The Issue This proceeding was initiated on June 27, 1985, when Petitioner filed its complaint for $51,680.00 with the Florida Department of Agriculture. Respondents were Dade Tomato and its surety, State Automobile Mutual Insurance Co. of Columbus, Ohio. After payment of $38,880.00 was received, Homestead Tomato reduced its claim to $12,800.00 in an amended complaint dated July 22, 1985. Dade Tomato responded with a timely request for formal hearing. The issue at hearing was whether $12.00 or $16.00 was the price per box of 5 x 7 tomatoes purchased by Dade Tomato from Homestead Tomato on January 13th and 21st, 1985. Homestead Tomato presented the testimony of two witnesses and nineteen exhibits; Dade Tomato presented seven witnesses and thirteen exhibits; State Automobile Insurance Company was noticed, but did not appear. Both parties submitted Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. These have been carefully considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order, and an outline of the adoption or rejection of each proposed finding is included in Appendix A, attached to, and incorporated in this order. A document styled Reply Brief of Petitioner Homestead Tomato Packing Company, Inc., was filed on January 9, 1986. It was not authorized and was not considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact Homestead Tomato is agent for Strano Farms of Florida City, Florida, a producer of tomatoes. Rosario Strano is president of Homestead Tomato and co-owner of Strano Farms. (R. Strano) Dade Tomato, a tomato repacking company, is located in Miami, Florida. Its president is Joe Lococo. It is licensed as a dealer in agricultural products and is bonded by State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company. (J. Lococo, Amended Complaint dated July 22, 1985) The week of January 20-26, 1985, was a memorable week for the Florida tomato industry: a savage freeze hit south Florida, crops were devastated and the market awoke from its earlier torpor. For days prior to the 20th, Rosario Strano had carefully watched the weather services. By the 15th, when the freeze forecast appeared to be a sure thing, Strano Farms worked night and day and into the weekend harvesting tomatoes. (T. Banks, R. Strano) On January 19th, a representative from Dade Tomato contacted Tom Banks, an employee of Homestead Tomato, and asked for a load (1600 boxes) of 6 x 7 tomatoes. Banks explained that they were ready to sell, but not ready to price, since they expected a high demand as a result of the impending freeze. It was established that the "following week's price would control." The load was shipped that same day. On Monday, the Dade Tomato called for another load the same size. Prices still had not been established, but the load was shipped, again the same day. (T. Banks) After the freeze, around the middle of the week, Rosario Strano called together Tom Banks and a few other key employees and established a price for their tomatoes: $20.00 box for 5 x 6 (largest) $18.00 box for 6 x 6 (next size down) $16.00 box for 6 x 7 (medium) $12.00 box for 7 x 7 (small) Banks was instructed that the buyers were to be notified the price was set. Anyone "booked in" didn't have to take the order or could back out. Strano wanted to be told immediately of any problems with the tomatoes on the other end, and he would take them back. He was confident that he had a good market for his unique, pre-freeze tomato supply. Several buyers backed out, some tomatoes did come back, but the entire supply was sold (approximately 40-48 loads). (T. Banks. R. Streno) In setting his prices for the week of the freeze, Strano obtained information from the Florida Fruit and Vegetable Report, a daily publication of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, out of Winter Park, Florida. (R. Strano) The sheets include price quotations for a wide variety of commodities in different parts of the state obtained by telephone survey of packing houses and producers the prior date. (Petitioner's Exhibits #15-19) It is a guideline rather than an "official" market price indicator. (J. Strother, R. Cohen) In some eases the prices quoted to the survey are later adjusted by the producer. (R. Cohen) The issue dated January 24, 1985, reflected for #1 quality tomatoes a price of $20.00, $18.00 and $16.00 for 5 x6, 6 x 6, and 6 x 75 respectively. The following two days showed the same. Prior days, January 22 and 23 quoted no prices but stated "practically all sales prices to be established later". (Petitioner's Exhibits #15-19) After hearing the prices established by Strano, some of his customers, including Joe Lococo and his broker, began to protest. (T. Banks, J. Lococo) While refusing to budge, end arguing that he was charging the same price to his other customers for his pre-freeze, quality tomatoes, Strano resorted to offering rebates of 2.00 a box for prompt payment and, later, for settlement of cases that otherwise would have gone to court. (T. Banks) In short, Strano had difficulty getting some of his customers to pay the price he had set. Not all of Strano's customers bought and had tomatoes shipped on a price to be settled basis. Of the ten invoices admitted as Petitioner's Exhibits #5- 14, three represented sales on the same basis as the sales to Dade Tomato: Exhibits 5, 6 and 7. The remaining invoices represented sales to customers who had the price established prior to sale. Each of the invoices reflect the price of a box of 5 x 7 tomatoes to be $15.00. The invoices do not reveal which may have received the $2.00 rebate. Dade Tomato purchased ten loads of tomatoes during the week of the freeze. With the exception of the two loads from Homestead Tomato, the highest price for 6 x 75 was $12.00. Most of the tomatoes picked prior to the freeze were priced from $10- 12.00, with tomatoes picked after the freeze (salvage) going for as low as $6.00 for 6 x 7s. (J. Lococo, Respondent's Exhibits #1- 12) "Market price" is a highly fluid, highly subjective standard. During the course of a tomato season from 25-30% of sales are made on a "market price" basis, that is, the parties do not establish a firm price prior to sale, but wait to see what the market does. The market can be settled in a few days in a normal condition or longer in an abnormal condition, such as after a freeze. Market relates to supply and demand. A price is tried, then accepted or rejected, depending on whether the buyer in turn can find a market to sell at this price. Failure by a seller to adjust downward, or overpricing can result in animosity and the refusal of customers later to purchase at reasonable prices in a different season. (J. Strother, R. Cohen, F. Campisi) Various agents and brokers testified at the hearing on behalf of Dade Tomato as to what they felt was the market during the week of January 20-26th, 1985. James Strother, with thirty- three years in the produce business, came out that week with prices of $16.00, $14.00 and $12.00, and $16.00, $15.00 and $12.00, with $12.00 for the 6 x 75. He told his customers, "You're looking at the low and I expect to get paid for it." He had heard rumblings of a higher market, but set his market price to insure that he would get paid, and he moved his tomatoes. While he avowed respect for Strano, he testified that their thoughts on the market that week differed. He knew others were quoting higher than $12.00, he just wanted to be sure he sold. Florida Tomato Packers, Inc., is one of the largest packers in Florida. They initially sold 6 x 7 tomatoes during the freeze market at $16.00, but later adjusted the invoices down to $12.00. (D. Holden, Respondent's Exhibit #1) No one explained exactly how or why this was done by Florida Tomato Packers. Other exhibits produced by Respondent showed adjustments downward to varying prices. (Respondent's Exhibits # 7 and 8) After the initial complaint was filed by Homestead Tomato, Lococo made two payments for a total which amounts to $12.00 a box, the level which he insists the proper price should be. He does not dispute the quality or condition of the tomatoes sold by Homestead Tomato. (J. Lococo)
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered requiring that the balance of $12,800.00 be paid by Dade Tomato to Homestead Tomato. In the absence of payment, Co-Respondent, State Automobile Insurance Company, should be required to pay said sum in accordance with Section 604.21(8), Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of January, 1986, in MARY CLARK 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 15th day of January, 1986. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 85-3487A The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2) Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in paragraph 1, Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraph 2, Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraph 3, Findings of Fact. Adopted in substance in paragraph 4, Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraph 4, Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraph 4, Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraph 3, Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraph 3, Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraph 5, except that instead of a set number of loads of tomatoes sold, the testimony of R. Strano was a range from forty to forty-eight loads. Adopted in paragraph 5, Findings of Fact. Adopted in substance in paragraph 7. The names of the buyers and total amounts of each purchase are immaterial. Adopted in paragraph 6, Findings of Fact. The substance of this paragraph relating to Florida Tomato Packers, Inc., is adopted in paragraph 10, Findings of Fact. The sentence relating to the market price is incorporated in essence in paragraph 5, Conclusions of Law. These facts are covered in the "Issues and Procedural Matters" preceding the Findings of Fact, and in paragraph 11, Findings of Fact. The substance of this paragraph relating to when the market settles is adopted in paragraph 9, Findings of Fact. The bias of witnesses who testified as to when the market settled is irrelevant as the time that the market settled is irrelevant. The statement that " Respondent agrees that the contract for the tomatoes was at a price to be established during the week of January 21-26 1985' . . . " is not supported by competent substantial evidence. Adopted in substance in paragraph 10, Findings of Fact. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent The first sentence is adopted in paragraph 4, Findings of Fact. The second sentence is substantially modified in paragraph 4 by a finding that the agreement was that the following week's price would control". Same as paragraph 1, above. Adopted in substance in paragraph 5, Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraph 7, Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraph 11, Findings of Fact. Adopted in paragraph 5, Findings of Fact. The second sentence, relating to all of the sales at $16.00 as being a set price, is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. The remaining sentences are adopted in paragraphs 5 and 7, Findings of Fact. Partially adopted in paragraph 8, Findings of Fact. The basis of the price paid is immaterial. Adopted in paragraph 10, Findings of Fact. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Rejected as a misconstruction of the testimony. James Strother testified that his price was 12.00 a box. Adopted in paragraph 6, Findings of Fact. 14 - 16. The substance of these paragraphs have been adopted. However, they are presented here as simply testimony of witnesses rather than findings of fact. The "market price" description is rejected for reasons set out in paragraph 4, Conclusions of Law. Adopted in paragraph 11, Findings of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: David V. Lococo, Esquire LOCOCO, KLEIN, TOUBY & SMITH 901 Northeast 125th Street Suite C North Miami, Florida 33161 Joe W. Kight, Chief Bureau of License and Bond Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 416 - Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Ron Weaver, Esquire Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32301 State Automobile Insurance Company 515 E. Broad Street Columbus, Ohio 43216 Alexander Pires, Esquire SCOTT, HARRISON and McLEOD 2501 M. Street N.W. Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20037 Robert Chastain, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 513 - The Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On March 25, 1980, Willard Sutliff, broker for Okun and Charles Weisinger, salesman for Six L's, met at the Six L's packing facility in Immokalee. On that date, Sutliff inspected, purchased and took delivery of a load of tomatoes for an agreed price of $10,198.50. The tomatoes were shipped the same day by transport arranged by Sutliff, and arrived in New York at the Okun facility on March 28, 1980. They were immediately inspected by a United States Department of Agriculture (U.S.D.A.) representative and found to be "Now approximately 60 percent U.S. No. 1 quality, 9 percent soft, 5 percent decay." Following harvesting, sorting and packing, tomatoes are taken to the Six L's "gas room" where they are normally held for a period of 48 to 60 hours prior to shipment. During this period the tomatoes continue to ripen. The tomatoes at issue here had been placed in the gas room on March 19 and were well past the optimum shipping point at the time of sale on March 25. These tomatoes were initially inspected by a U.S.D.A. representative on March 19 at the Six L's facility and were assigned a U.S. combination grade. This grade indicates the tomatoes are a combination of U.S. No. 1 and U.S. No. 2 grade, but are at least 60 percent U.S. No. 1. Sutliff was aware of the March 19 U.S.D.A, report, but contends he purchased the load with the understanding from Weisinger that the tomatoes would grade at least 75 percent U.S. No. 1, and his broker's memorandum so indicates. Weisinger denies such representation. The Six L's office manager received his copy of the broker's memorandum on April 3 and regarded the 75 percent U.S. 1 entry as a minor error not requiring repudiation since the tomatoes had already been delivered. Sutliff was accorded ample opportunity to inspect the tomatoes prior to purchase. Although the tomatoes were in crates on pallets which limited his access, Sutliff did observe the color of the tomatoes and also determined that they were "second picking" rather than "crown picking". Had he elected to do so, Sutliff could have required the crates to be opened or requested a further U.S.D.A. inspection. Sutliff purchased the load at a price somewhat lower than market for high grade tomatoes. Weisinger contends he "discounted" the price due to their ripeness while Sutliff contends he paid the lower price because the tomatoes were second picking and were not represented to be 85 percent U.S. No. 1 which would have justified a higher price. The price was arrived at through negotiation and, obviously, all relevant factors including the ripened condition of this highly perishable commodity were taken into account by the parties. The tomatoes were acknowledged to be in good condition by the trucker when he accepted them for loading on March 25th. The temperature records and the three days for transit to New York indicate reasonable shipping conditions. Thus, the deterioration was not due to mishandling, but primarily to the age of the tomatoes when they arrived in New York on March 28th. Okun did not attempt to reject this shipment upon delivery in New York, nor did it furnish any written notice of a price dispute. Okun did, however, furnish Six L's a copy of the March 28 U.S.D.A. inspection report. The parties became involved in a separate dispute in late March when Sutliff claims he purchased a second load of tomatoes from Weisinger which he intended to leave in the gas room for further ripening. When he attempted to take delivery, Petitioner refused claiming no promise of sale or contract had been made. Sutliff's diary and broker's memorandum indicate the purchase was made. However, no signed agreement was produced and Six L's denied the purported sale by telegrams on March 26 and March 31, 1980. Further testimony surrounding the two disputes was given by both parties regarding their face to face end telephone conversations. Their recollections of these conversations were self-serving and conflicting, and are thus assigned no evidentiary weight.
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.
Findings Of Fact On September 24, 1982, Respondents, James A. Joss, Steven M. Mishkin and Norma Trento, together with Thomas Moskowitz, formed Highland Ranch Acres, Inc. (Highland Ranch), a Florida corporation, for the purpose of acquiring, subdividing and selling certain land in Section 35, Township 24 South, Range 25 East Lake County, Florida. These individuals were the sole principals and stockholders of Highland Ranch, and held, respectively, one-sixth, one-sixth, one-third and one-third of Highland Ranch's capital stock. All of the above- referenced individuals made an initial capital contribution to Highland Ranch, except Joss, who donated his time, knowledge and expertise in land sales. The land in question, acquired from W. D. Land Company consisted of approximately 50 acres, which Highland Ranch "subdivided" into 40 parcels of 1- 1/4 acres each, and consecutively numbered 65 through 104. Highland Ranch marketed the parcels to residents and nonresidents of the State of Florida by telephone solicitation, and a follow-up brochure. On March 3, 1983, the same principals formed Citrus Grove Acres, Inc. (Citrus Grove), a Florida corporation, for the same purposes they had formed Highland Ranch. Their respective ownership of the capital stock of Citrus Grove was the same as it had been in Highland Ranch. Citrus Grove acquired approximately 53 acres of land from W. D. Land Company in the same section, township and range of Lake County, Florida, as those lands acquired by Highland Ranch. Citrus Grove "subdivided" these lands into 42 parcels of 1-1/4 acres each, and consecutively numbered them 105 through 146, and marketed them in the same manner the lands owned by Highland Ranch had been sold. On June 13, 1983, the same principals formed Central Florida Highlands, Inc. (Central Florida), a Florida corporation, for the same purposes they had formed Highland Ranch and Citrus Grove. Their respective ownership of the capital stock of Central Florida was the same as it had been in Highland Ranch and Citrus Grove. Central Florida acquired approximately 15 acres of land from W. D. Land Company in the same section, township and range of Lake County, Florida, as those lands acquired by Highland Ranch and Citrus Grove. Central Florida subdivided these lands into 12 parcels of 1-1/4 acres each, and consecutively numbered them 147 through 158, and marketed them in the same manner the lands owned by Highland Ranch and Citrus Grove had been sold. Highland Ranch, Citrus Grove and Central Florida had the same principals, who performed the same basic duties. Joss, assisted by Mishkin, was responsible for the conception and operation of the business of the three corporations. Joss, as president, executed the purchase and sale agreements on behalf of Highland Ranch; Mishkin, as president, executed the purchase and sales agreements on behalf of Central Florida; and Trento, as president, executed the purchase and sales agreements on behalf of Citrus Grove. The purchase and sale agreements, and the brochures mailed to the telephone prospects, except for the corporate name, were identical in each instance. The photographs in the brochures which purported to depict the lands being offered, were identical. None of the photographs depicted the subject lands but rather were of lands Respondent Joss had marketed 15 years previously through Groveland Ranch Acres, Inc. All of the lands in question were purchased from the same seller, were located in the same section, township and range of Lake County, Florida, were subdivided into 1-1/4 acre lots which were consecutively numbered 65 through 158. The lands were located in the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern, were zoned agricultural and required a minimum of five acres to be eligible for a building permit, were not platted with the county, and contained no avenues of ingress and egress. Respondents were advised by their attorney, Michael J. Moskowitz, that Chapter 498, Fla. Stat., required registration if they proposed to offer more than 50 parcels to more than 45 persons. He further advised them that if the subsequent corporation(s) had the same principals and other indicia of a common promotional plan that their activities might be deemed a common promotional plan, subjecting them to potential liabilities. Respondent Joss concedes that the sole reason for forming Citrus Grove and Central Florida, and taking title in their names, instead of simply purchasing the additional lands in the name of Highland Ranch, the existing corporation, was to avoid the registration requirements of Chapter 498, Fla. Stat. Highland Ranch, Citrus Grove, and Centra1 Florida did not individually convey more than 50 parcels to more than 45 purchasers. Collectively however, they did convey more than 50 parcels to more than 45 purchasers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes (Department), enter a Final Order finding Respondents, James