Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, is an agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility, inter alia, for setting and enforcing health and safety standards for hospitals located within the state. In furtherance of this function, the Department has adopted rules set out Chapter 10D-28, Florida Administrative Code. Among these rules are provisions which set standards for hospital construction which are designed to assure the fire and electrical safety of patients, staff and visitors to hospitals. The Department enforces its rules by licensing or certifying hospitals which comply with them, and by refusing licensure or certification to those which do not. The Department's Rule 10D-28.79, Florida Administrative Code, relates to codes and standards for the physical plant of new and existing hospitals. The rule does not set out code provisions, but rather adopts various construction and life safety codes by reference. Rule 10D-28.79(5) provides in pertinent part: The following codes and regulations are herein adopted by the licensing agency [the Department], and it shall be the responsibility of the sponsor [licensed hospitals] to consult such codes for compliance with all matters not specifically set forth in this chapter. Standard Building Code, 1976 edition, Group I, Institutional Occupancy. National Fire Protection Association No. 101, Life Safety Code 1973 Edition; Appendix B of this Code adopts several other NFPA standards, which shall be met . . . This rule became effective on January 1, 1977. Copies of the codes that were adopted by reference did not accompany the rules as the were filed with the Office of the Secretary of State. The Life Safety Code is a publication of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). Appendix B to the Code, which is referenced in the Department's Rule 10D-28.79(5)(b) is titled "Referenced Publications" and provides in part as 7 follows: The following publications are referenced by this Life Safety Code and thereby comprise a part of the requirements or recommendations to the extent called for by the Code or Appendix A, respectively. The Appendix goes on to list more than fifty publications, including the 1971 National Electric Code, which is another publication of the National Fire Protection Association. The crux of this proceeding is a single paragraph of this publication. Paragraph 517-51(a) sets an electrical performance standard to be met in hospital areas where "electrically susceptible patients" are housed. The paragraph provides: In electrically susceptible patient areas the maximum 60-hertz alternating-current potential difference between any two conducting surfaces within thee reach of a patient, or those persons touching the patient, shall not exceed five millivolts measured across 500 ohms under normal operating conditions or in case of any probable failure. The Department has interpreted its Rule 10D-28.79(5)(b) as adopting as performance standards the provisions of all of the codes set out in Appendix B of the 1973 Life Safety Code, including the 1971 National Electric Code, and paragraph 517-51 thereof. There are conflicting provisions in the various Life Safety and Electrical Codes that the Department has adopted, and contends that it has adopted through its adoption of Appendix B of the 1973 Life Safety Code. The Department resolves these conflicts by requiring hospitals to develop solutions which will meet the provisions of all of the codes. The provisions of paragraph 517-51(a) of the 1971 National Electric Code are considerably more strict than similar provisions set out in later editions of the National Electric Code, including the 1975, 1978 and 1981 Codes. The Department contends that hospitals must comport with the most strict of these requirements, i.e. the ones set out in paragraph 517-51(a) of the 1971 Code. The Petitioner Memorial Hospital of Jacksonville is an accredited, licensed hospital in the State of Florida. Memorial Hospital is presently in the process of constructing a three million dollar renovation, including a renovation to its critical care unit. In order to comply with the provisions of paragraph 517-51(a) of the 1971 National Electric Code, Memorial Hospital would need to expend approximately $55,000 that would not need to be expended in order to comply with provisions of other codes. Memorial Hospital has requested a variance from the Department from the requirement of complying with this provision. The Petitioner St. Vincent's Medical Center is an accredited, licensed hospital located in Jacksonville, Florida. St. Vincent's Medical Center is currently involved in a project to renovate and add space to its existing facilities, including a thirty-two bed critical care unit. In order to comply with the provisions of paragraph 517-51(a) of the 1971 National Electric Code, St. Vincent's would be forced to expend from $75,000 to $80,000 which would not be necessary in order to comply with the provisions of other codes. St. Vincent's Medical Center has requested a variance from the requirements of that provision from the Department. Halifax Hospital Medical Center is an accredited, licensed