Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed chiropractic physician in the state of Florida with license number CH 0003034. Respondent treated Mr. Richard Turner several times between February 3, 1988 and February 13, 1988. Respondent had treated Turner previously and, in fact, had been Turner's chiropractic physician for several years before treating him on this occasion. Turner had health care coverage through the Daytona Beach Community College Health Care Plan. However, Turner had not met the $200.00 annual deductible at this time. Therefore, Respondent allowed Turner to pay $20.00 per visit to be applied to the portion of his bill not covered by insurance. Turner furnished Respondent's office with certain information concerning his insurance coverage and was made aware by Respondent's office that a claim for reimbursement would be filed with Turner's insurance carrier as had been done on previous occasions. Respondent filed a claim for reimbursement with the Daytona Beach Community College Health Care Plan for services rendered Turner but failed to provide a copy of this billing to Turner until some 2 to 3 months after filing with the insurance carrier. Respondent was not reimbursed for these services by Turner's insurance carrier or Turner; therefore, a claim was filed in the County Court of Volusia County, Florida against Turner. The court awarded the Respondent a judgment in the amount of the unpaid balance, plus costs.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Board enter of Final Order reprimanding Respondent, Michael A. Petker for his failure to strictly comply with Section 460.413(1)(bb), Florida Statutes. Respectfully submitted and entered this 16th day of February, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 February, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-5267 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Findings of Fact 2 and 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. COPIES FURNISHED: Cynthia Shaw, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0760 Paul Bernardini, Esquire LaRue Bernardini, Seitz & Tresher Post Office Drawer 2200 Daytona Beach, Florida 32015-2200 Lawerence A. Gonzalez, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Pat Guilford, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Chiropractic 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether a consumptive use permit for the quantities of water applied for should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Applicant Phillips Petroleum Company submitted application Number 7500103 for a consumptive use permit for an average daily withdrawal of 9,000,000 gallons of water a day to be withdrawn from the Florida Aquifer in DeSoto County, Florida. The application is for a new use and the withdrawal is for industrial use from four withdrawal points. The center of withdrawals will be located at Latitude 27 degrees, 14 minutes, 40 seconds north. Longitude 82 degrees, 2 minutes, 48 seconds west, in DeSoto County. Notice of the September 3, 1975 public hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation, to wit: The Arcadian on August 14 and 21, 1975, pursuant to Section 373.146, Florida Statutes. Notice of the continuation of the hearing held at 10:30 a.m., December 11, 1974 were duly noticed. Sarasota County was granted leave to intervene as a party to the proceeding. Evidence was received and testimony was heard by all parties at the September 3, 1975 hearing and evidence was received and testimony was heard by she Applicant and Intervenor at the December 11, 1975 hearing, and although the attorneys for the Southwest Florida Water Management District took no further part in the December 11, 1975 hearing on the merits, depositions of the Southwest Florida Water Management District staff members, James Mann and Barbara Boatwright, were received. Phillips Petroleum Company owns approximately 15,200 acres of land in DeSoto County and Manatee County and proposes to commence a phosphate mining operation on that property using a total of 15 million gallons of water per day, 9,000,000 gallons per day (MGD) from DeSoto County and 6 million gallons per day (MGD) from Manatee County. This application for a permit is for the 9 million gallons of water to be withdrawn from an 8,700 acre parcel owned by the Applicant in DeSoto County, Florida. As such it presumptively seeks withdrawal and consumptive use of no more than the average annual water crop for this parcel. Pursuant to the water crop theory, the water crop for the 8,700 acres contro led by the Applicant in the Southwest Florida Water Management District is 8.7 million gallons of water per day. However, as shown by correspondence of a hydrologist from Southwest Florida Water Management District, a phosphate mining operation is only 90 percent consumptive and therefore the actual consumptive use is 7.8 million gallons per day and falls within the water crop theory assumption set forth in Rule 16J-2.11(3), F.A.C., infra. The statutory criteria for granting a consumptive use permit is found in Section 373.223, Florida Statutes, which states: "(1) To obtain a permit pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, the applicant must establish that the proposed use of water: Is a reasonable-beneficial use as defined in 474.019(5); and Will not interfere with any presently existing use of water; and Is consistent with the public interest. (2) The governing board of the department may authorize the holder of a use permit to transport and use ground or surface water beyond overlying land or outside the watershed from which it is taken if the governing board or department determines that such transport and use is consistent with the public interest." This statute has been supplemented by rules adopted by the Southwest Florida Water Management District and is found in Rule 16J-2.11, F.A.C.: "16J-2.11 Conditions for a Consumptive Use Permit. The intended consumptive use: Must be a reasonable, beneficial use. Must be consistent with the public interest. Will not interfere with any legal use of water existing at the time of the application. Issuance of a permit will be denied if the withdrawal of water: Will cause the rate of flow of a stream or other watercourse to be lowered below the minimum rate of flow established by the Board. Will cause the level of the potentiometric surface to be lowered below the regulatory level established by the Board. Will cause the level of the surface of water to be lowered below the minimum level established by the Board. Will significantly induce salt water encroachment. Will cause the water table to be lowered so that the lake stages or vegetation will be adversely and significantly affected on lands other than those owned, leased or otherwise controlled by the applicant. Issuance of a permit will be denied if the amount of water consumptively used will exceed the water crop of lands owned, leased, or otherwise controlled by the applicant. (Except where determined otherwise, the water crop [precipitation less evapotranspiration] throughout the District will be three hundred sixty-five thousand (365,000) gallons per year per acre.") The United States Geological Survey and the Florida Department of Environmental Relation have received data supplied to Southwest Florida Water Management District with the application for a consumptive use permit. Throughout the course of the hearing testimony was heard and evidence was received as to the "leakance value" of the parcel of land in question. "Leakance value" was defined as the moving of water from the surface down into the deeper aquifer. A geologist, Mr. Donald S. Kell, with the Department of Environmental Regulation, and who testified at the request of the Intervenor, Sarasota County, was of the opinion that insufficient data to determine leakance value in connection with the mining operation had been submitted and therefore further tests were needed. Mr. Jack Hickey of the United States Geological Survey was of the opinion that leakance value had not been obtained. The technical staff members of the Southwest Florida Water Management District were uncertain as to whether reliable leakance value had been obtained. It was the position of the Intervenor, Sarasota County, that due to the geological conditions of the proposed mining operation, this leakance value or surface recharge into the aquifer was insufficient and was not in conformity with Southwest Florida Water Management District's water crop theory assumption of 1,000 gallons per acre per day. Although evidence was presented on this point, it is the finding of this Hearing Officer that such evidence was insufficient to establish the basis of, any finding of fact or to rebut the assumption contained in the above referenced rule. The validity of this rule was not challenged and the presumption is that the rule is valid. The water used in the flotation process of applicants mining and benefication process would be recycled and reused in other areas of the phosphate operation. A letter of objection by Donald T. Yeats was examined and considered in this Order. The Applicant presented evidence that the construction of the facility would be in excess of $94 million expended over a period of 3 years, 61 percent of which would be spent in the region. 350 people would be employed at full production. Additional support jobs would employe from 200-400 people. Evidence was presented by the Applicant and was not rebutted by the Intervenor or by the Southwest Florida Water Management District as to each of the applicable conditions for a consumptive use permit in Chapter 16J-2.11, Rules of the Southwest Florida Water Management District, effectuating the provisions of Chapter 378, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation That the Southwest Florida Water Management District approve Phillips Petroleum Company's application for a consumptive use permit as requested, subject to the following terms and conditions: Prior to commencing withdrawals, Phillips Petroleum shall notify the District of said commencement; All production wells will be equipped with appropriate flow deters or other measuring devices; Phillips shall submit periodic reports of withdrawal to the District; and Phillips shall install appropriate observation wells or other monitoring facilities. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of January, 1976. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jacob D. Varn, Esquire Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler 2000 Exchange Bank Building Tampa, Florida Jay T. Ahern, Esquire Southwest Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 457 Brooksville, Florida Richard E. Nelson, Esquire Richard L. Smith, Esquire Nelson, Payne, Hesse and Cyril 2070 Ringling Boulevard Sarasota, Florida