A. Joss, Norma Trento, Steve Mishkin, Citrus Grove Acres, Inc., and Highland Ranch Acres, Inc., guilty of violating the provisions of Sections 498.023(1) and (2), Fla. Stat., and ordering that Respondents shall not offer or dispose of, or participate in the offer or disposition of any interest in "subdivided lands," as defined by Section 498.005(17), Fla. Stat., unless the subdivided lands are registered with the Department. Within thirty (30) days of the date of the Final Order, Respondents shall offer all purchasers of land from Highland Ranch Acres, Inc., Citrus Grove Acres, Inc., and Central Florida Highlands, Inc., an opportunity to rescind their agreement, and to receive a refund of all principal and interest paid. The term "purchaser" as used herein shall mean any person who made any payment to Respondents for lands offered by Highland Ranch Acres, Inc., Citrus Grove Acres, Inc., and Central Florida Highlands, Inc., whether or not such person is currently making payments. The refund offer shall be in writing, and in a form approved by the Department. After notifying purchasers of the refund offer, Respondents shall determine the total amount of refund liability, based upon purchaser(s) who elect to rescind their agreement, and notify the Department within sixty (60) days of the date of the Final Order of the name(s) of the purchaser(s) electing to rescind their agreement and the amount of refund liability for each such purchaser. Respondents shall establish a trust or escrow account in a financial institution located within the State of Florida to assure the payment of refunds to those purchasers who elect to rescind, and to assure the conveyance of clear and marketable title to those purchasers who do not elect to rescind, transactions. Respondents shall appoint a trustee or escrow agent acceptable to the Department, who shall have such powers as are necessary to fulfill the purpose of his trust. Respondents shall collect and deposit any and all monies paid by all purchasers of lands from Highland Ranch Acres, Inc., Citrus Grove Acres, Inc., and Central Florida Highland, Inc., into the trust or escrow account established pursuant to paragraph (4). Respondents shall have no right, title or interest in or to the aforesaid monies until such time as those purchasers who have elected to rescind have been paid in full, clear and marketable title has been conveyed to those purchasers who have elected not to rescind, the trustee's or escrow agent's fees, if any, have been paid, and the civil penalties hereinafter imposed have been paid. Respondents shall pay the following civil penalties to the Department, within thirty (30) days from the date of the Final Order: Norma Trento $10,000.00 Steve Mishkin $20,000.00 James Joss $20,000.00 Highland Ranch Acres, Inc. $20,000.00 Citrus Grove Acres, Inc. $20,000 00 DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of May, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 30th day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. Klein, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Scott T. Eber, Esquire 3550 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 504 Miami, Florida 33137 E. James Kearney, Director Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard B. Burroughs, Jr., Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondents John and Shelby Mahon (the "Mahons"), d/b/a John's Citrus Trees, committed any or all of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated March 12, 2010, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency statutorily charged with protecting the State of Florida from invasive and destructive plant pests and diseases. See § 581.031, Florida Statutes (2010).1/ John's Citrus Trees is a wholly owned business of the Mahons, and holds nursery registration number 47218720. Citrus canker Citrus canker (Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. citri) is a bacterial disease of citrus. It affects all types of citrus. The bacteria requires water to enter the plant tissue and is easily spread by wind driven rain, by movement of infected trees, and by contact with contaminated tools or people. Citrus canker in plants cannot be cured. The only treatment is the destruction of infected and exposed plants. If the infected plants were in the ground, then the ground must be dried out and treated with chemicals, because the bacteria can remain in the ground water after the plant has been removed. The scientific consensus is that 95 percent of new infections occur within 1900 feet of infected trees, when the trees are outdoors. Thus, trees within 1900 feet of an infected tree are considered to have been "exposed" to citrus canker. Within an enclosed structure, citrus canker infection can be spread by worker contact or by overhead irrigation systems. For many years, Florida has followed a program aimed at citrus canker eradication. Several hurricanes swept through the state in 2004 and 2005, resulting in widespread citrus canker. Since the most recent outbreak, the Department has tracked and sought to eradicate citrus canker through the Citrus Health Response Program ("CHRP") developed by the Department in coordination with the United States Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ("USDA/APHIS"). See Fla. Admin. Code R. 5B-63.001. In the two years preceding the hearing in this matter, the Department found citrus canker in three commercial nurseries, out of 56 commercial nurseries that grow citrus in Florida. One of the three nurseries, in Polk County, has been released from quarantine and is now free of citrus canker. In that case, the owners destroyed the entire bench on which the infected plants were found. Depending on the size of the propagation house, one bench may contain from 10,000 to 40,000 plants. When a follow-up inspection found canker, the nursery destroyed all infected and exposed plants. Subsequent inspections found no further infection. The second location, in Desoto County, was still under quarantine at the time of the hearing. Citrus canker remained in one of the three growing structures at the nursery even after the destruction of 1,200 trees. The Department intended to release the nursery from quarantine if the follow-up destruction entirely eliminated the infection. The process of inspection, quarantine, destruction and, if necessary, repeat, as followed in the cases of the Polk and Desoto County nurseries, is the standard industry practice for the control of citrus canker in nurseries. The third commercial nursery with a citrus canker infestation was John's Citrus Trees in Clermont. As of the date of the hearing, there was still a citrus canker infection in all parts of the nursery, and the quarantine remained in effect at both the Clermont and Fruitland Park locations of John's Citrus Trees. Movement of citrus trees from quarantined locations The Mahons operate a citrus nursery at 7401 Laws Road in Clermont and a retail operation in Fruitland Park at the front of the North Lake Flea Market on U.S. 441. At the Clermont location, the Mahons have a propagation house, a screened enclosure and an outdoor retail area. The nursery is classified as a propagation nursery because the operators grow citrus from budwood that is grafted onto rootstock and then matured for sale. A propagation house is an enclosed structure that is entered through a decontamination station to prevent the introduction of pests and diseases into the propagation area. Commercial citrus propagation houses are also required to have a double entryway with positive airflow, so that when inspectors or workers enter, air is pushing out against them, to blow away any pests. A screen house is an additional structure in which plants are stored prior to sale. The screening prevents insects from infecting the plants and provides some protection from windblown infection by bacterial diseases such as citrus canker. On June 1, 2009, inspectors from the Department's Division of Plant Industry ("DPI") conducted a routine inspection of the Clermont nursery. The inspectors found structural deficiencies in the propagation house itself, as well as plants outside the screen house that they suspected of having citrus canker. The inspectors collected samples and sent them to the DPI pathology laboratory in Gainesville. The pathology report confirmed citrus canker on the leaves of the plant samples taken from outside the Clermont nursery's screen house. On June 3, 2009, a total of 1281 screen house and outside plants at the Clermont nursery were quarantined until follow-up sampling showed no signs of citrus canker. The inspection report notes that 36 plants at the nursery showed positive signs of citrus canker. The Clermont nursery was re-inspected on June 29, 2009. Following the re-inspection, the quarantine was extended to the 27,400 plants in the propagation house due to the presence of citrus canker there. Re-inspections were conducted on July 31, September 3, October 12, November 12, and December 14, 2009, and on January 15, 2010. Samples were taken at each re-inspection, and pathology testing revealed a continuing infection of plants with citrus canker at the Clermont nursery. During each inspection, the inspectors made a count of the plants in each area of the nursery. On two of the dates, June 29, 2009 and July 31, 2009, the inspection report shows only a total for the outside and screen house areas combined. The other reports give a separate number for the outside and screen houseplants. The counts for the outside location were as follows: 2009 June 3 471 plants September 3 402 plants October 12 439 plants November 12 391 plants December 14 400 plants 2010 January 15 524 plants On July 1, 2009, DPI inspectors conducted an inspection at the Fruitland Park retail location of John's Citrus Trees. The inspectors took samples from plants that displayed the visual symptoms of citrus canker. The samples were sent to the DPI laboratory in Gainesville for analysis. The Fruitland Park location was placed under temporary quarantine pending the results of the laboratory analysis. A DPI pathology report dated July 2, 2009, confirmed that the plants were infected with citrus canker. On July 7, 2009, the quarantine was extended for an additional 30 days to allow time to confirm that the Fruitland Park location was free of citrus canker. On July 6, 2009, the Department's inspectors witnessed the destruction of 21 citrus trees at the Fruitland Park location. Four of these trees had been confirmed with citrus canker, and the other 17 were suspected of having citrus canker. On July 10, 2009, a Department representative witnessed the destruction of another nine trees at the Fruitland Park location. On August 26, 2009, DPI inspectors conducted a