hospital located in Daytona Beach, Florida. Halifax Hospital has been advised that it would be required to comply with the provisions of paragraph 517-51(a) of the 1971 National Electric Code in renovating and expanding its critical care unit. While the precise cost of complying with the provision cannot be determined, it is evident that Halifax Hospital would be required to expend more money to comply with the provision than would be required to comply with other provisions. The Petitioner Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics, Inc., is an accredited, licensed hospital located in Gainesville, Florida. Shands Hospital is presently in the process of expanding and renovating its facility, including its critical care unit. Shands Hospital has been advised by the Department that it would need to comply with the provisions of paragraph 517-51(a) of the 1971 National Electric Code in connection with the critical care unit. The cost of complying with this provision would be approximately $140,000 over the cost of complying with other provisions. No evidence was presented with respect to the Petitioner Variety Children's Hospital. The Department's interpretation of its Rule 10D-28.79 as having adopted by reference the performance standard set out at paragraph 517-51(a) of the 1971 National Electric Code is in error. While the Department's rule references Appendix B to the 1973 Life Safety Code, it provides only that that Appendix adopts several other standards which must be met. While the Appendix references the 1971 National Electric Code, it adopts only the provisions of the 1971 National Electric Code and the other referenced publications to the extent that they are otherwise adopted in the 1973 Code or Appendix A thereto. Paragraph 517-51(a) of the 1971 Code is not referenced in Appendix A to the 1973 Life Safety Code, nor in any other pertinent place. The Department has, albeit erroneously, interpreted its rules as adopting paragraph 517-51(a) of the 1971 National Electric Code. This interpretation is being uniformly applied by the Department, and therefore itself constitutes a rule. The interpretation has not itself been adopted as a rule other than through the provisions of Rule 10D-28.79. The 1971 National Electric Code was not filed with the Office of the Secretary of State when Rule 10D-28.79 was filed, and is not generally available. It has been replaced by subsequent editions of the National Electric Code and is no longer generally available to members of the public at large. The effect of the Department's interpretation of its rules as adopting the standard set out in paragraph 517-51(a) is to require hospitals to install "isolated power sources" in critical care units. The standard by its terms applies to areas of a hospital where electrically susceptible patients are housed. Such patients are housed in operating rooms, rooms where highly flammable anesthetics are used, and in critical care units. Other standards adopted by the Department expressly require installation of isolated power sources in operating rooms and in rooms where flammable anesthetics are used. The fact that these are "wet" areas and areas where flammable materials are kept justifies those requirements. These conditions do not apply to critical care units. The electrically susceptible patients who are housed in critical care units are patients who have catheters inserted into their bodies, and extensions from the catheters protruding outside their bodies. The most common such patient is a patient with a pacemaker attached to his or her heart. With such patients an electrical device outside the body is connected through a catheter into a vein, and eventually to an area close to or actually at the heart. These patients are electrically susceptible because low levels of electrical current that might flow through the catheter could kill the patient. A power source of less than 100 millivolts if attached to the catheter in such a way that current could flow through the catheter could have the effect of fibrillating a patient's heart and killing him. This is much less power than would do any damage to a person under normal conditions, and considerably less voltage than would commonly result from short circuits or other malfunctions in equipment powered by conventionally grounded power sources. The amount of voltage that would be available given a fault or short circuit condition can be reduced through use of isolated power systems. Such a system includes a transformer which provides a demarcation between the incoming or primary power line, which is conventionally grounded, and the outgoing or secondary line. The secondary line is isolated from ground, neither wire being connected to ground. The secondary line runs into circuit breakers then to receptacles about the room. All of this equipment is installed in an electrical box. A monitor or gauge is installed on the face of the box. The monitor visually displays the extent of degradation of the secondary line, i.e. , whether the secondary line has become grounded. By observing the monitor, it is possible to avoid grounding a patient so that electrical currents