The Issue Whether Respondents, Ag-Mart Produce, Inc. (Ag-Mart), and its employees' Justin Oelman (in DOAH Case No. 06-0729) and Warrick Birdwell (in DOAH Case No. 06-0730), committed some, any, or all of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaints detailed herein and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence presented at the final hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency charged with administration of the Florida Pesticide Law, Chapter 487, Part I, Florida Statutes. Among the duties of the Bureau of Compliance Monitoring within the Division of Agricultural Environmental Services are the designation and regulation of restricted-use pesticides, the testing and licensure of certified pesticide applicators, and the enforcement of federal worker protection standards regarding the exposure of farm workers to pesticides. §§ 487.011, 487.042, 487.044, and 487.051, Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 5E-2.039. The Administrative Complaints allege two types of violation of the Florida Pesticide Law. First, they allege that Ag-Mart harvested tomatoes prior to the end of the pre-harvest interval, the period of time that must pass after a pesticide is applied to a tomato plant before that plant's fruit may be safely harvested. The pre-harvest interval is specified on the labels of restricted-use pesticides. Second, they allege that Ag-Mart allowed workers to enter sprayed fields prior to the end of the restricted entry interval, the period of time that must pass after a pesticide is applied before it is safe for a worker to enter or remain in the treated area. The restricted entry interval is also specified on the labels of restricted-use pesticides. In 2004, Ag-Mart operated farms in several locations in Florida and North Carolina. Ag-Mart operated packing houses in Plant City, Florida, and in New Jersey. Ag-Mart grows, packages, and distributes grape tomatoes under the "Santa Sweets" label, and a round-type tomato marketed as "Ugly Ripe." During all times relevant to this proceeding, Ag-Mart's principal administrative offices were located in Plant City, Florida, and Ag-Mart's operations were managed by its president, Donald Long. At the final hearing, several Ag-Mart employees, including Mr. Long, testified as to Ag-Mart's practices in establishing planting and pesticide spraying schedules, carrying out those schedules in the field, and ensuring that legal restrictions on pesticide use are observed. This testimony is credited as to Ag-Mart's general pattern and practice, but does not disprove the Department's evidence as to particular instances of pre-harvest interval or restricted entry interval violations. Among other duties, Mr. Long was responsible for scheduling Ag-Mart's cultivation of tomato plants at the company's farms, so that product is available year-round. Mr. Long prepared a 2004 planting schedule that spaced the planting of new crops a week to ten days apart to ensure a continuous flow of tomatoes once the plants matured. For the 2004 season, the South Florida farm began planting in September 2003, with harvesting commencing in December 2003 and continuing through May 2004. The North Florida farm started its spring season plantings in March and April 2004, with harvest beginning in early June 2004 and lasting until August 2004. Each "planting" at Ag-Mart consists of a specific amount of acreage that is cultivated for a specific period of time to produce an expected yield of tomatoes. Mr. Long determines the size of each planting based on past yields and projected needs. A single planting of grape tomatoes is harvested multiple times. Depending on conditions, a planting of grape tomatoes at the South Florida farm can be harvested between ten and 15 times in the fall, with fewer harvesting opportunities in the spring. A planting of grape tomatoes at the North Florida farm may be harvested between eight and ten times. Each planting takes up portions of acreage called "fields," which are divided by land features and irrigation systems. Fields are of varying sizes, depending on the nature of the terrain and the irrigation system. The fields are numbered, and a planting is usually done in a certain number of roughly contiguous fields. A field is further divided into separately numbered "blocks," each block consisting of six rows of tomato plants, three rows on each side of a "drive area" through which tractors and harvest trucks can maneuver to reach the plants. The blocks are numbered in sequence from the beginning to the end of the field. At the South Florida farm in 2004, Ag-Mart cultivated ten separate plantings of between 79 and 376 gross acres. Each planting contained as few as three and as many as ten separate fields. At the North Florida farm in 2004, Ag-Mart cultivated five separate plantings of between 92 and 158 gross acres. Each planting contained either two or three separate fields.2 The cycle of farming activities at the Ag-Mart farms included ground preparation, planting, staking, tying, harvesting, and post-harvest clean-up. Farm laborers were recruited and transported to the fields by crew leaders, who must be registered as farm labor contractors with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation pursuant to Chapter 450, Part III, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61L-1.004. The crew leaders supervised the field laborers and prepared their weekly time cards. The crew leaders were directed by Ag-Mart's labor supervisors as to where the laborers were to work and which tasks were to be performed at any given time. Crew leaders providing services to Ag-Mart in 2004 included: Sergio Salinas, d/b/a Salinas & Son, Inc.; Pascual Sierra; and Juan Anzualda, d/b/a Juan Anzualda Harvesting, Inc. Mr. Salinas and Mr. Anzualda were crew leaders at the South Florida farm in the spring 2004 season. Mr. Sierra was a crew leader at the North Florida farm in 2004. At the South Florida farm, Mr. Salinas and three or four supervisors called "field walkers" oversaw the daily work of the 150 to 200 farm laborers who worked in Mr. Salinas' crew. Mr. Salinas owned and operated buses that transported the workers to and within the farm. Mr. Salinas also operated trucks to haul the harvested tomatoes from the fields to the shipping dock on the South Florida farm. A truck was also needed to move portable toilets to the fields for the use of the laborers. Because of the amount of equipment necessary to conduct a harvest, and the intense hand labor required to pick a row of tomatoes, Mr. Salinas always kept his crew together in one location while harvesting. During the period of January through May 2004, Mr. Salinas' crew typically harvested in one or two fields per day, and never more than four fields in one day. Mr. Anzualda and his 15 field walkers supervised a crew of 150 laborers at the South Florida farm during March and April 2004. Mr. Anzualda always kept his crew together when performing harvesting activities, due to the amount of equipment and the time necessary to set up near the work areas. Mr. Anzualda estimated that it took between 45 and 90 minutes to set up his equipment and line up his workers along the rows before harvesting could commence in a given field. Mr. Anzualda's crew typically harvested in one or two fields per day at the South Florida farm during the peak harvest period of March and April 2004, and never in more than four fields in one day. Ag-Mart paid the farm laborers the piece rate of $2.50 per tub of grape tomatoes. A "tub" weighs about 21 pounds. Different piece rates applied to different forms of work. For tying activities, the laborers under Mr. Salinas were paid $0.75 per 100 linear feet of work, while those under Mr. Anzualda were paid $0.50 per 100 linear feet. The laborers were paid the minimum wage of $5.15 per hour for some work, such as weeding and the harvest of Ugly Ripe tomatoes. In any event, the laborers were guaranteed the minimum wage, and were paid $5.15 per hour if that amount was greater than their pay would have been under piece work rates. Planting activities are performed by hand. Tomato plants are started in greenhouses, and then transplanted to the field when they are six weeks old and about six inches high. Staking is performed manually and by machine, as stakes are placed between the tomato plants to support the plants as they mature. Tying is performed manually, from about the second week after planting until the eighth or ninth week. "Tying" involves tying the tomato plants with string to the stakes to allow them to grow up the stakes as they mature. The tomato plants are six to seven feet tall at maturity. After the tomatoes were planted in 2004, Ag-Mart's farms began the application of pesticides according to a company-wide spray program devised by Mr. Long prior to the season. The spray program outlined the type and volume of pesticide products to be applied to the maturing tomato plants from the first week of planting through the end of the harvest. Once tying and harvesting activities began, Ag-Mart's spray program called for the application of pesticides "behind the tying" or "behind the harvest," meaning that spraying was done immediately after tying or harvesting was completed in a field. The spraying was done behind the workers because picking and tying opens up the plants, which enables the pesticide to better penetrate the plant. The timing of the spraying also allows fungicide to cover wounds from broken leaves caused by picking, thus preventing infection. Harvesting is performed manually by the farm laborers, who pick the ripe fruit from the tomato plants and place it into containers. The crew leader lines up the laborers with one person on each side of a row of tomatoes, meaning that a crew of 150 laborers can pick 75 rows of tomatoes at a time. The farm workers pick all of the visible fruit that is ripe or close to ripe on the blocks that are being harvested. Once the picking is complete on a block, it takes seven to ten days for enough new fruit to ripen on that block to warrant additional harvesting. Justin Oelman was Ag-Mart's crop protection manager at the South Florida farm in 2004. Mr. Oelman worked for Ag-Mart for eight years as a farm manager and crop protection manager before leaving in 2005 and had three years prior experience as a crop protection manager for another tomato grower. As crop protection manager in 2004, Mr. Oelman was the licensed pesticide applicator responsible for ordering chemicals and directing the application of pesticides. His job included writing up the "tomato spray ticket" for each pesticide application. The spray ticket is a document that, on its face, indicates the date and time of a pesticide application and its location according to planting, field, and block numbers. The spray ticket also states the name of the tractor driver who physically applies the pesticide, the type and amount of the pesticide applied, and the number of acres treated. Licensed pesticide applicators are required by Department rule to record the information included on the spray ticket. Fla. Admin. Code R. 5E-9.032. In applying pesticides to the South Florida farm's grape tomato crop in 2004, Mr. Oelman followed the spraying program designed by Mr. Long before the season. Because the pesticides were applied behind the farm workers' field activity, Mr. Oelman maintained close communications with Josh Cantu, the Ag-Mart labor supervisor in charge of tying activities on the South Florida farm, and with Eduardo Bravo, the labor supervisor in charge of grape tomato harvesting. Mr. Bravo in turn directed crew leaders such as Mr. Salinas and Mr. Anzualda on where to take their crews to conduct harvesting work. These communications kept Mr. Oelman apprised of where the crews were working and how much progress the tying or harvesting activities were expected to make by the end of the day. Mr. Oelman was then able to plan the next day's pesticide applications so that his tractor drivers would be ready to enter the field and apply the pesticides soon after the tying or harvesting activities were completed. Mr. Oelman typically wrote the spray tickets on the day before the actual pesticide application, based on the information gathered from Mr. Bravo and Mr. Cantu. Thus, the starting times shown on the tickets are times that were projected by Mr. Oelman on the previous afternoon, not necessarily the time that spraying actually commenced. Spraying could be delayed for a number of reasons. At times, the work in the fields would not progress as quickly as Mr. Cantu or Mr. Bravo had