Findings Of Fact On September 24, 1982, Respondents, James A. Joss, Steven M. Mishkin and Norma Trento, together with Thomas Moskowitz, formed Highland Ranch Acres, Inc. (Highland Ranch), a Florida corporation, for the purpose of acquiring, subdividing and selling certain land in Section 35, Township 24 South, Range 25 East Lake County, Florida. These individuals were the sole principals and stockholders of Highland Ranch, and held, respectively, one-sixth, one-sixth, one-third and one-third of Highland Ranch's capital stock. All of the above- referenced individuals made an initial capital contribution to Highland Ranch, except Joss, who donated his time, knowledge and expertise in land sales. The land in question, acquired from W. D. Land Company consisted of approximately 50 acres, which Highland Ranch "subdivided" into 40 parcels of 1- 1/4 acres each, and consecutively numbered 65 through 104. Highland Ranch marketed the parcels to residents and nonresidents of the State of Florida by telephone solicitation, and a follow-up brochure. On March 3, 1983, the same principals formed Citrus Grove Acres, Inc. (Citrus Grove), a Florida corporation, for the same purposes they had formed Highland Ranch. Their respective ownership of the capital stock of Citrus Grove was the same as it had been in Highland Ranch. Citrus Grove acquired approximately 53 acres of land from W. D. Land Company in the same section, township and range of Lake County, Florida, as those lands acquired by Highland Ranch. Citrus Grove "subdivided" these lands into 42 parcels of 1-1/4 acres each, and consecutively numbered them 105 through 146, and marketed them in the same manner the lands owned by Highland Ranch had been sold. On June 13, 1983, the same principals formed Central Florida Highlands, Inc. (Central Florida), a Florida corporation, for the same purposes they had formed Highland Ranch and Citrus Grove. Their respective ownership of the capital stock of Central Florida was the same as it had been in Highland Ranch and Citrus Grove. Central Florida acquired approximately 15 acres of land from W. D. Land Company in the same section, township and range of Lake County, Florida, as those lands acquired by Highland Ranch and Citrus Grove. Central Florida subdivided these lands into 12 parcels of 1-1/4 acres each, and consecutively numbered them 147 through 158, and marketed them in the same manner the lands owned by Highland Ranch and Citrus Grove had been sold. Highland Ranch, Citrus Grove and Central Florida had the same principals, who performed the same basic duties. Joss, assisted by Mishkin, was responsible for the conception and operation of the business of the three corporations. Joss, as president, executed the purchase and sale agreements on behalf of Highland Ranch; Mishkin, as president, executed the purchase and sales agreements on behalf of Central Florida; and Trento, as president, executed the purchase and sales agreements on behalf of Citrus Grove. The purchase and sale agreements, and the brochures mailed to the telephone prospects, except for the corporate name, were identical in each instance. The photographs in the brochures which purported to depict the lands being offered, were identical. None of the photographs depicted the subject lands but rather were of lands Respondent Joss had marketed 15 years previously through Groveland Ranch Acres, Inc. All of the lands in question were purchased from the same seller, were located in the same section, township and range of Lake County, Florida, were subdivided into 1-1/4 acre lots which were consecutively numbered 65 through 158. The lands were located in the Green Swamp Area of Critical State Concern, were zoned agricultural and required a minimum of five acres to be eligible for a building permit, were not platted with the county, and contained no avenues of ingress and egress. Respondents were advised by their attorney, Michael J. Moskowitz, that Chapter 498, Fla. Stat., required registration if they proposed to offer more than 50 parcels to more than 45 persons. He further advised them that if the subsequent corporation(s) had the same principals and other indicia of a common promotional plan that their activities might be deemed a common promotional plan, subjecting them to potential liabilities. Respondent Joss concedes that the sole reason for forming Citrus Grove and Central Florida, and taking title in their names, instead of simply purchasing the additional lands in the name of Highland Ranch, the existing corporation, was to avoid the registration requirements of Chapter 498, Fla. Stat. Highland Ranch, Citrus Grove, and Centra1 Florida did not individually convey more than 50 parcels to more than 45 purchasers. Collectively however, they did convey more than 50 parcels to more than 45 purchasers.