The Issue Issues for consideration in this case were those promoted through an administrative complaint brought by the Petitioner against the Respondent. Under the authority of Chapter 487, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 5E, Florida Administrative Code, the Petitioner seeks to impose an administrative fine against the Respondent for the use or application of certain restricted use pesticides without the benefit of an applicator's license.
Findings Of Fact Chapter 487, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 5E, Florida Administrative Code, empower the State of Florida, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Petitioner) to regulate a category of pesticide known as "restricted- use pesticide." More particularly, as it is related to this dispute, the statute requires that those persons purchasing or using a restricted-use pesticide must be licensed by the Petitioner. The license is known as an applicator's license. Bobby Yon (Respondent) had held an applicator's license through October 31, 1983. On that date the applicator's license expired. Yon did not renew the license within sixty days of the expiration date. Consequently, it was incumbent upon Respondent to obtain a new applicator's license, in contrast to renewing the license as described in this paragraph before purchasing or using restricted-use pesticides in the future. Having failed to renew the license which expired on October 31, 1983, on that date or within the grace period which lasted for sixty days beyond that date, Respondent, without the benefit of a license, made the aerial application of a restricted-use pesticide known as "Nudrin 1.8," EPA Reg. No. 201-347. This application was made by Respondent in his capacity as an agricultural pilot. The application dates were April 25, May 6 and June 2, 1985, on an acreage of gladiolus at a business known as Scott's Gladiolus. On April 25, 1955, Respondent made aerial application of Nudrin to watermelons belonging to Steve Basford. The Nudrin which Respondent applied in the instances mentioned before was obtained by the Respondent from Altha Farmers Coop. That Nudrin was delivered to the airstrip where Respondent has his business and from there loaded on his plane. In a statement prepared by the Respondent upon a form provided by Petitioner through its employee Hal A. Davis, Respondent gave written acknowledgment of his use of Nudrin in the instances spoken to in the course of this recommended order. A copy of that affidavit may be found as Petitioner's composite Exhibit 1 admitted into evidence. In the statement he describes the acreage which was sprayed in the four instances mentioned and indicates that his son mixed and loaded the treatment into the plane while wearing rubber boots. It is further indicated that no other safety equipment was utilized. The Nudrin applications at issue are described as being made at the rate of two to four and a half gallons per acre total solution, depending on other things that may have been in the mixture. Respondent described how the Nudrin containers were rinsed in mixing tanks and later burned on site. Respondent points out the records of these applications were photographed by Davis; however, these records or copies of the records were not produced at the final hearing. Finally, in describing the experience with the substance Nudrin, Respondent states in his affidavit that he is aware that a restricted-use pesticide license was necessary to legally apply the restricted-use pesticide Nudrin. On June 30, 1984, without the benefit of an applicator's license, Respondent aerially applied the restricted-use pesticide known as "Red Panther 8 lb Toxaphene," EPA Reg. No. 42761-9. This was applied to a pea crop on the property of James Edenfield. One gallon of Toxaphene was mixed into twenty or twenty-five gallons of water. This substance was delivered to Respondent by the Farmers Coop, in a five gallon can. The balance of this substance is still at the airstrip location at his property and is seen by the Respondent as being part of the Coops inventory. In the affidavit made by the Respondent, he acknowledges that the documents related to this application were made available to Davis and were photographed by Davis. Nonetheless, as with the situation pertaining to Nudrin, copies of the documentation were not presented at hearing. Respondent acknowledges in the affidavit that he was aware at the time that he treated the land with the Toxaphene that a restricted-use pesticide license was needed to make that application. The Toxaphene which was applied to the Edenfield acreage had been purchased by Edenfield from the Farmers Coop. The affidavit that has been alluded to in the course of this recommended order had been prepared by Respondent upon the occasion of an inspection of his business premises in Altha, Florida, conducted by Hal A. Davis on June 5, 1985. As a part of the affidavit, Petitioner's composite Exhibit 1, Respondent makes mention of liability insurance held with Air South Insurance of Dothan, Alabama. On the other hand, Respondent acknowledges that although Florida law requires proof of liability insurance for the use of the subject chemicals or the posting of a bond, his insurance policy did not provide chemical liability. This requirement in law pertains to a necessary prerequisite to obtaining a license for purchase and use of restricted-use pesticides in Florida, as contemplated by Chapter 487, Florida Statutes. In addition to not having the necessary insurance coverage, Respondent had failed to post bond with the Department. Therefore, he could not have been licensed on the date of the inspection. By Respondent's remarks in the course of the final hearing, it is evident that Respondent recognized the necessity of being appropriately licensed before applying the restricted- use pesticides mentioned in this factual rendition, and that he was unable to obtain the necessary license, given the fact that he was without requisite liability insurance and had failed to post a bond in lieu of that insurance. His protestation that he had not renewed his license to apply restricted-use pesticides beyond the expiration date of October 31, 1983, based upon some misunderstanding with officials within the petitioning agency concerning forms for obtaining his new license is without credence. The more likely explanation is the fact that the Respondent, as he alluded to in his testimony, did not feel that he could afford the insurance coverage or bond amount and simply did not renew his license. In any event, it was incumbent upon the Respondent to seek and obtain timely renewal of his existing applicator's license or in the failure to do that, to obtain a new license as an applicator before setting out to apply restricted-use pesticides. Respondent failed to do this and during the hiatus between licenses which existed between October 31, 1983, and June 19, 1985, when he obtained a new applicator's license, Respondent applied restricted-use pesticides without the benefit of a license. In his testimony Respondent makes some reference to a license which he held in the period at question which pertains to dealers who sell restricted-use pesticides, this license being number 002027. This license did not allow him to purchase or use restricted-use pesticides. It only would allow selling to others who had the necessary license or authorization to purchase or use restricted-use pesticides, which, unlike the others, Respondent did not have.
Findings Of Fact Bayfront commenced construction of the biological waste incinerator here at issue prior to March 21, 1992, the effective date of the moratorium on construction of biological waste incinerators and was exempt from that moratorium. An inspection of the premises on April 9, 1992, (exhibit 5) showed substantial work had been accomplished and the inspector concluded, and DEP's legal counsel concurred, that in order to have achieved the construction progress shown on April 9, 1992, the work had to have been commenced prior to March 21, 1992. Further, a building permit to renovate the building into which the waste incinerator was placed was issued November 12, 1991, (exhibit 7) and a building permit to install a waste incinerator was issued March 4, 1992, (exhibit 6). No contradictory evidence was submitted by Petitioner. Respondent's witnesses testified without contradiction that Bayfront's application for an operation permit was complete in all respects, including certification by a professional engineer; that all test results showed the emissions into the atmosphere were within the prescribed standards; that certain conditions contained in the construction permit as a result of the settlement agreement resolving the challenge to the issuance of the construction permit are contained in the operation permit; that those conditions exceed the conditions required by the rules for incinerators; and that Bayfront affirmatively provided the Department with reasonable assurance based on plans, test results, installation of pollution control equipment, or other information that the operation of the incinerator will not discharge, emit, or cause pollution in contravention of DEP's standards as contained in Rule 17-4.070(1), Florida Administrative Code. This testimony is accepted as factual. The draft permit authorizes Bayfront to burn a maximum of fifteen hundred pounds per hour of waste. Each time a test run is conducted to check the emissions, the pounds of waste burned per hour during the test establishes an upper limit on the rate of burning waste. As explained by James L. McDonald, the engineer processing air pollution applications for the Department at Transcript p. 50-51: The construction application asked for a permit at fifteen hundred pounds per hour. So the construction permit is -- the condition that we would want, the Department would normally want the test within ten percent of that fifteen hundred pounds an hour in order to go ahead and issue, if its in total compliance, to issue an operating permit at fifteen hundred pounds. Since the test came in at a reduced rate, below the ten percent, then that's why in the operating permit condition twenty-one says you're limited to the rate that we're, the test was conducted. [sic] Now, also, its interesting to note that in their test, if you look at their runs two and three -- because there are rules that say the Department could accept two runs out of three if a condition occurred that was out of their control -- if your average runs two and three, they would average within ten percent of fifteen hundred. So, as a permit processor, it even gave me some reasonable assurance that they could probably comply with the fifteen hundred. But, since the test of all three runs came in as an average of twelve fifty-one, then the operating permit included that twelve fiftyone. And like the real world out there, just like power plants, when it comes time for their annual testing, if they are at half speed, their business is down, it allows them to test at half speed. We won't require them to go up to full speed. They can test at half speed. But then they are limited there. And if they go above it at a later date they would have to retest. So they can work their way back up to where the Department has reasonable assurance that the upper limit of fifteen hundred pounds -- that's where later in condition twenty-one of the operating permit it says but in no case shall the maximum permit or burning rate of fifteen hundred pounds per hour be exceeded. Petitioner's second two grounds for challenging the issuance of the operation permit was answered by McDonald's testimony, above quoted, and this evidence was not rebutted by Petitioner. The primary thrust of the evidence presented by Petitioner was that Bayfront had somehow misled the City of St. Petersburg regarding the operation of the incinerator and had not complied with all of the City's requirements in other respects, ergo, Bayfront could not be relied on to comply with the conditions in the operation permit. This evidence is irrelevant to the determination of whether or not the operation of the incinerator complies with all of the Department rules. The conditions of the operating permit require Bayfront to submit periodic reports to the Department from which the Department can determine whether the conditions in the permit are being complied with. Furthermore, the Department requires the permittee to notify the Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management at least fifteen days prior to the date on which each formal compliance test is to begin (Permit Condition No. 22) to allow them to witness the test, if desired. The construction permit, complying with the settlement agreement, required Bayfront to adhere to more frequent testing and more extensive testing then is required by the rules for operating biological waste incinerators. All of the tests and reports submitted by Bayfront on the operation of this incinerator met all of the requirements in the construction permit and the draft operation permit.