hood at the stove poses a potential threat to the physical safety of the residents at the Petitioner's facility. The expert testimony presented was not sufficient to conclude as a matter of fact that the lack of a fire extinguisher and hood at the stove presents an imminent danger to residents or a substantial probability that death or serious physical injury would result there from, or that the lack of this equipment is a direct threat to the physical safety of the residents. The expert testimony was consistent with the classification by the Respondent of this violation as a class III violation. Petitioner's facility is licensed for 14 residents. On May 15, 1986, the Petitioner wrote to the Respondent asking that his license be reduced to 12 when it was reissued so that he would have time to obtain a three compartment sink. The Petitioner was having difficulty locating such a sink to purchase. The Petitioner intended to apply for a license for 14 residents when he had installed the sink. The Petitioner made this offer to the Respondent again in his letter of August 6, 1986, P. Ex. 4, and a letter from his attorney, P. Ex. 5, dated September 26, 1986. It was stipulated by the parties that rules 4A-40.05 and 4A-40.10, as embodied in R. Ex. 3, were applicable to the Petitioner on August 8, 1986. Conclusions of law 14 through 17 concern the contents of certain rules and provisions of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards, and are adopted as findings of fact. The Petitioner is the sole proprietor of the unincorporated business known as the Clinton Crest Retirement Hotel, which is the licensee in this case. The Petitioner is and was domiciled in the State of Florida, his principal office is and was in the State of Florida, he has not employed more than 25 full-time employees, and his net worth is not more than $2 million, including both personal and business investments. If attorneys' fees and costs are to be awarded in this proceeding, the unrebutted evidence justifies an award of $4,697.75 as reasonable attorneys' fees and $62.50 as reasonable costs.
The Issue Whether Respondent, Lakeland Manor Health Care Associates, LLC, d/b/a Wedgewood Healthcare Center, committed a Class I deficiency at the time of a survey conducted on October 29, 2004, so as to justify the issuance of a "conditional" license; and whether to impose an administrative fine of $10,000 under Section 400.23, Florida Statutes (2004), and an additional fine of $6,000 under Section 400.19, Florida Statutes (2004).
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence presented at the final hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: At all times material hereto, Petitioner is the state agency charged with licensing of nursing homes in Florida under Subsection 400.021(2), Florida Statutes (2004), and the assignment of a license status pursuant to Subsection 400.23(7), Florida Statutes (2004). Petitioner is charged with evaluating nursing home facilities to determine their degree of compliance with established rules as a basis for making the required licensure assignment. Pursuant to Subsection 400.23(8), Florida Statutes (2004), Petitioner must classify deficiencies according to the nature and scope of the deficiency when the criteria established under Subsection 400.23(2), Florida Statutes (2004), are not met. The classification of any deficiencies discovered determines whether the licensure status of a nursing home is "standard" or "conditional" and the amount of the administrative fine that may be imposed, if any. Surveyors note their findings on a standard prescribed Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Form 2567, entitled, "Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction," which is commonly referred to as "Form 2567." During the survey of a facility, if violations of regulations are found, the violations are noted and referred to as "Tags." A tag identifies the applicable regulatory standard that the surveyors believe has been violated, provides a summary of the violation, and sets forth specific factual allegations that they believe support the violation. Insofar as relevant to this proceeding, Form 2567 identifies Tag F323, which is the basis of Petitioner's charging document. Respondent is a licensed nursing facility located at 1010 Carpenter's Way, Lakeland, Florida 33809. Based on the state requirements of Subsections 400.23(7) and (8), Florida Statutes (2004), and pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-4.133(16)(d), Petitioner determined that Respondent failed to comply with state requirements and under the Florida classification system, classified the noncompliance as an isolated state Class I deficiency which required immediate corrective action because Respondent's noncompliance was likely to cause serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to residents receiving care at Respondent. Should Respondent be found to have committed the alleged deficient practice, the period of the "conditional" licensure status would extend from October 29, 2004, through December 7, 2004, the date of Petitioner's follow-up survey in which the cited violations were found to have been corrected. On October 26, 2004, through October 29, 2004, Petitioner conducted an annual health and life safety survey of Respondent. On the morning of October 26, 2004, Thomas Gill, Petitioner's surveyor, who was the team leader of the survey team, toured the 800 hall of Respondent's facility. Gill was accompanied during his tour of the 800 hall with one of Respondent's employees, Kelly Riehn, an LPN. The survey procedure involved, inter alia, sampling rooms on the hall to determine if the hot water was felt to be within accepted temperature ranges. After the hot water in the lavatories in Rooms 800 through 803 had been turned on for more than 30 seconds, Gill noted that the skin on his hands turned a reddish color after holding his hands under the water for one to two seconds. He believed the water to be hotter than it should be. Gill proceeded to check the hot water by hand-inspection in the remainder of the rooms on the 800 hall. He found that the other rooms appeared to have hot water within the accepted range, including the bathing areas. The bathrooms in the residents' rooms contain only a toilet and sink. Gill then determined that he needed the maintenance director to come to the 800 hall to test the water temperatures with a thermometer. Gill informed Riehn that he needed the maintenance director. After some delay, Gill reported his findings to the survey team. He then located the life safety surveyor, who conducts an independent survey, and requested that he locate the facility maintenance director and assist him in measuring the water temperature in the four rooms and throughout the facility. After some delay in locating Respondent's employee, Leslie Bower, the life safety surveyor, accompanied the maintenance director, Mark Mulligan, to the maintenance office to review the blueprints for the facility and then proceeded to the room where the hot water heater was located to inspect the water heating devices and system. Bower then observed Mulligan test the water with a thermometer in three of the resident rooms. The temperature of the hot water coming out of the lavatory faucets in the residents' rooms registered 140 degrees Fahrenheit. To check the water temperatures, the water was allowed to run for 30 to 40 seconds, in order for it to get hot. Bower informed Gill that the hot water in the four affected rooms registered 140 degrees Fahrenheit. Gill reported his findings to the survey team. The survey team determined that because the hot water coming out of the tap was 140 degrees Fahrenheit, there was a likelihood of harm, injury, or death to residents and action need to be taken quickly. The survey team did not suggest that any resident was at risk of receiving extensive burns from immersion in a tub or placement under a shower. The only allegation of likelihood of harm to residents pertained to the sinks in Rooms 800 