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes (Department), enter a Final Order finding Respondents, James A. Joss, Norma Trento, Steve Mishkin, Citrus Grove Acres, Inc., and Highland Ranch Acres, Inc., guilty of violating the provisions of Sections 498.023(1) and (2), Fla. Stat., and ordering that Respondents shall not offer or dispose of, or participate in the offer or disposition of any interest in "subdivided lands," as defined by Section 498.005(17), Fla. Stat., unless the subdivided lands are registered with the Department. Within thirty (30) days of the date of the Final Order, Respondents shall offer all purchasers of land from Highland Ranch Acres, Inc., Citrus Grove Acres, Inc., and Central Florida Highlands, Inc., an opportunity to rescind their agreement, and to receive a refund of all principal and interest paid. The term "purchaser" as used herein shall mean any person who made any payment to Respondents for lands offered by Highland Ranch Acres, Inc., Citrus Grove Acres, Inc., and Central Florida Highlands, Inc., whether or not such person is currently making payments. The refund offer shall be in writing, and in a form approved by the Department. After notifying purchasers of the refund offer, Respondents shall determine the total amount of refund liability, based upon purchaser(s) who elect to rescind their agreement, and notify the Department within sixty (60) days of the date of the Final Order of the name(s) of the purchaser(s) electing to rescind their agreement and the amount of refund liability for each such purchaser. Respondents shall establish a trust or escrow account in a financial institution located within the State of Florida to assure the payment of refunds to those purchasers who elect to rescind, and to assure the conveyance of clear and marketable title to those purchasers who do not elect to rescind, transactions. Respondents shall appoint a trustee or escrow agent acceptable to the Department, who shall have such powers as are necessary to fulfill the purpose of his trust. Respondents shall collect and deposit any and all monies paid by all purchasers of lands from Highland Ranch Acres, Inc., Citrus Grove Acres, Inc., and Central Florida Highland, Inc., into the trust or escrow account established pursuant to paragraph (4). Respondents shall have no right, title or interest in or to the aforesaid monies until such time as those purchasers who have elected to rescind have been paid in full, clear and marketable title has been conveyed to those purchasers who have elected not to rescind, the trustee's or escrow agent's fees, if any, have been paid, and the civil penalties hereinafter imposed have been paid. Respondents shall pay the following civil penalties to the Department, within thirty (30) days from the date of the Final Order: Norma Trento $10,000.00 Steve Mishkin $20,000.00 James Joss $20,000.00 Highland Ranch Acres, Inc. $20,000.00 Citrus Grove Acres, Inc. $20,000 00 DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of May, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas A. Klein, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Scott T. Eber, Esquire 3550 Biscayne Boulevard Suite 504 Miami, Florida 33137 E. James Kearney, Director Division of Florida Land Sales, Condominiums and Mobile Homes Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Richard B. Burroughs, Jr., Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues for determination in this case are whether Respondent is indebted to Petitioner for the purchase of agricultural products, and whether such indebtedness constitutes a breach of the conditions of the bond posted by the Surety for which payment should issue.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, SARASOTA GROWERS INCORPORATED (SARASOTA GROWERS), is a producer of agricultural products, primarily nursery ornamental plants, in Sarasota County, Florida. W.R. Walden is president of SARASOTA GROWERS. Respondent, TOULIA XIOTAS INCORPORATED, d/b/a GULF BREEZE LANDSCAPING (GULF BREEZE), is a licensed dealer in agricultural products, holding License Number 10091, issued by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services. At all material times, David Joy was the manager of GULF BREEZE. Co-Respondent and Surety, FRONTIER INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK (FRONTIER), posted Bond Number 5004806 in the amount of $9,999.00 in support of Respondent's license as a dealer in agricultural products. The inception date of the bond was April 30, 1996, and the expiration date of the bond was April 30, 1997. In early 1997, Respondent GULF BREEZE through its manager, David Joy, contacted SARASOTA GROWERS and ordered the delivery of certain agricultural products. By usual business practices, payment was demanded upon delivery. On February 10, 1997, SARASOTA GROWERS delivered agricultural products to GULF BREEZE. The invoiced value of the agricultural products delivered to GULF BREEZE was $2,255.00. On February 12, 1997, SARASOTA GROWERS delivered agricultural products valued at $302.50 to GULF BREEZE. On March 7, 1997, SARASOTA GROWERS delivered agricultural products valued at $18.00 to GULF BREEZE GULF BREEZE did not pay for the agricultural products at the time of delivery by SARASOTA GROWERS. At each of these deliveries, SARASOTA GROWERS was informed by an employee of GULF BREEZE that the manager David Joy, was not present, but that payment by check would be mailed. After the delivery of March 7, 1997, SARASOTA GROWERS ceased making deliveries to GULF BREEZE. After several demands for payment by SARASOTA GROWERS, GULF BREEZE remitted a partial payment of $1,000.00 for the agricultural products delivered by SARASOTA GROWERS. GULF BREEZE failed to properly make payment for agricultural products delivered by SARASOTA GROWERS and is indebted to SARASOTA GROWERS in the amount of $1,575.50.