Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was the holder of Pest Control Business License No. 875, Pest Control Operator's Certificate No. 667, and Identification Card No. 6415. Respondent's business was and is located at 512 South Eighth Street, Fernandina Beach, Florida. The anniversary date for purposes of renewal of Respondent's Pest Control Business License was November 30, 1978. Those persons holding identification cards issued in connection with the operation of H & K Pest Control were Respondent, Dolphus Lee White, Donna Kay Young and George Morrison Young. Respondent was licensed to conduct pest control business only in the category of Lawn and Ornamental pests. On November 28, 1978, two days before Respondent's pest control business license was to expire, HRS received an Application for Pest Control Business License and Identification Cards from Respondent requesting renewal of the aforementioned licenses and identification cards. However, the Certificate of Insurance attached to the renewal application failed to meet the requirements for minimum financial responsibility for property damage contained in Section 482.071, Florida Statutes. The Certificate of Insurance in question indicated that the limits of liability for property damage were $50,000 for each occurrence, and $50,000 in the aggregate. The statutory requirements are $50,000 for each occurrence and $100,000 aggregate. As a result, by notice dated November 29, 1978, HRS returned Respondent's application, indicating that the Certificate of Insurance did not meet the statutory standard. In addition, the November 29, 1978 letter specifically informed Respondent that . . . it is unlawful to operate a pest control business that is not licensed." HRS received a corrected Certificate of Insurance on February 27, 1979. However, this Certificate of Insurance did not indicate the name of the insured pest control business, and was, accordingly, returned to Respondent's insurance agent. Respondent's name was then apparently inserted in the Certificate of Insurance by the agent, and the corrected Certificate of Insurance was received by HRS on March 3, 1979. As a result, Respondent's application for renewal of his licenses and identification cards was not, in fact, complete until March 3, 1979. The renewal licenses and identification cards were thereafter issued on June 4, 1979. The delay between receipt of the completed application and issuance of the licenses and identification cards was apparently due to work load in the HRS Office of Entomology. Notwithstanding the fact that Respondent was licensed only in the area of Lawn and Ornamental Pest Control, H & K Pest Control performed pest control services inside buildings at the Florida Marine Welcome Station in Fernandina Beach, Florida, for the period July 1, 1978 through and including two days prior to the hearing in this cause on September 28, 1979. The State of Florida, Department of Commerce, Office of Administrative Services was billed ten dollars monthly on H & K Pest Control statements for this service, and payment was remitted by the State of Florida for these services to H & K Pest Control. In addition, on at least two occasions H & K Pest Control performed pest control services inside buildings at the Florida Welcome Station on Interstate Highway 95 in Yulee, Florida. One of these occasions occurred in November, 1978 for which H & K Pest Control billed the Florida Welcome Station in Yulee, Florida, thirty dollars on its statement dated January, 1979. At no time during the performance of pest control services inside the Florida Marine Welcome Station in Fernandina Beach, Florida, and the Florida Welcome Station on Interstate Highway 95 in Yulee, Florida, was Kinsey C. Haddock or any other employee of H & K Pest Control licensed in the category of General Household Pests and Rodents, or in any other category that would have allowed them to treat the inside of buildings for pests. Although Respondent was never observed to have personally sprayed the insides of buildings at either Welcome Station, persons identifying themselves as employees of H & K Pest Control did perform those services, the State of Florida was billed on statement forms of H & K Pest Control for these services, and payment was remitted by check to H & K Pest Control. On December 27, 1978 an inspector from HRS visited the business location of H & K Pest Control at 512 South Eighth Street, Fernandina Beach, Florida. The business office was open and being operated by a person claiming to be an employee of H & K Pest Control who identified herself as Joyce French. Ms. French advised the inspector that she had been trained in the category of General Household Pest Control, and had performed these services inside the Florida Welcome Station on Interstate Highway 95 in Yulee, Florida. Records maintained by the Office of Entomology indicate that no identification card or other license had ever been issued to a "Joyce French" in the area of General Household Pest Control. Respondent denied that he had ever employed a "Joyce French", nor was Miss French called as a witness in this proceeding. Further, other than the statement attributed by the inspector to Ms. French, there is no evidence in this proceeding to corroborate that Ms. French did, in fact, perform pest control services of any description. Further, on December 27, 1978, Respondent did not have displayed in his business office a certified operator's certificate renewal or a current business license, as required Chapter 482, Florida Statutes. Finally, the record in this proceeding establishes, and Respondent has, in fact, admitted, that he is not a full- time employee of H & K Pest Control. In fact, the record clearly establishes that Respondent has been a full-time employee of Container Corporation of America as an engineer in the Power Department of that company since December 9, 1937. Respondent works rotating shifts in his employment at Container Corporation of America, but usually works the 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. shift an average of only five days per month. When not working the 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. shift at Container Corporation of America, Respondent operates his pest control business at the address above mentioned.
Findings Of Fact On September 25, 1989, Fredrick Hassut, Jr., an entomologist-inspector in the Department's Winter Park office, received a telephone call from Mary Ellen Jenkins complaining about fumigation services which had been rendered by Petitioner. In response to that telephone call, Hassut forwarded to her the Department's official form for complaints against pest control companies. Hassut received Jenkins' completed form, together with her five-page handwritten letter of complaint, on October 6, 1989. On October 9, 1989, Hassut sent to Petitioner the Department's official form for pest control companies to use in responding to consumer complaints made against them. Hassut received Petitioner's completed form on October 16, 1989. Between September 27, 1989, and November 13, 1989, when Hassut completed his investigation, he had numerous telephone conversations with Petitioner concerning Jenkins' allegations, had visited the Jenkins' residence, and had reviewed the contract entered into between Mike and Susan Gillen and Petitioner for tent fumigation of the subject residence. By the conclusion of his investigation, Hassut knew the following facts. Petitioner had been contacted by a real estate brokerage company to do an inspection for termites and wood destroying organisms at a residence, attendant to a contract for the purchase and sale of that residence. The residence was owned by Mike and Susan Gillen. Petitioner's employee performed the inspection, located drywood termites, and recommended tent fumigation for eradication. On June 9, 1989, a contract was entered into between Petitioner and Mike and Susan Gillen for fumigation services, and the contract established July 7, 1989, as the date on which such services would be performed. Although the contract called for cash upon completion of service, subsequent arrangements had been made, and Petitioner had agreed that he would be paid for the fumigation services from monies to be escrowed at the closing, a routine business arrangement in the industry. A fumigation crew went to the residence on July 7 as agreed by contract, but the services were postponed to Friday, September 8, 1989. On Saturday, September 9, the residence was tented, and a certified operator employed by Petitioner injected Vikane, the fumigant specified in the contract. On Sunday, the tarps were removed, and Petitioner "cleared" the residence, using an Interscan to test for the presence of Vikane. One of the complaints made by Jenkins and by her husband who works in the pest control industry and had done so for the previous six years was that Petitioner had failed to furnish them with a printed list of items to be removed from the