The Issue The issue is whether the Petitioner's imposition of an administrative fine of $300 upon the Respondent should be upheld.
Findings Of Fact Riverview Rest Home is an adult congregate living facility which is subject to licensing by the Petitioner. This facility was so licensed on the dates in question, and remains licensed to the present time. On July 23, 1980, members of the professional staff of the Petitioner inspected the Respondent. Based upon this inspection the Respondent was issued a list of violations and deficiencies. In addition to those which were subsequently corrected, the violations in issue are: (1) screens in the kitchen area in need of repair, (2) a toilet which could not be flushed, and was full of human waste, (3) dust and dirt accumulated in the bed frames, and window sills cluttered with dust, lint, cigarette butts, paper and cobwebs, and (4) dirt on the floor under beds. A reinspection of Riverview Rest Home was conducted on August 15, 1980, which revealed the following: A toilet accommodating 4 residents was semi-full of toilet paper, human urine and feces, and emitting a strong odor. Two residents were sitting or lying in rooms in close proximity to this toilet. An attempt to flush this toilet disclosed the tank to be empty and the water to have been cut off. When the water was turned on, the toilet began to leak in a large stream. The toilet seat was loose, broken, and not attached to the base. Heavy accumulations of lint, dust and dirt on bed frames, and window sills cluttered with dust, lint, cigarette butts, bits of paper and cobwebs. The outside screen door adjacent to the kitchen area was torn and in need of repair. Dirty and stained mattresses in resident rooms, dirty, urine stained, and soiled sheets on resident beds. Bathroom fixtures were dirty, stained, in need of cleaning, and the floor around toilets was dirty and wet. The table in the cottage where residents eat was dirty, and showed the residue of a previous meal or meals. Other violations or deficiencies were observed during reinspection, but the above are repeat occurrences of those first noticed on July 23, 1980. In addition, a fire marshall of the City of Holly Hills conducted a fire safety inspection of the Respondent facility on August 4, 1980, and found 5 violations of the City Fire Code. A reinspection was done on August 13, 1980, to verify corrections, and the gas hot water heater which had been found improperly vented, had not been corrected. A second reinspection on August 21, 1980, found the gas hot water heater then properly vented, but the emergency lighting system was not working. The Respondent, while not admitting the violations and deficiencies described above, presented no evidence to controvert the testimony of the Petitioners witnesses relative to the results of inspections of the Respondent facility. Essentially, the Respondents position is that all of the alleged deficiencies are first-time violations not subject to fine or penalty. However, there is adequate evidence in the record to support a finding that the violations for which a penalty was assessed were recurring deficiencies not corrected after the Respondent had been advised of their existence.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner's imposition of an administrative fine in the amount of $300 be upheld. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 12th day of January, 1981. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of January, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Leo J. Stellwagaen, Esq. Assistant District IV Counsel P.O. Box 2417 F Jacksonville, Florida 32231 Leo Siroky Riverview Rest Home 700 Daytona Avenue Holly Hill, Florida 32017
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed against his glass and glazing specialty contractor's license.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to these proceedings, Respondent was a certified glass and glazing specialty contractor, having been issued License No. C-7715. Respondent was the qualifying contractor for Windows 2000 Insulated Replacement Windows and Doors in Pinellas Park, Florida. On or about August 28, 1999, Respondent entered into an agreement with Bill Freer for two sets of French doors and accepted a deposit of $1,498. Within three days, Mr. Freer called Respondent's business to cancel the order and request a refund of his deposit. Respondent refused Mr. Freer's request, citing the fact that he had a signed contract for the doors and that he had already paid a commission to the salesperson. Mr. Freer pointed out to Respondent that the contract expressly allowed him to cancel within three business days of its execution, but Respondent still refused to refund the deposit. Mr. Freer spent several fruitless weeks being handed back and forth between Respondent and his salesperson in his efforts to obtain the refund of his deposit. Mr. Freer ultimately filed a complaint with the Pinellas County Department of Consumer Protection, which referred the matter to Petitioner. In summary, Respondent refused to refund the deposit, but also took no steps to complete the contract, abandoning the job and pocketing the $1,498 deposit. On or about August 