to 803. Gill informed Respondent's administrator, Clark Evans, at approximately 2:00 p.m., that the hot water in the four residents' rooms was 140 degrees Fahrenheit. Evans immediately proceeded to the four rooms (Rooms 800 through 803), where he tested the hot water with his hands in one of the affected rooms. After approximately 30 seconds, the water became "uncomfortable," and he had to remove his hands. Evans then turned the hot water off under the sink. He instructed Mulligan to turn off the hot water to the other three sinks, which was done. The evidence clearly reflects that the hot water temperature in the sinks of the four rooms was 140 degrees Fahrenheit on October 24, 2004, if the water was allowed to run for 30 to 40 seconds. During the time of Petitioner's survey, Riehn was a floor nurse on the 700 and 800 halls working the 7:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. shift. Riehn presented testimony that she washed her hands after giving medications to residents who resided in Rooms 800 through 803 prior to Petitioner's tour of the 800 hall. She typically washes her hands for 45 seconds. Then, she passes medications out to 30 residents each morning over a period of "about an hour and a half." Riehn testified that she "sometimes" turn on both the hot and cold water faucets when washing her hands. She did not recall anything "exceptional" about the water and that it "seemed normal." Riehn also administered medications at 12:00 noon and 2:00 p.m. on her unit, however, she presented no testimony concerning the water temperature at those times. Respondent had a system in place to check water temperatures on a weekly basis. The maintenance director checked one room on each hall, selected randomly, and checked all bathing areas each week. The reports were written in a log book, though the room number was not written down. Respondent also had a system for reporting maintenance and safety issues and kept a log for those purposes, as well. Staff received training on how to report safety issues. There was no record of any complaints of the water being excessively hot. There were also no incidents involving hot water in the facility's incident and accident reporting logs. When told that the water temperature in the four rooms was 140 degrees Fahrenheit, Evans attempted to determine the cause of the problem. He and the maintenance director pulled blueprints of the building and determined that those rooms were on a separate water heater from the remainder of the hall. This was an unusual system. As he had experience running a small nursing home, where he also had maintenance director duties, Evans, along with the maintenance director, also inspected the water heater and tried to adjust the mixing valve, which mixes hot and cold water to the appropriate temperature. Instead of resulting in an adjustment, the temperatures changed inconsistently, demonstrating that there was a problem with the valve. The circulating pumps that keep the water flowing through the hot water pipes, which provide hot water to the four affected rooms, were not working. The hot water pipes were on a loop system. Because the circulating pumps were not working, the hot water, once turned off at the sink, would just sit in the pipes instead of circulating back to the hot water heater. When the hot water was turned on at the sinks, it could come out hot or cold depending on how long it had been since the hot water was last turned off. A plumber was called immediately, and the problem was corrected before the end of the survey. While there was some hearsay evidence that some staff, upon questioning by the surveyors, indicated the water in the affected rooms was overly hot, this evidence was not reliable, as it was not known what questions were asked by the surveyors or in what context, and some of this hearsay was refuted by testimony. The greater weight of the evidence was that facility management had no reason to be aware of a problem with the hot water in those rooms and that as soon as they became aware of the problem, they responded quickly and thoroughly. Resident No. 27, who resides in one of the subject rooms, had dementia, resulting in poor safety awareness; and as a consequence, was at risk for falls. She was in a wheelchair, but would sometimes attempt to stand. Because of these concerns, she had a wheelchair alarm and a bed alarm which would sound if she attempted to get up. Additionally, she was positioned in her chair in front of the nurses' station so she could be monitored. She was closely observed, and this is reflected in the nursing notes. Staff was required to help Resident No. 27 ambulate. The resident was sufficiently alert to know when she had to go to the bathroom and would request staff assistance. The routine was that staff would take her to the bathroom, place her on the toilet, get her up, and then turn on the water to help her wash. CNAs check water temperatures before wetting a cloth to give to the resident. On one occasion, on September 24, 2004, Resident No. 27 was found in the bathroom by herself. Her bed alarm was going off, and Riehn, who found her, recorded the incident in the nursing notes. Though the water was running, there was apparently no problem with the temperature. This was the only known occasion when the resident tried to use the bathroom without assistance, as she was not allowed to use the bathroom without assistance. Resident No. 27 had no medical problems which would affect feeling in her extremities, and she was capable of feeling pain and reacting to it. She would not leave her hand in water hot enough to cause pain. Resident No. 29, who resides in one of the subject rooms, was more cognitively impaired than Resident No. 27. She required staff assistance for all her activities. She was in a Broda chair, which is a chair positioned to lean back so that a resident will not fall out. While the chair was mobile, Resident No. 29 did not have the cognitive capability to negotiate it through doorways to reach the bathroom and had never been known to do so. Resident No. 29 also did not have any condition which would cause her to lose feeling in her extremities or prevent her from withdrawing from pain. Resident No. 29 was not capable of getting herself into the bathroom. Resident No. 29 was under close and careful supervision, not because of fear of burns, but because she had a tendency to try to walk and fall. Even if she managed to get into the bathroom without staff observation, even if she turned on the hot water, even if the mixing valve was malfunctioning at that time, even if the water in the pipes was still excessively hot, and even if the facility had not detected and corrected the problem by then, she would have to defy pain while holding some part of her body under the faucet for several seconds. This occurrence was highly unlikely. There did not appear to be a sufficiently significant risk of harm to residents for the lead surveyor to notify facility staff when he checked the water temperature on the initial tour. Instead, he waited to report it at the team meeting, and the team thought it appropriate to wait for the maintenance director to return from lunch to check the temperatures, even though their protocol requires that the survey staff measure with their own equipment. A second-degree burn from water at 140 degrees Fahrenheit requires immersion for approximately five seconds. A second-degree burn damages, but does not destroy the top two layers of skin and heals in ten to 21 days. As it took approximately 30 to 40 seconds for water in the taps to reach 140 degrees Fahrenheit, a scalding burn would require that a person run the water for that period of time, and then hold his hand under the water, in spite of pain, for another five seconds. The problem with the hot water was either of recent origin or very intermittent, as there were no recorded difficulties. The water had been of appropriate temperature just prior to the survey, and no problems had been discovered in the weekly random room checks. Petitioner's position that water coming out of a sink at 140 degrees Fahrenheit constitutes a likelihood of serious injury or death to a resident is at odds with other regulations it enforces. Petitioner requires that hot foods be maintained at 140 degrees Fahrenheit for serving, so that a bowl of soup must be served to a resident at that temperature. It appears that there would be as much, if not more, chance of a burn from spilling a bowl of soup than from using a sink, where a resident would have to turn on the water and let it run and then voluntarily place her hand under the water. The evidence is not convincing that Respondent knew or should have known that water temperatures in the lavatories of four rooms were in excess of 115 degrees Fahrenheit on the day of the survey. The preponderance of evidence does not support the assertion that Residents 27 and 29 were in immediate risk of harm and were likely to be scalded by the hot water. The evidence does not support the likelihood of harm, injury, or death to those residents from the hot water.