re- inspection at the Fruitland Park location, taking additional samples from plants showing signs of citrus canker. In a pathology report completed on the same date, the samples were confirmed to be infected with citrus canker. Subsequent inspections on October 19 and December 15, 2009, and on January 20, February 23, March 29, April 19, and May 24, 2010, each resulted in additional samples of suspected citrus canker being taken for analysis. Pathology reports dated October 21 and December 15, 2009, and January 27, February 25, April 1, April 23, and May 26, 2010, confirmed the continuing infection of the Fruitland Park location with citrus canker. At each of the inspections at the Fruitland Park location, the inspectors made a count of the plants at the nursery. On December 15, 2009, a DPI inspector discovered that the Mahons had between 50 and 100 citrus trees (later determined to be 76 plants) in a spot at the North Lake Flea Market, near a recreational vehicle approximately 200 feet behind the retail location at the front of the flea market. The inspector, James Holm, a supervisor in DPI's Tavares office, gave the Mahons notice that that these plants were under quarantine because of their proximity to the infected plants already under quarantine. The Mahons received written notice of the quarantine on December 18, 2009. The Department considered the additional plants to be at John's Citrus Trees' registered location at Fruitland Park. The alternative would have been to consider the additional trees to be placed at an unregistered location, which would have constituted a different violation than that alleged in the Administrative Complaint. The plant counts, based on the inspection reports and taking into account the plant destruction witnessed by Department inspectors, were as follows: 2009 July 1 470 plants July 6 449 plants, accounting for 21 destroyed July 10 440 plants, accounting for 9 destroyed August 26 449 plants September 10 444 plants, accounting for 5 destroyed October 19 437 plants December 15 452 plants in front area and 50-100 new plants in rear December 18 528 total plants (76 plants counted in rear plus 452 plants in front) 2010 January 20 529 total plants and 22 (424 plants in front area, 76 in rear and 29 plants farther to the rear) Even when the destroyed plants are accounted for, the plant counts appear to show movement of trees exposed to or infected with citrus canker into and out of the Fruitland Park location while it was under quarantine for citrus canker and the owners had knowledge of the continuing infection. The tree count rose from 440 plants on July 10, 2009 to 449 plants on August 26, 2009. The Mahons had no explanation for this change, which they attributed to counting error by the Department. The tree count dropped from 444 plants on September 10, 2009 to 437 plants on October 19, 2009. The Mahons had no evidentiary explanation for this change. They speculated that the seven trees in question were stolen, noting that they were kept in an unlocked, unprotected area of the flea market directly off U.S. 441. As to the additional trees discovered by the Department in the rear area of the flea market on December 15, 2009, the Mahons testified that their conversations with Mr. Holm led them to believe that the Department would approve of their bringing in plants from other locations and selling them in the rear area. The Mahons testified that the plants in the rear area actually belonged to their son, Danny Mahon. The Mahons produced invoices for trees purchased by Danny Mahon from Pokey's Lake Gem Citrus Nursery. (Gary "Pokey" Mahon is the brother of Respondent John Mahon.) The plants named on the invoices could not be definitely matched with the 76 trees in the rear area of the flea market, though the dates on the receipts leave open the possibility that the 76 trees were the property of Danny Mahon. See Findings of Fact 80 and 81, infra, for detailed findings as to the invoices. Even if the Mahons testimony as to the provenance and ownership of the trees is credited, Mr. Holm denied giving the Mahons permission to sell trees from the rear area of the flea market while maintaining a quarantine on the location at the front of the flea market. Mr. Holm acknowledged having a discussion with Mr. Mahon along those lines, but also stated that he told Mr. Mahon that DPI headquarters in Gainesville would have to approve such a plan. The Mahons would have had to register the rear area as a separate retail location. As noted above, on December 15, 2009, Mr. Holm gave the Mahons telephonic notice that the both the front and rear sites at the flea market were under quarantine. The new plants in the rear area were quarantined due to their proximity to the known infected plants in the front of the flea market. Mr. Holm provided the Mahons with written notice of the quarantine on December 18, 2009. Danny Mahon did not have a registered nursery at the Fruitland Park location. The Department therefore attributed ownership of all of the trees, in the front and the back areas of the flea market location, to the only registered location at the North Lake Flea Market on U.S. 441 in Fruitland Park: John's Citrus Trees. On January 22, 2010, inspectors found another 29 plants at a third site, behind the recreational vehicle near which the 76 plants were found on December 15, 2009. The Mahons did not clarify whether these were new plants or plants that had been moved from one of the other two flea market locations. It is noted that the number of plants in the front area was 452 on December 15, 2009, and 424 on January 20, 2010, a difference of 28 plants, very nearly the number of plants found at the third site. The total count of trees at the Fruitland Park location changed from 528 on December 18, 2009, to 529 on January 20, 2010. The Mahons plausibly attributed these small discrepancies to a counting error. The sale of trees to Fred Thomas In 2009, Fred Thomas contacted John's Citrus Trees regarding the availability of 720 Minneola tangelo, or "honeybell," citrus trees. Mr. Thomas, an experienced grove caretaker, had been hired by Victor Roye, the owner of an abandoned grove, to remove the existing trees and replant the grove with honeybell citrus. Mr. Thomas testified that honeybells are "packing house fruit," and that Mr. Roye's intention was to sell the honeybells as edible fruit. The value of such market fruit is much greater than the value of fruit sold for juice. Citrus infected with citrus canker can be sold for juice, but is not salable as market fruit. On the telephone, Mr. Mahon assured Mr. Thomas that he could supply the requested trees. On March 3, 2009, Mr. Mahon and Mr. Thomas met in a McDonald's parking lot and signed a contract for the purchase of 720 honeybell citrus trees. Mr. Thomas gave Mr. Mahon a 25 percent deposit of $1620.00 towards the purchase price of $6,480.00 (720 trees x $9.00 per tree). At the time the contract was entered, the Mahons' propagation location in Clermont was not under quarantine. Under the terms of the contract, the trees were to be delivered by June 10, 2009. When the appointed date passed and he had not received the trees, Mr. Thomas contacted Mr. Mahon, who stated that the trees hadn't grown as they should. Mr. Mahon asked for an additional 30 days to deliver the trees. Mr. Thomas agreed to the extension only because he already had a contract with Mr. Mahon. Mr. Thomas thought it would likely take longer to find a new seller and negotiate a contract than the 30 days requested by Mr. Mahon. Mr. Mahon knew that Mr. Thomas was upset, and asked him to come to the Clermont nursery and see what he had. Mr. Thomas and his wife subsequently met with Mr. Mahon at the Clermont location. Mr. Mahon took the Thomases into the propagation house and showed them some trees in the ground that he identified as their honeybells. Mr. Thomas agreed that the trees were too small and reiterated his agreement to the 30-day extension. Mr. Mahon stated that he might obtain half of the 720 trees from his brother Pokey, and promised full delivery in July. Mr. Thomas testified that when he visited another nursery's propagation house, there was a pan of disinfectant outside the first door, and he was required to step into the disinfectant before proceeding. When the first door was opened, he was hit with a gust of air from a fan. As Mr. Thomas stated, "You walk into the second door, you're clean." Mr. Thomas noted that the Mahons' propagation house had none of those protections from infection. Mr. Thomas further noted that the propagation house itself was in poor condition, with gaps and openings in the enclosure. On about July 10, 2009, Ms. Mahon and one of her sons delivered about half of the promised 720 trees, then delivered the remaining trees two or three days later. Mr. Thomas testified that the trees were delivered "bare root," not in pots. Mr. Thomas paid the remainder of the purchase price to Ms. Mahon as the trees were delivered. Mr. Thomas testified that the trees did not look good when he planted them. "I didn't like the looks of them from the word 'go,' 'cause they were so small, and I seen stuff on them." In August, Mr. Thomas went to Triangle Chemical Company in Mascotte to seek the advice of Richard Hoffman, a salesman who was familiar with citrus pests. Mr. Hoffman was not available, but another Triangle Chemical employee accompanied Mr. Thomas to the grove. This man told Mr. Thomas, "Your trees are eat up with citrus canker." Mr. Thomas was incredulous and chose not to believe the man, though Mr. Thomas acknowledged his expertise. Mr. Thomas simply could not believe that the trees he had just planted were infested with canker, and decided to "try to take care of them." Later, Mr. Hoffman came out to the grove, because it still did not look right. Mr. Hoffman agreed with the earlier Triangle Chemical employee's assessment that the trees were "eat up with canker," in Mr. Thomas' words. Justin Nipaver, a CHRP inspector, is charged with ensuring that all citrus groves can be tracked in the Department's database. During the summer, Mr. Nipaver had noted that an old grove on the Roye property had been pulled out and destroyed. On November 22, 2009, Mr. Nipaver stopped in to inspect the newly planted grove, in order to obtain the information necessary to add the grove to the Department's database. During this inspection, Mr. Nipaver noted visible symptoms of citrus canker on the plants. He collected samples for laboratory analysis. He spoke with Mrs. Thomas, who told him that she and her husband had planted the grove for Mr. Roye and were acting as caretakers. Mrs. Thomas told Mr. Nipaver that the plants had been purchased from John's Citrus Trees. Mr. Nipaver did not