30, 1999, Respondent contracted with Kim Derks, a state licensed contractor, to furnish and install two sets of French doors in a house being built by Mr. Derks' company. Mr. Derks gave Respondent a down payment of $856.40 on a contract price of $2,212.80. On September 29, 1999, Respondent's company went to the house to install the French door units. The doors were the wrong size. Respondent then abandoned the work, despite repeated efforts by Mr. Derks to allow Respondent to make good on the contract. In summary, Respondent abandoned the job and refused to refund the down payment he received. On or about February 15, 1999, Respondent contracted with John Butler to replace a sliding glass door in Mr. Butler's house with a set of French doors. The contract price was $540, and Mr. Butler paid it in full at the time the contract was executed. Respondent completed the work in February 1999. Some time in September 1999, Mr. Butler noticed that the wood on the exterior of the doors was beginning to rot. Mr. Butler and his wife repeatedly phoned Respondent's business, but received a constant runaround, compounded by the fact that Respondent moved the business and changed its name during this period. After more than a month, Respondent finally went to Mr. Butler's house to look at the doors. Respondent told Mr. Butler that the doors were never finished, but that there was no warranty on the doors. Respondent told Mr. Butler that he was no longer the owner of the business, and would have to check with the new owner to see if there was anything that could be done. Respondent never contacted Mr. Butler again. In summary, Respondent performed substandard work in installing the French doors, and refused to remedy the defects thereof or otherwise make good on his contract with the house owner.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board enter a final order finding Respondent, Daryl R. Gilbert, guilty of violating Section 24(2)(d),(h),(j), and (m), Chapter 89-504, Laws of Florida; imposing an administrative fine of $1,000; and suspending Respondent from all operations as a contractor until such time as he makes full restitution to Bill Freer in the amount of $1,498, to Kim Derks in the amount of $2,212.80, and to John Butler in the amount of $540. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 11th day of August, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: William J. Owens, Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 11701 Belcher Road Largo, Florida 34643-5116 Daryl R. Gilbert 990 Donegan Road Largo, Florida 33771
The Issue The issues in the case are whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensure and regulation of nursing homes operating in the State of Florida. The Respondent operates a licensed nursing home at 2916 Habana Way, Tampa, Florida 33614. The facility is approximately 30 years old. It is not built to current standards. On March 13, 2002, the Petitioner inspected the Respondent facility. Based on the inspection, the Petitioner determined that there were life safety code deficiencies at the facility and cited the deficiencies as "tag numbers K 020, K 067, and K 130." The deficiencies were identified as Class III deficiencies. The Respondent did not dispute the inspection findings and submitted a Plan of Correction (POC) to the Petitioner, which approved the POC. The Petitioner conducted a follow-up inspection on April 25, 2002, and cited the facility for the same three tag numbers. TAG K 020 The Petitioner alleged in Tag K 020 that the Respondent failed to meet a standard that requires vertical openings between floors be enclosed with construction so as to provide fire-resistance of at least one hour. The purpose of the standard is to prevent fire from spreading through the floors of the facility via the laundry chute. The approved POC required that the specifically identified broken hardware and improper closing doors be repaired, that the doors be inspected on a monthly basis, and that the staff be trained to notify the facility's maintenance man if any additional hardware malfunctioned. During the March 13, 2002, inspection, the "fourth floor laundry chute corridor door" failed to function properly. (Emphasis supplied.) During the April reinspection, the "fourth floor laundry chute door . . . did not close to a positive latch, in that part of the latching hardware was missing to insure closure." The laundry chutes are contained within a small closeted area. There is a door from the corridor into the closet and another door inside the closet that opens to the laundry chute. The malfunctioning fourth floor doors identified in the March inspection and the April reinspection are different doors. The evidence establishes that the fourth floor corridor door cited in the March inspection was repaired according to the POC and was functioning properly at the time of the April reinspection. During the March inspection, the "first floor west stairwell exit door" did not "consistently" latch into its frame. This door was not cited in the April reinspection and it is reasonable to infer from the lack of re-citation that the door was apparently functioning properly at that time. During the March