The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent’s participation in the John M. McKay Scholarships for Students with Disabilities Program (McKay Scholarships) and the Corporate Income Tax Credit Scholarship Program (CTC Scholarships) should have been suspended, and whether Respondent’s eligibility to participate in the programs should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact CHC is a private school located in Merritt Island, Florida. Lara Nichilo is the owner and head administrator of CHC. Ms. Nichilo was also the owner and head administrator of another private school located in Cocoa, Florida. For the purposes of this proceeding, the school located in Cocoa, Florida, will be referred to as CHC 2.2 CHC and CHC 2 had participated in the McKay Scholarships and CTC Scholarships programs. Section 1002.39, Florida Statutes, authorizes the McKay Scholarships program, which affords a disabled student an opportunity to receive a scholarship to defray the cost of attending a private school of choice. Section 220.187, Florida Statutes, authorizes the CTC Scholarships program, which enables taxpayers to make private, voluntary contributions so that students who qualify for free or reduced-price school lunches under the National School Lunch Act may receive a scholarship to defray the cost of attending a private school of choice. The Department of Education has the responsibility to annually verify the eligibility of a private school to participate in these scholarship programs. Private schools participating in the McKay Scholarships and CTC Scholarships programs are required to comply with Section 1002.421, Florida Statutes, and must meet applicable state and local health, safety, and welfare laws, codes, and rules, including laws, codes, and rules relating to firesafety and building safety. If a private school participating in the McKay Scholarships and CTC Scholarships programs desires to renew its participation in the programs, the school must file a signed, notarized Form IEPC SCF-1 affidavit with the Department of Education by March 1 of each year for participation in the subsequent school year. The Form IEPC SCF-1 affidavit contains a list of requirements to which the private school must certify that it meets or does not meet. If the school certifies that it does not meet a requirement, such certification constitutes an outstanding compliance issue, which must be resolved by the school prior to May 1 of each year for the school to remain eligible to participate in the scholarship programs. Specifically, the signature page of the Form IEPC SCF-1 affidavit states in part: “I understand that in answering ‘No’ to any requirement in Section 9: School Facility, the provision of a reason for answering ‘No’ shall not make the school compliant with the reporting requirement and will be considered an outstanding compliance issue for resolution as described in State Board of Education Rules 6A-6.03315, 6A-6.0960, and 6A- 6.0970, Florida Administrative Code.” Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-6.03315(2) requires that every third year a school applies for renewal of eligibility for the scholarship programs there must be a review of compliance documentation. This means that the school must submit documentation to support its eligibility along with the affidavit. For the renewal of eligibility for the 2009-2010 school year, CHC had to submit compliance documentation for review. On November 6, 2008, Ms. Nichilo executed and mailed the Form IEPC SCF-1 affidavit for CHC for renewal of CHC’s eligibility to participate in the McKay Scholarships and CTC Scholarships programs for the 2009-2010 school year. Subsection 1 of Section 9 of the Form IEPC SCF-1 affidavit requires the school to answer the following question: Does the school facility possess a current, violation free or satisfactory Fire Code Inspection and compliance report in accordance with Section 1002.421(2)(g)1., Florida Statutes, State Finance Services Rule 69A-58.004, Florida Administrative Code, and county and/or municipal ordinance? Ms. Nichilo answered “Yes” to the question. CHC submitted a fire inspection certificate for CHC with a date of February 22, 2008. At the time Ms. Nichilo executed and submitted the Form IEPC SCF-1 affidavit in November 2008, CHC did not have a current Fire Code Inspection and compliance report. The last fire inspection certificate was dated February 22, 2006, and had expired on February 22, 2007. Ms. Nichilo executed and submitted a Form IEPC SCF-1 affidavit for the 2007-2008 school year, certifying that CHC had a current, violation-free fire inspection report. The certificate affidavit which Ms. Nichilo signed stated: I have read the applicable scholarship program rules and understand that by signing this form I am certifying that the school is currently in compliance and agrees [sic] to remain in compliance with all scholarship program rules and reporting requirements. If at any point, the school is not in compliance with scholarship rules, or if there is a change in the status of any reporting requirement, the school will have 15 days to notify the Department of Education and will provide all information necessary to document its continued compliance with program rules and requirements. At the time the certification was submitted on January 11, 2007, CHC did have a current, violation-free fire inspection report; however, CHC did not have a current, violation-free fire inspection report that was valid for the entire 2007-2008 school year. CHC did not notify the Department of Education that it was not in compliance with the fire safety inspections during the 2007-2008 school year. On December 5, 2007, Ms. Nichilo executed and submitted a Form IEPC SCF-1 affidavit for the 2008-2009 school year, certifying that CHC had a current, violation-free fire inspection report. At the time of submission of the affidavit, CHC did not have a current, violation-free fire inspection report, and, from the beginning of the 2008-2009 school year until December 23, 2008, CHC did not maintain a current, violation-free fire inspection report nor did CHC notify the Department of Education as late as December 11, 2008, that CHC was not in compliance with the fire inspection requirement. On November 19, 2008, Assistant Fire Marshall Doug Carter of Brevard County Fire Rescue (BCFR) received a complaint concerning CHC and CHC 2 from an anonymous caller. It is the policy of BCFR to follow up on all complaints. On November 20, 2008, Lead Fire Inspector William Morissette, following up on the anonymous complaint, went to CHC for the purpose of performing a fire inspection. On November 20, 2008, Mr. Morissette performed a fire inspection on CHC and noted some violations. During the inspection on November 20, 2008, Mr. Morissette noticed that the fire inspection certificate that was posted at CHC was partially obscured, and he could not see the school’s address. On November 20, 2008, Mr. Morissette performed a fire inspection of CHC 2 and noted some violations. He observed the posted fire certificate at CHC 2 during his inspection. The