The Issue Whether Petitioner Agency for Health Care Administration properly assigned conditional license status to Respondent, Westminster Woods on Julington Creek, based upon its determination that Respondent had violated Florida Administrative Code, Rule 59A-4.130, and 42 CFR Section 483.70 via Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-4.1288, due to the presence of two wide-spread Class I deficiencies cited at the most recent annual licensure survey of January 27-29, 2003. Whether Petitioner Agency for Health Care Administration properly assessed a $30,000.00 fine against Respondent for violating 42 CFR Section 483.70 via Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-4.1288, as well as Florida Administrative Code Rule 59A-4.130, due to the presence of two wide-spread Class I deficiencies at the most recent annual survey on January 27-29, 2003. Whether the Agency for Health Care Administration is entitled to $6,000.00 in costs related to the investigation and prosecution of this case(s), pursuant to Section 400.121(10), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Pursuant to Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 59A-4, Florida Administrative Code (2002), AHCA is the regulatory authority responsible for licensure of skilled nursing facilities and for enforcement of all applicable statutes and rules governing skilled nursing facilities, of which Respondent Westminster Woods at Julington Creek is one. On January 27-29, 2003, AHCA conducted an annual licensure and re-certification survey of Respondent's facility. As a result of that survey, the facility was cited for two Class I deficiencies related to failure of the facility's fire alarm system. Each of these deficiencies was cited upon the same underlying facts. AHCA represented that one was cited as a Federal "tag" and the other was cited as a State "tag." In the Administrative Complaints, AHCA alleged, in a single Count, two separate Class I deficiencies. Respondent is a 60-bed skilled nursing facility located in Jacksonville, Florida. Respondent houses more of the "older- old" or "elderly-elderly" residents than the average skilled nursing facility. Respondent is a second floor facility with two stairwells that provide direct outside egress from the facility and that can be used as fire exits. During the January 27-29, 2003, survey, the facility housed 58 residents. Respondent's 58 residents on those dates were fairly dependent in terms of their physical capabilities. More than one-half of them were over the age of 85, and a couple of the residents were over 100 years old. Only one of the residents on January 27-29, 2003, was independently ambulatory. The remainder of the residents were incapable of independent ambulation. One of the residents was bed-ridden. Thirty-eight residents required extensive assistance in transferring or ambulating. The remainder of the resident population required assistive devices such as canes or walkers to transfer or ambulate. Due to their age, physical condition, and inability to engage in self preservation, these residents were extremely vulnerable in the event of a fire. The survey team arrived at the facility at 6:00 a.m. on January 27, 2003. At around 8:00 a.m., the facility's maintenance supervisor, John Doran, conducted his usual rounds of the facility. Mr. Doran personally checks the fire alarm panel twice daily, and did so that morning. The panel has three lights: A green light which means that the panel is working; a yellow light which means a mechanical failure has occurred; and a red light which signifies an alarm. Mr. Doran noted that no light was on. The fire doors, which close automatically if the alarm is activated, were still open. Except for the absence of any alarm panel light, everything seemed to be normal. Therefore, on the morning of January 27, 2003, Mr. Doran believed that there was a problem with the fire alarm panel, not the fire alarm system. In addition to Mr. Doran's twice-daily checks, Respondent's alarm system is monitored by an outside monitoring company which is supposed to call the facility if any problem is detected with its fire alarm system. The monitoring company did not call, which also suggested that the system itself was not malfunctioning, but merely that a light was out on the alarm panel. Nonetheless, Mr. Doran called his secretary, who contacted "W. W. Gay," the contract repair company for the system, and asked that a technician come to the facility. Thinking there was no immediate danger, but only that there was a problem with the alarm panel lights, and believing that everything that could be done up to that point had been done, Mr. Doran did not mention the alarm panel/system to surveyor Patricia McIntire, R.N., when she interviewed him about hot water temperatures around 10:00 a.m. on January 27, 2003. W. W. Gay's technician arrived at the facility about 10:30 a.m. and began trouble shooting the fire alarm system. The first technician could not find the problem, so he called for a second technician. During the course of January 27, 2003, three technicians arrived at Respondent's facility and worked on the panel, in full view of staff and surveyors who were in and around the nurses' station. During the entire period that the fire alarm panel was not working, which ultimately amounted to at least three days, a large number of staff and other responsible people were around the resident areas. The January 27, 2003, morning shift had a minimum of 17 staff members directly assigned, with others coming and going from the unit. In all, there were around 25 people circulating in the nursing home during the day shift. After the surveyors had left, the evening shift had nine staff members assigned to the unit, with additional staff overlapping from the day shift. The night shift had six assigned staff members, plus "Ron," Respondent's security man, who was assigned to a fire watch, beginning late on the afternoon of January 27, 2003. (See Finding of Fact 32.) On Tuesday, January 28, 2003, there were 20 staff people directly assigned to the unit on the day shift. Counting the AHCA surveyors and ancillary staff, there were approximately 27 people on the floor. The evening shift had nine specifically assigned staff members, with others overlapping. The night shift had at least six staff members. On Wednesday, January 29, 2003, the numbers were similar. During the course of January 27, 2003, Mr. Doran did not tell Respondent's administrators, Don Wilson or Mike Sweeney, about the problem with the fire alarm panel because he thought the fire alarm panel problem was being resolved by the W. W. Gay technicians and because both administrators were very busy with the AHCA survey. Around 4:00 p.m., January 27, 2003, Mr. Doran found out that the problem with the fire panel was more serious than he had earlier thought. The AHCA surveyors had already left the facility. Mr. Doran went to Mr. Sweeney and Mr. Wilson. He told them at that time that W. W. Gay's third technician had told him that it would be the next morning before the fire alarm/system panel could be repaired. Mr. Sweeney and Mr. Wilson advised Mr. Doran that the situation was unacceptable. They instructed Mr. Doran to call W. W. Gay and tell that company to return and fix the panel immediately. Mr. Doran made the phone call, but as it ultimately turned out, the fire panel could not be fixed that night because a part had to be ordered. The facility had in-place a three-tiered system of evacuation in case of fire. First, residents in the room where the fire is located and those in the two adjoining rooms would be moved to safety. Second, if the fire continued to spread, all residents on the side of the fire doors where the fire was located would be moved to the other side of the doors and the fire doors closed. Third, and only if the fire were still not contained, would the residents be moved out of the building through the stairwells. The control panel of the fire alarm system is the "brains" of the facility's fire safety system. It has a direct connection to the local fire department and provides the fire department with direct, immediate notification if there is a fire in the facility. It provides immediate notification to the residents and staff of the facility through the sounding of bells, chimes, strobes, etc., of the existence of an emergency. It operates the smoke detectors. It automatically shuts down the air conditioning unit to prevent the spread of carbon monoxide, smoke, and fumes throughout the facility, and it automatically locks and unlocks the fire doors. It is the transfer of smoke and toxic gases generated during a fire which is the most common cause of casualty. The continued operation of the air conditioning system during a fire could make the lateral transfer of residents to another compartment on the same floor (tiers one and two of the facility's fire safety plan) ineffective because the continued operation of the air conditioning system could still transfer gases and smoke throughout the facility. However, in this case, although the facility's air conditioning system does move air, smoke being carried throughout the building was unlikely, since the intakes were located in common areas where smoke would be detected by staff. Fire drills are held by Respondent at least monthly. Staff