inspection, the hardware on the second floor "laundry chute access door" was broken and did not close automatically. During the April reinspection, the same door was again malfunctioning. The age of the facility apparently makes maintenance of laundry chute locks difficult. The chute doors were not built to current standards and some malfunctioning lock parts are difficult to replace. The problem on the second floor laundry chute access door was due to a broken spring. The Respondent's administrator and maintenance supervisor testified that the door had been repaired and had broken again. Their testimony was persuasive and is credited. During the April reinspection, the Petitioner found other doors that were not functioning properly. The additional doors include a third floor laundry chute door that "did not close to a positive latch" because of a missing lock mechanism. The Petitioner also found that a laundry chute door in the first floor laundry chute collection room was using only one of two locking devices and that hardware was missing from what is apparently the unused locking device. The evidence fails to establish that these items were not functioning properly at the time of the March survey or that they were not repaired on a timely basis after the April survey. As of the date of the hearing, the doors are inspected on a weekly basis in an attempt to maintain and repair broken parts on an expedited basis. TAG K 067 Tag K 067 alleges that the Respondent failed to meet a standard requiring that air handlers automatically shut down in the event of a fire alarm. The purpose of the standard is to prevent distribution of smoke through the facility via the air conditioning system in the event of a fire. During the March inspection, three of fifteen air handlers failed to shut down automatically when the fire alarm was set off. The specific handlers that failed to shut down were identified as two on the fourth floor and the "east" air handler on the second floor. The approved POC provided that the specified air handlers would be serviced to shut down when the fire alarm went off. The air system was serviced on April 4, 2002, after which the system functioned properly. During the April reinspection, the air conditioning compressor and fan in the fourth and second floors were not functioning at all, and therefore it was not possible to determine whether or not the air handlers would shut down as required. Because the system was not working, the test was not performed. The evidence fails to establish that this deficiency existed at the time of the April reinspection. At the hearing, the Respondent provided persuasive testimony and evidence establishing that the air conditioning system was subsequently returned to working order and that the system properly shut down upon activation of the fire alarm system. TAG K 130 Tag K 130 alleges that the Respondent failed to meet a standard requiring that electrical equipment be in accordance with the "National Electrical Code." During the March inspection, the Petitioner found that some electrical outlets were loose in the wall mounting boxes or did not have sufficient tension to retain electrical cord plugs. Also during the March inspection, the Petitioner found that some residents of the facility were using household-type extension cords. The approved POC provided that outlets would be repaired and extension cords would be removed. During the April reinspection, the Petitioner found that the cited deficiencies had been repaired but that household-type extension cords were in use in resident rooms other than those originally cited in March. As of the date of the hearing, room inspections are performed on a weekly basis to prevent improper extension cord use. Although the Respondent asserted that relatives of facility residents bring in the extension cords despite the instructions to the contrary, the evidence fails to establish that the facility is unable to prevent the use of household-type extension cords in residents rooms.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine of $1,000 on the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of May, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 30th day of May, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald L. Pickett, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive, North Sebring Building, Suite 310H St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Donna H. Stinson, Esquire Broad & Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Post Office Box 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Rhonda M. Medows, M.D., Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building, Suite 3116 Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent violated Section 509.215(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1995), 1/ by failing to install a fire sprinkler system and appropriate signs in the corridors of a public lodging establishment.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is the governmental agency responsible for issuing licenses to operate public lodging establishments. Petitioner also regulates public lodging establishments. Respondent operates a public lodging establishment as Royal Mansions Resort (the "complex"). 