anticipated, due to the heaviness of the harvest. Pesticides are not applied to wet plants; therefore, rain could delay a planned spray application. Mr. Oelman's practice was to write a new spray ticket if a day's planned application was completely cancelled. However, if the planned spray application was merely delayed for a time, Mr. Oelman did not create a new spray ticket or update the original ticket to reflect the actual starting time. Mr. Oelman failed to explain why he did not always create a new ticket when the information on the existing ticket ceased to be accurate. Mr. Oelman directly supervised the Ag-Mart employees who drove the tractors and operated the spray rigs from which pesticides were applied to the tomato plants. Mr. Oelman trained the tractor drivers not to spray where people were working, but to wait until the tying or harvesting activities in designated fields had been completed. Once the fields had been sprayed, Mr. Oelman would orally notify Mr. Bravo and Mr. Cantu of the location of the pesticide applications. Mr. Oelman would also post copies of the spray tickets at the farm's central posting board, on which was posted relevant information regarding the pesticides being used at the farm, the restricted entry intervals and pre-harvest intervals for the pesticides, and other safety information.3 When restricted-use pesticides4 were to be applied, Mr. Oelman posted the entrances to the field with warning signs before the application began. The signs, which stated "Danger/Pesticides/Keep Out" in English and Spanish, were left in place until twelve hours after the expiration of the restricted entry interval for the applied pesticide. Mr. Oelman attested that he always made these postings when restricted-use pesticides such as Monitor and Danitol were applied at the South Florida farm. Mr. Salinas and Mr. Anzualda testified that they never harvested tomatoes from fields posted with pesticide warning signs. Mr. Anzualda checked for warning signs every day to ensure that his crew was not being sent into fields where pesticides had recently been applied. The restricted entry interval (REI) and the pre- harvest interval (PHI) are set forth on the manufacturer's label of each restricted-use pesticide, in accordance with 40 C.F.R. Parts 156 (labeling requirements for pesticides and devices) and 170 (worker protection standard). The REI, a worker safety standard, is the time period after application of a restricted- use pesticide that must elapse before workers are allowed to enter the treated area. The PHI, a food safety standard, is the time period that must elapse after a spray application before harvesting can begin. The REI and PHI vary according to individual pesticides. In 2004, Warrick Birdwell was the farm manager at Ag- Mart's North Florida farm in Jennings. Prior to 2004, Mr. Birdwell had worked ten years for other tomato growers in Virginia and Florida. As farm manager, Mr. Birdwell was responsible for all operations from ground preparation through post-harvest clean-up at the North Florida farm. Mr. Birdwell was also a licensed restricted-use pesticide applicator and was responsible for the application of pesticides at the North Florida farm. In 2004, Mr. Birdwell was assisted in carrying out the spray program by Dale Waters, who supervised the tractor drivers and equipment.5 During 2004, grape tomatoes were harvested at the North Florida farm on a rotation of at least seven days per block, meaning that it would take at least seven days after a harvest, in a given field, to grow enough vine ripe fruit to warrant another harvest. Mr. Birdwell prepared the spray tickets for the planned application of pesticides. He created his spray tickets a day or two before the actual date that the application was scheduled to take place. At times, delays occurred due to weather, equipment failures, or slower than anticipated progress in the harvest. Mr. Birdwell's practice was to create a new ticket and destroy the old one if the delay prevented a scheduled application from occurring on the scheduled date. However, if the spraying was commenced on the scheduled date, but had to be completed on the next day, Mr. Birdwell kept the original spray ticket without amendment. Mr. Birdwell failed to give a reason why a new ticket was not created each time the information, included in the original ticket, ceased to be accurate. Mr. Birdwell communicated throughout the day with Charles Lambert, the North Florida farm's labor supervisor, to monitor the progress of the harvesting activities and ensure that workers did not enter fields where REIs or PHIs were in effect. Mr. Birdwell also directed that warning postings be placed at the entrances to fields where restricted-use pesticides had been applied. Farm labor crews were allowed to move on the farm property only at the specific direction of Mr. Lambert, whose constant communication with Mr. Birdwell helped ensure that labor crews stayed out of treated fields until it was safe to enter them. Harvested product received at Ag-Mart's packing houses is tracked by foreman receiving reports, which identify the product and its quantity, the name of the crew leader responsible for harvesting the product, the farm from which the product was shipped, and the planting number from which the product was harvested. The receiving reports are used to calculate the commission payments due to the Ag-Mart crew leaders, who are paid based on the amount of fruit their crews harvest, and to analyze the yields of specific plantings. The "date received" column on the receiving reports showed the date the product was shipped from the farm to the packinghouse. In March 2005, the Palm Beach Post published an article stating that three women, who harvested tomatoes for Ag- Mart in 2004, bore children who suffered from birth defects. The article questioned whether the birth defects were connected to the pesticides used by Ag-Mart on its tomatoes. The women had worked at both the South Florida and North Florida farms, and at an Ag-Mart farm in North Carolina. In response to the article, the Collier County Health Department began an inquiry to determine the cause of the birth defects and asked for the Department's help in performing a pesticide use inspection at the South Florida farm, where the three women, identified as Francisca Herrera, Sostenes Salazar, and Maria de la Mesa (also called Maria de la Mesa Cruz), worked from February through July 2004. The Department's investigation commenced with a work request sent from Tallahassee to Environmental Specialist Neil Richmond in Immokalee on March 7, 2005.6 Mr. Richmond regularly conducts inspections at golf courses, farms, chemical dealers, and fertilizer plants throughout Collier County. The work request directed Mr. Richmond to obtain pesticide use records for Ag-Mart covering the period of February through July 2004 and employee records showing the names of the three employees and the dates they worked in 2004. The work request further directed Mr. Richmond to conduct a pesticide use inspection at the South Florida farm to document the pesticide products used in the field. Finally, the work request directed Mr. Richmond to conduct a full worker protection standard inspection to document the posting of fields, central posting information, and REIs at the South Florida farm. Mr. Richmond initially visited Ag-Mart's South Florida farm on March 28, 2005, accompanied by two persons from the Collier County Health Department. During the course of the inspection, Ag-Mart's farm manager, Doug Perkins, produced spray tickets for both the South Florida and North Florida farms for the period February through July 2004. Mr. Perkins also produced a spreadsheet identifying the dates worked and the farm locations for each of the three women named in the newspaper article. This spreadsheet was prepared at the direction of Ag- Mart's human resources manager, Angelia Cassell, and was derived from the three workers' timesheets for 2004. On March 30, 2005, Mr. Richmond filed a written report with the documents he received from Ag-Mart. The Department's Bureau of Compliance Monitoring then assigned the matter to Case Reviewer Jessica Fernandez in Tallahassee. Ms. Fernandez was given the task of reviewing all the information gathered by the Department's inspectors to determine whether Ag-Mart had violated the Florida Pesticide Law or any of the Department's implementing rules. On April 12, 2005, Ms. Fernandez sent a request for additional information to Mr. Richmond, which stated in relevant part: According to the work log included in this file, Ms. Fransisca [sic] Herrera, Ms. Maria de la Mesa Cruz and Ms. Sostenes Salazar worked at the Ag-Mart farm located in Immokalee between January 2004 and October 2004. Please obtain as much information as possible regarding the specific Planting, Field and Block numbers in which these workers worked during the period of February 2004 through June 2004. Mr. Richmond went to the South Florida farm on March 13, 2005, and communicated this request for additional information to Mr. Oelman, who responded that it would take several days to gather the requested information. Mr. Richmond returned to the farm on April 15, 2005. On that date, Mr. Oelman explained to Mr. Richmond the sequencing of harvesting and spray activities at the South Florida farm. Mr. Oelman told Mr. Richmond that Ag-Mart's harvest records indicate, only, which planting the laborers were working in on a given day and that a planting includes more than one field. Mr. Oelman also told Mr. Richmond that Ag-Mart's spray records are kept according to field and block numbers and that his practice was to spray behind the picking. On April 22, 2005, Ms. Cassell faxed to Mr. Richmond a spreadsheet entitled "Field Locations for SFL 2/04 thru 6/04." All involved understood that "SFL" referred to the South Florida farm.7 With the assistance of subordinates in her office, Ms. Cassell produced this document to show, in her words, "the total of what field locations the [three] women might have worked in." Ms. Cassell started with time cards, which indicated the dates and hours the three women worked. Then she obtained foreman receiving reports, which she understood to tell her which plantings were harvested on which dates. Finally, she obtained, from the farm, a handwritten document showing which fields were included in each planting. From this information, Ms. Cassell was able to fashion a spreadsheet indicating the range of fields each woman could have worked in from February through June 2004. Mr. Richmond testified that he read the spreadsheet's title and understood the document to show where the women actually worked each day. The document appeared self- explanatory. No one from Ag-Mart told Mr. Richmond that the spreadsheet showed only where the women could have worked, or "possible" locations. Mr. Richmond passed the spreadsheet on to Ms. Fernandez, with a report stating that it showed "the field locations for Ms. Herrera, Ms. Salazar, and Ms. de la Mesa where they worked on respective dates." Ms. Fernandez also operated on the assumption that the spreadsheet showed what its title indicated, the actual field locations of the three women on any given day from February through June 2004. Ms. Cassell testified that she put the title on the spreadsheet without much thought, simply as an identifier for the file on her computer's hard drive. Ms. Cassell understood that she was creating a spreadsheet of all the fields the women could possibly have worked in on a given day. She could be no more precise, because Ag-Mart did not keep records that would show the specific fields where an individual worked on a