The Issue The issue is whether Respondent properly denied Petitioner's application for certification as a firefighter after Petitioner failed to successfully pass the practical portion of the Minimum Standards Examination pursuant to Sections 633.34 and 633.35, Florida Statutes, and Rules 4A-37.056 and 4A-37.062, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has served as a voluntary firefighter in Bay County, Florida, for approximately nine years. He first applied for certification as a firefighter in October 2001. In order to be certified, Petitioner was required to successfully complete the Minimum Standards Course. The course consists of taking a minimum of 360 hours of training at an approved school or training facility. After completing the training course, Petitioner was required to take the Minimum Standards Examination, which is structured in two parts: a written portion and a practical portion. The practical portion consists of four sections including the Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA), the hose pull, the ladder operation, and the fire ground skills. The purpose of the practical portion of the exam is to simulate real fire ground scenarios. To pass the four practical evolutions, an applicant must achieve a score of at least 70 percent on each one. Each evolution of the practical exam has certain steps that are mandatory. Failure to complete a mandatory step results in automatic failure of that portion of the exam. The mandatory steps for the SCBA evolution include the following: (a) complete the procedure in not more than one minute and forty-five seconds; and (b) activate the PASS device in the automatic position. After completing the Minimum Standards Course, Petitioner took the Initial Minimum Standards Examination on May 1, 2002. He was well rested on the day of the test, having slept approximately eight hours the night before. Petitioner passed the written portion of the exam but failed the practical portion of the initial exam because it took him one minute and fifty-nine seconds to complete the SCBA evolution. In a memorandum dated May 7, 2002, Respondent formally advised Petitioner that he had failed the SCBA portion of the practical exam because he exceeded the maximum time for the procedure. The memorandum also stated as follows in pertinent part: Important information about retesting and certification renewal is enclosed. Please read it carefully. You have automatically been scheduled for the next available examination, and written notification indicating your test date and location is enclosed. You are not required to call the Bureau for scheduling. Thank you. (Emphasis provided) In another memorandum dated May 7, 2002, Respondent advised Petitioner that he was scheduled to re-take the SCBA portion of the practical examination at the Florida State Fire College in Ocala, Florida, on May 24, 2002, at 8:00 a.m. The memorandum included the following relevant information: If you are unable to take the examination on the assigned date, please advise the Bureau and we will reschedule you for the next examination. Note: You must retest within six (6) months of the original test date. All an applicant has to do to reschedule a retest exam is to call Respondent's Bureau of Fire Standards and Training and request to be rescheduled. Respondent does not require applicants to provide a justifiable reason in order to be rescheduled. It is a routine and standard practice for Respondent to reschedule exams. Some applicants fail to show up for their retest exam without calling Respondent. In that case, Respondent automatically reschedules the retest. Applicants must take their retest exams within six months of their initial exam dates. Applicants that fail to meet this requirement must repeat the training course. Respondent reminds applicants of these requirements when they call to reschedule retests or fail to show up for retest, and the next retest exam date falls outside of the six-month window. If applicants still wish to reschedule retests outside the six-month window, Respondent will accommodate the requests. The next exam date that Petitioner could have taken his retest was in September 2002, which would have been within the six-month window. Petitioner testified that he called Respondent on May 16, 2002, to reschedule his retest because May 24, 2002, was not convenient with his work schedule. Petitioner also testified that an unidentified female in Respondent's office told him that he could not change the date of his retest. Petitioner's testimony in this regard is not persuasive. Petitioner's job involved working the "graveyard shift" at the Panama City Airport, loading and unloading planes. On May 23, 2002, Petitioner began working at 2:00 a.m. He finished his shift at approximately 1:00 p.m. Petitioner then immediately loaded his gear and began the trip to Ocala, Florida. The trip took about six hours, due to a traffic jam in Tallahassee, Florida. He arrived in Ocala at approximately 8:00 p.m. EST, located the testing site, and checked into a motel. Petitioner reported to the testing site the next morning. He did not tell any officials at the testing site that he was too tired to take the test. Petitioner failed the retest of the SCBA portion of the exam. Petitioner's time for the retest of the SCBA evolution was two minutes and twelve seconds. Additionally, Petitioner had point deductions for failing to complete the "seal check" and failing to properly don and secure all personal protective equipment correctly. In