structure, prior to fumigation. Mrs. Jenkins told Hassut that she was the new owner of the residence which she had purchased from Mike and Susan Gillen, that the closing on the sale had taken place on July 5, and that the Jenkins had moved into the structure prior to the structure being treated for termites. Mrs. Jenkins never represented to Hassut that she had advised Petitioner, prior to fumigation, that the ownership of the property had changed. Petitioner advised Hassut that he had never heard of Mrs. Jenkins or her husband until the day after the fumigation services were completed when Mr. Jenkins called to complain about the services. Petitioner advised Hassut that he did not know that a closing had in fact taken place and that a new owner was occupying the structure when the fumigation services were performed. Petitioner believed at all times through the completion of the fumigation work that he was dealing with the Gillens. Petitioner advised Hassut that Mike Gillen had been given a Customer Duty List, which included the written list of items to be removed from the structure, on June 9, 1989, when Mike Gillen signed the contract with Petitioner for fumigation services, and that Gillen had signed a copy of that list to show that it had been provided to him. Petitioner had assumed the closing had been postponed because the fumigation services were postponed, and termite treatment is normally a condition precedent to a closing. Had Petitioner known that there was a new owner of the structure, he would have obtained a contract from the new owner prior to the rendering of services rather than performing services for someone with whom he did not have a contract. At the time, Hassut believed that a pest control operator is under no legal duty to verify that the owner of a structure for which there is a contract for fumigation services is still the owner at the time that the services are performed. Hassut further believed that if Petitioner did not know that the Gillens had completed the sale of their home to Mrs. Jenkins and if Petitioner had given the required printed list of items to be removed to the Gillens, then Petitioner would have complied with the regulations requiring provision of that printed list. Hassut made no attempt to contact either Mike or Susan Gillen to ascertain if they had advised Petitioner that the ownership of the house had changed or to ascertain if they had been provided the required printed list, as Petitioner contended. Further, he made no attempt to contact the real estate agent or the title company involved in the closing to ascertain if they had advised Petitioner that ownership of the property had changed. Hassut specifically determined that Petitioner was not negligent in the performance of fumigation services at the Jenkins residence. When Hassut completed his consumer investigation, he prepared his Notice of Recommended Enforcement Action containing his conclusions as to violations he found during his investigation. He forwarded that document to the Department's Jacksonville office, specifically to James Bond, the enforcement coordinator, for final decision as to whether Petitioner would be charged with violating any of the statutes and rules regulating the pest control business. Hassut recommended that Petitioner be charged with two violations only. Section 482.226(6), Florida Statutes, requires that a Notice of Treatment be posted at premises where fumigation services have been performed and that the location of that Notice be notated on the service contract. Since Hassut was unable to locate the Notice of Treatment, he recommended that Petitioner be charged with violating Section 482.226(6). He also recommended that Petitioner be charged with violating Section 10D-55.110(3), Florida Administrative Code, for failing to furnish to the property owner or agent a printed list of items to be removed prior to fumigation. James Bond reviewed Hassut's investigative report and recommendations, and then forwarded that report together with Bond's own recommendation to Philip R. Helseth, Jr., pest control administrator, who made the decision that an administrative complaint should be filed against Petitioner. Part of the reason that Helseth determined to take action against Petitioner was the fact that on one occasion during Petitioner's ten and one-half years in business, Petitioner had received a warning letter from the Department. Before the Administrative Complaint was prepared and served on Petitioner, no one referred the investigation back to Hassut with instructions that he further investigate by interviewing the Gillens. Further, no one in the Jacksonville office consulted Hassut regarding the numerous violations which were included in the Administrative Complaint to determine if Hassut agreed that his investigation had revealed facts supporting the expanded list of violations. The Administrative Complaint prepared by the Department and served on Petitioner charged Petitioner with violating three statutory provisions and four of the Department's regulations. Interestingly, the one statutory violation which appeared in Hassut's recommendation--failure to post a Notice of Treatment and notate its location on the contract--was not one of the charges included in the Administrative Complaint. The Administrative Complaint charged Petitioner with having violated Sections 482.161(1)(a), 482.161(1)(e), and 482.161(1)(f), Florida Statutes, and Sections 10D-55.105(2), 10D-55.106(1), 10D-55.108(3)(c), and 10D-55.110(3), Florida Administrative Code. After service of the Administrative Complaint on him, Petitioner timely requested a formal hearing regarding the allegations contained within that Administrative Complaint. The matter was subsequently transferred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the conduct of that formal proceeding and was assigned DOAH Case No. 90-0944. The final hearing was conducted on September 27, 1990, in Stuart, Florida. At the commencement of the final hearing, the Department dismissed several of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against Petitioner. The Department announced on the record that the only statutes and rules Petitioner was still alleged to have violated were Sections 482.161(1)(a) (violating the Department's statutes or rules), 482.161(1)(f) (performing pest control in a negligent manner), Section 10D-55.108(3)(c) (using an improper fumigant and/or using a proper fumigant improperly), and Section 10D-55.110(3) (failing to furnish the property owner or agent a printed list of items to be removed from the structure prior to fumigation). The Recommended Order entered after the conclusion of the final hearing found that the Department offered no evidence that Petitioner used an improper fumigant or used the fumigant improperly; that the evidence was uncontroverted that Petitioner supplied Gillen, the property owner, with a Customer Duty List, the accepted common name of the fumigant to be used, notification of which materials may be contaminated or damaged by the fumigant, as well as other precautions to be taken by the property holder; that the Department offered no evidence that Petitioner was guilty of performing pest control in a negligent manner; and that Petitioner had not violated any of the Department's statutes or rules with which he was charged. That Recommended Order, entered on January 7, 1991, recommended that a final order be entered finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint and dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against him. On February 15, 1991, the Department entered its Final Order adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Recommended Order, finding Petitioner not guilty of the violations with which he was charged, and dismissing the Administrative Complaint. The Department had no reasonable basis in law and fact at the time that it issued its Administrative Complaint against Petitioner. Petitioner expended the sum of $6,923.50 in attorney's fees and $698.30 in costs, for a total of $7,621.80, in successfully defending himself and his company in the administrative action resulting from the Department's Administrative Complaint.
The Issue Petitioners seek attorney's fees and costs from Respondent, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. The parties have stipulated that Petitioners are "small business parties" under that section, and that the fees and costs being sought are "reasonable." The issues remaining for disposition, therefore, are: Whether Petitioners "prevailed" in all four underlying cases, including the two that were settled prior to final hearing; Whether the Department "initiated" the procedures, or was merely a "nominal party"; Whether the Department had a "reasonable basis in law and fact" at the time that it initiated the proceedings; Whether special circumstances exist which would make an award unjust; and Whether the statutory $15,000 cap should be applied collectively or separately to the four underlying cases.