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that Bayfront Medical Center be issued Permit No. AO52- 224337 to operate a biological waste incinerator at Fifth Avenue South and Eighth Street, St. Petersburg, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of November 1993 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 16th day of November 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Adrian W. Helm, Esquire 925 14th Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33712 Daniel N. Burton, Esquire Thomas K. Maurer, Esquire Terri L. Gillis-Tucker, Esquire Foley and Lardner 111 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1800 Orlando, Florida 32801 W. Douglas Beason, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400 Kenneth Plante, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Findings Of Fact Respondent is licensed by the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Service as a pest control service authorized to perform all functions for which such organizations may be licensed. Gilbert Bellino was certified operator for Respondent from prior to the earliest charge in the Administrative Complaint until mid-1977. He was certified in the four types of treatment authorized by pest control companies, viz. fumigation, general household pest control, including rodent control, termite or other wood infesting organisms control, and lawn and ornamental pest control. A certified operator is required to supervise and direct the activities of all employees engaged in pest control. Many of the complaining witnesses made their first contact with Respondent when answering an advertisement for a onetime household pest treatment and a free termite inspection. Lloyd Green responded to an ad in which Respondent offered a spray treatment of the yard and house for $15. Folsom and Jones appeared and after an inspection of his house advised Green that he had dry wood and subterranean termites and induced him to sign a contract to treat them at a price of $286. After reflection and before any work was done Green called and cancelled the contract. He had the house inspected by Mr. Chapman of Chapman Pest Control who found no evidence of active infestation. All evidence Chapman found of wood damage was done prior to the timber having been processed. The house was later inspected by David Jones, District V Entomologist and he too found no evidence of active infestation. A second inspection of Green's home was made by Jones in company with Casale, the President of Respondent. The only evidence found was one hole in a bed slat which had occurred before the lumber was processed. Turpentine beetles and pine sawyer beetles are wood borers that attack trees but not processed lumber. Once lumber is processed any further damage from these beetles is highly improbable if not impossible. Evidence of the damage they have caused will remain in the wood but is readily distinguishable from an active infestation by one with almost any training in pest control. Wood borers make round holes and any eliptical hole found in timber is indicative that the hole was made before the wood was processed. The oblique angle to the borer's tunnel cut by the saw when the lumber was processed causes an eliptical hole. Charles Casale visited Robert Rankin's house for a free termite inspection and identified himself as an employee of Respondent. He was accompanied by another man who inspected the crawl space under the house. Upon completion of the inspection Casale advised Rankin he had an infestation and needed treatment which would cost $300. After getting an opinion from another pest control company that he did not have termites Rankin called HRS and David Jones inspected the entire house. At this inspection Jones found no evidence of active infestation but a colony of fleas from Rankin's two dogs. At the time of Casale's inspection application for an identification card had not been submitted for Casale. Thelma P. Wray contracted with Respondent for fumigation of her house. No written instructions were given her by Respondent, nor was she advised to remove medicines. She was advised to remove only milk cartons, cheese and open food. The only warning sign placed on front and rear of house during fumigation (Exhibit 4) on November 10, 1974 did not show type of fumigant used and stated house is safe for reentry at 10:30 a.m. December 11, 1974. This sign appeared on the house the evening of December 10, 1974 and was placed only at the front and rear. No notice of this fumigation was provided to the County Industrial Hygienist who maintains records of notices of all fumigations. Neither Mr. nor Mrs. Chaney testified. No one having personal knowledge was called to identify Exhibit 6 and no evidence was offered that Larry A. Donald, Jr. was employed by Respondent and visited the Cheney home without a valid identification card. Mrs. Ruby Moser did not testify. No witness was produced to testify regarding Phillip Jones' visit to the Moser home on June 10, 1975 or identify Exhibit 7. Neither Mr. nor Mrs. Donald R. Seldes testified. No evidence was presented regarding the alleged visit of Bill Gillian, while an employee of Respondent, to the home of the Seldes. Judith Bashline was contacted by Respondent through telephone solicitation for special pest cleanout and termite inspection. One man sprayed for the pest cleanout and he was followed by Phillip Jones and Ken Ely, Jr. who, after inspecting the attic, advised her she had an infestation in the attic in a dormant state which needed immediate treatment. She entered into a contract for spot treatment for $190. After Jones and Ely left Mrs. Bashline began having misgivings and called another pest control company for information. She was referred to HRS and there contacted David Jones who inspected the property. Upon inspection Jones found no evidence of active infestation - only the preprocessed type damage found in the other homes. When Helen M. Hopper purchased her home at 1037 - 12th Street North, St. Petersburg, Florida she acquired a subterranean termite policy from Respondent. She then started monthly sprayings with Respondent. After the first spraying on September 16, 1975, Ken Ely, Jr., an employee of Respondent, went into Hopper's attic and told Mrs. Hopper she had borers in the roof and needed immediate treatment to save the roof. After he left she called another pest control company for verification. When that company inspected the attic they reported no problem with borers. She then called HRS and David Jones inspected the premises October 24, 1975 and in the attic he found only old damage which had occurred before the wood was processed. There was no infestation for which treatment was indicated. When Donald R. Bond II and his wife purchased a home his mother recommended they use Gulf Coast Pest Control. In January, 1977 Robert R. Plowman, an employee of Respondent, advised the Bonds that they had powder post beetles and dry wood termites and the attic needed to be treated. He came back that evening when Mr. Bond was home and a contract for the work was signed. The following day Mrs. Bond had two other pest control companies inspect the house. Whey they advised her there was no evidence of active infestation she cancelled her contract and called HRS. On February 10, 1977 David Jones inspected her property. He found no evidence of borer or termite infestation; however Jones did find evidence of rat infestation. On June 26, 1976 Robert R. Plowman, an employee of Respondent, inspected the home of Rita M. Spera at 9783 - 52nd Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida and reported to her that there was an infestation of wood borers in the attic and she needed to have fumigation. The previous year the Speras had replaced the shingles on the roof and had found the wood in good condition. Accordingly Mrs. Spera really didn't believe Plowman and called HRS for verification. When David Jones Inspected the house on July 2, 1976 he found only evidence of old damage that had occurred before the wood was processed. No evidence of active infestation was observed. Mrs. Ellen M. Hameroff received a telephone solicitation from Respondent for a cleanout and termite inspection. She accepted the offer and on September 2, 1976 Robert R. Plowman, an employee of Respondent, inspected her attic and reported that powder post beetles were present and treatment was needed which would cost $200 to $400. Plowman returned that evening to talk with Dr. Hameroff but they didn't sign a contract. The following day another pest control company was contacted for an inspection. They reported no infestation. She then called HRS and on November 22, 1976 David Jones inspected the property and found only evidence of old damage. On September 1, 1977 William C. Bargren, Scott Askins and F. R. DuChanois, Entomologists with HRS inspected the Hameroff property. They found evidence that pine sawyer beetles had been in the tree from which some sheathing boards in the attic had been processed. There was no evidence of infestation in the Hameroff home. In December, 1976 Robert L. Dill had a spray and free inspection by Respondent on his home at 1551 Citrus Street Clearwater, Florida. Following an inspection of the home, Robert R. Plocnan and John D. Lucas, employees of Respondent, advised Dill that he had powder post beetles in the attic, ceiling and floor under the house and needed treatment. Before agreeing to the treatment for the powder post beetles and preventive treatment for termites for which Respondent wanted $500, Dill had two other pest control companies inspect the property. Both of these companies advised Dill he had no infestation. Jimmy Robinson of Exterminator Terminix, International, a certified operator, inspected the Dill property on November 22, 1976 and found no evidence of powder post beetles or termites for which treatment was indicated. He noticed no damage to floor but did see some evidence of borers before the wood was processed. When Dill reported the incident to HRS, David Jones inspected the property on January 20 and 26, 1977, the second time in company with the Casales, Plowman and Donald. Damage to wood in the floor was done before the lumber was processed and no infestation was present for which treatment was indicated. Lawrence A. Donald, an employee of Respondent, holds a certified operator's license and he found evidence of "tremendous damage due to boring animals" under Dill's house. He opined that there were live larvae in the wood, however, his credibility and expertise left a great deal to be desired. During a monthly contract spraying Robert R. Plowman, an employee of Respondent, told Mrs. Shirley I. Bond that she had powder post wood borer beetles in the attic of her home at 6701 - 19th Street North, St. Petersburg, Florida and needed to have the attic power dusted. Mrs. Bond gave Plowman a check for $295 but after her daughter-in-law's experience, stopped the work. She called HRS and David Jones inspected her property on April 14, 1977. He found no evidence of infestation and in Jones' opinion the power spray of Dridie (a trade name for silica gel) would not be appropriate to treat dry wood termites or powder post beetles. Raymond L. Jackson employed Respondent for the advertised "clean-out" and free inspection. On January 6 and 7, 1977 Robert R. Plowman, an