fire certificate had an account number 23832 and was dated February 22, 2008. The font used in the printing of the certificate did not appear to be the same type as used by BCFR. While at CHC 2, Mr. Morrissette called Assistant Fire Marshall Carter and learned that account number 23832 was for CHC and not CHC 2 and that no fire certificate had been issued to CHC 2 on February 22, 2008. The last fire certificate that had been issued to CHC 2 was on December 15, 2005, and had expired on December 16, 2006. On November 6, 2008, CHC sent a copy of the fire inspection certificate dated February 22, 2008, to the Department of Education as part of the documentation supplied to verify CHC’s eligibility for renewal. The fire inspection certificate was a forgery. Ms. Nichilo testified that she did not send the forged certificate to the Department of Education and that some disgruntled former employee who had access to CHC’s files must have sent the certificate to the Department of Education or must have put the forged certificate in the envelope containing the renewal information that was sent to the Department of Education. Ms. Nichilo’s testimony is not credible. The certificate came in the same envelope as the other material which CHC submitted in November 2008. Ms. Nichilo signed and mailed the renewal information on November 6, 2008. Her testimony that the envelope must have been in the mail room a couple of days before it was mailed, thereby allowing the disgruntled employee an opportunity to slip the forged certificate in the envelope, is not credible. After the renewal package was sent to the Department of Education, Ms. Nichilo asked her secretary to contact BCFR to schedule a fire inspection. Ms. Nichilo knew that she needed a fire inspection because she knew that she did not have a current fire inspection certificate when she sent the renewal submittal to the Department of Education. Based on the clear and convincing evidence presented, it can only be concluded that Ms. Nichilo knew the fire inspection certificates, which she included with the renewal submittals, were forgeries. On or about December 5, 2008, Mr. Carter contacted the Department of Education and informed the Department of Education that he had concerns about CHC’s and CHC 2’s fire inspection certificates. Mr. Carter sent a memorandum dated December 9, 2008, to Riley Hyle with the Department of Education, explaining BCFR’s observations and concerns relating to the fire inspection certificates. After learning from Mr. Carter that CHC’s and CHC 2’s fire inspection certificates were in question, Mr. Hyle checked the Department of Education’s renewal files on CHC and CHC 2. Mr. Hyle found forged fire inspection certificates in both files. When CHC’s and CHC 2’s submittals arrived on November 10, 2008, in the same envelope, Mr. Hyle reviewed the submittals and verified that both submittals contained fire inspection certificates. He received no further documentation from CHC or CHC 2 from November 10, 2008, and the time he talked to Mr. Carter on December 5, 2008. On December 8, 2008, Mr. Morrissette returned to CHC 2 to do a follow-up inspection. CHC 2 had not corrected all its violations. Mr. Morrissette was advised by the principal at CHC 2 that CHC also had not corrected all of its violations. One of the violations CHC had was a broken lockbox. On December 7, 2008, CHC had called BCFR and requested an application for a lockbox. Thus, on December 8, 2008, CHC would still have not corrected its lockbox violation. On December 11, 2008, Ms. Nichilo signed a revised version of the Form IEPC SCF-1 affidavit3 for CHC for the 2009- 2010 school year. The question posed in the affidavit submitted in November 2008 concerning whether the facility had a current, violation-free fire code inspection remained the same in the revised affidavit. Again, CHC stated that it did have a current, violation-free Fire Code Inspection and compliance report. The revised affidavit also contained the same language as the November 2008 affidavit that answering a question in the negative in Section 9 would result in an out-of-compliance issue. Both the November affidavit and the revised affidavit contained the following language: I have read the applicable scholarship program rules and understand that by signing the form I am certifying that the school is currently in compliance and agrees [sic] to remain in compliance with all scholarship program rules and reporting requirements. If at any point, the school is not in compliance with the scholarship rules, or if there is a change in the status of any reporting requirement, the school shall have 15 days to notify the Department of Education and will provide all information necessary to document its continued compliance with program rules and requirements. The revised affidavit was submitted to the Department of Education, which received the affidavit on December 16, 2008. At the time CHC submitted the affidavit, it did not have a current, violation-free Fire Code Inspection and compliance report. On December 23, 2008, the BCFR re-inspected CHC and found that the violations had been corrected. After its inspection on December 23, 2008, BCFR issued a fire inspection certificate backdated to November 20, 2008, which was the date of the original inspection. On December 17, 2008, the Agency issued an Administrative Complaint, suspending CHC’s eligibility for the McKay Scholarships and CTC Scholarships programs for failure to have a current fire inspection report. By letter dated December 23, 2008, and received by the Department of Education on December 29, 2008, CHC advised that the school had been re- inspected and now had a current fire code inspection certificate. On January 2, 2009, CHC sent a 12-page facsimile transmission to the Department of Education. One of the pages of the transmission was a copy of a facsimile transmission coversheet dated December 31, 2008, with the BCFR letterhead concerning inspection reports. The comments section of the coversheet read “Please read letter.” The second page of the transmission was an unsigned to-whom-it-may-concern letter dated December 30, 2008. At the top of the letter, printed in large, bold type was the following: “Brevard County Fire Rescue.” The letter stated: To whom it may concern, In reviewing and trying to figure out what happen with the 2007 inspection reports this is the conclusion we have come to. If you review the two reports on both CHC-1 and CHC-2 the visiting inspection times over lap each other making it seem like a 2007 inspection was done when in reality it was not. CHC-1 inspection has a date on it February 22, 2006 to February 2007. CHC-2 inspection shows January 12, 2006 (re-inspection) January 2007. I believe that this was just an over site on both our parts due to the fact that the fire department does come in regularly every year even without an appointment. Lara Nichilo did notify us to come in ASAP when the reports could not be found. But as of November 20, 2008 all her inspections were done and her follow up correction reports have been completed putting