The Issue Whether Respondent’s license as a septic tank contractor should be disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is registered with Petitioner as a septic tank contractor and authorized to provide septic tank contracting services, holding Registration No. SR0890264 and Authorization No. SA0900453. David B. Grimes is employed by Bay County Health Department as an inspector responsible for the inspection of on- site sewage systems. On August 22, 2007, Mr. Grimes inspected an on-site sewage treatment disposal system (OSTDS) being constructed by Respondent at 5431 John Pitts Road, Panama City, Florida. The OSTDS failed to meet the minimum rule requirements due to a defective tank and improperly installed drainfield. The tank was defective because its dimensions were smaller than the dimensions required to enable the tank to have sufficient liquid capacity for the system being installed. Mr. Grimes told Respondent that he could not approve the system. Upon learning that the system would not be approved, Respondent, who is a large man and larger than the inspector, threatened to do bodily harm to Mr. Grimes and stated, “I am going to whip your ass”. He also used other profanity in a threatening and serious voice. The inspector began to put his tools into the tool container on the back of his truck. When the inspector attempted to close the container’s lid and leave, Respondent blocked the path of the inspector and would not let him close the truck-bed lid. Respondent insisted the system be inspected and approved so he could finish the job. Other than blocking his path, Respondent did not take any other physical action towards harming Mr. Grimes. Other than with his hands, the evidence did not show that Respondent had the means to cause serious harm to Mr. Grimes. However, Mr. Grimes felt some fear for his safety and was very uncomfortable. He refused to approve the system and left the premises. He called his supervisor to report the incident and request a second inspection by his supervisor. Later that day, Mr. Grimes and his supervisor inspected the OSTDS. Respondent was not present. The inspector concurred with Mr. Grimes’ findings and the system was not approved. On August 23, 2007, Mr. Grimes made a second visit to the property to continue the inspection of the OSTDS. The drainfield was corrected and a new and larger tank was installed. The dimensions of the tank were again smaller than required to meet the liquid capacity of the tank. Additionally, the tank had a gap in the seal around the intake feed line. It was, therefore, defective and could not be approved. Mr. Grimes told Respondent that he could not approve the system. Respondent again grew angry when he was told the new tank was also defective and would not be approved. Respondent stated that Mr. Grimes was the worst inspector in the area and made other derogatory remarks towards him. Respondent also threatened to make trouble with the inspector’s employment and/or “get him fired” unless the system was passed. The evidence did not show that Respondent made any physical moves toward Respondent or otherwise impeded his inspection. The inspector was again fearful for his personal safety although the evidence did not demonstrate a reasonable basis for such fear. The OSTDS was not approved and Mr. Grimes left the work site. There was no evidence that Respondent followed through with interfering with Mr. Grimes’ employment. At best, the evidence showed that Respondent’s threat to interfere with the inspector’s employment was mere hyperbole. Such comments are common. While silly and rude, the mere threat of an employment action does not rise to the level of being unlawful and does not demonstrate misconduct sufficient to impose discipline on Respondent’s license. On the other hand, the actions of Respondent towards the inspector when he threatened to do bodily harm to the inspector, and blocking his attempts to leave unless he approved the system, did constitute gross misconduct on the part of Respondent. Even though Respondent’s actions were unsuccessful, Respondent’s words coupled with his conduct go beyond mere hyperbole and constitute an unlawful threat towards a public official to influence the official’s actions. Respondent’s actions did not cause physical or monetary harm to any person. In the past, Respondent was disciplined by letter of warning in Case Number SC0478 in 2000, for covering a new installation in violation of the system construction standards and by citation in Case Number SC0591 in 2001, for creation of a sanitary nuisance, negligence, misconduct, and falsification of inspection report. The instant violation is a second violation for misconduct and a repeat violation of the rules of the Department.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that Respondent's license be disciplined for violations of the Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-6.022 and that his Septic Tank Contractor License No. SR0890264 and Authorization No. SA0900453 be fined in the amount of $500.00 and suspended for 90 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of May, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Rodney M. Johnson, Esquire Department of Health Northwest Law Office 1295 West Fairfield Drive Pensacola, Florida 32501 G. D. Yon, Jr. Yon Septic Tank Co. 2988 Hwy 71 Marianna, Florida 32446 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Dr. Ana M. Viamonte-Ros, Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Josefina M. Tamayó, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue Whether Respondent, Virgil Cardin, d/b/a Virgil Cardin Septic Tank Service (Respondent or Cardin), committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint for Imposition of Administrative Fines and Revocation of Septic Tank Contractor License and Business Authorization, dated December 28, 2012, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of administering the Standards for Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems (SOSTDS). The installation, repair, and/or alteration of any septic tank system fall within the purview of Petitioner's authority. Public health concerns mandate that all septic tank systems be operated according to governing laws and rules. Respondent is a resident of the State of Florida and is registered by Petitioner to provide septic tank contracting services within the state. Respondent's registration number is SR0890865. Respondent owns and operates Virgil Cardin Septic Tank Service located in Lakeland, Florida, and the company is authorized to provide septic tank contracting services. The company's authorization number is SE093690. Septic tank contracting services are governed by SOSTDS. The Controversy It is undisputed that a permit must be obtained prior to performing repairs to a septic tank system. In Polk County (where all actions complained of occurred), a septic tank service company is required to apply for a permit before work is performed, obtain