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered directing Respondent TOULIA XIOTAS INCORPORATED, d/b/a GULF BREEZE LANDSCAPING, to pay Petitioner SARASOTA GROWERS INCORPORATED $1,575.50 for agricultural products sold to Respondent, and in the event Respondent fails to make such payment, within fifteen (15) days of that order, that the Surety be required to pay pursuant to the bond posted. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of November, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. RICHARD HIXSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUMCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of November, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Brenda Hyatt, Chief Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Human Relations Commission Building F, Suite 240 325 John Knox Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 W. R. Walden, President Sarasota Growers, Incorporated 1001 Sinclair Drive Sarasota, Florida 34240 Toulia Xioutas, Incorporated Gulf Breeze Landscaping 901 MacEwen Drive Osprey, Florida 34229 Frontier Insurance Company of New York 195 Lake Louise Marie Road Rock Hill, New York 12775-8000
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondents owe Petitioner approximately $65 for one pallet of sod which Petitioner delivered to a third party building contractor's construction site at the instigation of Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a producer of agricultural products, grass sod, and Respondent Arsham & Associates, Inc., (Arsham), is a dealer of such products in the course of its normal landscaping business activity. Respondent Safeco Insurance Company is the bonding agent for Respondent Arsham pursuant to Section 604.20, Florida Statutes. Petitioner generally deals on a cash basis with customers, unless the customer is licensed by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services for the sale of agricultural or horticultural products. Customers, who are licensed, may maintain an open account status with Petitioner. Respondent Arsham was such a customer. For approximately two years, Respondent Arsham and Petitioner enjoyed a relationship whereby Petitioner sold Respondent Arsham grass sod for various projects. An employee of Petitioner provided sod installation services on an independent basis to Respondent Arsham for these shipments. On Monday, September 26, 1988, Tom Shaldjian, the president of Respondent Arsham, discussed with Petitioner's personnel an arrangement whereby Petitioner would provide grass sod for a particular project under construction by a third party builder. Shaldjian told Petitioner that billing for the sod should be made directly to this builder, rather than to Respondent Arsham as had been the practice on previous occasions. However, Shaldjian promised Petitioner personnel that if payment for the sod was not made by the builder, then Respondent Arsham would pay the bill. Petitioner agreed with this arrangement. Confirmation of the required quantity of sod, approximately 15 pallets or 7500 square feet, was made by Shaldjian on Wednesday, September 28, 1988. Petitioner delivered 15 pallets of grass sod to the building site on Friday, October 28, 1988. In his independent capacity, an employee of Petitioner provided installation services at the site for the grass sod. Subsequent to the delivery and installation of the sod, Petitioner followed Respondent's instructions and submitted a bill to the construction builder for a total amount of $ 1033.50. Of this amount, $975 was allocated to 15 pallets of sod at a cost per pallet of $65. The remainder of the amount consisted of sales tax in the amount of $58.50. The builder paid only $964.60, or an amount equal to the cost of 14 pallets plus 6 per cent sales tax. Shaldjian, Respondent Arsham's president, visited the construction site after what he determined to be the completion of the grass sod installation and noted that almost one complete pallet of grass sod had not been utilized. Only a few pieces of sod were missing from the pallet. As a result of this observation, he later advised Petitioner that Respondent Arsham would not be responsible for paying the $65 deducted by the builder from the initial bill for the 15th pallet of sod. Shaldjian's testimony that Petitioner worked this particular sod job alone and without the involvement of Respondents is not credited in view of other testimony establishing that Petitioner had no arrangement or contract with the builder regarding the sale of the grass sod in question beyond submission of the bill for the product, after delivery, to the builder as opposed to Respondent Arsham. Testimony of personnel employed by Petitioner establishes that the sod in this instance was a perishable product in view of weather conditions at the time, making salvage of any sod remaining after the installation impossible. The proof fails to establish that Petitioner took possession of any grass sod remaining at the conclusion of its installation or otherwise obtained any salvage value from any of the product which may have been left over.