a letter dated May 26, 2002, Petitioner alleged that Respondent had denied his request for a different test date. Petitioner claimed that fatigue had prevented him from succeeding at the test. He requested another opportunity to retest the SCBA evolution within the required six-month period. Shortly thereafter, Fire Chief Tim McGarry from the Thomas Drive Fire Department on Panama City Beach, Florida, called Respondent's Field Representative Supervisor, Larry McCall. During that conversation, Mr. McCall told Chief McGarry that Petitioner could have decided not to show up for the retest. In a letter dated June 3, 2002, Mr. McCall responded to Petitioner's letter. In the letter, Mr. McCall stated that the question of whether Respondent erroneously denied Petitioner's request to reschedule the retest would be closed unless Petitioner could provide more specific details. In a memorandum dated June 6, 2002, Respondent formally advised Petitioner that he had failed the retest. In a letter dated June 6, 2002, Petitioner stated that he could not remember the name of the person he spoke to when he requested a change in his retest date. Once again, Petitioner requested an opportunity to take the retest. Mr. McCall spoke to Petitioner in a telephone call on June 18, 2002. During that conversation, Petitioner indicated that he would file his Election of Rights form, requesting an administrative proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner's application. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _ SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of April, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Elenita Gomez, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0330 Mark D. Dreyer, Esquire 747 Jenks Avenue, Suite G Panama City, Florida 32401 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Department of Financial Services, Division of State Fire Marshal (the Department), properly administered and graded the Firefighter Minimum Standards practical examination taken by Petitioner, Catalina Williams (hereinafter Williams).
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility for testing, monitoring and certifying firefighters. The Department conducts certification examinations at the Florida State Fire College in Ocala, Florida, and some thirty-plus other sites around the State. Those sites are located on college campuses, training facilities, fire stations, and other locales. The test at issue in this proceeding was administered at the Fire College site. Catalina Williams is an Hispanic woman who desires to become a certified firefighter. Her interest in firefighting began when she worked as a photographer covering fire-related events for a magazine and thought it would be exciting and interesting to be on “the front line.” Williams has also served as a caregiver, giving her experience in providing assistance to others, and is a certified lifeguard. In order to accomplish her goal of becoming a firefighter, Williams entered into schooling to learn the trade. Williams first attended First Coast Technological College (First Coast) in 2009. She completed the Firefighter Minimum Basic Standards Course (Firefighter I) that year. In 2010, she enrolled at the school for the summer semester to begin training in the advanced (Firefighter II) curriculum. That school term was shorter and more compressed than a regular semester. Despite her best efforts, Williams did not successfully complete the Firefighter II course. Rochford was one of her instructors during her first unsuccessful enrollment at First Coast. In 2012, Williams entered First Coast again. At that time, she was working as a paid volunteer firefighter for Volusia County. The county paid her tuition costs at First Coast when Williams entered the school for the Firefighter II course work. The second time, Williams was able to successfully complete the course material and pass her final examination. Passing the final examination was a prerequisite to taking the State certification exam. While attending First Coast, Williams took hundreds of practice exams, especially on the practical portions of the tests. She took exams as part of her classes, took exams voluntarily with someone timing her, and took exams just to practice. The State Certification Exam There are four primary segments of the State certification exam: A written examination of 100 multiple choice questions; A hose evolution involving a self- contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) and personal protection equipment (PPE); A ladder/search and rescue evolution; and A skills portion, involving ropes and knots, two fire ground skills, and a short test on the emergency response guide (ERG). The ladder/search and rescue evolution is a practical portion of the exam; it is the singular portion of the test at issue in this proceeding and will be referred to as the ladder evolution. The ladder evolution portion consists of the following tasks and assignments: The candidate inspects ladders hanging on a simulated fire truck. He or she then takes a 24-foot ladder from the truck and extends it against the wall of a building up to the second floor. Once that ladder is properly hoisted, the candidate confirms that a ladder guard (another candidate acting as a spotter) has control of the ladder. The candidate then initiates radio contact and then walks quickly around the building to another ladder that is already in place. He/she must ascend the ladder to the second floor, test the floor inside the