an inspection by appropriate authorities before beginning work, and complete all work in accordance with designated standards. A septic tank pump-out does not require a permit. Any work that would involve the exposure of the drain fields and/or the refitting of portions of the septic system would require a permit. The controversy in this case stems from Respondent's failure to obtain a permit before beginning repairs to a septic tank system located at 4931 Rolling Meadows Drive, Lakeland, Florida. It is undisputed that Respondent did not, in advance of starting work at the home, obtain a permit. The Arguments The Digans own a home located at 4931 Rolling Meadows Drive, Lakeland, Florida. For several years, the Digans have experienced problems with their septic tank system to the point that waste from the septic system has backed up into their home. Previously, Respondent addressed the Digans' septic tank system problems by pumping the waste from the tank, thereby eliminating pressure on the overwrought system. On or about August 24, 2012, Respondent went to the Digans' home and pumped out the septic tank. A permit for the work done that date was not required. Given the history of the problems with the Digans' system, it became apparent to the owners and Respondent that comprehensive repairs to the system were necessary. As there was no way to predict when another pump-out might be required, it was not surprising that approximately one week later Respondent returned to the Digans' property for additional work. On that date, September 1, 2012, Respondent could not pump out the Digans' tank, because his truck was already full. Instead, Respondent took a backhoe to the Digans' property and began to dig trenches for the drain field. Respondent's employee began to construct a septic drain line header pipe with drain field chamber end plates attached. Respondent exposed the Digans' septic system as if he were going to make repairs to the system. When confronted by two environmental supervisors who observed Respondent's actions, Respondent readily admitted he did not have a permit for the work. At first, Respondent stated that the homeowners could not afford permits. Later, Respondent maintained that the work he performed on September 1, 2012, did not require a permit. Petitioner maintains that Respondent went to the Digans' home on September 1, 2012, to make repairs to the septic tank system without prior inspection or a required permit. The Analysis Prior to September 1, 2012, Respondent knew or should have known that the Digans' septic tank system needed extensive repairs. Respondent had pumped out the tank several times and should have known that the system was not functioning as intended. Prior to September 1, 2012, Respondent knew or should have known that repairs to any septic tank system require an inspection and permit. On September 4, 2012, after being caught the prior Saturday on the Digans' property, Respondent applied for a permit for the repairs to the Digans' septic tank system. On September 5, 2012, a repair permit was issued for the Digans' property. On September 7, 2012, the repairs to the Digans' system were inspected and approved. There was no emergency on September 1, 2012, that necessitated repairs to the Digans' septic tank system on that date. Pumping out the Digans' tank on that date would have addressed any immediate concern. On-site inspections before septic tank systems are repaired are critical to public health because they assure that groundwater contamination is avoided, that the existing tank is sound and will function as intended, and that setbacks to other properties, wells, or systems are adequate. Respondent knew or should have known that performing any work before an inspection negates the safeguards to public health concerns. Respondent knew or should have known that the materials needed to adequately repair the Digans' septic tank system exceeded the chambers he took to the site on September 1, 2012. Digging up the Digans' system on September 1, 2012, created a sanitary nuisance. Respondent's History In the event a violation is found in this case, Respondent's disciplinary history would be relevant in considering what penalty, if any, should be imposed. To that end the following findings are made: Respondent has previously been found in violation of failing to call for a required inspection; and Respondent has previously been found in violation of practicing fraud or deceit, making misleading or untrue misrepresentations, or misconduct that causes no monetary harm to a customer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent's authorizations to perform septic tank services be suspended for a period not less than 90 days. Additionally, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be required to pay an administrative fine in an amount not less than $2,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of May, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: John H. Armstrong, M.D., F.A.C.S. State Surgeon General Department of Health Bin A00 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Jennifer A. Tschetter, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Althea Gaines, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Tony C. Dodds, Esquire Law Office of Tony C. Dodds 904 South Missouri Avenue Lakeland, Florida 33803-1034 Roland Reis, Esquire Polk County Health Department 1290 Golfview Avenue, Fourth Floor Bartow, Florida 33830-6740
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department should grant and approve Petitioner’s application as a septic tank contractor.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Health is the agency responsible for the registration of septic tank contractors and the authorization of septic tank companies. The Department of Health enforces the statutes and rules pertaining to the registration and authorization of septic tank contractors and septic tank companies pursuant to Chapters 381 and 489, Part 3, Florida Statutes, and Rule 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code. The Petitioner, Gerald D. Thompson, applied to the Department of Health to be a registered septic tank contractor. The Department received his application on July 3, 1996. The Petitioner’s application indicates that he had been convicted of a crime related to septic tank contracting and had had an enforcement action taken against him. The attachment to the application reflected that both events had occurred to the Petitioner. The Petitioner had been adjudged guilty, in Flagler County Circuit Court, on January 18, 1997, of the attempted felony littering by disposing of domestic sewage on private property in an area not permitted for such use. Petitioner’s previous septic tank contracting registration had been revoked for two (2) years in a settlement agreement between the Petitioner and the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The revocation was effective June 1, 1994. The Settlement Agreement stipulated that the Petitioner could reapply for registration as a septic tank contractor upon the expiration of the two (2) years stipulated in the agreement under the rules in effect at the time of the new application. The Settlement Agreement was signed by Petitioner and by Petitioner’s counsel. On September 6, 1996, the Petitioner issued its denial of the Petitioner’s instant application on the grounds that he failed to meet the qualifications listed in Rule 10D- 6.072(3)(d)(e)(f), Florida Administrative Code. It is uncontroverted that the Petitioner had his prior registration as a septic tank contractor revoked and that he was adjusted guilty of attempted felony littering in a case-related septic tank contracting.