cannot pass through the patient. The Department maintains that the 1971 Code standard can be met only through installation of isolated power sources. Under some fault circumstances this is correct, and, no other practical technology exists to meet the standard under any fault circumstances. Imposition of the standard set out at paragraph 517-51(a) of the 1971 National Electric Code is arbitrary and unreasonable. In the first place, no known technology can meet the standard. Even an isolated power system will meet the standard only in the case of line-to-ground faults. In cases where ground is lost, the isolated power system will not stay within the standard. The Department's action in requiring hospitals to install line isolation monitors thus meets the standard only under one fault circumstance, and it is not the one that most commonly occurs. Even as to those faults for which the line isolation monitor will accomplish the meeting of the 1971 standard, there is no valid reason for requiring their installation. The goal of protecting an electrically susceptible patient from electrocution can be easily and reliably accomplished by protecting the catheter from contact with electrical power sources. Basically, in order to create an electrical incident, or a shock, one part of a person's body has to touch some metal, another part has to touch some metal, and some current has to flow. This can be broken down into eight steps that would need to occur for a patient to be shocked: First, a power source or power line has to run close to the patient. Second, the line has to be exposed and touch metal. Third, the metal has to become live. Fourth, the metal must become ungrounded. Fifth, the patient has to touch the metal directly or through some conductive path. Sixth, a second conductive surface (more metal) has to be available. Seventh, the patient has to touch it. Eighth, the current has to be at a level that will cause harm. If any of these things does not happen, there will not be a shock. During the 1960's and early 1970's, the fact that very low levels of electrical current could cause fibrillation of the heart was not understood. This fact has been understood now for some time, and hospitals have looked to avoid placing patients in circumstances where the eight steps can occur. Looking at the problem in this manner allows hospitals to focus on what factors can easily be eliminated. Current practice is not to ground things which do not have to be grounded. It had previously been the practice to ground all of the metal around the patient, creating a "bathtub" effect. The line isolation monitor serves to eliminate the eighth of these steps by, in at least one fault circumstance, allowing only very low levels of current to flow. The other steps can be more easily eliminated. One means of accomplishing that is to isolate the power source to the catheter. Thus, battery powered equipment is now typically used, rather than equipment that attaches directly to the main power source. Furthermore, catheters protruding from a patient's body are now insulated, and critical care unit personnel are instructed not to touch them unless they are wearing rubber gloves. The taking of these steps eliminates the possibility for electrocution of an electrically susceptible patient through low voltage currents (microshock). There have been no documented deaths of patients through such microshock anywhere in the world since 1972. Even in that instance, which occurred in the United Kingdom, the accident did not happen in a critical care unit, but rather in an operating unit. The circumstances of the incident were that a hospital had been callously negligent in allowing its equipment to be modified so that inadequate switches were attached to an operating table and open current lines were exposed. Blood from a patient flowed to the open lines, and electrocution resulted. This incident bears no relevance to the instant rule. In the first place, it occurred in an operating room, where isolated power systems are properly required. In the second place, the hospital staff was incredibly negligent about its procedures and equipment. In addition to the fact that isolated power systems no longer accomplish any valid purpose in preventing microshock, there are disadvantages to their use. These disadvantages include: (1) Line isolation monitors limit the amount of power that is available at bedside in critical care units. There is a need for considerable available power at bedside, and line isolation monitors limit available power, and can contribute to power interruptions. (2) A component is added to the power distribution system so that an additional point of failure exists. (3) The isolation system is installed at the head of beds in a critical care unit, thus interfering with the possibility of putting other equipment in that place. (4) Isolated power systems with their transformers and monitors can produce an annoying hum. (5) Isolated power systems give off heat. (6) Line isolation monitors which go with isolated power systems can cause interference with other devices, such as electroencephalograms and electrocardiograms. (7) Several