building to make sure it is safe, and enter the building through a window. Upon entry the candidate must find a “victim” (a 125-pound mannequin) on the lower floor, secure the victim in an approved manner, and then exit the building with the mannequin. Upon exit, the candidate must safely deposit the victim on the ground and provide notice by way of radio contact that he/she and the victim are outside the building. The radio transmission is something along the lines of: “PAR 2 [Personnel Accountability Reporting, two people]. Firefighter No. “X” and victim have safely exited the building.” The entire ladder evolution sequence must be done within four minutes and 30 seconds although, as will be discussed below, there are differences of opinion as to when the timed portion of the evolution ends. It is necessary for candidates taking the test to pass each of the four sections. Failure of any one portion would result in failure overall. Should a candidate fail the examination, they must reschedule their retest within six months of the failed test. All retest examinations are administered at the Fire College. On test day, there may be dozens of applicants taking the test at the same time. The procedure dictates that candidates arrive at the test facility in time to process paperwork prior to the 7:30 a.m., test commencement. Candidates must first provide identification to an instructor and be assigned a candidate number. They then fill out paperwork, including a waiver should any injuries occur during testing. Candidates will have their gear inspected to make sure it is in compliance with State standards. Prior to commencement of testing, one of the instructors or examiners will read a document called the “Minimum Standards Pre-Exam Orientation” (the Orientation) to the candidates. During the reading of the Orientation, which may take 45 minutes to an hour or more, candidates are allowed and encouraged to ask questions. Unless a question is asked, the Orientation will be read verbatim, word for word, with no additional comment. After the Orientation is read, candidates are walked through the facility so they can familiarize themselves with the test site. Once the test commences, candidates are not allowed to ask any questions. Williams’ Test Experience In October 2012, after successful completion of the Firefighter II course at First Coast, Williams applied for and was approved to take the State certification examination. The exam was conducted at First Coast on the school’s training grounds. The test was conducted by certified employees of the Department. Williams did not pass the examination. One of her shortcomings in that test was a failure in the ladder evolution. Her timed completion of that evolution was in excess of the required time of four minutes and 30 seconds. Williams had been confident she would pass the certification exam because it was similar to the final exam she had passed at First Coast during her schooling. She believes she failed because she was too nervous when she took the exam when it was administered as the actual State certification test. After failing the exam, Williams then applied for a retest which would be held at the Fire College on February 7, 2013. That re-test is the focus of the instant proceeding. On the morning of the retest, Williams arrived well in advance of the 7:30 a.m., start time. As she inspected her gear in anticipation of the start of the exam, she found that the SCBA regulator she was supposed to use did not properly fit the face mask on her helmet. There were extra regulators behind one of the tables being used to process applicants for that day’s test. Examiner Harper was sitting at that table and was providing paperwork to applicants who had already signed in at the first processing station. Williams went to Harper’s table and was allowed to obtain a new regulator. Inasmuch as she was already at Harper’s table getting her replacement regulator before going to the first processing station, Williams went ahead and filled out the paperwork Harper was providing to candidates at his processing station. That is, she filled out the paperwork before actually checking in at the first station. Williams then went to the first check-in table which was manned by Examiner Rochford. She provided her identification to Rochford and was assigned candidate number 37. Rochford then told Williams to go to Harper’s table to fill out the paperwork at that station. Williams told Rochford she had already done so and walked away. (At that point, Williams remembers Rochford yelling at her, asking whether she understood his order and telling her in a harsh manner to obey him. Rochford does not remember talking to Williams at all. Neither version of this alleged confrontation is persuasive. Inasmuch as the conversation was not verified one way or another by a third person -- although there were probably a number of other people around, it will not be considered to have happened for purposes of this Recommended Order.) The Orientation was then read to the candidates. The various portions of the test were addressed in the Orientation. The ladder evolution contained the following language, which Rochford read verbatim to the candidates without anything added or deleted: “Time starts when you touch anything. Time ends when the candidate and victim fully exit the building.” There is no evidence that any of the candidates asked a question concerning this part of the Orientation. Rochford’s timing policy regarding the ladder evolution differs from