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered requiring Respondents to pay Petitioner the sum of $68.90. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 7th day of June, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Arsham & Associates, Inc. 254 Longwood Hills Road Longwood, Florida 32750 Safeco Insurance Company of America Safeco Plaza Seattle, Washington 98185 Hillside Sod Farms, Inc. 1620 E. State Road 46 Geneva, Florida Hon. Doyle Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 Mallory Horne General Counsel 513 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Ben Pridgeon, Chief Bureau of Licensing & Bond Department of Agriculture Lab Complex Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1650
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioners sold nursery plant materials to Respondent U.S. Lawns of Orlando, Inc. for which the latter did not pay.
Findings Of Fact On May 24, 1990, Jon's Nursery, Inc. sold U.S. Lawns of Orlando, Inc. 460 Juniper plants, for $731.40 including tax. The plants were picked up by U.S. Lawns employee Mark Rosetta. U.S. Lawns of Orlando, Inc. does not dispute the validity of the claim arising out of the May 24 sale. However, U.S. Lawns has never paid for these plant materials. On June 6, 1990, Jon's Nursery, Inc. sold U.S. Lawns of Orlando, Inc. 40 Juniper plants and 50 grass plants for $166.95 including tax. These plants were picked up by Jeffrey Miller, who was an employee of U.S. Lawns. U.S. Lawns disputes the validity of the June 6 sale. However, the owner of U.S. Lawns, Glen Jaffee, never responded to numerous telephone calls from Pen Smith of Jon's Nursery, Inc. concerning the unpaid invoices. Nor did anyone respond to a certified demand letter that Mr. Smith mailed to U.S. Lawns on August 29, 1990, or the numerous monthly statements reflecting the unpaid balances. An officer and employee of U.S. Lawns of Orlando, Inc., Pat Oyler, had ordered the plant materials by telephone from Jon's Nursery, Inc. Mr. Oyler had previously ordered plant materials on behalf of U.S. Lawns from Jon's Nursery, which had always been paid. On two occasions subsequent to the sales in question, Mr. Oyler ordered plant materials from Jon's Nursery, Inc. on behalf of U.S. Lawns, but paid for them with his personal check, and Mr. Smith told him that he would need, in such cases, to order the plants in his name. On May 31, 1990, Concepts in Greenery, Inc. sold U.S. Lawns ten 15-gallon crepe myrtles for $318 including tax. These items were picked up by Jeffrey Miller driving a U.S. Lawns truck. These plant materials had been ordered by Mr. Oyler of U.S. Lawns. Concepts in Greenery, Inc. had also previously done business with U.S. Lawns and been paid. In a sale which had taken place on March 25, 1990, Mr Oyler had ordered about $400 worth of plant materials on behalf of U.S. Lawns. Additionally, in its application for credit with Concepts in Greenery, Inc. dated April 11, 1988, Mr. Jaffee, as president of U.S. Lawns of Orlando, Inc., had certified that Mr. Oyler was vice president of U.S. Lawns of Orlando, Inc. Repeated telephone calls and monthly statements from Concepts in Greenery, Inc. to U.S. Lawns of Orlando, Inc., as well as a certified letter dated September 19, 1990, to Mr. Jaffee, were unsuccessful in obtaining any response whatsoever from the latter company. Spring Hill Nursery, Inc. made several sales of a variety of plant materials to U S. Lawns of Orlando, Inc. Including tax, these sales were as follows: March 13, 1990, for $131.18; March 26, 1990, for $544.05; April 5, 1990, for $12.24; April 6, 1990, for $90.10; April 17, 1990, for $593.60; April 18, 1990, for $55.65; and April 27, 1990, for $92.75. An eighth invoice dated June 4, 1990, for $581.15 has been excluded because it bears the names of Oyler Construction Company, Inc., Bentley Green, and Pat Oyler as the persons invoiced and nowhere mentions U.S. Lawns. The total of the seven sales to U.S. Lawns is $1519.57. Spring Hill Nursery, Inc. repeatedly tried to contact Mr. Jaffee and U.S. Lawns, including by letter dated August 27, 1990, but never received any response to its demand for payment.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order requiring U.S. Lawns of Orlando, Inc. to pay the above-indicated sums to the respective parties. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 9th day of April, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Hon. Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler General Counsel Department of Agriculture 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing and Bond Department of Agriculture 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 Pen Smith, Sales Manager Jon's Nursery, Inc. 24546 Nursery Way Eustis, FL 32726 Charles Brown, Nursery Manager Concepts in Greenery, Inc. 16366 Old Cheney Highway Orlando, FL 32833 David Rubright, President Spring Hill Nursery, Inc. 1921 Hill Drive Apopka, FL 32703 Glen Jaffee 612 Bryn Mawr Orlando, FL 32804 Bankers Insurance Company 10051 5th Street North St. Petersburg, FL 33702
