The Issue Whether respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, whether respondent's license should be revoked or suspended, or whether other discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a licensed pharmacist in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 005517, and was so licensed at all times material to the Administrative Complaint. The respondent is engaged in the practice of pharmacy at Interbay Discount Drugs, 4332 South Manhattan, Tampa, Florida, where he is the proprietor and the sole pharmacist. On April 23, 1986, Ms. Beth Christie, investigation specialist for the Department of Professional Regulation, conducted a pharmacy inspection of Interbay Discount Drugs. During the pharmacy inspection, Ms. Christie reviewed certain documents, including the Certified Exempt Narcotic Record of Retail Sales maintained by Interbay Discount Drugs. This record, or log, is required to be maintained by a pharmacist to reflect the pharmacist's dispensing of Schedule V drugs. The log must show to whom the Schedule V drug was dispensed, the date it was dispensed, and identify the dispensing pharmacist. The log is used to ensure that certain amounts of exempt drugs are not dispensed to the same customer within a 48-hour period. Since respondent was the sole pharmacist at Interbay Drugs, all the log entries are followed by his initials. Ms. Christie initially reviewed the log while conducting her inspection at Interbay Discount Drugs. She noticed the same names appearing over and over again throughout the log which covered approximately a two-year period. Subsequently, Ms. Christie reviewed the log more extensively and prepared a patient profile for Cynthia D. Anderson and Vester L. McDaniel based on the information contained in the log. The patient profiles contained the date the drug was dispensed to the patient, the drug dispensed, and the quantity. The patient profile revealed that Vester L. McDaniel received Robitussin AC, 2 oz., on the following dates in the 1 1/2-year period from November 30, 1984, through April 21, 1986: 11-30-84 04-25-85 08-20-85 11-21-85 02-08-86 12-04-84 04-27-85 08-22-85 11-23-85 02-10-86 12-11-84 05-02-85 08-24-85 11-26-85 02-12-86 12-15-84 05-07-85 08-27-85 11-30-85 02-14-86 12-20-84 05-11-85 08-29-85 12-03-85 02-17-86 12-22-84 05-16-85 09-02-85 12-04-85 02-18-86 12-27-84 05-21-85 09-05-85 12-07-85 02-21-86 12-31-84 05-25-85 09-07-85 12-10-85 02-24-86 01-05-85 05-27-85 09-10-85 12-12-85 02-26-86 01-10-85 05-29-85 09-12-85 12-14-85 02-28-86 01-15-85 06-03-85 09-14-85 12-17-85 03-03-86 01-22-85 06-07-85 09-17-85 12-19-85 03-10-86 01-29-85 06-11-85 09-21-85 12-21-85 03-12-86 02-02-85 06-15-85 09-26-85 12-23-85 03-14-86 02-06-85 06-18-85 10-01-85 12-26-85 03-17-86 02-09-85 06-22-85 10-03-85 12-28-85 03-19-86 02-12-85 06-28-85 10-08-85 12-31-85 03-21-86 02-16-85 07-02-85 10-10-85 01-02-86 03-24-86 02-18-85 07-06-85 10-12-85 01-04-86 03-26-86 02-21-85 07-09-85 10-14-85 01-06-86 03-28-86 02-23-85 07-13-85 10-15-85 01-08-86 03-31-86 02-26-85 07-16-85 10-22-85 01-11-86 04-02-86 03-01-85 07-18-85 10-24-85 01-14-86 04-04-86 03-05-85 07-20-85 10-26-85 01-16-86 04-06-86 03-08-85 07-23-85 10-29-85 01-18-86 04-09-86 03-14-85 07-30-85 10-31-85 01-20-86 04-11-86 03-18-85 08-01-85 11-02-85 01-22-86 04-14-86 03-23-85 08-03-85 11-05-85 01-24-86 04-17-86 04-04-85 08-06-85 11-07-85 01-27-86 04-19-86 04-06-85 08-08-85 11-09-85 01-29-86 04-21-86 04-10-85 08-10-85 11-14-85 01-31-86 04-18-85 08-13-85 11-16-85 02-03-86 04-20-85 08-17-85 11-19-85 02-06-86 In addition to the above, Mr. McDaniel received Terpin Hydrate with Codeine on September 19, 1985, and November 12, 1985. The record reveals that Mr. McDaniel received Robitussin AC, 2 oz., on October 14 and 15, 1985, and on December 3 and 4, 1985. The quantity of codeine contained in the Robitussin AC dispensed to Mr. McDaniel by respondent within the 48-hour period from 10-14-85 to 10-15-85 and the 48-hour period from 12-3-85 to 12-4-85 exceeded 120 milligrams. The patient profile of Cynthia D. Anderson revealed that Ms. Anderson received Robitussin AC, 2 oz. on February 24, 1984, and received Novahistine DH, 2 oz., on the following dates in the 2-year period from April 14, 1984, to April 23, 1986: 04-25-85 09-04-85 12-09-85 02-21-86 04-14-84 04-29-85 09-06-85 12-11-85 02-24-86 04-20-84 06-29-85 09-09-85 12-13-85 02-26-86 05-04-84 07-02-85 09-11-85 12-16-85 02-28-86 07-31-84 07-06-85 09-13-85 12-21-85 03-03-86 08-23-84 07-09-85 09-16-85 12-23-85 03-05-86 09-05-84 07-11-85 09-18-85 12-30-85 03-07-86 09-08-84 07-13-85 09-20-85 01-01-86 03-10-86 10-11-84 07-15-85 09-23-85 01-03-86 03-12-86 10-13-84 07-17-85 09-30-85 01-07-86 03-14-86 10-16-84 07-22-85 10-02-85 01-10-86 03-17-86 10-23-84 07-24-85 10-04-85 01-13-86 03-19-86 11-01-84 07-26-85 