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner’s application for registration as a septic tank contractor be denied because he was convicted of a crime involving contracting and his license had been revoked within five (5) years prior to his application. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of November, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerry D. Thompson 500 Walker Street Holly Hill, Florida 32117 Charlene Petersen, Esquire Chief Legal Counsel Department of Health 420 Fentress Boulevard Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6 STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of November, 1997. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Dr. James Howell, Secretary Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6, Room 306 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Pete Peterson, Esquire Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6, Room 102E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations as set forth in the Citation for Violation, Onsite Sewage Program/Sanitary Nuisance dated April 28, 2000.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is authorized and given the jurisdiction to regulate the construction, installation, modification, abandonment, or repair of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems, including drainfields, by septic tank contractors. At all times material hereto, Respondent was a registered septic tank contractor and, as such, he was authorized to provide septic tank contracting services, including the installation and repair of drainfields. On or about November 2, 1995, Petitioner issued a permit (Permit No. RP648-95) to Wilmar Rodriguez for the repair of a septic tank system at 417-421 Perry Avenue, Greenacres, Florida. The property was a triplex, which was purchased by Mr. Rodriquez in 1981. Mr. Rodriguez has no knowledge as to whether any drainfields were installed or replaced on the property, prior to 1981. The Permit included the installation of a new multi- chambered septic tank, a dosing tank, a lift station, and a new drainfield. The Permit was also for a filled system and called for the drainfield to be 700 square feet. Respondent was indicated as the "agent" on the Permit. Respondent and/or his employees performed the work under the Permit. Respondent was the septic tank contractor for the repair of the septic tank system under the Permit. On November 9, 1995, the construction of the septic tank system was approved by one of Petitioner's inspectors, who was an Environmental Specialist I. Petitioner's inspectors are not present during the entire construction or repair of a septic tank system or drainfield. Usually, inspections are made after the completion of the construction or repair of the septic tank system. Additionally, the inspection of a drainfield is usually performed after the rock has been placed on top of the drainfield. On February 2, 1996, the same inspector performed the inspection after the completion of the construction of the septic tank system, including after the placing of the rock on top of the drainfield. Even though the Permit reflects a filled system, the filled/mound system section on the inspection sheet was crossed out. The inspector considered the system to be a standard system, not a filled or mound system, and, therefore, inspected it as a standard system. In inspecting a drainfield, the inspection by an inspector includes checking to ensure that a drainfield has 42 inches of clean soil below the drainfield. An inspector uses an instrument that bores down through the rock and brings up a sample of the soil, which is referred to as augering. Augering is randomly performed at two locations. For the instant case, the inspector performed the augering in two random locations of the drainfield, which were in the area of the middle top and the middle bottom. The samples failed to reveal anything suspect; they were clean. On February 2, 1996, the inspector issued a final approval for the septic tank system. Final approval included the disposal of "spoil" and the covering of the septic tank system with "acceptable soil". The inspector mistakenly inspected the system as a standard system. He should have inspected the system as a filled system.1 After the repair and installation of the septic tank system by Respondent, Mr. Rodriguez continued to have problems with the septic tank system. He contacted Respondent three or four times regarding problems with the system, but the problems persisted. Each time, Respondent was paid by Mr. Rodriguez. Sewage water was flowing into the street where the property was located and backing-up into the inside of the triplex. Having gotten no relief from Respondent, Mr. Rodriguez decided to contact someone else to correct the problem. Mr. Rodriguez contacted Richard Gillikin, who was a registered septic tank contractor. On October 14, 1999, a construction permit was issued to Mr. Rodriguez for the repair of the septic tank system. Mr. Gillikin was indicated as the agent. Mr. Gillikin visited the property site of the triplex and reviewed the problem. He determined that the drainfield was not properly functioning, but he did not know the cause of the malfunctioning. With the assistance of Petitioner's inspectors, Mr. Gillikin and Mr. Rodriguez attempted to determine the best method to deal with the problem. After eliminating options, Mr. Rodriguez decided to replace the drainfield. To replace the drainfield, Mr. Gillikin began excavating. He began removing the soil cover and the rock layer of the drainfield. Mr. Gillikin also wanted to know how deep he had to dig to find good soil. After digging for that purpose and for 10 to 12 inches, he discovered a drainfield below Respondent's drainfield. The drainfield that Mr. Gillikin discovered was a rock bed 12 inches thick in which pipes were located and, as indicated, 10 to 12 inches below Respondent's drainfield. Mr. Gillikin also dug a hole two to three feet deep, pumped the water out of the hole, and saw the old drainfield. Mr. Gillikin determined that the old drainfield extended the full length of Respondent's drainfield. As a result of Mr. Gillikin's determining that the old drainfield was below Respondent's drainfield, both