her in good standing with the fire and inspections department. CHC-1 and CHC-2 (inspection reports provided to you with this letter) For more information you may contact us at 321-455-6383 Thank you for your time, The telephone number given in the letter was the telephone number for CHC. The original letter submitted at the final hearing by CHC was written on stationary bearing the CHC watermark. The letter received by the Department of Education had no visible watermark. The facsimile transmission coversheet that accompanied the letter was a coversheet which BCFR had sent to CHC on December 31, 2008. The statements in the comments section that BCFR sent had been deleted and replaced with “Please read letter.” The following are the comments which BCFR had written: There are no reports or certificates for 690 Range Road for 2006 or 2007. There are no inspection reports or certificates for 55 McLeod for 2007. Certificates will be issued upon receipt of payment. Laura Harrison, the director of the McKay Scholarships and CTC Scholarships programs at the Department of Education, transmitted a copy of the letter to BCFR and asked if the letter had originated from BCFR. Mr. Carter advised Ms. Harrison that the letter did not come from BCFR. Ms. Nichilo wrote the letter. A person reading the letter would be led to believe that the letter came from BCFR. The letter was accompanied by a facsimile transmission coversheet bearing the BCFR letterhead and the coversheet comments said “Please read letter.” The letter refers to Ms. Nichilo in the third person and uses first person plural pronouns to refer to BCFR. The letter purports to bear the letterhead of BCFR. It must be concluded that Ms. Nichilo intended the Department of Education to rely on the letter as a letter transmitted by BCFR to Ms. Nichilo to explain the situation. If Ms. Nichilo had intended the Department of Education to treat the letter as a letter written by her, she would have written the letter using CHC letterhead, signed the letter, not referred to herself in the third person, not referred to BCFR in the first person, and not used a transmission coversheet from BCFR in which the comments section had been altered. In a conversation on December 30, 2008, Ms. Nichilo advised Mr. Hyle that she was sending him a letter that would explain everything and would resolve the situation concerning the fire inspections. Ms. Nichilo testified that she told Mr. Hyle that she was writing the letter. Mr. Hyle did not recall whether Ms. Nichilo said that she was writing a letter. Jade Quinif, who was Ms. Nichilo’s administrative assistant on December 30, 2008, listened to the conversation between Mr. Hyle and Ms. Nichilo on speakerphone. She recalls Ms. Nichilo asking Mr. Hyle if he would like her to write a letter regarding Ms. Nichilo’s conversations with BCFR. Mr. Hyle said that would be fine. Ms. Nichilo typed a letter and asked Ms. Quinif to send it to the Department of Education. Ms. Quinif sent a letter to the Department of Education dated December 30, 2008. Based on the evidence presented, the letter that Ms. Quinif sent was a letter dated December 30, 2008, written on CHC letterhead and signed by Ms. Nichilo.4 It was not the letter dated December 30, 2008, which appeared to be from BCFR (purported BCFR letter). The only evidence of receipt of the purported BCFR letter by the Department of Education is in a 12-page facsimile transmittal, which was transmitted twice on January 2, 2009. Ms. Quinif credibly testified that she did not send a 12-page transmission and that she did not send the doctored transmission coversheet from BCFR. She also credibly testified that the letter that she sent was a few days after Christmas and was not more than a week after Christmas. Ms. Nichilo testified that Ms. Quinif did sent the transmittal coversheet from the BCFR on December 30, 2008; however, Ms. Nichilo’s testimony is not credible given that the transmittal coversheet from BCFR was dated December 31, 2008, and showed a transmission date of December 31, 2008, to CHC. The clear and convincing evidence is that Ms. Nichilo wrote and sent the purported letter from BCFR and the doctored transmittal coversheet from BCFR in an attempt to make it appear that BCFR was taking some of the blame for CHC not having maintained current fire inspection certificates. BCFR does not automatically do an annual inspection of schools. If a school desires to have a fire inspection, the school must notify BCFR and arrange for a fire inspection. The failure to have current, violation-free fire inspection reports rests with CHC and not with BCFR. The bogus letter was an effort by CHC to seek mitigation for its failure to adhere to the requirements for eligibility for the scholarships programs. After learning that the letter transmitted on January 2, 2009, was not from BCFR, the Agency issued an Amended Administrative Complaint on January 23, 2009, which superseded the December 17, 2008, Administrative Complaint. The Amended Administrative Complaint deleted the allegations concerning the failure to have a current, violation-free fire inspection report and added allegations involving fraud and failure to maintain current, violation-free fire inspection reports.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered sustaining the suspension of CHC’s eligibility for the McKay Scholarships and CTC Scholarships programs and revoking CHC’s eligibility for the McKay Scholarships and CTC Scholarships programs. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 May, 2009.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his answer to Item 264 on the "Principles and Practice" part of the October 1993 Fire Protection Engineer Examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied for licensure as a Fire Protection Engineer with Respondent, the state agency responsible for the licensure of Fire Protection Engineers in Florida. Petitioner was required to successfully complete an examination administered by the Respondent to become licensed as a Fire Protection Engineer. Petitioner sat for the licensing examination for Fire Protection Engineer administered by Respondent on October 29 and 30, 1993. A score of 70 is required to pass the "Principles and Practice" part of the licensure examination. Petitioner received a score of 66.30 on that part of the examination, which is a failing grade. Item 264 is a question for which a completely correct answer would have been awarded 10 points. Item 264 contained a diagram of a building and required the applicants to properly space heat or smoke detectors in the building and to justify the type of detection device used in a particular area. Petitioner was awarded a total of four points for his partially correct answer to Item 264. Petitioner would have passed the "Principles and Practice" portion of the examination had he been awarded eight or more points for his answer to Item 264. At Petitioner's request, his response to Item 264 was regraded by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES), a consulting firm utilized by Respondent to develop and score