The Issue Whether or not Petitioner is owed $7,097.15 by Respondent Green Acres for various nursery products.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a wholesaler engaged in the business of producing agricultural products, primarily nursery plants, since approximately 1953. Green Acres is a retail nursery engaged in the business of selling sod, nursery products, and provision of other related landscaping services. Green Acres is a newly-formed business which commenced operations during the summer of 1992. On August 10, 1992, Green Acres purchased from Petitioner various quantities of flowers and nursery products which are reflected by Petitioner's invoice nos. 5074, 5076, 5077 and 5080 in the respective amounts of $625.25, $1,097.00, $2,927.50, and $383.20. On August 14, 1992, Green Acres purchased another order of nursery products from Petitioner which is reflected by Petitioner's invoice no. 5085 in the total amount of $1,063.75. On August 18, 1992, again Petitioner delivered products to Green Acres based on an order (Petitioner's invoice no. 5060) for the total sum of $599.20. Finally, on September 17, 1992, Green Acres ordered various nursery products from Petitioner (Petitioner's invoice no. 5097), which were delivered to Green Acres for the total sum of $401.25. Petitioner has made numerous attempts to collect for the nursery products that it supplied to Green Acres without success. These efforts to collect included personal trips to the Green Acres nursery by Roy Amerson. When disputes arose as to the pricing of plants, Green Acres unilaterally adjusted the price to the amount that it desired to pay which amount Petitioner accepted without protest based upon the fact that Petitioner's owners were aware that Green Acres was a new nursery and Petitioner was desirous of building a good client over a long period of time. For this reason, Petitioner also extended credit to Green Acres on an open-account basis for a long time without attempting to collect. Petitioner extended credit to Green acres based upon Petitioner's knowledge and understanding of the difficulty that new retail nursery owners undergo in starting a new nursery business. Green Acres suffered fire damage at one of its office buildings on the Friday prior to the Labor Day weekend during 1992. As a result of that fire, Green Acres contends that it paid Petitioner in cash for products and was not properly receipted for those payments. Green Acres maintains that its receipts were destroyed in the fire. Green Acres's contention in this regard was considered; however, it is more likely than not that Green Acres did not pay Petitioner for any nursery products which they have not been granted credit for. In this regard, Petitioner introduced invoices and credit notations for each purchase of products that Green Acres ordered. Those invoices appear to properly reflect the entire series of transactions of the purchase of products from Petitioner with the appropriate credits and adjustments noted. Respondent, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (State Farm), issued a surety bond to Green Acres for the period during which Petitioner provided nursery products to Green Acres in 1992.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a Final Order ordering Green Acres to pay to Petitioner the sum of $7,097.15 within fifteen (15) days after the issuance of its Final Order. Upon the failure of Green Acres to tender the referenced amount to Petitioner, it is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services direct that the surety company pay over to the Department out of the surety bond posted for such dealer, the amount necessary to cover the indebtedness noted herein of $7,097.15. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of September, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida. 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 2nd day of September, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Roy and Barbara Amerson Post Office Box 202 Terra Ceia, Florida 34250 Shelly K. Thomas 9330 Ulmerton Road Largo, Florida 34641 Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, Esq. General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing and Bond Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Ms. Becky L. Herald State Farm Fire & Casualty Company 112 East Washington Street Bloomington, Illinois 61710-1001
The Issue The issue is whether the claims of $98,935.20 and $19,147.70, filed by Petitioner under the Agricultural Bond and License Law, are valid. §§ 604.15 - 604.34, Fla. Stat. (2008).