what he read to the candidates. He takes the position that time stops when the candidate exits the building with the victim, places the victim on the ground in an appropriate manner, and issues a verbal statement into the radio indicating that the firefighter and victim are out of the building. By his own admission, Rochford could not speak to how other examiners handle this timing issue. Harper, who was Williams’ assigned examiner on the test, also seemed to require candidates to lay the victim down and make radio contact before stopping the time. Neither Rochford nor Harper satisfactorily explained why their timing policy was different from what was stated in the orientation. The testimony concerning the correct way of timing the evolution was, at best, confusing. The following statements from the record provide contradictory and disparate opinions by various examiners: Rochford: “As soon as they lay the mannequin on the ground [and] announce they have exited the building . . . the time stops.” Tr. p. 45, lines 9-18 “The mannequin’s feet have got to be outside the plane from the door opening. That’s when the time stops.” Id. Lines 23- 25. “Until they talk on the radio is – - when they finish talking on the radio is when the time would stop.” Tr. p. 255, lines 7-9. Johnson: “At that point, they’ll use one of the prescribed methods for rescue to take the victim and themselves past the threshold out to the fresh air. At that point, the time stops.” Tr. p. 111, lines 11-14 “I read [the Orientation] word for word.” Tr. p. 114, line 23 “On the ladder rescue evolution . . . we [examiners] all stop when they pass the threshold.” Harper: “Then they’re told to lay the victim down, make radio contact you’re out of the building. Time stops.” Tr. p. 138, lines 7-8 “After they make radio contact.” Tr. p. 147, line 3 “[Orientation] says time starts when they touch anything, time ends when the candidate and the victim fully exit the building.” Tr. P. 148, lines 15-17 Hackett: “It stops when the victim comes out of the building.” Tr. p. 222, lines 7-8 [If the victim was thrown out of the building by the firefighter] “I think they would stop the clock.” Id., lines 9-11 “It is part of the timed part that they have to designate that they’re out of the building safely and lay down the victim.” Tr. pp. 222, line 24 through 223, line 1 Question to Hackett: “If [Williams] is coming out and she dropped the victim and picked up -- and presumably picked it up or whatever and then radioed, would that add time?” Answer: “No.” Tr. p. 246, lines 5- 10 Williams was timed by Harper when she took the ladder evolution portion of the exam. According to Harper’s (deposition) testimony, he subscribes to the version of timing that requires the victim to be laid down on the ground and the firefighter to make radio contact. Using that version of timing, Williams received a time of four minutes and 35 seconds for the entire ladder evolution portion of the test. In March, the Department mailed out notices to all the candidates that had tested on February 7. Notices of failure were sent by registered mail, return receipt requested. Williams’ letter was returned to the Department as unclaimed. Williams at some point in time found out from Chief McElroy, head of the Fire Academy, that she had purportedly failed the exam. She began calling examiner Harper in March seeking to find out what portion of the exam she had not successfully completed. She had at least two telephone conversations with Harper in March 2013. On April 4, 2013, the Department re-sent the failure letter to Williams, again by certified mail. This time, the letter was claimed by Williams and she became officially aware that she had not passed the exam. The basis given for Williams’ failure was that she did not complete the ladder evolution within the prescribed time parameters. She was timed at four minutes and 35 seconds, just five seconds beyond the allowable limit. It is her contention that she exited the building with the victim within the four minute/30 second time frame. The basis for her belief is that she has done the test so many times that she knows when she is behind schedule. During the test she did not stumble, drop any equipment, or have any other problem that would have added to her time. So, she concludes, she must have completed the evolution timely. Her personal feelings on the matter, without further corroboration or support, are not persuasive. Harper did not testify at final hearing. The transcript of his deposition taken in this case was admitted into evidence. In that transcript, Harper talks about his policy regarding timing of the evolution. His policy is the same as Rochford’s and is discussed above. He does not specifically say if he employed that policy when timing Williams during her test on February 7, 2013. He does not explain the difference between the Orientation statement about timing and his personal policy. The most persuasive evidence at final hearing established that it would have taken ten to 15 seconds after exiting the building to lay the victim down and make radio contact. The radio contact itself would have taken about four seconds. If Harper had stopped his timing when Williams and the victim broke the threshold of the building, her time would have likely been less than four minutes and 30 seconds. If he used his personal timing policy, then the time of four minutes/35 seconds was probably accurate. Harper deducted points from Williams’ score because of other minor mistakes. The totality of those points would not have caused Williams to fail the test. It was the ladder evolution time that caused the failure. In fact, Williams successfully completed all portions of the re-test except for the timing issue in the ladder evolution portion.