drainfields had to be removed and the expense of a new drainfield increased. Leon Barnes, an Environmental Specialist II for Petitioner, who was also certified in the septic tank program, viewed the drainfield site. He determined that the old drainfield was below Respondent's drainfield and that, therefore, Respondent had not removed the old drainfield. On or about November 6, 1999, Mr. Barnes' supervisor, Jim Carter, and co-worker, Russell Weaver, who is an Engineer, also visited the drainfield site. Mr. Weaver determined that the old drainfield covered a little more than 50 percent of the area under Respondent's drainfield. On November 8, 1999, a construction inspection and a final inspection of the system installed by Mr. Gillikin were performed. The system was approved. Respondent admits that a new drainfield is prohibited from being installed over an old drainfield. However, Respondent denies that he installed a new drainfield over the old drainfield on Mr. Rodriguez's property. In 1995, Respondent failed to completely remove the old drainfield before he installed the new drainfield. The soil and rocks from the old drainfield, which was not functioning, were contaminated spoil material. Because the old drainfield was not completely removed, the contaminated spoil material remained in the drainfield and was used as part of the material in the installation of the new drainfield. Leaving the contaminated spoil material in the new drainfield, prevented the sewage water from being able to percolate through the ground, which is a method of cleansing the sewage water. Without being able to percolate through the ground, the sewage water remained on the surface of the drainfield, creating a serious sanitary nuisance and health hazard. The sewage water spilled onto the street and backed-up into the triplex. Respondent was issued a Citation for Violation, Onsite Sewage Program/Sanitary Nuisance by Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Palm Beach County Health Department, enter a final order: Affirming the Citation for Violation, Onsite Sewage Program/Sanitary Nuisance and finding that Noel Sanfiel violated Section 381.0065, Florida Statutes (1995), and Rule 10D- 6.0571(4), now Rule 64E-6.015(6), and Rule 10D-6.0751(1)(l)1, now 64E-6.022(1)(l)1, Florida Administrative Code. Imposing a fine of $500. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of February, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 13th day of February, 2001.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent has violated the standards of practice in septic tank contracting, Florida Administrative Code rule 64E-6.022, and, if so, the penalty. (All references to Respondent are to Arlender Miller. All references to Ms. Rooter are to Ms. Rooter, Inc.)
Findings Of Fact At the times of the alleged jobs, Respondent was registered as a septic tank contractor and served as the qualifying agent for Ms. Rooter. At the time of all three jobs, Respondent had apparent authority to serve as the agent of Ms. Rooter in contracting for and performing the septic tank contracting work described below. However, nothing in the record establishes any relationship between Respondent and Ms. Rooter at the time of the issuance of the Administrative Complaint, so as to justify treating the notice of this proceeding, when served upon Respondent, as notice to Ms. Rooter. Hans Seffer, who testified, is the son of the woman who owns the apartment complex located at 14950 North Miami Avenue, Miami. Mr. Seffer found Ms. Rooter on the internet and spoke with Carolyn Futch, operations manager of Ms. Rooter, about septic tank contracting services needed at the apartment complex. Respondent later met with Mr. Seffer at the property. Initially, Mr. Seffer believed that the existing septic tank needed only to be pumped out. However, upon inspection, Respondent determined that the system also required a new drainfield, pump, and dosing tank. Accordingly, on February 20, 2008, Respondent, as "technician," and either Mr. Seffer or his mother signed a one-page contract on a form identifying the contractor as Ms. Rooter, license number SA0071430. The contract describes the following work: Install 1,000 sq. ft. drainfield with 300 gallon dosing tank including immediate (2/21/08) tank pump out. Additionally if tank requires pumpout prior to securing all necessary permits, Ms. Rooter will perform pumpout at no additional cost. Manhole cover included. Respondent and either Mr. or Mrs. Seffer initialed this section of the contract. The contract states that the total due for this work is $10,500. Ms. Seffer paid $5,000 by check on February 21, 2008, leaving a $5,500 balance due. On March 1, 2008, Respondent, as agent for Ms. Rooter and on behalf of the property owner, submitted to Petitioner an application for a construction permit for an onsite sewage disposal system. The application describes the property improvements as a multifamily complex with ten bedrooms and 5,284 square feet of building space. The site plan attached to the application states: "Replace drainfield only." On April 2, 2008, Ms. Futch emailed Mr. Seffer to confirm an earlier discussion between them. The discussion addressed a requirement of Petitioner that Ms. Rooter install a second tank. The email states that the property owner will pay $5,600 for the installation of a "2nd tank (1,050-gal)," so the new total contract price is $11,100. This email restates the scope of the work as the installation of a 1,000-square-foot drainfield and 300-gallon dosing tank. By return email two days later, Mr. Seffer agreed to the additional work. On April 11, 2008, Petitioner issued to the property owner a construction permit that specifies a 2,575-gallon septic tank and a 1,000 square-foot drainfield. The permit states: "The licensed contractor installing the system is responsible for installing the minimum category of tank in accordance with sec. 64E-6.013(3)(f), F.A.C." This rule does not refer to tank capacities. On April 23, 2008, Petitioner issued a "construction inspection and final approval" form that shows the installation of two 1,200-gallon septic tanks and a 1,005-square-foot drainfield. The form states that items bearing an "X" are "not in compliance with statute or rule and must be corrected." The construction and final system are approved by Petitioner's inspector. During the course of the work, Respondent told Mr. Seffer that the existing tank was damaged and needed to be replaced, at an additional cost of $5,000, so the remaining balance rose to $16,100. Mr. Seffer agreed to this change. By email dated April 30, 2008, to Mr. Seffer, Ms. Futch confirmed the additional cost of $5,000 for the second septic tank and expressed "hope [that] Ms. Rooter has met your expectations." The email acknowledges, however, that "we must complete the electrical portion of the job." On May 2, 2008, Mr. Seffer sent Ms. Rooter two checks totaling $15,000, leaving a balance of $1,100. On the same