tell Mrs. Thomas that he suspected a citrus canker infestation, preferring to wait for laboratory confirmation. Mr. Nipaver returned to the grove on November 30, 2009, accompanied by Mr. Holm, Detective Daniel Shaw of OALE, and two other Department employees. The team surveyed part of the grove and determined that 65 to 70 percent of the trees were suspected of having citrus canker. Mr. Nipaver testified that there was no need to survey the entire grove because of the severity of the infestation in the sample portion. Detective Shaw attempted to contact the Thomases but was unable to reach them. In a report dated December 2, 2009, the DPI pathology laboratory confirmed that the samples taken from the grove on November 30 were infected with citrus canker. The grove was placed under quarantine. Mr. Thomas testified that he told Mr. Mahon about the situation and that Mr. Mahon assured him that he could sell the fruit for juice. Mr. Thomas found this an inadequate response because his entire purpose in planting honeybells was to produce packing house fruit. He asked Mr. Mahon for a refund, but Mr. Mahon claimed that the Department had him "broke and tied up." Mr. Thomas subsequently pulled all of the trees and burned them under the supervision of Department employees. Mr. Nipaver testified that there were no groves with citrus canker near the Roye grove. The Mahons Clermont nursery was released from quarantine on April 1, 2009. Mr. Mahon testified that he feared that the Department would impose another quarantine on his nursery, not necessarily for good reason but just because "they were gunning for me." He therefore potted the 720 honeybell trees promised to Mr. Thomas and moved them, along with many other trees, to his son Paul Mahon's nursery in Groveland. Mr. Mahon testified that the plants were kept in a screen house at Paul's nursery until they were delivered to Mr. Thomas in July. Mr. Mahon's testimony conflicts with Mr. Thomas' testimony regarding his visit to the Mahon's nursery in June. Mr. Mahon had shown him plants in the propagation house that Mr. Mahon stated were the plants to be delivered to Mr. Thomas. Mr. Mahon had also stated that, in the alternative, he might obtain half of the plants from his brother Pokey. This June meeting was well after the April time period during which Mr. Mahon claimed to have moved the plants to Paul's nursery. Mr. Mahon's testimony that the plants being held for Mr. Thomas at Paul's nursery were potted is contradicted by Mr. Thomas' testimony that the plants were delivered bare root. Mr. Holm testified that Paul Mahon's nursery in Groveland was a propagation nursery and as such was inspected every thirty days. Mr. Holm testified that between April 2009 and early July 2009, the period during which Mr. Mahon claimed to be holding Mr. Thomas' plants in pots at Paul Mahon's nursery, there were no such potted plants on the nursery grounds. Mr. Holm testified that in April 2009, Paul Mahon's screen house was overgrown with grass and had "an issue" with tropical spiderwort, an aggressive, difficult to control weed. Part of the screen house structure was collapsed and the entryways were open. Mr. Holm described it as in a "deteriorating condition," and testified that this condition remained unchanged through October 2009. Mr. Mahon testified that Paul Mahon was very ill and awaiting a liver transplant during the period in question. Paul Mahon's illness accounts for the abandoned appearance of his nursery but not for the absence of the 720 plants that Mr. Mahon testified were stored there. Mr. Thomas' testimony was consistent and credible, and was supported by the testimony of Mr. Holm as regards the provenance of the 720 honeybell plants. Based on all the evidence, it is found that the plants delivered to Mr. Thomas in July 2009 came directly from the Mahons' propagation house at the Clermont nursery, and that they had not been stored at Paul Mahon's nursery between April and July 2009. Mr. Mahon knew that these plants were under quarantine and had a substantial probability of being infected with citrus canker. Sale of infected plants to a homeowner On October 20, 2009, DPI fruitfly inspection trapper Wayne Nichols drove past the John's Citrus Trees location at Fruitland Park and noticed plants being unloaded from a Budget rental truck. Mr. Nichols, who had prior experience as a citrus canker inspector with the Department, knew that the Fruitland Park Flea Market location was under quarantine for citrus canker. He therefore phoned his supervisor, Mr. Holm, to inform him of the activity. Mr. Nichols parked his car at the north entrance of the flea market and watched the activity while waiting for instructions from Mr. Holm. He saw a hatchback car leaving the flea market with two citrus trees hanging out of the back window. Mr. Nichols recognized driver of the car as a man he had just seen in the canopy tent from which John's Citrus Trees conducted business at the flea market. Mr. Nichols followed the car until it reached a gated portion of The Villages community. He could not follow further. The next day, Mr. Nichols and Mr. Holm returned to the gated neighborhood in The Villages. They located recently planted citrus trees in a homeowner's yard. Further inspection revealed that at least one of the trees had a citrus nursery identification tag with the registration number of John's Citrus Trees. Trees are tagged in this fashion by the original producer to allow the regulatory authorities to trace the origin of diseased plants. Mr. Nichols and Mr. Holm called the OALE and were met at The Villages location by Detective Shaw, who took over the investigation and photographed the trees and their location. The photographs were entered into evidence at the hearing. Mr. Mahon testified that during the periods when the Fruitland Park location was under quarantine, he would nonetheless take "special orders." He would purchase trees from other certified nurseries to satisfy the customers making these special orders. Mr. Mahon testified that this particular sale was to have been performed "truck to truck," with the plants never touching the ground at the flea market before being loaded into the customer's car. Mr. Mahon stated that if one of the trees had a tag indicating that its place of origin was John's Citrus Trees, then one of his employees must have mistakenly tagged the tree. Mr. Mahon testified that these special order plants were purchased from Pokey's, and were brought to the flea market via pickup truck. The plants in the pickup were covered and kept away from the other plants at the flea market, and they never touched the ground. This testimony is inconsistent with Mr. Nichols' credible testimony that he saw plants being unloaded from a Budget rental truck at the flea market. Mr. Mahon's testimony as to the origin and handling of "special order" trees is not credible. If the plants were kept covered in the back of a pickup truck until the customer took them away, and they never touched the ground at the flea market, it is difficult to see when an employee would have had the opportunity to "mistakenly" affix a John's Citrus Trees identification tag to one of the plants. Even if Mr. Mahon's testimony were credited, the act of bringing the "special order" trees into a quarantined nursery and selling them from that location would itself violate the quarantine. Purchase by undercover officers On December 18, 2009, officers from OALE went to the Fruitland Park location of John's Citrus Trees to purchase citrus trees as part of an undercover investigation. The attendant, Charles Harris, identified himself as an employee of John's Citrus Trees. He told the officers that he could not sell trees from the front portion of the flea market, but that there were trees further back near a recreational vehicle that he could sell. Mr. Harris told the officers that the trees in the back belonged to John's Citrus Trees. The officers purchased four citrus trees from Mr. Harris at the location near the recreational vehicle. As described at Finding of Fact 31, supra, the rear location near the recreational vehicle was within 200 feet of the quarantined location that held trees known to have citrus canker. Trees within this range are considered to have been exposed to citrus canker. See Finding of Fact 5, supra. As set forth at Findings of Fact 37 through 41, the rear location was not separately registered either to the Mahons or to their son Danny. Therefore, the rear location was either a part of the quarantined John's Citrus Trees facility at Fruitland Park, or it was an unregistered location. In either event, sale of trees from that location was unlawful. As noted at Finding of Fact 40, supra, Mr. Holm had given the Mahons telephonic notice that the both the front and rear sites at the flea market were under quarantine, and then provided the Mahons with written notice of the quarantine on December 18, 2009. The Mahons claimed that the trees had been purchased from Pokey's nursery by their son Danny Mahon. They submitted into evidence several invoices ranging in date from April 27, 2009, to November 27, 2009. The Mahons contended that the invoices proved that the trees in the rear location on December 18, 2009, belonged to Danny Mahon, not to John's Citrus Trees. However, the six invoices merely show that on four occasions Danny Mahon purchased citrus trees from Pokey's Lake Gem Citrus Nursery, and on two occasions John's Citrus Trees purchased citrus trees from Pokey's. In total, the invoices show that 254 plants were purchased from Pokey's. John's Citrus Trees is listed as the customer for 110 of the plants, and Danny Mahon is listed as the customer for 114 of the plants. The Mahons offered no details as to the numbers in the invoices, the timing of the deliveries, or how or where the deliveries were made. The invoices establish no necessary connection between the trees purchased by Danny Mahon and the trees found in the rear location of the flea market in December 2009. As stated in Finding of Fact 41, supra, the Department reasonably attributed ownership of all of the trees at the flea market location to the only registered location at the North Lake Flea Market on U.S. 441 in Fruitland Park: John's Citrus Trees. The Budget rental truck On October 8, 2009, a Budget rental truck containing a large number of potted citrus trees was intercepted at the Department's interdiction station on U.S. 90 in White Springs. The driver and passenger of the truck were asked for the bills of lading. The driver of the truck was Bruce Turner, who told Detective Shaw that he was an employee of Danny Mahon. The passenger was Gary Mahon, the youngest son of John and Shelby Mahon. They produced invoices indicating