given day. The president of Ag-Mart, Mr. Long, confirmed that Ag- Mart does not keep records on which fields a worker is in on a given day. At the time the Department made its request, Mr. Long told Ms. Cassell that there was no way Ag-Mart could provide such precise worker location data. The closest they could come would be to correlate harvest or receiving data, which showed what plantings a crew had harvested from, with the workers' time cards. Ag-Mart knew whose crew each woman had worked in; so the spreadsheet listed all the fields in the planting worked by the crew, as a way of showing which fields the women might have worked in. On May 4, 2005, Ms. Fernandez sent Compliance Monitoring Bureau Chief Dale Dubberly a request for additional information, which Mr. Dubberly forwarded to Mr. Richmond the next day. Ms. Fernandez first requested the time work started and ended for each worker in each field on every date listed in the spreadsheet provided on April 22, 2005. Ms. Fernandez next asked for the field location for each worker from July 2004 to November 2004. She asked for the block numbers corresponding to each of the fields in North Florida, South Florida, and North Carolina during the 2004 season and a map showing the distribution of blocks, fields and plantings for those farms during the 2004 season. She asked for spray records for South Florida for October and November 2004. Finally, Ms. Fernandez requested a more legible copy of the spreadsheet, which she stated "shows each worker's field location." Upon receiving this request through Mr. Richmond, Ms. Cassell, her staff, and Ag-Mart farm compliance manager, Amanda Collins created a new spreadsheet, which Ms. Cassell titled "Field Locations for 3 Employees for 2004." This spreadsheet was identical in format to the earlier document, but was expanded to include the dates the three women worked for all of 2004. For each worker, the spreadsheet provided a cell for each day worked, and within that cell a list of field numbers. Again, the Department took these field numbers to represent fields in which the women actually worked, when Ag-Mart actually intended them to represent fields in which the women possibly worked. Some of the cells listed as many as 23 field numbers for one day. The method of developing this spreadsheet was similar to that employed for the first one. The weekly time cards of the three women were used to provide the days they worked. Ag-Mart's weekly time cards show the name of the employee, the rounded hours worked each week, the number of piece units worked, the hours worked for minimum wage, and the initials of the crew leader for whom the employee worked that week. For their South Florida farm work in 2004, Ms. Herrera and Ms. Salazar worked exclusively for crew leader Sergio Salinas. Ms. de la Mesa worked at South Florida for crew leader Juan Anzualda and at North Florida for crew leader Pascual Sierra.8 To identify the fields where the three women might have worked on a given day, Ms. Cassell and her staff again used foreman receiving reports and planting schedules. The receiving reports were understood to provide the dates of shipping for harvested product, and these were correlated to the dates on which the three women worked. Again, Ms. Cassell listed every field within a planting as a possible work location, because Ag-Mart kept no data that identified the fields in which the women actually worked on a given date. On May 6, 2005, Mr. Richmond met with Ms. Cassell and Ms. Collins at Ag-Mart's Plant City administrative offices. The meeting lasted no more than 15 minutes and consisted of Ag-Mart employees turning over various documents to Mr. Richmond, along with some explanatory conversation. Ms. Cassell specifically recalled explaining to Mr. Richmond that the field location spreadsheet indicated the "total possible fields that the three employees could have worked in." Mr. Richmond denied that Ms. Cassell gave him any such explanation. Ms. Collins recalled that Mr. Richmond and Ms. Cassell had some discussion about the spreadsheet, but could recall no particulars.9 Mr. Richmond forwarded the documents received at the May 6, 2005, meeting to Ms. Fernandez in Tallahassee. His written summary, also dated May 6, 2005, represents Mr. Richmond's contemporaneous understanding of the meaning of the documents he was given at the Plant City meeting. The summary stated, in relevant part: Ms. Collins provided the times which the three ladies worked at the various locations which came from the three ladies time cards (See Exhibits V-1 through V-3, copies of time worked information). Ms. Collins stated that this has the start and finished [sic] times, but does not have which fields they worked at a particular time as they may pick in several fields throughout the day. Ms. Collins provided another copy of the field locations for each of the three ladies (See Exhibits W-1 and W-2, copies of field locations of workers). Ms. Collins also provided maps with field locations depicting blocks and plantings (See Exhibits X-1 through X-13, maps depicting field locations with blocks and plantings). The field no. is the main number in each block, the first two numbers are the numbers of the planting, while the remaining number in the set is the block number. . . . At the hearing, Mr. Richmond testified that he "absolutely" would have communicated to Ms. Fernandez any conversation he had with, either, Ms. Cassell or Ms. Collins indicating that the field location spreadsheet was anything other than a document showing where the women worked on a given day. This testimony is credible and, coupled with Mr. Richmond's contemporaneous written statement, leads to the finding that Mr. Richmond's testimony regarding the May 6, 2005, meeting in Plant City should be credited. On May 12, 2005, Ms. Cassell sent Mr. Dubberly an e- mail with an attachment correcting some aspects of the spreadsheet. Ms. Cassell's e-mail message stated: I have attached the the [sic] revision to the original sheet given on the 3 woman's [sic] field locations. I included which field location for NC. There was one revision I made for Francisca on week ending 4/24/05 [Ms. Cassell clearly means 2004]. She was in NC that week and on the last two days of that week I had SFL field numbers and it should of [sic] been NC [sic] please discard old report and replace with revised one. The Department cites this e-mail as further indication that Ag-Mart represented the spreadsheet as indicating actual field locations for the three women, or at least that Ag-Mart said nothing to clarify that the spreadsheet showed something other than the fields where the women actually worked. Ms. Fernandez, the case reviewer whose analysis led to the filing of the Administrative Complaints against Ag-Mart, believed that the field location spreadsheets prepared by Ms. Cassell and her staff reflected the actual work locations for Ms. Herrera, Ms. Salazar, and Ms. de la Mesa. As a case reviewer, Ms. Fernandez receives files compiled by the field staff and reviews the files to determine whether a violation of the Florida Pesticide Law has occurred. The procedure of the Bureau of Compliance Monitoring appears designed to ensure that the case reviewers have no contact with the subjects of their investigation and, instead, rely on field inspectors to act as conduits in obtaining information from companies such as Ag-Mart. As a result, Ms. Fernandez had no direct contact with anyone from Ag-Mart and, thus, had no direct opportunity to be disabused of her assumptions regarding the field location spreadsheet. Ms. Fernandez conceded that she had never been on a tomato farm at the time she conducted her review of the Ag-Mart case. She did not take into consideration the acreage of the fields or the size of the work crews and their manner of operation. She made no attempt to visualize the effort it would take for one worker to harvest in ten or 20 fields in one day. She assumed that each woman worked in at least part of each field listed on the spreadsheet for each day listed. Ms. Fernandez believed that the spreadsheet was clear on its face and saw no need to make further inquiries as to the plausibility of the assumption that it reflected actual, not possible, field locations. As found above, Ag-Mart made no statement to any Department employee to qualify that the spreadsheet meant only possible field locations. Nonetheless, common sense should have caused someone in the Department to question whether this spreadsheet really conveyed the information that its title appeared to promise. On some days, the spreadsheet places a single field worker in 23 fields. Ag-Mart's crew leaders credibly testified that their crews never worked in more than four fields in one day and more often worked in only one or two. Even granting Ms. Fernandez' ignorance, Mr. Dubberly or some other superior in the Department should have had enough knowledge of farm operations to question the plausibility of Ms. Fernandez' assumptions. While Ag-Mart is at fault for not explaining itself clearly, the Department is also at fault for insisting that the spreadsheet be taken at face value, no matter how implausible the result.10 At the hearing, Ms. Fernandez explained how she used the documents provided by Ag-Mart to draft the Administrative Complaints. As an example, Counts I and II of the North Florida Complaint provide: Count I On June 6, 2004, Mr. Cesar Juarez and Mr. Alexis Barrios treated approximately 157.6 acres of grape tomatoes, planted in fields 7-8, with a mixture of Bravo Weather Stik, Monitor 4 Spray and Danitol 2.4 EC Spray. The Monitor 4 Spray supplemental label states: "REMARKS . . . Do not apply more than a total of 10 pints per acre per crop season, nor within 7 days of harvest." Worker field location records show that tomatoes were harvested from fields 7 and 8 on June 7, 2004. Therefore, these tomatoes were harvested prior to the 7 day pre- harvest interval stated on the Monitor 4 Spray label. Count II The Danitol 2.4 EC Spray label states: "TOMATO . . . Do not apply the DANITOL + MONITOR 4 Spray tank mix within 7 days of harvest." As noted in the previous paragraph, fields 7-8 were treated with a mixture of Bravo Weather Stik, Monitor 4 Spray and Danitol 2.4 EC Spray on June 6, 2004. Tomatoes were harvested from these same fields on June 7, 2004. Therefore, these tomatoes were harvested prior to the 7 day pre-harvest interval stated on the Danitol 2.4 EC Spray label. Ms. Fernandez obtained the information regarding the date, time, and manner of pesticide application from the spray tickets described above. She obtained the Monitor and Danitol PHI information from the product label. She obtained the harvest information from the spreadsheet, which indicated that Ms. de la Mesa worked in fields 7 and 8 on June 7, 2004. Counts I and II alleging violations of the PHIs for Monitor and Danitol had an accompanying Count XIX, alleging a violation of the REI for Monitor arising from the same set of facts: Count XIX The Monitor 4 Spray and the Danitol 2.4 EC Spray labels contain the following language: "AGRICULTURAL USE REQUIREMENTS. Use this product only in accordance with its labeling and with the Worker Protection Standard, 40 CFR part 170. This Standard contains requirements for the protection of agricultural workers on farms, forests, nurseries, and greenhouses, and handlers of agricultural pesticides. It contains requirements for training, decontamination, notification, and emergency assistance. It also contains specific instructions and exceptions pertaining to the statements on this label about personal protective equipment (PPE) and restricted entry interval. The requirements in this