models of isolated power systems, including those required under the 1971 National Electric Code, require special electrical receptacles, thus limiting the use of various appliances in a critical care unit. (8) Personnel have to be trained as to the nuances of isolated power systems, and as to the meaning of readings on the monitor. (9) Isolated power systems can give personnel a false security and cause carelessness in preventing the factors which could cause and electrical current to flow through a catheter. Except for electrically susceptible patients as described herein, there is no reason to require installation of isolated power sources in critical care units. Petitioners have contended that other regulations of the Department which relate to the setting of fire protection standards in hospitals constitute invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority. No evidence was presented as to how these standards specifically affect any of the Petitioners. No evidence was presented to establish that any of the Petitioners are in any way injured or adversely affected by the rules.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was born on March 14, 1960. At the time of this hearing he was 22 years old. Petitioner moved to Florida from Arkansas in March, 1981, and subsequently applied for and was issued a State certificate as a general contractor in February, 1982. While in Arkansas, Petitioner obtained a license as a master electrician (Exhibit 1) and his company, American Enterprise Electric, was licensed as an electrical contractor (Exhibit 2). The electrical contractors' license was obtained without examination, as Petitioner was doing electrical contracting when the Arkansas licensing law was passed in 1979. Petitioner started working for his father, a general contractor in Arkansas, at an early age and was doing electrical work in his early teens. He took over the electrical end of his father's contracts, prepared bids, supervised, and did most of the electrical wiring on several apartment buildings, office buildings, and single family residences through his late teens. In 1978 Petitioner started his own business as an electrical contractor in Arkansas. He subsequently added air conditioning and electronics work. Operating as Allgood Electric, Petitioner did the electrical work on residences, apartment buildings and office buildings in which others were the general contractor. In his application, Exhibit 4, Petitioner dates 3/30/78 as the start of his electrical contracting company. The last job reported on Exhibit 4 is dated 9/1/80, shortly before Petitioner moved to Florida. From 3/7/78 through 9/1/80 Petitioner lists on Exhibit 4 a total electrical contractor dollar value of $60,000 with two of these jobs accounting for $35,000. Petitioner holds no local license as an electrician or electrical contractor. No evidence was presented of the electrical contracting done by his company in Florida, although he testified he has a qualifying agent to allow his company to do electrical contracting.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Kenneth Tuch is liable to Florida Power and Light Company for receipt of unmeasured electric energy and if so, what amount is due?
Findings Of Fact Kenneth Tuch resides alone at 1924 N.E. 25th Street, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. He receives his electric current from Florida Power and Light Company. In June of 1985, an employee of American Cable Company went to Mr. Tuch's home to investigate a complaint about the quality of cable television reception at the Tuch residence. The employee noticed that the air conditioning was on in the Tuch residence while he was investigating the complaint. When following the cable lines outside the home, he noticed the electric meter was not operating. He provided this information to Florida Power and Light which sent two employees to the Tuch residence on June 20, 1985. They found the air conditioning and swimming pool pump were on, but the electric meter disk did not turn. The meter seal was opened and the meter was removed from its socket, and photographed. The photographs demonstrate that the potential clip of the meter was open. The potential clip is used when testing a meter. When it is open no registration of electric current is made. The meter was originally placed at the Tuch residence in 1960. The potential clip could not have been open then, for it never would have registered any electric consumption were that the case. The potential clip would not have fallen into the open position on its own. There was tampering with the potential clip because a screw in the slot in the center of the clip had been tightened to keep the clip in the open position. In addition, the picture of the potential clip and the screws (FP&L Exhibit 5) show wear and tear on the screw. Marks on the area around the screw slot in the center of the potential clip show that the clip has been slid back and forth. These facts prove a deliberate attempt to divert unmeasured electricity. The meter seal consists of a wire bail of a horseshoe shape which fits into a rectangular base body approximately 1 and 1/4 