Findings Of Fact (The facts are substantially uncontroverted and the facts established in the underlying cases nos. 94-2801, et al are incorporated by reference. The following facts are recounted to establish a background for the contested issues of law.) As stipulated, the Petitioners are small business parties within the meaning of Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. They are Florida corporations, with their principal offices in Florida, with less than 25 full-time employees and net worth of less than $2 million. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (department) is the state agency responsible for administering and maintaining the pesticide- sensitive and especially pesticide-sensitive person registries as provided in Section 482.2265(3), Florida Statutes (1993). Carol Ann Rodriguez, Jacqueline V. Dilworth, Susan L. Maxwell and Carrietta Kelly are four individuals, among approximately twenty-seven individuals, who applied to the department for designation as "especially pesticide-sensitive" pursuant to subsection 482.2265(3), Florida Statutes, (1993). The pesticide-sensitive and especially pesticide-sensitive registries are described in the department's final order entered August 4, 1995, adopting all but two findings of fact in the Hearing Officer's recommended order in Case No. 94-2801, et al. These findings, and the findings related to the department's review of applications, need not be repeated here. In summary, however, the department did not investigate the merits of the applications but merely determined whether the certifying physicians were qualified according to the department's liberal interpretation of its own rule. That review function was delegated primarily to the secretary for the administrator of the department's pest control section. After review, the department published quarterly notices in the Florida Administrative Weekly of its intent to grant applications of especially pesticide-sensitive persons. The notices listed the names and addresses of the applicants and described the process for pest control operators to request hearings pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. These were clear points of entry. Petitioners here, and the Florida Pest Control Association, Inc. filed their requests for hearings, challenging the department's proposed action. The underlying consolidated cases resulted. Prior to the formal hearing, several individual applicants, including Carol Ann Rodriguez and Jacqueline Dilworth, settled their cases by withdrawing their applications and agreeing to be placed on the less restrictive pesticide- sensitive registry. This outcome was favorable to Petitioners because they were thereby relieved of the more onerous notification requirements which attach when an individual is designated "especially pesticide-sensitive." This was the relief Petitioners sought. After vigorous prehearing motion and discovery activity, approximately twenty consolidated cases proceeded to formal hearing. Among those were the individual cases of Susan L. Maxwell and Carrietta Kelly. The department, through counsel, participated in the formal hearing. It presented evidence through exhibits and witnesses, and cross-examined witnesses presented by other parties. Evidence to support Susan Maxwell's application was limited to a certification signed by Dr. Albert Robbins, an osteopathic physician. The certification was not supported by any non-hearsay evidence. Evidence to support Carrietta Kelly's application was limited to Dr. Robbins' testimony that he signed her certificate after she and her physician husband called him and wrote him a letter. Mrs. Kelly was never Dr. Robbins' patient and he never met her. The outcome of the formal hearing was a recommended order which found that no individual in the multiple cases presented adequate proof of the need for notification at greater distance than that specified for pesticide-sensitive persons. In other words, the applicants failed to prove entitlement to designation as "especially pesticide-sensitive." The department entered its final order on August 4, 1995, and adopted all but two findings by the hearing officer. The first rejected finding was that nothing in evidence indicated that one of the certifying individuals, "Roy P. Doyle," was a physician. The second finding rejected by the department was that the department had failed to justify or explicate its policy for qualifying physicians other than those specified in its own rule. The department's final order removed all of the individual parties from the registry as "especially pesticide-sensitive" and left them on the pesticide-sensitive list. Petitioners thus prevailed on the central issue in dispute: whether the individuals were entitled to designation as "especially pesticide- sensitive." The fees and costs incurred by Petitioners in their successful defense, as well as fees incurred in pursuing the instant claims, are appropriately described in affidavits filed with the petitions and amended petitions. The department accedes to the reasonableness of the fees and costs, except where they are duplicated in more than one case. The affidavits establish that the Petitioners incurred $22,348.70 in attorney's fees and $4,085.26 in costs related to the four underlying cases. In addition, and not included in the above total, are minor fees incurred in individual cases: Rodriguez $374.00 Dilworth $368.50 Maxwell $115.50 $858.00 Petitioners also claim $2,530.00 (23 hours x $110/hour) for fees incurred in their Section 57.111 cases here. These costs and fees are reasonable, and amount to a total of $29,821.96. The calculation which leads to that total avoids duplication (charges for the same work computed more than once). The calculation also reflects that the three Petitioners joined together, two Petitioners each, in the four underlying cases, hired a single attorney and avoided duplication of effort by separate attorneys for each Petitioner.
The Issue Whether Respondents Lee Ann Kennedy ("Kennedy") and Kenco Industries, L.L.C. ("Kenco"), engaged in various activities constituting pest control under chapter 482 without having obtained the required licenses from Petitioner Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, in violation of sections 482.161(1)(j), 482.165(1), and 465.191(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is the state agency charged with administering the Structural Pest Control Act, chapter 482. Respondent Kennedy is a resident of Wellington, Florida. Respondent Kenco Industries, L.L.C., is a registered Florida Limited Liability Company. Kennedy is the manager and sole member of, and the registered agent for, Kenco. Pest Control Regulation under Chapter 482, Florida Statutes Chapter 482 authorizes Petitioner to regulate activities constituting "pest control" and to impose sanctions for violations of that chapter. "Pest control" is broadly defined in section 483.021(22) as: The use of any method or device or the application of any substance to prevent, destroy, repel, mitigate, curb, control, or eradicate any pest in, on, or under a structure, lawn, or ornamental; The identification of or inspection for infestations or infections in, on, or under a structure, lawn, or ornamental; The use of any pesticide, economic poison, or mechanical device for preventing, controlling, eradicating, identifying, inspecting for, mitigating, diminishing, or curtailing insects, vermin, rodents, pest birds, bats, or other pests in, on, or under a structure, lawn, or ornamental; All phases of fumigation, including: The treatment of products by vault fumigation; and The fumigation of boxcars, trucks, ships, airplanes, docks, warehouses, and common carriers; and The advertisement of, the solicitation of, or the acceptance of remuneration for any work described in this subsection, but does not include the solicitation of a bid from a licensee to be incorporated in an overall bid by an unlicensed primary contractor to supply services to another. Petitioner is authorized to issue licenses to qualified businesses to engage in the business of pest control in this state. § 482.165(1), Fla. Stat. It is unlawful for any person, partnership, firm, corporation, or other business entity to engage in the unlicensed practice of pest control as that term is defined in section 482.021(22). Id. Section 482.191(1) makes unlawful the advertisement of pest control services except as authorized under chapter 482. Absent limited circumstances not applicable here, persons or entities engaging in such advertisement must be licensed by Petitioner to practice pest control. Petitioner also is authorized to fine persons who impersonate an employee of Petitioner. § 482.161(1)(j), Fla. Stat. Respondents' Acts Alleged to Violate Chapter 482 Respondent Kennedy did not hold a pest control business license or other license to practice pest control at any time relevant to this proceeding.2/ Respondent Kenco also did not hold a pest control business license or other license to practice pest control at any time relevant to this proceeding. On or about April 1, 2011, Kennedy entered Saigon Oriental Market in Lake Park, Florida. According to its owner, Hung The Thach, Kennedy walked around the store inspecting it, then told him that she was employed by Petitioner, that some of his produce was infested by insects, and that he would have to have pest control services performed or she would return in a week to conduct another compliance inspection. Kennedy gave Mr. Thach the telephone number for Outside In, a pest control company, and the business card of its owner, Dennis O'Rourke. Concerned that Kennedy would shut down his store or fine him, Mr. Thach called Outside In; the following day, an employee of that company performed pest control services at the store. Outside In performed additional pest control services at the store on or around May 26, 2011. Mr. Thach paid Outside In for these services. In mid-May 2011, Kennedy inspected Fajita's Super Market in Lake Worth, Florida, and told its owner, Ali Jaber, that she was employed by Petitioner as an inspector, and that he had a fly problem in his store. She recommended that he contact Outside In to correct the problem. Mr. Jaber told her he used another pest control company, but thereafter, a representative from Outside In visited the store, left a business card with Mr. Jaber, and offered to provide pest control services for the store for $150.00 per month with no contract. Kennedy returned to the store approximately a week later and wanted to know why nothing had been done to correct the fly problem; she also asked an employee of Fajita's who was going to pay for her time to inspect the store; when she was referred to Mr. Jaber, she left the store and did not return. On or around May 24, 2011, Kennedy entered the Fortune