10-07-85 01-14-86 03-21-86 11-15-84 07-29-85 10-09-85 01-16-86 03-24-86 11-17-84 07-31-85 10-11-85 01-20-86 03-26-86 12-07-84 08-02-85 10-15-85 01-22-86 03-28-86 12-27-84 08-07-85 10-17-85 01-24-86 03-31-86 01-28-85 08-09-85 10-21-85 01-27-86 04-02-86 01-30-85 08-12-85 10-23-85 01-29-86 04-04-86 02-06-85 08-14-85 10-25-85 01-31-86 04-06-86 02-12-85 08-16-85 10-29-85 02-03-86 04-08-86 02-15-85 08-20-85 10-31-85 02-05-86 04-10-86 02-18-85 08-22-85 11-18-85 02-07-86 04-14-86 02-21-85 08-24-85 11-22-85 02-10-86 04-14-86 04-06-85 08-26-85 11-27-85 02-12-86 04-18-86 04-09-85 08-28-85 12-02-85 02-14-86 04-21-86 04-11-85 08-30-85 12-04-85 02-17-86 04-23-86 04-23-85 09-02-85 12-06-85 02-19-86 As the above shows, respondent dispensed Novahistine DH, 2 oz., to Ms. Anderson twice on April 14, 1986. 2/ The quantity of codeine contained in the Novahistine DH dispensed to Ms. Anderson on April 14, 1986, exceeded 120 milligrams. Ms. Christie asked respondent about the repeated dispensing of Robitusin AC and Novahistine DH to Mr. McDaniel and Ms. Anderson, and respondent stated that both complained of a chronic cough. However, Ms. Christie observed Ms. Anderson, who happened to purchase Novahistine DH while Ms. Christie was performing her inspection, and Ms. Anderson did not cough at all while she was in the store. Respondent also told Ms. Christie that he continued to provide the drugs to Ms. Anderson and Mr. McDaniel because "they were regular customers and purchased other items in his store [and] it would be awkward for him to refuse to sell the exempt narcotics to them." [T-30] Codeine is a very potent narcotic, and it can be addictive. Approximately 60 milligrams of codeine are contained in one ounce of Robitusin AC, Novahistine DH, and Terpin Hydrate with Codeine. Robitusin AC, Novahistine DH, and Terpin Hydrate with Codeine, in two ounce quantities, are Schedule V controlled substances. No more than two ounces of these drugs can be dispensed by a pharmacist to the same person within a 48-hour period without a prescription. Although Robitusin AC, Novahistine DH, and Terpin Hydrate with Codeine are cough depressants, there are much better things for people with chronic coughs than cough depressants that contain narcotics. A pharmacist who is presented with a request for Robitusin AC, 2 oz., by the same customer every two or three days should be very concerned and cautious. First, the pharmacist should be concerned about the health of the customer. A chronic coughing problem over a period of time should be treated professionally by a physician, not a pharmacist. A pharmacist should advise the customer to see a physician and refuse to sell the customer any more of the drug. Second, the pharmacist should be cautious because of the potential for abuse of the drug. It would be prudent for a pharmacist to refuse to dispense the drug after about three requests within a short period of time. To dispense Robitusin AC regularly over a two-year period cannot be considered dispensing the drug in good faith as a medicine. Any pharmacist dispensing the drug in good faith as a medicine would cease such regular dispensing of the drug long before two years had elapsed. The dispensing of Robitusin AC, 2 oz., and Terpin Hydrate with Codeine to Mr. McDaniel from November 30, 1984, to April 21, 1986, was not in good faith as a medicine. Novahistine DH is a essentially the same drug as Robitusin AC but made by a different company. The dispensing of Novahistine DH to Ms. Anderson from April 14, 1984, to April 23, 1986, was not in good faith as a medicine. Respondent admitted that he used poor judgement in dispensing the drugs to Mr. McDaniel and Ms. Anderson, but he denied that he dispensed the drugs not in good faith as a medicine. Mr. McDaniel was a heavy smoker and had a chronic cough. Respondent stated that he was just not aware that Mr. McDaniel had been receiving Robitusin AC for the period of time that he had. Respondent stated that Ms. Anderson had a family history of chronic bronchitis and respondent felt the medication was needed. Respondent also stated that he did not sell more than two ounces of either Robitusin AC or Novahistine DH to Ms. Anderson or Mr. McDaniel within a 48-hour period, although he admitted that his log reflected that such had occurred. Respondent contended that the customers had written in the wrong dates.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Pharmacy enter a final order finding respondent committed those acts set forth in Counts I, II, III, and IV of the Administrative Complaint, imposing an administrative fine of $200 for each of the four counts, for a total fine of $800, and placing the respondent on probation for a period of one year under such terms and conditions as the Board may deem appropriate. DONE and ORDERED this 17th day of April 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of April 1987.