inches by 3/4 inch by 1/8 inch. The seal removed from Tuch's meter bears the inscription on one side "77 FP&LS" and on the other side, the numbers "0379126". The condition of the seal was such that by tugging on the wire bail, it would loosen from the body of the seal, and open, but the bail could be replaced into the seal body giving the impression on casual observation that the seal was intact. While the inscription on the seal indicates that it is a genuine Florida Power and Light seal, it is not in the condition in which seals are originally placed. It is not possible to open the wire bail of a seal and thereby gain access to the meter canopy without tampering with the seal. The billings for consumption of electricity at the Tuch residence show an erratic pattern of monthly electric consumption during the period for which Florida Power and Light has records available, January 1982 through June 1986. For the years 1982 through 1984, Mr. Tuch was billed for an average of 11,022.33 kilowatts per year. On June 20, 1985, the meter at the Tuch residence was replaced with a new meter which was locked in place. Readings were taken from the new meter on June 21, June 27, July 2 and July 9. During those 19 days, 1,063 kilowatts had been consumed for an average use of 55.9 kilowatts per day. This equals 1,677 kilowatts for a 30 day period. An average percentage of use chart was introduced into evidence as the basis for distributing the total yearly kilowatt consumption based upon seasonal variations in consumption. According to the chart 9.8 percent of the total kilowatts used by Florida Power and Light customers in 1985 were consumed in the July billing period. That being so, the total estimated annual usage given a July bill of 1,677 kilowatts would be 17,112 kilowatts. The total additional billing on that basis for 1982, 1983, 1984 and 1985 (through the date of the discovery of the tampering) would be $1,829.57. A potential problem with this methodology for determining annual usage is that it extrapolates a bill for a one year period based on readings taken over only 19 days. As a check on the method Florida Power and Light also placed in evidence the readings for approximately six months actual usage after replacement of the meter which had been tampered with. Mr. Tuch used 7,865 kilowatts during the 172 day period from June 20 through December 31, 1985. This was an average use of 45.72 kilowatts per day. When multiplied by 365 days the estimated yearly usage is 16,690 kilowatts. This results in a billing $17.52 lower than the extrapolation and shows the reasonableness of using the 19 day period to project annual usage. The electric meter removed from Mr. Tuch's residence was tested, but due to its age was then destroyed. Florida Power and Light rendered its additional bill two months later. Mr. Tuch therefore did not have the opportunity to inspect or test the meter. Florida Power and Light tested the meter appropriately before it was destroyed and it was accurately registering current flow when the potential clip was closed. If this case involved questions about the accuracy of the registration on the meter which had been removed, Mr. Tuch's inability to test the meter would have seriously impaired the fairness of this proceeding. The testimony and photographic evidence, which is accepted, is that the potential clip was open, and thus the meter would register no use of current at all. Essentially the meter had been turned on and off. This tampering caused the underregistration, not inaccuracy of the meter's measurement ability. In this case, the inability to test the old meter did not prejudice Mr. Tuch. Florida Power and Light is not entitled to recover $157. 88 in investigative costs. The witness proffered to testify about investigative costs was listed in interrogatories as a witness on matters of corporate policy. See Notice of Serving Answers to Interrogatories filed April 21, 1986. While it may be corporate policy to bill those who divert current for investigative charges, the exhibit purporting to set out the costs incurred in the Tuch investigation was admitted to show the corporate form for recording charges. No evidence of the charges in this specific case was admitted (Transcript 196-97). 1/
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Public Service Commission requiring Kenneth Tuch to pay Florida Power and Light $1,829.57 for current diverted. If such payment is not made, electric service to Mr. Tuch's residence at 1924 N.E. 25th Street, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, should be discontinued. DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of January, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 29th day of January, 1987.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent has correctly billed Petitioner in the amount of $5,070.51 for additional electricity consumed between January of 1983 and September 30, 1986.
