Findings Of Fact The Parties Lan-Mac Pest Control-Englewood, Inc. and Lan-Mac Pest Control-Fort Myers, Inc. (Lan-Mac) are pest control operators conducting business in the general area of each individual respondent regarding whom they have requested a formal hearing. Larry McKinney owns these companies and has over 4,000 customers, nine pest control routes, six lawn care routes and a termite crew, all servicing the west coast from Collier County up through Sarasota County. Certified Operators of SW Florida, Inc. and Florida Pest Control Association, Inc. (FPCA) are trade associations with members who are pest control operators conducting business in the geographical area of each individual respondent regarding whom they have petitioned for a formal hearing. The members of these associations are substantially affected by the issues raised in this proceeding. As stipulated by the parties, the petitioners described above have standing to petition and participate as parties in this proceeding. (Prehearing Stipulation, page 12) Each of the individual respondents has submitted to the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DACS) an application for registration as an especially pesticide-sensitive person, together with the statutory fee and a purported physician's certificate. Each individual respondent's claim is addressed more specifically below. The DACS is the state agency responsible for administering and maintaining the pesticide-sensitive persons' registry as provided in section 482.2265(3), F.S. The Registry Upon payment of a fee and submittal of an appropriate physician's certificate, pesticide-sensitive persons are placed on a list of persons who are entitled to 24-hour advance notice when a pest control operator is going to make an exterior application on property adjacent or contiguous to the pesticide- sensitive person's primary residence. The certificate must be from a physician qualified in a category established by department rule. The department has adopted rule 5E-14.146, F.A.C. specifying the categories. The DACS may designate a person "especially pesticide-sensitive" if, in addition to the submittal described above, the person provides "clear and convincing proof" that he or she is so sensitive to pesticides that the standard notice is not enough, and notification of applications at greater distance is necessary to protect the person's health. The notification distance requirement may not exceed one-half mile from the boundaries of the property where the hypersensitive person resides. The required notice is limited to use of a pesticide or pesticide class to which sensitivity is documented or for which the department determines sensitivity is scientifically probable. The department may limit notice requirements in applications in excess of a stipulated quantity and may not require notice of applications at a distance beyond the minimum distance required to prevent endangerment of the health of the individual. Section 482.2265, F.S. requires the individual registrant (pesticide- sensitive person) to notify the department of the properties or residences falling within the notice parameters (either adjacent or extra distance) so that the department can supply this necessary information to the pest control operators. Without this information, the operators cannot know whether a specific application is subject to notice. Pest control operators who fail to provide the notice required by section 482.2265, F.S. are subject to administrative sanctions by DACS, including fines and license suspension or revocation. Violations of the Pest Control Act are third degree misdemeanors. John Mulrennan, Ph.D. is the Bureau Chief of DACS' Bureau of Entomology and Pest Control, which bureau administers the requirements of Chapter 482, F.S. Dr. Mulrennan has a Ph.D. in entomology from Oklahoma State University. Dr. Mulrennan has delegated the day-to-day administration of the registry to Philip Helseth, Administrator of the Pest Control Section; and to Cherie Decker, Philip Helseth's secretary. Mr. Helseth, and more often, Cherie Decker, review applications from persons seeking to be placed on the registry. They determine whether the application is complete, the fee is attached or waived, and the physician signing the certification is properly qualified under the rule. The department has no medical personnel on staff to review medical records and it relies entirely on the physician's certification for the determination of eligibility for the registry. Dr. Mulrennan considers that a physician who is licensed and board-certified should be able to make the necessary diagnosis and the department is in no position to question that diagnosis. There are several versions of the application form/physician's certification that have been used by the agency, DACS, and its predecessor agency, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), but the current version is a one-page form with blanks to be completed on the front and printed guidelines on the back. The form elicits the person's name and primary residence address, with day and night telephone numbers. The form includes this "Physician's Certification:" I certify that the individual named above is a patient of mine and should be placed on the list of pesticide-sensitive persons. This individual has a documented sensitivity to a particular pesticide or class of pest- icides. The specific pesticide or class of pesticides to which registrant is sensitive: [blanks provided] The individual named above is currently under my care for a diagnosed condition or ailment for which I have proof that the normal appli- cation of a pesticide would aggravate the condition or ailment to such an extent that placement on the registry for prior notification is necessary to protect that person's health. Diagnosed condition or ailment: [blanks provided] (FPCA Exhibit #17) For persons registering as especially pesticide- sensitive, the form requests the special distance required: one block, two blocks, 1/4 mile, up to 1/2 mile limit. The certifying physician's signature, address, telephone number and the signature of a witness follows this statement: I further certify that I am a qualified physician, board certified and recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties in the specialty of toxicology, allergy or occupational medicine. I have diagnosed this patient's sensitivity based on the guidelines set forth by the department (see reverse side). Board certification will be verified by this Bureau. (FPCA Exhibit #17) The guidelines on the reverse of the form were developed with the assistance of the State Health Director, Dr. Mahan, and the Florida Medical Association. The guidelines are: GUIDELINES FOR DIAGNOSING PESTICIDE SENSITIVITY The department recommends the following basic steps be considered in diagnosing an individual as pesticide sensitive: good evidence of exposure history clinical manifestations from a particular exposure body testing related to an exposure, such as x-ray, blood test, urine test, etc., necessary to make a diagnosis environment [sic] examination of the site where the exposure occurs, such as a person's place of work, to determine the existence of exposure in the environment (FPCA Exhibit #17) According to FPCA expert, Dr. Ronald Gots, these guidelines, with minor modifications, are appropriate in determining whether or not someone has sustained a pesticide exposure and reaction and whether there is a causal relationship between a more distant application and endangerment to health. In Dr. Gots' view, the clinical manifestations ought to be the kind that have been specifically associated with the particular substance at issue. Dr. Gots also contends that specific laboratory evidence is not always required to determine pesticide toxicity. Guideline number four is particularly important in dealing with symptoms from remote applications. DACS does not require that the certifying physician use the guidelines provided on the form, as they are only intended as an aid. The agency only intends that the physicians make a diagnosis and reflect that fact in the certificates by their signature. DACS also does not require that the applicant provide actual addresses within the notification area. Instead, if there is a complaint that an operator made a pesticide application without the required notice, the agency will have to determine in that case whether the operator should be held accountable. Placement on the registry for extra distance notice is based solely on the physician's certificate, and whether the individual provides specific addresses or simply distances for the notice is immaterial, according to Dr. Mulrennan, until the agency is confronted with an enforcement issue. DACS checks the qualifications of the doctors who are making the certification. The secretary who checks the applications, Cherie Decker, has a phone number for the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) to call to check on physicians. Examples of qualifications that have been rejected include academic doctorates. The agency has specifically accepted certificates from osteopathic physicians who are certified by the American Osteopathic Association but are not certified by the ABMS. That acceptance was based, in part, on correspondence from the ABMS, American Osteopathic Association, and Albert F. Robbins, D.O. (Department's Exhibits #3-8). Nothing in that correspondence establishes that one board certification is considered equivalent to another by the ABMS or is "recognized" by the ABMS. The Certifying Physicians The individuals at issue in this consolidated proceeding were all certified by one of the following: Albert F. Robbins, D.O.; Michael J. Waickman, M.D.; Neil Ahner, M.D.; Rory P. Doyle; S. J. Klemsawesch M.D.; Hana T. Chaim, D.O.; Paul F. Wubbena, Jr., M.D.; Linda A. Marraccini, M.D.; and Caren B. Singer, M.D. Dr. Robbins practices at the Robbins Environmental Medical Center, 400 South Dixie Highway, Boca Raton, Florida. He has a doctorate of Osteopathic Medicine from Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine; he is board-certified by the American Osteopathic Board of Preventative Medicine, with a sub-specialty in Occupational and Environmental Medicine; he has a Master of Science in Public Health from the University of Miami. He is not board-certified by the ABMS but he strongly avers that his board certification is equivalent to the specific requirement of the DACS rule referenced in paragraph 7, above. Dr. Waickman practices in Akron, Ohio. A medical doctor, he is board- certified in pediatrics, in allergy and clinical immunology and in environmental medicine. He practices with his son, who is also a medical doctor and who is board-certified in internal medicine and in allergy and clinical immunology. Dr. Ahner is a medical doctor who practices in Jupiter, Florida. The only evidence of his qualifications is his certificate on a patient's application for registration as a pesticide-sensitive person. The certificate, dated February 16, 1993, has all of the language regarding board-certification crossed out. Rory P. Doyle is the name appearing on a certificate for Carol Arrighi's application for registration. Nothing on that certificate indicates whether R. Doyle is a physician. The signature appears beneath the printed statement described in paragraph 16, above. Dr. Klemsawesch is a medical doctor who is board-certified in internal medicine and in allergy and immunology. Dr. Chaim is an osteopathic physician practicing primarily in the areas of family practice and environmental medicine. She is board-certified under the ABMS in family practice. She is a member of several professional organizations, including the American Academy of Occupational and Environmental Medicine and the American Academy of Environmental Medicine. She is not board- certified in any areas other than family practice. Dr. Wubbena is a medical doctor practicing in Jacksonville, Florida. He is board-certified in pediatrics and in allergy and immunology and he practices primarily in the specialty of allergy. The only evidence of qualifications of Drs. Marraccini and Singer is what purports to be their signatures beneath the certificate statement on the DACS application form. Both indicate they are medical doctors. Dr. Singer's signature has the handwritten notation, "Board certified internal medicine only"; Dr. Marraccini's signature has the handwritten notation, "family practice 1989." (Department Exhibit #1) The Individual Applicants Cheryl Mansker's application for registration was certified by Dr. Robbins on March 24, 1993. According to the certificate, she is sensitive to the following: organophosphates, carbamates and pyrethrum. The certification states that notification of 1/2 mile radius is required. Ms. Mansker has been a patient of Dr. Robbins since 1987. He considers her one of the most highly allergic individuals he has seen in his practice. He attributes the onset of her sensitivity to an occasion when she was employed in a bank when, in the process of repairing an air conditioner, a worker ripped the lining of a fiberglass duct and sent fiberglass throughout the entire building. This occasion, according to Dr. Robbins, subjected the patient to mold, formaldehyde and fiberglass. He has no record of any incidents of pesticide exposure, but believes her extreme chemical sensitivity qualifies her as eligible for certification. Dr. Robbins concedes that the amount of dosage is a factor in deciding whether a person is going to react, and whether it is necessary to protect that person. Thomas Milo has been a patient of Dr. Robbins since at least 1986. The certification by Dr. Robbins states that this patient "becomes very ill when exposed to pesticides and other chemicals - Pt. has been advised to avoid exposure to any and all pesticides." (Department exhibit #1) Mr. Milo used to have a florist shop but had to let his son take over because he could not continue to be exposed to pesticides or the flowers in the shop. Although he is functioning better, he must avoid fragrance products, pesticides or automobile exhaust fumes. Generally, when Mr. Milo visited Dr. Robbins with a reaction, the patient gave an exposure history. Sometimes the physician surmised the reaction was to cumulative exposures. Dr. Robbins recalls only one outdoor exposure incident, when a lawn was sprayed, but has no notes to evidence the date or specifics, including distance. According to Dr. Robbins, Mr. Milo needs at least a quarter mile notice to protect his health. This distance is based on the history, apparently given to the doctor by Mr. Milo, that he had reactions to pesticides that affected his health within a quarter of a mile. Joyce Charney has been a patient of Dr. Robbins since approximately 1982. On his certification on her application he listed these classes of pesticides to which she is sensitive: "Organophosphates, chlorinated [sic] and pyrethrum." Someone else apparently added the words "pesticides" and "Dursban" to the certification form. Dr. Robbins has tested Ms. Charney extensively for her multiple severe allergies to pollen, dust and mold. He does not test for allergies to pesticides, but for this and other patients he relies on their history with regard to exposures. In his words: ...