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, Agency for Healthcare Administration, enter a final order revising the October 24, 2004, survey report by deleting the deficiencies described under Tag F324, issuing a "standard" rating to Respondent to replace the previously-issued "conditional" rating, directing that all other records maintained by Petitioner that reflect the deficiency be revised by deleting it, and dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 29th day of June, 2005.
Findings Of Fact Arnold J. Pergament, an employee of Petitioner for almost 20 years, has been inspecting rooming houses licensed by Petitioner in Belle Glade for almost all of that time. For many years, he has inspected Rader's Rooming House at 657 Southwest Avenue E in Belle Glade, which consists of two buildings owned by Respondent, to whom Petitioner has issued license No. 60-00737H, covering the premises. A two-storied stucco-on-wood building contains six to eight separately rented rooms and a frame building with a single story is divided into about a dozen units. Their exterior walls are weather-beaten and deteriorated; there is evidence of wood rot. On August 13, 1980, Mr. Pergament, in conducting a routine inspection, found only two fire extinguishers, not the three he testified were required for Respondent's premises. There was no fire extinguisher on the ground floor of the stucco-on-wood building. There were no light bulbs in at least some of the public bathrooms; in all, there were four bathrooms, one per building for each sex. The bathrooms needed cleaning and some had torn or missing screens. Trash and garbage had accumulated under the buildings and on the grounds. A stair railing consisted of a pipe supported by dangerously infrequent uprights. All these items and more Mr. Pergament noted on a public lodging inspection record. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. After marking it to indicate that it was a warning, he personally delivered a carbon copy of the inspection record to Respondent at his office. On the form, Respondent was advised that minor violations in the operation of his establishment were to be corrected by October 13, 1980. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. Mr. Pergament returned to Rader's Rooming House on October 15, 1980 to find trash and garbage, including broken glass, on the grounds and under the buildings, an unaltered stair railing, and no fire extinguisher on the ground floor of the stucco building. In the bathroom, light bulbs were missing, windows were broken, screens were torn and missing; and no hot water was available in the sinks or showers. He noted these matters in a contemporaneous reinspection report, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, a copy of which was mailed to Respondent. On November 25, 1980, Mr. Pergament returned and reinspected. A hall was being painted but the matters specified in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2 were substantially unchanged. On the morning of the final hearing, Mr. Pergament and James R. Gallagher inspected Rader's Rooming House and found a new stair railing that Mr. Pergament testified was satisfactory. A third fire extinguisher had been installed. Although it lacked an "approved" tag, it had a tag with a date on it. There was hot water. Fluorescent light bulbs in the bathroom were missing and bathroom windows were broken. The ground were littered with trash of apparently recent origin. Johnny Marchane Lewis is one of four men who regularly work for respondent, who owns other rental property in addition to Rader's Rooming House. Mr. Lewis replaced some windows and screens last summer at Rader's Rooming House, again two months later, and again in March of 1981. The week before the final hearing, he discovered a missing screen, which he replaced, but no other problems with screens or broken windows. On the Saturday before the final hearing, Tommy Lee Williams, another of Respondent's employees, cleared the grounds at Rader's Rooming House, but he testified that garbage might still remain under the buildings. Five months previously, Respondent's men had cleared under the buildings. Somebody rakes "the yard" every other day. Mr. Williams fixed the hot water heater twice, once by replacing the heating element and once by replacing a switch. Although he does not live there, Mr. Williams visits Rader's Rooming House more than once a week. Mr. Pergament testified that he had never had a problem with Respondent's trying to make repairs to any of his properties, and Respondent testified that he tried to make all repairs promptly and would have been more prompt about seeing to the stair railing, except that he misunderstood which railing was meant in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. As Respondent conceded, there was no reasonable basis for his misunderstanding, but he did take steps to remedy the situation when he understood the problem.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner impose a fine against Respondent in the amount of $100.00. DONE and ENTERED this 12th day of May, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary Jo M. Gallay, Esquire 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Milton Rader Rader's Rooming House 657 Southwest Avenue E Belle Glade, FL 33430 Norman J. Hayes 538 State Office Building 1350 Northwest 12th Avenue Miami, FL 33136 Lewis Reif Robert Hayes Gore Building Room 104 201 West Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 ROBERT T. BENTON, II, 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 12th day of May, 1981.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaints, the Respondent, Freed Towers, Ltd., was a business association between June E. Freed and Audley L. Freed, husband and wife, who owned and operated it as an Adult Congregate Living Facility, located at 1029 7th Avenue East, Bradenton, Florida. The facility was licensed for 50 apartments, (100 beds). Petitioner, Department, was and is the state agency responsible for licensing the operation of ACLFs in Florida. On January 10, 1989, Tami J. Smith, a human services program analyst with the Department Office of Licensure and Certification in Tampa, along with a team consisting of a dietitian and a fire inspector, inspected the Respondent's facility located in Bradenton. During the course of the inspection, Ms. Smith noted that Respondent's records on six employees failed to include the statement that the employees were free from disease or other communicable illnesses. Ms. Smith also noted that a portion of the carpet in the dining room was dirty and displayed numerous coffee stains. During the same inspection, another member of the team, Mr. Scharnweber, the fire protection specialist, noted that the quarterly smoke detector inspections and tests had not been conducted or documented; the quarterly fire alarm pull station tests had not been conducted or documented; the automatic sprinkler system had not been inspected or documented