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Petitioner has been a producer of agricultural products located in Plant City, Florida. At all material times, American Growers has been a dealer in agricultural products. Respondent Lincoln General Insurance Company, as surety, issued a bond to American Growers, as principal. American Growers is licensed by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services ("DACS"). Between December 16, 2008, and February 4, 2009, Petitioner sold strawberries to American Growers, each sale being accompanied by a Passing and Bill of Lading. Petitioner sent an Invoice for each shipment, and payment was due in full following receipt of the Invoice. Partial payments have been made on some of the invoices, and as of the date of this Recommended Order, the amount that remains unpaid by American Growers to Petitioner is $117,982.90, comprising: Invoice No. Invoice Date Amount Balance Due 103894 12/16/08 $7,419.00 $1,296.00 103952 12/22/08 $18,370.80 $1,944.00 103953 12/23/08 $3,123.60 $648.00 193955 12/26/08 $8,164.80 $1,728.00 103984 12/28/08 $28,764.40 $28,764.40 104076 12/31/08 $17,236.80 $17,236.80 104077 1/5/09 $17,658.00 $17,658.00 104189 1/5/09 $1,320.90 $1,320.90 104386 1/20/09 $16,480.80 $16,480.80 104517 1/29/09 $17,449.20 $17,449.20 104496 2/4/09 $13,456.80 $13,456.80 TOTAL $117,982.90
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order requiring Respondent, American Growers, Inc., and/or its surety, Respondent, Lincoln General Insurance Company, to pay Petitioner, Crown Harvest Produce Sales, LLC, the total amount of $117,982.90. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of May, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of May, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Charles H. Bronson Commissioner of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capital, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 407 South Calhoun Street, Suite 520 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Christopher E. Green, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Office of Citrus License and Bond Mayo Building, Mail Station 38 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Glenn Thomason, President American Growers, Inc. 14888 Horseshoe Trace Wellington, Florida 33414 Katy Koestner Esquivel, Esquire Meuers Law Firm, P.L. 5395 Park Central Court Naples, Florida 34109 Renee Herder Surety Bond Claims Lincoln General Insurance Company 4902 Eisenhower Boulevard, Suite 155 Tampa, Florida 33634 Glenn C. Thomason, Registered Agent American Growers, Inc. Post Office Box 1207 Loxahatchee, Florida 33470
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners and the Respondents had a contractual agreement, whereby the Respondents agreed to purchase watermelons from the Petitioners during the 1978 harvest season. The Petitioners were to be compensated for their watermelons by the pound as the melons crossed the scales during loading of the melons onto trucks. The actual price fluctuated based upon the market conditions. The Respondents' employees were responsible for picking and loading the melons. Pete Potenza was in charge of the loading operation for the Respondents. Mr. Potenza advised the Respondents that the price for the watermelons would be two and one-half cents per pound for the medium watermelons and three cents per pound for large ones. At the agreed price, the Petitioners would have been entitled to compensation of $1,197.75 for one load of watermelons, and $1,083.50 for another load. The Respondents compensated them $958.20 and $866.80 for the respective loads. The price paid by the Respondents was less than had been agreed upon. The Petitioners are entitled to $217.50 additional compensation for the first load, and $239.55 additional compensation for the second load. The Petitioners are entitled to total additional compensation in the amount of $457.05. There was no dispute as to the quality of the Petitioners' melons. The Respondents picked several loads of melons from the Petitioners subsequent to those which were disputed. Mr. Potenza advised the Petitioners that they would receive additional compensation, but they have not. The Respondents are licensed with the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services as an agricultural commodity dealer. The Respondents have filed a $20,000.00 bond with the Department.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final order be entered by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services finding that the Petitioners are entitled to $457.05 in additional compensation for agricultural goods which they sold to the Respondents and requiring the Respondents to pay this sum to the Petitioners. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of February, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Chastain, Esq. General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32304 William F. York, Esq. GILMAN, MCLAUGHLIN & HANRAHAN Ten Post Office Square Boston, MA 02109 J. Victor Africano, Esq. P. O. Box 1450 Live Oak, FL 32060 Joseph Pellegrino, President A. Pellegrino & Sons, Inc. 24 New England Produce Center Chelsea, MA 02150 E. G. Musleh, Esq. P. O. Box 924 Ocala, FL 32670
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.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's license to operate an assisted living facility should be renewed.