is trained to respond to fires by Scott Fogg, a facility employee who has 23 years' United States Navy experience in training to fight fires, watching for fires, and fighting fires. Mr. Fogg has personally fought over 30 fires. He orients each new employee for at least one and one-half to two hours. He also does annual training of staff. Part of the training provided by Mr. Fogg consists of going step by step through the facility's fire plan. The plan includes contacting the fire department. Once the charge nurse knows of a fire, it is her responsibility to call "911." The facility's plan requires that the charge nurse notify the fire department, regardless of whether or not the alarm system is functioning.1/ The facility's fire plan is kept at several locations, including in the possession of the charge nurse and at the nurses' station. Every individual who goes through orientation also receives a copy. There is a sprinkling system for the entire facility. The sprinkling system is not dependent on the alarm system functioning. Each resident's room has at least two sprinklers, and some rooms have three sprinklers. The bathrooms inside the residents' rooms have an additional sprinkler. The dining room, halls, common area, and stairwells have sprinklers. There are fire extinguishers located at each corner of the building and fire hoses on the walls. Mr. Fogg evaluates the monthly fire drills. If he notes a problem, he writes it up and does follow-up training. The building is made of concrete, and nonflammable paint is used. Smoking is not permitted in the facility building. Staff are required to smoke in a designated smoking area behind another building. Residents are not allowed to keep combustible materials in their rooms. The kitchen and laundry are located in another building. Evacuation routes are posted throughout the building. Upon learning at approximately 4:00 p.m. January 27, 2003, that the fire alarm/system could not be fixed that night, Messrs. Wilson and Sweeney instructed Mr. Doran to institute a one-hour fire watch. A fire watch involves dedicating an individual to go around the building at stated intervals (in this case, hourly) looking for potential fire, smoke, or fire risk. Mr. Sweeney is the facility's Executive Director. He is also a licensed nursing home administrator. Based on his 25 years of experience in health care and his knowledge of the properties of the facility's physical plant, he thought a one- hour fire watch was reasonable and appropriate. Mr. Wilson, the facility's Health Services Administrator, concurred. Respondent's security man, Ron, was instructed to perform the hourly fire watch. Mr. Doran walked Ron around the area and told him to use his eyes, ears, touch, and sense of smell to look for any signs of fire. Ron carried a cell phone so that he could quickly communicate with Messrs. Doran, Wilson, Sweeney, or the fire department, if necessary. There is no evidence that Ron failed in his instructed duties for an hourly fire watch. Most of the survey team returned about 7:00 a. m., on January 28, 2003. At approximately 8:30 a.m., another team member, Nicholas Linardi, AHCA's Life Safety Inspector, arrived at the facility for the first time. Mr. Doran met with Mr. Linardi in the administrative conference room at around 9:00 a.m. There is no dispute that the first order of business was Mr. Linardi's review of all of the facility's service and safety logs. Mr. Fogg was also present at that time. After this point, there are significant differences among the witnesses' respective testimonies as to the chronology of events and the time span involved. However, having weighed the credibility of the respective witnesses, it is found that no later than their arrival on the second floor skilled nursing unit at approximately 9:30 a.m., January 28, 2003, Mr. Doran told Mr. Linardi that there was a problem with the fire alarm panel/system. How clear Mr. Doran was in this first explanation of the extent of the problem or how much or how little of Mr. Doran's explanation Mr. Linardi appreciated at that time is not clear from the record, but Mr. Linardi inquired concerning what the facility was doing about solving the problem, and Mr. Doran told him. Mr. Linardi requested that Mr. Doran call W. W. Gay again. Mr. Linardi did not require that the facility shut off the air-conditioning, pending repair of the fire alarm system. He did not offer any immediate suggestions as to additional actions the facility staff should take to protect its residents. He did not state that the facility should increase the frequency of the fire watch. There also is no clear evidence that he told anyone at that time that the facility must notify the local fire department that the panel/system was inoperative. Mr. Linardi's testimony was clear that when he is on a facility's premises, he is one of the appropriate persons or entities to whom AHCA expects the facility will report a fire alarm/system malfunction, but he was also adamant that rigid enforcement of "tags and fire standards," means that the facility is required to report any malfunction to the local fire authority, in this case, to the St. Johns County Fire Department. It is Mr. Linardi's practice to issue a survey citation, regardless of the reason a fire alarm is out of commission. The rest of AHCA's survey team first became aware of the extent of the problem with the fire alarm system at approximately 2:45 p.m., on January 28, 2003, when Mr. Linardi conducted a fire drill in the facility for purposes of AHCA’s survey. During the fire drill, it became evident to the AHCA survey team that the alarm did not sound and the fire doors did not automatically close. During the fire drill, staff members had to yell out information to alert other staff members that there was a fire drill and to identify the location of the "pretend" fire. If the fire alarm system is working, it automatically closes the correct doors. If it is not working, staff members do not know which doors to close until told where the fire or pretend fire is, but during the fire drill, it took facility staff only four and one-half minutes to realize that the correct fire doors had not closed and to go to the north corridor to manually shut them. In general terms, Mr. Linardi felt that an incipient fire can start and be transferred throughout a facility within four minutes. He did not specifically discuss Respondent's facility. No one testified to what the response time should have been if an alarm had sounded. Beyond what could at most have been a half-minute response delay due to the absence of a functioning alarm, AHCA apparently found no fault with the staff's response to, and conduct of, the fire drill. Mr. Linardi was, in fact, complimentary of the results. After the fire drill on January 28, 2003, Mr. Linardi personally called W. W. Gay and verified that the part necessary to fix the panel/system was on order. Still later in the afternoon, Mr. Linardi notified the St. Johns Fire Marshal that Respondent's fire alarm system was not in service. The St. Johns Fire Marshal directed that the facility institute a 15-minute fire watch. Respondent immediately instituted the 15-minute fire watch on January 28, 2003. Mr. Linardi testified that he was concerned that the Fire Marshal's assigned fire watch frequency of 15 minutes was too liberal and that a fire watch perhaps should have been instituted at even shorter intervals, but since the regulations presume that the local authority shall set the protocol for fire watches, he said nothing. There was some surveyor commentary to the effect that laundry carts "stored" in Respondent's hallway near one of the exits to the stairs violated survey criteria and aggravated danger to residents, but Mr. Linardi conceded that laundry carts could legitimately be rolled through hallways as linen goods were transported in them from the linen closet to each resident's room. It was his opinion such carts should have been parked in residents' rooms for any extended period of time. No accurate measurements of acceptable time or unacceptable time that these carts remained in the hallways was advanced by any witness, so this survey criticism is not indicative of a citable flaw. A chair was found on the landing at the top of one of the two exit stairwells. The landing and stairwell are large. The chair was not blocking the door leading onto the second floor landing from the skilled nursing unit. The chair's location would not have prevented an ambulatory person or a person on a cane, assisted by another, from descending via the stairs. The only obstruction the chair might have represented would have been if a patient had to be carried on a stretcher or litter and the stretcher or litter had to be turned by two people on the landing. Mr. Linardi commented that actual egress was not at issue, but because survey criteria specifically prohibit furniture or any other object from being there, the chair's presence on the landing was still a citable offense. Renovations were ongoing in the facility during this period, and construction workers had temporarily stored some of the construction materials that they were using in the bottom recess of an exit stairwell. These supplies were stored without permission or knowledge of facility staff. The bottom of the stairwell is a large open area, 