that the trees were to be delivered to eight different nurseries in Madison, Perry, Tallahassee, Marianna, and Kinard. The inspectors found that the invoices lacked the nursery certification that is required to accompany citrus plants transported in the state for commercial purposes. The invoices purported to come from "Danny Mahon Citrus." The invoices carried no street address. They listed an address of P.O. Box 120399, Clermont, which is the mailing address of John's Citrus Trees. Gary Mahon told the interdiction officers that the Danny Mahon nursery was located at 12603 Phillips Road in Groveland. The officers checked the Department's database and found no registered nursery at that address. They also failed to find any registration under the name "Danny Mahon Citrus." They did find a registration for "Danny's Citrus Trees" at the same address as the Mahons' registered location at Laws Road in Clermont. Additional DPI personnel were summoned to the interdiction station. Upon inspection, some of the citrus plants in the truck showed visible symptoms of citrus canker infection. Samples of the plants were sent to the DPI pathology laboratory in Gainesville. Subsequent test results confirmed the presence of citrus canker. Because he suspected citrus canker, the interdiction officer issued a "refusal of transport" form, sealed the lock on the truck with a metal Department seal, and ordered the truck to return to its initial location. Gary Mahon indicated that the initial location was 12603 Phillips Road in Groveland. Mr. Holm and Detective Shaw arranged to meet the truck when it returned that day. Detective Shaw drove to the Phillips Road address and found an empty field and no Budget truck. Mr. Holm arrived a short time later with Mr. Nichols. Mr. Holm made a phone call to Shelby Mahon, who directed him to drive to the Mahons' registered location at 7401 Laws Road in Clermont. Mr. Holm, Mr. Nichols, and Detective Shaw drove to the Clermont location, where they found a Budget rental truck carrying the Department's metal seal on its lock, inside the gates of John's Citrus Trees. Shelby Mahon insisted that the truck be taken to the Phillips Road location, which she stated was the origination point of the plants. On the morning of October 9, 2009, the truck was driven to the Phillips Road location. Detective Shaw followed the truck from Clermont to Phillips Road. Also present at Phillips Road were Mr. Holm, DPI regional administrator Christine Zamora, and DPI canker inspector Mike Hatcher. The Phillips Road property gave the appearance of a derelict orange grove. There was no disturbance on the ground to indicate that the plants had been stored at that location prior to being loaded onto the truck, either in individual pots or on pallets. There was no nursery infrastructure such as sheds or equipment. There was no irrigation system, though Shelby Mahon told Ms. Zamora that there was a well and pump on the property. OALE officers broke the seal on the truck. Shelby Mahon supervised the unloading, which was done by Mr. Turner and other employees of the Mahons. The plants were set out in blocks of 50 to make it easier for the Department's personnel to count them. There were 517 potted citrus plants on the truck, ranging in size from three gallon to 30-gallon pots. The plants in the three and five-gallon pots looked very young. Ms. Zamora noted that the trees fell out of the pots easily. The plants' root systems were very undeveloped and did not conform to the circular shape of the pots, indicating that they had only recently been placed in the pots. The DPI personnel agreed it was unlikely that the plants had been in the pots for more than a week. Many of the trees bore handwritten tags with the registration number of Paul Mahon's nursery. Many of the plants were double-tagged, bearing tags from Pokey's nursery as well as those from Paul Mahon's. None of the plants bore tags from John's Citrus Trees. Many of the plants had visible symptoms of citrus canker. Samples were taken and sent to the DPI pathology laboratory, and subsequent results confirmed that the plants were infected with citrus canker. Shelby Mahon told the Department's inspectors and investigators that the smaller plants had been stored at the Phillips Road location since February 2009. She stated that the smaller plants belonged to Danny Mahon, who had purchased them from his brother Paul Mahon. At the hearing, Ms. Mahon testified that her son Danny was the source of her knowledge as to where the plants had been since February 2009. Ms. Mahon stated that the larger plants in the 15 and 30-gallon pots were from Pokey's nursery, and that her son Gary had brokered the sales to the nurseries named on the invoices on behalf of Pokey and Danny Mahon. At the hearing, Ms. Mahon admitted that she prepared the invoices. Detective Shaw testified that Ms. Mahon told him that she drew up the invoices because Danny Mahon had never sold citrus before. Ms. Mahon recalled at least one customer calling her after obtaining the number of John's Citrus Trees on the internet. Ms. Mahon testified that she took the order on behalf of her son Danny because her own nursery was still under quarantine. She stated that orders were taken for the exact number and type of plants that had been stored at Danny Mahon's nursery since February 2009. The invoices indicated that the trees in the shipment consisted of 449 three-gallon, 15 five-gallon, and 33 ten-gallon plants, for a total of 497 plants. On October 5, 2009, three days before the Budget truck was interdicted at the White Springs station, the Mahons refused access to DPI inspectors at their Clermont nursery. John Mahon claimed that this denial was based on the agreement of DPI's bureau chief, Tyson Emery, to give the Mahons a little more time to clean up the nursery after cutting down and trimming seedling trees. According to Mr. Mahon, the inspector who turned up at the nursery was unaware of Mr. Emery's agreement and demanded access to the nursery. An argument ensued and the Mahons refused to allow the inspector on their property. Mr. Emery was not called as a witness in this proceeding. The inspector named by Mr. Mahon, Bryan Benson, was called as a witness by both sides, and testified a third time in rebuttal. However, the Mahons failed to question him regarding the events of October 5, 2009. The Mahons had previously refused to allow DPI inspectors to conduct an inspection on September 28, 2009.2/ At the hearing, John Mahon stated that access was refused on this date because he had a previous commitment and because he believed that DPI was attempting to schedule the inspection too soon after the previous one. Evidence at the hearing established that the Budget rental truck had been parked at the Laws Road location in Clermont overnight on October 7, 2009, prior to embarking on its intended deliveries to the nurseries listed on the invoices early on the morning of October 8. The Budget rental truck agreement indicated that the truck was rented on October 7 by Rebecca Mahon, the wife of Danny Mahon. At the hearing, John Mahon stated that the truck was parked overnight at the Laws Road location because Danny Mahon feared leaving it unprotected at the Phillips Road location. The Laws Road property is fenced, whereas the Phillips Road property is unfenced. The Mahons steadfastly denied that the trees on the Budget truck came from their Clermont nursery. There was no evidence presented that directly tied the trees to the Mahons' nursery, though the circumstances clearly indicate that Shelby Mahon was involved in arranging the sale of the trees, that there was no indication the plants had been kept at Danny Mahon's Phillips Road property, and that the Budget truck was parked at the Mahons' nursery the night before it set out to deliver the plants. The nearly contemporaneous refusal to allow the Department to inspect their nursery also directs some suspicion at the Mahons. The Department contends that one further piece of circumstantial evidence makes its case convincing: the presence of citrus canker in the plants on the Budget truck. As noted at Findings of Fact 8 through 12, supra, John's Citrus Trees was the only nursery in the state under quarantine for citrus canker at the time of the hearing, with the exception of one in DeSoto County that had destroyed all infected and exposed plants. Because the Mahons asserted that the trees on the Budget truck came from either Pokey's nursery or Paul Mahon's nursery, DPI inspectors sampled citrus trees at both nurseries after the truck was unloaded. Neither nursery showed any sign of citrus canker. The location where Danny Mahon was said to have stored approximately 500 citrus trees between February and October 2009 showed no signs of potted plants having been stored at that location. Nowhere did the ground show matting from having been under pots or pallets. On October 9, 2009, Shelby Mahon pointed the inspectors to a large oak tree, freshly trimmed, on the Phillips Road property. She stated that all of the plants had been stored under that tree, and that she could prove it because Sumter Electric and its tree service had forced her to move the potted plants in order to trim the tree. Detective Shaw contacted Sumter Electric and its contractor, Nelson's Tree Service. Their employees recalled trimming the tree on the Phillips Road property, but had no recollection of potted plants under the tree or anywhere in the vicinity of the tree. Ralph Bowman, the Nelson's Tree Service employee who oversaw the Sumter Electric contract trimming work at Phillips Road, testified at the hearing. He stated that when his team worked on the property during the first two weeks of September 2009, there were no potted plants on the property. An equipment problem forced Mr. Bowman to stop work in September. When he returned during the second week of October, there were potted plants on the property. Mr. Bowman described them as dry, with spots on the leaves. Failure to produce records On June 3, 2009, Tyson Emery, chief of the Bureau of Plant Inspection, sent a letter to the Mahons requesting records of their inventory since January 1, 2009. As of the date of the hearing, the Mahons had not responded to this request. The Mahons contended that the Department already had all of their records. However, the records referenced by the Mahons in their response pertained to transactions that occurred in 2008, not 2009. Further, even if the Mahons contention were correct, such would not justify their complete failure to respond to Mr. Emery's letter. Failure to maintain quarantine tape During a routine inspection of the Fruitland Park location on January 20, 2010, the Department discovered that yellow agriculture