[G]enerally, when I fill out those forms I just - if a patient is very chemically sensitive and very allergic I put all classes. It is hard for me to determine which one of the -- If they have said they have had reactions when they go by lawns, or have been in someplace like a Home Depot and they get around the pesticide and they have reactions, or they were spraying with some- thing and have a reaction, it is hard to tell which ones. * * * So if they have had multiple exposures and multiple reactions I just put the full class. (Deposition of Albert Robbins, page 59-60) Dr. Robbins designated two blocks as the required notice distance for Ms. Charney based on her explanation to him that if she gets in the wind drift of a pesticide that has been sprayed, she gets a reaction. He also considered the fact that Ms. Charney and her husband own and live at a motel a few miles from the doctor's office. The motel is an "allergy-free" motel patronized by some of Dr. Robbins' patients who come from out of town and are very chemically sensitive and allergic. He feels that it is appropriate for these patients to have some protection against significant exposures to that motel. Carrietta Kelly was never a patient of Dr. Robbins and he never met her. He signed the certification on her application for registration as a pesticide-sensitive individual after she and her husband, a physician, called him. Her husband is a medical doctor in Naples, Florida, but not a physician qualified according to the DACS rules. Dr. and Mrs. Kelly sent Dr. Robbins a two-page letter describing her health history and describing the symptoms she experienced after her apartment was treated six years prior to the letter, and her condominium was sprayed with Cynoff and Orthane a year prior to the letter. Dr. Robbins classifies those products as fungicides. Based on the history he received from Dr. and Mrs. Kelly, Dr. Robbins identified on the certification form these groups to which she is sensitive: organophosphates, carbamates and pyrethrum; and he designated a 1/2 mile notification distance. Charlene McClure has been a patient of Dr. Robbins since July of 1993. Skin testing reveals that she is food sensitive, pollen sensitive, dust and mold sensitive; and she is sensitive to terpenes, which are the odors from flowering plants. When she comes to Dr. Robbins' office she is generally in a state of collapse. Because of the general sensitivities, Dr. Robbins certified on Ms. McClure's application that she is sensitive to three classes of pesticides: organophosphates, carbamates and pyrethrum. He further certified that she needs notification within a 1/2 mile radius. As part of the exposure history which Ms. McClure gave Dr. Robbins, she stated that in the summer of 1992 there was an aerial application of Decromal 14 mosquito spray over her house. She told him that as a result she suffered from severe headaches, exhaustion, nausea and stomach cramps. Dr. Robbins does not know whether droplets from the spray landed on his patient; he assumes that the Decromal is an organophosphate. The evidence does not establish that it is. Marilyn Friedman has been a patient of Dr. Robbins since 1989. He signed the certification on her application for registration and stated that she is sensitive to these specific pesticides or pesticide classes: organophosphates, carbamates and chlorinated pesticides. At his deposition he indicated that pyrethrums should also be on the list. As with his other patients, the list is based on her history of being severely allergic and chemically sensitive. Ms. Friedman's allergies include pollens, dust, mites, insects, molds, terpenes and foods. According to Dr. Robbins, she cannot tolerate someone coming in the office with a fabric softener on clothing. Dr. Robbins' determination that Ms. Friedman requires one block distance notification is based on his patient's request. His records, as he testified in deposition, do not document specific exposures and reactions but he believes that his certification probably resulted from her request to him and her desire to be protected. The application for Sally B. Platner, dated October 2, 1992, includes a certificate by Michael Waickman, M.D., the son and partner of Francis Waickman, M.D. The certificate includes this description of the pesticides or class of pesticides to which Ms. Platner is sensitive: Fungicides including "Twosome" Chem-lawn Fertilizer application liquid. (Department exhibit #1) There is some further notation, but the evidence fails to establish who made those notes. Dr. Francis Waickman treated Ms. Platner, and his son saw her in his absence. She had previously been treated and tested by Dr. Bill Rea in Texas and she was determined to have many allergies and sensitivities. Sometime in 1982, she was living in an apartment complex in Ohio and reported that she was exposed to some pesticide application by a company called Chem-lawn. Dr. Francis Waickman surmised she had both dermal and respiratory absorption since she developed a skin rash within two hours of the exposure. He is not certain what chemical was implicated, but he is confident that it was a pesticide because he has personally observed that company's practices in the area. Dr. Francis Waickman's regimen of treatment for Ms. Platner included one thousand milligrams of vitamin C hourly, until she improved or got a loose stool from too much vitamin C. The record does not establish whether this treatment was successful for Ms. Platner. The certification in 1992 was based on Ms. Platner's phone call to the Ohio doctors' office and her description of the exposure. Dr. Waickman believes she was exposed to the fungicide, "Twosome," when it was sprayed on a golf course across the street from her residence in Florida. He surmised that since she had angina and other problems with other chemical exposures, she was also sensitive to "Twosome" as a related chemical and through what he described as a "spreading phenomena." Jesse Naglich has been a patient of Dr. Klemsawesch since 1992. She is allergic to a multitude of medicines, has allergic rhinitis and asthma. Dr. Klemsawesch certified her application for registration on November 16, 1993, stating that she is sensitive to Diazinon and organophosphates. She requires two blocks' notice of any application of those substances. Dr. Klemsawesch's assessment of Ms. Naglich's condition and requirements is based on her history. She reported to the doctor that she had adverse reactions after exposure to various chemicals. Sandra Metzger is also a patient of Dr. Klemsawesch. He has treated this "very complex patient" since 1986. On his most recent certification on Ms. Metzger's application for registration, he notes that she is sensitive to "organophosphates, pyrethrins and petrochemical-based compounds." Her diagnosed condition for purposes of the registration is "respiratory allergies and chemical sensitivity," and she requires a two-block notice, according to her physician. Dr. Klemsawesch prefers the term "sensitivity" instead of "allergy" with regard to his patients' reactions, because there is no specific test to determine an allergy to pesticides. Ms. Metzger had to leave her employment because of her reactions to insecticides sprayed in her workplace. She was exposed in 1991 at the same time that her office was being painted. In order to have an adverse reaction, in Dr. Klemsawesch's view, the patient must actually receive a dermal or respiratory exposure, or contact with the mucus membranes of the mouth or eyes. Mere olfactory detection (smell) might be an unpleasant event, but an olfaction reaction is not an allergic or toxic reaction unless the substance is being absorbed into the mucus membranes. Dr. Paul Wubbena has treated Pia Valentine since 1987. She is currently ten years old and suffers from asthma and allergic rhinitis; and, according to Dr. Wubbena's certification dated December 29, 1993, she is sensitive to pyrethrums, Diazinon and Dursban. She had recurring problems when riding her bicycle to the grocery store with her mother, and when pesticides were being sprayed she would start wheezing and coughing and getting sick. Also, based on her history given to the physician, she reacted to pyrethrums in flying insect spray. Dr. Wubbena based his conclusions regarding the specific chemicals on the history given to him by his patient and her mother and on his knowledge that Dursban and Diazinon are commonly used for lawn spraying. Miss Valentine has been tested for reactions to pollens and molds and is allergic to things of that type. Her allergic reactions are similar to her reactions in the presence of the specific pesticides listed by Dr. Wubbena. Jeanne Pellegrino has been treated by Dr. Hana Chaim for multiple chemical sensitivity and pesticide sensitivity since July of 1992. Dr. Chaim signed the certificate on Ms. Pellegrino's application for registration on June 2, 1993, indicating that she is sensitive to "organophosphates, pyrethrums, cypermethrin, especially Dursban" and that she needs 1/2 mile distance notification of application of those pesticides. The determination of what chemicals to put on the certificate was based on discussion with the patient, whom Dr. Chaim understood had established the specific pesticides she had been exposed to in the past. The distance determination was based on Dr. Chaim's understanding that sprays can go from a 900 to 1500-mile radius and the 1/2 mile notice is the maximum required by law. Although she suspected organophosphates were involved in Ms. Pellegrino's first exposure between April and June of 1993, this was not confirmed. Within the files of DACS for Kathryn Kaeding are two physician's certifications, dated February 16, 1993 and June 12, 1992, by Dr. Ahner. On the forms it is noted that she is sensitive to "Hydrocarbons, all pesticides, chlorinated compounds." Her diagnosed condition is "allergy - hypersensitivity - immune dysfunction." There is no other evidence in the record, from the individual or her physician, regarding Ms. Kaeding's condition or eligibility for registration. Nor is there any evidence, other than her application, regarding the eligibility of Carol Arrighi. From the form in the record it is impossible to determine whether the individual or her physician completed the application, or whether the signature on the certification is that of a physician. The certification for Kayleigh Marie Nunez is signed by Dr. Chaim. It states that she is sensitive to "organophosphates, all pesticides and herbicides, one-half mile limit requested." The certification for Estelle Greene, dated July 2, 1993, is signed by Linda Marraccini, M.D. The class of pesticides to which the individual is sensitive is noted as "All." Dr. Robbins appears to have signed certifications for Betty Jane Napier and for Susan and Donald Maxwell (both Maxwells are included on a single application form). The notation typed on Ms. Napier's form states: "Known to react to ethylene oxide." The pesticides or class of pesticides listed on Mr. and Mrs. Maxwell's form are "organophosphates, organochlorines, pyrethroids." The certification by Dr. Chaim on Barbara Rauker's application states that she is sensitive to "all classes of pesticides." The certification by Caren B. Singer, M.D. on Judith Lessne's application states that she is sensitive to "Pesticides in general, Petroleum based products." Pesticide Industry Practice A reliable pest control operator will determine the nature and extent of a problem before attempting a treatment. The operator must consider the surroundings of the area to be treated and the environmental factors such as rain, wind and sun. Treatment is tailored to reduce drift, which not only can cause harm but also causes needless expense due to waste. Good industry practice includes training technicians and carefully following the manufacturer's instructions regarding the most safe and effective use of the product. While careful use can control drift, unexpected wind gusts can disperse the product beyond its target, and even Petitioners' expert concedes that a post-application vapor of pesticide could drift for a half mile. Pesticide Sensitivity According to the Department's expert, Dr. Teaf, pesticide sensitivity by definition relates only to the substance that was the subject of an initial exposure and subsequent exposure that causes a reaction in an individual. The medical and toxicological link for pesticide sensitivity is much tighter than for the condition referred to as "multiple chemical sensitivities" or "MCS". There is no generally accepted definition in the scientific community of what constitutes pesticide sensitivity and there is no simple blood test to establish pesticide sensitivity. While there is commonly a psychological or psychogenic factor in pesticide sensitivity just as there is with other health conditions like heart problems, pesticide sensitivity is not solely a psychogenic or psychological condition. Pesticide sensitivity can be reasonably determined, even through the mechanism by which an individual acquires that condition is not clearly understood. A reaction to a specific chemical or pesticide class can be documented and quantified by a physical change in the body. Exposure histories are significant so long as the pesticide or pesticide class is identified. However, exposure histories alone are insufficient unless other causes are reasonably ruled out. Specifically, many individuals in the cases here were determined to be sensitive to many different agents: molds and pollens, food, animals, petroleum products and perfumes. It is impossible to deduce that an individual's symptoms are caused by exposure to one, rather than another agent, unless there is some process of elimination or isolation of the suspect agent. Summary of Findings Evidence of the process for diagnosis for the individual respondents in this proceeding is meager. Not one individual applicant testified, and only eleven applicants were addressed through the deposition testimony of their certifying physicians. Not one of the certifying physicians could testify that he or she actually followed the guidelines provided by the department, which guidelines, although non-binding, are accepted by experts for both sides of the dispute as important to good diagnosis. Dr. Klemsawesch, a very credible and competent witness and specialist in allergy and immunology, conceded that in order to respond to questions regarding the connection between exposures to pesticides and subsequent reactions, from a scientific point of view, you would need to test people by exposures in a controlled fashion and determine their physiological response. For Dr. Klemsawesch's patients, Ms. Naglich and Ms. Metzger, the specific events reported to him stood out beyond the background of their other common allergies to lead him to his conclusion that the chemicals he listed on their certificates were having an effect. That conclusion falls short of the finding required by law for the extra distance notice. Dr. Klemsawesch's conclusion, like that of the other certifying physicians, was based primarily on the individual's history. While that is an appropriate and accepted method of diagnosis, the histories described in the record of this proceeding are wholly lacking in the detail necessary for the determination required by law. No individual in the multiple cases consolidated presented adequate proof of the need for notification at greater distance than that specified for pesticide-sensitive persons.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the agency enter its final order denying the petition in Case #94-3237 (Carol Ann Rodriguez) as moot (see preliminary statement); and granting the remaining petitions by denying the applications for designation as "especially pesticide-sensitive." RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 31st day of May, 1995. MARY W. CLARK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 1995. APPENDIX A INDIVIDUAL CERTIFYING DOAH CASE# RESPONDENT PHYSICIAN 94-2801 Cheryl Mansker Robbins 94-2802 Sally Platner Waickman 94-2803 Thomas Milo Robbins 94-2805 Kathryn Kaeding Ahner 94-2852 Carol Arrighi Doyle 94-2853 Jessie Naglich Klemsawesch 94-2855 Joyce Charney Robbins 94-2858 Carietta Kelly Robbins 94-2859 Kayleigh Nunez Chaim 94-2862 Pia Valentine Wubbena 94-2864 Sandra Metzger Klemsawesch 94-2865 Charlene McClure Robbins 94-2866 Estelle Greene Marraccini 94-2867 Jeanne Pellegrino Chaim 94-2869 Marilyn Friedman Robbins 94-2871 Betty Jane Napier Robbins 94-2872 Susan Maxwell Robbins 94-3235 Carietta Kelly (see 94-2858) 94-3236 Susan Maxwell (see 94-2872) 94-3237 Carol Ann Rodriguez (moot) 94-4243 Barbara Rauker Chaim 94-6376 Judith Lessne Singer APPENDIX B The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Florida Pest Control Association, Inc. Adopted, or adopted in substance or in summary form: #1-7, 11-18, 22-28, 38, 41, 48-49, 62-82, 88-90, 93-105, 107-109, 115-121, 124-126, 129-133, 137, 140-147, 158. Accepted, but not incorporated, as unnecessary or immaterial: #8-10, 19- 21, 29-37, 39-40, 42-47, 50-61, 83-87, 91, 106, 110-114, 122-123, 127-128, 134- 136, 138-139, 148-157. Rejected, as inconsistent with or unsupported by the weight of evidence: #92. Certified Operators of Southwest Florida, Inc., Lan-Mac Pest Control-Englewood,Inc. Lan-Mac Pest Control-Ft. Myers, Inc. Adopted, or adopted in substance or in summary form: #1-5, 8-11, 13-15, 18-22, 24-25. Rejected, as inconsistent with, or unsupported by the weight of evidence: #27. (The remaining numbered paragraphs are designated as conclusions of law.) The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Adopted, or adopted in substance or in summary form: #1-4, first sentence of #5, 6, 8-10. Accepted, but not incorporated, as unnecessary or immaterial: #7. Rejected, as inconsistent with or unsupported by the weight of evidence: Second sentence of #5. Individual Respondents Adopted, or adopted in substance or in summary form: #2-7, 10, 12-14, 22, 24-33, 40, 42, 47-56, 58-63, 66, 69-71, 80, 82-86, 90-95, 101, 106-109, 111-113. Accepted, but not incorporated, as unnecessary or immaterial: #8-9, 11, 15-21, 23, 34-38 [the issue is not the patient's sensitivity, but the extra distance notice requirement], 43, 46, 67 (not the required Board), 68, 72, 74- 77, 81, 88, 98, 99, 100, 115. Rejected, as inconsistent with or unsupported by the weight of evidence: #1, 39, 41, 44-45, 57, 64, 65, 73, 78-79, 87, 89, 96-97, 102-105, 110, 114, 116- 117. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler General Counsel The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Robert G. Worley, Esquire Dept. of Agriculture & Consumer Services 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Jonathan A. Glogau, Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol, PL-01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Lance McKinney, Esquire O. Box 88 Cape Coral, Florida 33910-0088 Howard J. Hochman, Esquire 1320 S. Dixie Highway Suite 1180 Coral Gables, Florida 33146