2/ The complex is located in Port Canaveral, Florida. The Complex The construction contract for the complex was let after September 30, 1983. 3/ The complex obtained building permits in October, 1986, and obtained certificates of occupancy in October, 1988. The complex contains three buildings. Each building is at least three stories in height. The three buildings contain 108 dwelling units or "guest areas." One building contains 36 guest areas. The second building contains 24 guest areas, and the third building contains 48 guest areas. Each building contains a 72-foot corridor on the second floor which extends the length of the building (the "corridors"). The corridors provide access to guest areas on the second and third floors. 4/ The corridors are located in the center of the buildings. Doors on both sides of each corridor provide access to heated and cooled guest areas inside the building. Guests enter guest areas on the second and third floors through the doors located on both sides of the corridor in the center of each building. Once inside the doors, guests may enter doors to the second floor guest areas or take interior stairs to the third floor guest areas. 5/ Guests egress the corridors by walking down a flight of stairs located at each end of the corridors. Exit signs are located at both ends of each corridor. Background More than 50 percent of the guest areas are rented as transient units and are subject to Petitioner's jurisdiction. Petitioner licenses 102 of the guest areas for transient rental. Petitioner first licensed the complex for transient rental in 1988. Since 1988, Petitioner has inspected the complex on a routine basis. From 1989- 1991, Petitioner did not require a fire sprinkler system in the corridors. On August 11, 1993, Petitioner cited Respondent for violating Section 509.215(1)(a). Petitioner cited Respondent for failing to install a fire sprinkler system and post appropriate signs in the corridors. On September 13, 1993, Petitioner performed a follow-up inspection to ascertain whether Respondent had installed the sprinkler system and posted the appropriate signs. Respondent had neither installed the sprinkler system and posted the signs nor requested an extension of time to do so. On December 21, 1993, Petitioner issued a Notice To Show Cause for failure to install a sprinkler system and for failure to post the appropriate signs. Petitioner alleges that the corridors in the complex are "interior corridors which do not have direct access from the guest area to exterior means of egress" within the meaning of Section 509.215(1)(a). Neither Section 509.215 nor the definitions in Section 509.013 define "interior corridors." The statute merely requires a sprinkler system for "interiorcorridors [which do not have direct access from the guest area to exterior means of egress]." [emphasis supplied] By necessary implication, Section 509.215(1)(a) does not require a sprinkler system for exterior corridors. The statute may intend the underlined phrase as a definitional distinction between interior and exterior corridors. Alternatively, the statute may intend the underlined phrase to limit the requirement for a sprinkler system to those interior corridors "which do not have direct access from the guest area to exterior means of egress." If so, the statute does not require sprinkler systems for interior corridors which "have direct access from the guest area to exterior means of egress." Statutory Terms: Plain And Ordinary Meaning The terms "interior corridors" and "exterior means of egress" are not defined in Sections 509.215, 509.013, or applicable rules. Terms that are not defined by statute or rule should be interpreted according to their plain and ordinary meaning whenever possible. 6/ The term "interior" means "on the inside." 7/ The corridors are not "on the inside" of any of the buildings. Each corridor is open to the sky and air at both ends, is not enclosed on four sides, and has no dead ends. The corridors are not part of the heated and cooled space inside the buildings. Even if the corridors were interior corridors, the statute would not require them to have a sprinkler system because the corridors "have direct access . . . to exterior means of egress." The corridors have direct access to exits located at the ends of the corridors. Even if Section 509.215(1)(a) could be construed to require the guest areas to "have direct access . . . to exterior means of egress," the corridors are an exterior means of egress. The term "egress" means "a way out." 8/ The term "egress" is not synonymous with being "out." It is merely a way out. Each corridor in the complex is an exterior means of a way out. Each corridor is open to the sky and air at each end, is not enclosed on four sides, and has no dead ends. None of the corridors are heated and cooled. Each corridor is able to expel any products of combustion that may be provided during a fire. The corridor walls, doors, floor, and ceiling are constructed with assemblies that exceed the fire ratings prescribed by all applicable codes. Each corridor provides a clear and unencumbered path to an exit. Each corridor is an exterior