Findings Of Fact Respondent's meter #5C50349 was installed at 11145 N.W. 3rd Street, Miami, Florida, in February of 1969. Petitioner connected electrical service at that address on March 18, 1977, when he, his wife, and his daughter moved into a mobile home located at that address. They continued to reside there until approximately January 31, 1987. Petitioner was the customer of record during that time period and benefitted from the use of electricity at that address. On September 30, 1986, Kevin Burke, a meter man employed by Respondent, inspected meter #5C50349 at Petitioner's residence. His physical inspection revealed that there were drag marks on the meter disc and that the disc had been lowered. Drag marks and a lowered disc indicate that energy consumption is not being accurately registered on the meter. In addition, the customer's air conditioner was on, but the disc was not rotating. It was clear to Burke that the customer's meter had been physically altered. He replaced the tampered meter with a new meter on that same date. He carefully positioned the tampered meter in a foam-bottom meter can container and transported it to Respondent's storage room for safekeeping. The physical alterations to the meter were not, and could not have been, caused by improper handling by Burke. On November 18, 1986, Petitioner's tampered meter was tested by Respondent's employee Emory Curry. He performed a physical inspection of the meter which revealed that the inner canopy seal had possibly been glued back together, the bearings had been tampered with, the disc had been lowered, and drag marks appeared on the bottom of the disc. Curry then performed a watt-hour test. The full load portion of the test registered only 41.4%, and the light load registered 0. Each test should have resulted in a reading of 100%, plus or minus 2%. The mathematical weighted average for Petitioner's meter was 33.1%. This means that only 33.1% of the electricity actually used in the Taboada household was being recorded on the meter. In effect, Petitioner was not being charged for 66.9% of the energy being consumed at the household. Respondent verifies the accuracy of its watt-hour test weekly in accordance with industry standards. The watt-hour test has been sanctioned by the Florida Public Service Commission. A veri-board test was also performed on the meter. The results of that test were 20 over 8. This means that Petitioner's meter was only registering 8 kw when 20 kw was placed on the meter. The meter should have registered 20 kw. Using the weighted average registration of 33.1% from the meter test card, Respondent backbilled Petitioner's account for the 66.9% of the energy consumed that the meter was not registering. The as-billed amount was subtracted from the computer-generated rebilled amount to determine the amount to backbill. The rebilled amount was determined by a computer program which takes into account the varying franchise fees, fuel adjustment rates, taxes, and other rates in effect for each month of the rebilled period. Based upon that computer program, Respondent backbilled Petitioner for an additional 61,379 kilowatt hours consumed. Respondent's methodology for calculating rebillings is a reasonable estimate for determining the amount of energy consumed where there has been meter tampering. Petitioner's account was backbilled $5,070.51 from January, 1983, to September 30, 1986, the date on which the new meter was set. The January, 1983, date was selected because Respondent had not retained Petitioner's billing records prior to January, 1983. Since Respondent's investigation did not determine whether Petitioner physically altered the meter or whether it was altered by someone else, Respondent treated Petitioner's account as an inherited diversion. Accordingly, Respondent seeks no relief from Petitioner other than payment for the estimated electrical usage. A comparison of Petitioner's bills after the new meter was set on September 30, 1986, with past bills shows that Petitioner's electric consumption almost doubled. Since electrical usage varies throughout the year, a comparison is done by comparing the same month for consecutive years. For example, January bills are compared to January bills, and February bills are compared to other February bills. A valid comparison cannot be done by comparing November to December and December to January. In response to Petitioner's complaint that his tampered meter had been accurate but the new replacement meter was running fast, Respondent removed the replacement meter, replacing it with yet another. The replacement meter was then tested by Respondent and was determined to be 100% accurate. Although Petitioner had some gas appliances, the electrical appliances which existed in his mobile home were capable of consuming the kilowatt hours per month which were rebilled by Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Respondent has correctly backbilled Petitioner in the amount of $5,070.51 for additional electricity consumed between January of 1983 and September 30, 1986. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of July, 1991, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 22nd day of July, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposals labeled introduction and evidence #3 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposal labeled evidence #1 has been rejected as not being supported by any evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposal labeled evidence #2 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting argument. Petitioner's proposal labeled evidence #4 has been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues herein. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-19 and 22 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 20 and 21 have been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues herein. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 23 and 24 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting conclusions of law or argument of counsel. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Arturo Taboada 981 S.W. 137th Court Miami, Florida 33184 Steve Feldman, Esquire Florida Power & Light Company Post Office Box 029100 Miami, Florida 33102-9100 Robert V. Elias, Esquire Florida Public Service Commission 101 East Gaines Street Fletcher Building - Room 226 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0863
The Issue Whether Respondent violated provision of Chapter 75-489, Laws of Florida, as amended, as more specifically alleged in Counts One through Four of the Administrative Complaint dated August 10, 1992 and the First Amendment of the Administrative Complaint, dated November 9, 1992.
The Issue Whether Respondent unlawfully tampered with the utility meter at his residence in order to avoid payment of utility charges. Whether Respondent damaged his utility meter as a result of the alleged tampering with his utility meter. Whether the actions of Respondent violated the provisions of Sections 943.1395(5),(6), Florida Statutes and Rule 11B- 27.0011(4)(b), Florida Administrative Code by perpetration of an act which would constitute failure to maintain good moral character, as required by Subsection 943.13(7), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent was certified by the Petitioner as a law enforcement officer on August 31, 1971 and was issued certificate number GF-8215. In 1988, Respondent was charged in the County Court of Orange County, Florida with two misdemeanor offenses of willfully altering or tampering with a meter or other apparatus belonging to a utility and theft of utilities, in violation of subsections 812.01(2), Florida Statutes. On April 20, 1988, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the offence of Theft of Utilities. The court withheld adjudication and placed Respondent on unsupervised probation for a term of one year with the condition that he remain at liberty without violating the law and he complete 50 hours of voluntary service. In addition, Respondent paid approximately $6,000 in restitution to OUC. The state announced a nolle prosequi of Count 1 of the Information. Respondent successfully completed his probationary period. On February 25, 1986, Robert Carney, OUC employee, was dispatched to Respondent's residence in response to Respondent's complaint of "flickering lights". He observed the lugs on the meter base of the electric utility meter, located on the outside screened porch, to be burned out. There was no plastic seal on the meter base at the time of his inspection, and the prongs on the meter looked worn but the meter was operating properly. He advised someone at the residence to call an electrician and left new lugs to be installed. No other services were performed at Respondent's home by OUC. On the same date, Respondent hired an electrical contractor who observed that the right hand jaw assembly was burned out. He replaced the entire jaw assembly and reinstalled the meter. On June 11, 1987, after receiving a complaint, Frank J. Scalletta, Investigator, Revenue Protection Unit, OUC, went to 326 Ventura Avenue, Orlando, the residence of Respondent. He observed the meter, OUC #5C14567, in an inverted position, with the padlock open and the seal intact but lying inside. An electrical meter installed upside down will run backwards and reduce the number of kilowatt hours of electricity that is recorded as being fed into a building, resulting in an incorrect reading. On June 11, 1987 electric meter #5C14567 was removed from the meter box at Respondent's residence. It was replaced with a new electrical meter reading zero, which had been tested on May 26, 1987 and shown to be 99.92% accurate. A seal was installed to the base to avoid tampering. Meter #5C14567 had "shiny blades" down to bare copper on all four blades, which is evidence of possible tampering. Test results on meter #5C14567 indicate that it was operating normally when removed from Respondent's home and that the worn prongs resulted from being pulled and inserted into the meter box from between 50 and 100 times. One of the prongs showed signs of heat damage. Respondent's consumption of electricity was monitored from the date of the installation of the replacement meter until the end of 1989. Comparisons of Respondent's consumption level from 1979 to July, 1987 showed a significant increase in Respondent's consumption of electricity after July 13, 1987. This increase in consumption has been maintained through December, 1989. The comparison indicates that for the month of October 