date, Mr. Seffer sent Ms. Futch an email that, pursuant to their agreement, he would retain this amount for the "electric and final raking work." By email dated May 27, 2008, to Ms. Futch, Mr. Seffer noted that the manhole that Ms. Rooter had installed in the middle of the lawn was not level and was sunken, presenting a tripping hazard; the final grading was incomplete, leaving low spots and holes; a large rock remained near the palm tree and needed to be removed. Mr. Seffer sent Ms. Futch a reminder email on June 4, 2008, that resent the May 27 email. Mr. Seffer sent another email to Ms. Futch on June 21, 2008. In it, he notes that a Ms. Rooter employee worked on digging an electrical trench on June 13, but left mid-day, and no work had been performed since that day. In the meantime, recent rains had revealed a lack of compaction in the backfilling done by Ms. Rooter, as the fill had settled and undermined a sidewalk. After failing to obtain a response, on July 26, 2008, Mr. Seffer sent a final email to Ms. Futch warning her that he would file complaints with governmental agencies and advising that the unconnected pump was not pumping sewage throughout the entire system. The record does not contain the contracts for the septic tank contracting services involved in the second and third jobs alleged in the Administrative Complaint. Also, Petitioner did not present the testimony of the property owners involved in these jobs. The record for these jobs is limited to the permitting documentation. On September 26, 2008, as agent of Ms. Rooter and on behalf of the property owner, Shoreview Properties, Respondent submitted an application for a construction permit for an onsite sewage disposal system for 9999 Northeast 2nd Avenue, Miami Shores. This application describes the property as commercial with a 47,771 square-foot building. On October 1, 2008, Petitioner's inspector inspected the property. The inspector found an opened drainfield area with contaminated material and other conditions capable of hosting various disease vectors. He also found a backhoe and worker, who claimed that someone else had excavated the drainfield. The inspector immediately posted an ONASN, pursuant to the authority of chapter 386, Florida Statutes, that required the immediate abatement of the listed insanitary conditions. The inspector also determined that the existing onsite sewage disposal system exceeded Petitioner's jurisdictional threshold of 5,000 gallons per day. On September 10, 2008, as agent of Ms. Rooter and on behalf of the property owner, Lisa Mullin, Respondent submitted to Petitioner an application for a construction permit for an onsite sewage disposal system for 101 Northeast 195th Street, Miami. This application describes the property as 0.19 acres, on which is situated a single family residence comprising 1,663 square feet and three bedrooms. On September 22, 2008, an agent of the property owner called Petitioner and complained that Ms. Rooter had commenced the work without having first obtained a permit. Petitioner's inspector visited the site on the same day and found "very recent" earthwork. The owner informed the inspector that the contractor had installed three drainlines, cut an old water line, and installed a new water line over the drainfield. However, the record fails to establish the amount of time that elapsed between the work claimed to have been performed by Ms. Rooter and the report by the property owner. Respondent has paid numerous fines imposed by Petitioner for improper septic tank contracting. In 1999, Respondent paid a fine in an unspecified amount for performing an unpermitted drainfield repair and making the repair without the required filter sand. On January 27, 2000, Respondent paid a fine of $250 for performing unpermitted system repairs. On February 4, 2000, Respondent was assessed a fine of $1,000 for performing unpermitted and uninspected system repairs and failing to honor a warranty. On January 8, 2004, Respondent received a cease and desist order for qualifying more than one septic tank contracting business. In 2007, Respondent paid separate fines of $1,500 and $1,000 for illegal septic tank contracting work in Dade and Monroe counties, respectively.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the three violations identified in paragraphs 26, 27, and 29 above, dismissing the remaining charges against him, dismissing any charges against Ms. Rooter, and revoking Respondent's septic tank contracting registration. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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 31st day of January, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Arlender Miller 640 Northwest 129th Street Miami, Florida 33168 Jenea Reed, Esquire Miami Dade County Health Department 8323 Northwest 12th Street, Suite 214 Miami, Florida 33126 R.S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 E. Renee Alsobrook, Acting General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Shairi Turner, Deputy Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Kim Berfield, Deputy Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether a citation and imposition of a $1,500.00 fine for installing a septic tank without a permit was properly imposed on Respondent, Paul Ware, a/k/a Paul Montgomery-Ware, by Petitioner, the Department of Health, Polk County Health Department (the "Department").
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the owner of three contiguous lots in Polk County (Bevington Manor, PB 20 PG 47, Lots 100 through 102), purchased via tax deed recorded on October 21, 2003. Respondent's lots are surrounded by property owned by Irma Walker, whose son, William Walker, testified at the hearing. Respondent apparently intended to develop his lots as a commercial enterprise and had erected a Quonset-type structure on the property. From his mother's adjoining property, Mr. Walker regularly observed Respondent's activities. Mr. Walker testified that Respondent was using his property to operate a motorcycle repair shop. On June 4, 2004, Mr. Walker observed Respondent using a backhoe on his property. Mr. Walker testified that Respondent was installing a septic tank. Mr. Walker told his mother, who then initiated inquiries as to whether Respondent had a permit to install a septic tank. When her inquiries met with a negative response, Ms. Walker called in a complaint to the Department. On June 7, 2004, the Department sent environmental specialist Susan Patlyek to the site. Ms. Patlyek observed infiltrator chambers on the site. Infiltrator chambers are used only in connection with OSTD systems. Ms. Patlyek also observed a recently excavated area and a rented backhoe, commonly used to dig out areas for septic tank installation. It was obvious to Ms. Patlyek that a septic tank and drainfield had been installed on Respondent's property, though no permit had been issued by the Department allowing installation of an OSTD system. Installation of an OSTD system