box only apply to users of this product that are covered by the Worker Protection Standard." On June 6, 2004, Mr. Cesar Juarez and Mr. Alexis Barrios treated approximately 157.6 acres of grape tomatoes, planted in fields 7-8, with a mixture of Bravo Weather Stik, Monitor 4 Spray and Danitol 2.4 EC Spray. The application started at 11:30 am and ended at 5:30 pm on June 6, 2004. The Monitor 4 Spray label states: "Do not enter or allow worker entry into treated areas during the restricted entry interval (REI) of 48 hours." Work records show that Ms. de la Mesa, directed by licensed applicators Mr. Charles Lambert (PV38793)11 and Mr. Warrick Birdwell (PV36679), worked in fields 7 and 8 on June 7, 2004, and that her working hours for June 7, 2004, were 8:00 am to 6:30 pm. Therefore, Ms. de la Mesa and other workers were instructed, directed, permitted or not prevented by the agricultural employer, Ag-Mart Produce, Inc. from entering treated fields before the expiration of the REI stated on the Monitor 4 Spray label. Throughout the hearing, Ag-Mart contended (and the Department did not dispute) that no statute or rule requires Ag-Mart to keep a daily log of the fields where its employees work. The Department also conceded that Ag-Mart was cooperative throughout its investigation.12 Ag-Mart contends that all counts should be dismissed because of the Department's reliance on the field location spreadsheet, which shows only the possible field locations of the workers. This contention goes to far. For example, the counts set forth above are well taken, because the spray tickets indicate that fields 7 and 8 were sprayed on June 6, 2004, and the field location spreadsheet indicates that Ms. de la Mesa worked only in fields 7 and 8 on June 7, 2004. Ag-Mart further attacked the spreadsheet by suggesting the unreliability of the dates on the foreman receiving reports. As found above, the receiving reports generally showed the date the product was shipped from the farm to the packinghouse, as well as the crew leader who provided the tomatoes and the planting from which the tomatoes were harvested. At the hearing, Ag-Mart contended that the date the product was shipped was not always the same date it was harvested. Further, Ag-Mart demonstrated that one of the receiving reports relevant to this proceeding showed the date the product was received at the packing house, rather than the date the product was shipped from the farm, due to a clerical error. Ag-Mart argued that this example showed that the receiving reports were not a reliable source for determining the precise dates of harvest in a given field on the North Florida farm. Ag-Mart's evidence is insufficient to demonstrate the unreliability of the receiving reports, where Ag-Mart itself relied on the reports to provide the Department with the spreadsheet showing possible field locations of the three workers. Ag-Mart had ample opportunity to make a thorough demonstration of the reports' alleged unreliability and failed to do so. Ag-Mart also attempted to cast doubt on the accuracy of the spray tickets through the testimony of Mr. Oelman and Mr. Birdwell, both of whom stated that the spray tickets are written well in advance of the pesticide applications and are not invariably rewritten or corrected when the spraying schedule is pushed back due to rain or slow harvest. However, the pesticide applicator is required by law to maintain accurate records relating to the application of all restricted-use pesticides, including the date, start time and end time of the treatment, and the location of the treatment site. Fla. Admin. Code R. 5E-9.032(1). The Department is entitled to inspect these records. Fla. Admin. Code R. 5E-9.032(6). Ag-Mart may not attack records that its own employee/applicators were legally required to keep in an accurate fashion. The Department is entitled to rely on the spray tickets as accurate indicators of when and where pesticide applications occurred. Thus, the undersigned has accepted the accuracy of the spray records and the receiving reports, but not of the field location spreadsheet. However, there are some dates on which the fields shown on the spreadsheet perfectly match the fields shown on the spray tickets, as in Counts I, II, and XIX of the North Florida Complaint set forth above. It is found that the Department has proven these counts by clear and convincing evidence. In addition to Counts I, II, and XIX of the North Florida Complaint, the Department has proven the following counts of the North Florida Complaint by clear and convincing evidence: Counts XI, XII, and XXII (spraying in fields 7 and 8 on June 17, 2004; Ms. de la Mesa worked only in fields 7 and 8 on June 19, 2004); and Count XIII (spraying Agrimek 0.15 EC Miticide/Insecticide, with PHI of seven days, in fields 7 and 8 on June 3, 2005; Ms. de la Mesa worked only in fields 7 and 8 on June 7, 2004). The Department has proven none of the counts in the South Florida Complaint by clear and convincing evidence. Some explanation must be made for the finding that Counts XXXI and XXXII were not proven by clear and convincing evidence. Those counts allege as follows: Count XXXI On April 17, 2004, Mr. Lorenzo Reyes, Mr. Demetrio Acevedo and Mr. Francisco Vega treated approximately 212.5 acres of grape tomatoes, planted in fields 11, 6 and 4, with a mixture of Bravo Weather Stik, Monitor 4 Spray and Danitol 2.4 EC Spray. The Monitor 4 Spray supplemental label states: "REMARKS . . . Do not apply more than a total of 10 pints per acre per crop season, nor within 7 days of harvest." Worker field location records show that tomatoes were harvested from fields 11, 6 and 4 on April 21, 2004. Therefore, these tomatoes were harvested prior to the 7 day pre-harvest interval stated on the Monitor 4 Spray label. Count XXXII The Danitol 2.4 EC Spray label states: "TOMATO . . . Do not apply the DANITOL + MONITOR 4 Spray tank mix within 7 days of harvest." As noted in the previous paragraph, fields 11, 6 and 4 were treated with a mixture of Bravo Weather Stik, Monitor 4 Spray and Danitol 2.4 EC Spray on April 17, 2004. Tomatoes were harvested from these same fields on April 21, 2004. Therefore, these tomatoes were harvested prior to the 7 day pre-harvest interval stated on the Danitol 2.4 EC Spray label. These counts base their allegation that tomatoes were harvested from fields 11, 6, and 4 on April 21, 2004, on the field location spreadsheet, which indicates that Ms. Salazar possibly worked in fields 4, 6, 9, 10, and/or 11 on April 21, 2004. Thus, the spreadsheet does not definitely prove that Ms. Salazar harvested tomatoes in the three sprayed fields within the PHI. At the final hearing, the Department introduced a spray ticket showing that Monitor and Danitol were also applied to fields 9 and 10 on April 15, 2004. This additional spray ticket completed the Department's demonstration that every field in which Ms. Salazar harvested tomatoes on April 21, 2004, had been sprayed with Monitor and Danitol within the seven-day PHI. However, the Department did not amend the South Florida Complaint to allege the fact of the second spray ticket, and, so, must be held to the allegations actually made in the complaint. Ag-Mart may not be found guilty of facts or violations not specifically alleged in the South Florida Complaint. See Cottrill v. Department of Insurance, 685 So. 2d 1371, 1372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (facts not alleged in the Administrative Complaint). See also B.D.M. Financial Corporation v. Department of Business and Professional Regulation, 698 So. 2d 1359, 1362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997) (violations not alleged in the Administrative Complaint). In similar fashion, Counts XLI and XLII of the South Florida Complaint allege that fields 21, 22, 18, and 19 were sprayed with Monitor and Danitol on May 15, 2004, and allege PHI violations in fields 21, 22, 18, and 19 on May 20, 2004, based on the field location spreadsheet's indication that Ms. Salazar possibly worked in one or more of fields 18 through 25 on that date. Thus, the spreadsheet does not definitely prove that Ms. Salazar harvested tomatoes in the four sprayed fields within the PHI. At the final hearing, the Department introduced a spray ticket showing that Monitor and Danitol were, also, applied to fields 20, 23, 24, and 25 on May 14, 2004. This additional spray ticket completed the Department's demonstration that every field in which Ms. Salazar harvested tomatoes on May 20, 2004, had been sprayed with Monitor and Danitol within the seven-day PHI. Again, however, the Department failed to amend the South Florida Complaint to reflect its subsequently developed evidence. Subsection 487.175(1)(e), Florida Statutes, provides that the Department may enter an order imposing an administrative fine not to exceed $10,000 for each violation. The statute further provides as follows: When imposing any fine under this paragraph, the department shall consider the degree and extent of harm caused by the violation, the cost of rectifying the damage, the amount of money the violator benefited from by noncompliance, whether the violation was committed willfully, and the compliance record of the violator. Mr. Dubberly testified that the Department does not have a rule for determining the amount of fines, but uses a matrix, attaching a rating of 0 to 5 for each of the criteria named in the quoted portion of the statute, with 5 representing the most egregious violation. The extent of harm caused by the violation is divided into two classifications: (A) the degree and extent of harm related to human and environmental hazards and (B) the degree and extent of harm related to the toxicity of the pesticide(s). The remaining criteria considered in the matrix are: (C) the estimated cost of rectifying the damage, (D) the estimated amount of money the violator benefited by noncompliance, whether the violation was committed willfully, and (F) the compliance record of the violator. Each factor is given its numerical value. The values for factors (B) through (F) are added, then the total is multiplied by the value for factor (A). The resulting number is then multiplied by $100.00 to determine the amount of the fine. The PHI violations were primarily food safety violations, the concern being that there might be an unacceptable pesticide residue on the tomatoes if they were harvested within the PHI. The REI violations were based on concerns for worker safety from pesticide exposure. In determining the fines for PHI violations, the Department assigned a numerical value of 2 for factor (A). In determining the fines for REI violations, the Department assigned a numerical value of 3 for factor (A), based on a reasonable probability of human or animal death or injury, or a reasonable probability of serious environmental harm. For purposes of this proceeding, all the pesticides used by Ag-Mart were restricted-use pesticides. In considering the value to be assigned to factor (B), the Department relied on the pesticide labels, which contain signal words for the category of potential hazard to human or animal life posed by that pesticide. Monitor contained the signal word "Danger," which represents the highest level of potential hazard. A value of 5 was assigned for factor (B) in the alleged violations involving the use of Monitor. Danitol and Agrimek contained the signal word "Warning," which indicated a lesser potential hazard. A value of 3 was assigned for factor (B) in the alleged violations involving Danitol or Agrimek. Because the estimated cost of rectifying the damage and the estimated amount of money the violator benefited by noncompliance was unknown, the Department