quarterly; several portable fire extinguishers had not been inspected within the past year; and the fixed extinguishing system for the protection of cooking equipment in the kitchen did not display a current semiannual inspection tag. The team consisting of Ms. Smith and Mr. Scharnweber returned to the facility on a follow-up inspection on May 1, 1989. At that time Ms. Smith noted that of the six employee records which had previously failed to contain the required health certificate, four had been corrected but two had not. At the same time, she noted that on the May 1 visit, an effort had been made to clean the carpet but it was not done correctly. Because an effort had been made, however, she noted that on the inspection report and indicated that the deficiency was under correction. On July 12, 1989, Ms. Smith returned to the facility for a second follow-up inspection. At that time she noted that one of the previously noted employee files still did not have the required health certificate, and the carpet was still unsatisfactorily dirty. As a result, she wrote up both deficiencies. Mr. Scharnweber conducted a follow-up inspection in his area on April 28, 1989 and found at that time that no corrective action had been taken. A follow-up conducted at the same time as that done by Ms. Smith on July 12, 1989 indicated the required tag was still not on the cooking equipment, but the other discrepancies had been corrected. When the initial inspection was concluded on January 10, 1989, prior to leaving the facility the inspection team met with the facility operators and went over each of the noted discrepancies, identifying the problem and giving suggestions as to how each could be corrected. They also discussed with the operators an appropriate time for correction and entered into an agreement as to that matter. On January 23, 1989, the Department sent a copy of the inspection report, with proposed correction dates, to the operators and on January 30, 1989, Gary C. Freed, then the Administrator of the facility and the son of the Mr. and Mrs. Freed previously identified, signed and returned to the Department an acknowledgment of receipt of the list of discrepancies and the agreed upon correction dates. The testimony of Ms. Smith and Mr. Scharnweber, as included in the above Findings of Fact, clearly establish that the initially identified deficiencies were not corrected in full consistent with the time frame agreed upon by the parties. The Freeds opened the facility in May, 1988 with their son, Gary, as Administrator. Gary ran it until April, 1989. It was obvious to the Freeds at that time that he was not properly operating it and he was removed as Administrator in April, 1989. At that time, Mrs. Freed took over as Administrator and was certified in that position at the earliest possible time. When Mrs. Freed took over she found the business was unable to afford to hire a trained Administrator and was unable to expend the monies necessary for immediate and full correction of the deficiencies identified by the inspectors. In fact, she recognized there were many discrepancies which needed correction and claims it was overwhelming to anticipate doing all which had to be done in the time frame given. With regard to the medical certificates, Mrs. Freed claims that she made considerable effort to convince her employees to comply with the requirement for proper certification. She states that each employee had a doctor's certificate but those certificates did not contain the required statement that the employee was free of communicable disease. It was only when she threatened to fire any employee who did not provide the appropriate certificate that she was able to secure everyone's compliance. Unfortunately, she missed one. As for the carpet deficiency, she claims the carpet is constantly being cleaned and an effort made to insure it is within compliance. A cleaner is rented periodically, but she admits many of the employees and residents are careless and spill on the rug and that it is impossible to keep the rug in a pristine condition. This argument is not persuasive as justification for the failure to bring the carpet within standards. As licensees and operators, the Freeds are bound to insure that employees meet state requirements and that the facility meets state standards. Mr. Freed claims that when he first took over the facility, even though county fire authorities had inspected and found his fire protection system to be adequate, upon notification by the Department of the need for additional fire extinguishers, he immediately purchased five new ones. With regard to the kitchen equipment, Mr. Freed claims it was of the proper kind and properly installed, and that if any deficiency exists, it was solely in the failure to display the proper tag. This is all that is alleged.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Secretary issue a Final Order as to both consolidated files, assessing a total Administrative Fine of $500.00 against the Respondent. RECOMMENDED this 21 day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 21 day of July, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward A. Haman, Esquire DHRS Office of Licensure and Certification 7827 North Dale Mabry Highway Tampa, Florida 33614 June E. Freed Audley L. Freed Freed Towers 1029 7th Avenue East Bradenton, Florida 34208 John Miller General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue This is a license discipline proceeding in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the licenses of two public lodging establishments and against an individual alleged to have operated a public lodging establishment without a license, on the basis of allegations set forth in three separate Administrative Complaints.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the Respondent Fountain View Hotel (Fountain View) was a public lodging establishment, license number 60-00163-H, located at 5617 44th Street, West Palm Beach, Florida. Lawrence Joseph Vavala (Inspector Vavala) was at all material times employed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, as a Sanitation and Safety Specialist (Inspector). Catherine Driscoll (Supervisor Driscoll) was at all material times employed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, as a Sanitation and Safety Supervisor. On April 17, 2000, Inspector Vavala inspected the Fountain View and found numerous violations of public lodging service rules, all of which he marked on his lodging service inspection report of April 17, 2000. On April 17, 2000, when Inspector Vavala performed an inspection on Fountain View, he observed that the smoke detectors were inoperable in Apartments 3 and 4 in the front building. This violation is a critical violation because it endangers the life and safety of individuals living in the public lodging establishment. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection of the premises, Inspector Vavala observed that there were no portable fire extinguishers installed in the back building on either landing on either floor. Further, there was no fire extinguisher on the first floor, bottom landing, in the front building. In public lodging establishments, fire extinguishers are required to be within 75 feet of potential fire hazards. There was a fire extinguisher in the hallway on the second floor, but it had not been inspected since September 1994. Fire extinguishers are required to be inspected annually. These violations are critical in that they endanger the lives and safety of individuals residing in the public lodging establishment. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection of the premises, Inspector Vavala observed evidence of rodent droppings in the water heater room on the south side of the building and cockroaches in the kitchen cabinets of Apartment 4. These are critical violations in that disease is spread in this manner which endangers the health and safety of individuals residing in the public lodging establishment. During his inspection of the premises, Inspector Vavala observed electrical wiring in disrepair in Apartments 3 and 4. Wires were hung through a window out to the back porch, simply hanging by cord and socket. These are critical violations in that someone could be injured by the wiring. Further, in being exposed to the outside elements, it could cause shortage and fire. These are critical violations in that they endanger the safety and lives of individuals residing in the public lodging establishment. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection of the premises, Inspector Vavala observed that the cooking stove was inoperable in Apartment 4 and the air conditioning units were inoperable in Apartments 3 and 4. This is a critical violation because tenants may bring in propane or charcoal stoves to prepare food which would be a fire hazard and could endanger the safety and lives of individuals residing in the public lodging establishment. Inspector Vavala also observed that the air conditioning units were inoperable in Apartments 3 and 4. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection of the premises, Inspector Vavala observed the locks were inoperable on the kitchen door to the outside stairway in Apartment 3. This is a critical violation in that if the door could not be locked, an intruder could enter the premises and take property or physically harm an individual inside the apartment. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection of the premises, Inspector Vavala observed a broken window at the front door of the front apartment; the ceiling on top of the stairwell in the front of the building had a hole through the roof; a hole was in the stucco on the west side of the front building; a window was in disrepair on the west side of the front building; windows were boarded up on the west side of the building; stucco was missing on the south side of the front building; a window was broken on the lower floor of the front building on the south side; a window was in disrepair, and one window was broken on the lower floor of the front building on the east side; stucco was cracked on the north side of the exterior wall of the back building; the door frame was rotting at Apartment 6 in the back building; a window was broken on the north side of the back building at Apartment 6; there were holes in the wall and ceiling of the water heater room on the south side of the back building; a window was broken on the south side of the back building on the second floor; and the cross face on the west side of the front building and on the east side of the front building was not enclosed. Further, he observed excessive debris outside apartments around the building, a broken soda machine on the north side of the back building was falling over, and the refrigeration units in it could contaminate the ground water; he observed a rusting LP gas tank from a barbecue which, when left outside, will rust through the tank and release the gas in the air, which would endanger the health and welfare of persons in the area; there were cars lying around and the oil from those could contaminate the ground water. On April 17, 2000, in Apartment 4, Inspector Vavala observed kitchen cabinets in disrepair; tile was chipped, broken, and missing on the kitchen floor; there was a hole in the wall of the living area; the window operating assembly was in disrepair allowing the windows to either remain in a stuck open or stuck closed position; the clamps no longer worked on the window; the wood framing around a window air conditioner was rotting and had a hole below it; the plaster was cracked and chipping in the bathroom; there was a hole in the wall above the tub in the shower stall; a hole was in the wall behind the toilet in the bathroom; and the carpet was stained and unclean in the living area. The poor condition of the kitchen cabinets, the holes in the wall of the living room and bathroom, and the broken, chipped and missing tile could harbor rodents and bugs and nesting vermin. The rotting frame and hole in the wall underneath could allow the air conditioner, which was located on the second floor, to fall and endanger lives of persons beneath the window. Further, the hole in the wall allowed pests and vermin to enter the apartment. The window operating assembly which would not allow the windows to open was dangerous should there be a fire or other disaster blocking other exits to the apartment. The window operating assembly, which would not allow the windows to close, allows the outside elements to enter the apartment during inclement weather causing further deterioration to the apartments and personal belongings of tenants. The cracked and chipped plaster in the bathroom would not allow adequate cleaning which contributes to poor sanitation. The dirty carpet in the living area could be harboring insects, mold and mildew. The violations observed in Apartment 4 affect the health and safety of its tenants. On April 17, 2000, in Apartment 3, Inspector Vavala observed the ceiling stained in the back bedroom, reflecting leaking water damage; the ceiling plaster cracked in the back bedroom; broken and missing tiles in the kitchen, exposing plywood; kitchen cabinets that were in disrepair; an inoperative assembly in a shower stall window; all the window operating assemblies in the middle bedroom in disrepair; a closet door in disrepair in the middle bedroom; a sink was falling off the wall in the bathroom; there was a hole in the wall under the toilet in the bathroom; and backflow prevention was not provided on exterior hose bins. The violations observed in Apartment 4 endangered the health and safety of its tenants. On April 17, 2000, Inspector Vavala observed that the establishment was operating without a new license in 1998, 1999, and 2000. On May 2, 2000, an Administrative Complaint was issued against the Respondent Fountain View Hotel which was docketed as Case No. 2-00-185 before the Division of Hotels and Restaurants, and as Case No. 00-2949 before the Division of Administrative Hearings. On April 8, 1999, one year prior to the violations enumerated in paragraphs 5 through 15 above, Supervisor Driscoll and Inspector Paul Landmann, inspected the same Fountain View Hotel described above. Numerous violations observed during the April 8, 1999, inspection were still not corrected on April 17, 2000. On February 23, 2000, Supervisor Driscoll made a follow-up inspection of the same Fountain View and found numerous violations of public lodging service rules, all of which she marked on the lodging service inspection report of February 23, 2000. On April 8, 1999, the Petitioner issued an Administrative Complaint against Respondent Joseph Sansalone d/b/a Fountain View Hotel (Sansalone) which was docketed as Case No. 2-99-79 before the Division of Hotels and Restaurants, and as Case No. 00-3040 before the Division of Administrative Hearings. At all times material hereto, Respondent Lamplighter Hotel & Apartments (Lamplighter) was a public lodging establishment, license number 60-00167-H, located at 433 40th Street, West Palm Beach, Florida. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection of the Lamplighter, Inspector Vavala, observed that there were no fire extinguishers located anywhere on the premises. This violation is a critical violation because it endangers the life and safety of individuals living in the public lodging establishment. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection of the Lamplighter, Inspector Vavala observed rodent droppings in an upstairs apartment in the back building and in the storage shed adjacent to the back building. This is a critical violation in that disease is spread in this manner which endangers the health and safety of individuals residing in the public lodging establishment. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection of the Lamplighter, Inspector Vavala observed that there was no cover on the wall socket at the top of the stairs in the front building, and that cover plates were missing on the electrical sockets on the outside receptacle on the outside of the front area. This violation is critical because the health and safety of children are endangered because children could stick their fingers in the outlets and be electrocuted. Further Inspector Vavala observed a soda machine plugged into an outlet on the outside which was exposed to the elements, which could also be a potential danger to the health and welfare of persons in the vicinity. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection of the Lamplighter, Inspector Vavala observed that the stairway in the rear of the building and the back building on the east side was in disrepair. These are critical violations because it would not be safe to evacuate the rear building from the stairwells, in case of fire or other emergency. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection of the Lamplighter, Inspector Vavala observed windows broken on the first and second floors of the front building on the south side; broken windows on the first and second floor of the front building on the east side; a broken window on the lower floor of the front building on the north side; a broken window on the door to the downstairs apartment in the back building; and a broken window on the east side of the back building on the second floor. These are violations because there is sharp glass exposed and no protection from the outside against vermin or the elements. He also observed stucco falling off the exterior wall of the front building on the north side; doors falling off the storage shed at the back of the building, adjacent to the living establishment, which harbored vermin; and a hole in the roof of the storage shed attached to the back of the building. The crawl space under the front building on the south side and under the front building on the north side was not enclosed; screens were ripped on the north side of the front building on the first floor and on the west side of the front building, which would allow insects to enter the establishment. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection, Inspector Vavala observed a second floor hurricane shutter broken in the down position. This broken shutter would not allow evacuation through the window in case of fire or other emergency. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection, Inspector Vavala observed a door missing at the upstairs apartment on the back building, and the ceiling was falling in the kitchen and family room in an upstairs back apartment. The apartment appeared to be unoccupied; however, it would endanger the health and welfare of the tenants if it was occupied. Further, the missing door would allow children playing in the area to enter the apartment where the ceiling is falling, which could result in serious injury to a child. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection, Inspector Vavala observed an excessive amount of debris in and around the premises, including a refrigerator in an unused condition that still had the door attached which could be a hazard to children that lived in the establishment. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection, Inspector Vavala observed inoperable kitchen appliances located in the upstairs back building. These are critical violations because individuals may bring in propane or charcoal stoves to prepare food which would be a fire hazard and could endanger the safety and lives of individuals residing in the public lodging establishment. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection, Inspector Vavala observed that lighting was not provided in the hallway staircase in the front building. This is a critical violation because the unlighted area endangers the health and safety of tenants of the establishment. On April 17, 2000, Inspector Vavala also observed that the establishment was operating without a new license in 1998, 1999, and 2000. On May 2, 2000, the Division issued an Administrative Complaint against Respondent, Lamplighter Hotel & Apartments, which was docketed as Case No. 2-00-186 before the Division of Hotels and Restaurants, and as Case No. 00-2950 before the Division of Administrative Hearings. The Lamplighter Hotel & Apartments, located at 433 40th Street, West Palm Beach, Florida, and the Fountain View Hotel, located at 516 44th Street, West Palm Beach, Florida, are owned by Americorp Mortgage Co., Inc., whose president is Joseph D. Sansalone.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Hotels and Restaurants issue a final order to the following effect: Concluding that the Respondent Fountain View Hotel is guilty of the violations observed during the inspection of its premises on April 17, 2000, as described in the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and imposing a penalty on the Respondent Fountain View Hotel consisting of an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000.00 and the revocation of its license. Concluding that the Respondent Lamplighter Hotel & Apartments is guilty of the violations observed during the inspection of its premises on April 17, 2000, as described in the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and imposing a penalty on the Respondent Lamplighter Hotel & Apartments consisting of an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000.00 and the revocation of its license. Concluding that the Respondent Joseph Sansalone is guilty of operating a public lodging establishment at the premises of the Fountain View Hotel during April of 1999 without a then-current license for that establishment, and imposing a penalty on the Respondent Joseph Sansalone consisting of an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of January, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 18th day of January, 2001.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner is entitled to an extension of time of 565 days for the completion of the project which is the subject of this proceeding, as opposed to the 367 days time extension which was granted for completion, and thereby is free from liquidated damages in the amount of $31,680.
Findings Of Fact On February 21, 1973, a contract was entered into between the Petitioner and Respondent for the construction of Phase II, University of North Florida, at Jacksonville, Florida, State Project No. BR-6504/7801-D. The Form of Agreement Between Contractor and Owner For Construction of Buildings, through its Article 4.2 identifies the conditions of liquidated damages. Article 8.5 states the conditions for settlement of claims and disputes. Contained as part of the contract, was standard form AlA Document, A201, American Institute of Architects, General Conditions of the Contract for Construction. Within the document A201, was Article 4.5, warranty of the work by the contractor; Article 8.3.1 discussing the matter of delays and extensions and Article 13.2.1 discussing uncovering and correcting. All these contract conditions are found in Petitioner's Exhibit "A" which was admitted into evidence. In pursuit of the contract obligations, the Petitioner entered into a contract with W. W. Gay, Mechanical Contractor, Inc., 523 Estelle Lane, Jacksonville, Florida. This contract with W. W. Gay as subcontractor contemplated the installation of mechanical parts of the contract work, and the agreement between the Petitioner and W. W. Gay is Petitioner's Exhibit "B", admitted into evidence. Part of the work to be performed by W. W. Gay involved the installation of a hot water piping system. According to Mr. W. W. Gay, President of W. W. Gay, Mechanical Contractor, Inc., 95 percent of the pipe to be used in the Phase II project was already available, having been left over from Phase I of the University of North Florida Project. This pipe had been stored for as long as 16 months, exposed to the weather. The storage itself was in accordance with the conditions of modification to contract document prepared by Reynolds, Smith and Hills, Architects, Engineers and Planners of Jacksonville, Florida. Petitioner's Exhibit "C" sets out the requirements for storing the