22 feet long by 10 feet wide. Most of the construction materials were stored beneath the stairs and were not blocking either a step down from the stairs or access to the outside exit door. However, one piece of flat molding protruded in front of the exit door, and had the potential of impeding egress. Although there was testimony that this molding could have been easily stepped over, the photographs make clear that this item could have impeded the speed of an evacuation of the above-described frail, elderly and non-ambulatory population if an evacuation had been necessary. There is no persuasive evidence that a hinge on any exit door prevented its being opened or that any exit door was otherwise unreachable or otherwise out of commission. During the 15-minute fire watch on the third day of the survey, January 29, 2003, Ron (See Findings of Fact 13, 32, and 42) found a tray on top of the juice machine in the beverage area of the facility’s dining room and removed it. This area is within three feet of a sprinkler head and within six feet of a fire extinguisher. The juice machine has thermal overload protection to prevent electricity going to the motor if the motor gets hot. In short, if the motor gets hot, the machine cuts off. When the surveyors arrived on that date, a number of residents and staff members were in the dining room. The surveyors noted an odor similar to that of a burning motor in the vicinity of the juice machine. At that time, the tray had already been found and removed as part of the 15-minute fire watch. When a motor overheats, the smell lingers for a long time. There is no evidence that the incident did more than produce an unpleasant odor. AHCA gave Respondent a written mandated correction date of February 6, 2003, but before the survey team finally exited on January 29, 2003, the facility had changed the fire watch to every 15 minutes and had advised that the fire alarm system would be operational on January 30, 2003. Therefore, AHCA removed the "immediate jeopardy" classification on January 29, 2003, prior to the end of the survey, when it determined that fire watches were being conducted every 15 minutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order Finding Respondent guilty of a single, isolated Class III deficiency, fining Respondent $1,000.00 therefore, and removing Respondent's conditional licensure status; and Remanding to the Division of Administrative Hearings the issue of the amount of any costs related to the investigation and prosecution of these cases, pursuant to Section 400.121(10), in the event the parties cannot stipulate to those costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of November, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of November 2003.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to licensure as a certified electrical contractor pursuant to the "grandfathering" provisions of Section 489.514, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The evidence presented at final hearing established the facts that follow. Armstrong is a specialty electrician who operates a business named Sound Planning Distributors, Inc. in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Armstrong holds a local license (called a Certificate of Competency) from the Broward County Central Examining Board of Contractors that authorizes him to engage in specialty electrical contracting in Broward County. Armstrong's local license was issued on November 14, 1989. To obtain it, Armstrong had been required to pass a written examination prepared, proctored, and graded by Block and Associates, a prerequisite which he had accomplished on October 28, 1989. Armstrong's local license is active and in good standing; he has not been the subject of any complaints filed with, or discipline imposed by, the local licensing authority. In 1996, Armstrong learned that he needed to become state-registered as a specialty contractor pursuant to Section 489.513, Florida Statutes. He applied to the Department, which in due course issued him a license as a registered specialty contractor, originally effective December 9, 1996. Armstrong has renewed his state registration from time to time as required by law. His state registration is currently active and valid through August 31, 2001. On December 11, 2000, Armstrong applied for certification as a specialty contractor pursuant to the "grandfathering" provisions of Section 489.514, Florida Statutes. (Registration and certification are distinct forms of licensure under Part II of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, which deals with the regulation of electrical and alarm system contractors.) On February 6, 2001, the Board denied Armstrong's application for certification solely because he lacked five years of experience as a registered contractor, which is a condition of licensure pursuant to Section 489.514(2)(c), Florida Statutes, and Rule 61G6-5.0035, Florida Administrative Code.1
The Issue Whether Respondent Indiana House violated Subsection 509.032(2)(b), Florida Statutes, and Rules 4A-48.003, 61C- 1.004(9)(b), 61C-1.004(11), and 61C-3.001(5), Florida Administrative Code, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed. Whether Respondent Illinois House violated Subsection 509.032(2)(b), Florida Statutes, and Rules 61C-1.004(5) and 4A-48.003, Florida Administrative Code, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with regulating the operation of hotel establishments pursuant to Section 210.165 and Chapter 509, Florida Statutes. Respondents, at all times material to these proceedings, have been licensed or otherwise subject to the Department's jurisdiction. The last known business address of Indiana House is 1114 Indiana Avenue, St. Cloud, Florida. The last known business address of Illinois House is 820 Illinois Avenue, St. Cloud, Florida. Both Indiana House and Illinois House are transient rooming houses. The tenants pay rent for the rooms they occupy. On January 26, 2001, an inspector for the Department inspected the Indiana House and noted numerous deficiencies, including a lack of a fire alarm system. The inspector returned to Indiana House on May 1, 2001, but was unable to get into the building. She made a call-back inspection on May 22, 2001, and found that certain violations had not been corrected, including the lack of a fire alarm system. On June 5, 2001, the inspector returned to Indiana House. No fire alarm panel had been installed, and the owner, Thomas Griffin, did not have keys to the property so the inspector did not have access to the building. On February 12 and 18, 2002, an inspector for the Department inspected the Indiana House and found the following deficiencies: (1) a gang plug was being used in a bedroom, (2) wires were dangling from a fan light, (3) the air conditioner faceplate was missing, exposing the filters and coils, and (4) no service tag was on the fire extinguisher. A gang plug is an adapter that is put into the electrical outlet on a wall so that more than one electrical plug can be used with that outlet. The gang plug found at Indiana House on the February 12 and 18, 2002, inspections would allow the use of six electrical plugs at one time. On January 26, 2001, an inspector from the Department inspected Illinois House and found that there was no fire alarm system. Another inspection was made on May 1, 2001, and it was noted that the outside door was locked. A call-back inspection was made on May 22, 2001, and no fire alarm had been installed. On June 5, 2001, a call-back inspection was made. The owner of the property stated that he did not have keys to the building; thus, the inspector could not access the premises. The owner advised at the time of the inspection on June 5, 2001, that no fire alarm system had been installed. On February 18, 2002, an inspector for the Department inspected Illinois House and found that none of the bedrooms had smoke detectors. On February 25, 2002, a call-back inspection was made, and a battery operated smoke detector in a bedroom did not work when tested. The Department considers a critical violation to be one that is an immediate health hazard. The failure to have a fire alarm system is a critical violation because the buildings are transient rooming houses and most of the people residing in the buildings at any given time will be strangers to one another. If a fire occurs, the consistent and reliable means of notifying the tenants would be through the use of a fire alarm system. The failure of the smoke detector to work is also a critical violation. If a fire occurs, an inoperable smoke detector will not warn the tenant, and, since no fire alarm has been installed, it is likely that the tenant may not have sufficient warning in time to escape from the fire. Both Illinois House and Indiana House have applied to the Homeless Service Network for a grant to make renovations to the buildings to bring them up to whatever code is necessary in order for the properties to be used as transient housing. When the money becomes available, it is anticipated that the renovations will be made.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered: Finding that Indiana House violated Subsection 509.032(2)(b), Florida Statutes, and Rules 4A-48.003, 61C- 1.004(9)(b), 61C-1.004(11), and 61C-3.001(5), Florida Administrative Code. Imposing a $2,500 fine on Indiana House and requiring the owner of Indiana House to attend a Hospitality Education Program. Finding that Illinois House violated Subsection 509.032(2)(b), Florida Statutes, and Rules 4A-48.003 and 61C- 1.004(5), Florida Administrative Code. Imposing a $1,500 fine on Illinois House and requiring the owner of Illinois House to attend a Hospitality Education Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of September, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ SUSAN B. KIRKLAND 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 27th day of September, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Thomas Griffin Indiana House 1221 12th Street St. Cloud, Florida 34769 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Susan R. McKinley, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