means of egress, i.e., a way out. Statutory Terms: Safety and Building Codes Even if safety and building codes are used to define statutory terms, the corridors "have direct access from the guest area to exterior means of egress" within the meaning of Section 509.215(1)(a). The corridors have direct access to exits at both ends of the corridors. Those exits satisfy the definition of an exterior means of egress contained in the NFPA 101 Life Safety Code (the "Life Safety Code") and the Standard Building Code (the Standard Building Code"), 1984-1994. Even if Section 509.215(1)(a) could be construed to require guest areas to "have direct access . . . to exterior means of egress," the corridors are an exterior means of egress within the meaning of the Life Safety Code and Standard Building Code. The Life Safety Code The substantive definition of a "means of egress" has remained unchanged in the Life Safety Code from 1985 through the present. A "means of egress" is defined in the Life Safety Code as: . . . a continuous and unobstructed way of exit travel from any point in a building . . . to a public way and consists of three separate and distinct parts: (a) the exit access, (b) the exit, and (c) the exit discharge. A means of egress comprises the vertical and horizontal travel and [shall] include intervening . . . corridors . . . stairs . . . exits . . . [and] yards. [emphasis supplied] Life Safety Code, Sec. 5-1.2.1, Means of Egress, at 38 (ed. 1985). An "exit access" is "that portion of a means of egress which leads to an entrance to an exit." Id. The corridors lead to entrances to exits at both ends of the corridors. Each corridor is that portion of a "means of egress" defined in the Life Safety Code as an exit access. 9/ Even if the requirement for corridors to "have direct access from the guest area to exterior means of egress" could be construed to require the guest areas to "have direct access . . . to exterior means of egress," the corridors satisfy such a requirement. The guest areas have direct access to corridors that comprise an integral part of a "means of egress." No reasonable construction of Section 509.215(1)(a) would require guest areas to have direct access to all three parts of a "means of egress" simultaneously. Direct access to an integral part of a continuous and unobstructed means of egress would satisfy the spirit and intent of any reasonable statutory construction. The corridors in the complex provide "direct access from the guest area to "that portion of a means of egress" defined in the Life Safety Code as an "exit access." Each corridor is an "exterior" means of egress. None corridor is enclosed on four sides, has dead ends, or is heated and cooled. Each corridor is open at both ends to the sky and air and able to expel any products of combustion that may be provided during a fire. The walls, doors, floor, and ceiling of each corridor are constructed with assemblies that exceed the fire ratings prescribed by applicable codes. The Standard Building Code Of 1985 The Standard Building Code of 1985 defines a "means of egress" as: . . . a continuous path of travel from any point in a building . . . to the open air outside at ground level, consisting of two separate and distinct parts: (1) the exit access, and (2) the exit. A means of egress comprises the vertical and horizontal means of travel and [may] include the . . . corridor. [emphasis supplied] Standard Building Code, Sec. 202, Definitions, at 11 (ed. 1985). The term "exit access" is defined in the 1985 Standard Building Code as, "that portion of a means of egress which leads to an entrance to an exit." The term "exit" is defined in the 1985 Standard Building Code as: . . . that portion of a means of egress which is separated from the area of the building from which escape is to be made, by walls, floors, doors, or other means which provide the protected path necessary for the occupants to proceed with safety to a public space. Standard Building Code, Sec. 202, Definitions, at 8 (ed. 1985). The corridor in each building in the complex is that portion of a "means of egress" defined in the 1985 Standard Building Code as the exit access. Each corridor leads to an exit and comprises the horizontal means of travel to the exit. Each exit is separated from the area of the building from which escape is to be made by corridor walls, floors, doors, and ceilings. The walls, floors, doors, and ceiling of each corridor exceed the fire ratings prescribed by all applicable codes. They provide a protected path necessary for the occupants to proceed with safety to a public space. Even if the requirement for corridors to "have direct access from the guest area to exterior means of egress" could be construed to require guest areas to "have direct access . . . to exterior means of egress," the corridors satisfy such a requirement. Each corridor is that portion of a means of egress defined as an exit access. The corridors and exits provide guests with continuous paths of travel from the guest areas to the open air outside at ground level. The corridor in each building in the complex is an "exterior" means of egress within the meaning of the 1985 Standard Building Code. Each