licensure examinations. When Petitioner's response to the exam was initially scored, he received a score of 4 points. The regrading of the examination did not change that score. The report prepared by NCEES in conjunction with the regrading of Petitioner's answer to Item 264 stated the following 1/ in explaining the score awarded for Petitioner's answer: The examinee did not reference the NFPA 72 A, D, and E standards 2/ to answer the question. The lounge area requires heat detectors rather than smoke detectors. The smoke detectors would be sending false alarms and they would be disconnected to stop the alarms. The heat detectors would be more reliable. The examinee's solution did not show detectors in the corridor, locker room, and boiler room; all of which are required. The examinee's solution did not space the detectors according to NFPA 72. According to the NCEES approved scoring plan, the examinee's solution demonstrates less than minimum competence (score of 4 points). Pursuant to the scoring standards that have been adopted, a score of four represents a borderline unqualified response, which is explained as being: Applicant has failed to demonstrate adequate knowledge in one or more categories. For example, approach may be correct but the solution is unreasonable. Significant constraints may have been overlooked. Solution is unacceptable, but marginally so. Petitioner's answer to Item 264 failed to properly space detectors in his answer, failed to place detectors in the corridor, locker room, and boiler room, and incorrectly placed smoke detectors in the lounge area instead of heat detectors. Petitioner did not establish that the standards used to score the examination were arbitrary, capricious, or devoid of logic. Petitioner did not establish that the application of those scoring standards to Petitioner's response to Item 264 was arbitrary, capricious, or devoid of logic. Item 264 is a reliable and valid test item. Respondent established that Petitioner's response to Item 264 was fairly graded. Petitioner is not entitled to additional credit for his response to Item 264.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Respondent enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and the conclusions of law contained herein and which DENIES Petitioner's challenge to the scoring of his answer to Item 264 of the October 1993 Fire Protection Engineer Examination. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 10th day of November 1994. 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 10th day of November 1994.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is employed as a full-time professional firefighter by the City of Tampa Fire Department. His primary responsibility is the prevention and extinguishment of fires, the protection and saving of life and property, and the enforcement of municipal, county and state fire prevention codes, as well as of any law pertaining to the prevention and control of fires. Petitioner received an associate in arts degree in Business Administration in May 1989 from Hillsborough Community College. In addition, he has earned 90 hours credit towards an associate in science degree from the same accredited post secondary institution. Petitioner's permanent academic record at Hillsborough Community College reveals he has successfully completed the following fire-related courses: SUMMER 1983 SEMESTER CREDITS ENS 1119 EMT AMBULANCE 5 EMS 1119 EMT AMBULANCE LAB 1 FALL 1986 SEMESTER CREDITS FFP 2601 FIRE APPARATUS PRA 3 FFP 1600 FIRE APPARATUS EQ 3 FALL 1990 SEMESTER CREDITS FFP 2420 F/F TACTICS & STRA 3 FFP 2660 RESCUE PRACTICES 3 FFP 2110 FIRE COMPANY MAN AG 3 Although Petitioner has 21 semester hours that the Department has agreed are fire related courses, 9 of these hours were credited to him after his associate in arts degree was conferred upon him in May of 1989. In order for a firefighter to be eligible for supplemental compensation related to an associate degree, he or she must have at least 18 semester hours that are fire related and are part of the firefighter's studies for the degree. Petitioner had only 12 semesters of fire related studies prior to the award of his degree. In order for Petitioner to receive eligibility credits for the full 21 semester hours in the Firefighter's Supplemental Compensation Program, he would have to acquire his second associate degree from Hillsborough Community College.
Recommendation Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner should be denied eligibility for the Firefighters Supplemental Compensation Program as he did not complete at least 18 semester hours of fire related courses prior to receiving his award of an associate of arts degree. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of October, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 6th day of October, 1992. APPENDIX The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See Preliminary Statement. Accepted. See HO #4 and #5. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark B. Maxey 6909 N. Glen Avenue Tampa, FL 33614 William C. Childers, Esquire Division of Legal Services 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil Deputy General Counsel Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondents are entitled to a renewed license for their facility. HRS' position is that the renewal should be denied because the sleeping room windows do not comply with the 1981 Life Safety Code. The Brevigs argue that HRS's interpretation of the code is too rigid, that the 1985 code is the applicable edition, and that they are entitled to an exception contained within the later code.
Findings Of Fact Tom and Jeannie Brevig own Florida Haven Retirement Home #1, located in Maitland, Florida. They purchased the facility in 1981. Prior to 1984, Florida Haven was licensed as an adult congregate living facility (ACLF) by the HRS District Office and fire safety inspections were conducted by Seminole County inspectors. In 1984, the HRS Office of Licensure and Certification acquired jurisdiction and a fire inspector from that office conducted an inspection in July 1984. At that time a citation was issued for deficiencies in the sleeping room windows. In October 1984, the Brevigs sold the facility. Ray Heyser is an inspector certified by the State Fire Marshal. He is employed by HRS' Office of Licensure and Certification and conducts inspections of ACLFs in accordance with Chapter 22 of the Life Safety Code. On July 2, 1985, he inspected Florida Haven and personally measured the windows. He found the following: The front north bedroom window had a clear opening of 16 inches high, by 48 inches wide, and the sill was 42 inches from the floor. The rear south bedroom window was 16 inches high, by 32 inches wide, and the sill was 42 inches from the floor. The side south bedroom window was 10 inches high, by 48 inches wide, with a 54 inch sill. The front south bedroom was 16 inches high, by 48 inches wide, with a 34 inch sill. The remaining front bedroom window was also 16 inches high, by 48 inches wide, with a 34 inch sill. Each of these bedrooms