Cookie oriental supermarket in West Palm Beach, Florida, and told its president, David Chang, that she was with an inspector with Petitioner. She inspected the store, told him that there was a fly problem, and stated she would return in two weeks. Mr. Chang testified that Kennedy did not provide him the name of any pest control businesses, but that approximately a week before Kennedy inspected the store, a representative of Outside In had come to the store and tried to sell him pest control services, but that he had declined to purchase the services at that time. Dennis O'Rourke, President of Outside In, testified that Kennedy was not on his company's payroll, but that she had solicited pest control business for his company for approximately four months prior to September 2011. She successfully solicited four accounts and he paid her 30% of the profits made on those accounts. At the time she solicited the accounts, she did not possess a valid identification card to perform pest control services on behalf of Outside In.3/ Mr. O'Rourke subsequently obtained a valid identification card for Kennedy so that she could perform pest control, including business solicitation, for his company. Petitioner initiated an investigation of Kennedy in June 2011, after being notified by several small food markets in Palm Beach County that she was holding herself out as a food inspector with Petitioner, inspecting the stores, notifying the store operators that there was a pest problem, and recommending that Outside In be contacted to correct the problem. In the course of the investigation, on September 7, 2011, John Berquist, an inspector with Petitioner's Bureau of Entomology and Pest Control, took photographs of Kennedy's motor vehicle4/ bearing magnetic signs on the front passenger and driver side doors labeled "Kenco Industries," which depicted a photograph of Kennedy and advertised the provision of pest control services. Berquist checked Petitioner's pest control licensing records and determined that Petitioner had not issued a pest control business license or other pest control license to Kennedy or to Kenco. At the hearing, Kennedy acknowledged that she conducted food store inspections, pointed out pest problems to store operators, and recommended that they contact Outside In for pest control service. However, she denied holding herself out as an employee of Petitioner. She testified that she is certified in food safety by the Department of Health and that if she observed a pest problem while shopping, she would show her food safety certification card to the store operator and point out the problem. She claimed she did this because she is Vietnamese, so often shops at Asian food markets and wants the stores where she purchases her family's food to be pest-free. She also claimed that she only wanted the stores "to get what they needed" in the way of pest control service and that it did not matter whether she was compensated for soliciting business for Outside In. However, she acknowledged that she had been compensated by Outside In for the pest control business she had successfully solicited on their behalf. Kennedy testified that she did not intend to do anything that was against the law, and was not aware that she was engaging in conduct that violated the law. The evidence established that neither Kennedy nor Kenco previously violated chapter 482 or Petitioner's rules. Ultimate Findings of Fact Regarding Alleged Violations Based on the foregoing, Petitioner established, by clear and convincing evidence, that Kennedy impersonated an employee of Petitioner, as alleged in Count 1 of the Amended Administrative Complaint, in violation of section 482.161(1)(j). Kennedy's testimony that she did not hold herself out as an employee of Petitioner was contradicted by all other witnesses and was not credible. Petitioner also established, by clear and convincing evidence, that Kennedy and Kenco advertised pest control services without obtaining a pest control business license in violation of sections 482.165(1) and 482.191(1). There was no dispute that Kennedy advertised the provision of pest control services by herself and by Kenco by placing signs on her vehicle depicting her image and Kenco's business name. Further, Kennedy is Kenco's manager, sole member, and agent, so her actions in advertising the provision of pest control services by Kenco are imputed to Kenco.5/ Petitioner also proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Kennedy solicited pest control business for Outside In for compensation, in violation of sections 482.165(1) and 482.191(1). Kennedy's testimony that she was motivated by altruism and personal interest in food safety at markets where she shopped, rather than by being compensated for soliciting business for Outside In, was not credible. The undisputed evidence establishes that she was compensated by Outside In for soliciting pest control business on its behalf. However, Petitioner did not establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that Kenco solicited business on behalf of Outside In. The evidence does not show that Kennedy represented to the food store operators that she was acting on behalf of Kenco when she solicited business for Outside In. To the contrary, the evidence established that Kennedy represented that she was an inspector employed by Petitioner. Accordingly, it is determined that Kenco did not solicit pest control business for Outside In, in violation of sections 482.165(1) and 482.191(1). As further addressed below, Petitioner's Enforcement and Penalties rule, Florida Administrative Code Rule 5E-14.149, makes the deliberate commission of an act that constitutes a violation of chapter 482 an aggravating factor in determining the applicable fine. Here, the evidence shows that Kennedy intentionally misrepresented that she was employed by Petitioner specifically to solicit and induce food store operators to purchase pest control services for which she would be compensated. Accordingly, it is determined that Kennedy acted deliberately in impersonating an employee of Petitioner and in soliciting business on behalf of Outside In for compensation. Furthermore, the evidence shows that Kennedy——and by operation of the law of agency, Kenco——deliberately engaged in advertising the provision of pest control services without having obtained the required license.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services impose a fine of $2,600.00 on Respondent Lee Ann Kennedy, and impose a fine of $1,000.00 on Respondent Kenco Industries, L.L.C. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of June, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of June, 2012.
The Issue Whether the practices and procedures set forth in paragraphs 6.1., 6.2, and 6.3 of the Challenge to Agency Statements filed by the Petitioner on December 28, 2005, constitute agency statements defined as rules but not adopted as such, in violation of Section 120.54, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency responsible for enforcing the provisions of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, the "Structural Pest Control Act." The Director of the Division of Agricultural Environmental Services (Division) is appointed by the Commissioner of Agriculture and is given the responsibility by Section 570.45, Florida Statutes, to enforce the provisions of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes. The Bureau is created in the Division and is responsible for, among other duties, investigating violations of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes. The Bureau Chief makes the ultimate decision to file an administrative complaint against a certificate-holder or to preliminarily deny an application for certification as a pest control operator or for an identification card for a pest control employee.3 At one time, Mr. Kravitsky was certified by the Bureau as a pest control operator. When he applied for renewal of his certificate, the Bureau issued a notice in 2004 that it intended to deny the application because of alleged violations of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, committed by Mr. Kravitsky while he engaged in the business of a certified pest control operator. In 2005, the Bureau issued another notice that it intended to deny a second application for renewal of Mr. Kravitsky's pest control operator's certificate, based on the same allegations of wrong-doing. And, finally, the Bureau issued a notice in 2005 that it intended to deny Mr. Kravitsky's application for a pest control employee's identification card.4 Mr. Kravitsky is, therefore, substantially affected by the agency statements at issue herein. The Bureau Chief's decisions to file an administrative complaint against a certificate-holder for violations of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, or to deny preliminarily applications for a certificate, a renewal certificate, or an employee identification card are based on information gathered as part of an investigation of a licensee or an applicant. If the investigation is of a certificate- or card-holder, an investigation is initiated either as a routine enforcement action or as the result of a consumer complaint. A field inspector for the Bureau collects information, including statements, affidavits, photographs, videotapes, documents, and any information that pest control operators and employees are required to maintain. Once the information is gathered by the field inspector, the case file is sent to the inspector's supervisor, who reviews the case file for completeness. The supervisor requests additional information, if necessary. Once the supervisor considers the file complete, it is sent to the Bureau's office in Tallahassee, Florida, where the file is given a case number and assigned to a case reviewer who evaluates the evidence contained in the file to determine if there is a possible violation of the provisions of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes. If the case reviewer finds no violation, the case is closed. If it appears to the case reviewer that there is evidence of a violation, an administrative complaint is drafted, and the draft complaint and case file are sent to an enforcement administrator or to a case manager, who independently evaluates the evidence collected in the case. The enforcement administrator or case manager then makes a recommendation to the Bureau Chief regarding whether the draft administrative complaint should be filed. Anyone reviewing the case file can ask that additional information be gathered if he or she finds that the file is not complete. This investigation and review process is an internal process that is not applied outside the Department, it does not affect the private interests of any person, and it is not a procedure that is important to the public.