hold tape with the statement "Do Not Move" that had been wrapped around citrus trees at the quarantined location at the Fruitland Park flea market location was missing. The Mahons testified that they did not know how the tape went missing. They noted that the flea market is on a highway, that the trees were not secured, and that the presence of quarantine tape was not popular with their fellow vendors at the flea market. I. Ultimate findings As to the allegations that the Mahons moved citrus trees infected with citrus canker from quarantined locations, the evidence was clear and convincing that they moved plants into and out of the quarantined nursery in Clermont. The wide variations in the plant count between June 2009 and January 2010 is otherwise inexplicable. With one exception, the evidence was clear and convincing that the Mahons moved citrus trees into and out of their Fruitland Park location on numerous occasions while it was under quarantine. Regardless of their source, trees offered for sale at that location were under quarantine and could not lawfully be sold. The exception was the change in the count from 528 plants on December 18, 2009, to 529 plants on January 20, 2010, which could reasonably be attributed to a counting error. As to the allegations regarding the sale of trees to Fred Thomas, the evidence was clear and convincing that the Mahons sold and delivered citrus trees to Mr. Thomas directly from the propagation house of their Clermont nursery, and that Mr. Mahon knew that the plants were under quarantine and had a substantial probability of being infected with citrus canker. As to the allegations regarding the sale of two citrus trees from the Fruitland Park location to a purchaser who subsequently planted the trees at his home in The Villages, the evidence was clear and convincing that the Mahons knowingly sold citrus plants to the homeowner while their location was under quarantine for citrus canker. Mr. Mahon's explanation regarding the treatment of "special orders" was not credible. As to the allegations regarding the undercover purchase of citrus trees from the Mahon's quarantined location at Fruitland Park, the evidence was clear and convincing that the Mahons sold trees from a quarantined location to OALE officers on December 18, 2009. As to the allegations regarding the interdiction of the Budget rental truck, the evidence was not clear and convincing that the trees on the truck were taken from the Mahons' registered location in Clermont. While the presence of citrus canker in the interdicted fruit strongly suggested that the plants came from the Mahons' nursery, and other circumstantial evidence pointed toward the Clermont nursery as the origination point of the plants, nothing directly tied the plants to John and Shelby Mahon. All of the tags on the plants were from either Paul or Pokey Mahon's nursery. Mr. Turner identified himself as an employee of Danny Mahon. Shelby Mahon's testimony that her son Gary was brokering the plants for Danny and Pokey Mahon was not implausible in light of all the evidence. Though a preponderance of the evidence indicates that the Mahons' Clermont nursery was the most likely origination point of the trees on the Budget rental truck, the undersigned cannot find that the Department's proof on this point met the standard of clear and convincing evidence. As to the allegation regarding the failure to produce records, the evidence was clear and convincing that the Mahons failed to comply with the Department's letter of June 3, 2009, requesting the production of their inventory records since January 1, 2009. As to the allegation regarding the removal of the quarantine tape, the evidence was not clear and convincing that the Mahons were responsible for the missing quarantine tape at the Fruitland Park location.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order revoking the nursery registration of John L. and Shelby Mahon, d/b/a John's Citrus Trees, imposing an administrative fine of $18,500 on John L. and Shelby Mahon, and ordering the destruction of the citrus trees at both of the registered locations of John's Citrus Trees. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of February, 2011, 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 15th day of February, 2011.
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not the Petitioner is entitled to an award of $11,952 for payment of a shipment of tomatoes made to Respondent, Georgia Tomato Company, Inc.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, including the proposed ore tenus requests by Petitioner's counsel, I hereby make the following relevant factual findings. Petitioner, Corky Foods Corporation, is a diversified agri-business company engaged in, among other things, the sale of produce from one of its warehouses in Boynton Beach, Florida. On January 21, 1985, Pat Adams, a broker for Adams brokerage company in Bonita Springs, Florida, placed an order with Petitioner's salesman, Daniel Garcia, for a load of tomatoes from Georgia Tomato Company. The tomatoes were sold to Respondent, Georgia Tomato Company, on January 21, 1985. The invoice of these products (No. 18917) was dated January 23, 1985 and contained a total of 1,440 boxes. Respondent was allowed a $1 credit under the market price which amount reflects the amount of the initial claim by Petitioner against Respondent, Georgia Tomato Company; i.e., $25,560 less the credit of $1,440 for a total claim of $24,120. During this period of time, there was a freeze in South Florida which occurred on January 20, 1985 and the price of produce dropped substantially for products picked after January 20, 1985. The market value for tomatoes picked on January 19, 1985 was as follows: 5 x 6 #1 @ $18.00 6 x 6 #1 @ $16.00 6 x 7 #1 @ $14.00 This amount, less the $1 credit given to Respondent, Georgia Tomato Company, by Petitioner represents the amount initially claimed by Petitioner; i.e., $24,120. Respondent, Georgia Tomato Company, failed to pay Petitioner's invoiced amount which resulted in a complaint being filed by Petitioner against Respondent, Georgia Tomato Company, on March 4, 1985. Once that complaint was filed, Respondent, Georgia Tomato Company, tendered to Petitioner an amount of $12,168 which reduced the complaint by that amount leaving a balance now due and owing Petitioner of $11,952 based on its amended claim filed herein dated April 24, 1985. Respondent, Georgia Tomato Company, contends that it was overcharged on the amount of this shipment of tomatoes and attempted to substantiate its position by showing several invoices for tomatoes that it purchased subsequent to January 21, 1985. Daniel Garcia, Petitioner's vice-president in charge of marketing, determined the market price for the tomatoes shipped to Respondent, Georgia Tomato Company, on January 21, 1985. In doing so, he called brokerage houses in Homestead, Bonita Springs, and other brokers, including Pat Adams, the broker who purchased the tomatoes here in question on behalf of Adams Brokerage House, and established the market price as per the invoice sent to Respondent, Georgia Tomato Company. In addition, Mr. Garcia referred to the Southeastern Fruit and Vegetable Report, Volume 30, No. 17, which is a guide to the pricing information for fruit and vegetables in the southeast and which is relied upon to ascertain fruit and vegetable prices in this area. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) This data supports Petitioner's claim for the amount invoiced to Respondent, Georgia Tomato Company. Respondent, Georgia Tomato Company, did not dispute the quality of the tomatoes shipped by the Petitioner. Respondent offered no other defenses against the amount claimed by Petitioner. Based thereon, it is herein concluded that the Petitioner is entitled to an award of the amount in its amended claim of $11,952.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Respondent, Georgia Tomato Company, Inc., be ordered to pay Petitioner, Corky Foods Corporation, the amount of $11,952 as set forth in its amended complaint filed herein dated April 24, 1985, within fifteen (15) days of the date of entry of the Final Order by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Bureau of License and Bond. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of October, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, 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 9th day of October, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Roger C. Lambert, Esquire 250 South County Road, Suite 201 West Palm Beach, Florida 33480 Glenn Vaughn, General Manager Georgia Tomato Company, Inc. Building F State Farmers Market Forest Park, Georgia 30050 Joe Kight, Chief Bureau of License & Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Room 418 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Continental Insurance Company Legal Section (License & Bond) 80 Maiden Lane New York, New York Robert Chastain, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Doyle Conner Commissioner Department of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On February 23 and April 19, 1985, Respondent purchased woody ornamental plants from Pleasant View Nursery for a total purchase price of $650.50. The only payment on this account made by Respondent was $100 on November 15, 1985, leaving a balance due of $550.50. On February 23 and March 16, 1985, Respondent purchased citrus trees from Hillsborough Wholesale Nursery for a total purchase price of $720.90. The only payment on this account made by Respondent was $150, leaving a balance due of $570.90. Arthur A. Yambor, Respondent's President, is a licensed dealer in agricultural products under the provisions of Sections 604.15 - 604.30, F.S., and is bonded through United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, Co- Respondent, as required by Section 604.19. Petitioners filed their complaints concerning this matter with the Department of Agriculture within nine months from the date of sale. Payment in full for the sales in question was to have been made within thirty days of the date of each sale. Respondent admits that the sales were made, and that Respondent did receive the agricultural products from Petitioner, for which these claims are made. However, Arthur A. Yambor testified that Respondent has not made full payment on these accounts because he believes the citrus trees purchased from Hillsborough Wholesale Nursery were infected with citrus canker which resulted in these, as well as other trees in his nursery, having to be destroyed. He has refused to make further payment to Petitioners due to the financial loss he sustained as a result of, what he believes to have been, infected trees he received from Hillsborough Wholesale Nursery. However, no proof was offered on behalf of Respondent that, in fact, trees purchased from Hillsborough Wholesale Nursery were infected. While Respondent did receive citrus canker compensation, there is no evidence that the canker resulted from citrus trees purchased from Hillsborough Wholesale Nursery.