Findings Of Fact Petitioner sat for the Alarm System Contractor 1 licensure examination on July 12, 1991. The examination includes questions pertaining to both fire and burglar alarm systems and is considered to be the most difficult of the alarm system examinations. Petitioner received a score of 74 on the licensure examination, but the minimum passing score was 75. There were 100 questions on the examination, and each question was worth one point. Petitioner timely challenged several questions on the examination. At the formal hearing scheduled for this proceeding, Petitioner abandoned all challenges except his challenges to Question 64 and Question 75. Each challenged question is a multiple choice question with four possible answers. The candidates are instructed to select the best answer to the question from the four possible answers. Question 64 requires the candidate to identify the entity that is responsible for responding to "trouble on" a police-connected burglar alarm system. Because the phrase "trouble on" an alarm system is used in the industry to mean that the system is not functioning properly, the question requires the candidate to identify the entity responsible for repairing malfunctions on the alarm system. The parties agree that the installing company is the entity responsible for repairing malfunctions on a police-connected burglar alarm system. While agreeing that the installing company is responsible for repairing malfunctions on the system, Petitioner contends that the best answer to the question is the "police department". A signal generated by a police-connected burglar alarm system is received by a central station. Most systems employ two signals, one to signify an intrusion and the other to signify a malfunction. When a signal is received by the central station, an effort is made to contact the property owner prior to calling the police department. If the property owner cannot be located by telephone, the fact that a signal was received is usually relayed to the police department. Petitioner argues that the police department is the best answer because it is the first of the entities given as possible answers that is contacted after a signal, whether the signal is caused by a malfunction or by an intrusion, is received by the central station. Petitioner's contention that "police department" is the best response to the question is rejected. While a malfunction may be discovered as a result of one or more false signals that are relayed to the police department by the central station, the police department bears no responsibility for correcting malfunctions that occur on the system. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that the best answer to the question is the "installing company". Petitioner failed to give the best answer to Question 64. Consequently, it is concluded that Petitioner was properly awarded no credit for his answer to Question 64. Petitioner's assertion that Question 64 is vague or ambiguous because the stem of the question does not state the type of "trouble" that was on the system is rejected. The phrase "trouble on" an alarm system has a definite meaning in the alarm system industry. The use of this phrase within the context of an examination question is not impermissibly vague or ambiguous. Question 75 asks the candidate which of the following three devices performs essentially the same function in an alarm system: "exit/entry delay relays", "delay loops", and "shunt locks". The four possible answers consist of possible combinations of the three types of devices. Respondent asserts that the best answer to the question is that all three devices perform essentially the same function, to-wit, allowing entry and exit from premises without setting off the alarm. Petitioner asserts that the best answer is the one which offers the combination of "exit/entry delay relays" and "delay loops" since those two devices have a delay feature, which automatically rearms the system after a delay. Shunt locks typically do not have a delay feature (a delay feature can be incorporated into a shunt lock device if the owner desires) and are not widely used in new installations because of advances in technology. A shunt lock is usually rearmed manually, but so are some delay relay devices. All three devices can be disarmed to allow entry and exit and thereafter rearmed. While the rearming is automatic with some of the devices, the greater weight of the evidence established that all three devices performed "essentially the same function" and that, consequently, the answer to the question selected by Respondent is the best answer. Petitioner failed to give the best answer to Question 75. Consequently, it is concluded that Petitioner was properly awarded no credit for his answer to Question 75.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which denies Petitioner's challenges to Questions 64 and 75 of the Alarm System Contractor 1 licensure examination administered July 12, 1991. DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of November, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 3rd day of November, 1992. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-0212 The following rulings are made on the proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Petitioner. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 1, 2, and 4 are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3 are adopted in part by the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 3 are rejected in part as being unnecessary to the conclusions reached for the reasons discussed in the findings of fact portion of the Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact in paragraphs 5 and 6 are adopted in part and are rejected since the greater weight of the evidence, including the expert testimony of Respondent's witness, established that the primary function of all three devices is to disarm the system to permit entry and exit from the premises. The proposed findings of fact in paragraph 7 are rejected as being subordinate to the findings made. The proposed findings of fact submitted on behalf of the Respondent are adopted in material part by the Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation/Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board 1940 North Monroe Street Northwood Centre, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Northwood Centre, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Vytas J. Urba, Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Northwood Centre, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Daniel Guerrieri, Esquire 950 South Miami Avenue Miami, Florida 33130
The Issue The issues are whether Respondents have violated various statutes and rules governing persons licensed to install and service fire extinguishers and fire suppression systems and, if so, what penalties Petitioner should impose.
Findings Of Fact General Respondents hold Class A and C licenses as fire extinguisher dealers, Class D licenses as pre-engineered systems dealers, Class 01 licenses as fire extinguisher permittees, and Class 04 licenses as pre-engineered systems permittees. Respondent Todd Jacobs (Jacobs) is the qualifier for Respondent National Fire and Safety Corporation (NFS). NFS has been in the fire-safety business for about 15 years. Jacobs received his first permit about ten years ago. Neither Respondent has been disciplined prior to the suspension of all of their licenses and permits effective May 15, 1997, for the incidents described below. The suspension has remained continuously in effect through the present. Pre-engineered systems are custom installations of fire-suppression systems. These pressurized systems, which are activated by heat-sensitive fusible links and small cylinders known as cartridges, feature large metal cylinders that supply the powder through pipes to specific hazard areas. Pre-engineered systems must be installed in accordance with pretested limitations and configurations. Petitioner has cited various violations of the standards of the National Fire Protection Association. As noted in the conclusions of law, violation of these standards, which are incorporated into the rules, provide the basis for discipline. The relevant standards of the National Fire Protection Association are divided into two sections: one governs persons dealing with fire extinguishers and the other governs persons dealing with pre-engineered systems. National Fire Protection Association 10 is