assigned a value of 0 to factors (C) and (D). As to factor (E), dealing with the willfulness of the violation, the Department assigns a value of 0 if there is no evidence of willfulness, a value of 1 if there is apparent evidence of willfulness, and a value of 5 if it determines the violation was intentional. Because of the large number of alleged PHI and REI violations, the Department assigned a value of 1 for factor (E), finding apparent evidence of willful intent for each alleged violation. As to factor (F), dealing with the violator's compliance history, the Department considers the three years immediately preceding the current violation. The Department assigns a value of 0 if there are no prior violations, a value of 1 for a prior dissimilar violation, a value of 2 for multiple prior dissimilar violations, a value of 3 for a prior similar violation, and a value of 4 for multiple prior similar violations. Because Ag-Mart had one prior dissimilar violation within the preceding three years, the Department assigned a value of 1 for factor (F) for each alleged violation. Because the sole basis for finding apparent evidence of willful intent was the number of alleged violations, the Department calculated its recommended fines in two ways: by assigning a value of 0 based on no evidence of willful intent and by assigning a value of 1 based on apparent evidence of willful intent. In DOAH Case No. 06-0730, the North Florida Complaint, the Department recommended a fine of either $1,200 (no evidence of willful intent) or $1,400 (apparent evidence of willful intent) for each of the PHI violations alleged in Counts I, III, V, VII, IX, and XI, which involved the use of Monitor. The Department recommended a fine of either $800 (no evidence) or $1,000 (apparent evidence) for Counts II, IV, VI, VIII, X, and XII, involving the use of Danitol, and for Counts XIV, XV, and XVI, involving the use of Agrimek. For each of the REI violations alleged in Counts XIX through XXII, the Department recommended a fine of either $1,800 (no evidence) or $2,100 (apparent evidence). The Department established by clear and convincing evidence seven of the 20 counts of the North Florida Complaint that remained at issue at the time of the hearing, and none of the 58 counts of the South Florida Complaint that remained at issue at the time of the hearing. The undersigned accepts the Department's calculation of the recommended fines for these violations and recommends that the Department apply the lower calculation for each of the violations. Thus, the recommended fines are as follows: Count I, PHI violation involving the use of Monitor, $1,200; Count II, PHI violation involving the use of Danitol, $800; Count XI, PHI violation involving the use of Monitor, $1,200; Count XII, PHI violation involving the use of Danitol, $800; Count XIII, PHI violation involving the use of Agrimek, $800; Count XIX, REI violation, $1,800; and Count XXII, REI violation, $1,800. Thus, the total recommended fine for the seven proven violations is $8,400. In conclusion, it is observed that these cases demonstrate a gap in the enforcement mechanism of the Florida Pesticide Law, at least as it is currently understood and practiced by the Department. The law requires licensed applicators to comply with the PHI and REI restrictions on the labels of the restricted-use pesticides they apply to these crops. The law requires the applicators to keep accurate records of when and where they apply pesticides and of the kind and quantity of pesticides applied in each instance. Yet all parties to this proceeding agreed that the law does not require either the applicators or the growers to keep accurate records of when and where farm workers enter the fields and conduct the harvest. This failure to complete the record- keeping circle makes it extremely difficult for the Department to prove by clear and convincing evidence that a PHI or REI violation has taken place. The PHI and REI restrictions appear virtually unenforceable through company records, except when some fluke of record keeping allows the Department to establish that a given worker could only have been in a recently sprayed field on a given day. It does little good to know when the pesticides were applied to a field if there is no way of knowing when workers first entered the field or harvested tomatoes after the spraying. Ag-Mart credibly demonstrated that its general practices are designed to minimize worker exposure and guarantee safe harvest, but the company keeps no records to demonstrate to its customers that it observes these practices in particular instances and is under no legal obligation to keep such records. This state of regulatory affairs should be as disturbing to Ag-Mart as to the Department, because purchasers of tomatoes in Florida's grocery stores do not require clear and convincing evidence in order to switch brands.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order that provides as follows: That Ag-Mart committed the violations alleged in Counts I, II, XI, XII, and XIII of the North Florida Complaint, for which violations Ag-Mart should be assessed an administrative fine totaling $8,400; That Ag-Mart pay to the Department $3,000 to resolve Counts L through LIV of the South Florida Complaint and Counts XVII and XVIII of the North Florida Complaint; and That all other counts of the North Florida Complaint and the South Florida Complaint be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of March, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of March, 2007.
Findings Of Fact Smith is employed as a resident life assistant by HRS at Sunland Center in Orlando, Florida. Her duties include the bathing, feeding and general care of mentally retarded children who are patients at Sunland Center. Smith is not permanently assigned to any unit of the facility, but rather is assigned to various units as needed. On May 11, 1977, Smith's supervisor, Francis Wingert, a registered nurse, as well as another registered nurse and the director of nursing, directed Smith to perform her duties in one of the units at Sunland Center. Without stating any reason, Smith refused to comply with the order of all three. Smith was subsequently suspended without pay for two work days by the Superintendent of Sunland Center.
The Issue Whether the Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction to conduct a formal hearing under the provisions of Section 120.569 and Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2004), if the written request for a formal hearing was not timely filed pursuant to Subsection 120.569(2)(c), Florida Statutes (2004), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-106.111(2). Whether the Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction to conduct a formal hearing under the provisions of Section 120.569 and Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (2004), if the Administrative Complaint issued by Petitioner, Department of Children and Family Services, fails to advise Respondent, Adoptions By Choice, Inc., whether mediation under Section 120.573, Florida Statutes (2004), is available as an alternative remedy as required by Section 120.573, Florida Statutes (2004), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 28-106.111(1).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered dismissing the Answer and Petition of Respondent, Adoption by Choice, Inc., in DOAH Case No. 04-3596 and DCF Case No. 04-0001, for failure to timely file its Answer and Petition; and Petitioner may proceed to final agency action. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of December, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Raymond R. Deckert, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Regional Headquarters, Suite 902 9393 North Florida Avenue Tampa, Florida 33612 Ron Smith, Esquire 8293 86th Avenue North Largo, Florida 33777 Paul F. Flounlacker, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings: Petitioner's facility was established in the 1950's as a nursing home for welfare clients in Riviera Beach. In 1979, the facility was changed to an ACLF. At that time, a physician and a nurse from the County Health Department examined all residents and transferred those out who needed continuing nursing care. One resident from the nursing home continues as an ACLF resident. Mrs. Davis, the current administrator, has been employed at the facility since 1960 and lives on the premises. The current staff of the ACLF includes several family members: Mrs. Sutton's daughter, Sabrina; Mrs. Davis' daughter, Christie; the son of a former long-time employee, "Jr."; Amon Shaw and Patricia Roach, another long-time employee. The neighborhood where the ACLF is situated is a high crime area and the ACLF has been burglarized on several occasions. When the facility is burglarized, the typical burglary involves broken windows, food items are stolen, files are ransacked, and petty cash is taken. The ACLF is licensed for a census of 35 residents. Based on surveys conducted by respondent on August 3, 12, and September 9, 1987, several deficiencies were noted, including the unavailability of records to reflect that the facility was being administered on a sound financial basis; no assurances that the facility maintained an admission/discharge roster of residents containing all information required including records for residents receiving self-administered medications; no records of personnel policies for employees employed by the facility including work assignments for each employee; no work schedule of staff and for relief staff; no time sheets; no disaster preparedness plan available for review; no assurance that staff were free from communicable disease or; that there was present at all times, at least one staff member certified in an approved first-aid course, missing diet orders for residents, missing physical assessments for patients. The diet menu reviewed showed deficiencies in Vitamin A and did not have adequate servings from the meat, milk, vegetable and fruit groups. The facility was not providing a variety of foods, nor did it have standardized recipes for all items on the menu. The menus were not dated and planned one week in advance, or readily accessible for review by the residents. Menus and corrections were not kept on file for six months, mice and other rodent droppings were observed in the kitchen, the kitchen was not clean and there was no effective pest control program instituted. No management employee had completed a food service management course. One freezer did not contain a thermometer, and the meat was not properly stored in the freezers (ribs stored in a garbage bag). The fan in the kitchen was dusty and greasy, the ovens were dirty and contained food spills, the can opener was not clean and had dried food residue, the silverware holder was not clean and contained dirty silverware which was stored together with money, keys and other items. Drip pans were grease laden. The facility did not provide sanitary housing in that the showers were laden with mildew, areas occupied by residents were not climatically controlled in a manner conducive to the comfort of residents in that there were no cooling devices. Residents were not provided adequate space for hanging clothes, the beds were not in good repair with mattresses free from odor, stains or lumpy stuffings, showers did not have non-slip safety devices on the floor, and the building was not kept in good repair in that the front doors of the men's dormitory were rotting. There were torn and loose screen windows and doors, and torn and loose linoleum throughout the facility. The outside walls contained peeling paint. Clothing and mops