Findings Of Fact Based on the record evidence and the admissions made by Sandbank at hearing, the Hearing Officer makes the following findings of fact: Stanley Sandbank has been a licensed pharmacist in the State of Florida since 1975 and has actively engaged in the practice of pharmacy in this state since 1982. During the Fall of 1987, Sandbank was employed as a pharmacist at Rite- Aid Discount Pharmacy 2165 in Miami Beach, Florida. Toward the latter part of November of that year, Rite-Aid management received a telephone call from a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agent, who stated that she had obtained a tip from a reliable informant that Sandbank "was selling drugs on the street." The DEA agent suggested that a controlled audit be conducted to ascertain whether these drugs were being misappropriated from the pharmacy at which Sandbank worked. Rite-Aid management followed the DEA agent's suggestion and performed such a controlled audit. The audit was completed on November 25, 1987. It revealed that 154 dosage units of Percocet and 201 dosage units of Percodan were unaccounted for and missing from the pharmacy's inventory of controlled substances. Percocet is a brand name of a "medicinal drug," as defined in Section 456.003(7), Florida Statutes, which contains Oxycodone, a controlled substance listed in Schedule II of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Percodan is a brand name of a "medicinal drug," as defined in Section 465.003(7), Florida Statutes, which also contains Oxycodone. Because Sandbank was the only pharmacist on duty during the time the audit was conducted, Rite Aid management believed that he was responsible for the shortages that had been discovered. Sandbank initially denied knowing anything about the matter, but later admitted his transgression. As Sandbank freely admitted, he had removed from the pharmacy and delivered to relatives and neighbors the following approximate quantities of controlled substances without first having been presented with a valid prescription and without Rite-Aid having received payment in full for these controlled substances: CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE QUANTITY Valium 10 mg. 300 Diazepam 10 mg. 400 Percodan 375 Percocet 360 Dilaudid 100 Hycodan Syrup 240 Placidyl 750 mg. 30 Valium, Dilaudid, Hycodan Syrup, and Placidyl are brand names of "medicinal drugs," within the meaning of Section 465.003(7). Valium contains Diazepam, which is a controlled substance listed in Schedule IV of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Dialudid contains Hydromorphone, which is a controlled substance listed in Schedule II of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Hycodan Syrup contains Hydrocodone, which is a controlled substance listed in Schedule III of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Placidyl contains Ethchlorvynol, which is a controlled substance listed in Schecdule IV of Chapter 893, Florida Statutes. Sandbank kept at least a portion of the money he had been given by this neighbors and relatives for having delivered to them the above-described controlled substances. He therefore reaped a financial gain as a result of his unauthorized and surreptitious diversion of these controlled substances from Rite-Aid Discount Pharmacy #2165.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Pharmacy enter a Final Order finding that Stanley Sandbank violated Section 465.016(1)(e), Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and imposing the above-described disciplinary action which the Department of Professional Regulation has proposed. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of November, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael A. Mone', Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Stanley Sandbank 4300 Sheridan Street Hollywood, Florida 32399-0750 Rod Presnell, Executive Director Board of Pharmacy Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Kenneth D. Easley, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether the wholesale drug permit applied for by Petitioner on December 6, 1986, should be granted.