was used as a sleeping room. None of the rooms has exterior doors. The Life Safety Code requires that an outside window in a sleeping room have a clear opening of not less than 24 inches in height, 20 inches in width, and 5.7 square feet in area. The bottom of the opening must be no more than 44 inches from the floor. "Clear opening" means the unobstructed passage when the window is opened. The reasons for the requirement are to allow emergency egress and to permit access by fire service personnel who may be equipped with large cylinder breathing apparatus. None of the sleeping room windows at the facility met the height requirement for clear opening and one window was out of compliance as to the height from the floor. In January 1986, the Brevigs regained ownership of the facility and were granted a transfer license. In August 1986 the home was again cited for deficiencies in the windows. This was noted as a "Class III" deficiency and the recommendation was a "conditional license pending correction". (Petitioner's Exhibit #1) At a re-investigation in February 1987, the window deficiencies still existed. By a letter dated July 7, 1987, Tom Brevig was informed that his license for Florida Haven Retirement Home #1 expired on June 30, 1987. Since he had not corrected the deficiencies noted in his conditional license, he was told to relocate the residents. HRS adopted the 1985 Life Safety Code in April 1987. Both that code and the prior edition provide for exceptions or variances to the window requirements in certain circumstances. HRS' policy is that exceptions are only rarely granted, and then only when the applicant affirmatively presents its basis for an exception. Tom Brevig discussed the possibility of an exception with HRS's architect but did not make a specific proposal. Tom Brevig claims that he was given an exception by a prior HRS inspector, but the HRS Office of Licensure and Certification has nothing in writing that would indicate that an exception was granted. The ACLF Director for that HRS office has no knowledge that HRS ever approved the windows as a pre-existing means of escape or entry.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That a renewal license be withheld from Florida Haven Retirement Home #1, until the deficiencies are corrected or the owner provides an alternative proposal consistent with the standards in the Life Safety Code, 1985 Edition and Rule 4A- 40.004, F.A.C. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 19th day of February, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 19th day of February, 1988. APPENDIX The following constitute rulings on the findings of fact proposed by counsel for the Brevigs: Adopted in paragraph #1. Adopted in paragraph #2. Rejected as unsupported by competent evidence. Mr. Brevig's argument is a conclusion based on the fact of his obtaining a license. He did not establish that the windows were approved or that their size was at issue when the Seminole County inspections were made. Adopted in substance in paragraph 3, although it was not clearly established that this was the first citation by HRS. It was the first citation by the OLC. Adopted in paragraph 4. Rejected as uncorroborated hearsay. Adopted in paragraph 5. Adopted in paragraph 8. Rejected as unnecessary and a mischaracterization of the discussion as evidenced in the cited portions of the transcript. Adopted in paragraph 9. Rejected as irrelevant and hearsay. Adopted in part in paragraph 6. Access from the outside is not the sole reason for the requirement, in spite of the testimony from witness Mauger. The plain language of the section of the Code and the Handbook explanation establish the requirement as relating to a means of escape from the inside. Rejected as hearsay and inconsistent with the history of Rule 4A-40.005, F.A.C. Adoption was in 1987, not 1986, according to the F.A.C. Addressed in paragraph 2, Conclusions of Law. Rejected as unnecessary. This fact is not in issue. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Sawyer, Jr., Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Service 400 West Robinson Street Suite 911 Orlando, Florida 32801 Thomas C. Brevig 1680 Maitland Avenue Maitland, Florida 32751 Michael J. Bittman, Esquire DEMPSEY AND GOLDSMITH, P.A Suite 500, Day Building 605 E. Robinson Street Post Office Box 1980 Orlando, Florida 32802 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Hugenna D. Outar, operates a twelve-bed adult congregate living facility (ACLF) under the name of Moorehead House Retirement Center at 1405 Northeast Eighth Street, Homestead, Florida. The facility is licensed by petitioner, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), and as such, is subject to that agency's regulatory jurisdiction. Outar serves as administrator of the facility. On or about August 15, 1987, Paul Grassi, an HRS fire inspector, conducted a routine annual inspection of respondent's facility. The purpose of the inspection was to determine if the facility was in compliance with the fire safety requirements of Chapter 10A-5, Florida Administrative Code (1987). The inspec- tion was made in the presence of Outar's mother since Outar was not at the facility that day. Grassi requested documentation showing that all facility fire alarms and smoke detectors had been checked by facility personnel on a quarterly basis. Also, he requested documentation to evidence that all employees had been given monthly training in procedures to be followed in the event of a fire. The former set of records is required by Department of Insurance Rule 4A-40.017, which has been adopted by reference by HRS. The latter requirement is imposed by Rule 10A-5.023(15)(b) and pertains to ACLF's having thirteen or more licensed beds. Because Outar's mother did not know where such documentation was kept, she was unable to comply with Grassi's request. Next, Grassi observed that Room D had a "pocket type" door with no hinges. According to Grassi, a state fire marshal regulation prohibits the use of this type of door in a resident's room and requires instead that a resident's room located by an exit have a door mounted on a hinge that swings outwardly to the corridor. The Classification of Deficiencies refers to the regulation imposing this requirement as "L.S.C. 85, 17-3.6.2" but the regulation itself is not of record or officially noticed. Finally, Grassi observed two residents' rooms with no door closures. According to Grassi, such closures are required on all residents' rooms, pursuant to a state fire marshal regulation, for the purpose of containing and confining a fire in the event of a fire in a room. The regulation was not identified at hearing nor made a part of the record but is referred to in the Classification of Deficiencies as "N.F.P.A. 101-85, 17.3.6.3." After noting these violations, Grassi explained them to the mother and gave her a brief explanation as to how they might be corrected. Each of the three deficiencies were categorized as Class III deficiencies. By letter dated September 24, 1987, HRS advised Outar in writing of the nature of the violations. Although