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Department of Agriculture enter a Final Order requiring Respondent to make full payment on the remaining indebtedness claimed by Petitioners. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of May, 1996 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN, 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 9th day of May, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas A. Holmberg, President Pleasant View Nursery & Hillsborough Wholesale Nursery 1321 N. Valrico Road Valrico, Florida 33594 Paul B. Boswell, Manager 1321 N. Valrico Road Valrico, Florida 33594 Arthur A. Yambor, President Shelton's of Brandon, Inc. 1351 W. Brandon Boulevard Brandon, Florida 33511 United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company Post Office Box 1138 Baltimore, Maryland 21203 Joe Kight, Chief Bureau of License and Bond Room 418, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert A. Chastain, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Shortly before January 21, 1985, Tommy P. Adams, on behalf of Mid-South Distributors, placed an order with salesman Daniel Garcia, of Corky Foods Corporation, for the purchase of tomatoes. Mid-South Distributors was to purchase one hundred and forty-four (144) 5x6, eight hundred and sixty-four (864) 6x6, and five hundred and seventy-six (576) 6x7 boxes of tomatoes from Corky Foods. The parties agreed that the price of each unit would be fixed at $1.00 less than "market price." However, no price was established at the time of sale because tomato prices were unstable due to a freeze which passed through the area on January 19 and 20, 1985. Mid-South Distributors and Corky Foods had used this type of billing arrangement satisfactorily in past business transactions. On January 21, 1985, the tomatoes were shipped to Mid-South Distributors from the packing house in Boynton Beach, Florida. Thereafter, on January 23, 1985, an invoice was sent by Corky Foods to Mid-South Distributors establishing the price of the tomatoes as follows: $19.15 per unit for the 5x6 containers; $17.15 per unit for the 6x6 containers; and $15.15 per unit for the 6x7 containers. Mid-South Distributors remitted payment to Corky Foods based on the following assumed market prices: $16.00 for the 5x6; $14.00 for the 6x6; and $12.00 for the 6x7 boxes of tomatoes. Corky Foods Corporation sold 5x6 boxes of tomatoes to other dealers during the period in question for 519.15 per unit; 6x6 boxes of tomatoes during the period in question for $17.15; and 6x7 boxes of tomatoes during the time in question for $15.15. Adams Brokerage (Tommy P. Adams) purchased 5x6 boxes of tomatoes from area sellers during the time in question for $16.00; 6x6 boxes of tomatoes from area sellers during the time in question for $14.00; and 6x7 boxes of tomatoes from area sellers during the time in question for $12.00. The Southeastern Fruit and Vegetable Report, printed in Thomasville, Georgia on Thursday, January 24, 1985, set market prices on tomatoes in "South and Central Florida" at $20.00 for 5x6, $18.00 for 6x6, and $16.00 for 6x7. The Southeastern Fruit and Vegetable Report is often used as a guideline in establishing prices for the industry; the prices reported are based in part on information or "quotes" received from different shippers in the area under consideration. Notably, a shipper's quoted price for a particular day may not be the same price at which the shipper actually sells the commodity. The Southeastern Fruit and Vegetable Report used the geographical area of "South and Central Florida" in establishing market prices for tomatoes. The south and central Florida area is a reasonable geographical boundary to consider in establishing market prices for tomatoes sold at individual locations within those boundaries. The customary way in which Corky Foods Corporation determines market prices is by calling other large area packing houses, and by referring to the Southeastern Fruit and Vegetable Report. In establishing the prices for the tomatoes herein discussed, Corky Foods Corporation consulted (among other area packers) Florida Tomato Packers, a large tomato packer located in Homestead, Florida. The locations at which Tommy P. Adams purchased tomatoes for the lower prices included Lantana, Naples, Bonita Springs, Boca Raton, and Immokalee. Area market prices for tomatoes immediately prior to the freeze were as low as $11.00 for 5x6; $10,00 for 6x6; and $8.00 for 6x7. Generally, severe weather conditions, such as a freeze, will cause market prices for tomatoes to rise. The Respondents did not dispute the quality or condition of the tomatoes; market price was the sole source of disagreement between the parties.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing Corky Foods Corporation's Amended Complaint herein. DONE AND ORDERED this 8th day of November, 1985 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON 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, 1985. APPENDIX Pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1983), following is submitted in response to Petitioner's and Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Paragraph: Ruling: Accepted; see paragraphs 1 and 2, Recommended Order. Rejected as a conclusion of law and not supported by the evidence. Partially accepted; see paragraph 7, Recommended Order. Partially accepted; see paragraphs 6 and 7, Recommended Order. Facts not included therein were rejected as not being established by evidence presented at the hearing. Rejected; irrelevant and not supported by the evidence. Accepted; see paragraph 4, Recommended Order. Accepted; see paragraphs 1 and 2, Recommended Order. Accepted; see paragraph 10, Recommended Order. Rejected; not a finding of fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Paragraph: Ruling: a law. 1 Partially accepted; see paragraphs 1-10, Recommended Order. Rejected to the extent that the majority of this paragraph contains statement of the issues and conclusions of COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Robert Chastain, Esquire General Counsel Mayo Building Room 513 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Joe W. Kight Bureau of Licensing & Bond Department of Agriculture Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Donna L. Fuller Vice-President Corky Foods Corporation Post Office Box 1019 Boynton Beach, Florida 33425 Mid-South Distributors, Inc. 2601 South Blossom Trail Orlando, Florida 32805
The Issue An administrative complaint dated January 24, 1991, alleges that Respondent violated Chapter 450, F.S., Part III, by acting as a farm labor contractor without an active certificate of registration and by contracting with an unregistered individual. The issue for disposition is whether those violations occurred, and if so, what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Gabriel Bain, the Respondent, has worked in citrus fields for 37 years. At various times he has been registered as a farm labor contractor. He had his own company, Mid-Florida Harvesting, but became bankrupt in 1990 after the citrus freeze disaster. Bain's business address is 30 South Ivey Lane, Orlando, Florida. On or about December 14, 1990, Compliance Officers, Henry Parker and Marshall Carroll were at Nevins Fruit Company in Mims, Brevard County, checking leads on unregistered farm labor contractors. In the course of an interview with Steve Schaffer, Harvest Manager for Nevins, Gabriel Bain was called in as the man who was in charge of the harvesting job. Bain identified himself to the officers with a driver's license and did not have his certificate of registration with him. Schaffer produced the certificate that Bain had submitted when he was hired by Nevins. The certificate was in the name of General Traders, Inc., and had an expiration date of February 28, 1991. "G. Bain" was handwritten on the signature line. During the meeting with Carroll and Parker, on December 14, 1990, Bain freely admitted hiring Jerome Pender as a sub-contractor. Pender was not registered as a farm labor contractor, but had shown Bain papers that he had applied for his certificate. Bain signed a notarized statement attesting to this fact and gave it to the compliance officers. The compliance officers issued a summary of violations to Bain for utilization of an unregistered crewleader. At the time, they were unaware that Bain was, himself, unregistered. Gabriel Bain's registration in the name of Mid-Florida Harvesting expired on June 30, 1990. His application, in the name of General Traders, Inc., was approved on March 1, 1991. In December 1990, he was working for General Traders but was not included in that company's registration. He was not registered in any other name in December 1990, and a subsequent summary of violations was issued, citing "fail to register." In December 1990, at the time of the compliance officers' investigation, Gabriel Bain was working for Nevins Fruit Company as a farm labor contractor and was paid for his work in that capacity. In this work he subcontracted with other labor contractors who provided crews. At the hearing Bain claimed that he lied to the compliance officers about hiring Jerome Pender. He claimed he lied because he had actually hired Willie Simmons, someone whom the Nevins people had told him they did not want "within 100 miles" of their groves. This self-impeachment in no way advances Respondent's averment of innocence.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby recommended that a final order be entered, finding Gabriel Bain guilty of violating Sections 450.30(1), F.S. and 450.35, F.S., and assessing a civil fine of $1250.00 to be paid within thirty (30) days. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of July, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. 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 22nd day of July, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Francisco Rivera, Sr. Atty. Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, S.E. 307 Hartman Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0658 Gabriel Bain 30 S. Ivey Lane Orlando, Florida 32811 Frank Scruggs, Secretary 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, S.E. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Cecilia Renn Chief Legal Counsel 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, S.E. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152