titled, “Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers.” National Fire Protection Association 10, Standard 1-3 defines a “portable fire extinguisher” as a “portable device carried on wheels and operated by hand containing an extinguishing agent that can be expelled under pressure for the purpose of suppressing or extinguishing a fire.” National Fire Protection Association 10 applies to fire extinguishers, not pre-engineered systems. National Fire Protection Association 10, Chapter 4 governs the inspection, maintenance, and recharging of fire extinguishers. National Fire Protection Association 10, Standard 4-1.4 provides that “[m]aintenance, servicing, and recharging” of fire extinguishers shall be performed by trained persons “having available the appropriate servicing manual(s), the proper types of tools, recharge materials, lubricants, and manufacturer’s recommended replacement parts or parts specifically listed for use in the fire extinguisher.” National Fire Protection Association 10, Standard 4-5.1.2 requires that persons recharging a fire extinguisher shall follow the “recommendations of the manufacturer.” National Fire Protection Association 10, Standard 4-5.3.1 requires that persons recharging fire extinguishers use “[o]nly those agents specified on the nameplate or agents proven to have equal chemical composition, physical characteristics, and fire extinguishing capabilities ” National Fire Protection Association 10, Standard 4-5.3.2 prohibits persons recharging fire extinguishers from mixing “[m]ultipurpose dry chemicals” with “alkaline-based dry chemicals.” National Fire Protection Association 10, Chapter 5 governs the hydrostatic testing of fire extinguishers. Table 5-2 provides that the longest hydrostatic test interval for fire extinguishers is 12 years. National Fire Protection Association 10, Standard 5-1.2 provides that the hydrostatic testing of fire extinguishers shall be performed by trained persons “having available suitable testing equipment, facilities, and appropriate servicing manual(s).” National Fire Protection Association 10, Standard 5-5.1.1 requires that persons hydrostatically testing fire extinguishers first conduct an internal examination of the cylinder. National Fire Protection Association 10, Standard 5-5.1.2 requires that persons hydrostatically testing fire extinguishers do so in accordance with the “procedures specified in the pamphlet Methods for Hydrostatic Testing of Compressed Gas Cylinders (CGA C-1), published by the Compressed Gas Association.” National Fire Protection Association 10, Standard 5-5.2 provides that the testing procedures for low-pressure cylinders, shells, and hose assemblies are detailed in Appendix A. Appendix A contains detailed material, but, according to a prefatory statement, “[t]his Appendix is not part of the requirements of this National Fire Protection Association document but is included for informational purposes only.” National Fire Protection Association 17 is titled, “Standard for Dry Chemical Extinguishing Systems.” National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 1-4 defines “pre- engineered systems,” in part, as [t]hose having predetermined flow rates, nozzle pressures, and quantities of dry chemical [with] specific pipe size, maximum and minimum pipe lengths, flexible hose specifications, number of fittings and number and types of nozzles prescribed by a testing laboratory.” National Fire Protection Association 17 applies to pre- engineered systems, not fire extinguishers. National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 1-4 defines “inspection” as a “’quick’ check to give reasonable assurance that the extinguishing system is fully charged and operable.” The definition adds that this is done by “seeing that the system is in place, that it has not been activated or tampered with, and that there is no obvious physical damage or condition to prevent operation.” National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 3-8.3.1 requires that the dry chemical container and expellant gas assemblies of a pre-engineered system shall be located “so as not to be subjected to severe weather conditions or to mechanical, chemical, or other damage.” National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 3-9.1 provides that, for pre-engineered systems, the “pipings and fittings shall be installed in accordance with good commercial practices.” National Fire Protection Association 17, Chapter 9 governs the inspection, maintenance, and recharging of pre- engineered systems. National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 9-1.1 provides that, when dry chemical pressure containers are not attached to piping or hand hose lines, the discharge outlet shall have a protective diffusing safety cap to protect persons from recoil and high-flow discharge in case of accidental activation. The caps shall also be used on empty National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 9- 1.4 provides that “[a]ll dry chemical extinguishing systems shall be inspected in accordance with the owner’s manual and maintained and recharged in accordance with the manufacturer’s listed installation and maintenance manual and service bulletins.” National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 9-3.2 provides that “[f]ixed temperature-sensing elements of the fusible metal allow type shall be replaced at least annually from the date of installation. They shall be destroyed when removed.” National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 9-3.2.1 provides that the “year of manufacture and date of installation of the fixed temperature-sensing element shall be marked on the system inspection tag[,]” and the “tag shall be signed or initialed by the installer.” National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 9-4.2 provides that “[s]ystems shall be recharged in accordance with the manufacturer’s listed installation and maintenance manual.” National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 9-5 requires that trained persons hydrostatically testing pre- engineered systems have “available suitable testing equipment, facilities, and an appropriate service manual(s).” This standard requires hydrostatic testing at 12-year intervals for the dry chemical container, auxiliary pressure containers (unless less than two inches in outside diameter and two feet in length or unless they bear the DOT stamp, “3E”), and hose assemblies. National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 9-5.1 requires that persons hydrostatically testing pre- engineered systems subject the tested components of hydrostatic test pressure equal to the marked factory test pressure or the test pressure specified in the manufacturer’s listed installation and maintenance manual. This test prohibits any leakage, rupture, or movement of hose couplings and requires test procedures in accordance with the manufacturer’s detailed written hydrostatic test instructions.” National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 9-5.2 requires that persons hydrostatically testing pre- engineered systems remove and discard the dry chemical agent from the containers prior to the test. Page Field (Counts I and II) In March 1997, Rick Clontz, a Lee County employee, asked Roland Taylor, an NFS employee, to service components of the fire-safety system at the Lee County Hazardous Materials Facility at Page Field in Fort Myers. This fire-safety system protects an area at which Lee County stores corrosive, flammable, and poisonous materials. Initially, Mr. Taylor removed three ten-pound ABC fire extinguishers. These are small portable cylinders, whose “ABC” designation refers to their ability to suppress a broad range of fires. According to the National Fire Protection Association standards, Class A fires involve “ordinary combustible materials, such as wood, cloth, paper, rubber, and many plastics.” Class B fires involve “flammable liquids, oils greases, tars, oil-based paints, lacquers, and flammable gases.” Class C fires involve “energized electrical equipment . . . .” On April 1, 1997, Mr. Taylor returned the three 10- pound ABC fire extinguishers. Later inspection revealed that Mr. Taylor had properly removed and discarded the ABC powder from each cylinder, but he had refilled only one of the three cylinders entirely with ABC powder. He erroneously filled the other two cylinders with mixtures of 75 percent and 50 percent BC powder. The improper filling of two of the fire extinguishers at the Page Field Hazardous Materials Facility threatened the public health, safety, and welfare. Meeting Mr. Taylor at the Page Field facility when Mr. Taylor returned the three small cylinders, Mr. Clontz asked him to remove the 50-pound Ansul SPA 50 cylinder and hydrostatically test it. Mr. Taylor noted that the cylinder was not yet due for this test, but quoted a price to which Mr. Clontz agreed, and Mr. Taylor disconnected the cylinder from the pre-engineered system and transported it from the site. Hydrostatic testing is a hydraulic interior pressurization test that measures ductility, which is the ability of cylinder walls to expand and contract. The purpose of hydrostatic testing is to determine the suitability of a cylinder for continued service. Hydrostatic testing requires the tester to release the pressure and empty the contents of a cylinder. Using