the letter was not prepared until September 24, it instructed Outar to correct the deficiencies by September 14, 1987, or ten days earlier. Attached to the letter was a copy of the Classification of Deficiencies which identified the deficiencies, their class and the date by which they had to be corrected. On October 29, 1987 Grassi made a follow-up survey of respondent's facility. Since Outar was not at the facility that day, the survey was conducted in the presence of Outar's mother. Grassi found none of the deficiencies had been corrected. Accordingly, Outar was sent a letter by HRS on November 6, 1987 advising her that a second follow-up visit would be made. On December 14, 1987 Grassi returned for a third visit. This time Outar was present. Again, Grassi found none of the deficiencies corrected to his satisfaction. However, he conceded that the documentation pertaining to monthly fire drills and quarterly checks of fire alarms and smoke detectors was available for inspection but maintained it was unsatisfactory because all reports were identical and did not vary from month to month. He reasoned that this was contrary to the "intent" of the rule. During the inspection, Outar requested specific advice as to how to comply with the door regulations for which she had been cited. After receiving advice, these changes were made, and her doors now meet all fire safety requirements. Outar operates a small facility with only twelve beds. She pointed out that she had difficulty in installing closures on the two doors in question since two residents used walkers and had placed door "jams" on the doors to give them easy access through the doorway. As to the other door violation, the building was purchased with an archway leading into Room D which made it difficult to install a door mounted on hinges. Outar attempted to comply with Grassi's instructions but her carpenter was unable to make the necessary changes until Outar received specific advice from Grassi on December 14. Finally, Outar stated that the fire drill documentation was available for inspection on August 15 and October 29 but her mother did not know where it was. Outar did not learn it was filled out improperly until she personally spoke with Grassi on his third visit. She now has satisfactory records.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaint filed against respondent be dismissed with prejudice. DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of September, 1988, 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 30th day of September, 1988.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: Respondent William C. Widner has been with the City of Clearwater Fire Department for 21 years. For the past ten years, he has been assigned to Engine 48 as a fire lieutenant. His record is free from any type of disciplinary action. When a call is received concerning a medical emergency, it is proper to dispatch both a rescue unit and a fire engine to the scene. The standard operating procedure for emergency calls for fire vehicles is that the time to clear the station should not exceed 45 seconds. If there are questions concerning the dispatch, the officer in charge is to contact the dispatcher while in route to the scene of the emergency and make inquiry at that time. Also, a lieutenant, by himself, cannot change, modify or refuse to respond to a dispatch. Only a captain or the dispatcher can change the required response, or, another unit can announce that they are closer to the scene and will respond. The average response time between dispatch and arrival at the scene is four minutes. When a dispatch is given, a grid number for the destination is announced. All fire engines are equipped with map books demonstrating the location of the scene in relationship to the grid number given. On August 5, 1985, at approximately 2050 hours, the Clearwater Police Department Communications Center received an emergency call reporting a subject having a heart attack at 2720 Morningside Drive. Safety Harbor Rescue 52 and an ambulance were dispatched by telephone. At approximately 2055 hours, Engine 48 was radio dispatched to 2720 Morningside Drive. Respondent advised by radio that Engine 48 was responding to the call. Approximately 22 seconds after receiving the dispatch and 14 seconds after initially responding to the dispatch, respondent Widner telephoned the dispatcher and advised him that 2720 Morningside Drive was Engine 49's territory. Respondent did offer to go, however. The dispatcher stated that "this was a screwed up mess," but advised respondent that the computer recommended Engine 48. Respondent replied that he should go if Engine 49 was out. After further conversation, the dispatcher stated, "it made sense to me that 49 would go but it said 48." When respondent inquired as to who was to go, the dispatcher said "Oh hell, I might as well page somebody else." This conversation between the respondent and the dispatcher lasted 43 seconds and concluded 1 minute, 9 seconds from the end of the original dispatch. The dispatcher then radio-dispatched Engine 49 to 2720 Morningside Drive. Engine 49 advised that it was responding at approximately 2057 hours, 38 seconds, or two minutes, 22 seconds after the original dispatch was given to Engine 48. After speaking with the dispatcher, respondent and his superior officer, Captain Evans, checked the map for the 2720 Morningside Drive address. Upon learning that that address was, indeed, within Engine 48's territory, respondent and his crew immediately got in the truck and left the station. Captain Evans notified the dispatcher at 2059 hours that Engine 48 was responding to the call. When respondent arrived at the scene, Engine 49 and the rescue unit were already there. He attempted to radio in his arrival as soon as he got there, but the air waves were busy. He announced his arrival on his portable unit as he was walking up to the house. The evidence does not conclusively establish the exact time that respondent's arrival on the scene was reported to the dispatcher. Engine 49 did report its arrival before Engine 48's arrival was reported. Based upon the totality of the evidence, it is found that between 7 1/2 and 8 1/4 minutes elapsed between the time of the original dispatch to Engine 48 and the time of Engine 48's arrival at the scene. There are two Morningside Drives in the City of Clearwater. The residence located at 2720 Morningside Drive is within Engine 48's response zone, and is located 2.1 miles from Engine 48 and 3.0 miles from Engine 49. The other Morningside Drive is located in Morningside Estates and is within the response zone of Engine 49. When respondent first received the dispatch, he thought the address was located within the Morningside Estates subdivision. Upon leaving the station, an immediate right or left turn is required, dependent upon which Morningside Drive is being sought. Respondent's Captain Evans immediately conducted a fact finding session upon respondent's return to the station, and determined that respondent had failed to follow a direct order. A follow-up interview was conducted. It