corridor is open to the outside at both ends, is not enclosed on four sides, has no dead ends, and is not heated and cooled. The 1994 Standard Building Code The Standard Building Code of 1994 defines a "means of egress" as: . . . a continuous and unobstructed way of exit travel from any point in a building . . . to a public way, consisting of three separate and distinct parts: (1) the way of exit access, (2) the exit; and (3) the way of exit discharge. A means of egress comprises the vertical and horizontal means of travel and [shall] include . . . corridors. [emphasis supplied] Standard Building Code, Sec. 202, Definitions, at 27 (ed. 1994). The term "exit access" is defined in the 1994 Standard Building Code as, "that portion of a means of egress which leads to an entrance to an exit." The term "exit" is defined in the 1994 Standard Building Code as: . . . that portion of a means of egress which is separated from all other spaces of a building . . . by construction and opening protectives, as required for exits, to provide a protected way of travel to the exit discharge. Exits include . . . separated exit stairs. . . . An "exit discharge" is defined as "that portion of a means of egress between the termination of an exit and a public way." Standard Building Code, Sec. 202, Definitions, at 23-24 (ed. 1994). The corridor in each building in the complex is that portion of a "means of egress" defined in the 1994 Standard Building Code as the exit access. Each corridor leads to entrances to exits at both ends of the corridor and comprises the horizontal means of travel to the exits. Even if the requirement for corridors to "have direct access from the guest area to exterior means of egress" could be construed to require the guest areas to "have direct access . . . to exterior means of egress," the corridors satisfy such a requirement. Each corridor is that portion of a means of egress defined as an exit access. The corridors, exits, and exit discharges provide guests with continuous paths of travel from the guest areas to the open air outside at ground level. The corridor in each building in the complex is an "exterior" means of egress within the meaning of the 1994 Standard Building Code. Each corridor is open to the air and sky at both ends, is not enclosed on four sides, has no dead ends, and is not heated and cooled.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of violating Section 509.215(1)(a) and dismissing the Notice To Show Cause. RECOMMENDED this 2nd day of October, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL S. MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of October, 1996.
The Issue Whether or not the Respondent failed to complete two construction projects which he entered into, which conduct constitutes an "abandonment" in violation of Chapters 468.112(2)(h), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1978) and 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes (1979).
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying arguments of counsel, and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. By its two-count Administrative Complaint filed herein on March 3, 1981, Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, seeks to revoke, suspend or take other disciplinary action against Respondent, Hodges J. Jefferson, based upon two of his contract projects in the State of Florida. Respondent is a certified general contractor who is the holder of License No. CJC0004463. Respondent's last known address is H.J. Jefferson Brothers Construction, Inc., 2250 N.W. 194th Terrace, Miami, Florida 33056. On February 18, 1979, Respondent entered into a contract with Clifton Vaughn to construct an addition to Vaughn's residence located at 3791 N.W. 205th Street, Miami, Florida, 33174, for the total contract price of $11,000.00. As finally agreed upon, the parties entered into a contract for a total price of $16,000.00. 2/ The total area of the addition was approximately 1,200 square feet (Petitioner's Exhibit 5). Respondent obtained a building permit for this project on May 2, 1979, and thereafter commenced work some time during the month of May. The work involved in the addition included work to the rear and west side of Vaughn's residence, including the addition of a bathroom, family room, utility room and dining room with the necessary plumbing and electrical modifications in accordance with the plans and specification. (Petitioner's Exhibit 6) Respondent's last day of work on the project at the Vaughn's residence was November 3, 1979. At that juncture, Respondent had installed some plumbing and completed the duct work for the plumbing; had poured the concrete slab for the addition; erected walls and tie beams to join the existing roof with the addition. The Vaughn's existing roof was left exposed for more than 30 days, during which period Hurricane David caused considerable damage to the plaster and insulation in the roof area of the Vaughn's residence. Respondent visited the Vaughn's residence some time after November 3, 1979, requesting an addendum to the contract and sought an additional $652.00. (Petitioner's Exhibit 7). To provide construction funds for this project, Respondent and