employee of Respondent, inspected Jackson's property at 6243 - 6th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, Florida and advised Jackson that he had active termites and powder post beetles and needed treatment. Jackson signed a contract and paid Plowman $300 for the work. About two weeks later two men power dusted Jackson's attic. After reading an article in the newspaper about powder post beetles Jackson called HRS and his property was inspected by Askins on July 26, 1977 and by Askins and Bargren on August 10, 1977. The only evidence of damage they found was that caused by turpentine beetles prior to the wood being processed. In their opinion no treatment was indicated before the power dusting was done. Mrs. Helen Stambaugh had a "clean-out" and free termite inspection in July, 1977 at her home at 2518 - 67th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, Florida by Respondent. Larry D. Brown, an employee of Respondent, to whom an application for identification card had not been submitted, told Mrs. Stambaugh that dry wood termites were infesting her garage and treatment was necessary. Spot treatment was offered for $130. She contacted another pest control company who, after inspection, advised that no treatment was indicated. She then called HRS and on July 20, 1977, Bargren and Askins inspected her property and found only evidence of old turpentine beetle damage in the garage which had occurred before the wood was processed. No infestation for which treatment was indicated was observed. In October, 1975 representatives from Gulf Coast Pest Control, Louis Casale, the company manager, Carmine Casale the owner and Gilbert Bellino, the certified operator, met with HRS representatives in Jacksonville to discuss the numerous complaints HRS had received about Respondent and to formulate remedial action. At this meeting the need for additional training of their salesman was discussed in connection with the complaints filed by Green, Rankin, Wray, and others with particular emphasis on the need to train their operators to distinguish old damage in the preprocessed tree from damage requiring correction. Respondent agreed to increase their training to improve the quality of their inspectors. Respondent has discharged all of the salesmen who made the misrepresentations noted above. Plowman was finally discharged because "he was too dumb" to learn to distinguish between old damage not requiring treatment and new damage which did require treatment. However, Plowman was continued as an employee even after criminal charges involving fraudulent misrepresentation had been filed against him.
The Issue The issue posed herein is whether or not the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services' revocation of Respondent's pest control business license, operator's certificate and employee's identification is warranted based on conduct set forth hereinafter in detail as set forth in the Petitioner's revocation notice dated June 4, 1979. 1/
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, the arguments and briefs of counsel and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Pursuant to Petitioner's Notice of Violation dated June 4, 1979, the administrative proceeding herein commenced on December 6, 1979, on twenty-six of the thirty-nine specific violations alleged to have been committed by Respondent. The specific alleged violations are as set forth below based on a separation by complainant or victim with the alleged date of violation: On February 28, 1977, it is alleged that Respondent and/or its agents, performed pest control services for Ms. Ethel Atkinson and Ms. Loree Atkinson, 1903 East Leonard Street, Pensacola, Florida, and violated the following Administrative Code sections and/or statutes: Treated the Atkinsons' residence with fumigant gas, methyl bromide, without notifying in advance, the Escambia County Health Department, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.110(1), Florida Administrative Code. Failed to perform the fumigation of the Atkinson residence in strict accordance with the registered label directions for methyl bromide, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.111(4), Florida Administrative Code. On March 17, 1977, Respondent failed to perform subterranean termite control treat- ment for the Atkinsons, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.142(1)(b), Florida Administra- tive Code. During July, 1978, Respondent's agents and/or employees, Steven R. Foster and Gerald A. Caudill, inspected the Atkinson residence and told them that the home was infested with powder-post beetles and proposed a treatment when no such infestation existed, and thus no treatment was required, which acts constitute violations of Chapter 10D-55.104(4), Florida Administrative Code. Respondent, during times material, failed to apply for and obtain an I.D. card for Steven R. Foster, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.143(1), (2) and (3), Florida Adminis- trative Code. Respondent performed Phostoxin fumi- gation on residences when Phostoxin is not labeled or registered for residential fumi- gation, in violation of Chapters 10D-55.106(1); 10D-55.111(4) and 10D-55.144(1), Florida Administrative Code. Respondent and/or its agents, during times material but particularly during July, 1978, illegally used Phostoxin for fumigation purposes in a residential structure, in vio- lation of Chapter 10D-55.116(2), Florida Administrative Code. During July, 1978, Respondent per- formed Phostoxin fumigation without notifying the Escambia County Health Department, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.110(1), Florida Administrative Code. During July, 1978, Respondent performed Phostoxin fumigation without the knowledge and personal supervision of its certified registered operator in charge of fumigation for Killingsworth, Inc., Elmer Logan, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.108(1) and (2), Florida Administrative Code. Shumpert/Graham Case On April 22, 1977, Respondent performed services for Robert Shumpert and/or R. A. Graham of 109 Harris Street, Pensacola, Florida, by fumigation of their residence at 109 Harris Street, without informing the Escambia County Health Depart- ment, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.110(1), Florida Administrative Code. On or about April 22, 1977, Respondent fumigated the Shumpert/Graham residence with "Vikane" gas in a manner not in accordance with the label instructions, nor were occupants of the residence properly warned of the hazards, in violation of Chapters 10D-55.106(1); 10D-55.110(3); 10D-55.111(4) and 10D-55.144(1), Florida Adminis- trative Code. On or about April 22, 1977, Respondent used Phostoxin for residential fumigation for the Graham/Shumpert residence, in violation of Chapters 10D-55.106(1); 10D-55.111(4) and 10D-55.144(1), Florida Administrative Code. On or about April 22, 1977, Respondent fumigated the Graham/Shumpert Residence with Phostoxin without informing the occupants of the hazards, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.110(3), Florida Administrative Code. During approximately April 22, 1977, Respondent performed a fumigation with Phostoxin without advance notification to the Escambia County Health Department, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.110(1), Florida Administrative Code. During April 22, 1977, Respondent performed a Phostoxin fumigation without the knowledge and personal supervision of its certified operator in charge of fumigation, Elmer Logan, in violation of Chapter10D-55.108(1) and (2), Florida Administrative Code. During May 22, 1978, Respondent per- formed pest control services for Mrs. Ann Boyett of 706 North Lynch Street, Pensacola, Florida, and during the course of such treatment, through its agent and employee, Steven R. `Foster, placed Phostoxin pellets under the Boyett residence for control of powder-post beetles, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.108(1) and (2), Florida Administrative Code. Respondent used Phostoxin in resi- dential fumigation in violation of Chapter 10D-55.106(1); 10D-55.111(4) and 10D-55.144(1), Florida Administrative Code. Respondent, during May 23, 1978, released Phosphine gas during use of Phostoxin. which is highly inflammable and its use in resi- dential structures is illegal pursuant to Chapter 10D-55.116(2), Florida Administrative Code. During May 23, 1978, Respondent performed a fumigation with Phostoxin without informing the Escambia County Health Department, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.110(1), Florida Administrative Code. Respondent, during May 23, 1978, per- formed a fumigation with Phostoxin without informing the homeowner of the hazards, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.110(3), Florida Administrative Code. Respondent, during May 23, 1978, failed to apply for and obtain an employee I.D. card for Steven R. Foster, in violation of Section 482.091(1), (2) and (4), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-55.143(1),(2) and (3), Florida Administrative Code. Based on the foregoing activities, it is alleged that Respondent violated his duties as a certified operator in charge of the pest control activities of a licensee, in violation of Section 482.152(1), (2),, (4), and (5), Florida Statutes. During July 12, 1978, Respondent performed pest control work for John A. Sanders, Jr. , at his residences located at 912, 914 and 916 North 63rd Avenue, Pensacola, Florida. During the course of this treatment it is alleged that Respondent failed to per- form the work in accordance with the label directions of any registered termiticide or by the use of methods and equipment generally suitable and accepted as good industry practice, in violation of Chapters 10D-55.106(1); 10D-55.135(2) and 10D-55.144(1), Florida Adminis- trative Code. Based on the conduct set forth in the paragraph next above, it is alleged that the Respondent violated the duties of a certified operator in charge of pest control activities of a licensee, in violation of Section 482.152(1), (4), and (5), Florida Statutes. The Hinote Case During December 21, 1978, it is alleged that Respondent's agent Wayne Thompson, repre- sented to Ms. Lee Hinote of 1405 East Gonzales Street, Pensacola, Florida, that wood borers were infesting her residence and that treatment was needed, when no such infestation existed and no treatment was required, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.104(4), Florida Administrative Code. Based on the alleged conduct set forth in the paragraph next above, it is alleged that the Respondent engaged in conduct violative of Section 482.152(1), (2), (4), and (5), Florida Statutes. William E. Grimsley, Supervisor, Environmental Health Unit of the Escambia County Health Department, is the person in charge of inspecting and ensuring that within the county no violations of Chapter 10D-55.110(1), Florida Administrative Code, occur. All pest control companies operating in the county, including Respondent, are required to notify the County Health Department when a fumigation is to take place and the approximate time that the "gas" will be released. Fumigation notices are required to be submitted to the Health Department twenty-four hours in advance of the fumigation. Thee Health Department inspects the premises to be certain that the tent is properly sealed, that there is first aid equipment readily available and to generally ensure that the operator is qualified to perform the fumigation Mr. Grimsley recalled having received no fumigation notices from Respondent. Specifically, Mr. Grimsley testified that his office, the County Health Department, received no fumigation notice from Respondent for the Atkinson residence during April of 1977, for the Sumpert residence during times material, or for Ann Boyett's residence during the period of May, 1978. During May of 1978, Mr. Grimsley, through the Escambia County Health Department, received a complaint from the Atkinsons regarding the pest control services performed by Respondent. Mr. Grimsley referred Ms. Atkinson to Mr. William E. Page, Petitioner's agent in the Office of Entomology, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. During