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, Vetco International, Inc., d/b/a Pompano Vet Supply, is holder of drug permit No. 0300375 issued for a facility at 125-B South Dixie Highway, Pompano Beach, Florida. (Petitioner's Exhibit 6). Respondent, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, (DHRS), is the regulatory agency charged with the administration of Chapter 499, Florida Statutes, which includes the issuance of permits to operate a drug wholesale facility. Petitioner's initial permit was issued effective January 18, 1985. Petitioner filed an application to renew its permit for 1986 in December of 1985. Respondent issued an order of emergency suspension of Petitioner's 1985 permit on December 20, 1985, and shortly thereafter filed an administrative complaint alleging various violations of Chapter 499, Florida Statutes. Citing the allegations of the order of emergency suspension and administrative complaint, Respondent denied the renewal of Petitioner's permit for 1986. Thereafter, on April 27, a notice of dismissal of the administrative complaint was filed and on April 30, 1986, an order was entered "lifting" the order of emergency suspension. During the normal course of business, DHRS sent a notice of renewal to Petitioner 60 days before expiration of its 1986 permit. Petitioner's renewal application for 1987 was received in DHRS's Pharmacy Program Office on or about December 15, 1986. Petitioner's renewal application was timely filed and the proper fees were attached to the application. By letter dated December 17, 1986, Petitioner's renewal application was denied by Richard R. Grant, Administrator, Pharmacy Program Office. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). It is that denial which is the subject of this proceeding. Respondent presented evidence of twelve attempts to gain entry into Petitioner's facility for the purpose of conducting an inspection and monitoring of the facility to determine compliance with proper labeling, storage and other requirements as set forth in Chapter 499, Florida Statutes. DHRS's drug inspectors Charles Sanchez and Malcom Gregory Jones attempted to inspect Petitioner's place of business on February 19, 1986. They could not gain access through the front door despite the fact that they knocked loudly on the front door and window. They also went around to the back of the facility and knocked. No one answered. The inspectors presented themselves during Petitioner's stated hours of doing business. Inspector Jones was able to identify Mr. Karpinski on the inside of the facility. On Monday, March 17, 1986, Sanchez and Jones along with other agents again visited Petitioner's place of business to attempt an inspection. Petitioner's normal business days were Tuesday through Friday. On that occasion, DHRS agents spoke with owner Karpinski who told them that his attorney had advised him not to permit entry to the agents. Karpinski followed the advice of his counsel and refused entry to the agents. On the following day, Sanchez and Jones returned to attempt an inspection without success. On June 4, 1986, DHRS inspector Robert Loudis visited Petitioner's place of business to perform a routine inspection. Loudis also made unsuccessful attempts to inspect Petitioner's facility on June 4, June 6, June 18 and June 20, 1986. On July 9, 1986, inspector Grant, accompanied by Sanchez, visited Petitioner's facility to conduct an inspection. The agents were unable to gain access to the facility to conduct the inspection. On July 18, 1986, Loudis returned to Petitioner's facility at 2:45 p.m. He was unable to gain access to the facility to conduct the inspection. On October 14, 1986, inspector Loudis reached Thomas Karpinski by telephone. Karpinski agreed to permit an inspection at 2:00 p.m. the following day. Loudis arrived at approximately 2:00 p.m. as agreed to conduct the inspection. He knocked on the door several times and did not received a reply. Petitioner contends that the only time that any agent of Petitioner refused an inspection to DHRS agents was on a non-business day during the time when Petitioner's permit was suspended or the denial of entry was pursuant to advice of counsel. Secondly, Petitioner contends that there is no requirement that a drug warehouse facility be open at any given time, including the days or hours that is specified on the application as "normal business hours." Finally, Petitioner contends that DHRS failed to prove that it delegated to Grant, the authority to deny Petitioner's renewal application. In this regard, DHRS submitted post-hearing, pursuant to leave granted from the undersigned, a delegation of authority which shows that Richard Grant was authorized to grant or deny wholesale drug renewal applications. On December 17, 1986, the Administrator of the Pharmacy Program Office denied Vetco's application for a wholesale permit renewal. This denial was based upon Vetco's refusal to allow inspections of its facility by Pharmacy Program Office Inspectors. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: Petitioner's application for renewal of its wholesale drug permit No. 0300375, be DENIED. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of March, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: John Rodriguez, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Executive Building Tallahassee, Florida 32308 JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of March, 1988. Karen Coolman Amlong, Esquire Amlong & Amlong, P.A. 101 Northeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Cuca Pharmacy, Inc. (Cuca), held community pharmacy license number PH007348 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation Board of Pharmacy. When the events herein occurred, Hortensia Lopez-Perez was its president and permittee. Its location is 11048 West Flagler Street, Miami, Florida. After the events herein occurred, the pharmacy was closed by emergency suspension order and it has remained closed since that time. In February, 1984 special agent Alberto Fernandez was performing undercover operations in the Miami area for the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) for the purpose of enforcing federal narcotic laws. On February 17, he received information from an informant that ten kilograms of cocaine could be purchased for $21,000.00 per kilogram from two individuals named Zayas and Santos. He was told the cocaine was stored at respondent's pharmacy. Fernandez met the two "dealers" in Hialeah but Zayas and Santos were unable to produce any drugs. Consequently, no sale took place. On February 25, Fernandez again received a telephone call from his informant and was told to go to Cuca and meet an individual named Jesus Avila who was interested in selling some cocaine. Fernandez, Avila and the informant met in the rear of the pharmacy where Avila agreed to sell ten kilograms of cocaine to Fernandez for an undisclosed price. They further agreed to meet in a nearby shopping center where Fernandez would show his money and Avila would show the drugs as a good faith gesture. If both parties were satisfied, they agreed to then make the transfer at Cuca. Fernandez went to the shopping center but when Avila did not appear at the designated time, Fernandez returned to Cuca. Respondent's permittee, Hortensia Perez, advised him the drugs were on the way and not to worry. Later on that day, Fernandez received a telephone call from his informant advising that two kilograms had just arrived at Cuca and to return there for the buy. When he returned he met Avila and Lopez-Perez and went to the back of the store. Avila told Fernandez he couldn't sell cocaine that day but could arrange to do so in a few days. On February 29, Fernandez received another telephone call from his informant who advised him that the cocaine was at Cuca and to be there at 3:00 p.m. At the designated time, Fernandez, the informant and Lopez-Perez went to the rear of the pharmacy where Lopez-Perez pulled a clear plastic bag containing a white powdery substance from a metal cabinet and gave it to Fernandez. The transfer of the substance was made without a prescription. Lopez-Perez was then arrested for allegedly violating federal narcotic laws. The contents of the bag were later subjected to a chemical analysis and found to weigh 2.2 pounds (one kilogram) and to be 95 percent pure cocaine hydrochloride, a controlled substance and legend drug which requires a prescription for dispensing. Records of Miami area drug wholesalers introduced into evidence reflected that Cuca had not ordered any cocaine for prescription purposes between 1982 and June, 1984. This was confirmed by testimony from Cuca's prescription department manager. Lopez was charged with one count of conspiring to possess with intent to distribute a controlled substance (cocaine) in violation of Title 21, U.S.C., Section 846, and with one count of possessing with intent to distribute a controlled substance (cocaine) in violation of Title 21, U.S.C., Section 841(a)(1) and Title 18, U.S.C., Section 2. She was found guilty on both counts, and a certified copy of the judgment and probation/commitment order dated August 16, 1984 was received in evidence. That document reflects she was sentenced to five years confinement and three years of special parole on count two and five years probation on the first count. Lopez is free on bond while she appeals that judgment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty as charged in the first and second administrative complaints and that its license as a community pharmacy be REVOKED. DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of January 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of January, 1986.
The Issue Issues for consideration in this case were those promoted through an administrative complaint brought by the Petitioner against the Respondent. Under the authority of Chapter 487, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 5E, Florida Administrative Code, the Petitioner seeks to impose an administrative fine against the Respondent for the use or application of certain restricted use pesticides without the benefit of an applicator's license.