aforementioned pipe. In addition, Mr. Gay testified that some of the type resin epoxy utilized in the Phase I project was left over and was stored in a facility whose temperatures reached 90 degrees Fahrenheit, although the recommended storage temperature for the substance was 70 degrees Fahrenheit. The piping spoken of was a type manufactured by Ric-wil Manufacturing known as FRP, Dual Gard 250. The pipe was identified in the course of the hearing by Carl Bowles, General Superintendent for W. W. Gay, as being a fiberglass type pipe. This pipe had been selected in lieu of the job specification pipe which is a form of asbestos pipe manufactured by Johns Manville, due to the fact that the Johns Manville pipe had not been approved for release by Johns Manville's quality control department. The substitution of the Ric-wil pipe was approved by the project architect, John Brickert, who was also the project manager and an employee of Reynolds, Smith and Hills. The approval for substitution was on the basis that the Ric-wil pipe was acceptable because it was a non-metallic pipe and the Johns Manville pipe was a non-metallic pipe. Approval for the substitution had been granted in Phase I and carried over into Phase II. In addition to the hot water piping system in Phase II, W. W. Gay installed a chill water system using a PVC type pipe identified as Ric-wil Chil Gard. Prior to the installation of the Ric-wil Dual Gard pipe in Phase I, W. W. Gay had never installed that type piping system. In the course of the installation of the piping system in Phase I, some problems were experienced with the installation which were not similar to the problems that would be experienced in the construction of the Phase II University of North Florida project. Phase I was completed utilizing the Ric-wil Dual Gard pipe. In the beginning of Phase II, W. W. Gay ran the cold water system and hot water system in a common area underground from valve pit one to valve pit six, in order to put into operation buildings 008 and 009 of the University of North Florida. These locations are shown on the engineering drawing which is Petitioner's Exhibit "K", entered into evidence. Installation of the two piping systems commenced in October of 1973. Sometime in the middle part of November, 1973, a test was conducted on the hot and chilled water systems between valve pits one and six. The hot water system passed the test. The chilled water system failed. Later in November, the chilled water system also passed. This successful test opened up the hot and chilled water systems to buildings 008, 009 and 011. Further tests were conducted in early January, 1974 and again the hot and chilled water lines passed. In January, 1974, W. W. Gay began to run the hot water piping system from valve pit six to valve pit seven and in the area of building 010 found that the line would not hold pressure. A decision was made to retest between valve pit one and six, a leek as found in the area of valve pit one. This leak was discovered in late January, 1974. A subsequent test of the hot water piping system was run in early February, 1974, between valve pit one and valve pit six and into the buildings 008, 009 and 011. This test failed. In the middle of February, 1974, a further test was made from valve pit one to the end of the line, to the northwest corner of building 011, and this test failed. For the balance of February, 1974, time was spent trying to repair the leaks in the hot water piping system. These continued failures in the system brought about two meetings to discuss the solution of the problem. These meetings will be discussed subsequently. At the time the subcontractor was experiencing problems with the installation of the hot water system, problems were also being experienced with the chill water system. Throughout March, the chill water system was continuing to be installed and in late March a leak was discovered opposite building 010. This leak was repaired. In mid April a leak was found in the chill water system in the area of valve pit six and an attempt to repair it was unsuccessful. Problems continued until June, 1974, at which time replacement of the water pipe and fittings was begun between valve pit one and six. Further testing showed a failure in the chill water piping. Finally in September, 1974, the chill water system passed. One of the problems with the chill water piping system concerned the couplings for that system which were found to be defective. An example of the problems associated with the couplings in the chill water system is demonstrated through Exhibit "N", by the Petitioner, which is a cross section of one of the couplings which was removed after being installed in the Phase II University of North Florida Project. This cross section shows numerous surface irregularities, which promote leaks. On February 28, 1974, a meeting was held in the offices of Reynolds, Smith and Hills which was attended by the project manager, John Brickert; representatives of the Petitioner; representatives of Ric-wil, Incorporated; representatives of the University of North Florida; representatives of the subcontractor W. W. Gay, and other representatives of Reynolds, Smith and Hills associated with the project. Varying theories were advanced in trying to explain the problems associated with the hot water piping system. From the subcontractor's point of view, expressed by W. W. Gay, this difficulty was not obvious because it was his contention that the pipe was being installed according to the directions of the manufacturer's representative who was on the job site for some 90 percent of the installation. Jack Green, the mechanical construction specialist for Reynolds, Smith and Hills, testified that from his on site observations, which occurred about the general time frame of the meeting of February 28, 1974, that he had seen water in the trenches around the building 010. Furthermore, according to Green, the subcontractor had undercut the ditches and had attempted to install the hot water piping system while the ditch was too wet, using loose soil which was not compacted. In addition Mr. Green stated that he felt that the joints were dirty and moist and had not been sanded properly. Finally, Mr. Green stated that he had stopped the installation of the pipe because of the conditions mentioned. The deposition upon written questions of C. G. Schoor, Service Manager with Ric-wil, said that he had been at the job site on February 11, 1974, and had noticed water leaks in the fringes and couplings of the hot water pipes. He felt that in the area of the flanges there was improper sanding because when the pipe was pulled out, the surface was clean and resin remained in the flange. He also commented in his deposition that there was improper surface sanding and a large area of entrapped air on one of the 10" couplings pulled out between points two and three on the second joint north of two and this occurred during an initial 150 lb. hydro test. In one joint the resin epoxy had not hardened and was still in a plastic state, according to Ben Schoor. In speculating about the plasticity, Schoor said that it could have been promoted by long storage of the material, or contamination of the material which constitutes the resin epoxy or improper mixture of the two components of the epoxy resin on the part of the subcontractor. He felt that this plasticity would probably promote leaks but he observed no such leaks where the resin epoxy was plastic. The deposition on written questions of Ben Schoor was entered into evidence as Respondent's Exhibit "B". Discussion at the February 28, 1974, meeting considered two alternatives: First, to allow for the further installation of the Ric-wil Dual Gard System using the expertise of the Ric-wil employees; second, to substitute the Ric-wil Dual Gard pipe with Ric-wil Hi-Gard Pipe, which is steel. A further meeting on March 4, 1974, was held with representatives of the Petitioner; the subcontractor, W. W. Gay; Reynolds, Smith and Hills, by John Brickert, and other representatives of that