October of 1978, Mr. William Page and Mr. William Grimsley removed a sample of a white powdery substance found in the Atkinsons' attic. The sample was analyzed by Chris Bush, a chemist employed by Petitioner, who determined that the substance was a residue of Phostoxin. (Petitioner's Exhibits 32 and 40.) The Atkinson residence was treated by Respondent during, April of 1977. As stated, the Atkinsons complained to the Health Department during May of 1978, approximately fifteen months after the treatment. Samples of a white powdery residue found in the attic were analyzed by Petitioner's chemist during. October, 1978, and were determined to be a Phostoxin residue. Respondent and its agents and employees denied treating the Atkinson residence with anything other than Lindane and Methyl Bromide. During late 1978, Messrs. Grimsley and Page visited the residence of Mrs. Ann Boyett of 704 North Lynch Street, Pensacola, Florida. Mr. Page removed two prepac Phostoxin strips from underneath the Boyett residence. Steven Roy Foster (Moneyhun) also known as Steven Roy Foster was employed by Respondent from March of 1978 through July of 1978. Foster was hired by Respondent to perform mechanical work, although he assisted in tapings for fumigations and assisted Respondent's pest control operators. Foster placed two prepac Phostoxin strips under the Boyett residence. Foster was assigned to do the work by Respondent's agent, Frank Ancarrow, and was paid by the Boyetts for the work. (Petitioner's Exhibit 13.) Respondent and its agents, Frank Ancarrow and former employee, Elmer Logan, denied any knowledge, authorization or other assistance in the use of the treatment of residential structures with Phostoxin. Phostoxin is not authorized for the use in residential construction according to its label use restrictions. (Petitioner's Exhibit 12.) Respondent treated the Graham-Shumpert residence at 109 Harris Street, Pensacola, Florida, for subterranean termites and old house wood borers during late April, 1977. The old house wood borers were located in the attic and, according to Respondent, were treated by him using a "spot" fumigation treatment of Methyl Bromide. 3/ Approximately two years later, Mr. Shumpert detected traces of termites again swarming in the kitchen of his home and called Frank Roberts of Roberts Pest Control Company to check on the termites. Mr. Roberts inspected the Shumpert residence and noted what he found in the attic, a residue of suspected Phostoxin. Mr. Roberts engaged the services of a private laboratory in Pensacola, Florida, to analyze the residue of the substance he found in the Shumpert residence. The sample was analyzed and, according to the lab analysis, the residue of the sample was Phostoxin. Gail Thompson, a former employee of the Respondent, testified that he treated the Shumpert residence for termites and that he assisted in taping the house in preparation for the fumigation which was performed by Respondent Billy F. Killingsworth. Respondent testified that he treated the Shumpert house by a "spot" fumigation using Methyl Bromide as a localized treatment to eradicate the infestation which was concentrated on a few joists. Respondent's testimony to the effect that the infestation was localized to a few joists conflicts with the testimony of witnesses William Page, Carlton Layne and John Boitnott, who testified that the damage and infestation was severe and widespread. Based on the extended hiatus between the treatment by Respondent and the inspections by Messrs, Page, Layne and Boitnott, it cannot be concluded that the condition of the premises as found by Respondent, continued unchanged until the subsequent and, of course, more recent visit by the investigating officials. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3.) When the Shumpert residence was treated, it was under contract to be sold by Mims-Snow Realty of Pensacola, Florida. Prior to sale, it was necessary to receive an FHA wood infestation report which admittedly, as testified to by Respondent's secretary and assistant, Joyce Beard, was filed incorrectly using information from another wood infestation report for another property. (Petitioner's Exhibits 6 and 9.) According to that report, Vikane gas was used as a fumigant, which, if used according to the petitioner's licensing administrator, Warren T. Frazier, was not applied in accordance with the label instructions of that fumigant. 4/ On or about July 12, 1978, Mr. John A. Sanders entered into a contract with Respondent for pest control treatment of three houses that he owned on North 63rd Avenue, Pensacola, Florida. (Petitioner's Exhibits 17, 15 and 19.) Respondent contracted to control household pests, fleas, etc. in the Sanders' residences for a total price of $520.00. According to 14r. Sanders, the treatment period lasted approximately twenty minutes and no trenches were dug, no drilling took place and there was no treatment for powder-post beetles contrary to his payment and contract for these services. Mr. Sanders filed a complaint with local and state officials and executed a complaint form. (Petitioner's Exhibits 20 and 21.) Respondent's former employee, Steven Foster, was assigned the task of treating the Sanders' residences. Foster acknowledged that he inadequately and incompletely treated the Sanders' residences for termites and powder-post beetles. Testimony of Warren Frazier, John Sanders and William Page corroborate Foster's testimony to the effect that the treatment was substandard and was not in accordance with the label directions of any registered termiticide. Additionally, the treatment fell below what is generally accepted as good industry Practice. Respondent testified that the Sanders' residences were treated by Carl Heichel. Heichel was unavailable and did not testify in this proceeding. Opal Lee Hinote of 1405 East Gonzalez Street contacted Respondent during December, 1978, for an annual renewal inspection of her residence. Respondent's agent, Wayne Thompson, performed the annual inspection. (Petitioner's Exhibit 27.) Additionally, Respondent's agent, Thompson, represented to Ms. Hinote that old house wood borers were affecting her residence and that treatment was needed. Thompson discussed a treatment price of $175.00, which was reduced, after some negotiation, to $125.00. Ms. Hinote, being suspicious, called Elmer Logan, Respondent's former employee who presently operates Fireman Pest Control, to inspect her premises. Mr. Logan advised Ms. Hinote that there were no wood borers in her house but merely old traces of wood borer activity. Ms. Hinote, still concerned, contacted Petitioner's agent, William Page, who inspected the house and confirmed Logan's report that there was no present wood horer activity to her residence. (Petitioner's Exhibits 28, 29 and 30.) Respondent's position on Ms. Hinote's complaint is that it is difficult to discern whether or not there is active or inactive wood borer activity and that Thompson, being a sales representative only for a short time when he made the inspection, was unable to discern whether or not the activity signs were evidences from old damage by powder-post beetles and wood borers. 5/ Mr. F. R. Du Chanois is Petitioner's supervisor for pest control records and has in excess of twenty-six years experience as an Entomologist. Mr. Du Chanois, who is Petitioner's records custodian, also receives and assigns complaints for investigation. Based on the complaints received about Respondent, Mr. Du Chanois directed an Inquiry to the manufacturer respecting the application of Phostoxin for residential application. Mr. Du Chanois determined and received confirmation that there are presently no registered uses for residential application for Phostoxin fumigations to control wood destroying insects. (Petitioner's Exhibit 42.) According to Du Chanois, the responsibility for obtaining an I.D. card is jointly placed on the operator and the employee. See Section 482.091(1) and (2), Florida Statutes. Billy F. Killingsworth, the certified operator and owner of Killingsworth pest control business, has been in business for approximately eleven years in Escambia County. Respondent has a B.S. degree in Entomology from Auburn University and is certified in all areas of pest control, i.e,. general household pest and rodent control, subterranean termites, lawn and ornamental, and fumigation. According to Respondent, it is very difficult to determine whether powder-post beetles are in an active or inactive status. Respondent uses Lindane as a residual treatment for the eradication of beetles and Methyl Bromide as a fumigant to control beetles, dry wood termites and rodent control. Respondent only uses Phostoxin as a commodity fumigant since it is only labeled for such uses and since it is one-half to two-thirds more expensive than other registered fumigants. Respondent, Billy F. Killingsworth, is the only certified operator within his employ in Escambia County who is registered to use Phostoxin. (Testimony of Billy F. Killingsworth.) According to the worksheets, Tommy Phelps was the card holder assigned to perform the work for the Atkinson job. Respondent performed the fumigation, using oil based Lindane in the attic. Respondent acknowledged that he erroneously issued a termite contract for the Atkinsons. Respondent considers a "spot" fumigation as being superior to a complete or tent fumigation, in that it permits a larger concentration of gas to be infused to the exposed area and is least expensive. Respondent has performed less than ten structural fumigations since he has been in business. (Respondent's Exhibits 4, 5 and 6.) Respondent employed Steven Roy Foster (Moneyhun) to help in repairing hydraulic pumps, refrigeration equipment and to do mechanical and other minor maintenance tasks based on his (Foster's) prior experience. Respondent denied that Foster was assigned to assist or perform fumigations within the short period that Foster was employed by Respondent. Respondent acknowledged that the FHA Wood Infestation Report given to Ms. Graham of Mims-Snow Realty was erroneously issued based on the realtor's rush to sell the property. (Respondent's Exhibit 8.) Respondent performed the fumigation for the Shumpert residence and placed a warning sign on the front and back doors of the house. At the time of the fumigation, the house was unoccupied. Respondent used Methyl Bromide to fumigate the Shumpert residence and had no explanation as to the presence of Phostoxin in the attic of the Shumpert residence. Respondent assigned Carl Heichel to do the termite and beetle treatment for the Boyett residence. (Respondent's Exhibit 9.) Lindane and Heptachloride were used for the treatment. Heichel left Respondent's employ approximately October of 1978. According to Respondent, Heichel was also assigned to perform the work for the Sanders' houses on 63rd Avenue. (Respondent's Exhibit 10.) Respondent testified that he attempted to correct the problems in connection with the Sanders residence but was unable to arrange a mutually convenient schedule to resolve the matter. Wayne Thompson was assigned to perform the pest control treatment for the Hinote residence. Thompson had only been employed approximately six months when he was assigned to inspect the Hinote residence. Respondent noted that it was a mistake not to apply for an I.D. card for Steven R. Foster. He acknowledged that there was no reason not to apply for an I.D. card for Foster; however, the fact that Foster was hired to do mechanical work delayed his decision to apply for or to obtain an I.D. card for Foster. Respondent treated the Shumpert residence using Methyl Bromide which was registered and labeled "Dowfume MC-2". 