specialized equipment, the tester then fills the cylinder with water, pressurizing it to twice the service pressure or, for the systems cylinders involved in this case, 1000 pounds per square inch. Cylinder failure from the loss of structural integrity can result in a dangerous rupture, possibly causing an improperly bracketed cylinder to launch like an unguided missile. A cylinder that passes its hydrostatic test does not have to be retested for 12 years. Three days later, Mr. Taylor returned the Ansul cylinder with a tag stamped to show the date on which NFS had hydrostatically tested the cylinder. Mr. Taylor reconnected it to the pre-engineered system, changing the three fusible links. However, Mr. Taylor did not tighten the actuation piping wrench-tight, as required by the manufacturer’s specification. Instead, Mr. Taylor left the actuation piping sufficiently loose that it might cause a failure of the pre- engineered system to activate. As Respondents conceded, the loose actuation piping threatened the public health, safety, and welfare. Finished with his work, Mr. Taylor gave Mr. Clontz a receipt, but no diagram or report, as Mr. Clontz usually received after such service. Consistent with the work requested by Lee County, the receipt stated that NFS had hydrostatically tested and recharged the three ten-pound and one 50-pound cylinders. However, NFS had not hydrostatically tested the 50- pound Ansul SPA 50 cylinder. NFS had not even changed the powder in the cylinder. Jacobs was personally aware of these facts and personally authorized the deceitful stamping of the tag to show a hydrostatic testing. The fraudulent misrepresentation concerning the hydrostatic testing of the Ansul SPA 50 cylinder threatened the public health, safety, and welfare. Additionally, NFS had replaced the three fusible links with three other fusible links. Petitioner failed to prove that there are material differences between the two types of links so as to justify discipline. There are two differences between the links. First, NFS used Globe links rather than Ansul links. However, Ansul links are manufactured by Globe. The Ansul expert testified that Ansul subjects the links to an additional inspection. However, the record does not reveal whether Globe does not also subject its brand-name links to another inspection that it does not perform for the links that it manufactures for Ansul. The Ansul expert did not testify as to the defect rate resulting from the Ansul inspection or any difference between the performance of the “two” links. On this record, then, there is no demonstrated difference in the two brand-named fusible links. The second difference is that NFS installed an ML link rather than the newer K link currently in use. Ansul approved the ML link in the Ansul SPA 50 pre-engineered system until five years ago. At that time, Ansul authorized use of the older ML link until dealer inventories were depleted. Even assuming that the K link represents a safety advance, compared to the ML link, Ansul’s gradual introduction of the new link precludes a finding that the difference was material, unless one were to assume that Ansul disregarded public safety when authorizing the gradual introduction of the new link. Respondents conceded that they did not have a copy of the Ansul SPA 50 manual when they serviced the Ansul SPA 50 system. They have since obtained the manual. Petitioner failed to show that the failure to have the manual threatened the public health, safety, or welfare. Respondents conceded that they did not produce the inspection form for the system. They had provided such a form previously. Petitioner failed to show that the failure to produce an inspection form threatened the public health, safety, or welfare. At the hearing, Petitioner agreed not to pursue the claim against Respondents regarding the LT10R cartridge. Petitioner effectively conceded that Respondents were not required to hydrostatically test the cartridge because it is exempt from such testing. Petitioner evidently elected not to pursue the recharging issue for other reasons. Mobile Service Units (Counts III-V The service truck operated by Mark Thackeray did not have a conductivity tester, certified scales, or proper manuals. The conductivity tester ensures that the braiding is intact on carbon dioxide hoses. The certified scales ensures that the cylinder is filled with the proper amount of dry chemical. The manuals ensure that the person servicing a pre- engineered system understands all of its components and how it works. Additionally, one cylinder in the truck had a drill bit instead of a safety pin installed in the head of the bottle. Petitioner also proved that the fire extinguisher and pre-engineered system tags bore the Naples and Fort Myers addresses for NFS. As noted below, the Fort Myers location was inactive, used only for storage and drop-offs and not for shop work or retail sales activity. For several years, Petitioner’s representatives knew that the tags bore both addresses and knew that the Fort Myers location was inactive, but never objected to Respondents’ practice. The only violation involving Mr. Thackeray’s truck that threatened the public health, safety, or welfare was the failure to have certified scales. The service truck operated by Ward Read lacked an operational inspection light, six-inch vise, and proper manuals. Additionally, Mr. Read’s truck had tags with the Fort Myers and Naples addresses for NFS. However, none of these violations involving Mr. Read’s truck threatened the public health, safety, or welfare. Petitioner failed to prove that Mr. Read’s truck lacked leak testing equipment. The truck had a bottle of Leak Tech with which to detect leaks in fire extinguishers. The truck also had a cable-crimping tool. The truck lacked a Kidde tool, but Petitioner failed to prove that Mr. Read installed Kidde systems off this truck or that the crimping tool present on the truck could not service adequately Kidde installations. The service truck operated by Donald Zelmanski lacked an inspection light, a six-inch vise, certified scales, leak-testing equipment, and proper manuals. Mr. Zelmanski’s truck contained tags with the Fort Myers and Naples addresses. The only violation that threatened the public health, safety, or welfare was the failure to have certified scales. Naples and Fort Myers Facilities (Counts VI-VII) The NFS Naples facility lacked operational hydrostatic test equipment on April 9, 1997. Respondents claim that they were having the equipment upgraded and calibrated at the time of the inspection. Ordinarily, this defense might be creditable, but not in this case. While the hydrostatic test equipment was out of service, NFS accepted the Page Field cylinder for hydrostatic testing and returned it to service, fraudulently representing that the cylinder had been hydrotested. This is precisely the practice against which the requirement of operational testing equipment is designed to protect. The Naples facility also lacked certified gauges for low-pressure testing. Respondents claim that the equipment upgrade described in the preceding paragraph would allow them to test high- and low-pressure cylinders on the same machine. However, due to Respondents’ fraudulent handling of the Page Field cylinder during the equipment downtime, this defense is unavailing. The Naples facility lacked an adapter to allow Respondents to recharge an Ansul SPA 50 cylinder. Jacobs drove the Page Field cylinder to St. Petersburg to have the cylinder recharged by a competitor that had such an adapter. However, the requirement that a facility have an adapter reduces the risk that a licensee will ignore its professional responsibilities and simply return a cylinder to service without first discharging it and performing a visual internal inspection. Respondents’ failure to discharge their other professional responsibilities underscores the materiality of the requirement that they keep an adapter for the Ansul SPA 50 that they elected to accept for service. Respondents kept tags at the Naples facility with tags containing addresses of the Naples and Fort Myers facilities. At the time of the inspection, Respondents also lacked documentation for two of eight scales, including a scale in 1/4-pound increments. Jacobs’ claim that they sent the two uncertified scales for servicing immediately after the inspection does not obviate the fact that, at the time of the inspection, they were available for use and in disrepair. Respondents failed to include serial numbers of serviced fire extinguishers on the relevant invoices. Respondents also failed to include the necessary permit number on inspection forms. Respondent falsely represented that they had hydrotested the Page Field Ansul SPA 50 cylinder at the Naples facility when they had not done so. Respondents stored cylinder bottles without safety caps in place. Petitioner failed to prove that Respondents did not post DOT certification near the hydrostatic testing equipment or that they stocked nitrogen cylinders without an acceptable blow-out disk in place. The blow-out disks were not Ansul brand, but Petitioner failed to prove that the disks were not UL listed or the substantial equivalent of Ansul disks. Respondents concede that the Fort Myers location lacked the items alleged by Petitioner. However, the Fort Myers location