was determined that, upon receiving the initial dispatch, respondent should have proceeded directly to the engine and looked at the grid map, should have cleared the station within 45 seconds in accordance with standard operating procedures, should have reached the scene within 4 to 4.5 minutes and that, due to respondent's phone conversation with the dispatcher, two fire engines were sent on a call that required only one engine. Based upon those findings, the Fire Department concluded that respondent's productivity, workmanship, and efficiency with regard to the emergency response were not up to required standards for performance, and a two-day suspension was requested. The request for a two-day suspension was referred to the Affirmative Action Office, which conducts a fairness review of proposed disciplinary action and makes a recommendation to the City Manager, who takes final disciplinary action. After interviewing respondent concerning the August 5th incident, the Affirmative Action Office initially concluded that a two-day suspension was very harsh under the circumstances and recommended a letter of reprimand instead. Thereafter, Assistant Fire Chief Meyer contacted the Affirmative Action Office and provided the investigator with further information. The investigator was informed by Assistant Chief Meyer that respondent had been at that station for 10 years and should have been familiar with the addresses within his territory. He further advised her that the computer system utilized to determine which station should receive a particular call had been in effect for two years and discrepancies had been corrected. Meyer informed the investigator that lieutenants had been instructed not to argue with the dispatcher, to immediately respond to a call and that the proper response time in this instance should have been 4 minutes. This information from Meyer caused the Affirmative Action Office to amend its recommendation for disciplinary action to a suspension for 11.2 hours. The City Manager followed that recommendation and gave Notice of Suspension in accordance therewith. The Notice listed the three charges referenced in the Introduction as grounds for the disciplinary action taken, and established the date and time for the suspension to occur. In a separately related incident occurring in 1983, Lieutenant Handura with the City of Clearwater Fire Department received a letter of reprimand for not responding to a dispatch. In that incident, Handura was dispatched but, because he had a tour group of school children at his station and knew that a rescue unit had also been dispatched, he called the rescue unit and determined that he was not needed. He thereupon called the dispatcher and advised him that the rescue unit was responding to the call and that he would not respond.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent's appeal be dismissed and that a Final Order be entered confirming the disciplinary action of an 11.2 hour suspension, without pay. Respectfully submitted and entered this 30th of July 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of July 1986. APPENDIX (CASE NO. 86-0236) The proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties have been carefully considered and are accepted and/or incorporated in this Recommended Order, except as noted below: Petitioner 11. Partially rejected as being argumentative as opposed to a factual finding. Respondent 3-5. While these findings are partially correct, they are an incomplete recitation of the events which transpired. 6. Rejected; See Paragraph 5 in Findings of Fact. 7 and 8. Rejected as a legal conclusion as opposed to a factual finding. COPIES FURNISHED: Miles A. Lance Assistant City Attorney City of Clearwater Post Office Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33518-4748 Stuart M. Rosenblum, P.A. 220 South Garden Avenue Clearwater, Florida 33516 City Manager City of Clearwater Post Office Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33518-4748 Civil Service Board City of Clearwater Post Office Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33518-4748
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), should fine the Respondent, Willie Mae Johnson, d/b/a Leisure Living Retirement Home, based on an Administrative Complaint that alleges that ten Class III deficiencies have persisted despite notice of the deficiencies and of the requirement that they be corrected.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Willie Mae Johnson, d/b/a Leisure Living Retirement Home, is licensed to operate Leisure Living Retirement Home, 401 S.E. 9th Avenue, Mulberry, Florida, as an adult congregate living facility (ACLF) under Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10A-5, Florida Administrative Code. On January 9, 1989, the day of an HRS survey of the Respondent's ACLF, the following Class III deficiencies, among others, were present: The facility did not have on its staff at all times at least one staff person with training in an approved first aid course, and there was no evidence that all staff were free of communicable disease. Daily records of supervised self- administered medications had not been kept for some residents since 1/3/89. Others showed the medications had been logged sporadically, while one medication, Inderol 10 mg, had never been logged. Because of this haphazard system, there was no way to be sure residents were receiving medications at the proper times and in the correct dosages. Of eight health assessments reviewed three did not indicate the residents to be free of communicable disease. One did not indicate whether the resident was capable of self-administering medications with supervision or assistance from staff. Appropriateness of admissions and continued residency was not based on the medical records. See subparagraph C, above. Medications were not given as prescribed. As the medications had not been logged or given according to the medication label, there is a potential for over- or under- medicating the residents, which could lead to serious health problems for the residents. All rooms where food or drink was prepared and served were not clean or in good repair as evidenced by: Live and dead cockroaches were observed on the kitchen and dining room floor and in the kitchen cabinets. There were spills inside the microwave oven. There was an accumulation of dust on top of the refrigerator and the freezer. The curtains in the dining room were torn. All potentially hazardous food was not held at safe temperatures. Liver had been left at room temperature to thaw. It could not be determined if the freezer was 0 degrees Fahrenheit or colder, as the thermometer had not been placed in the freezer until shortly before the surveyor exited the facility. The last annual inspection of the portable fire extinguisher in the main building was done December, 1987. Documentation of monthly fire drills and quality tests of smoke detectors and the fire alarm system was not available at time of survey. The facility needed to institute an effective insect control system. There were roaches crawling