6/ Respondent acknowledged that it is unlawful to use a registered pesticide in a way which is inconsistent with the label. He also acknowledged that certified operators are charged with the duty of using fumigants in accordance with the registered labels consonant with the structure to be fumigated. (Testimony of Billy F. Killingsworth.) Several of Respondent's former employees who were employed during times material herein testified that they were unaware of any illegal uses of Phostoxin by Respondent and/or its employees. These employees included J. D. White, Sr., of Sterling, Illinois; Gerald Caudill of Evansville, Indiana; Frank Ancarrow; Elmer Logan and Gail Thompson. J. D. White, Sr. , of Sterling, Illinois, was formerly employed by Respondent from June, 1973, through the end of 1974. Mr. White worked for Frank Roberts, a competitor of Respondent during the period July, 1976, through August of 1977. Mr. White was party to conversations between Frank Roberts to the effect that he was; "out to get" Respondent and was privy to conversations with Mr. Roberts to the effect that Roberts had communicated with various Federal regulatory and state agencies to register complaints about Respondent and other competitors in the area. White testified that he was offered money to spray the yards of customers who were on annual contract with Respondent using the wrong chemicals to destroy the grass. Gerald Caudill presently is employed by Economy Pest Control of Evansville, Indiana. He was formerly employed by Respondent from approximately March, 1978, through approximately April of 1979. Caudill did a localized treatment for powder-post beetles for the Atkinson residence on Leonard Street in Pensacola, Florida. Caudill was shown by the Atkinsons, signs of what he viewed to be an active infestation in the attic of the Atkinson residence and advised them that they needed treatment in their attic. Frank Ancarrow, Respondent's sales manager, has been employed in that capacity for approximately four years and has approximately eight years' experience with another pest control company. Mr. Ancarrow is certified in all categories except fumigation. Messrs, Ancarrow and Thompson prepared the Shumpert residence for fumigation. The Shumpert residence was treated by Gail Thompson for subterranean termites and the Respondent fumigated the attic for old house wood borers. Frank Ancarrow was shown the statement given in an affidavit taken by Carlton Layne of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the effect that Gail Thompson was in charge of the fumigation of the Shumpert residence. Mr. Ancarrow testified that that was a mistake and that Thompson only prepared the house for fumigation. (Petitioner's Exhibits 5 and 26.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby, Recommended: That the Respondent's Pest Control Operator's Certificate Number 1306; Respondent's Pest Control Employee Identification Card Numbers 5832 and 5843 and Respondent's Pest Control Business License Number 78 be SUSPENDED for a period of two (2) years. In all other respects, the June 10, 1980 Recommended Order previously entered herein remains unchanged. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of July, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jon W. Searcy, Vsquire Department of IIIS 160 Governmenta] Center Pensacola, Florida 32522 Larry Parks, Esquire Murphy, Beroset and Parks 216 Government Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Alvin J. Taylor, Secretary Department of IRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= STIPULATION TO CONSENT FINAL ORDER =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations described in the Administrative Complaint? If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: The Department is a state government licensing and regulatory agency. Respondent is now, and has been since October 4, 1979, a licensed pharmacist in the State of Florida. He holds license number PS 0017661. In October of 1987, based upon Respondent's having the year before "pled guilty [in criminal court] to one count of grand theft and one count of possession of diazepam," the Board of Pharmacy suspended Respondent's license for a period of one year and placed him on probation for a period of three years, commencing upon the conclusion of his suspension. On February 4, 1991, February 11, 1991, February 19, 1991, March 6, 1991, and April 18, 1993, in exchange for cash, Respondent sold to Melvin Owens, who was serving as a confidential informant for the Drug Enforcement Administration, 3/ various quantities of drugs, to wit: quazepam, under the brand name of Doral (February 4, February 19, and March 6), triazolam, under the brand name of Halcion (February 4, February 11, February 19, March 6, and April 18), alprazolam, under the band name of Xanax (February 11, February 19, March 6, and April 18), and diethylpropion hydrochloride, under the brand name of Tenuate Dospan (March 6), without first being presented with a prescription for these drugs. All five transactions took place in Palm Beach County, Florida. Although Respondent was employed as a pharmacist at a Phar-Mor Discount Pharmacy (hereinafter referred to as "Phar-Mor") located in Palm Beach County at the time of these transactions, in selling these controlled substances to Owens, Respondent was not acting in the usual course of his professional practice as a Phar-Mor pharmacist. Respondent did not have a permit authorizing him to act as a drug wholesaler at the time of these transactions. On April 24, 1991, Respondent was indicted in federal court on five counts of unlawful distribution of controlled substances for his role in the above-described transactions. Subsequently, the Department issued a three-count Administrative Complaint charging Respondent with wrongdoing in connection with these transactions. Respondent pled guilty to the federal criminal charges pursuant to a plea agreement. Thereafter, Respondent was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to 60 days confinement, followed by two years of supervised release, on each count of the federal indictment, with the sentences to run concurrently.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby recommended that the Board enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Counts I, II, and III of the Administrative Complaint and disciplining him for having committed these violations by revoking his license. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 12th day of October, 1993. STUART M. LERNER 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 12th day of October, 1993.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Lan-Mac Pest Control-Englewood, Inc. and Lan-Mac Pest Control-Fort Myers, Inc. (Lan-Mac) are pest control operators conducting business in the general area of each individual respondent regarding whom they have requested a formal hearing. Larry McKinney owns these companies and has over 4,000 customers, nine pest control routes, six lawn care routes and a termite crew, all servicing the west coast from Collier County up through Sarasota County. Certified Operators of SW Florida, Inc. and Florida Pest Control Association, Inc. (FPCA) are trade associations with members who are pest control operators conducting business in the geographical area of each individual respondent regarding whom they have petitioned for a formal hearing. The members of these associations are substantially affected by the issues raised in this proceeding. As stipulated by the parties, the petitioners described above have standing to petition and participate as parties in this proceeding. (Prehearing Stipulation, page 12) Each of the individual respondents has submitted to the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DACS) an application for registration as an especially pesticide-sensitive person, together with the statutory fee and a purported physician's certificate. Each individual respondent's claim is addressed more specifically below. The DACS is the state agency responsible for administering and maintaining the pesticide-sensitive persons' registry as provided in section 482.2265(3), F.S. The Registry Upon payment of a fee and submittal of an appropriate physician's certificate, pesticide-sensitive persons are placed on a list of persons who are entitled to 24-hour advance notice when a pest control operator is going to make an exterior application on property adjacent or contiguous to the pesticide- sensitive person's primary residence. The certificate must be from a physician qualified in a category established by department rule. The department has adopted rule 5E-14.146, F.A.C. specifying the categories. The DACS may designate a person "especially pesticide-sensitive" if, in addition to the submittal described above, the person provides "clear and convincing proof" that he or she is so sensitive to pesticides that the standard notice is not enough, and notification of applications at greater distance is necessary to protect the person's health. The notification distance requirement may not exceed one-half mile from the boundaries of the property where the hypersensitive person resides. The required notice is limited to use of a pesticide or pesticide class to which sensitivity is documented or for which the department determines sensitivity is scientifically probable. The department may limit notice requirements in applications in excess of a stipulated quantity and may not require notice of applications at a distance beyond the minimum distance required to prevent endangerment of the health of the individual. Section 482.2265, F.S. requires the individual registrant (pesticide- sensitive person) to notify the department of the properties or residences falling within the notice parameters (either adjacent or extra distance) so that the department can supply this necessary information to the pest control operators. Without this information, the operators cannot know whether a specific application is subject to notice. Pest control operators who fail to provide the notice required by section 482.2265, F.S. are subject to administrative sanctions by DACS, including fines and license suspension or revocation. Violations of the Pest Control Act are third degree misdemeanors. John Mulrennan, Ph.D. is the Bureau Chief of DACS' Bureau of Entomology and Pest Control, which bureau administers the requirements of Chapter 482, F.S. Dr. Mulrennan has a Ph.D. in entomology from Oklahoma State University. Dr. Mulrennan has delegated the day-to-day administration of the registry to Philip Helseth, Administrator of the Pest Control Section; and to Cherie Decker, Philip Helseth's secretary. Mr. Helseth, and more often, Cherie Decker, review applications from persons seeking to be placed on the registry. They determine whether the application is complete, the fee is attached or waived, and the physician signing the certification is properly qualified under the rule. The department has no medical personnel on staff to review medical records and it relies entirely on the physician's certification for the determination of eligibility for the registry. Dr. Mulrennan considers that a physician who is licensed and board-certified should be able to make the necessary diagnosis and the department is in no position to question that diagnosis. There are several versions of the application form/physician's certification that have been used by the agency, DACS, and its predecessor agency, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), but the current version is a one-page form with blanks to be completed on the front and printed guidelines on the back. The form elicits the person's name and primary residence address, with day and night telephone numbers. The form includes this "Physician's Certification:" I certify that the individual named above is a patient of mine and should be placed on the list of pesticide-sensitive persons. This individual has a documented sensitivity to a particular pesticide or class of pest- icides. The specific pesticide or class of pesticides to which registrant is sensitive: [blanks provided] The individual named above is currently under my care for a diagnosed condition or ailment for which I have proof that the normal appli- cation of a pesticide would aggravate the condition or ailment to such an extent that placement on the registry for prior notification is necessary to protect that person's health. Diagnosed condition or ailment: [blanks provided] (FPCA Exhibit #17) For persons registering as especially pesticide- sensitive, the form requests the special distance required: one block, two blocks, 1/4 mile, up to 1/2 mile limit. The certifying physician's signature, address, telephone