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services, Division of State Fire Marshal, rescinding the failing score on the State Firefighter Certification Examination for Catalina Williams and certifying her as a Firefighter. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of November, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 19th day of November, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Seth D. Corneal, Esquire The Corneal Law Firm 904 Anastasia Boulevard St. Augustine, Florida 32080 Michael Davidson, Esquire Department of Financial Services Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Department of Financial Services Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390
The Issue Whether Petitioner's challenge to the failing score he received on the Practical Examination for Retention of Firefighter Retest he took on May 17, 2012, should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact Because no evidence was offered at the final hearing held in the instant case, no findings of fact are made.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of the State Fire Marshall, enter an order denying Petitioner's challenge to the failing score he received on the Practical Examination for Retention of Firefighter Retest he took on May 17, 2012. S DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of August, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 17th day of August, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Jesse Beauregard 10731 Northwest 18th Court Coral Springs, Florida 33071 Linje E. Rivers, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street, Sixth Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390
The Issue Is Petitioner entitled to be certified as a Firefighter based upon examination results through an examination administered by Respondent? See Section 633.35, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied for certification as a Firefighter on June 19, 1998. Subsequently he completed the Firefighter training program administered at Volusia County Fire Science Institute commensurate with the requirements set forth in Section 633.35(1), Florida Statutes. On December 15, 1998, Petitioner took the state examination following completion of the "Minimum Standards Course." The state examination was administered by the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training. That examination was constituted of a written and practical portion with the expectation that a minimum score of 70% was required in both aspects of the examination. See Rule 4A-37.056(6)(b), Florida Administrative Code. When the December 15, 1998 examination was graded, the Petitioner passed the practical with a score of 90. Petitioner did not pass the written, receiving a score of 66. Officials within the Respondent's agency were persuaded that some portions of the examination given on December 15, 1998, were arguably beyond the abilities of a beginning Firefighter. This decision was arrived at recognizing that material on the test had been presented in the "Minimum Standards Course." Nonetheless, adjustments were made to the scores of the candidates in recognition of the difficulty of some of the examination questions. The re-scoring improved Petitioner's written score from 66 to 67. On February 9, 1999, Petitioner retook the written portion of the state examination and received a score of 59. That score was adjusted on the same basis as has been described in relation to the December 15, 1998, examination session. With the adjustment Petitioner received a score of 62. Petitioner took a third written examination on May 12, 1999. This examination was given, having purged the examination instrument of the more difficult questions that had been presented on the occasion of the December 15, 1998, and the February 9, 1999, examinations. In the instance of the May 12, 1999 examination, Petitioner received a 66 on the written portion. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the nature of the examinations, taking into account the adjustments in the scoring, were beyond the expectation of the competence of a candidate who had undergone the "Minimum Standards Course" in preparation for this state examination or that Respondent failed to appropriately administer and grade the examinations given Petitioner.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered upholding the examination results in the several examinations administered to Petitioner in relation to the written portion, as adjusted, and finding that Petitioner has exhausted his opportunities for examination in this cycle. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 23rd day of December, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Elenita Gomez, Esquire Department of Insurance 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Anthony Robert Shuta, II 3043 Pine Tree Drive Edgewater, Florida 32141 Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill Nelson, State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capital, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Did the Respondent commit the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint Following Emergency Closure and, if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Department is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility of licensing and regulating public lodging establishments. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed public lodging establishment as that term is defined in Section 509.013(4)(a), Florida Statutes, license number 38-00194-H, located at 1720 US Highway 27, Avon Park, Florida. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Richard Barnhart was employed by the Department as a Sanitation and Safety Specialist. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Ed Madden was employed by the Department as a Sanitation and Safety Supervisor. On March 10, 2000, Barnhart performed a routine inspection of Respondent's public lodging establishment (Litto's Apartments) and observed two safety violations which were classified as violations of critical concern. A violation classified as of critical concern is required to be corrected immediately. The safety violations observed by Barnhart were: (a) fire extinguisher missing on north side of Units 1 an 2 which resulted in some of the apartments located in Units 1 and 2 not having a fire extinguisher available within a maximum distance of 75 feet; and (b) no smoke detectors in apartments 1, 3, and 8. On March 10, 2000, Barnhart prepared a Lodging Inspection Report advising Respondent of, among other things, the safety violations that had to be corrected by March 18, 2000. Eugene Riggs, Respondent's Apartment Manager, acknowledged receipt of the inspection report listing the violations and the date for correction of the violations of critical concern. On March 21, 2000, Barnhart performed a Call Back/Re- Inspection of Litto's Apartments and observed the same safety violations that were observed on March 10, 2000. On March 21, 2000, Barnhart prepared a Call Back/Re- Inspection Report advising Respondent that the violations observed on March 10, 2000, had not been corrected. This report advised Respondent that the report should be considered a warning and that Respondent would be issued a Notice to Show Cause why sanctions should not be assessed against Respondent's license. Eugene Riggs acknowledged receipt of a copy of the Call Back/Re-Inspection Report. During a routine inspection conducted on March 21, 2000, Barnhart observed that: (a) the apartments' water supply was less than 75 feet from a septic tank and drain field, a sanitation violation of critical concern not observed on March 10, 2000; (b) there was raw sewage in an open septic tank on the premises, a sanitation violation of critical concern not observed on March 10, 2000; and (c) a septic tank had been disconnected resulting in raw sewage being dumped on the ground, a sanitation violation of critical concern not observed on March 10, 2000. Barnhart prepared a Lodging Inspection Report listing the violations observed during his routine inspection on March 21, 2000. Eugene Riggs acknowledged receipt of a copy of this report which, among other things, advised Respondent of the deadline of March 28, 2000, for correcting the additional violations observed on March 21, 2000, and the deadline of March 21, 2000, for correcting the violation observed on March 10, 2000, and not corrected by March 21, 2000. On March 28, 2000, Barnhart performed a Call Back/Re-Inspection of Litto's Apartments and observed that the violations observed on March 10, 2000, and March 21, 2000, had not been corrected. Barnhart prepared a Call Back/Re- Inspection Report on March 28, 2000, advising Respondent that the violations had not been corrected and that a Notice to Show Cause why sanctions should not be assessed against Respondent's license would be issued. On April 7, 2000, Barnhart and Supervisor Madden conducted a joint routine inspection of Litto's Apartments and observed that the violations of March 10, 2000, March 21, 2000, and March 28, 2000, had not been corrected. On April 7, 2000, a Lodging inspection Report was prepared advising Respondent that the violations noted on March 10, 2000, March 21, 2000, and March 28, 2000, had not been corrected. Based on the testimony of Richard Barnhart and Ed Madden, whose testimonies I find to be credible, there is sufficient evidence to show that: (a) a fire extinguisher was missing from the north side of the Units 1 and 2 which resulted in some of the apartments in Units 1 an 2 not having a fire extinguisher available within a maximum distance of 75 feet at the time of the inspection on March 10, 2000, and no fire extinguisher had been installed on the north side of Units 1 and 2 at time of the inspection on April 7, 2000, or during the intervening time; (b) smoke detectors were not installed in apartments 1, 3, and 8 at the time of the inspections on March 10, 2000, and smoke detector had not been installed in apartments 1, 3, and 8 at the time of the inspection on April 7, 2000, or during the intervening time; (c) at the time of the March 21, 2000, inspection, there was raw sewage in an open septic tank and sewage on the ground due to a septic tank blowout which had not been corrected at the time of the inspection on April 7, 2000, or during the intervening time; and (d) the water supply was located less than 75 feet from septic tank and drain field at the time of the inspection on March 21, 2000, which had not been corrected at the time of the inspection on April 7, 2000, or during the intervening time. Respondent's failure to have sufficient fire extinguishers properly located on its premises and Respondent's failure to correct this violation resulted in a