Findings Of Fact Chapter 487, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 5E, Florida Administrative Code, empower the State of Florida, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Petitioner) to regulate a category of pesticide known as "restricted- use pesticide." More particularly, as it is related to this dispute, the statute requires that those persons purchasing or using a restricted-use pesticide must be licensed by the Petitioner. The license is known as an applicator's license. Bobby Yon (Respondent) had held an applicator's license through October 31, 1983. On that date the applicator's license expired. Yon did not renew the license within sixty days of the expiration date. Consequently, it was incumbent upon Respondent to obtain a new applicator's license, in contrast to renewing the license as described in this paragraph before purchasing or using restricted-use pesticides in the future. Having failed to renew the license which expired on October 31, 1983, on that date or within the grace period which lasted for sixty days beyond that date, Respondent, without the benefit of a license, made the aerial application of a restricted-use pesticide known as "Nudrin 1.8," EPA Reg. No. 201-347. This application was made by Respondent in his capacity as an agricultural pilot. The application dates were April 25, May 6 and June 2, 1985, on an acreage of gladiolus at a business known as Scott's Gladiolus. On April 25, 1955, Respondent made aerial application of Nudrin to watermelons belonging to Steve Basford. The Nudrin which Respondent applied in the instances mentioned before was obtained by the Respondent from Altha Farmers Coop. That Nudrin was delivered to the airstrip where Respondent has his business and from there loaded on his plane. In a statement prepared by the Respondent upon a form provided by Petitioner through its employee Hal A. Davis, Respondent gave written acknowledgment of his use of Nudrin in the instances spoken to in the course of this recommended order. A copy of that affidavit may be found as Petitioner's composite Exhibit 1 admitted into evidence. In the statement he describes the acreage which was sprayed in the four instances mentioned and indicates that his son mixed and loaded the treatment into the plane while wearing rubber boots. It is further indicated that no other safety equipment was utilized. The Nudrin applications at issue are described as being made at the rate of two to four and a half gallons per acre total solution, depending on other things that may have been in the mixture. Respondent described how the Nudrin containers were rinsed in mixing tanks and later burned on site. Respondent points out the records of these applications were photographed by Davis; however, these records or copies of the records were not produced at the final hearing. Finally, in describing the experience with the substance Nudrin, Respondent states in his affidavit that he is aware that a restricted-use pesticide license was necessary to legally apply the restricted-use pesticide Nudrin. On June 30, 1984, without the benefit of an applicator's license, Respondent aerially applied the restricted-use pesticide known as "Red Panther 8 lb Toxaphene," EPA Reg. No. 42761-9. This was applied to a pea crop on the property of James Edenfield. One gallon of Toxaphene was mixed into twenty or twenty-five gallons of water. This substance was delivered to Respondent by the Farmers Coop, in a five gallon can. The balance of this substance is still at the airstrip location at his property and is seen by the Respondent as being part of the Coops inventory. In the affidavit made by the Respondent, he acknowledges that the documents related to this application were made available to Davis and were photographed by Davis. Nonetheless, as with the situation pertaining to Nudrin, copies of the documentation were not presented at hearing. Respondent acknowledges in the affidavit that he was aware at the time that he treated the land with the Toxaphene that a restricted-use pesticide license was needed to make that application. The Toxaphene which was applied to the Edenfield acreage had been purchased by Edenfield from the Farmers Coop. The affidavit that has been alluded to in the course of this recommended order had been prepared by Respondent upon the occasion of an inspection of his business premises in Altha, Florida, conducted by Hal A. Davis on June 5, 1985. As a part of the affidavit, Petitioner's composite Exhibit 1, Respondent makes mention of liability insurance held with Air South Insurance of Dothan, Alabama. On the other hand, Respondent acknowledges that although Florida law requires proof of