number and the signature of a witness follows this statement: I further certify that I am a qualified physician, board certified and recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties in the specialty of toxicology, allergy or occupational medicine. I have diagnosed this patient's sensitivity based on the guidelines set forth by the department (see reverse side). Board certification will be verified by this Bureau. (FPCA Exhibit #17) The guidelines on the reverse of the form were developed with the assistance of the State Health Director, Dr. Mahan, and the Florida Medical Association. The guidelines are: GUIDELINES FOR DIAGNOSING PESTICIDE SENSITIVITY The department recommends the following basic steps be considered in diagnosing an individual as pesticide sensitive: good evidence of exposure history clinical manifestations from a particular exposure body testing related to an exposure, such as x-ray, blood test, urine test, etc., necessary to make a diagnosis environment [sic] examination of the site where the exposure occurs, such as a person's place of work, to determine the existence of exposure in the environment (FPCA Exhibit #17) According to FPCA expert, Dr. Ronald Gots, these guidelines, with minor modifications, are appropriate in determining whether or not someone has sustained a pesticide exposure and reaction and whether there is a causal relationship between a more distant application and endangerment to health. In Dr. Gots' view, the clinical manifestations ought to be the kind that have been specifically associated with the particular substance at issue. Dr. Gots also contends that specific laboratory evidence is not always required to determine pesticide toxicity. Guideline number four is particularly important in dealing with symptoms from remote applications. DACS does not require that the certifying physician use the guidelines provided on the form, as they are only intended as an aid. The agency only intends that the physicians make a diagnosis and reflect that fact in the certificates by their signature. DACS also does not require that the applicant provide actual addresses within the notification area. Instead, if there is a complaint that an operator made a pesticide application without the required notice, the agency will have to determine in that case whether the operator should be held accountable. Placement on the registry for extra distance notice is based solely on the physician's certificate, and whether the individual provides specific addresses or simply distances for the notice is immaterial, according to Dr. Mulrennan, until the agency is confronted with an enforcement issue. DACS checks the qualifications of the doctors who are making the certification. The secretary who checks the applications, Cherie Decker, has a phone number for the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) to call to check on physicians. Examples of qualifications that have been rejected include academic doctorates. The agency has specifically accepted certificates from osteopathic physicians who are certified by the American Osteopathic Association but are not certified by the ABMS. That acceptance was based, in part, on correspondence from the ABMS, American Osteopathic Association, and Albert F. Robbins, D.O. (Department's Exhibits #3-8). Nothing in that correspondence establishes that one board certification is considered equivalent to another by the ABMS or is "recognized" by the ABMS. The Certifying Physicians The individuals at issue in this consolidated proceeding were all certified by one of the following: Albert F. Robbins, D.O.; Michael J. Waickman, M.D.; Neil Ahner, M.D.; Rory P. Doyle; S. J. Klemsawesch M.D.; Hana T. Chaim, D.O.; Paul F. Wubbena, Jr., M.D.; Linda A. Marraccini, M.D.; and Caren B. Singer, M.D. Dr. Robbins practices at the Robbins Environmental Medical Center, 400 South Dixie Highway, Boca Raton, Florida. He has a doctorate of Osteopathic Medicine from Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine; he is board-certified by the American Osteopathic Board of Preventative Medicine, with a sub-specialty in Occupational and Environmental Medicine; he has a Master of Science in Public Health from the University of Miami. He is not board-certified by the ABMS but he strongly avers that his board certification is equivalent to the specific requirement of the DACS rule referenced in paragraph 7, above. Dr. Waickman practices in Akron, Ohio. A medical doctor, he is board- certified in pediatrics, in allergy and clinical immunology and in environmental medicine. He practices with his son, who is also a medical doctor and who is board-certified in internal medicine and in allergy and clinical immunology. Dr. Ahner is a medical doctor who practices in Jupiter, Florida. The only evidence of his qualifications is his certificate on a patient's application for registration as a pesticide-sensitive person. The certificate, dated February 16, 1993, has all of the language regarding board-certification crossed out. Rory P. Doyle is the name appearing on a certificate for Carol Arrighi's application for registration. Nothing on that certificate indicates whether R. Doyle is a physician. The signature appears beneath the printed statement described in paragraph 16, above. Dr. Klemsawesch is a medical doctor who is board-certified in internal medicine and in allergy and immunology. Dr. Chaim is an osteopathic physician practicing primarily in the areas of family practice and environmental medicine. She is board-certified under the ABMS in family practice. She is a member of several professional organizations, including the American Academy of Occupational and Environmental Medicine and the American Academy of Environmental Medicine. She is not board- certified in any areas other than family practice. Dr. Wubbena is a medical doctor practicing in Jacksonville, Florida. He is board-certified in pediatrics and in allergy and immunology and he practices primarily in the specialty of allergy. The only evidence of qualifications of Drs. Marraccini and Singer is what purports to be their signatures beneath the certificate statement on the DACS application form. Both indicate they are medical doctors. Dr. Singer's signature has the handwritten notation, "Board certified internal medicine only"; Dr. Marraccini's signature has the handwritten notation, "family practice 1989." (Department Exhibit #1) The Individual Applicants Cheryl Mansker's application for registration was certified by Dr. Robbins on March 24, 1993. According to the certificate, she is sensitive to the following: organophosphates, carbamates and pyrethrum. The certification states that notification of 1/2 mile radius is required. Ms. Mansker has been a patient of Dr. Robbins since 1987. He considers her one of the most highly allergic individuals he has seen in his practice. He attributes the onset of her sensitivity to an occasion when she was employed in a bank when, in the process of repairing an air conditioner, a worker ripped the lining of a fiberglass duct and sent fiberglass throughout the entire building. This occasion, according to Dr. Robbins, subjected the patient to mold, formaldehyde and fiberglass. He has no record of any incidents of pesticide exposure, but believes her extreme chemical sensitivity qualifies her as eligible for certification. Dr. Robbins concedes that the amount of dosage is a factor in deciding whether a person is going to react, and whether it is necessary to protect that person. Thomas Milo has been a patient of Dr. Robbins since at least 1986. The certification by Dr. Robbins states that this patient "becomes very ill when exposed to pesticides and other chemicals - Pt. has been advised to avoid exposure to any and all pesticides." (Department exhibit #1) Mr. Milo used to have a florist shop but had to let his son take over because he could not continue to be exposed to pesticides or the flowers in the shop. Although he is functioning better, he must avoid fragrance products, pesticides or automobile exhaust fumes. Generally, when Mr. Milo visited Dr. Robbins with a reaction, the patient gave an exposure history. Sometimes the physician surmised the reaction was to cumulative exposures. Dr. Robbins recalls only one outdoor exposure incident, when a lawn was sprayed, but has no notes to evidence the date or specifics, including distance. According to Dr. Robbins, Mr. Milo needs at least a quarter mile notice to protect his health. This distance is based on the history, apparently given to the doctor by Mr. Milo, that he had reactions to pesticides that affected his health within a quarter of a mile. Joyce Charney has been a patient of Dr. Robbins since approximately 1982. On his certification on her application he listed these classes of pesticides to which she is sensitive: "Organophosphates, chlorinated [sic] and pyrethrum." Someone else apparently added the words "pesticides" and "Dursban" to the certification form. Dr. Robbins has tested Ms. Charney extensively for her multiple severe allergies to pollen, dust and mold. He does not test for allergies to pesticides, but for this and other patients he relies on their history with regard to exposures. In his words: ...[G]enerally, when I fill out those forms I just - if a patient is very chemically sensitive and very allergic I put all classes. It is hard for me to determine which one of the -- If they have said they have had reactions when they go by lawns, or have been in someplace like a Home Depot and they get around the pesticide and they have reactions, or they were spraying with some- thing and have a reaction, it is hard to tell which ones. * * * So if they have had multiple exposures and multiple reactions I just put the full class. (Deposition of Albert Robbins, page 59-60) Dr. Robbins designated two blocks as the required notice distance for Ms. Charney based on her explanation to him that if she gets in the wind drift of a pesticide that has been sprayed, she gets a reaction. He also considered the fact that Ms. Charney and her husband own and live at a motel a few miles from the doctor's office. The motel is an "allergy-free" motel patronized by some of Dr. Robbins' patients who come from out of town and are very chemically sensitive and allergic. He feels that it is appropriate for these patients to have some protection against significant exposures to that motel. Carrietta Kelly was never a patient of Dr. Robbins and he never met her. He signed the certification on her application for registration as a pesticide-sensitive individual after she and her husband, a physician, called him. Her husband is a medical doctor in Naples, Florida, but not a physician qualified according to the DACS rules. Dr. and Mrs. Kelly sent Dr. Robbins a two-page letter describing her health history and describing the symptoms she experienced after her apartment was treated six years prior to the letter, and her condominium was sprayed with Cynoff and Orthane a year prior to the letter. Dr. Robbins classifies those products as fungicides. Based on the history he received from Dr. and Mrs. Kelly, Dr. Robbins identified on the certification form these groups to which she is sensitive: organophosphates, carbamates and pyrethrum; and he designated a 1/2 mile notification distance. Charlene McClure has been a patient of Dr. Robbins since July of 1993. Skin testing reveals that she is food sensitive, pollen sensitive, dust and mold sensitive; and she is sensitive to terpenes, which are the odors from flowering plants. When she comes to Dr. Robbins' office she is generally in a state of collapse. Because of the general sensitivities, Dr. Robbins certified on Ms. McClure's application that she is sensitive to three classes of pesticides: organophosphates, carbamates and pyrethrum. He further certified that she needs notification within a 1/2 mile radius. As part of the exposure history which Ms. McClure gave Dr. Robbins, she stated that in the summer of 1992 there was an aerial application of Decromal 14 mosquito spray over her house. She told him that as a result she suffered from severe headaches, exhaustion, nausea and stomach cramps. Dr. Robbins does not know whether droplets