The Issue Whether there is substantial justification or special circumstances to preclude Petitioner from receiving an award of attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to section 120.595(2), Florida Statutes (2017).1/
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence, written submissions from the parties following issuance of ALJ McKibben’s Final Order, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following Findings of Fact are made: Section 381.986(8), Florida Statutes and the Proposed Rule Section 381.986(8), Florida Statutes, establishes a mechanism for the licensing of medical marijuana treatment centers (“MMTC”). The statute was amended in 2017 to provide, in pertinent part, that: (8) MEDICAL MARIJUANA TREATMENT CENTERS. (a) The department shall license medical marijuana treatment centers to ensure reasonable statewide accessibility and availability as necessary for qualified patients registered in the medical marijuana use registry and who are issued a physician certification under this section. * * * The department shall license as medical marijuana treatment centers 10 applicants that meet the requirements of this section, under the following parameters: [Previously denied applicants meeting certain requirements not relevant to the instant action.] [One applicant from a specific class pursuant to a federal lawsuit.] As soon as practicable, but no later than October 3, 2017, the department shall license applicants that meet the requirements of this section in sufficient numbers to result in 10 total licenses issued under this subparagraph, while accounting for the number of licenses issued under sub-subparagraphs a. and b. For up to two of the licenses issued under subparagraph 2., the department shall give preference to applicants that demonstrate in their applications that they own one or more facilities that are, or were, used for the canning, concentrating, or otherwise processing of citrus fruit or citrus molasses and will use or convert the facility or facilities for the processing of marijuana. (emphasis added). The Proposed Rule was intended to implement the changes to section 381.986; but, where section 381.986(8)(a)3., uses the term “facility,” the Proposed Rule substitutes the term “property.” For instance, the Proposed Rule provides, in pertinent part, that: (1)(f) For applicants seeking preference for registration as a medical marijuana treatment center pursuant to ss. 381.986(8)(a)3., F.S., the applicant must provide evidence that: The property at issue currently is or was previously used for the canning, concentrating, or otherwise processing of citrus fruit or citrus molasses. In order to demonstrate the property meets this criteria, the applicant may provide documentation that the applicant currently holds or has held a registration certificate pursuant to section 601.40, F.S. A letter from the Department of Citrus certifying that the property currently is or was previously used for the canning, concentrating, or otherwise processing of citrus fruit or citrus molasses will be accepted as sufficient evidence; The applicant as an individual holds, in his or her name, or the applicant as an entity holds, in the legal name of the entity, the deed to property meeting the criteria set forth in subparagraph 1. above; and A brief explanation of how the property will be used for purposes of growing, processing, or dispensing medical marijuana if the applicant is selected for registration. * * * Subject matter experts will substantively and comparatively review, evaluate, and score applications using [the Scorecard incorporated by reference]. * * * (a)7.(b) Scores for each section of the application will be combined to create an applicant’s total score. The department shall generate a final ranking of the applicants in order of highest to lowest scores. . . . (c) In accordance with ss. 381.986(8)(a)3., F.S., the two highest scoring applicants that own one or more facilities that are, or were, used for the canning, concentrating, or otherwise processing of citrus fruit or citrus molasses and will use or convert the facility or facilities for the processing of marijuana will receive an additional 35 points to their respective total score. Licenses will be awarded, subject to availability as set forth in ss. 381.986(8)(a)2. and 381.986(8)(a)4., F.S., based on the highest total score in the following manner: The highest scoring applicant that is a recognized member of Pigford or [African American Farmers Discrimination Litigation] will receive a license. The remaining highest scoring applicants, after the addition of the preference points for applicants pursuant to paragraph (7)(c) above, will receive licenses up to the statutory cap set forth in ss. 381.986(8)(a)2., F.S. The remaining highest scoring applications, after removing any preference points received under paragraph (7)(c), will receive licenses up to the statutory cap set forth in ss. 381.986(8)(a)4., F.S. (emphasis added). The Parties The Department is the state agency charged with implementing the Compassionate Medical Cannabis Act of 2014. See § 381.986, Fla. Stat. Del Favero has been incorporated since 1974 and has been primarily engaged in the business of growing orchids. At the time of the final hearing in this matter, Del Favero aspired to apply for licensure as a medical marijuana treatment center. After Senate Bill 8A became law and substantially rewrote section 381.986, Del Favero elected to seek the citrus preference described in section 381.986(8)(a)3. In order to accomplish that goal, Del Favero purchased the real property and facilities of a citrus processing business in Safety Harbor, Florida, for approximately $775,000. The purchase occurred prior to the Proposed Rule’s publication. Del Favero intends to convert the citrus processing facility located on the Safety Harbor property into a medical marijuana processing facility if Del Favero becomes a licensed MMTC. Pertinent Portions of ALJ McKibben’s Analysis In ruling that the Proposed Rule was invalid, ALJ McKibben made the following findings: The Legislature clearly intended to give a preference to applicants who “own . . . facilities that are, or were, used for canning, concentrating, or otherwise processing of citrus . . . and will use or convert the . . . facilities for the processing of medical marijuana.” The Legislature failed, however, to provide guidance by way of definitions. While the Legislature chose the words “facility or facilities” in the Preference Statute, the Department complicated the issue by using the word “property” for the most part, but also using the words “facility” and “facilities” at times. Favero contends that a property is much broader in scope than a facility, and the Department therefore exceeded its delegated legislative authority. The Department argues that facilities used to process citrus must be located on some property, obviously. But, facilities located on a property might be leased, so that the fee simple owner of the property is different from the leaseholder of that facility. Thus, if an applicant for a medical marijuana treatment center license wants to avail itself of the preference, it would need to own the facility. Whether that means the applicant must own the property on which the facility is located is not clear in the Preference Statute or in the Proposed Rule. The Department argues that the way to show ownership of a facility is by way of a deed to the property on which the facility is located. In fact, Favero will use a warranty deed to prove ownership of the facilities it purchased in order to obtain the preference. But if Favero purchased land on which citrus had been grown but not processed, i.e., if there had been no facilities on the land to can, concentrate or otherwise process the fruit, except in fresh fruit form, the preference would not apply. And if an applicant obtained a leasehold interest in a facility, it would not be able to “show ownership” by way of a deed to the property. The Preference Statute requires the applicant to convert the facility in order to gain the preference. It is unclear how a piece of unimproved property can be “converted” to another use; land is land. This begs the question of whether growing citrus on a piece of property, and then removing all the citrus trees in order to grow medical marijuana, is a “conversion” of a facility as contemplated by the Legislature. Neither the Preference Statute nor the Proposed Rule contain any definitional assistance to answer that question. An important question to be answered is whether the growing of citrus constitutes “processing” as alluded to by the Legislature. The Preference Statute provides no definition of the word. The Citrus Code (chapter 601, Florida Statutes) also does not define “processing,” but does describe a “processor” of citrus as: ‘[A]ny person engaged within this state in the business of canning, concentrating, or otherwise processing citrus fruit for market other than for shipment in fresh fruit form.” § 601.03(32), Fla. Stat. (Emphasis added) (sic). Processing must therefore mean something other than merely growing citrus and packing it up for shipment. That being the case, a property where citrus is grown that is “converted” to a property growing marijuana would not afford an applicant a preference. There must be some “facility” that is or has been used to process citrus, i.e., doing something more with the raw product, in order to constitute “processing.” Therefore, a “packinghouse,” i.e., “[a]ny building, structure, or place where citrus fruit is packed or otherwise prepared for market or shipment in fresh fruit form,” would not be engaged in “processing” citrus. See § 601.03(29), Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). ALJ McKibben then made the following Conclusions of Law: In this instance, the Department interprets the statutory language concerning “facility or facilities” to include “property.” It is impossible to reconcile that interpretation, especially in light of the fact the Legislature contemplated conversion of the facilities. The Department’s interpretation is hereby rejected as being outside the range of permissible interpretations. See Cleveland v. Fla. Dep’t of Child. & Fams., 868 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004).[2/] The test is whether the agency’s proposed rule properly implements specific laws. See § 120.52(8)(f), Fla. Stat. The Preference Statute specifically provided a preference for using or converting citrus facilities, not properties. The Proposed Rule does not implement that specific provision of the law. (emphasis added). The Department’s Rationale for Substituting “Property” for “Facility” The Department asserted during the final hearing that it consulted with the Citrus Department on how to interpret the phrase “otherwise processing.”3/ See § 381.986(8)(a)3. (providing that “the department shall give preference to applicants that demonstrate in their applications that they own one or more facilities that are, or were, used for the canning, concentrating, or otherwise processing of citrus fruit . . .”). (emphasis added). Ms. Shepp, the Citrus Department’s executive director, testified that activities such as picking, grading, sorting, polishing, and packing citrus fruit constitute “otherwise processing.” She also testified that a packinghouse conducts the aforementioned activities. Section 601.03(29), Florida Statutes, defines a “packinghouse” as “any building, structure, or place where citrus is packed or otherwise prepared for market or shipment in fresh form.” (emphasis added) See the Department’s Proposed Final Order at 9, 10, and 15. Because “a place” can be an area without a physical structure, the Department concluded that using the word “property” in the Proposed Rule rather than “facility” would enable applicants who engage in “otherwise processing” to be eligible for the preference. The Department also argued that this substitution is justified because “it is not uncommon in the citrus industry to conduct citrus operations in the open air or in a tent.” See Department’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees at 9.4/ Ms. Coppola explained that the Department substituted “property” for “facility” in order to assist the distressed citrus industry. Finally, Ms. Coppola stated that using the term “property” serves the legislative intent to extend the preference to applicants that are not presently engaged in canning, concentrating, or otherwise processing but had been in the past.5/ As discussed below in the Conclusions of Law, the Department had no substantial justification for substituting the word “property” for “facility” and thus extending the citrus preference beyond what the Florida Legislature had intended. Moreover, there are no special circumstances that would make an award of attorneys’ fees to Del Favero unjust.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Subsections 482.121(1)(a) and 482.121(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2007),1 and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact PFSG, Inc., d/b/a US Lawns of Destin (US Lawns),2 submitted a Pest Control Business License Application to the Petitioner, listing Mr. Lewis as its certified operator in charge for lawn and ornamental pest control, effective August 9, 2007. Mr. Lewis’ certificate number is Jf 13685. US Lawns had been operating on an emergency certificate from June 6, 2007, until Mr. Lewis’ employment on August 8, 2007. In its application for a business license, US Lawns requested that its emergency certificate be canceled as of August 8, 2007. In order for a pest control company to operate, the company has to have a certified pest control operator in charge of the pest control activities at the licensed business location. If a company does not have a certified operator to serve as the certified operator in charge, an emergency certificate can be issued and renewed monthly up to a year, allowing an employee who did not have a certified operator’s certificate to serve as the certified operator in charge. As the certified operator in charge for US Lawns, Mr. Lewis applied to Petitioner for a pest control employee identification card, effective August 9, 2007. He listed the commencement of his employment with US Lawns as August 9, 2007. He also stated that his last employment with a pest control company had ended on June 11, 2007. A pest control employee identification card was issued to Mr. Lewis by Petitioner. Mr. Lewis’ wife died on July 4, 2007. Petitioner received a complaint that Mr. Lewis was not working full time for US Lawns and was allowing US Lawns to use his certificate to maintain its business license. Based on the complaint, Michael Walters, who is employed by Petitioner as an environmental specialist II, began an investigation. Mr. Walters went to US Lawns' office and made an inspection. On October 31, 2007, Mr. Walters went to see Mr. Lewis at Mr. Lewis’ home for the purpose of interviewing Mr. Lewis. Mr. Lewis gave Mr. Walters a signed affidavit, which stated: I work full time with U.S. Lawns of Santa Rosa Beach. I have been part time since the loss of my wife, but I do go to work at least once a week and check on things. I do all the training for card holders and such. As soon as I feel better I should be back fulltime. I have been there around 5 yrs., minus one year with another company. In his request for an administrative hearing, Mr. Lewis stated: “I was on vacation for 4 weeks, due to the death of my wife,” and I was not working part time ever. The evidence is clear that Mr. Lewis was not working full time for US Lawns from the time of his wife’s death until at least the date of his affidavit, October 31, 2007.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Mr. Lewis violated Subsection 482.121(1)(a) and 482.121(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and revoking his certified operator’s certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of August, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 19th day of August, 2008.