firm. It was decided at that meeting, that due to the effect of oil shortages causing the unavailability of the Ric-wil Dual Gard pipe and fittings, the Ric-wil Company would design a pipe system to utilize steel pipes, and the subcontractor would determine the necessary adjustments to use the steel pipe. At this meeting the subcontractor, W. W. Gay, requested some relief from possible liquidated damages, and the minutes of that meeting indicate that consideration of that request was deferred. According to notes from time sheets of Reynolds, Smith and Hills, which was admitted as Respondent's Exhibit "A", installation of the steel piping system was commenced on July 1, 1974, and completed August 21, 1974. Minutes of the meetings of February 28, 1974, and March 4, 1974, are found as Petitioner's Exhibits "E" and "F" respectively, admitted into evidence. After the March 4, 1974, meeting, discussion was continued on the question of liquidated damages in view of the substitution of the type of piping, and conjecture was made about the problems with the piping system. In correspondence of March 22, 1974, Neil A. Porter, Vice President of the Petitioner, makes reference to the liquidated damages question in this letter to John Brickert, and suggests holding the matter in abeyance. This letter enclosed a letter from W. W. Gay dated March 21, 1974, directed to the Petitioner, which sets out the approximate time to complete the system will be 105 days. The Gay letter also states opinions by Mr. Gay as to what was determined in the course of the February 28, 1974, meeting on the subject of the cause of the problems with the Ric-wil Dual Gard piping. Mr. Gay made further comments that he felt that the change in temperature, from 70 degrees to 90 degrees as stored, adversely effects the resin epoxy and that the ultra violet rays of the sun also effected the pipe which was stored outside. Mr. Gay's letter of March 21, 1974 and Mr. Brickert's letter of March 22, 1974 are Petitioner's composite Exhibit "G", which was admitted into evidence. Mr. Brickert responded to Mr. Porter by letter of March 29, 1974, in which he suggests the question of liquidated damages cannot be addressed at present because the amount of delay is unknown, and Reynolds, Smith and Hills is not a part of the contract and cannot accept a stipulation for extension. This letter is Petitioner's Exhibit "H", which was admitted into evidence. On April 19, 1974, a change order was entered by Mr. Brickert which allowed for the substitution of Ric-wil Hi-Gard steel pre-insulated pipe for the Ric-wil Dual Gard 250 plastic pre-insulated pipe. Page three of that change order indicates the rationale for accepting such a substitute and alludes to the possibility of a time extension which is not subject to identification at the moment of the change order, but which will be requested. This change order is Petitioner's Exhibit "I", which was admitted. A further statement on the Chil Gard pipe and the problems with the couplings is found in Petitioner's composite Exhibit "J", a letter of May 29, 1974, with attachments from John T. Brickert to Neil A. Porter. By Change Order #19 and the accompanying letter of explanation from John T. Brickert, addressed to Jack C. Koons, Administrator, Department of General Services; the project manager has denied, and the Respondent has agreed to such denial, of any time extension conditioned upon problems with the piping systems. This denial by the letter of September 8, 1975, is premised on the conclusion that any failure on the system was due to faulty installation or failure of material which was subject to the control of the Petitioner. As a result of Change Order #19, 198 days of time overrun at $160.00 a day have been assessed as liquidated damages, totaling $31,680.00. These items of Change Order #19 and the correspondence alluded to are found in composite Exhibit "D" by the Petitioner, which was admitted into evidence. A review of the evidence offered on the question of the cause of the problems in the hot water system which was being installed as Ric-wil Dual Gard indicates a possible problem associated with the manufacture of Ric-wil Dual Gard pipe; a possible problem with the storage of the Ric-wil Dual Gard pipe at the job site for a period of up to 16 months prior to its installation; possible problems associated with the storage of the resin epoxy at temperatures which would damage the compound; possible contamination of the resin epoxy; possible improper mixture of the resin epoxy and possible improper application of the resin epoxy on the surface of the piping; possible improper sanding of the surfaces of the pipe where it was joined; possible improper preparation of the ditch in which the pipe was being placed, and possible improper installation of the pipe itself. From an examination of the testimony and the evidence offered in support of that testimony, the cause of the problems with the pipe would appear to be a combination of all the factors mentioned above, but it cannot be discerned with reasonable exactness what the percentage of responsibility is in determining the factors which lead to the rejection of the Ric-wil Dual Gard System in favor of the Ric-wil Hi-Gard System. From the testimony and the exhibits offered on the question of the problems associated with the Chil Water System, the testimony points to defective couplings as the responsible agent for the problems associated with that installation. These defective couplings are found to be the primary cause of the problems associated with the Chill Water System. On the question of liquidated damages penalties to be associated with a substitution of the Ric-wil Hi-Gard System for the Ric-wil Dual Gard System testimony was offered, as described before, by W. W. Gay who was under the impression that he was receiving relief from any liquidated damages and thought that relief would be afforded. This testimony is supported by the testimony of Neil Porter, the Vice President of the Petitioner who likewise had such an understanding. It is also supported by the testimony of John Daniel Cheatwood, the President of Petitioner, who was in attendance at the March 4, 1974 meeting at the offices of Reynolds Smith and Hills. In addition, Jack Green, Field Representative Mechanical, for Reynolds, Smith and Hills recalled that W. W. Gay requested relief from any possible liquidated damages for substitution of the pipe and the appearance was given that some consideration would be made of the necessity for extension of time. Mr. Brickert, as spokesman for the owner, felt that the meeting of March 4, 1974, did not commit the owner to grant an extension, and upon ultimate assessment an extension of time associated with the substitution of the pipe was denied. It is found as a matter of fact that the owner through negotiations with the contractor and/or his subcontractor, W. W. Gay, and through the Petitioner's Exhibit "I" agreed to an extension of time for the installation of the Ric-wil Hi-Gard Pipe in substitution for the Ric-wil Dual Gard pipe.
Recommendation It is recommended that the relief requested from the imposition of liquidated damages due to the delays associated with the installation of the hot water system and chill water system, which were assessed as 198 days at a $160.00 per day, for a total of $31,860, be reduced in an amount which would equate to the time necessary to install the substituted hot water system, and be upheld in the amount which would equate to the time necessary to install the chill water system. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of June, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 23rd day of June, 1976. COPIES FURNISHED: William S. Stevens, III, Esquire For the Executive Director Department of General Services State of Florida 725 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 S. Gordon Blalock, Esquire Suite 2301 Independent Square Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER =================================================================