liability insurance for the use of the subject chemicals or the posting of a bond, his insurance policy did not provide chemical liability. This requirement in law pertains to a necessary prerequisite to obtaining a license for purchase and use of restricted-use pesticides in Florida, as contemplated by Chapter 487, Florida Statutes. In addition to not having the necessary insurance coverage, Respondent had failed to post bond with the Department. Therefore, he could not have been licensed on the date of the inspection. By Respondent's remarks in the course of the final hearing, it is evident that Respondent recognized the necessity of being appropriately licensed before applying the restricted- use pesticides mentioned in this factual rendition, and that he was unable to obtain the necessary license, given the fact that he was without requisite liability insurance and had failed to post a bond in lieu of that insurance. His protestation that he had not renewed his license to apply restricted-use pesticides beyond the expiration date of October 31, 1983, based upon some misunderstanding with officials within the petitioning agency concerning forms for obtaining his new license is without credence. The more likely explanation is the fact that the Respondent, as he alluded to in his testimony, did not feel that he could afford the insurance coverage or bond amount and simply did not renew his license. In any event, it was incumbent upon the Respondent to seek and obtain timely renewal of his existing applicator's license or in the failure to do that, to obtain a new license as an applicator before setting out to apply restricted-use pesticides. Respondent failed to do this and during the hiatus between licenses which existed between October 31, 1983, and June 19, 1985, when he obtained a new applicator's license, Respondent applied restricted-use pesticides without the benefit of a license. In his testimony Respondent makes some reference to a license which he held in the period at question which pertains to dealers who sell restricted-use pesticides, this license being number 002027. This license did not allow him to purchase or use restricted-use pesticides. It only would allow selling to others who had the necessary license or authorization to purchase or use restricted-use pesticides, which, unlike the others, Respondent did not have.
The Issue This case arises out of a notice to show cause served upon the Respondent by the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco alleging that Beverage License No. 27-92 should be suspended, revoked or otherwise disciplined for five separate counts involving drug sales on the licensed premises. As a basis for its proof, Petitioner relied upon a stipulation entered into with the Respondent and a Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Case Report which was admitted without objection. Mr. Charles Andrews testified on behalf of himself as licensee. A copy of the notice to show cause was admitted as Joint Exhibit 1 and the Petitioner of foreign and had admitted without objection one exhibit, the case report of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco.
Findings Of Fact Charles D. Andrews, trading as Odom's Bar, is the licensee of Beverage License No. 27-92, License Series 4-COP. The licensed premises is located on Highway 29 in Century, Escambia County, Florida. The Petitioner and Respondent, having stipulated to the truth and accuracy of those facts alleged in the notice to show cause, and based upon that stipulation, the undersigned Hearing Officer finds those facts set forth in A through F of this paragraph: On May 24, 1982, Johnny Andrews, the employee of Charles D. Andrews, did violate the laws of the State of Florida by delivering a controlled substance, to wit: cannabis to Agent P. A. Blackman while on the licensed premises of Charles D. Andrews, contrary to Florida Statute 893.13 within Florida Statute 561.29. On June 14, 1982, Johnny Andrews, the employee of Charles D Andrews, did violate Florida Statute 893.13 and Florida Statute 561.29 by delivering a controlled substance, cannabis, to Agent P. A. Blackman while on the licensed premises of Charles D. Andrews. On June 17, 1982, Johnny Andrews, the employee of Charles D. Andrews, did violate Florida Statute 893.13 and Florida Statute 561.29 by delivering a controlled substance, cannabis, to Agent P. A. Blackman while on the licensed premises of Charles D. Andrews. On July 11, 1982, Johnny Andrews, the employee of Charles D. Andrews, did violate Florida Statute 893.13 and Florida Statute 561.29 by delivering a controlled substance, LSD, to Agent P. A. Blackman while on the licensed premises of Charles D. Andrews. On August 6, 1982, Johnny Andrews, the employee of Charles D. Andrews, did violate