were hung on fences and the inside walls and doors needed painting. Furniture in the dormitories was not kept in good repair in that cushions on the sofas in the living rooms were torn, the arms and backs of the sofas were torn, and the drawers in chests were broken or missing. The facility was not free of accumulations of possessions in that clothing bags were being kept on the residents' beds, old baskets, bottles, tin and other junk and debris was strewn over the back yard, the fire alarm test did not include testing of the smoke detectors. There was no documentation of the quarterly automatic sprinkler tests, and waste containers were not constructed of noncombustible material. The generator for the emergency lighting was not load-tested on a monthly basis, and the door between the boiler room and the exit access door was not self- closing. Exit signs were not illuminated. The rear yard contained debris, including a refrigerator which was not being used with doors attached which presented a safety hazard and an unsealed septic tank which was not being maintained. Follow up visits by respondent's staff revealed that while there have been correction of some deficiencies, numerous deficiencies continue at the facility and petitioner's staff has been counseled repeatedly with suggestions about curing problems and/or deficiencies which were documented on six times by Nan McDermitt, to wit: May 31, August 2, August 5, August 18, September 8, and September 19, 1988. A moratorium on placements was issued by Respondent on June 30, 1988, based on repeated deficiencies which were not corrected during follow-up visits, inspections and surveys of the facility by respondent's staff. Cecie M. Davis admits that there are ongoing deficiencies which were reflected in respondent's surveys provided by staff. Davis has placed thermometers in the refrigerator, although they are at times removed by employees who store meat in the refrigerator. The screen doors are cut by burglars during break-ins. Missing lights have now been installed, and they are all operating properly. Vinyl flooring has been repaired, and there are new rugs on the living room floors. The unsealed septic tank has been repaired and cots have been purchased for the storage of linen. The refrigerator which was not stored in the back yard has been moved and exterminators have been employed to eradicate the rodent problems. The ladies shower has been painted and new mattresses were bought to replace those which were lumpy or stained. Despite all these corrections, there are numerous deficiencies that remain uncorrected at the ACLF. In trying to correct all of the deficiencies, Administrator Davis points out that the building is old, located in a high crime area and is subject to repeated burglaries. She admits that a gas odor which emanates from the kitchen is not corrected. A large segment of the patient census is old and disoriented, and male patients, at times, urinate on the floors. Administrator Davis is making efforts to cope with the problems with the limited resources available, however numerous deficiencies remain.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order sustaining the denial of the license renewal of petitioner's adult congregate living facility, Sutton Home For The Aged, based on repeated and multiple violations of the minimum standards. DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of February, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 February, 1989.
The Issue Whether a consumptive-use permit for quantities of water as applied for should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Application No. 7500043 requested water from one (1) well. The center of withdrawal will be located at Latitude 27 degrees 40' 38" North, Longitude 82 degrees 29' 31" West in Hillsborough County. Said withdrawal is for disposal off-site. This application is for an existing use. Notice was published in a newspaper of general circulation, to-wit: The Tampa Tribune on May 14 and May 21, 1975 pursuant to Section 373.146, Florida Statutes. Notices of said public hearing were duly sent by certified mail as required by law. The application, map of the premises, legal description, receipts of certified mail, copy of the Notice, and affidavit of publication were received without objection and entered into evidence as Exhibit 1. No letters of objection were received. The witness for Permittee was duly sworn and agreement was reached on each point enumerated as required by Rule 16J-2.11, Rules of the Southwest Florida Water Management District and Chapter 373, Florida Statutes with the exception as enumerated in No. 7. Upon request of the Hearing Officer a Joint Stipulation was filed in which it was agreed that the following conditions to the permit should be attached: "1. That applicant, Carol A. Ranallo, construct two observation wells on the south side of the pit mutually agreeable locations by inserting six (6) inch casings and screens to the depth of at least fifty (50) feet. The casings to be grouted in the bore hole from the bottom of the casing to the top of the ground level. The sites of the observation wells shall be selected by James Hudson of Delta Engineering Company and G. P. Szell within 15 days after issuance of the Consumptive Use Permit. 2. That the applicant or its agents or employees submit monthly readings to the staff of the Southwest Florida Water Management District of the chloride content of the water being withdrawn from the two wells and the level of the water table as read and determined under static conditions."
The Issue Whether Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent committed a Class II violation as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, by failing to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation (“CPR”) on a resident at its facility.
Findings Of Fact The undersigned makes the following findings of relevant and material fact: Joint Statement of Admitted Facts Filed by the Parties on February 19, 2021 The Agency completed a complaint survey of Pelican Garden on or about December 4, 2020. The Agency is the regulatory authority responsible for licensure of assisted living facilities (“ALF”) and enforcement of applicable state statutes and rules governing ALFs pursuant to chapters 429, Part I, and 408, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 59A-36. Pelican Garden was, at all times material hereto, an ALF under the licensing authority of the Agency, and was required to comply with all applicable rules and statutes. The Agency’s surveyor cited Pelican Garden with a Class II deficient practice on or about December 4, 2020. On or about July 24, 2019, R #1 was a resident at Pelican Garden’s facility. Pelican Garden’s procedure for honoring a resident’s Do Not Resuscitate (“DNR”) Order includes circling the “DNR” located on the face sheet (information sheet) if a copy of the DNR is received and is on file at the facility. Pelican Garden’s admission paperwork includes a “Memo” initialed by the resident or representative to acknowledge that the facility has requested a copy of the resident’s DNR Order, if one exists. Pelican Garden’s DNR policy requires that a resident or representative provide the facility with a copy of a DNR Order on yellow paper, and then the facility files the order and places the resident on the Do Not Resuscitate Order (“DNRO”) list. Pelican Garden’s DNR policy requires that if a resident has a DNR on file, the facility will place a “butterfly” on the back of the resident’s door in their room with the resident name on the butterfly to notify staff to not perform life saving measures including but not limited to CPR. R #1’s executed contract, dated November 2, 2018, revealed a DNR form was requested from the resident’s representative as shown by the representative’s initials on the DNR policy and procedure page. R #1’s resident face sheet (Information Sheet), dated November 2, 2018, did not have a circled DNR Order, indicating that the resident did not have a DNR on the date of R #1’s death. R #1 did not have a DNR Order on file with Respondent on the date of R #1’s death. On or about July 24, 2019, at approximately 7:24 a.m., R #1 was found unresponsive in the resident’s room, with half of the resident’s body off the side of the bed with her legs on the ground and her head between the grab bar (removeable side rail) and the mattress, by Pelican Garden’s staff members “A,” “B,” “C,” and “D.” On or about July 24, 2019, Pelican Garden’s staff member “C” was instructed by staff member “A” to take R #1’s roommate to the bathroom and then leave the room with the roommate. On or about July 24, 2019, at approximately 7:24 a.m., Pelican Garden’s staff members “A,” “B,” and “D” worked to reposition R #1 to begin performing CPR and staff member “A” checked the resident’s pulse, observed the resident was pale and the resident’s skin was cold to the touch and made the determination that the resident had already passed. On or about July 24, 2019, Pelican Garden’s staff member “D” helped reposition R #1 and then left the room. On or about July 24, 2019, Pelican Garden’s staff member “D” was certified in CPR. On or about July 24, 2019, Pelican Garden’s staff members “A,” “B,” “C,” or “D” did not perform CPR on R #1. On or about July 24, 2019, at approximately 7:36 a.m., Pelican Garden’s staff member “A” dialed 911 at approximately 7:38 a.m. and, at approximately 7:39 a.m., stated it’s too late for CPR for R #1. On or about July 24, 2019, at approximately 7:39 a.m., Pelican Garden’s staff member “A” called Pelican Garden’s Administrator who instructed staff member “A” not to administer CPR to R #1. On or about July 24, 2019, at approximately 7:39 a.m., Pelican Garden’s Administrator had no firsthand knowledge of the condition of R #1. On or about July 24, 2019, at approximately 7:42 a.m., the Emergency Medical Services (“EMS”) arrived at Pelican Garden’s facility. On or about June 24, 2019, at approximately 7:45 a.m., the Emergency Medical Technician (“EMT”) pronounced R #1 as dead. Pelican Garden’s staff member “A” received a basic life support CPR and automated external defibrillator (“AED”) certification dated October 5, 2017, with an expiration date of October 2019. Pelican Garden’s staff member “A” was certified to perform CPR at the time of R #1’s death. Pelican Garden submitted a Plan of Correction dated January 22, 2020. Before, during, and after July 24, 2019, Pelican Garden’s policy to respond to an unresponsive resident without a DNR was to start CPR. Pelican Garden retrained staff on the response to an unresponsive resident without a DNR after the December 4, 2019, AHCA survey. On or about July 24, 2019, to December 4, 2019, Pelican Garden had more than one resident who did not have a DNR. Other Material Facts Established at the Hearing Dalia Portugal (“Portugal”) had worked at Pelican Garden for eight years. Marie Andre (“Andre”) is a home health aide. She has worked as a caregiver at ALFs for more than a decade. Mimose Francois (“Francois”) is also a home health aide. Francois had been a caregiver at another facility for 13 years. On July 24, 2019, when Portugal first arrived at work, there had been a shift change of staff at 7:00 a.m. This incident involved a 96-year-old resident at Pelican Gardens ALF. The resident, R #1, had moved into the facility at Pelican Garden in November 2018. The documents revealed that she suffered from a variety of ailments and diseases including: dementia, hypertension, high cholesterol, gastro reflux disease, was a fall risk, had macular degeneration, and was hard of hearing. Pet. Ex.14, at 14b. Shortly after her arrival, at approximately 7:22 a.m., Portugal