Findings Of Fact While a student at Southwest Florida Police Academy in April 1981, Petitioner gave Janice Kellogg a baggie containing 3.2 grams of marijuana. The only factual dispute occurred regarding the circumstances leading to Petitioner's acquisition of the marijuana and the reasons for giving the marijuana to Kellogg. Petitioner testified he found the marijuana in the road leading into a trailer space adjacent to his trailer the morning after the trailer had departed. He further testified he threw the marijuana into the cab of his pickup truck intending to turn it in to the authorities; that he was engaged in final exams and forgot about the marijuana until later in the day when a K-9 drug dog was presented and Petitioner hid the marijuana to test the dog; that after they observed the dog locate the marijuana, Kellogg asked Petitioner for the marijuana and he gave it to her; and that when he asked for it back later that day he was told she had smoked it. Kellogg's version of the events surrounding the marijuana is that after the marijuana had been produced for the drug dog, Petitioner gave her the baggie saying, "You look like a girl who likes to lay back and smoke a joint once in a while." Upon receipt of the marijuana Kellogg turned it in to police authorities and at their request attempted to get Petitioner to provide her with additional marijuana, without success. She further testified Petitioner told her he had obtained the marijuana from a suspect he had "frisked" the previous day. Petitioner worked in law enforcement in Tennessee for at least two years before moving to Florida. He has been in charge of the drug section of a police force in Tennessee but has had no special training. His experience caused him to immediately recognize the contents of the baggie as marijuana. Janice Kellogg has been involved in police work in Florida for one and one-half years and worked as a confidential informant to a narcotics squad in Michigan for five years before coming to Florida. She is certified as a law enforcement officer in Florida.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner operates a citrus fruit packing plant at 219 West Floral Street, Ocoee, Florida. In the course of processing the fruit for packing Petitioner washes the fruit and then disposes of the wash water through a disposal system including a percolation pond and settling tanks. Water eventually percolates out of the pond and into the area groundwater. Petitioner's plant has previously been permitted by the Department of Environmental Regulation for wastewater disposal through a permit issued on August 2, 1977. Upon the expiration of that permit Petitioner applied for a new permit which is the one in issue here. As a specific condition of the new permit, the Department has required: The wastewater flow shall be measured on a daily basis. The following para- meters shall be monitored monthly in the effluent stream during packing plant operation. 5-day BOD pH TDS phenols These test results and the daily wastewater flow shall be reported to the DER, Orlando, Florida District Office no later than the 15th of the following month. Mr. Phillips, the president of Petitioner, has objected to the requirements of this condition because his activity does not discharge wastewater to the surface waters of Florida. At the hearing it was explained by the Department that the purpose of the monitoring condition is to determine potential groundwater problems which may result from the operation of citrus packaging plants in the Orange County area. The Department is collecting this data with the intention of issuing specific groundwater quality control rules related to citrus processing activities.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED; That the Department of Environmental Regulation issue a Final Order determining that specific condition number two remain a part of permit #1048- 63286 issued on December 28, 1982. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 8th day of November, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL P. DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of November, 1983.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent’s license should be disciplined; and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Lashawn R. Williams, was certified by the Petitioner as a correctional officer on May 22, 2001, and was issued certificate number 197081. Eventually, the Respondent was employed as a full-time correctional officer by the Corrections Corporation of America. Sometime prior to June 20, 2004, the Respondent’s apartment received smoke damage from a fire that had occurred in the unit next to her. Because of the damage, she and her two children, ages seven and one, were required to temporarily move while repairs to her apartment were being made. She moved in with Typhrus McNeil and his father, Connie McNeil at 112 Cheri Lane, Parker, Florida. The McNeil residence is a small two-bedroom townhouse of approximately eight hundred square feet. The front door is located about twenty feet from the street. Typhrus McNeil was the Respondent’s boyfriend. At the time, they had been dating for approximately three years. Mr. McNeil was the father of the Respondent’s youngest child and occasionally took care of the Respondent’s children while the Respondent was at work. At the time, Typhrus McNeil was also under community control for a 2004 drug charge. The Respondent Knew Mr. McNeil had a past criminal history, but felt he had changed. On June 20, 2004, Officer Aaron Wilson of the Parker Police Department received a “Crime Stoppers” tip. The tip consisted of an allegation that a male and a female person living at 112 Cheri Lane in Parker were engaged in the sale of narcotics from the residence. The tip also included an allegation that the female subject was conducting hand-to-hand narcotics transactions with the occupants of vehicles that pulled up outside the residence. Over the next two weeks, Officer Wilson conducted approximately six surveillances and observed activities ongoing at the McNeil residence. During his surveillances, Officer Wilson observed the Respondent coming and going from the residence along with her two children. He observed them playing outside. Officer Wilson also observed Typhrus McNeil, whom he recognized from past arrests, and his father Connie McNeil, coming and going from the residence. He observed vehicles driving up to the residence for short stops and leaving. On occasion, he observed people from the residence talking for a short time with the occupants of the vehicles, sometimes going back into the residence and then returning a short time later to talk with the occupants of the vehicles again. The vehicle would then leave the area. Officer Wilson described such activity as indicating drug-related activity was going on at the residence. Officer Wilson only observed the Respondent talk to the occupants of a vehicle one time. During his observation, the Respondent spoke with the occupants for a short while, went into the residence and returned to speak with the occupants of the vehicle some more. The vehicle then left. Officer Wilson did not observe the exchange of any money or drugs. There was no evidence regarding who the occupants of the vehicle were or whether the Respondent knew the occupants of the vehicle. This one observation does not clearly and convincingly demonstrate that the Respondent was engaged in drug related activity. On July 1, 2004, Officer Wilson applied for and obtained a warrant from the Circuit Court in Bay County to search for controlled substances and other related items in the McNeil residence. The warrant also authorized searches of persons and vehicles present at the residence. On July 2, 2004, Officer Wilson, together with several other officers, served the search warrant at 112 Cheri Lane in Parker. Upon arrival at the residence, Officer Wilson knocked and announced his authority and purpose for being there. Present in the residence were Typhrus McNeil, Connie McNeil, the Respondent, her two children and two visitors. Officers located and seized several items in the bedroom shared by the Respondent and Typhrus McNeil. These items were in plain view lying on the headboard of the bed. These included Typhrus McNeil’s wallet, which contained $1704 in cash, another $1335 in loose cash and an open box of clear plastic sandwich bags with $13 in cash protruding from the top of the box. The cash appeared to be in denominations of $20 or less. The Respondent believed the loose cash was from Mr. McNeil’s paycheck, which he had recently cashed. Next to the bed, officers located and seized a closed shoebox on the floor. Inside the shoebox, officers found a set of electronic scales consistent with the type utilized for weighing quantities of illicit drugs for purposes of sale. Also, officers located and seized two plastic bags containing cannabis residue along with two partially burnt cannabis cigarettes in a closed dresser drawer located in the bedroom. The evidence did not demonstrate that the Respondent knew about the contents of the shoebox or the dresser drawer. None of her personal effects were in the dresser drawer. There was no evidence showing the length of time the cigarettes had been in the drawer. In the common living room of the residence, officers located and seized a cannabis cigarette lying on top of the television adjacent to a remote control. The cannabis cigarette appeared to be in plain view of the occupants of the residence. However, there was no evidence of the length of time the cannabis cigarette had been on top of the television or that the Respondent had observed the cigarette there. In fact, the Respondent denies knowing about the activity at the McNeil home or the Marijuana cigarettes in the house. During the course of the execution of the search warrant, officers also located and seized several items in the second bedroom, occupied by Connie McNeil. These items included a box found in Connie McNeil’s closet, which contained suspected cannabis seeds and two partially burnt cannabis cigarettes located inside a nightstand drawer. Officers also located and seized nineteen clear plastic bags, each containing approximately one-half ounce of cannabis. The plastic bags were under the bed in the bedroom of Connie McNeil. Together, such quantities and packaging demonstrate that Connie McNeil was engaged in illicit drug sales and not simply possession of illicit drugs. However, the evidence did not demonstrate that the Respondent was aware of the activities of Connie McNeil or the contents of his room. During the course of the execution of the search warrant, officers also located and seized five partially burnt cannabis cigarettes located inside a closed kitchen drawer. Again, the evidence did not demonstrate that the Respondent was aware of the cigarettes in the kitchen drawer, especially in light of the fact that she was only staying temporarily at the McNeil residence. The McNeils and the Respondent were arrested and charged with drug possession and sale. The Respondent was also charged with child neglect. Eventually, all the charges were dropped against the Respondent. The aggregate weight of the cannabis seized by the officers was in excess of 20 grams. However, in this case, the evidence only raises suspicions that the Respondent may have known about the possession of marijuana in the McNeil residence. At the time, the Respondent was a temporary occupant of the residence, waiting for repairs to be completed on her apartment. The evidence is neither clear nor convincing that the Respondent actually knew of such possession. Likewise, the evidence did not demonstrate that the Respondent was aware of or engaged in any drug sales during her stay at the McNeil residence. The most incriminating evidence was not found in the bedroom where the Respondent slept, but in Connie McNeil’s bedroom or in closed drawers and boxes. The one cannabis cigarette that was in a common area does not clearly or convincingly demonstrate that the Respondent knew it was there or that she knew of any drug activity at the McNeil house. Finally, the evidence did not demonstrate the Respondent criminally neglected her children when she was staying at the home of one of the children’s father. Vague testimony regarding the possibility that living in close proximity to illicit drug activity might cause danger to the occupants of the home is not clear or convincing evidence that the Respondent is guilty of criminal child neglect. Given this lack of clear evidence, the Administrative Complaint should be dismissed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found not guilty of violations of Subsection 943.13(7), Florida Statutes, and that the Administrative Complaint be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of March, 2006, 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 1st day of March, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Lashawn R. Williams Michael Crews, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professional Services Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Division of Criminal Justice Professional Services Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue Whether Respondent should be terminated from employment with Petitioner for failing a drug screen.