Florida Statute 893.13 and Florida Statute 561.29 by delivering a controlled substance, LSD, to Actent P. A. Blackman while on the licensed premises of Charles D. Andrews. A. The negotiations and discussions about the May 24, 1982, transaction occurred inside Odom's Bar and the delivery took place through the drive-in window located on the north side of the licensed premises. On June 14, 1982, Beverage Officer Blackman drove to the drive-in window and asked Johnny Andrews if he was holding any pot. Johnny Andrews stated he was holding a 35 cents bag. After a short discussion about possible purchase of a larger quantity, Officer Blackman purchased the bag of marijuana for $35.00. The plastic bag of marijuana was in a brown paper bag and was handed to Officer Blackman through the drive-in window. The delivery of the marijuana to Officer Blackman on June 17, 1982, also took place at the drive-in window. Johnny Andrews handed Blackman a brown paper bag containing a Miller and a plastic bag of marijuana. On July 11, 1982, Officer Blackman observed three patrons smoking a marijuana cigarette in Odom's Bar, and this activity was observed. by the barmaid on duty. No attempt was made to stop the activity. Officer Blackman was offered the marijuana cigarette and he pretended to smoke it. At this time, Johnny Andrews approached Officer Blackman and offered to 7 sell him some "acid" (LSD). Officer Blackman agreed and was instructed to drive around to the drive- in window. He did so and the delivery of the "acid" took place through the drive-in window. On August 5, 1982, Officer Blackman, after being in the licensed premises, drove up to the drive-in window where Johnny Andrews offered to sell him some "acid" (LSD) Officer Blackman agreed to purchase and agreed to return on August 6 to pick up the "acid". on august 6, 1982, Officer Blackman returned to the drive-in window where Andrews handed him a bag containing six hits of acid. At the time of the conversations and purchases on June 14, August 5, and August 6, 1982, Johnny Andrews was on duty and working at Odom's Bar. Mr. Charles Andrews has owned Odom's Bar for the past five years and worked for the two previous owners. He began working at Odom's Bar 20 years ago. The bar is managed by Respondent and his wife. Johnny Andrews, referred to in the stipulation above, is the son of Mr. and Mrs. Charles D. Andrews, and during the time period of the incidents set forth in Paragraph 1, was working as an employee at the bar. This was the first summer he had worked at the bar. He was working while he was home from college, and has not been allowed to work at the bar since August, 1982, when he was arrested. Generally, Johnny Andrews would relieve Mr. and Mrs. Andrews and they would leave the bar while he was working. The Respondent, Charles D. Andrews, had no knowledge of the drug transactions his son was involved in. Prior to the incidents in question, Odom's Bar was operated by Mr. and Mrs. Andrews with the help of four women whom they employed. Mr. Andrews had previously given instructions to his employees that they were not to allow drugs of any type to be used or sold on the premises. On the date of Johnny Andrews' arrest, agents for the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco thoroughly searched the licensed premises and found no drugs. The clientele of Odom's Bar is primarily middle- aged persons. Prior to the incidents described in Paragraph 1 above, the licensee, Charles Andrews, had had no other violations of the law or drug related problems at the licensed premises. Once Mr. and Mrs. Andrews were notified of the charges and arrest warrant for their son, they cooperated with the police and also aided them in completing their arrest of Johnny Andrews. Although the Respondent testified that he had cautioned his employees against drugs on the premises, there was no evidence that he took any steps to ensure that the premises were being properly supervised and legally operated in his absence. There was no arrangement or plan whereby the licensee monitored what was occurring at the licensed premises in his absence.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered finding the Respondent in violation of Florida statute 561.29, imposing a civil penalty of $1,000,and suspending Respondent's beverage license for a period of 60 days. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: William A. Hatch, Esquire Mr. Howard N. Rasmussen Department of Business Director, Division of Alcoholic Regulation Beverages and Tobacco 725 South Bronough Street 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Charles D. Andrews Mr. Gary Rutledge Highway 29, Odom's Bar Secretary, Department of Business Century, Florida Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