Findings Of Fact AHCA is the agency responsible for the licensing and regulation of assisted living facilities in Florida pursuant to Chapter 400, Florida Statutes. Orchard Meadows is an assisted living facility (ALF) which is owned by Nathaniel Gallon, and is located in Monticello, Florida. Prior Case and Administrative Fine In a prior case involving AHCA and Nathaniel Gallon, d/b/a Orchard Meadows, AHCA issued a Final Order dated September 27, 2001. The Final Order incorporated by reference a Settlement Agreement entered into between the parties, which read in pertinent part: The Respondent agrees to pay half of the administrative fine imposed, in the amount of seven thousand eight hundred seventy-five ($7,875) dollars, to be paid within sixty (60) days of entry of the Final Order adopting this settlement stipulation agreement. The Respondent agrees to maintain the facility in substantial compliance with all applicable statutes and rules governing assisted living facilities, as determined by the Agency field office manager, for a period of one year from the entry of the Final Order incorporating this settlement stipulation agreement. In the event that the conditions in paragraph 6 and 7 are not met, the following consequences shall result: the remaining seven thousand eight hundred seventy-five ($7,875) dollars outstanding from the administrative fine initially imposed by the Agency in the amount of fifteen thousand seven hundred fifty ($15,750) dollars, shall become due immediately. the Agency shall consider Respondent ineligible for renewal of licensure as an assisted living facility based on the demonstrated inability to comply with requirements of continued licensure. Eula Fogle is the Administrator of Orchard Meadows and has been in that position since May of 2000. According to both Mr. Gallon and Ms. Fogle, Orchard Meadows made efforts to acquire the funds to pay the $7,875.00 administrative fine referenced in paragraph 6 of the stipulation but acknowledge that they were unable to do so within the 60 days following the entry of the Final Order referenced above. However, a few days after the 60-day time period expired, they were able to acquire the funds and Ms. Fogle personally took a check for $7,875.00 to Mr. Rice at AHCA. AHCA did not accept the check but referred Ms. Fogle to the agency's lawyers. Ms. Fogle attempted to get in touch with the appropriate agency lawyer(s) in an effort to pay the fine but was unsuccessful in doing so. License renewal Orchard Meadows first received a license to operate an ALF by AHCA effective December 23, 1994. Orchard Meadows renewed its license and was issued a conditional license from December 23, 1996 through March 22, 1997. Orchard Meadows received a standard license for the period March 23, 1997 through December 22, 1998. On August 18, 1999, AHCA sent a letter to Orchard Meadows enclosing a standard renewal license #AL8362 issued for the period December 23, 1999 to December 22, 2002. Greg Rice is a Government Operations Consultant III in the Assisted Living Licensing Office of AHCA. According to Mr. Rice, ALF licenses are issued for two-year periods. Thus, the license issued from December 23, 1999 until December 22, 2002, was issued in error. On October 25, 1999, AHCA sent another letter to Orchard Meadows with a standard renewal license enclosed. The letter stated that the enclosed license was being issued to correct the dates of the one previously sent. The letter also requested that Orchard Meadows return the license previously issued. The renewal standard license #AL8362 was issued for the period December 23, 1998 until December 22, 2000, which resulted in a two-year licensure period beginning one year prior to the first renewal license and ending two years earlier. On July 31, 2000, AHCA sent a letter to Orchard Meadows notifying Petitioner that the license to operate expired December 22, 2000. The letter instructed Orchard Meadows to complete an enclosed application and return it with the appropriate fee 90 days before the expiration date. The letter further stated that failure to file a renewal application within that time frame will result in a late fee as allowed by law. The return-receipt card was signed by Demetria Poe on August 2, 2000. Ms. Poe is a former employee of Orchard Meadows and did not testify at the hearing. There is no evidence of any correspondence