The Issue Petitioner has challenged a series of emergency rules promulgated by the Respondent to address the discovery of Mediterranean fruit flies (medflies) in parts of central Florida. Specifically, Petitioner contends that 5BER 97-3, 5BER 97-4, 5BER 97-6, and 5BER 97-7 are invalid to the extent that they make any geographical area subject to emergency rule for more than 90 days. The issue for determination, therefore, is whether the emergency rules are invalid as claimed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Rick Martinez resides and operates an organic farming business in Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida. As stipulated, Mr. Martinez is substantially affected by the emergency rules at issue. The Mediterranean fruit fly (medfly) is considered one of the world's most serious pests affecting fruits and vegetables. It has a host range of over 260 different fruits and vegetables, 80 of which are grown in the state of Florida. It is an exotic pest of grave concern to commercial agricultural interests as well as to home gardeners. In the adult stage, the female medfly deposits or lays eggs in ripe fruit. The eggs develop into larva or maggots that feed on pulp of the interior portion of fruit, causing damage and secondary pathogens to enter the fruit and causing the fruit to rot and fall from the tree. The medfly reproduces very rapidly. It can complete a life-cycle in as little as 18 days under optimum conditions; in Florida and in recent months, it completed its life-cycle in approximately 23-25 days. As a winged insect the medfly can move several miles from its point of introduction in search of a host to deposit eggs or in search of a food source. Over a lifetime, the female can lay hundreds or thousands of eggs. The medfly enters an area via the traveling public or on commercial fruits and vegetables. Host plants or fruits can include plants or fruits that are not grown in Florida. The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) maintains a detection program, including 13,000 traps to detect the presence of the medfly. Under certain circumstances for every medfly detected, there can be hundreds of others in the area. Because of the biology of the medfly, mere control is difficult to achieve. Eradication, or complete elimination of the pest from a particular area, is the goal when the medfly is detected. To further this goal, Florida cooperates with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and other states. On or about May 28 or 29, 1997, a medfly was discovered in the Seminole Heights area of Hillsborough County. Very quickly other medflies were discovered in Hillsborough County, with the epicenter determined to be in the Brandon area. Soon other detections occurred in Manatee, Sarasota, Orange, and Polk Counties. This was determined to be the most severe infestation of medflies in Florida in several decades. On May 30, 1997, Commissioner of Agriculture, Bob Crawford, issued a proclamation announcing an immediate danger to the public health, safety, or welfare in the state of Florida on account of the infestation by the Mediterranean fruit fly. The proclamation cited authority and powers conferred by Article IV, Section 4, Florida Constitution and Sections 120.54(4) and 570.07(21), Florida Statutes. The proclamation called for immediate eradication procedures including aerial and ground pesticide applications in infested areas. FDACS also promulgated and filed an emergency rule, 5BER 97-2, Florida Administrative Code, "Mediterranean Fruit Fly Rule and Quarantine." The rule provided definitions, designated a quarantine area and treatment area, identified regulated articles and host plants, and provided for entry of authorized representatives to inspect, confiscate suspect fruit, or apply treatment on property on which the medfly is known or suspected to exist. The rule also declared the medfly a pest and nuisance pursuant to Section 581.031(6), Florida Statutes, and described the rule's purpose: . . . to provide detailed direction for conducting a regulatory and eradication program to prevent spread of the Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata, within the State. This rule is promulgated to provide a quarantine on areas regulated due to the presence of the Mediterranean fruit fly, and to specify conditions under which regulated articles may be certified as free of Mediterranean fruit fly when moved from the quarantined area. This rule also provides for the treatment and eradication of the Mediterranean fruit fly within the State of Florida. (5BER 97-2(2), Florida Administrative Code) The quarantine area within 5BER 97-2 is an area of Hillsborough County described with specificity with references to road boundaries. The treatment area was defined as "[a]ny location including urban and residential areas within a nine- square-mile area around an [sic] Mediterranean fruit fly detection. " Quarantine areas are generally 81 square miles; treatment areas are 9 square miles and may be wholly outside of a quarantine area. In the words of FDACS Director of the Division of Plant Industry, Richard Gaskalla, "[t]his was a very active infestation. For the first 90 days of the program, it was a very fluid and dynamic situation. Each day brought a new challenge, a new area to place traps in or regulate fruit in. So it was giving us quite a challenge." (transcript, 48-49) As new medflies were discovered subsequent to the end of May 1997, FDACS expanded the treatment and quarantine areas. Additional emergency rules on the infestation were filed: 5BER 97-3, on June 20, 1997; 5BER 97-4, on July 3, 1997; 5BER 97-6, on July 28, 1997; and 5BER 97-7, on August 11, 1997. With the exception of the specifically described quarantine area in section (4), each emergency rule is substantially the same. 5BER 97-3 repeats the quarantine area described in 5BER 97-2 and adds a specific portion of Polk County. 5BER 97-4 repeats the quarantine area described in 5BER 97-3 and adds a specific portion of Manatee County. 5BER 97-6 and 5BER 97-7 include a much larger quarantine area to include portions of Hillsborough, Polk, Manatee, Orange, and Sarasota Counties. There are portions of Hillsborough County which are found in the quarantine area described in all five emergency rules. Other geographical areas overlap in two or more of the five rules. The "treatment area" remains described in each of the five emergency rules as the nine-square-mile area around a medfly detection. As more medflies were found, this area obviously expanded. Eventually the treatment area became almost as large as the quarantine area in Hillsborough County. FDACS developed its series of emergency rules to address the medfly eradication program as it evolved. The agency consulted a science advisory panel that was put together to review the eradication program, and the agency received public comment and suggestions from public meetings. As new detections were made, the emergency rules were promulgated to cover the areas which the agency considered important for its regulation and control (quarantine). Richard Gaskalla did not consider each new emergency rule to be a renewal but rather a response to the unpredictable expansion of the medfly within existing areas. As soon as FDACS adopted the first emergency rule, it began work on a permanent rule and scheduled a rule development workshop in June to receive public comment. Citizens in Hillsborough County requested another workshop which was held approximately two weeks prior to the hearing in this case. A permanent rule has not been adopted, but the pre-adoption process continued as of the hearing in this case. As of the time of hearing, the last medfly detected in Hillsborough County was mid-July. Medflies were discovered after this in other counties covered by the emergency rules. Eradication is generally not considered complete until traps have been empty for two life cycles after the last treatment. Depending on the length of the life cycle, eradication could be complete from 60 to 100 days after the last fly find.