took a call from R #1’s roommate. She advised her that R #1 was on the floor and she didn’t know how long she had been on the floor. At 7:24 a.m., Pelican Garden’s staff members Portugal, Andre, Francois, and Kerri Conklin arrived at R #1’s room and found her unresponsive. She was positioned with half of her body off the side of her bed. Her legs were on the ground and her head was positioned between the horizontal bedrail and the mattress. Together, Portugal, Andre, and Francois took hold of R #1 and worked to reposition her up on to her bed in an effort to begin performing CPR. Immediately after getting her on the bed the staff made several close observations of R #1. One staff member, Francois, testified that R #1 had no pulse, was pale, was not breathing, her face was smashed, and her body temperature was cold--“cold like ice.” Portugal made similar observations. She stated that R #1’s body temperature was cold--freezing cold--she had no pulse, was pale, not breathing, her nose was tilted to one side, and there was blood on the bed. The other staff member who responded, Andre, testified in a similar fashion. She added that R #1’s face was “smooshed.” After placing her on the bed, Andre said no CPR was conducted because “she was already dead.” When Portugal, Andre, and Francois repositioned R #1 on the bed in order to start CPR, they were unable to lay R #1 flat because her legs were stiff and stuck in the bed side kneeling position in which they found her. The photographs admitted as part of Respondent’s Exhibit A were insightful and provided compelling evidence that when the staff discovered R #1 she was already dead.2 The evidence was overwhelming and without serious dispute that R #1 was dead when she was discovered by the staff on the morning of July 24, 2019. During the course of the hearing the parties and witnesses frequently used the term “unresponsive” to describe R #1’s condition when she was discovered. However, the common understanding and plain meaning of this term in a medical emergency context implies an individual who may be in 2 The photographs also supported the testimony of the aides concerning the condition in which they found R #1. medical distress, but is revivable, i.e., one who does not respond to questions, touch, or neurological or sensory stimulation. Sadly, however, R #1’s cold, pale, lifeless, and stiff body was more than just “unresponsive” when she was first discovered by the staff. The facts, and reasonable inferences from the facts, established that she could not have been revived. She was lifeless and dead. Additionally, the reasonable inferences from the location where she was found, the medical problems she had, and the fact that she had been observed sleeping in bed during a 5:23 a.m. bed check indicate that she had gotten out of bed, attempted to walk somewhere in the room, had fallen near her bed, and severely injured her face during the fall. Resp. Ex. 14, at 14D. She had been dead on the floor long enough when the staff discovered her to cause her body to go cold and begin to stiffen. The clear and convincing evidence established that she was dead and unrevivable when she was discovered by the staff at 7:24 a.m. No amount of cardiopulmonary resuscitation would have revived or aided R #1. Such efforts would have been futile, pointless, and of no use. After the staff called 911 and the facility administrator, EMS arrived at Pelican Garden at approximately 7:42 a.m. Notably, even the EMTs did not attempt to perform CPR on R #1. Approximately three minutes after arriving, the EMTs pronounced R #1 dead. Law enforcement arrived shortly after the EMTs and conducted an investigation. The officers questioned Pelican Garden staff and took several photos of R #1 as she appeared after Pelican Garden staff repositioned her on her bed. The officers noted “a large amount of bloody purge” coming from R #1’s mouth on the right side of the bed, and a small amount of bloody purge on the pillows and the bed on the left side of R #1’s head. Resp. Ex. A at 8.3 After receiving Pelican Garden’s report detailing the circumstances surrounding the death of R #1, the Agency conducted its own survey of the facility on December 4, 2019. The AHCA surveyor spoke to Portugal and Conklin. The AHCA surveyor spoke with R #1’s physician and learned that R #1 had died of a heart attack. The surveyor also spoke with someone at the Medical Examiner’s Office and learned that no autopsy had been performed. The AHCA surveyor did not speak with the EMTs or the police officers that responded to Pelican Garden. The AHCA surveyor completed the investigation and cited Pelican Garden for violating R #1’s resident’s rights by failing to perform CPR when R #1 was found “unresponsive” since R #1 did not have a DNR in place. According to the AHCA surveyor, there are circumstances where it would be inappropriate or unnecessary to perform CPR on a resident who was found unresponsive. Specifically, when staff cannot get to the resident or position the resident for some reason. The surveyor also agreed with counsel that it “wouldn’t make sense” to perform CPR on a resident who, for example, was found decapitated. AHCA’s professional witness, Michelle Dillehay (“Dillehay”), is a nurse consultant employed by AHCA. She was questioned about the general obligation to perform CPR when an individual is found unresponsive and does not have a DNR in place. 3 The contents of the Sebastian police report and photographs are reliable, relevant, and supplement or explain other evidence. As a result, they were admitted and have been considered by the undersigned. See generally §§ 120.569(2)(g) and 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. In her opinion, based on the application of recognized standards within the community, CPR must be initiated on an “unresponsive” individual except in limited circumstances not applicable to this case. She was not questioned, however, using hypothetical questions about the specific circumstances of this case. Likewise, the undersigned was unable to conclude that she was knowledgeable about R #1’s pre-existing medical problems or physical condition, or her appearance at the time of her discovery, or when she was photographed by the police on the bed. More to the point, there was no persuasive evidence that Dillehay had seen or reviewed the police report or pictures of R #1 taken by the Sebastian Police Department. Resp. Ex. A. In short, Dillehay gave a broad opinion without being specifically or thoroughly questioned or briefed about the unique circumstances of this case, or how that might affect her view of the actions taken by the Pelican Garden staff on July 24, 2019. The scope of her opinion was limited and not necessarily specific to the facts of this case. She opined that in those instances where a person does not have a DNR, they must be given CPR when found in an unresponsive state. She went so far as to state that CPR must be initiated even on a dead person. While her testimony was instructive in a very general sense and no doubt sincere, the undersigned affords little weight to it because a broad application of the CPR/DNR requirement explained by Dillehay cannot, or should not, be applied in all cases--especially when a person is discovered dead and in a stiffened, cold, and lifeless state with no pulse or respiration. Otherwise, such a requirement would be unreasonable and lead to absurd results. To the extent Dillehay’s opinion means or suggests that the Pelican Garden staff was required to initiate CPR on R #1 under the facts of this case, it is rejected as unsupported by a reasonable and correct interpretation of the law. Further, it is up to the undersigned to determine the weight and credibility given to an expert’s testimony. Behm v. Div. of Admin., State Dept. of Transp. 336 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 1976).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that due to the unique circumstances of this particular case the Agency dismiss the Administrative Complaint filed against Pelican Garden and find that no violation occurred. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of May, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT L. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of May, 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Dwight Oneal Slater, Esquire Cohn Slater, P.A. 3689 Coolidge Court, Unit 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32311 Gisela Iglesias, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Lake Mirror Drive North, Suite 330B St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Richard J. Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Healthcare Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Simone Marstiller, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 1 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Elizabeth Anne Hathaway DeMarco Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive North, Suite 330C St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Thomas M. Hoeler, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 James D. Varnado, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Shena L. Grantham, Esquire Agency for Healthcare Administration Building 3, Room 3407B 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issue to be determined in this case is whether proposed Florida Administrative Code Rule 40E-10.041(3)(d) of the South Florida Water Management District (“the District”) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact The Conservancy is a non-profit Florida corporation with its offices in Naples, Florida. It has 6,200 members residing in Southwest Florida. The mission of the Conservancy is to protect the environment and natural resources of Southwest Florida. The Caloosahatchee River is an important focus of the Conservancy’s organizational activities and objectives. A substantial number of the members of the Conservancy use the Caloosahatchee River for drinking water, boating, fishing, wildlife observation, and scientific research. The proposed rules create a prospective reservation of water in the not-yet-operational Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Reservoir “for fish and wildlife.” The Conservancy’s interests would be substantially affected by the proposed reservation. The District is a regional water management agency created, granted powers, and assigned duties under chapter 373, Florida Statutes (2013). It is headquartered in West Palm Beach, Florida. Proposed rule 40E-10.041(3) states: (3) Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir: All surface water contained within and released, via operation, from the Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir is reserved from allocation. The water reserved under this paragraph will be available for fish and wildlife upon a formal determination of the Governing Board, pursuant to state and federal law, that the Caloosahatchee River (C-43) West Basin Storage Reservoir is operational. The reservation contained within this subsection and the criteria contained in section 3.11.4 of the Applicant’s Handbook for Water Use Permit Applications within the South Florida Water Management District, incorporated by reference in Rule 40E-2.091, F.A.C., shall be revised in light of changed conditions or new information prior to the approval described in paragraph (3)(b) above. Pursuant to subsection 373.223(4), F.S., presently existing legal uses for the duration of a permit existing on [RULE ADOPTION DATE] are not contrary to the public interest. The Conservancy challenges only paragraph (3)(d), contending that it modifies or contravenes the implementing statute, section 373.223(4).