is inactive and serves merely as a drop-off or storage facility. All shop work and retail sales activities occur at the Naples location. At the time of the April 1997 inspection, Respondents surrendered the license for the inactive Fort Myers location. Other Jobs (Counts VIII-XI) Respondents installed a pre-engineered system at the SunTrust Bank in Naples. The cylinder is in the bank vault, which it is designed to protect. Petitioner charged that Respondents improperly located the cylinder in the hazard area, but Petitioner did not discuss the fact that the cylinder at Page Field was in the hazard area. Obviously, the corrosive effect of the hazardous materials at Page Field represents a greater risk to the cylinder than the corrosive effect of money and other valuables in the vault at the SunTrust. Additionally, some language in the Ansul manual cautions not to locate the cylinder in the hazard area, but only if the hazard is corrosive. Respondents replaced the fusible links at SunTrust annually. However, they failed to record the year of manufacture of the fusible links on the system tag when last servicing the system in October 1996. There is no evidence as to whether Respondents had suitable Ansul manuals and adapters when it serviced the system at that time. Respondents installed a pre-engineered system at the VFW Post in Naples. In doing so, their employee, who also misfilled the three fire extinguishers at Page Field, left the end-pipe-to-nozzle loose, so as to risk a loss of pressure in case of fire. This condition threatened the public health, safety, and welfare. Although Respondents fired this employee shortly after discovering his poor performance, this action does not eliminate the safety violations for which he, and they, are responsible. Petitioner also proved that Respondents located the 260 nozzle over the griddle in the wrong location. This condition threatened the public health, safety, and welfare because the system might not extinguish a fire on the griddle. Petitioner failed to prove that Respondents located the 230 nozzle in the wrong location. The Ansul manual allows this nozzle to be located anywhere along or within the perimeter of the fryer, if aimed to the center of the fryer. The 230 nozzle was so located and aimed. Respondents installed two pre-engineered systems at Mozzarella’s Café in Naples. In the course of this job, Respondents committed several violations governing documentation. Respondents improperly combined two pre- engineered systems on one inspection report, failed to include in the inspection report references to the manufacturer’s drawings and page numbers, failed to list in the inspection report a second gas valve on the front hood of one system, and failed to include in the inspection report Respondents’ permit number. However, Petitioner failed to prove that Respondents failed to list in the inspection report the type of fusible links in each hood. Respondents serviced a pre-engineered system at Kwan’s Express in Fort Myers in December 1996. Respondents failed to list in the inspection report the degree and types of fusible links installed and a reference to the drawing and page number in the manufacturer’s manual. However, Respondents listed in the inspection report the model number of the system. Red Lobster (Count XII) Several months after Petitioner had suspended Respondents’ licenses and permits, counsel for both parties negotiated a settlement agreement. Under the agreement, Petitioner would immediately lift the suspension. Jacobs and his general manager, Judson Schroyer, learned that Respondents’ counsel had received an unsigned, final draft settlement agreement on Monday, August 18, 1997. The settlement conditions were acceptable to Respondents, and Jacobs knew that Respondents’ counsel had signed the agreement and faxed it back to Petitioner’s counsel for execution by Petitioner’s representative. On August 18, the general manager of the Red Lobster in Naples called NFS and spoke with Jacobs. The general manager described a job involving the installation of a new oven, which would necessitate the relocation of other kitchen equipment a few feet. Thinking that the settlement agreement would be fully executed by then, Jacobs agreed to visit the general manager at the site the following morning. The next morning, Jacobs and Mr. Schroyer met the general manager at the Red Lobster. Giving the general manager NFS business cards with their names, Jacobs and Mr. Schroyer briefly examined the pre-engineered system in the kitchen, as the three men walked through the kitchen, and assured the general manager that there would be no problem doing the work in the short timeframe that the customer required. The purpose of the visit was much more for marketing than it was for preparation for the relatively simple job that the general manager envisioned. Shortly after leaving the Red Lobster, Mr. Schroyer realized that Respondents might not have their licenses and permits reinstated in time to do the job. He conveyed this concern to his supervisor, Jacobs, who spoke with Respondents’ counsel on the evening of August 19 and learned that they could not do the job. Jacobs instructed Mr. Schroyer to call another company in Fort Myers, FireMaster, to which Respondents had referred work during their suspension. Mr. Schroyer called a representative of FireMaster, and he agreed to perform the work. FireMaster assigned the job to Ward Read, who, as is authorized by Petitioner, held a dual permit, which means that he was permitted to work for two licensed dealers. One was NFS, and the other was FireMaster. Mr. Read reported to the Red Lobster in the predawn hours of August 21, as requested by the general manager of Red Lobster. Because his FireMaster truck had insufficient supplies, Mr. Read used an NFS truck, the equipment tags, inspection report, and invoice all bore the name of FireMaster.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the State Fire Marshal enter a final order suspending the licenses and permits of both Respondents for two years, commencing from the effective date of the earlier emergency order of suspension. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of December, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Attorney Mechele R. McBride Attorney Richard Grumberg Department of Insurance and Treasurer 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Mark H. Muller Quarles & Brady, P.A. 4501 North Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34103 Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue whether Respondent violated subsections 489.533(1)(m)3., and/or 489.533(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2010),1 as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the Electrical Contractors Licensing Board within the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Petitioner or DBPR). At all times material to the allegations in the Amended Administrative Complaint, Respondent, Steven Scott Clark, was a certified alarm systems contractor one, holding Electrical Contractor's Licensing Board's License Number EF1255. As a licensed contractor, Clark was the person who possessed the required skills, knowledge, and experience to be responsible for an alarm systems business or, in other words, to serve as its qualifying agent.2 Clark was the qualifying agent for E.A.S. Industries (E.A.S.), d/b/a A.B. Fire Systems (A.B. Systems). On January 23, 2006, A.B. Fire Equipment, Inc., (A.B. Equipment) submitted a proposal, signed on its behalf by Dick Sorbye, for work on fire alarm equipment at Crosswinds Apartment at 1300 N. Ocean Boulevard in Pompano Beach (Crosswinds). None of the three license numbers listed on the proposal is the same as Clark's. A.B. Equipment is not a licensed or qualified alarm contractor. Below the name of A.B. Equipment, which is checked on the proposal form, is the name of "A.B. Fire Systems/ALARM DIVISION" which is, in fact, the same company as A.B. Systems. The proposal for a total contract cost of $6,610.00, included the following language: We hereby propose to furnish the material necessary for completion of the following: Repair wiring short and replace the following devices. 