significant threat to the public safety and welfare in that the residents were not properly protected from the danger of fire. Respondent's failure to provide smoke detectors in all of the apartments resulted in a significant threat to the public safety and welfare in that the residents were not being properly protected from the danger of fire. Respondent's failure to correct the contaminated water supply, correct the situation concerning the raw sewage being dumped on the ground, and to correct the situation where raw sewage was being left in an open septic tank resulted in a significant threat to the public health, safety, and welfare in that not only were the tenants being subjected to those unsanitary conditions but the general public as well. An Order of Emergency Suspension of License and Closure was issued by Respondent and signed by Gary Tillman, District Administrator, having been delegated this authority by the Director of Hotels and Restaurants. The Order of Emergency Suspension of License and Closure is dated March 7, 2000. However, this appears to be scrivener's error in that the order alleges violation that are alleged to have occurred on March 10, 21, 28, 2000, and April 7, 2000. Also, the Certificate of Service is dated April 7, 2000. The Order of Emergency Suspension of License and Closure was still in effect on December 18, 2000, the date of the hearing.
Recommendation Having considered the serious nature of the offenses committed by the Respondent, that Respondent is presently under an Order of Emergency Suspension of License and Closure for these same offenses, and that the Department is requesting that only an administrative fine be imposed against Respondent, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order finding that Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint Following Emergency Closure and imposing an administrative fine of $1,200.00 as requested by the Department. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ WILLIAM R. CAVE 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Division of Hotels and Restaurant Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Litto's Apartments 1720 U.S. Highway 27 Avon Park, Florida 33825-9589 Ahmed Anjuman 1720 U.S. Highway 27 Avon Park, Florida 32825-9589 Susan R. McKinney, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue for consideration in this proceeding is whether the Respondent’s license as an adult living facility should be subject to an administrative fine in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500.00) for repeated class III deficiencies.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is the owner/operator of San Juan Retirement Home. The home is licensed to operate a 6-bed assisted living facility in Jacksonville, Florida. On March 5, 2003, AHCA conducted a survey of Respondent's facility. During that survey, Respondent did not have a fire safety inspection report within 365 days from an earlier fire safety inspection report. Because of the lack of a timely report the facility was cited for violating Tag A209, a Class III deficiency. Tag A209 requires that all licensed facilities have an annual fire inspection conducted by the local fire marshal or authorities having jurisdiction. In this instance the Agency interprets the word annual to mean 365 days from the last inspection report. Respondent had the facility inspected by the Fire Marshal on March 12, 2003. She received the report the same day. A follow-up survey was conducted on April 15, 2003. Tag A209 was noted as corrected in a timely manner by Respondent. Since this was the first Class III deficiency regarding the timeliness of the inspection report, no penalties were imposed by Petitioner on Respondent. On April 23, 2004, AHCA again inspected Respondent's facility. During the inspection, Respondent again did not have a fire safety inspection report completed within 365 days of the earlier inspection report of March 12, 2003. Because of the lack of the report, the facility was cited for a class III deficiency under Tag A209. Respondent admitted that she twice did not have a timely fire safety inspection report completed for her facility. The evidence demonstrated that, prior to the April 2004 inspection by AHCA, Respondent had called the Fire Marshal’s office to schedule an inspection for the facility. However, the call was not made until the expiration of the March 12, 2003, fire safety inspection report. For some unknown reason the Fire Marshal’s office did not schedule the fire safety inspection until after the April 2004 inspection. However, the Fire Marshal’s failure to schedule the inspection does not excuse Respondent’s lack of a timely inspection and report since Respondent remains responsible for obtaining the inspection and report in a timely manner and did not call the Fire Marshal’s office until the expiration of the earlier report. To her credit, Respondent obtained a new fire safety inspection report on May 4 or 5, 2004, after AHCA had inspected the facility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That AHCA enter a final order imposing a $500.00 administrative fine for repeatedly failing to timely conduct or obtain an annual fire safety inspection report. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of November, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 9th day of November, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael O. Mathis, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Suite 3408D Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Elvira C. Demdam San Juan Retirement home 6561 San Juan Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32210 Alan Levine, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3116 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