from the spray landed on his patient; he assumes that the Decromal is an organophosphate. The evidence does not establish that it is. Marilyn Friedman has been a patient of Dr. Robbins since 1989. He signed the certification on her application for registration and stated that she is sensitive to these specific pesticides or pesticide classes: organophosphates, carbamates and chlorinated pesticides. At his deposition he indicated that pyrethrums should also be on the list. As with his other patients, the list is based on her history of being severely allergic and chemically sensitive. Ms. Friedman's allergies include pollens, dust, mites, insects, molds, terpenes and foods. According to Dr. Robbins, she cannot tolerate someone coming in the office with a fabric softener on clothing. Dr. Robbins' determination that Ms. Friedman requires one block distance notification is based on his patient's request. His records, as he testified in deposition, do not document specific exposures and reactions but he believes that his certification probably resulted from her request to him and her desire to be protected. The application for Sally B. Platner, dated October 2, 1992, includes a certificate by Michael Waickman, M.D., the son and partner of Francis Waickman, M.D. The certificate includes this description of the pesticides or class of pesticides to which Ms. Platner is sensitive: Fungicides including "Twosome" Chem-lawn Fertilizer application liquid. (Department exhibit #1) There is some further notation, but the evidence fails to establish who made those notes. Dr. Francis Waickman treated Ms. Platner, and his son saw her in his absence. She had previously been treated and tested by Dr. Bill Rea in Texas and she was determined to have many allergies and sensitivities. Sometime in 1982, she was living in an apartment complex in Ohio and reported that she was exposed to some pesticide application by a company called Chem-lawn. Dr. Francis Waickman surmised she had both dermal and respiratory absorption since she developed a skin rash within two hours of the exposure. He is not certain what chemical was implicated, but he is confident that it was a pesticide because he has personally observed that company's practices in the area. Dr. Francis Waickman's regimen of treatment for Ms. Platner included one thousand milligrams of vitamin C hourly, until she improved or got a loose stool from too much vitamin C. The record does not establish whether this treatment was successful for Ms. Platner. The certification in 1992 was based on Ms. Platner's phone call to the Ohio doctors' office and her description of the exposure. Dr. Waickman believes she was exposed to the fungicide, "Twosome," when it was sprayed on a golf course across the street from her residence in Florida. He surmised that since she had angina and other problems with other chemical exposures, she was also sensitive to "Twosome" as a related chemical and through what he described as a "spreading phenomena." Jesse Naglich has been a patient of Dr. Klemsawesch since 1992. She is allergic to a multitude of medicines, has allergic rhinitis and asthma. Dr. Klemsawesch certified her application for registration on November 16, 1993, stating that she is sensitive to Diazinon and organophosphates. She requires two blocks' notice of any application of those substances. Dr. Klemsawesch's assessment of Ms. Naglich's condition and requirements is based on her history. She reported to the doctor that she had adverse reactions after exposure to various chemicals. Sandra Metzger is also a patient of Dr. Klemsawesch. He has treated this "very complex patient" since 1986. On his most recent certification on Ms. Metzger's application for registration, he notes that she is sensitive to "organophosphates, pyrethrins and petrochemical-based compounds." Her diagnosed condition for purposes of the registration is "respiratory allergies and chemical sensitivity," and she requires a two-block notice, according to her physician. Dr. Klemsawesch prefers the term "sensitivity" instead of "allergy" with regard to his patients' reactions, because there is no specific test to determine an allergy to pesticides. Ms. Metzger had to leave her employment because of her reactions to insecticides sprayed in her workplace. She was exposed in 1991 at the same time that her office was being painted. In order to have an adverse reaction, in Dr. Klemsawesch's view, the patient must actually receive a dermal or respiratory exposure, or contact with the mucus membranes of the mouth or eyes. Mere olfactory detection (smell) might be an unpleasant event, but an olfaction reaction is not an allergic or toxic reaction unless the substance is being absorbed into the mucus membranes. Dr. Paul Wubbena has treated Pia Valentine since 1987. She is currently ten years old and suffers from asthma and allergic rhinitis; and, according to Dr. Wubbena's certification dated December 29, 1993, she is sensitive to pyrethrums, Diazinon and Dursban. She had recurring problems when riding her bicycle to the grocery store with her mother, and when pesticides were being sprayed she would start wheezing and coughing and getting sick. Also, based on her history given to the physician, she reacted to pyrethrums in flying insect spray. Dr. Wubbena based his conclusions regarding the specific chemicals on the history given to him by his patient and her mother and on his knowledge that Dursban and Diazinon are commonly used for lawn spraying. Miss Valentine has been tested for reactions to pollens and molds and is allergic to things of that type. Her allergic reactions are similar to her reactions in the presence of the specific pesticides listed by Dr. Wubbena. Jeanne Pellegrino has been treated by Dr. Hana Chaim for multiple chemical sensitivity and pesticide sensitivity since July of 1992. Dr. Chaim signed the certificate on Ms. Pellegrino's application for registration on June 2, 1993, indicating that she is sensitive to "organophosphates, pyrethrums, cypermethrin, especially Dursban" and that she needs 1/2 mile distance notification of application of those pesticides. The determination of what chemicals to put on the certificate was based on discussion with the patient, whom Dr. Chaim understood had established the specific pesticides she had been exposed to in the past. The distance determination was based on Dr. Chaim's understanding that sprays can go from a 900 to 1500-mile radius and the 1/2 mile notice is the maximum required by law. Although she suspected organophosphates were involved in Ms. Pellegrino's first exposure between April and June of 1993, this was not confirmed. Within the files of DACS for Kathryn Kaeding are two physician's certifications, dated February 16, 1993 and June 12, 1992, by Dr. Ahner. On the forms it is noted that she is sensitive to "Hydrocarbons, all pesticides, chlorinated compounds." Her diagnosed condition is "allergy - hypersensitivity - immune dysfunction." There is no other evidence in the record, from the individual or her physician, regarding Ms. Kaeding's condition or eligibility for registration. Nor is there any evidence, other than her application, regarding the eligibility of Carol Arrighi. From the form in the record it is impossible to determine whether the individual or her physician completed the application, or whether the signature on the certification is that of a physician. The certification for Kayleigh Marie Nunez is signed by Dr. Chaim. It states that she is sensitive to "organophosphates, all pesticides and herbicides, one-half mile limit requested." The certification for Estelle Greene, dated July 2, 1993, is signed by Linda Marraccini, M.D. The class of pesticides to which the individual is sensitive is noted as "All." Dr. Robbins appears to have signed certifications for Betty Jane Napier and for Susan and Donald Maxwell (both Maxwells are included on a single application form). The notation typed on Ms. Napier's form states: "Known to react to ethylene oxide." The pesticides or class of pesticides listed on Mr. and Mrs. Maxwell's form are "organophosphates, organochlorines, pyrethroids." The certification by Dr. Chaim on Barbara Rauker's application states that she is sensitive to "all classes of pesticides." The certification by Caren B. Singer, M.D. on Judith Lessne's application states that she is sensitive to "Pesticides in general, Petroleum based products." Pesticide Industry Practice A reliable pest control operator will determine the nature and extent of a problem before attempting a treatment. The operator must consider the surroundings of the area to be treated and the environmental factors such as rain, wind and sun. Treatment is tailored to reduce drift, which not only can cause harm but also causes needless expense due to waste. Good industry practice includes training technicians and carefully following the manufacturer's instructions regarding the most safe and effective use of the product. While careful use can control drift, unexpected wind gusts can disperse the product beyond its target, and even Petitioners' expert concedes that a post-application vapor of pesticide could drift for a half mile. Pesticide Sensitivity According to the Department's expert, Dr. Teaf, pesticide sensitivity by definition relates only to the substance that was the subject of an initial exposure and subsequent exposure that causes a reaction in an individual. The medical and toxicological link for pesticide sensitivity is much tighter than for the condition referred to as "multiple chemical sensitivities" or "MCS". There is no generally accepted definition in the scientific community of what constitutes pesticide sensitivity and there is no simple blood test to establish pesticide sensitivity. While there is commonly a psychological or psychogenic factor in pesticide sensitivity just as there is with other health conditions like heart problems, pesticide sensitivity is not solely a psychogenic or psychological condition. Pesticide sensitivity can be reasonably determined, even through the mechanism by which an individual acquires that condition is not clearly understood. A reaction to a specific chemical or pesticide class can be documented and quantified by a physical change in the body. Exposure histories are significant so long as the pesticide or pesticide class is identified. However, exposure histories alone are insufficient unless other causes are reasonably ruled out. Specifically, many individuals in the cases here were determined to be sensitive to many different agents: molds and pollens, food, animals, petroleum products and perfumes. It is impossible to deduce that an individual's symptoms are caused by exposure to one, rather than another agent, unless there is some process of elimination or isolation of the suspect agent. Summary of Findings Evidence of the process for diagnosis for the individual respondents in this proceeding is meager. Not one individual applicant testified, and only eleven applicants were addressed through the deposition testimony of their certifying physicians. Not one of the certifying physicians could testify that he or she actually followed the guidelines provided by the department, which guidelines, although non-binding, are accepted by experts for both sides of the dispute as important to good diagnosis. Dr. Klemsawesch, a very credible and competent witness and specialist in allergy and immunology, conceded that in order to respond to questions regarding the connection between exposures to pesticides and subsequent reactions, from a scientific point of view, you would need to test people by exposures in a controlled fashion and determine their physiological response. For Dr. Klemsawesch's patients, Ms. Naglich and Ms. Metzger, the specific events reported to him stood out beyond the background of their other common allergies to lead him to his conclusion that the chemicals he listed on their certificates were having an effect. That conclusion falls short of the finding required by law for the extra distance notice. Dr. Klemsawesch's conclusion, like that of the other certifying physicians, was based primarily on the individual's history. While that is an appropriate and accepted method of diagnosis, the histories described in the record of this proceeding are wholly lacking in the detail necessary for the determination required by law. No individual in the multiple cases consolidated presented adequate proof of the need for notification at greater distance than that specified for pesticide-sensitive persons.