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Diane O'Connor, is a fifty-one-year-old woman who was employed with the Escambia County School Board as a school bus driver. She has been a school bus driver for several years. As part of her employment in a safety-sensitive position, Respondent was generally aware of the Board's Drug Free Workplace Policy, Escambia County School Board Rule 6Gx17-2.33, and that she was subject to random drug testing. In fact, Respondent had been subjected to five or six random drug tests in the past. Respondent's past tests were negative since Respondent does not use marijuana or other illegal drugs. In 1999, Respondent began taking Hemp Seed Oil after she experienced chest pains at Baptist Hospital in Pensacola because she was concerned for her health. Mr. Kevin Kerish, a friend of Ms. O'Connor's recommended that she take Hemp Seed Oil for her general health. He said it made him feel better. Respondent purchased her first bottle of Hemp Seed Oil in Pensacola. However, all subsequent bottles were acquired from a distributor in California. Hemp Seed Oil is a food product. It is not a controlled substance. There was no evidence to show and it is highly doubtful, that Hemp Seed Oil has any psycho-active properties. On April 26, 2000, Respondent was subjected to a random drug test on her urine. The urine sample was split into two separate specimens. On May 3, 2000, she was informed by Dr. James Barnshaw, the Medical Review Officer, that the urine specimen she provided was reported as positive for marijuana. The sample contained a concentration for 9-THC (11-nor-delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol) of 35 ng/mL (nanograms per milliliter). 9-THC is the major metabolite of the active ingredient in marijuana. It is also a metabolite for legal hemp products. Hemp is one of a variety of plants that originates from Cannabis Sativa (commonly called Marijuana). In one form cannabis produces hemp fiber, an ancient source of rope. Currently, hemp fiber is a practical source of fabric from which many clothing accessories can be made. Additionally, various health food products derived from hemp are commercially available. In particular, Hemp Seed Oil, like the oil being taken by Respondent, has a very high content of polyunsaturated fats (essential amino acids and fatty acids). These fats are used to maintain a healthy lifestyle and are used in the treatment of a variety of diseases. Neither hemp fiber or Hemp Seed Oil contains significant amounts of any substance with psychoactive properties. During her phone interview with Dr. Barnshaw on May 3, 2000, Respondent denied using marijuana. Through the questioning of Dr. Barnshaw she revealed that she had been taking Hemp Seed Oil since August or September 1999. Dr. Barnshaw told Respondent that Hemp Seed Oil can cause a positive test result for THC and was possibly the cause of her positive test result. Dr. Barnshaw notified the Escambia County School District of Respondent's test result on May 4, 2000. The explanation offered by Respondent for the positive test result was not acceptable to the School Board. However, other than to maintain a strict policy on drugs, no explanation for the School Board's or Medical Review Officer's reasoning on rejecting Respondent's explanation was introduced into evidence. The bottle of Hemp Seed Oil produced by Respondent at the hearing contained a warning in very small print that ingestion of the Oil could cause a positive drug test. Respondent neither saw nor read that warning until after she tested positive. A friend actually pointed the label warning out to her. On May 9, 2000, Respondent requested that the split urine specimen be analyzed. On May 22, 2000, the original result was re-confirmed positive for marijuana with metabolite concentrations at 63 ng/mL9-THC. Respondent ceased consumption of the oil immediately upon notification of the positive test result and upon being informed that the oil may have been its cause. On May 10, 2000, Respondent was given a Notice of Disciplinary Action which specified the charges against her as violating the employer's Drug Free Workplace Policy (Rule 6Gx17-2.23) and committing misconduct involving the unlawful use of a controlled substance. It further notified her that she would be dismissed on May 17, 2000. At the May 16, 2000, School Board meeting, the Escambia County School Board terminated Respondent, effective May 17, 2000. Dr. Palm is a pharmacology professor at Florida A & M University. He is an expert in his field. Based on his expert opinion, the ingestion of 2-3 tablespoons of Hemp Seed Oil (30-45 mL) on a daily basis will cause a positive test result for THC in the amounts found in Respondent's urine samples. The Board has a non-mandatory policy that allows an employee to notify management of any prescription drugs or other medications an employee is taking that could inhibit their ability to drive. The policy does not cover substances which may impact a drug test. Respondent was aware of the Board's policy only with respect to prescription drugs. Respondent's consumption of Hemp Seed Oil never had any affect on her ability to drive. Respondent never thought the oil could affect a drug screen. Therefore, she never reported her use of Hemp Seed Oil to anyone. Since Hemp Seed Oil does not have any affect on a person's ability to drive, it is not a substance covered by the Board's reporting policy. Moreover, the Board's reporting policy is non-mandatory. Therefore, Respondent did not violate the Board's reporting policy. Respondent's positive drug test was based upon consumption of Hemp Seed Oil, not marijuana or any other controlled substance. The Board's rule prohibits use of controlled substances and substances which may affect a person's ability to drive. Except in cases of deliberate tampering, it does not prohibit use of substances which may affect a drug test. The driver's manual states that: Any employee testing positive for a controlled substance or found to have performed a safety-sensitive function with a BAC of 0.04 or greater will be terminated from employment with the School district. However, the manual is not a rule and was not shown to be part of Rule 6Gx17-2.33. Since Respondent did not violate Rule 6Gx 17-2.33, she should be reinstated with back-pay and benefits.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the charges against Respondent should be dismissed and she should be reinstated with full back-pay and employment benefits plus interest from the date of May 17, 2000. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of January, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 30th day of January, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph L. Hammons, Esquire Hammons & Whittaker, P.A. 17 West Cervantes Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Thomas W. Brooks, Esquire Meyer & Brooks 2544 Blairstone Pines Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jim May, Superintendent Escambia County School Board 215 West Garden Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Honorable Charlie Crist Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue Whether the tomatoes sold to A. Sam and Sons Co., Inc. (Sam and Sons), conformed to the terms of the agreement of sale and whether Sam and Sons paid an appropriate adjusted price for the tomatoes.
Findings Of Fact On June 3, 1985, A. Sam and Sons Co., Inc. (Sam and Sons), purchased by telephone two loads of tomatoes from Quincy Tomato Co., Inc. (Quincy Tomato). The terms of this sale were $6.00 per 25 pound box F.O.B. for 85 percent or better per box, U.S. Department of Agriculture number one tomatoes of fine quality. There is contradictory testimony whether the terms included "no rain checked tomatoes." (A rain check tomato is one which has suffered damage due to a combination of rain or humidity and heat which manifests itself in damage to the shoulder of the tomato.) (Testimony of parties and Page 1, Hearing Officer Composite Exhibit 1.) On June 3, 1985, two loads of tomatoes were picked up by Sam and Sons at Quincy Tomato. Of these two loads, one totalling 1520 25 pound boxes of tomatoes is the subject of this case. This load was received by Sam and Sons in Dunkirk, New York, on June 5, 1985, and inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The report stated, regarding the grade of the tomatoes: "Meets quality requirements, but fails to grade U.S. No. 1 account condition, now contains approximately 75 percent U.S. No. 1 quality." (Testimony of parties and page 2, Hearing Officer Composite Exhibit 1.) This inspection revealed the following percentages regarding the quality and condition of the tomatoes: Damage 7 percent Decay less than 1 percent Sunscald 1 percent Shoulder bruises 10 percent Skin checks 5 percent Total 23+ percent Sam and Sons sent Quincy Tomato a telegram (See Page 3, Hearing Officer Composite Exhibit 1) on June 5, 1985, which stated as follows: Re UL-127 invoice #3 Arrived June 5 1985 on trailer #811TPZ New Jersey Tomato received under protest. Tomatoes show rain check, decay, sun scaled (sic), brown spot and discoloration. Tomatoes will be reinspected by June 10 1985. An adjustment (sic) on prices will be made. On June 10, 1985, the load of tomatoes was reinspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This inspection report (See Page 4, Hearing Officer Composite Exhibit 1) stated with regard to grade: "Meets quality requirements but fails to grade U.S. No. 1 only account condition. Lot now contains approximately 75 percent U.S. No. 1 Quality." The report revealed the following concerning the quality and condition of the tomatoes: Damage 8 percent Decay 1 percent Shoulder bruises 9 percent Skin checks 9 percent Total 27 percent When first inspected, the shipment contained over 23 percent of tomatoes which failed to meet the quality and grade standards. When reinspected on June 10, 1985, the shipment 27 percent of the tomatoes did not meet the quality and grade standards. Quincy Tomato was permitted up to 15 percent tomatoes which did not meet the quality and grading standards. The load contained an average of 10 per cent more substandard tomatoes that it was permitted to contain. Sam and Sons had the right to refuse the shipment or to accept the shipment and adjust the price after notice. They elected to do the latter. Having been notified and having not responded, the Seller is deemed to have accepted these terms. On September 11, 1985, Sam and Sons tendered a check for $6,266 to Quincy Tomato. (See Page 6, Hearing Officer Composite Exhibit 1.) This worked out to $4.1224 per 25 pound box, or a 31 percent reduction in price. Quincy Tomato accepted the check and proceeded against the agricultural bond of Sam and Sons.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Petitioner be permitted to recover up $1,942 from Respondents bond if this amount is not paid by Respondent to Petitioner within 30 days of the entry of the agency's final order. DONE and ORDERED this 8th day of December 1986 in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 8th day of December 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Graves Williams Quincy Tomato Company, Inc. Post Office Box 245 Quincy, Florida 32351 Mr. Esau Sam A. Sam and Sons Produce Co., Inc. West Lake Road Dunkirk, NY 14048 William C. Harris, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ted Helms, Chief Bureau of License and Bond 418 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joe W. Kight Bureau of License and Bond Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert Chastain, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 513 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Travelers Indemnity Company One Tower Square Hartford, Conn. 06115
The Issue Whether Respondents, Ag-Mart Produce, Inc. (Ag-Mart), and its employees' Justin Oelman (in DOAH Case No. 06-0729) and Warrick Birdwell (in DOAH Case No. 06-0730), committed some, any, or all of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaints detailed herein and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence presented at the final hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency charged with administration of the Florida Pesticide Law, Chapter 487, Part I, Florida Statutes. Among the duties of the Bureau of Compliance Monitoring within the Division of Agricultural Environmental Services are the designation and regulation of restricted-use pesticides, the testing and licensure of certified pesticide applicators, and the enforcement of federal worker protection standards regarding the exposure of farm workers to pesticides. §§ 487.011, 487.042, 487.044, and 487.051, Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 5E-2.039. The Administrative Complaints allege two types of violation of the Florida Pesticide Law. First, they allege that Ag-Mart harvested tomatoes prior to the end of the pre-harvest interval, the period of time that must pass after a pesticide is applied to a tomato plant before that plant's fruit may be safely harvested. The pre-harvest interval is specified on the labels of restricted-use pesticides. Second, they allege that Ag-Mart allowed workers to enter sprayed fields prior to the end of the restricted entry interval, the period of time that must pass after a pesticide is applied before it is safe for a worker to enter or remain in the treated area. The restricted entry interval is also specified on the labels of restricted-use pesticides. In 2004, Ag-Mart operated farms in several locations in Florida and North Carolina. Ag-Mart operated packing houses in Plant City, Florida, and in New Jersey. Ag-Mart grows, packages, and distributes grape tomatoes under the "Santa Sweets" label, and a round-type tomato marketed as "Ugly Ripe." During all times relevant to this proceeding, Ag-Mart's principal administrative offices were located in Plant City, Florida, and Ag-Mart's operations were managed by its president, Donald Long. At the final hearing, several Ag-Mart employees, including Mr. Long, testified as to Ag-Mart's practices in establishing planting and pesticide spraying schedules, carrying out those schedules in the field, and ensuring that legal restrictions on pesticide use are observed. This testimony is credited as to Ag-Mart's general pattern and practice, but does not disprove the Department's evidence as to particular instances of pre-harvest interval or restricted entry interval violations. Among other duties, Mr. Long was responsible for scheduling Ag-Mart's cultivation of tomato plants at the company's farms, so that product is available year-round. Mr. Long prepared a 2004 planting schedule that spaced the planting of new crops a week to ten days apart to ensure a continuous flow of tomatoes once the plants matured. For the 2004 season, the South Florida farm began planting in September 2003, with harvesting commencing in December 2003 and continuing through May 2004. The North Florida farm started its spring season plantings in March and April 2004, with harvest beginning in early June 2004 and lasting until August 2004. Each "planting" at Ag-Mart consists of a specific amount of acreage that is cultivated for a specific period of time to produce an expected yield of tomatoes. Mr. Long determines the size of each planting based on past yields and projected needs. A single planting of grape tomatoes is harvested multiple times. Depending on conditions, a planting of grape tomatoes at the South Florida farm can be harvested between ten and 15 times in the fall, with fewer harvesting opportunities in the spring. A planting of grape tomatoes at the North Florida farm may be harvested between eight and ten times. Each planting takes up portions of acreage called "fields," which are divided by land features and irrigation systems. Fields are of varying sizes, depending on the nature of the terrain and the irrigation system. The fields are numbered, and a planting is usually done in a certain number of roughly contiguous fields. A field is further divided into separately numbered "blocks," each block consisting of six rows of tomato plants, three rows on each side of a "drive area" through which tractors and harvest trucks can maneuver to reach the plants. The blocks are numbered in sequence from the beginning to the end of the field. At the South Florida farm in 2004, Ag-Mart cultivated ten separate plantings of between 79 and 376 gross acres. Each planting contained as few as three and as many as ten separate fields. At the North Florida farm in 2004, Ag-Mart cultivated five separate plantings of between 92 and 158 gross acres. Each planting contained either two or three separate fields.2 The cycle