Findings Of Fact When the events herein occurred, respondent, Shalom Manor, Inc. d/b/a King David Manor Retirement Home (King David), was licensed by petitioner, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), to operate an adult congregte living facility (ACLF) at 5800 N.W. 27th Court, Lauderhill, Florida. The corporate headquarters of Shalom Manor, Inc., were located at 901 South Federal Highway, Suite 200, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. On March 29, 1984 two HRS inspectors performed a routine annual survey of King David to determine whether King David was complying with all HRS requirements necessary for licensure. During the course of the survey, the inspectors noted that King David did not have an established fire and emergency plan. They accordingly charged respondent with having violated Section 3-8.a of HRS Manual 140-3. That manual is entitled "Fire Safety Standards for Adult Congregate Living Facilities." The manual is not a formal rule, but has been adopted and incorporated by reference in Rule 10A-5.23(15), Florida Administrative Code. The cited section (3-8.a) provides in relevant part that "a Fire and Emergency plan shall be established." It does not specifically require that the plan be in written form, or that it be posted in each resident's living area. According to the HRS inspectors, respondent was charged with a Class III statutory violation because it had no acceptable written plan, and the plan was not posted in each resident's room. When the survey was completed, the inspectors reviewed this deficiency with the facility's administrator, Graeme Burne, and advised him that the deficiency must be corrected within thirty days, or by April 29, 1984. They also described to him the type of plan necessary to comply with the HRS Manual, and told him it must be posted in each area where a resident resided. A thirty- day compliance period was used since the inspectors considered the deficiency to be a "paperwork" item that could be easily corrected within that time period. After returning to their office, the inspectors had a Form 1806 prepared. This form is entitled "ACLF Corrective Action Plan" and contains each deficiency noted during the survey, the class of violation, date for correction action, provider's plan of correction, when such correction is completed and the status of correction or follow-up. The form noted that the deficiency in question had to be corrected by April 29, 1984. The form was then signed by the HRS area supervisor and mailed to Burne on April 4, 1984. Burne received the form, inserted the comment "Being Prepared" in the column under the provider's plan of correction, signed it as respondent's administrator on April 27, 1984 and returned it to local HRS offices in Miami. On May 1, May 18, June 11, August 22 and October 31, 1984, the two inspectors made repeat surveys of King David's facility. They found no satisfactory fire and emergency plan had been established on any of those dates. On the August 22 visit Burne showed to the inspectors a diagram he had prepared, but was told it did not meet HRS requirements. On the March 29 visit, the inspectors also noted several other deficiencies besides the lack of a fire and emergency plan. All deficiencies, including the lack of a fire and emergency plan, were the subject of administrative complaints issued on July 12 and 26, 1984 in Case Nos. 85-0359 and 85-0360, respectively. 1/ By the issuance of these complaints, the corporate license received actual written notice of the surveys and cited deficiencies. Prior to that time, Burne had apparently neglected to tell the owners about the matter. On July 2, 1985, or approximately one year later, HRS issued the amended administrative complaint in this cause charging respondent with having failed to correct the deficiency by the August 22 visit. 2/ The complaint was served on Shalom Manor, Inc., at its Fort Lauderdale corporate address. After receiving the earlier complaints in July 1984 a representative of Shalom Manor contacted HRS offices in Miami and requested that all future correspondence regarding the matter be sent to the corporate owner's address in Fort Lauderdale. Respondent acknowledged that it had no fire and emergency plan posted on its premises. However, it established that the corporate licensee (Shalom Manor, Inc.) was never given any documentation regarding the alleged violation until the administrative complaints in Case Nos. 85-0359 and 85-0360 were filed. Moreover, neither the licensee or its administrator was given a document entitled "notice of deficiency" as required by Rule 10A-5.27, Florida Administrative Code. However, the corrective action plan sent to the administrator on April 4, 1984, contained all information referred to in the rule. Respondent also points out that after finally learning of the deficiency, it attempted to comply with HRS requirements, and through its administrator, presented a written plan to HRS inspectors on their August 22 visit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the amended administrative complaint filed on July 2, 1986, be DISMISSED, with prejudice. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of August 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of August 1986.