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the agency enter its final order denying the petition in Case #94-3237 (Carol Ann Rodriguez) as moot (see preliminary statement); and granting the remaining petitions by denying the applications for designation as "especially pesticide-sensitive." RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 31st day of May, 1995. MARY W. CLARK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 1995. APPENDIX A INDIVIDUAL CERTIFYING DOAH CASE# RESPONDENT PHYSICIAN 94-2801 Cheryl Mansker Robbins 94-2802 Sally Platner Waickman 94-2803 Thomas Milo Robbins 94-2805 Kathryn Kaeding Ahner 94-2852 Carol Arrighi Doyle 94-2853 Jessie Naglich Klemsawesch 94-2855 Joyce Charney Robbins 94-2858 Carietta Kelly Robbins 94-2859 Kayleigh Nunez Chaim 94-2862 Pia Valentine Wubbena 94-2864 Sandra Metzger Klemsawesch 94-2865 Charlene McClure Robbins 94-2866 Estelle Greene Marraccini 94-2867 Jeanne Pellegrino Chaim 94-2869 Marilyn Friedman Robbins 94-2871 Betty Jane Napier Robbins 94-2872 Susan Maxwell Robbins 94-3235 Carietta Kelly (see 94-2858) 94-3236 Susan Maxwell (see 94-2872) 94-3237 Carol Ann Rodriguez (moot) 94-4243 Barbara Rauker Chaim 94-6376 Judith Lessne Singer APPENDIX B The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Florida Pest Control Association, Inc. Adopted, or adopted in substance or in summary form: #1-7, 11-18, 22-28, 38, 41, 48-49, 62-82, 88-90, 93-105, 107-109, 115-121, 124-126, 129-133, 137, 140-147, 158. Accepted, but not incorporated, as unnecessary or immaterial: #8-10, 19- 21, 29-37, 39-40, 42-47, 50-61, 83-87, 91, 106, 110-114, 122-123, 127-128, 134- 136, 138-139, 148-157. Rejected, as inconsistent with or unsupported by the weight of evidence: #92. Certified Operators of Southwest Florida, Inc., Lan-Mac Pest Control-Englewood,Inc. Lan-Mac Pest Control-Ft. Myers, Inc. Adopted, or adopted in substance or in summary form: #1-5, 8-11, 13-15, 18-22, 24-25. Rejected, as inconsistent with, or unsupported by the weight of evidence: #27. (The remaining numbered paragraphs are designated as conclusions of law.) The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Adopted, or adopted in substance or in summary form: #1-4, first sentence of #5, 6, 8-10. Accepted, but not incorporated, as unnecessary or immaterial: #7. Rejected, as inconsistent with or unsupported by the weight of evidence: Second sentence of #5. Individual Respondents Adopted, or adopted in substance or in summary form: #2-7, 10, 12-14, 22, 24-33, 40, 42, 47-56, 58-63, 66, 69-71, 80, 82-86, 90-95, 101, 106-109, 111-113. Accepted, but not incorporated, as unnecessary or immaterial: #8-9, 11, 15-21, 23, 34-38 [the issue is not the patient's sensitivity, but the extra distance notice requirement], 43, 46, 67 (not the required Board), 68, 72, 74- 77, 81, 88, 98, 99, 100, 115. Rejected, as inconsistent with or unsupported by the weight of evidence: #1, 39, 41, 44-45, 57, 64, 65, 73, 78-79, 87, 89, 96-97, 102-105, 110, 114, 116- 117. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler General Counsel The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Robert G. Worley, Esquire Dept. of Agriculture & Consumer Services 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Jonathan A. Glogau, Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol, PL-01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Lance McKinney, Esquire O. Box 88 Cape Coral, Florida 33910-0088 Howard J. Hochman, Esquire 1320 S. Dixie Highway Suite 1180 Coral Gables, Florida 33146
Findings Of Fact Evidence adduced by the Petitioner in the form of the testimony of F. Robert DuChanois, an entomologist and supervisor in charge of commercial pest control, Office of Entomology, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, as well as Exhibit 2, established that on July 1, 1979, the Respondent made an inspection of an apartment house in Hallandale, Florida, to determine whether suspicions by the occupants of drywood termite infestations were well-founded. As delineated in Exhibit 2, the Respondent's report of his inspection, positive evidence was found in a number of places of termite infestation, which findings revealed that indeed the Respondent made a detailed professional investigation of the premises for such infestations. The evidence in the record also reveals (Exhibit 4) that the Respondent is not operating a pest control business, but is only performing consulting work for those property owners who request that he make inspections for termite and other wood-destroying pests. In any event, the Respondent, in the posthearing pleading he filed, has agreed to cease the activity objected to and which forms the basis of the Petitioner's charges. He has agreed to cease practicing consulting work in entomology henceforth.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and the evidence in the record, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Petition in this cause filed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services against Dr. A.C. Banerjee be DISMISSED and Case No. 80-2160 be hereby closed. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of August, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 10th day of August, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold L. Braynon, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 201 West Broward Boulevard Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Dr. A. C. Banerjee 10891 N.W. 17th Manor Coral Springs Branch Pompano Beach, Florida 33065 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 80-2160 DR. A. C. BANERJEE, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was the holder of Pest Control Business License No. 875, Pest Control Operator's Certificate No. 667, and Identification Card No. 6415. Respondent's business was and is located at 512 South Eighth Street, Fernandina Beach, Florida. The anniversary date for purposes of renewal of Respondent's Pest Control Business License was November 30, 1978. Those persons holding identification cards issued in connection with the operation of H & K Pest Control were Respondent, Dolphus Lee White, Donna Kay Young and George Morrison Young. Respondent was licensed to conduct pest control business only in the category of Lawn and Ornamental pests. On November 28, 1978, two days before Respondent's pest control business license was to expire, HRS received an Application for Pest Control Business License and Identification Cards from Respondent requesting renewal of the aforementioned licenses and identification cards. However, the Certificate of Insurance attached to the renewal application failed to meet the requirements for minimum financial responsibility for property damage contained in Section 482.071, Florida Statutes. The Certificate of Insurance in question indicated that the limits of liability for property damage were $50,000 for each occurrence, and $50,000 in the aggregate. The statutory requirements are $50,000 for each occurrence and $100,000 aggregate. As a result, by notice dated November 29, 1978, HRS returned Respondent's application, indicating that the Certificate of Insurance did not meet the statutory standard. In addition, the November 29, 1978 letter specifically informed Respondent that . . . it is unlawful to operate a pest control business that is not licensed." HRS received a corrected Certificate of Insurance on February 27, 1979. However, this Certificate of Insurance did not indicate the name of the insured pest control business, and was, accordingly, returned to Respondent's insurance agent. Respondent's name was then apparently inserted in the Certificate of Insurance by the agent, and the corrected Certificate of Insurance was received by HRS on March 3, 1979. As a result, Respondent's application for renewal of his licenses and identification cards was not, in fact, complete until March 3, 1979. The renewal licenses and identification cards were thereafter issued on June 4, 1979. The delay between receipt of the completed application and issuance of the licenses and identification cards was apparently due to work load in the HRS Office of Entomology. Notwithstanding the fact that Respondent was licensed only in the area of Lawn and Ornamental Pest Control, H & K Pest Control performed pest control services inside buildings at the Florida Marine Welcome Station in Fernandina Beach, Florida, for the period July 1, 1978 through and including two days prior to the hearing in this cause on September 28, 1979. The State of Florida, Department of Commerce, Office of Administrative Services was billed ten dollars monthly on H & K Pest Control statements for this service, and payment was remitted by the State of Florida for these services to H & K Pest Control. In addition, on at least two occasions H & K Pest Control performed pest control services inside buildings at the Florida Welcome Station on Interstate Highway 95 in Yulee, Florida. One of these occasions occurred in November, 1978 for which H & K Pest Control billed the Florida Welcome Station in Yulee, Florida, thirty dollars on its statement dated January, 1979. At no time during the performance of pest control services inside the Florida Marine Welcome Station in Fernandina Beach, Florida, and the Florida Welcome Station on Interstate Highway 95 in Yulee, Florida, was Kinsey C. Haddock or any other employee of H & K Pest Control licensed in the category of General Household Pests and Rodents, or in any other category that would have allowed them to treat the inside of buildings for pests. Although Respondent was never observed to have personally sprayed the insides of buildings at either Welcome Station, persons identifying themselves as employees of H & K Pest Control did perform those services, the State of Florida was billed on statement forms of H & K Pest Control for these services, and payment was remitted by check to H & K Pest Control. On December 27, 1978 an inspector from HRS visited the business location of H & K Pest Control at 512 South Eighth Street, Fernandina Beach, Florida. The business office was open and being operated by a person claiming to be an employee of H & K Pest Control who identified herself as Joyce French. Ms. French advised the inspector that she had been trained in the category of General Household Pest Control, and had performed these services inside the Florida Welcome Station on Interstate Highway 95 in Yulee, Florida. Records maintained by the Office of Entomology indicate that no identification card or other license had ever been issued to a "Joyce French" in the area of General Household Pest Control. Respondent denied that he had ever employed a "Joyce French", nor was Miss French called as a witness in this proceeding. Further, other than the statement attributed by the inspector to Ms. French, there is no evidence in this proceeding to corroborate that Ms. French did, in fact, perform pest control services of any description. Further, on December 27, 1978, Respondent did not have displayed in his business office a certified operator's certificate renewal or a current business license, as required Chapter 482, Florida Statutes. Finally, the record in this proceeding establishes, and Respondent has, in fact, admitted, that he is not a full- time employee of H & K Pest Control. In fact, the record clearly establishes that Respondent has been a full-time employee of Container Corporation of America as an engineer in the Power Department of that company since December 9, 1937. Respondent works rotating shifts in his employment at Container Corporation of America, but usually works the 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. shift an average of only five days per month. When not working the 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. shift at Container Corporation of America, Respondent operates his pest control business at the address above mentioned.