Mr. Vaughn set up a joint bank account. Vaughn deposited money into the joint account and Respondent was advanced $3,300.00. During the period of March through November 3, 1979, Respondent was paid $9,961.88, or approximately 90 percent of the contract amount. Respondent ceased work at the Vaughn's residence on or about November 3, 1979, and as of the date of the hearing, had not returned to complete the project. (Petitioner's Exhibits 9 and 10). As stated, the parties entered into the two contracts, i.e., in the amount of $11,000.00 and $16,000.00 based on a $5,000.00 allowance for the Vaughn's modifications to fund the work needed to complete the air conditioning modifications in the new addition. On April 12, 1979, Respondent entered into an agreement with Freddie James Jackson to construct an addition to his home at 3752 N.W. 205th Street, Miami, Florida, in the amount of $10,000.00. The job called for a completion time of 60 days from the commencement of construction. Respondent was advanced one-third of the contract amount of $3,300.00 before he commenced work. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2) Respondent commended work on the project on June 1, 1979, and on November 14, 1979, Respondent ceased all work on this project. At that time Respondent had been paid a total sum of $8,751.03 or approximately 88 percent of the contract price. (Respondent's Composite Exhibit 3) When Respondent ceased to perform work on this project, he had poured the foundation, erected the cinder block walls, completed the rough plumbing and electrical work and started erecting the rafters. The plumbing and the electrical work had to be removed and reinstalled by the Jacksons. The owners also had to obtain a new building permit due to the extended hiatus in construction. When the second building permit was obtained, the inspectors estimated that the project was approximately 45 percent complete. (Testimony of Jackson). Mr. Jackson estimated that Respondent's last day on this project was some time during September, 1979. Mr. Jackson made repeated attempts to contact Respondent after May of 1979, at which time Respondent continued to offer excuses for his failure to appear. At the time of this hearing, Mr. Jackson had paid an additional amount of $3,527.22 toward the completion of the room addition to his home and work remains to finish the addition as planned. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 4) Respondent did not appear at the hearing herein nor was any evidence presented to the undersigned on his (Respondent's behalf).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's Certified General Contractor's License No. CGC004463, be REVOKED. RECOMMENDED this 8th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, 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 8th day of February, 1982.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the governmental agency responsible for inspecting and enforcing fire and safety requirements for adult congregate living facilities ("ACLF"). Respondent has a conditional license to operate as a residential ACLF. Respondent operates as an ACLF at 150 Willow Drive, Orlando, Florida 32805. Respondent is a large ACLF that houses approximately 45 residents. Petitioner conducted a complaint investigation on June 3, 1994. Petitioner cited Respondent for deficiencies involving a leaky roof and improper locks on the front, side, and rear doors. The time established in the deficiency statement for correcting the roof was July 3, 1994. The time established in the deficiency statement for correcting the door locks was June 13, 1994. None of the deficiencies were corrected at the time that follow up investigations were conducted on September 8 and October 3, 1994. 1/ All deficiencies are Class III violations within the meaning of Section 400.419(3). 2/ They are designated as Class III deficiencies on the deficiency statements given to Respondent. The roof was in need of repair or replacement during each of the three inspections at issue in this proceeding. On October 3, 1994, there were holes in the ceiling of two dining rooms. Buckets were used to catch water. Leaks caused water to flow into electrical light fixtures. Leaks in the roof presented a dangerous condition for residents. The door locks created fire hazards for residents. The front door was equipped with an electronic key pad. Residents could exit the front door only if they knew the combination for the key pad. The combination for the key pad was not posted so that residents could egress the front door in the event of fire. Residents could open the door only with the assistance of a member of the staff. The side door was equipped with an electronic push button. Residents could open the door only with the assistance of a member of the staff. The rear door had a key operated lock in conjunction with panic hardware. The door could not be opened by either staff or inspectors.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Rules 10A-5.022(1)(a) and 10A- 5.023(2) and imposing a fine of $1,000. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of July, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 25th day of July 1995.