of farming activities at the Ag-Mart farms included ground preparation, planting, staking, tying, harvesting, and post-harvest clean-up. Farm laborers were recruited and transported to the fields by crew leaders, who must be registered as farm labor contractors with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation pursuant to Chapter 450, Part III, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61L-1.004. The crew leaders supervised the field laborers and prepared their weekly time cards. The crew leaders were directed by Ag-Mart's labor supervisors as to where the laborers were to work and which tasks were to be performed at any given time. Crew leaders providing services to Ag-Mart in 2004 included: Sergio Salinas, d/b/a Salinas & Son, Inc.; Pascual Sierra; and Juan Anzualda, d/b/a Juan Anzualda Harvesting, Inc. Mr. Salinas and Mr. Anzualda were crew leaders at the South Florida farm in the spring 2004 season. Mr. Sierra was a crew leader at the North Florida farm in 2004. At the South Florida farm, Mr. Salinas and three or four supervisors called "field walkers" oversaw the daily work of the 150 to 200 farm laborers who worked in Mr. Salinas' crew. Mr. Salinas owned and operated buses that transported the workers to and within the farm. Mr. Salinas also operated trucks to haul the harvested tomatoes from the fields to the shipping dock on the South Florida farm. A truck was also needed to move portable toilets to the fields for the use of the laborers. Because of the amount of equipment necessary to conduct a harvest, and the intense hand labor required to pick a row of tomatoes, Mr. Salinas always kept his crew together in one location while harvesting. During the period of January through May 2004, Mr. Salinas' crew typically harvested in one or two fields per day, and never more than four fields in one day. Mr. Anzualda and his 15 field walkers supervised a crew of 150 laborers at the South Florida farm during March and April 2004. Mr. Anzualda always kept his crew together when performing harvesting activities, due to the amount of equipment and the time necessary to set up near the work areas. Mr. Anzualda estimated that it took between 45 and 90 minutes to set up his equipment and line up his workers along the rows before harvesting could commence in a given field. Mr. Anzualda's crew typically harvested in one or two fields per day at the South Florida farm during the peak harvest period of March and April 2004, and never in more than four fields in one day. Ag-Mart paid the farm laborers the piece rate of $2.50 per tub of grape tomatoes. A "tub" weighs about 21 pounds. Different piece rates applied to different forms of work. For tying activities, the laborers under Mr. Salinas were paid $0.75 per 100 linear feet of work, while those under Mr. Anzualda were paid $0.50 per 100 linear feet. The laborers were paid the minimum wage of $5.15 per hour for some work, such as weeding and the harvest of Ugly Ripe tomatoes. In any event, the laborers were guaranteed the minimum wage, and were paid $5.15 per hour if that amount was greater than their pay would have been under piece work rates. Planting activities are performed by hand. Tomato plants are started in greenhouses, and then transplanted to the field when they are six weeks old and about six inches high. Staking is performed manually and by machine, as stakes are placed between the tomato plants to support the plants as they mature. Tying is performed manually, from about the second week after planting until the eighth or ninth week. "Tying" involves tying the tomato plants with string to the stakes to allow them to grow up the stakes as they mature. The tomato plants are six to seven feet tall at maturity. After the tomatoes were planted in 2004, Ag-Mart's farms began the application of pesticides according to a company-wide spray program devised by Mr. Long prior to the season. The spray program outlined the type and volume of pesticide products to be applied to the maturing tomato plants from the first week of planting through the end of the harvest. Once tying and harvesting activities began, Ag-Mart's spray program called for the application of pesticides "behind the tying" or "behind the harvest," meaning that spraying was done immediately after tying or harvesting was completed in a field. The spraying was done behind the workers because picking and tying opens up the plants, which enables the pesticide to better penetrate the plant. The timing of the spraying also allows fungicide to cover wounds from broken leaves caused by picking, thus preventing infection. Harvesting is performed manually by the farm laborers, who pick the ripe fruit from the tomato plants and place it into containers. The crew leader lines up the laborers with one person on each side of a row of tomatoes, meaning that a crew of 150 laborers can pick 75 rows of tomatoes at a time. The farm workers pick all of the visible fruit that is ripe or close to ripe on the blocks that are being harvested. Once the picking is complete on a block, it takes seven to ten days for enough new fruit to ripen on that block to warrant additional harvesting. Justin Oelman was Ag-Mart's crop protection manager at the South Florida farm in 2004. Mr. Oelman worked for Ag-Mart for eight years as a farm manager and crop protection manager before leaving in 2005 and had three years prior experience as a crop protection manager for another tomato grower. As crop protection manager in 2004, Mr. Oelman was the licensed pesticide applicator responsible for ordering chemicals and directing the application of pesticides. His job included writing up the "tomato spray ticket" for each pesticide application. The spray ticket is a document that, on its face, indicates the date and time of a pesticide application and its location according to planting, field, and block numbers. The spray ticket also states the name of the tractor driver who physically applies the pesticide, the type and amount of the pesticide applied, and the number of acres treated. Licensed pesticide applicators are required by Department rule to record the information included on the spray ticket. Fla. Admin. Code R. 5E-9.032. In applying pesticides to the South Florida farm's grape tomato crop in 2004, Mr. Oelman followed the spraying program designed by Mr. Long before the season. Because the pesticides were applied behind the farm workers' field activity, Mr. Oelman maintained close communications with Josh Cantu, the Ag-Mart labor supervisor in charge of tying activities on the South Florida farm, and with Eduardo Bravo, the labor supervisor in charge of grape tomato harvesting. Mr. Bravo in turn directed crew leaders such as Mr. Salinas and Mr. Anzualda on where to take their crews to conduct harvesting work. These communications kept Mr. Oelman apprised of where the crews were working and how much progress the tying or harvesting activities were expected to make by the end of the day. Mr. Oelman was then able to plan the next day's pesticide applications so that his tractor drivers would be ready to enter the field and apply the pesticides soon after the tying or harvesting activities were completed. Mr. Oelman typically wrote the spray tickets on the day before the actual pesticide application, based on the information gathered from Mr. Bravo and Mr. Cantu. Thus, the starting times shown on the tickets are times that were projected by Mr. Oelman on the previous afternoon, not necessarily the time that spraying actually commenced. Spraying could be delayed for a number of reasons. At times, the work in the fields would not progress as quickly as Mr. Cantu or Mr. Bravo had anticipated, due to the heaviness of the harvest. Pesticides are not applied to wet plants; therefore, rain could delay a planned spray application. Mr. Oelman's practice was to write a new spray ticket if a day's planned application was completely cancelled. However, if the planned spray application was merely delayed for a time, Mr. Oelman did not create a new spray ticket or update the original ticket to reflect the actual starting time. Mr. Oelman failed to explain why he did not always create a new ticket when the information on the existing ticket ceased to be accurate. Mr. Oelman directly supervised the Ag-Mart employees who drove the tractors and operated the spray rigs from which pesticides were applied to the tomato plants. Mr. Oelman trained the tractor drivers not to spray where people were working, but to wait until the tying or harvesting activities in designated fields had been completed. Once the fields had been sprayed, Mr. Oelman would orally notify Mr. Bravo and Mr. Cantu of the location of the pesticide applications. Mr. Oelman would also post copies of the spray tickets at the farm's central posting board, on which was posted relevant information regarding the pesticides being used at the farm, the restricted entry intervals and pre-harvest intervals for the pesticides, and other safety information.3 When restricted-use pesticides4 were to be applied, Mr. Oelman posted the entrances to the field with warning signs before the application began. The signs, which stated "Danger/Pesticides/Keep Out" in English and Spanish, were left in place until twelve hours after the expiration of the restricted entry interval for the applied pesticide. Mr. Oelman attested that he always made these postings when restricted-use pesticides such as Monitor and Danitol were applied at the South Florida farm. Mr. Salinas and Mr. Anzualda testified that they never harvested tomatoes from fields posted with pesticide warning signs. Mr. Anzualda checked for warning signs every day to ensure that his crew was not being sent into fields where pesticides had recently been applied. The restricted entry interval (REI) and the pre- harvest interval (PHI) are set forth on the manufacturer's label of each restricted-use pesticide, in accordance with 40 C.F.R. Parts 156 (labeling requirements for pesticides and devices) and 170 (worker protection standard). The REI, a worker safety standard, is the time period after application of a restricted- use pesticide that must elapse before workers are allowed to enter the treated area. The PHI, a food safety standard, is the time period that must elapse after a spray application before harvesting can begin. The REI and PHI vary according to individual pesticides. In 2004, Warrick Birdwell was the farm manager at Ag- Mart's North Florida farm in Jennings. Prior to 2004, Mr. Birdwell had worked ten years for other tomato growers in Virginia and Florida. As farm manager, Mr. Birdwell was responsible for all operations from ground preparation through post-harvest clean-up at the North Florida farm. Mr. Birdwell was also a licensed restricted-use pesticide applicator and was responsible for the application of pesticides at the North Florida farm. In 2004, Mr. Birdwell was assisted in carrying out the spray program by Dale Waters, who supervised the tractor drivers and equipment.5 During 2004, grape tomatoes were harvested at the North Florida farm on a rotation of at least seven days per block, meaning that it would take at least seven days after a harvest, in a given field, to grow enough vine ripe fruit to warrant another harvest. Mr. Birdwell prepared the spray tickets for the planned application of pesticides. He created his spray tickets a day or two before the actual date that the application was scheduled to take place. At times, delays occurred due to weather, equipment failures, or slower than anticipated progress in the harvest. Mr. Birdwell's practice was to create a new ticket and destroy the old one if the delay prevented a scheduled application from occurring on the scheduled date. However, if the spraying was commenced on the scheduled date, but had to be completed on the next day, Mr. Birdwell kept the original spray ticket without amendment. Mr. Birdwell failed to give a reason why a new ticket was not created each time the information, included in the original ticket, ceased to be accurate. Mr. Birdwell communicated throughout the day with Charles Lambert, the North Florida farm's labor supervisor, to monitor the progress of the harvesting activities and ensure that workers did not enter fields where REIs or PHIs were in effect. Mr. Birdwell also directed that warning postings be placed at the entrances to fields where restricted-use pesticides had been applied. Farm labor crews were allowed to move on the farm property only at the specific direction of Mr. Lambert, whose constant communication with Mr. Birdwell helped ensure that labor crews stayed out of treated fields until it was safe to enter them. Harvested product received at Ag-Mart's packing houses is tracked by foreman receiving reports, which identify the product and its quantity, the name of the crew leader responsible for harvesting the product, the farm from which the product was shipped, and the planting number from which the product was harvested. The receiving reports are used to calculate the commission payments due to the Ag-Mart crew leaders, who are paid based on the amount of fruit their crews harvest, and to analyze the yields of specific plantings. The "date received" column on the receiving reports showed the date the product was shipped from the farm to the packinghouse. In March 2005, the Palm Beach Post published an article stating that three women, who harvested tomatoes for Ag- Mart in 2004, bore children who suffered from birth defects. The article questioned whether the birth defects were connected to the pesticides used by Ag-Mart on its tomatoes. The women had worked at both the South Florida and North Florida farms, and at an Ag-Mart farm in North Carolina. In response to the article, the Collier County Health Department began an inquiry to determine the cause of the birth defects and asked for the Department's help in performing a pesticide use inspection at the South Florida farm, where the three women, identified as Francisca Herrera, Sostenes Salazar, and Maria de la Mesa (also called Maria de la Mesa Cruz), worked from February through July 2004. The Department's investigation commenced with a work request sent from Tallahassee to Environmental Specialist Neil Richmond in Immokalee on March 7, 2005.6 Mr. Richmond regularly conducts inspections at golf courses, farms, chemical dealers, and fertilizer plants throughout Collier County. The work request directed Mr. Richmond to obtain pesticide use records for Ag-Mart covering the period of February through July 2004 and employee records showing the names of the three employees and the dates they worked in 2004. The work request further directed Mr. Richmond to conduct a pesticide use inspection at the South Florida farm to document the pesticide products used in the field. Finally, the work request directed Mr. Richmond to conduct a full worker protection standard inspection to document the posting of fields, central posting information, and REIs at the South Florida farm. Mr. Richmond initially visited Ag-Mart's South Florida farm on March 28, 2005, accompanied by two persons from the Collier County Health Department. During the course of the inspection, Ag-Mart's farm manager, Doug Perkins, produced spray tickets for both the South Florida and North Florida farms for the period February through July 2004. Mr. Perkins also produced a spreadsheet identifying the dates worked and the farm locations for each of the three women named in the newspaper article. This spreadsheet was prepared at the direction of Ag- Mart's human resources manager, Angelia Cassell, and was derived from the three workers' timesheets for 2004. On March 30, 2005, Mr. Richmond filed a written report with the documents he received from Ag-Mart. The Department's Bureau of Compliance Monitoring then assigned the matter to Case Reviewer Jessica Fernandez in Tallahassee. Ms. Fernandez was given the task of reviewing all the information gathered by the Department's inspectors to determine whether Ag-Mart had violated the Florida Pesticide Law or any of the Department's implementing rules. On