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations set forth in the Administrative Complaint, as amended and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the operation of the pest control industry pursuant to Section 482.032, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this case, Clinton Killingsworth was the owner and Certified Operator in Charge (COIC) of Environmental Security of Okaloosa, Inc., a licensed pest control company in Cantonment, Florida. Counts 4 and 6 2. Counts 4 and 6 of the Administrative Complaint allege as follows: Count 4 During an inspection on July 11, 2003, the Department found that Environmental Security of Okaloosa operated an unlicensed business location at 9100 Hamman Avenue, Pensacola, at which sales solicitations were made and remuneration received. This is a violation of Chapters 482.071(1) and (2), Florida Statutes. Count 6 During an inspection on July 11, 2003 the Department found that Environmental Security of Okaloosa phone numbers terminated in an unlicensed location as 9100 Hamman Avenue. This is a violation of Chapter 5E-14.142(3)(b). Environmental Security of Okaloosa, Inc., d/b/a Environmental Security, is physically located at 4141 Pine Forest Road in Cantonment, Florida, and is listed at this address on its application for business license filed with the Department. Cantonment is located in Escambia County near Pensacola, Florida. Two other pest control companies, Killingsworth Environmental, Inc., and Atlas Termite and Pest Control of Cantonment, Inc., are located at the same address. On July 11, 2003, the Department conducted an inspection of a company called Home Services Marketing and Management, LLC, (hereinafter Home Services) which is located at 9100 Hamman Avenue in Pensacola. Clifford Killingsworth and Clinton Killingsworth2/ are the managers of Home Services. On March 26, 2002, entered into a Management and Marketing Agreement with Home Services, executed by Clinton Killingsworth on behalf of Environmental Security of Okaloosa and by Clifford Killingsworth on behalf of Home Services. Since that agreement was signed, the telephone number for Environmental Security of Okaloosa listed in the local telephone directory terminated at Home Services. Home Services also answers calls for Killingsworth Environmental, Inc. and Atlas Exterminating. Home Services employees do not make "cold calls" to new customers. They receive calls from existing customers. They contact customers with active accounts to set up renewals. They also contact homeowners whose homes were treated during construction and whose initial accounts were with the builder of the home. If a new customer calls, a Home Services employee answers the call, gets the contact information from the potential new client, and then calls the appropriate technician who would then call or visit the potential customer. The appropriate technician is generally determined by the geographic location of the caller. While a Home Services employee might send a preprinted contract to the technician to take to the job site or mail a contract to a customer, Home Services does not enter into any contract to perform pest control services. No pest control trucks or chemicals are stored at Home Services. Home Services also has a payment processing component. Home Services sends bills to pest control customers which instruct customers to make out the check to the appropriate pest control company, not to Home Services. Payments from customers for pest control services are deposited into the account of the appropriate pest control company. No evidence was presented that 9100 Hamman Avenue is an advertised permanent location of Environmental Security of Okaloosa from which business was solicited, accepted, or conducted. After the July 11, 2003, inspection of Home Services, Clinton Killingsworth took steps to get Home Services licensed as a pest control company. Mr. Killingsworth did this because it was his understanding that the Department took the position that Home Services was in the business of practicing pest control services. He employed his brother, Daniel Killingsworth, to be the required licensed person in charge, and contacted several insurance companies to obtain the required insurance. He had difficulty obtaining the required insurance since Home Services does not offer pest control services. Despite these difficulties, Home Services was issued a license in December 2003. Count 5 Count 5 of the Administrative Complaint, as amended, reads as follows: During an inspection on July 16, 2003, the Department found that Environmental Security of Okaloosa, Incorporated stored pesticides at an unlicensed business location at 1830 Galvez Road, Gulf Breeze, Florida, which is a violation of Chapter 5E-14.142(5)(f) and (g), Florida Administrative Code. That in addition, the Respondent, Environmental Security of Okaloosa, Inc., regularly parked trucks containing pesticide at that location during nighttime hours, published in the 2002-2003 Bell South Telephone Directory under Pest Control Services in the yellow pages of the telephone directory, a listing for "Environmental Security", a name under which it did business, and its employees received by facsimile daily work assignments that were sent to them at that location. That the Respondent, Environmental Security of Okaloosa, Inc operated an unlicensed business location at 1830 Galvez Road, Gulf Breeze, Florida, in violation of Section 482.071(2)(a), Florida Statutes.[3/] The property located at 1830 Galvez Drive is surrounded by a fence and contains a structure. The structure is not enclosed. Both Environmental Security of Okaloosa and Killingsworth Environmental park trucks there overnight. They entered the property when the pest control employees arrived. The Department conducted an inspection of 1830 Galvez Drive on July 16, 2003. The gate to the property was locked and the trucks were locked. On the day of the inspection, the Department's inspectors found unmixed chemicals in the trucks. Clinton Killingsworth acknowledges that at the time of the inspection, company trucks parked at the Galvez Drive location overnight and pesticides were in the locked trucks. Company records or contracts are not stored at the Galvez Drive location. No customer contact takes place at or from the Galvez Drive location. The Pest Control Business License Application Form contains a space in which the licensee must respond to the following: "Designate location where pest control records and contracts will be kept and the exact location address for storage of chemicals if other than licenses business location." The applications for business license for Environmental Security of Okaloosa do not reference 1830 Galvez Road as a location where storage of chemicals occurs. Environmental Security of Okaloosa does not have a license for operating a business at this location. The yellow pages for the Pensacola area contains a listing in red ink for "Environmental Security, Inc." It lists an address of 4141 Pine Forest Road with the telephone number 473-1060. There is another reference to "Environmental Security" in black ink in smaller type which lists the address 1830 Galvez Drive with the number 916-7731.4/ Clinton Killingsworth brother, Clifford Killingsworth, arranged to have a phone line for a fax machine to be located in a trailer at the Galvez Drive location. The purpose of installing a fax line at Galvez Drive was for employees to receive daily schedule assignments. The 916-7731 number listed in the yellow pages is the number of the fax machine. Clinton Killingsworth did not request a listing for the number of the fax machine. However, the telephone company listed it in the phone book. Clinton Killingsworth has requested the local telephone company to remove the erroneous listing a number of times.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered assessing a fine against Respondent Environmental Security of Okaloosa, Inc., in the amount of $2,600.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of May, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of May, 2005.
The Issue DOAH Case No. 04-4061: Whether the Petitioner's application for renewal of his pest control operator's certificate JF9079 for 2004 should be granted or denied. DOAH Case No. 06-0132: Whether the Petitioner's application for renewal of his pest control operator's certificate JF9079 for 2005 should be granted or denied. DOAH Case No. 06-0414: Whether the 2005 application of Petitioner's employer for a pest control identification card for the Petitioner should have been granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: At the times material to his proceeding, the Department was the state agency responsible for regulating the pest control industry in Florida and is specifically responsible for licensing and regulating pest control operators and for issuing pest control employee identification cards. See §§ 482.032(1); 482.091; 482.111; and 482.161, Fla. Stat. (2004). On or about May 4, 2001, Mr. Kravitsky pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York to income tax evasion and was sentenced to four months of home confinement and five years' probation. This crime is a felony under federal law. As of the date of the final hearing, Mr. Kravitsky's civil rights had not been restored. Vikane gas is a fumigant that was commonly used in 2004 to treat structures for termites. Pest control operators were required to follow the instructions on the label to ensure that the Vikane gas is used appropriately. The structure to be fumigated must be enclosed in a tent, and the Vikane gas is injected, or "shot," into the tent through a hose that is attached to the tent in a way that prevents significant leakage of the gas. After a structure is fumigated, two aeration procedures must be completed. The first aeration procedure requires that the tent be partially taken down, and the windows and doors of the structure are opened to allow the Vikane gas to leave the structure. This first aeration procedure could take less than one hour. For the second aeration procedure, the tent surrounding the structure is totally removed. The windows of the structure are locked, and the doors are locked with the regular door locks and with secondary locks to which only the pest control operator has the keys. Warning signs are posted on the doors indicating that the structure should not be entered for a minimum of six hours to ensure that the Vikane has been safely cleared from the structure. The warning signs, which are to be put up by the pest control operator-in-charge who actually performed the fumigation, include the name, address, and phone number of the company doing the fumigation; the date and time the Vikane gas was introduced into the structure; and the name of the certified pest control operator responsible for the job. These precautions are