without a permit constitutes a sanitary nuisance. The Department sent a letter to Respondent dated June 8, 2004, advising him of the need to abate the nuisance by obtaining a permit. With the letter, the Department enclosed a blank application form that Respondent could have completed and returned to the Department's permitting office. Respondent replied by contending that the Department lacked jurisdiction over activities on his land and suggested that the Department initiate court action. Respondent also returned the application form in its original blank form. The Department then issued Respondent a citation for violations of Subsection 381.0065(4), Florida Statutes (2003), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-6.003(1), constructing an OSTD system without a permit; and for a violation of Subsection 386.041(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2003), maintaining a sanitary nuisance. The citation provides for a $1,500.00 fine. The Department's citation also informed Respondent of his right to a hearing pursuant to Chapter 120, Florida Statutes (2003). Respondent contends that the relegation of this matter to an administrative forum is unconstitutional.
Recommendation RECOMMENDED that Petitioner, the Department of Health, Polk County Health Department, enter a final order imposing a $500.00 fine for the violations described in the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November, 2004, 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 30th day of November, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Roland Reis, Esquire Polk County Health Department 1290 Golfview Avenue, Fourth Floor Bartow, Florida 33830-6740 Paul Ware 6557 Crescent Lake Drive Lakeland, Florida 33813 R.S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Quincy Page, Acting General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact David D. Boak, Petitioner, owns a 3/4 acre lot at 9602 East Flora Street on which he proposes to put a two-bedroom house trailer. The area is rural in nature. There is no sewage service to the area and none is currently planned. Soil samples taken at the site show that from 9 inches to 48 inches below the surface the soil is a mixture of Manatee and Pompano fine sands which have poor percolation qualities. Soil Survey for Hillsborough County (Exhibit 1) describes the limitations of these soils for septic tank use as severe with wetness. Petitioner contends that he has lived on this property for 21 years and has had his septic tank pumped out once, 11 years ago; that he has never seen this property flooded; nor has he seen water standing on the property more than minutes following a heavy rain. Respondent's witnesses testified the water table at this site is 13 inches below the surface and septic tanks will not work properly in this area. When Petitioner's initial application for a permit was denied, he applied for a waiver. The application for waiver was presented to the review group pursuant to the provisions of Rule 10D-6.45(1), Florida Administrative Code, and the review group recommended the waiver be granted. However, the Staff Director, Health Program Office, denied the waiver and this appeal followed. The Hillsborough County Aviation Authority has condemned the land in this area, including that owned by Petitioner, for use as a county airport site. That condemnation proceeding is currently in litigation. If this property is ultimately taken for airport purposes, Petitioner will have no use for the variance here sought. Testimony was presented that the soil conditions plus the wetness factor make the site unsuitable for the installation of a septic tank. No evidence was presented regarding the pollution of surface waters by a septic tank in this area or whether public health will or will not be impaired if a septic tank is installed.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's registration as a septic tank contractor should be disciplined for the reasons set forth in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background In this disciplinary proceeding, Petitioner, Department of Health (Department), on behalf of the Polk County Health Department (Health Department), seeks to impose an administrative fine on, and revoke the septic tank contractor registration of, Respondent, Barbara Thompson, doing business under the name of A-1 Septic Services. Respondent currently operates a septic tank business in Lakeland, Florida, and has held her registration for approximately two and one-half years. Her most recent address is 1616 Ritter Road, Lakeland, Florida. As a registrant, she is under the regulatory authority of the Department. On November 28, 2000, the Department entered into a Settlement Agreement (Agreement) with Respondent for numerous violations of various provisions within Chapter 64E-6, Florida Administrative Code. The Agreement was approved by the Department in a Final Order dated March 5, 2001. As a condition of that Agreement, Respondent agreed that her husband, Larry Thompson, would not be employed in the management of the business; would not solicit, negotiate, contract, contact, or communicate with any customers of the business; or represent the business as agent or principal in any way. Larry Thompson's registration as a septic tank contractor had been previously revoked by a Final Order of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services entered on January 23, 1995. Based on complaints received from three consumers, the Health Department began an investigation of Respondent in 2001. The investigation culminated in the issuance of an Administrative Complaint on June 29, 2001, which generally alleged that in February and June 2001, Respondent was fraudulent in her dealings with three customers by recommending unneeded work on septic tank systems that were in good working order; that she violated the terms of the Agreement by allowing her husband to participate in the business; that in 1998 and 2000, Respondent conspired with her husband to fraudulently purchase three vehicles under the name of her husband's brother (and without his consent) for use in her business; and that by using one of those vehicles in her business, she unlawfully obtained her registration through fraud, misrepresentation, and concealment of material facts, and she committed gross misconduct in her profession. Respondent denies the allegations and suggests that the complaint is the result of an on-going dispute between her and local Health Department officials, who want to put her out of business. Consumer complaints On February 27, 2001, William Mauer (Mauer), who lives at 5212 Messina Road, Lakeland, Florida, contacted Respondent's firm after experiencing a problem with his septic tank system "not draining right" and "sewage backing up." Two individuals, one of whom Mauer identified at the hearing as being Larry Thompson, arrived around 4 p.m. Larry Thompson began using a probing rod around the 900-gallon tank, popped