April 12, 2005, Ms. Fernandez sent a request for additional information to Mr. Richmond, which stated in relevant part: According to the work log included in this file, Ms. Fransisca [sic] Herrera, Ms. Maria de la Mesa Cruz and Ms. Sostenes Salazar worked at the Ag-Mart farm located in Immokalee between January 2004 and October 2004. Please obtain as much information as possible regarding the specific Planting, Field and Block numbers in which these workers worked during the period of February 2004 through June 2004. Mr. Richmond went to the South Florida farm on March 13, 2005, and communicated this request for additional information to Mr. Oelman, who responded that it would take several days to gather the requested information. Mr. Richmond returned to the farm on April 15, 2005. On that date, Mr. Oelman explained to Mr. Richmond the sequencing of harvesting and spray activities at the South Florida farm. Mr. Oelman told Mr. Richmond that Ag-Mart's harvest records indicate, only, which planting the laborers were working in on a given day and that a planting includes more than one field. Mr. Oelman also told Mr. Richmond that Ag-Mart's spray records are kept according to field and block numbers and that his practice was to spray behind the picking. On April 22, 2005, Ms. Cassell faxed to Mr. Richmond a spreadsheet entitled "Field Locations for SFL 2/04 thru 6/04." All involved understood that "SFL" referred to the South Florida farm.7 With the assistance of subordinates in her office, Ms. Cassell produced this document to show, in her words, "the total of what field locations the [three] women might have worked in." Ms. Cassell started with time cards, which indicated the dates and hours the three women worked. Then she obtained foreman receiving reports, which she understood to tell her which plantings were harvested on which dates. Finally, she obtained, from the farm, a handwritten document showing which fields were included in each planting. From this information, Ms. Cassell was able to fashion a spreadsheet indicating the range of fields each woman could have worked in from February through June 2004. Mr. Richmond testified that he read the spreadsheet's title and understood the document to show where the women actually worked each day. The document appeared self- explanatory. No one from Ag-Mart told Mr. Richmond that the spreadsheet showed only where the women could have worked, or "possible" locations. Mr. Richmond passed the spreadsheet on to Ms. Fernandez, with a report stating that it showed "the field locations for Ms. Herrera, Ms. Salazar, and Ms. de la Mesa where they worked on respective dates." Ms. Fernandez also operated on the assumption that the spreadsheet showed what its title indicated, the actual field locations of the three women on any given day from February through June 2004. Ms. Cassell testified that she put the title on the spreadsheet without much thought, simply as an identifier for the file on her computer's hard drive. Ms. Cassell understood that she was creating a spreadsheet of all the fields the women could possibly have worked in on a given day. She could be no more precise, because Ag-Mart did not keep records that would show the specific fields where an individual worked on a given day. The president of Ag-Mart, Mr. Long, confirmed that Ag- Mart does not keep records on which fields a worker is in on a given day. At the time the Department made its request, Mr. Long told Ms. Cassell that there was no way Ag-Mart could provide such precise worker location data. The closest they could come would be to correlate harvest or receiving data, which showed what plantings a crew had harvested from, with the workers' time cards. Ag-Mart knew whose crew each woman had worked in; so the spreadsheet listed all the fields in the planting worked by the crew, as a way of showing which fields the women might have worked in. On May 4, 2005, Ms. Fernandez sent Compliance Monitoring Bureau Chief Dale Dubberly a request for additional information, which Mr. Dubberly forwarded to Mr. Richmond the next day. Ms. Fernandez first requested the time work started and ended for each worker in each field on every date listed in the spreadsheet provided on April 22, 2005. Ms. Fernandez next asked for the field location for each worker from July 2004 to November 2004. She asked for the block numbers corresponding to each of the fields in North Florida, South Florida, and North Carolina during the 2004 season and a map showing the distribution of blocks, fields and plantings for those farms during the 2004 season. She asked for spray records for South Florida for October and November 2004. Finally, Ms. Fernandez requested a more legible copy of the spreadsheet, which she stated "shows each worker's field location." Upon receiving this request through Mr. Richmond, Ms. Cassell, her staff, and Ag-Mart farm compliance manager, Amanda Collins created a new spreadsheet, which Ms. Cassell titled "Field Locations for 3 Employees for 2004." This spreadsheet was identical in format to the earlier document, but was expanded to include the dates the three women worked for all of 2004. For each worker, the spreadsheet provided a cell for each day worked, and within that cell a list of field numbers. Again, the Department took these field numbers to represent fields in which the women actually worked, when Ag-Mart actually intended them to represent fields in which the women possibly worked. Some of the cells listed as many as 23 field numbers for one day. The method of developing this spreadsheet was similar to that employed for the first one. The weekly time cards of the three women were used to provide the days they worked. Ag-Mart's weekly time cards show the name of the employee, the rounded hours worked each week, the number of piece units worked, the hours worked for minimum wage, and the initials of the crew leader for whom the employee worked that week. For their South Florida farm work in 2004, Ms. Herrera and Ms. Salazar worked exclusively for crew leader Sergio Salinas. Ms. de la Mesa worked at South Florida for crew leader Juan Anzualda and at North Florida for crew leader Pascual Sierra.8 To identify the fields where the three women might have worked on a given day, Ms. Cassell and her staff again used foreman receiving reports and planting schedules. The receiving reports were understood to provide the dates of shipping for harvested product, and these were correlated to the dates on which the three women worked. Again, Ms. Cassell listed every field within a planting as a possible work location, because Ag-Mart kept no data that identified the fields in which the women actually worked on a given date. On May 6, 2005, Mr. Richmond met with Ms. Cassell and Ms. Collins at Ag-Mart's Plant City administrative offices. The meeting lasted no more than 15 minutes and consisted of Ag-Mart employees turning over various documents to Mr. Richmond, along with some explanatory conversation. Ms. Cassell specifically recalled explaining to Mr. Richmond that the field location spreadsheet indicated the "total possible fields that the three employees could have worked in." Mr. Richmond denied that Ms. Cassell gave him any such explanation. Ms. Collins recalled that Mr. Richmond and Ms. Cassell had some discussion about the spreadsheet, but could recall no particulars.9 Mr. Richmond forwarded the documents received at the May 6, 2005, meeting to Ms. Fernandez in Tallahassee. His written summary, also dated May 6, 2005, represents Mr. Richmond's contemporaneous understanding of the meaning of the documents he was given at the Plant City meeting. The summary stated, in relevant part: Ms. Collins provided the times which the three ladies worked at the various locations which came from the three ladies time cards (See Exhibits V-1 through V-3, copies of time worked information). Ms. Collins stated that this has the start and finished [sic] times, but does not have which fields they worked at a particular time as they may pick in several fields throughout the day. Ms. Collins provided another copy of the field locations for each of the three ladies (See Exhibits W-1 and W-2, copies of field locations of workers). Ms. Collins also provided maps with field locations depicting blocks and plantings (See Exhibits X-1 through X-13, maps depicting field locations with blocks and plantings). The field no. is the main number in each block, the first two numbers are the numbers of the planting, while the remaining number in the set is the block number. . . . At the hearing, Mr. Richmond testified that he "absolutely" would have communicated to Ms. Fernandez any conversation he had with, either, Ms. Cassell or Ms. Collins indicating that the field location spreadsheet was anything other than a document showing where the women worked on a given day. This testimony is credible and, coupled with Mr. Richmond's contemporaneous written statement, leads to the finding that Mr. Richmond's testimony regarding the May 6, 2005, meeting in Plant City should be credited. On May 12, 2005, Ms. Cassell sent Mr. Dubberly an e- mail with an attachment correcting some aspects of the spreadsheet. Ms. Cassell's e-mail message stated: I have attached the the [sic] revision to the original sheet given on the 3 woman's [sic] field locations. I included which field location for NC. There was one revision I made for Francisca on week ending 4/24/05 [Ms. Cassell clearly means 2004]. She was in NC that week and on the last two days of that week I had SFL field numbers and it should of [sic] been NC [sic] please discard old report and replace with revised one. The Department cites this e-mail as further indication that Ag-Mart represented the spreadsheet as indicating actual field locations for the three women, or at least that Ag-Mart said nothing to clarify that the spreadsheet showed something other than the fields where the women actually worked. Ms. Fernandez, the case reviewer whose analysis led to the filing of the Administrative Complaints against Ag-Mart, believed that the field location spreadsheets prepared by Ms. Cassell and her staff reflected the actual work locations for Ms. Herrera, Ms. Salazar, and Ms. de la Mesa. As a case reviewer, Ms. Fernandez receives files compiled by the field staff and reviews the files to determine whether a violation of the Florida Pesticide Law has occurred. The procedure of the Bureau of Compliance Monitoring appears designed to ensure that the case reviewers have no contact with the subjects of their investigation and, instead, rely on field inspectors to act as conduits in obtaining information from companies such as Ag-Mart. As a result, Ms. Fernandez had no direct contact with anyone from Ag-Mart and, thus, had no direct opportunity to be disabused of her assumptions regarding the field location spreadsheet. Ms. Fernandez conceded that she had never been on a tomato farm at the time she conducted her review of the Ag-Mart case. She did not take into consideration the acreage of the fields or the size of the work crews and their manner of operation. She made no attempt to visualize the effort it would take for one worker to harvest in ten or 20 fields in one day. She assumed that each woman worked in at least part of each field listed on the spreadsheet for each day listed. Ms. Fernandez believed that the spreadsheet was clear on its face and saw no need to make further inquiries as to the plausibility of the assumption that it reflected actual, not possible, field locations. As found above, Ag-Mart made no statement to any Department employee to qualify that the spreadsheet meant only possible field locations. Nonetheless, common sense should have caused someone in the Department to question whether this spreadsheet really conveyed the information that its title appeared to promise. On some days, the spreadsheet places a single field worker in 23 fields. Ag-Mart's crew leaders credibly testified that their crews never worked in more than four fields in one day and more often worked in only one or two. Even granting Ms. Fernandez' ignorance, Mr. Dubberly or some other superior in the Department should have had enough knowledge of farm operations to question the plausibility of Ms. Fernandez' assumptions. While Ag-Mart is at fault for not explaining itself clearly, the Department is also at fault for insisting that the spreadsheet be taken at face value, no matter how implausible the result.10 At the hearing, Ms. Fernandez explained how she used the documents provided by Ag-Mart to draft the Administrative Complaints. As an example, Counts I and II of the North Florida Complaint provide: Count I On June 6, 2004, Mr. Cesar Juarez and Mr. Alexis Barrios treated approximately 157.6 acres of grape tomatoes, planted in fields 7-8, with a mixture of Bravo Weather Stik, Monitor 4 Spray and Danitol 2.4 EC Spray. The Monitor 4 Spray supplemental label states: "REMARKS . . . Do not apply more than a total of 10 pints per acre per crop season, nor within 7 days of harvest." Worker field location records show that tomatoes were harvested from fields 7 and 8 on June 7, 2004. Therefore, these tomatoes were harvested prior to the 7 day pre- harvest interval stated on the Monitor 4 Spray label. Count II The Danitol 2.4 EC Spray label states: "TOMATO . . . Do not apply the DANITOL + MONITOR 4 Spray tank mix within 7 days of harvest." As noted in the previous paragraph, fields 7-8 were treated with a mixture of Bravo Weather Stik, Monitor 4 Spray and Danitol 2.4 EC Spray on June 6, 2004. Tomatoes were harvested from these same fields on June 7, 2004. Therefore, these tomatoes were harvested prior to the 7 day pre-harvest interval stated on the Danitol 2.4 EC Spray label. Ms. Fernandez obtained the information regarding the date, time, and manner of pesticide application from the spray tickets described above. She obtained the Monitor and Danitol PHI information from the product label. She obtained the harvest information from the spreadsheet, which indicated that Ms. de la Mesa worked in fields 7 and 8 on June 7, 2004. Counts I and II alleging violations of the PHIs for Monitor and Danitol had an accompanying Count XIX, alleging a violation of the REI for Monitor arising from the same set of facts: Count XIX The Monitor 4 Spray and the Danitol 2.4 EC Spray labels contain the following language: "AGRICULTURAL USE REQUIREMENTS. Use this product only in accordance with its labeling and with the Worker Protection Standard, 40 CFR part 170. This Standard contains requirements for the protection of agricultural workers on farms, forests, nurseries, and greenhouses, and handlers of agricultural pesticides. It contains requirements for training, decontamination, notification, and emergency assistance. It also contains specific instructions and exceptions pertaining to the statements on this label about personal protective equipment (PPE) and restricted entry interval. The requirements in this box only apply to users of this product that are covered by the Worker Protection Standard." On June 6, 2004, Mr. Cesar Juarez and Mr. Alexis Barrios treated approximately 157.6 acres of grape tomatoes, planted in fields 7-8, with a mixture of Bravo Weather Stik, Monitor 4 Spray and Danitol 2.4 EC Spray. The application started at 11:30 am and ended at 5:30 pm on June 6, 2004. The Monitor 4 Spray label states: "Do not enter or allow worker entry into treated areas during the restricted entry interval (REI) of 48 hours." Work records show that Ms. de la Mesa, directed by licensed applicators Mr. Charles Lambert (PV38793)11 and Mr. Warrick Birdwell (PV36679), worked in fields 7 and 8 on June 7, 2004, and that her working hours for June 7, 2004, were 8:00 am to 6:30 pm. Therefore, Ms. de la Mesa and other workers were instructed, directed, permitted or not prevented by the agricultural employer, Ag-Mart Produce, Inc. from entering treated fields before the expiration of the REI stated on the Monitor 4 Spray label. Throughout the hearing, Ag-Mart contended (and the Department did not dispute) that no statute or rule requires Ag-Mart to