to prevent the owner of the structure from entering before the Vikane gas has dissipated to a safe level and to provide information regarding the pest control company handling the fumigation. Pest control companies are required to notify the local office of the Department's Bureau of Entomology and Pest Control whenever a structure is scheduled for fumigation. The notice is provided on a Department form, and the notice must be received by the local office at least 24 hours in advance of the introduction on the fumigant. In the Broward County office, Department inspectors randomly pull Fumigation Notices after they are received, usually by facsimile transmission, and they investigate fumigation sites when the fumigation tents are put up and when they are taken down. The purpose of the inspections is to ensure that all safety procedures had been followed. In the spring of 2004, Mr. Kravitsky was employed by Ship Shape Pest Control, a company that he had previously owned but had transferred to his brother in February 2004. Mr. Kravitsky was a certified pest control operator and often served as the pest control operator-in-charge when Ship Shape Pest Control fumigated a structure. The pest control operator- in-charge is responsible for introducing the fumigant into the structure and for ensuring that all safety procedures are followed. On April 16, 2004, Eric Reiss, who was, at the time, a field inspector with the Broward County, Florida, office of the Department's Bureau of Entomology and Pest Control, received a call from another inspector, Richard Lucas, who was concerned about a fumigation that had been performed by Ship Shape Pest Control to a structure located at 16745 Southwest 300th Street in Homestead, Florida. Mr. Reiss agreed to go to the fumigation site on April 17, 2004, and complete the fumigation aeration inspection. Mr. Reiss arrived at the site at approximately 7:00 a.m. No one from Ship Shape Pest Control was on site. Mr. Reiss walked around and observed that the structure was a single-family residence with a small building that looked like a shed in the back yard, about 50 feet from the main building. Mr. Reiss walked around the property and observed that a PVC pipe emerged from the back of the main structure and apparently ran through the yard and entered the shed. Mr. Reiss could not, however, be certain that the PVC pipe connected the two structures, since he could not see the entire length of the pipe. It appeared to Mr. Reiss that someone, a relative of the homeowner, was living in the shed, but the shed had not been prepared and cleared for fumigation and there was no warning sign or secondary lock on the shed. Mr. Reiss was concerned that, if the PVC pipe was connected to both of the structures, the Vikane gas that had been used to fumigate the main structure could have moved through the pipe into the shed and endangered the life and health of anyone who happened to be in the shed during the fumigation. During Mr. Reiss's first visit to the site, he did not see anyone on the property. Mr. Reiss left the site at approximately 7:30 a.m. and got a cup of coffee. When he returned to the site, he rode down the street, trying to find a place to park so he could observe the final aeration procedure from a "covert" location.1 He was not able to find a hidden location, so he drove back to the fumigation site. When Mr. Reiss arrived back at the site, at approximately 8:10 a.m., Mr. Kravitsky was getting out of his car. Mr. Kravitsky had not done the fumigation at 16745 Southwest 300th Street in Homestead, Florida; he was not the pest control operator in charge of the fumigation; and he had not been responsible for clearing the two structures in preparation for the fumigation. Rather, Avery Huff, an employee of Ship Shape Pest Control, had done the fumigation. Mr. Kravitsky had taken a call from Mr. Lucas at the Ship Shape Pest Control office on April 16, 2004, and Mr. Lucas told him that he was concerned because there were no warning signs or secondary locks on the structure that had been fumigated. Mr. Kravitsky telephoned Mr. Huff, who told him that the job had been "left completely legal."2 Mr. Kravitsky asked Mr. Huff to return to Homestead and meet with the inspector, but Mr. Huff refused. Mr. Kravitsky, therefore, went to the site on April 17, 2004, to check on the job. When Mr. Reiss walked up to Mr. Kravitsky at approximately 8:00 a.m. on April 17, 2004, Mr. Kravitsky had just gotten out of his car. Mr. Kravitsky and Mr. Reiss walked around to the back of the house, and Mr. Reiss observed that the door to the shed was open and that a man was standing near the shed. It was Mr. Reiss's impression that the man lived in the shed but did not want anyone to know this. Mr. Kravitsky was told by the man, who identified himself as "Mr. Lugo," that the PVC pipe connected the two structures. Mr. Kravitsky was very concerned that the man might have been hurt if he had been in the shed during or shortly after the fumigation, but the man appeared to both Mr. Kravitsky and Mr. Reiss to be in fine health. Mr. Kravitsky turned on his interscan, which is a device used in the pest control industry to measure very small amounts of Vikane gas. In 2003-2004, it was considered safe for people to enter buildings when the level of Vikane gas had decreased to five parts per million, and the interscan was used to measure such small quantities of gas. While Mr. Kravitsky's interscan was warming up, a process that takes about 10 minutes, Mr. Kravitsky spoke with Mr. Lugo, who allowed Mr. Kravitsky to go into the shed to check the amount of Vikane gas with the interscan device. Mr. Reiss noted that a label on Mr. Kravitsky's interscan showed that it had been recalibrated on April 15, 2004, and, before Mr. Kravitsky took the device into the shed, Mr. Reiss observed that the reading on the meter was "zero," which indicated that the device was not detecting any Vikane gas. Mr. Reiss was taking pictures during the entire time he was at the fumigation site, and Mr. Lugo told Mr. Reiss he did not want any pictures taken of the inside of the shed. Mr. Lugo, therefore, refused to allow Mr. Reiss into the shed, and Mr. Reiss was not able to observe the reading on Mr. Kravitsky's interscan while he was in the structure. When Mr. Kravitsky emerged from the shed, he told Mr. Reiss that the interscan showed there was no Vikane gas in the shed. Mr. Reiss glanced at the meter when Mr. Kravitsky emerged from the shed, and it appeared to him that the meter reading was close to "zero." Mr. Kravitsky also did an interscan reading in the main structure, and he told Mr. Reiss that the reading also showed no Vikane gas. In actuality, Mr. Kravitsky's interscan showed that the level of Vikane gas in the shed was three parts per million, which indicated that the pipe did connect the two structures and that the person preparing the site for fumigation failed to include the shed. After Mr. Kravitsky and Mr. Reiss finished at the fumigation site, Mr. Kravitsky offered to buy Mr. Reiss lunch. Mr. Reiss refused lunch but told Mr. Kravitsky he could buy him an iced tea at a nearby Dunkin' Donut shop. Mr. Kravitsky ordered coffee, and he and Mr. Reiss talked about Mr. Reiss's vacation. Mr. Kravitsky excused himself and went to the men's room. When he came back and sat down, he pushed a matchbook across the table to Mr. Reiss, telling Mr. Reiss that he had some matches for him. The matchbook actually contained five $100 bills that Mr. Kravitsky had folded inside the matchbook. Mr. Reiss did not open the matchbook, but he was able to see that there was money inside. He pushed the matchbook back to Mr. Kravitsky and told him that he could not accept money. Mr. Kravitsky offered the money to Mr. Reiss on April 17, 2004, to "make him happy."3 According to Mr. Kravitsky, Mr. Reiss had been threatening for the previous year to send him to prison if he committed even the smallest violation of the pest control laws and regulations.4 Mr. Kravitsky, who was on probation at the time, was very worried about Mr. Reiss's threats. On April 18, 2004, Ship Shape Pest Control sent a Fumigation Notice to the Department's Bureau of Entomology and Pest Control in Boynton Beach, Florida, indicating that, at 11:00 a.m. on April 19, 2004, it intended to fumigate a structure located at 279 Southeast 8th Terrace in Deerfield Beach, Florida; that Vikane gas would be used; that Lori Kelley was the certified operator-in-charge of the fumigation, and that the length of the fumigation would be 36 hours. The Fumigation Notice was sent by facsimile transmission, and it was picked up by Mr. Reiss. Mr. Reiss intended to go to the fumigation site early on April 20, 2004, and to initiate covert surveillance of the first aeration. On the afternoon of April 19, 2004, Mr. Kravitsky went to 279 Southeast 8th Terrace to check on the progress of the job. When he arrived, the crew had the structure almost completely wrapped, and almost the entire the tent had been erected. Mr. Kravitsky entered the structure to clear it for fumigation. As he was opening cabinets and checking the building, Mr. Kravitsky discovered a sticker on the water heater that showed that the structure had been fumigated about seven months earlier by a company called Dead Bug Edwards. Mr. Kravitsky decided that he should not fumigate the structure with Vikane gas since it had been fumigated seven months previously. Also, he had not found any live termites on site and believed