the lid, and announced that the tank "was full." The two then pumped out the tank, for which Mauer was charged $150.00. At the same time, Larry Thompson recommended that Mauer install a new drainfield and quoted a price of "around $2,800.00." By allowing Larry Thompson to solicit business, contact and communicate with customers, and represent the business, Respondent violated the terms of the Agreement. That evening, Respondent came to Mauer's house and prepared a work order for a new drainfield. Because Mrs. Mauer wished to pay by credit card, Respondent advised her that she did not accept credit cards, but she could run the transaction through her brother's business for the normal credit card processing fee which was described by the witnesses as ranging from $165.00 to $300.00. In any event, the Mauers agreed and charged the work on their credit card. Within a day or two, but after Respondent had pulled a permit for the repair job, Mauer backed out of the deal since the problems went away after the tank had been pumped out. The charge on the credit card was cancelled, and Mauer paid only for the pumping of his tank ($150.00) and the cost of a repair permit. At hearing, Maurer indicated that he was not "mad at all" about the service, and he agreed that he was "not really out of anything," since the credit card charges were cancelled. Respondent contended that when the Mauers' tank was inspected, there was sewage seeping from the lid and flowing back into the tank from the drainfield line, thus indicating a need for drainfield repairs. A subsequent inspection of the system by a Health Department official a few days after Respondent's visit revealed nothing "to indicate a bad drainfield." The representative acknowledged, however, that it was "not easy" to determine if a system was bad, and that a lack of visible signs of a problem did not mean that the system was in good working order. Even so, the lack of any further problems (after the pump-out) is a clear indication that Respondent recommended that unnecessary work be performed on the Mauers' system. On February 27, 2001, Patsy Brown, who lives in a duplex at 1014 Old South Drive, Lakeland, contacted Respondent's firm for a service call after she experienced "slow draining" in the master bathroom toilet of the second unit in the duplex. Two "young men" came out that evening around 9 p.m. One was Ricky Thompson, Respondent's brother- in-law; the other was identified at hearing as being Larry Thompson. After locating the tank, one of the two workers placed a shovel in the grass and found clear water without an odor around the drainfield. The older of the two workers (Larry Thompson) recommended that Brown replace (repair) the drainfield and quoted a price in the range of $2,400.00 to $2,700.00. Larry Thompson also instructed Ricky Thompson to pump out the tank. By allowing Larry Thompson to solicit work on her behalf, and act as a representative of the firm, Respondent contravened the terms of the Agreement. Believing that a new drainfield was needed, Brown signed a work order for $2,785.00 and gave Larry Thompson a check in the amount of $1485.00 as partial payment. At the request of Larry Thompson, Brown made out the check to Barbara Thompson, rather than A-1 Septic Tank Service. A day or so later, and after Respondent had pulled a permit for the job, Brown had second thoughts about replacing her drainfield and contacted the Health Department. A representative visited her home on March 2, 2001, and found no visible signs of a system breakdown. The representative gave Brown the names of five other septic tank companies to contact for estimates. An unnamed registrant then replaced Brown's distribution box for $238.00, which resolved all problems. While the representative acknowledged that "a failed drainfield is not always apparent," and that "[i]t's not always easy just by looking at it or telling if that's a good drainfield or not," the fact that Brown's problems were unrelated to the drainfield supports a finding that Respondent recommended that Brown have unneeded work performed on her system. After the distribution box was replaced, Brown contacted Respondent and requested a refund of her money. Because the request was made more than 3 days after she had signed the contract, Respondent took the position that no refund was warranted. Brown then filed a consumer complaint with a Tampa television station. Respondent says she offered to refund the money if Brown would withdraw her complaint with the television station, but Brown refused to do so, and the complaint ended up being aired on "national television." To date, the money has never been refunded, although Brown has never made another formal request for a refund of her money, nor has she taken legal action against Respondent to recover the money. On June 5, 2001, David Fleming, who lives with his wife, Zora, at 3319 Mt. Tabor Road, Lakeland, experienced "problems with [the toilet] flushing." Zora telephoned Respondent's firm, and Ricky Thompson and Respondent arrived later that day. After Ricky popped the lid on the tank and found a full tank, Respondent recommended that the tank be pumped out for a charge of $150.00. When around one-half of the tank was pumped, Respondent advised Fleming that the price would be $200.00 because it was so full; otherwise, she would be forced to pump the contents of the truck back into the tank. Fleming then agreed to pay Respondent $200.00 for a full pump-out, and he obtained a receipt for the payment. This fee was not unreasonable, and thus Respondent did not violate any Department rule or statute by charging that amount. Respondent also advised Fleming that he needed a new drainfield which would cost "over $2,000.00." Fleming declined to sign a contract for that service since he could not afford one. He experienced no further problems with his system after the pump-out. Respondent denies having advised Fleming that he needed a new drainfield and acknowledged at hearing that "there was nothing wrong with it." She further contended that because the house did not even have an air-conditioner, she knew that the Flemings could not afford any further repairs. This testimony is not deemed to be credible. A subsequent inspection of the tank by a Health Department official on June 8, 2001, revealed that there were no "obvious signs of failure the day [he] was out there." The system continues to function normally to this day. Purchase of vehicles The record is somewhat confusing regarding the vehicles owned and used by Respondent and registered with the Department. Under Rule 64E-6.010(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, a registrant must make application for a service permit with the Health Department each year and provide evidence that he or she "possesses adequate equipment . . . necessary to perform the work intended." At hearing, Respondent stated that she currently has three trucks, two of which (a Chevrolet and a Ford) are now registered