keep a daily log of the fields where its employees work. The Department also conceded that Ag-Mart was cooperative throughout its investigation.12 Ag-Mart contends that all counts should be dismissed because of the Department's reliance on the field location spreadsheet, which shows only the possible field locations of the workers. This contention goes to far. For example, the counts set forth above are well taken, because the spray tickets indicate that fields 7 and 8 were sprayed on June 6, 2004, and the field location spreadsheet indicates that Ms. de la Mesa worked only in fields 7 and 8 on June 7, 2004. Ag-Mart further attacked the spreadsheet by suggesting the unreliability of the dates on the foreman receiving reports. As found above, the receiving reports generally showed the date the product was shipped from the farm to the packinghouse, as well as the crew leader who provided the tomatoes and the planting from which the tomatoes were harvested. At the hearing, Ag-Mart contended that the date the product was shipped was not always the same date it was harvested. Further, Ag-Mart demonstrated that one of the receiving reports relevant to this proceeding showed the date the product was received at the packing house, rather than the date the product was shipped from the farm, due to a clerical error. Ag-Mart argued that this example showed that the receiving reports were not a reliable source for determining the precise dates of harvest in a given field on the North Florida farm. Ag-Mart's evidence is insufficient to demonstrate the unreliability of the receiving reports, where Ag-Mart itself relied on the reports to provide the Department with the spreadsheet showing possible field locations of the three workers. Ag-Mart had ample opportunity to make a thorough demonstration of the reports' alleged unreliability and failed to do so. Ag-Mart also attempted to cast doubt on the accuracy of the spray tickets through the testimony of Mr. Oelman and Mr. Birdwell, both of whom stated that the spray tickets are written well in advance of the pesticide applications and are not invariably rewritten or corrected when the spraying schedule is pushed back due to rain or slow harvest. However, the pesticide applicator is required by law to maintain accurate records relating to the application of all restricted-use pesticides, including the date, start time and end time of the treatment, and the location of the treatment site. Fla. Admin. Code R. 5E-9.032(1). The Department is entitled to inspect these records. Fla. Admin. Code R. 5E-9.032(6). Ag-Mart may not attack records that its own employee/applicators were legally required to keep in an accurate fashion. The Department is entitled to rely on the spray tickets as accurate indicators of when and where pesticide applications occurred. Thus, the undersigned has accepted the accuracy of the spray records and the receiving reports, but not of the field location spreadsheet. However, there are some dates on which the fields shown on the spreadsheet perfectly match the fields shown on the spray tickets, as in Counts I, II, and XIX of the North Florida Complaint set forth above. It is found that the Department has proven these counts by clear and convincing evidence. In addition to Counts I, II, and XIX of the North Florida Complaint, the Department has proven the following counts of the North Florida Complaint by clear and convincing evidence: Counts XI, XII, and XXII (spraying in fields 7 and 8 on June 17, 2004; Ms. de la Mesa worked only in fields 7 and 8 on June 19, 2004); and Count XIII (spraying Agrimek 0.15 EC Miticide/Insecticide, with PHI of seven days, in fields 7 and 8 on June 3, 2005; Ms. de la Mesa worked only in fields 7 and 8 on June 7, 2004). The Department has proven none of the counts in the South Florida Complaint by clear and convincing evidence. Some explanation must be made for the finding that Counts XXXI and XXXII were not proven by clear and convincing evidence. Those counts allege as follows: Count XXXI On April 17, 2004, Mr. Lorenzo Reyes, Mr. Demetrio Acevedo and Mr. Francisco Vega treated approximately 212.5 acres of grape tomatoes, planted in fields 11, 6 and 4, with a mixture of Bravo Weather Stik, Monitor 4 Spray and Danitol 2.4 EC Spray. The Monitor 4 Spray supplemental label states: "REMARKS . . . Do not apply more than a total of 10 pints per acre per crop season, nor within 7 days of harvest." Worker field location records show that tomatoes were harvested from fields 11, 6 and 4 on April 21, 2004. Therefore, these tomatoes were harvested prior to the 7 day pre-harvest interval stated on the Monitor 4 Spray label. Count XXXII The Danitol 2.4 EC Spray label states: "TOMATO . . . Do not apply the DANITOL + MONITOR 4 Spray tank mix within 7 days of harvest." As noted in the previous paragraph, fields 11, 6 and 4 were treated with a mixture of Bravo Weather Stik, Monitor 4 Spray and Danitol 2.4 EC Spray on April 17, 2004. Tomatoes were harvested from these same fields on April 21, 2004. Therefore, these tomatoes were harvested prior to the 7 day pre-harvest interval stated on the Danitol 2.4 EC Spray label. These counts base their allegation that tomatoes were harvested from fields 11, 6, and 4 on April 21, 2004, on the field location spreadsheet, which indicates that Ms. Salazar possibly worked in fields 4, 6, 9, 10, and/or 11 on April 21, 2004. Thus, the spreadsheet does not definitely prove that Ms. Salazar harvested tomatoes in the three sprayed fields within the PHI. At the final hearing, the Department introduced a spray ticket showing that Monitor and Danitol were also applied to fields 9 and 10 on April 15, 2004. This additional spray ticket completed the Department's demonstration that every field in which Ms. Salazar harvested tomatoes on April 21, 2004, had been sprayed with Monitor and Danitol within the seven-day PHI. However, the Department did not amend the South Florida Complaint to allege the fact of the second spray ticket, and, so, must be held to the allegations actually made in the complaint. Ag-Mart may not be found guilty of facts or violations not specifically alleged in the South Florida Complaint. See Cottrill v. Department of Insurance, 685 So. 2d 1371, 1372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (facts not alleged in the Administrative Complaint). See also B.D.M. Financial Corporation v. Department of Business and Professional Regulation, 698 So. 2d 1359, 1362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (violations not alleged in the Administrative Complaint). In similar fashion, Counts XLI and XLII of the South Florida Complaint allege that fields 21, 22, 18, and 19 were sprayed with Monitor and Danitol on May 15, 2004, and allege PHI violations in fields 21, 22, 18, and 19 on May 20, 2004, based on the field location spreadsheet's indication that Ms. Salazar possibly worked in one or more of fields 18 through 25 on that date. Thus, the spreadsheet does not definitely prove that Ms. Salazar harvested tomatoes in the four sprayed fields within the PHI. At the final hearing, the Department introduced a spray ticket showing that Monitor and Danitol were, also, applied to fields 20, 23, 24, and 25 on May 14, 2004. This additional spray ticket completed the Department's demonstration that every field in which Ms. Salazar harvested tomatoes on May 20, 2004, had been sprayed with Monitor and Danitol within the seven-day PHI. Again, however, the Department failed to amend the South Florida Complaint to reflect its subsequently developed evidence. Subsection 487.175(1)(e), Florida Statutes, provides that the Department may enter an order imposing an administrative fine not to exceed $10,000 for each violation. The statute further provides as follows: When imposing any fine under this paragraph, the department shall consider the degree and extent of harm caused by the violation, the cost of rectifying the damage, the amount of money the violator benefited from by noncompliance, whether the violation was committed willfully, and the compliance record of the violator. Mr. Dubberly testified that the Department does not have a rule for determining the amount of fines, but uses a matrix, attaching a rating of 0 to 5 for each of the criteria named in the quoted portion of the statute, with 5 representing the most egregious violation. The extent of harm caused by the violation is divided into two classifications: (A) the degree and extent of harm related to human and environmental hazards and (B) the degree and extent of harm related to the toxicity of the pesticide(s). The remaining criteria considered in the matrix are: (C) the estimated cost of rectifying the damage, (D) the estimated amount of money the violator benefited by noncompliance, whether the violation was committed willfully, and (F) the compliance record of the violator. Each factor is given its numerical value. The values for factors (B) through (F) are added, then the total is multiplied by the value for factor (A). The resulting number is then multiplied by $100.00 to determine the amount of the fine. The PHI violations were primarily food safety violations, the concern being that there might be an unacceptable pesticide residue on the tomatoes if they were harvested within the PHI. The REI violations were based on concerns for worker safety from pesticide exposure. In determining the fines for PHI violations, the Department assigned a numerical value of 2 for factor (A). In determining the fines for REI violations, the Department assigned a numerical value of 3 for factor (A), based on a reasonable probability of human or animal death or injury, or a reasonable probability of serious environmental harm. For purposes of this proceeding, all the pesticides used by Ag-Mart were restricted-use pesticides. In considering the value to be assigned to factor (B), the Department relied on the pesticide labels, which contain signal words for the category of potential hazard to human or animal life posed by that pesticide. Monitor contained the signal word "Danger," which represents the highest level of potential hazard. A value of 5 was assigned for factor (B) in the alleged violations involving the use of Monitor. Danitol and Agrimek contained the signal word "Warning," which indicated a lesser potential hazard. A value of 3 was assigned for factor (B) in the alleged violations involving Danitol or Agrimek. Because the estimated cost of rectifying the damage and the estimated amount of money the violator benefited by noncompliance was unknown, the Department assigned a value of 0 to factors (C) and (D). As to factor (E), dealing with the willfulness of the violation, the Department assigns a value of 0 if there is no evidence of willfulness, a value of 1 if there is apparent evidence of willfulness, and a value of 5 if it determines the violation was intentional. Because of the large number of alleged PHI and REI violations, the Department assigned a value of 1 for factor (E), finding apparent evidence of willful intent for each alleged violation. As to factor (F), dealing with the violator's compliance history, the Department considers the three years immediately preceding the current violation. The Department assigns a value of 0 if there are no prior violations, a value of 1 for a prior dissimilar violation, a value of 2 for multiple prior dissimilar violations, a value of 3 for a prior similar violation, and a value of 4 for multiple prior similar violations. Because Ag-Mart had one prior dissimilar violation within the preceding three years, the Department assigned a value of 1 for factor (F) for each alleged violation. Because the sole basis for finding apparent evidence of willful intent was the number of alleged violations, the Department calculated its recommended fines in two ways: by assigning a value of 0 based on no evidence of willful intent and by assigning a value of 1 based on apparent evidence of willful intent. In DOAH Case No. 06-0730, the North Florida Complaint, the Department recommended a fine of either $1,200 (no evidence of willful intent) or $1,400 (apparent evidence of willful intent) for each of the PHI violations alleged in Counts I, III, V, VII, IX, and XI, which involved the use of Monitor. The Department recommended a fine of either $800 (no evidence) or $1,000 (apparent evidence) for Counts II, IV, VI, VIII, X, and XII, involving the use of Danitol, and for Counts XIV, XV, and XVI, involving the use of Agrimek. For each of the REI violations alleged in Counts XIX through XXII, the Department recommended a fine of either $1,800 (no evidence) or $2,100 (apparent evidence). The Department established by clear and convincing evidence seven of the 20 counts of the North Florida Complaint that remained at issue at the time of the hearing, and none of the 58 counts of the South Florida Complaint that remained at issue at the time of the hearing. The undersigned accepts the Department's calculation of the recommended fines for these violations and recommends that the Department apply the lower calculation for each of the violations. Thus, the recommended fines are as follows: Count I, PHI violation involving the use of Monitor, $1,200; Count II, PHI violation involving the use of Danitol, $800; Count XI, PHI violation involving the use of Monitor, $1,200; Count XII, PHI violation involving the use of Danitol, $800; Count XIII, PHI violation involving the use of Agrimek, $800; Count XIX, REI violation, $1,800; and Count XXII, REI violation, $1,800. Thus, the total recommended fine for the seven proven violations is $8,400. In conclusion, it is observed that these cases demonstrate a gap in the enforcement mechanism of the Florida Pesticide Law, at least as it is currently understood and practiced by the Department. The law requires licensed applicators to comply with the PHI and REI restrictions on the labels of the restricted-use pesticides they apply to these crops. The law requires the applicators to keep accurate records of when and where they apply pesticides and of the kind and quantity of pesticides applied in each instance. Yet all parties to this proceeding agreed that the law does not require either the applicators or the growers to keep accurate records of when and where farm workers enter the fields and conduct the harvest. This failure to complete the record- keeping circle makes it extremely difficult for the Department to prove by clear and convincing evidence that a PHI or REI violation has taken place. The PHI and REI restrictions appear virtually unenforceable through company records, except when some fluke of record keeping allows the Department to establish that a given worker could only have been in a recently sprayed field on a given day. It does little good to know when the pesticides were applied to a field if there is no way of knowing when workers first entered the field or harvested tomatoes after the spraying. Ag-Mart credibly demonstrated that its general practices are designed to minimize worker exposure and guarantee safe harvest, but the company keeps no records to demonstrate to its customers that it observes these practices in particular instances and is under no legal obligation to keep such records. This state of regulatory affairs should be as disturbing to Ag-Mart as to the Department, because purchasers of tomatoes in Florida's grocery stores do not require clear and convincing evidence in order to switch brands.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order that provides as follows: That Ag-Mart committed the violations alleged in Counts I, II, XI, XII, and XIII of the North Florida Complaint, for which violations Ag-Mart should be assessed an administrative fine totaling $8,400; That Ag-Mart pay to the Department $3,000 to resolve Counts L through LIV of the South Florida Complaint and Counts XVII and XVIII of the North Florida Complaint; and That all other counts of the North Florida Complaint and the South Florida Complaint be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of March, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of March, 2007.