that it would be sufficient to treat the structure with borate. He told the crew that the structure was not to be fumigated. However, Mr. Kravitsky thought the tent looked good and, with the Ship Shape Pest Control banner in front of the structure, would be good advertising for the company, so, before he left the site, he told the crew finish erecting the tent and to close it up. Mr. Kravitsky intended to leave the tent up until the following day. Mr. Kravitsky went to the Ship Shape Pest Control office the following day, April 20, 2004, which was a Saturday. He wrote in long-hand on the Fumigation Notice that had been sent to the local office of the Department's Bureau of Entomology and Pest Control that the job was to be cancelled and changed to Borate. He added a note: "Advise realtor - fumed 7 months ago Dead Bug Edwards adjust price." Mr. Kravitsky dated the hand-written note "4/20/04," and sent the cancellation notice to the local office of the Department's Bureau of Entomology and Pest Control by facsimile transmittal on the morning of April 20, 2004.5 Mr. Kravitsky called Diane Brito, the realtor who had engaged Ship Shape Pest Control to do the fumigation, from the fumigation site and told her that the structure had previously been fumigated and was still under warranty and that Ship Shape Pest Control would do a treatment with Borate and pick up the Dead Bug Edwards' warranty on the termite fumigation. Mr. Kravitsky also told Ms. Brito that the price would be reduced because fumigation with Vikane gas was more expensive than a Borate treatment.6 Mr. Reiss arrived at 279 Southeast 8th Terrace at approximately 11:20 a.m. on April 20, 2004, and noted that it was a three-unit multi-family structure located in a residential neighborhood. He was unable to find a location from which to conduct covert surveillance, so he pulled up in front of the structure. He took out his Tiff meter, which is an instrument that measures the presence of gas in quantities exceeding 50 parts per million. His intent was to determine if there were any major leaks of Vikane gas from the tent, so he walked around the tent taking readings with the Tiff meter and videotaping the site. Mr. Reiss noted that there was a warning sign on the tent that reflected that the Vikane gas had been injected into the structure at 7:00 p.m. on April 19, 2004. Ms. Kelley and Mr. Kravitsky were both identified on the warning sign as pest control operators in charge. Although Mr. Reiss found holes in the tent and inserted the Tiff meter into the holes to obtain readings, the Tiff meter did not register any Vikane gas, which Mr. Reiss considered unusual. Mr. Reiss also noted that the hose that would have been used to introduce the Vikane gas into the tent was lying outside the tent. It appeared to Mr. Reiss, from all indications at the site, that the structure had been fumigated; the only indication that it had not been fumigated was the failure of the Tiff meter to register Vikane gas at a level of 50 parts per million or more. Mr. Reiss called the telephone number shown on the warning sign, and Mr. Kravitsky answered the call. Mr. Reiss told Mr. Kravitsky that there did not seem to be any gas in the building, and he told Mr. Kravitsky to meet him at the fumigation site as soon as possible. Mr. Kravitsky arrived at the site at approximately 12:25 p.m. Mr. Kravitsky did not see Mr. Reiss, but he did see the warning sign that indicated that the structure had been fumigated the previous evening and that he had done the fumigation. Mr. Kravitsky did not fumigate the structure, even though his name was on the warning sign, and he had no idea who put the sign up. Mr. Kravitsky immediately began warming up his interscan so he could measure the amount of Vikane gas at the site. Mr. Reiss had waited for Mr. Kravitsky in his car, but he did not see Mr. Kravitsky arrive. When Mr. Reiss saw Mr. Kravitsky's car parked in the driveway, Mr. Reiss got out of his car and walked up to Mr. Kravitsky. He noticed that Mr. Kravitsky was already warming up his interscan, and Mr. Reiss took care to note that the reading on the interscan, as it was warming up, was "zero." Mr. Kravitsky and Mr. Reiss engaged in a light conversation as Mr. Kravitsky searched for a place to take a reading of the Vikane gas level. Mr. Kravitsky found an opening in the tent and stuck the interscan probe into the hole. The reading on the interscan was "zero," indicating that no Vikane gas had been detected. Mr. Kravitsky checked several other openings in the tent, and the interscan continued to register "zero." After first telling Mr. Reiss that he intended to leave the tent up until the next morning, April 21, 2004, which was a Sunday. Mr. Kravitsky did not want to remove the tent in Mr. Reiss's presence because he was afraid that the inside of the structure had not been properly prepared for fumigation and that Mr. Reiss would cite him for a violation of pest control regulations. Mr. Reiss told Mr. Kravitsky that he would be at the site the next morning because he intended to be present when the tent was taken down, Mr. Kravitsky admitted to Mr. Reiss that he had told the residents that they could return to the structure that night. Mr. Reiss arranged to meet Mr. Kravitsky at the structure at 2:00 p.m. so Mr. Reiss could observe Mr. Kravitsky go through the aeration procedure. Even though Mr. Kravitsky knew that the structure had not been fumigated, he went through the active aeration procedure at approximately 2:00 p.m. on April 20, 2004. According to Mr. Reiss's Fumigation Inspection Report, Mr. Kravitsky opened the tent in Mr. Reiss's presence; entered the structure wearing a self-contained breathing apparatus and opened the doors and windows. Mr. Reiss observed that warning signs were on the exterior doors and that the doors also had secondary locks. Mr. Kravitsky completed the one-hour active aeration and replaced the warning signs and secondary locks on the exterior doors. These precautions were not necessary, however, because no Vikane gas had been introduced into the structure. Mr. Kravitsky was extremely worried that Mr. Reiss would cite him for a violation of pest control laws or regulations and that the citation would interfere with the sale of Ship Shape Pest Control, which he was trying to negotiate at the time, or would result in the revocation of his probation. Mr. Kravitsky described himself as confused and uncertain about how to handle the situation; he just wanted to avoid having Mr. Reiss cite him for a violation. Mr. Kravitsky, therefore, tried to "dance through without getting a violation" and wanted to "feel out" Mr. Reiss to find out how much he knew about the fumigation.7 Mr. Kravitsky avoided telling Mr. Reiss that the structure had not been fumigated, and he told Mr. Reiss that he would have to check with the certified pest control operator-in- charge to find out why there was no Vikane gas inside the tent. By his own admission, Mr. Kravitsky behaved as though he believed the structure had been fumigated with Vikane gas. At some point, however, Mr. Kravitsky did tell Mr. Reiss that he had found a sticker in the structure showing that the structure had been fumigated approximately seven months prior to April 2004 and that no Vikane gas had been used to fumigate the structure.8 Although not mentioned in the report Mr. Reiss prepared of the fumigation aeration inspection, Mr. Reiss and Mr. Kravitsky had a conversation at the fumigation site on April 20, 2004, that Mr. Reiss inadvertently recorded on the audio of his video camera.9 During this conversation, Mr. Kravitsky admitted to Mr. Reiss that he had lied to him on April 17, 2004, when he told Mr. Reiss that the reading Mr. Kravitsky took in the shed showed no Vikane gas. Mr. Kravitsky admitted that the interscan registered Vikane gas in the shed at three parts per million, a quantity that does not pose a risk to humans. Mr. Kravitsky also offered to give Mr. Reiss "an envelope" during this April 20, 2004, conversation. According to Mr. Kravitsky, his reference to "an envelope" was a direct reference to the incident that took place in April 2003. In any event, Mr. Kravitsky offered Mr. Reiss "an envelope" on April 20, 2004, in hopes that Mr. Reiss would not cite him for a violation of pest control laws or regulations with respect to the fumigation that was to have taken place at 279 Southeast 8th Terrace. Mr. Reiss, however, did not respond to Mr. Kravitsky's offer during that conversation.10 On June 16, 2004, Mr. Kravitsky pleaded guilty to one count of "failing to refrain from the law," and his probation was revoked by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The charge related to having offered Mr. Reiss unlawful compensation. Mr. Kravitsky was sentenced to 10 months' in prison.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order in DOAH Case No. 04-4061 denying Larry Kravitsky's application for renewal of his pest control operator certificate JF 9079 for 2004; in DOAH Case No. 06-0132 denying Larry Kravitsky's application for renewal of his pest control operator certificate JF 9079 for 2005; and in DOAH Case No. 06-0414 denying the application of Sears Pest Control d/b/a Ship Shape Pest Control for a pest control employee-identification card for Larry Kravitsky. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of July, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA M. HART 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 July, 2009.