9 weather proof horn strobes @ $95.00 ea. -- $855.00 A horn strobe is the small red rectangular-shaped, wall-mounted device which emits the siren sound and flashes a strobe light when a fire alarm is triggered. Because A.B. Equipment is not a licensed fire alarm contractor, it subcontracted with A.B. Systems, based on a verbal agreement, to perform work at Crosswinds. Employees of A.B. Systems wear shirts identifying them as employees of "A.B. Fire Systems." Crosswinds is located within 500 feet of the ocean and, because of that, regularly experiences substantial salt corrosion of metal. Horn strobes have metal parts and must be replaced regularly due to corrosion. As required in the proposal, half of the total contract cost or $3,305.00 was paid by Crosswind's representative on January 24, 2006, to A.B. Equipment. The receipt from A.B. Equipment with the same date has the name of A.B. Systems on the form and Respondent's license number next to that name. On January 31, 2006, Crosswinds issued a check for $1,650.00 to A.B. Equipment. The back of the first check was stamped for deposit in the account of E.A.S., the parent company of A.B. Systems. Another check designated "final payment" in the amount of $1,655.00 was dated February 8, 2006, but it was not deposited until March 9, 2006. That check was apparently held up by the then-president of the Crosswinds Board, Patricia Abujar, who questioned the need for an inspection of the alarm system by the fire department. Once the check was tendered, it was deposited, as directed by hand-written instructions on the back of the check, in the same account number as that for E.A.S. On February 28, 2006, Crosswinds received an invoice that had three license numbers on it, including Clark's. The invoice from A.B. Equipment was for an additional $704.90 for replacement of wires, a conduit, and the panel that was damaged by a shortage. The damage was caused by a construction company that was simultaneously making repairs at Crosswinds. Crosswinds had sustained substantial damage from Hurricane Wilma in October 2005. On February 28, 2006, Crosswinds also received an invoice from A.B. Equipment for one additional corroded horn strobe for $95.00 plus $5.70 for the sales tax. The invoice was identical to the one for damage by the construction company and also included Clark's license number. On March 15 and 18, 2006, respectively, Clark and Oakley Blevins, who was then the Crosswinds Board president, signed a City of Pompano Beach Building Permit Application for an after-the-fact permit for the replacement of a fire alarm panel at Crosswinds. Until the panel had to be replaced, no permit had been required. On the line on the form for the name of the contractor, "A. B. Fire Systems, Inc." was crossed out and the name "E.A.S. IND." was written. The application was not accepted by the building department until October or November 2006. The City delayed receipt of applications and issuance of permits because it was inundated after the hurricane. In the meantime, on October 6, 2006, Clark returned to Crosswinds in response to a service call. At the time, he replaced a corroded horn strobe, as he had done on an ongoing basis since beginning work at Crosswinds in 2004. Clark had a disagreement with Blevins, apparently over who from A.B. Systems would be providing service to Crosswinds in the future and over where a worker parked a company truck. Clark never returned to the site. A City of Pompano Beach document dated November 20, 2006, entitled "Plan Review Corrections Report," was transmitted by facsimile from A.B. Systems to Crosswinds' representative on December 14, 2006. Having last had a fire alarm inspection in February 2006, Crosswinds received a proposal dated February 19, 2007, from another company, Bass Fire & Security Systems, Inc. (Bass), to "trouble shoot and repair fire alarm system short program, test and certify" for $340.00. The work by Bass would qualify as the annual inspection for 2007. On March 30, 2007, Bass billed Crosswinds $726.05 for replacement of an outdoor horn strobe. In addition to trip and labor charges, there was also a charge for a mini-monitor module, a device used to identify each "pull station" that will cause a shortage if it becomes defective. Crosswinds paid Bass for its inspection work and subsequent repairs in a single check in the amount of $1,086.45 on April 10, 2007. Bass, on April 6, 2007, offered to "replace (seven) [corroded] weatherproof horn strobe units @ $89.00 ea[ch], [with] installation labor and misc[ellaneous] hardware" for a quoted total cost of $1156.00 plus tax. For that, Crosswinds paid Bass $1225.36 on April 23, 2007. On May 27, 2008, Crosswinds was inspected by a City fire inspector who noted on his report that it was an inspection of a new fire alarm system and that "A.B. Fire System is unlicenses [sic] contractor" and "Note ESA Industries Inc. will be the only person on jobsite to complete the test." On June 5, 2008, Crosswinds received anther quote from Bass to "make necessary repairs for fire dept. final inspection" for a total of $1905.00 plus tax. The quote included a "change of contractor fee [for the] (Pompano Beach Building Department)" and installation of a horn strobe on the first floor breezeway. Clark was still listed with the City as the only authorized alarm systems contractor at Crosswinds. Following City-mandated procedures, then-president of the Crosswind Board, Cheryl Deats, notified Clark by certified letter of a change of contractors in June 2008. She received no response from Clark. Deats testified that she believes that Clark's company, A.B. Systems performed work incompetently or negligently prior to having obtained a permit, causing financial harm to Crosswinds in the amount of $2,311.81 (1,086.45 plus 1,225.36) that it had to pay Bass to make repairs before time for the next inspection. Other than Deats' assumption that the work done by Bass was the result of Clark's company's negligence or incompetence, there is no evidence to support that finding. In fact, the evidence tends to support a finding that work done in March and April 2007, more than a year after Clark's work, was necessitated by corrosion due to the proximity of Crosswinds to the ocean. There is no evidence that the Crosswinds' Board was deceived and not aware that Clark was the subcontractor working on the fire alarm system. Regardless of whether they knew the name of his parent company, E.A.S., at least two previous Board presidents had direct interactions with him and saw his employees wearing shirts identifying A.B. Systems.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Electrical Contractors Licensing Board enter a Final Order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint filed on June 3, 2010, against Steven Scott Clark, d/b/a E.A.S. Industries, Inc., d/b/a A.B. Fire Systems. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of January, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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 4th day of January, 2011.
Findings Of Fact On April 17, 1987, petitioner, Gary L. Waldron, filed an application for a certificate of competency with respondent, Department of Insurance and Treasurer (Department). If granted, Waldron would be authorized to take an examination for a certificate of competency as a fire protection system contractor II. After reviewing the application the Department issued a letter on May 5, 1987 advising Waldron that his application had been denied on the ground he lacked the necessary "four years proven experience in the employment of a contractor, or educational equivalent thereto, or a combination thereof." The letter of denial prompted this proceeding. The Department has regulatory jurisdiction over contractors who install fire protection systems. Before engaging in such activities, a person must obtain a certificate of competency from the Department. For regulatory purposes, and depending on the nature of the work, there are four classes of contractors, those being Contractors I, II, III and IV. In this case, Waldron desires certification as a Contractor II. This would authorize him to "lay out, fabricate, install, inspect, alter, repair and service" certain types of fire protection systems, except those that are preengineered. To be eligible for licensure, Waldron must possess "four years proven experience in the employment of a contractor or educational equivalent thereto or a combination thereof." By rule, the agency has provided that such experience may be gained only with a contractor certified as a Contractor I, II, III or IV. This is consistent with its interpretation of the statute as explicated by the chief of the bureau of explosives and fire equipment. Waldron owns a contracting firm, Waldron's, Incorporated, in Fort Lauderdale, and is licensed as a mechanical contractor. Over the last ten years or so, he has installed a number of non-preengineered fire protection systems for various major oil companies at Port Everglades (in Broward County). The Port is one of the largest petroleum storage areas in the Southeast. It is undisputed that the systems installed by Waldron are the types that would ordinarily be installed by a Contractor II. Such systems met the fire safety standards at Port Everglades, which equalled or exceeded relevant state standards adopted by the Department. This was confirmed by the chief of fire and security at Port Everglades and corroborated by petitioner's composite exhibit 1, which documents a variety of jobs completed by Waldron in recent years. In early 1987 Waldron learned that a certificate of competency was required to do the work he had previously been performing. This resulted in Waldron filing his application. Although the application and other evidence of record establish that Waldron has had many years of experience in installing the type of system typically installed by a Contractor II, none was obtained "in the employment of a (licensed) contractor." Further, he does not possess the alternative educational equivalent prescribed by Department rules. Therefore, he is not eligible at this time to take examination for licensure as a Contractor II.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioner's application to take the examination for licensure as a Contractor II be DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 13th day of October, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 13th day of October, 1987.