from AHCA to Orchard Meadows regarding the license status between the July 31, 2000 letter and a January 11, 2002 letter, a period of approximately one and one-half years. Despite the position by AHCA that the license expired December 22, 2000, AHCA continued to come to the facility to conduct surveys during the period of time in which AHCA contends that Orchard Meadows was operating without a license. According to Ms. Fogle, AHCA's most recent survey of the facility was conducted four to six months prior to the final hearing date. Mr. Rice's explained why Orchard Meadows was permitted to operate: Q. And even though that renewal was not submitted, they were permitted to continue to operate because they were in litigation; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And so, because they were in litigation and because there was a settlement that needed to be complied with, is that the reason that there was no further notice to the facility after the July 2000? A. Yes. On January 11, 2002, AHCA sent a letter to Eula Fogle, Administrator of Orchard Meadows. The letter notified Ms. Fogle that the license to operate Orchard Meadows expired on December 22, 2000, and that no renewal application had been filed nor had the license fee been paid. The letter instructed Ms. Fogle to cease and desist operating Orchard Meadows. Ms. Fogle was surprised to receive the January 11, 2002 letter as the license with the 2002 expiration date was on the wall of the office in Orchard Meadows. According to Ms. Fogle, she was unaware of the July 31, 2000 letter signed for by the former employee, Demetria Poe, or of the license with the expiration date of December 22, 2000, that was issued in 1999. It was her understanding that Orchard Meadows' license was current until December 2002. Orchard Meadows filed a renewal application in early 2002. The record is not clear as to the exact date it was filed. However, Mr. Rice established that it was filed sometime subsequent to the January 11, 2002 letter from AHCA to Orchard Meadows. On February 27, 2002, AHCA issued the subject Notice Of Intent to Deny Orchard Meadows' renewal of their ALF license, which states as follows: Dear Ms. Fogle: It is the decision of this Agency that your renewal application for an assisted living facility (ALF) license be DENIED. The Specific Basis for this determination is: The applicant's failure to submit a completed renewal license application within the specified time frames pursuant to Section 400.414(1)(i), Florida Statutes (F.S.), and Section 400.417, F.S. Specifically, the applicant failed to provide proof of liability insurance and failed to pay an outstanding fine in final order status (AHCA Case No's: 02-00-063-ALF, 02-00-004-ALF, 02-00-016-ALF and 02-00-053- ALF). The omitted information was requested by the Agency in a certified letter dated February 4, 2002, received by the applicant on February 6, 2002. The applicant failed to submit the required information to the Agency by February 25, 2002. No proof was presented at hearing describing any omissions request as referenced in the Notice of Intent to Deny. Nonetheless, Orchard Meadows' current liability insurance is with United National Insurance Company with an effective date of March 27, 2002 until March 27, 2003.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order requiring Orchard Meadows to pay the $7,875.00 fine and any renewal application fees, including any appropriate late fees, within 30 days of the issuance of the final order. Upon payment of the fine and license fees, Orchard Meadows' license should be renewed. If the fine and license fees are not paid within 30 days of the final order, the renewal application of Orchard Meadows should be denied and Orchard Meadows should cease operations as a licensed assisted living facility. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. BARBARA J. STAROS 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 September, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Christine T. Messana, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Lee Dougherty, Esquire 245 East Washington Street Monticello, Florida 32344 Leland McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403 Valinda Clark Christian, Acting General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Fort Knox Building 3, Suite 3431 Tallahassee, Florida 32308-5403