up the wall near the phone, creating an atmosphere ripe for the spread of disease. (These lettered subparagraphs correspond to the lettered subparagraphs in paragraph (3) of the Administrative Complaint in this case.) At the conclusions of the January 9, 1989, survey, the Respondent agreed to the following schedule for correcting each of the deficiencies listed in the subparagraphs of Finding 2, above (each lettered subparagraph below corresponds to the deficiency identified in the same lettered subparagraph of Finding 2, above): February 15, 1989 Immediate and ongoing. February 9, 1989. February 9, 1989. Immediate. January 20, 1989. January 9, 1989. January 16, 1989. February 9, 1989. Immediate. On April 27, 1989, HRS personnel returned to the Respondent's facility. They found that the deficiencies listed in the lettered subparagraphs of Finding 2, above, were not corrected, as the Respondent agreed to do. Instead, as to each deficiency, they found: Of the two staff, neither had first aid, and only one had a "no communicable disease" statement. Medications had not been logged since the morning of April 25, 1989. One of the three still did not indicate that the resident was free of communicable disease. See subparagraph C, above. One medication prescribed April 1, 1989, was never used, according to the logs. A live roach was seen crossing the kitchen counter. Breaded frozen fish was left on the counter. The stand-up freezer was 20 degrees Fahrenheit. The last documented quarterly smoke detector test was January 26, 1989, and the last documented fire drill was February 6, 1989. A live roach was seen on food left to defrost on the kitchen counter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, enter a final order finding the Respondent, Willie Mae Johnson, d/b/a Leisure Living Retirement Home, guilty as charged in the Administrative Complaint in this case and fining her $2500. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of May, 1990 in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of May, 1990.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in an Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent has been licensed to engage in the food service business, having been issued license number 16-09404-R. At all times material to this case, the Respondent has operated a restaurant in which food was prepared and served to the public. The Respondent’s restaurant business is located at 625 East Atlantic Boulevard, Pompano Beach, Florida 33060. On July 7, 2004, the Respondent’s restaurant premises were inspected by Larry Torres. Mr. Torres is a Sanitation and Safety Specialist employed by the Petitioner. In conjunction with the inspection on July 7, 2004, Mr. Torres prepared a Food Service Inspection Report in which he noted matters of significance that he observed during the inspection. During the course of his inspection on July 7, 2005, Mr. Torres noted several deficiencies that were violations of applicable statutes and rules. Mr. Torres advised the restaurant owner of these deficiencies and required that they be corrected by the next day. On July 8, 2005, Mr. Torres re-inspected the Respondent’s restaurant. Some of the deficiencies had been corrected and progress was being made towards the correction of others. Mr. Torres granted an extension of time until July 21, 2004, for the correction of the remaining deficiencies. On July 22, 2005, Mr. Torres again re-inspected the Respondent’s restaurant. As of July 22, 2005, all but four of the original deficiencies had been corrected and efforts were underway to correct those four deficiencies. On this occasion Mr. Torres granted an extension of time until August 22, 1004, within which to correct the remaining deficiencies. On August 23, 2004, Mr. Torres conducted another re- inspection of the Respondent’s restaurant. At that time there were three uncorrected deficiencies. Those uncorrected deficiencies were identified by numbers. The numbers were 32, 37, and 45. Deficiency number 32 was the absence of a sign in the area of the employee hand wash sink reminding employees that they were required to wash their hands before preparing or serving food. This is not a critical violation.3 Deficiency number 37 was an unrepaired hole in the wall in the area of the mop sink. The evidence in this case does not reveal what type of safety or sanitation issue resulted from the hole in the wall in the area of the mop sink. This is not a critical violation.4 Deficiency number 45 related to the condition of the automatic fire suppression system incorporated into the hood over some of the cooking elements in the kitchen. The Respondent’s automatic fire suppression system was an older dry chemical system. Such systems require maintenance and testing once every six years, and the Respondent’s system was overdue for maintenance and testing. Automatic fire suppression systems of the type used by the Respondent are rather rare and it can be difficult and time-consuming to locate the dry chemicals necessary to maintain the system. This was a critical violation because of the possibility of having a kitchen fire at a time when the automatic fire suppression system might not be working. The Respondent’s manager made diligent efforts to resolve deficiency number 45. On July 8, 2004, he received a proposal from a fire protection company to replace the existing fire suppression system with a more modern system for approximately three thousand dollars. That was more than the Respondent’s owner was able to spend to resolve that problem. Eventually the Respondent’s manager found someone who would resolve deficiency number 45 by bringing the existing fire suppression system into compliance for only five hundred dollars. By September 27, 2004, the fire suppression in the hood was in compliance and deficiency number 45 was resolved. The Respondent’s manager procrastinated in addressing deficiency number 32 because of his concerns about resolving the more serious matter of deficiency number 45. It took several months for the Respondent’s manager to hang hand washing signs near the employee hand washing sink. The Respondent’s manager addressed deficiency number 37 a bit sooner. At about the same time that deficiency number 45 was resolved, the manager also patched the hole in the wall by the mop sink area.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case to the following effect: Concluding that the three violations identified in the three numbered paragraphs of the Administrative Complaint existed on the dates alleged in the Administrative Complaints; Concluding that no penalty should be imposed for the violation identified in paragraph 1 of the Administrative Complaint; Concluding that an administrative fine in the amount of $50.00 should be imposed for the violation identified in paragraph 2 of the Administrative Complaint; and Concluding that an administrative fine in the amount of $50.00 should be imposed for the violation identified in paragraph 3 of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of May, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 May, 2005.