with the Health Department, but only one of which (the Chevrolet Kodiac) is actually used in the business. As discussed in greater detail below, the Chevrolet Kodiac was purchased from Bartow Chevrolet Company, Inc. The second vehicle (either a Ford or another undisclosed make and model) is one she has "had for several years" that was purchased from an individual named Howard Nieft (the father- in-law of Ricky Thompson); however, the title still remains in Nieft's name. The third vehicle (an unknown make and model consisting of a cab and chassis only with a blown motor) is "one that [she is] putting together" that was purchased around a year ago in Zephyrhills from a person whose name she cannot recall. Like the second vehicle, Respondent says the "title work [on the third vehicle] has not been transferred yet," because she cannot "get hold of the owner" to sign an affidavit to transfer the title. However, Respondent also indicated that the third vehicle which she is "putting together" is titled in the name of her niece, Christina Wood. The conflicting testimony regarding the ownership of the third vehicle was never clarified by the parties. In August 1998, an individual who identified himself as Ray M. Thompson ("Ray"), approached Mark Pike (Pike), a commercial salesman with Bartow Chevrolet Company, Inc., for the purpose of purchasing a medium duty truck for his septic tank business. "Ray" gave a local address of 1400 Spivey Road, Lakeland, Florida. "Ray" eventually agreed to purchase (and finance through the dealership) a 1998 Chevrolet Kodiac truck on September 10, 1998, for approximately $35,000.00. In the course of the transaction, Pike requested a driver's license and insurance card from "Ray" to verify his identity. "Ray" gave Pike a North Carolina driver's license issued on August 18, 1997, to Ray M. Thompson. The Chevrolet Kodiac was later titled by the State to Ray M. Thompson. Ray M. Thompson is the brother of Larry Thompson, and the brother-in-law of Respondent. At the hearing, Pike identified Larry Thompson as the person who actually purchased the vehicle in September 1998 and used the name and identification of Ray M. Thompson. At hearing, the real Ray Thompson denied that he had purchased the vehicle, and after learning about the transaction, he filed paperwork with the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV) cancelling his name on the registration of the vehicle. The same vehicle is now being used by Respondent in her business. Although a "blond-haired lady" was with "Ray" when he signed the paperwork to purchase the truck, and Respondent has that color of hair, Pike could not identify Respondent as being that person. Therefore, it is found that there is less than clear and convincing evidence that Respondent participated in the transaction or conspired with her husband to deceive the dealership or her brother-in-law. On September 27, 2000, an individual who identified himself as Ray M. Thompson ("Ray") visited Bartow Ford Company and spoke with Gregory Wade, a salesman, about the purchase of a new Ford F350 pickup truck for his septic tank business. "Ray" was accompanied by an unidentified female and gave an address of 1616 Ritter Road, Lakeland, Florida, the address of the mother of Ray and Larry Thompson, as well as Respondent and her husband. The same day, "Ray" traded in a 1999 Dodge Durango on a new 2001 F350 Ford pickup truck for approximately $41,000.00, less the net value of the trade-in. During the course of the transaction, "Ray" produced an out-of-state driver's license identifying himself as Ray M. Thompson, and an insurance identification card bearing the same name. At the hearing, although both Respondent and her husband were in the hearing room, Wade was unable to identify either one as the individuals who participated in the transaction on September 27, 2000. The vehicle was later titled by the State to Ray M. Thompson. After learning about the transaction, the real Ray M. Thompson filed paperwork with the DHSMV to cancel the registration. Given these circumstances, there is less than clear and convincing evidence that Respondent conspired with her husband to fraudulently purchase the vehicle under the name of her husband's brother, as alleged in Count VI of the complaint. Count V of the complaint also alleges that "sometime during 1998" Respondent conspired with her husband to "fraudulently purchase a pick-up truck, a Dodge Durango, from Bartow Chevrolet [Company, Inc.] under the name of Ray Thompson and without his permission." Except for the evidence which shows that a Dodge Durango was traded in on the Ford F350 truck in September 2000, as noted in Finding of Fact 21, there is no other evidence to support this allegation. Violation of Agreement At hearing, Larry Thompson maintained that after the Agreement was executed in November 2000, he has limited his participation with his wife's business to merely gassing up vehicles and performing maintenance work on the firm's vehicles, when necessary. He denies being employed by his wife or having any contact with customers. In addition, Ricky Thompson, Larry's brother, also denied that Larry Thompson ever accompanied him on service calls. However, the more credible evidence, as detailed in Findings of Fact 4 and 8, is that Larry Thompson performed work for his wife on two occasions in violation of the Agreement. Obtaining Registration by Fraudulent Means Count IV of the complaint alleges that by continuing to use the 1998 Kodiac truck in her business without the permission of the real Ray Thompson, Respondent "falsely indicated and represented to the Department that [she] had means, ability and equipment necessary for the operation of [her] business," that she obtained her registration through fraud or misrepresentation, concealment of material facts, and she committed gross misconduct in the pursuit of her profession. In this regard, Respondent's application for registration, date of licensure, and annual application for a service permit are not of record. While Respondent admitted that she is using the Kodiac in her business, there is less than clear and convincing evidence in the record to support this allegation. This is especially true since there was no evidence that a registrant must own (or have titled in his or her name) every vehicle used in the contracting business, or that Respondent did not have the financial means, ability, or equipment to engage in the business.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order imposing a $500.00 fine and revoking Respondent's registration as a septic tank contractor. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (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 5th day of February, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Roland Reis, Esquire Polk County Health Department Department of Health 1290 Golfview Avenue, Fourth Floor Bartow, Florida 33830-6740 Jack T. Edmund, Esquire 1125 East Main Street Bartow, Florida 33830-5004