1985 there was a negative (or minus) reading on the meter. Respondent lived alone at 326 Ventura Avenue, Orlando, Florida since 1979, except for a teenage son who resided with him for approximately two months during the year. During the period in question (February, 1986-July, 1987), he had done a substantial amount of overtime and worked a second job when no one was at home. During the summer of 1987, Respondent had surgery on a cyst and he used his hot tub extensively to facilitate the healing of his cyst, resulting in increased electrical consumption. Respondent denied tampering with the meter or knowingly receiving electricity without it being reported for payment. Respondent testified that he entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge of theft of utilities because the court proceedings had taken six months up to that time and high media attention gave him great anxiety. In addition, legal fees had mounted to over $12,000 and had nearly depleted his savings. Respondent has been a law enforcement officer for over 25 years and has had no prior disciplinary problems. Respondent served for many years with the Winter Park Police Department, was promoted to the rank of Captain with the Orange County Sheriff's Department, and presently serves as Chief of Police for the City of Eatonville, Florida. Several witnesses testified as to Respondent's good character and reputation for truth and honesty in the law enforcement community and the community at large.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty of the following offense: Failure to maintain good moral character, as required by Subsection 943.13(7), Florida Statutes (1989). It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent's certification be suspended for a period of six months, followed by a probationary period of one year, subject to the successful completion of such career development training and counseling as the Commission may impose. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 4th day of April, 1990. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner: Petitioner waived the filing of proposed findings of fact. Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent: Accepted: unnumbered paragraphs 1,2,3,4 (on page 1) The remainder of Respondent's proposed findings found on page two through four are accepted in part and rejected in part as: fact and argument intermixed; recitation of testimony of the witness; against the greater weight of the evidence; irrelevant evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph S. White, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, FL 32302 Joseph Morrell, Esquire Woolfork, Morrell, and Williams, P.A. Post Office Box 540085 Orlando, FL 32854-0085 Dana Baird General Counsel 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925 Margaret Jones, Clerk Human Relations Commission 325 John Knox Road Building F, Suite 240 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1925
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit on the challenged examination for licensure.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, John R. Maroney, is a candidate for licensure as an electrical contractor low voltage applicant. He sat for examination in January 1999. His candidate number is 240024. Respondent, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Electrical Contractors, is the state agency charged with the responsibility of licensing applicants such as Petitioner. On the examination challenged, Petitioner received a score of 73.00, which was designated a failed status. In order to achieve a pass status Petitioner was required to obtain a score of 75.00. Petitioner timely challenged the results of two questions on the January 1999 examination. First, as to question 49, Petitioner maintained that his answer was reasonable as none of the answers given were correct. Question 49 required applicants to perform a mathematical computation and to select the best answer from those offered. The answer selected by Petitioner was $6.59 from the correct answer. The answer, the one that was given credit, was $4.77 or $1.47 from the correct answer, depending on whether the individual was paid for over-time at a higher rate. In either case the Department’s "correct" answer while not being mathematically accurate was the closer answer to a properly computed answer. The instructions on the examination directed applicants to choose the best answer to each question posed. Thus, while not mathematically accurate, Respondent’s answer to question 49 was the best from those offered. Choosing the best answer was also the issue in question 84 as none of the answers given on the examination accurately describes the cause of the problem. In making his selection, Petitioner admitted he had guessed, as he could not determine how any of the provided answers could decipher the problem he was to solve. Petitioner’s argument in this regard is well made since none of the answers given are attributable to the conditions described. Nevertheless, by process of elimination, an applicant could rule out the options offered by recognizing that two choices related to relay 1 could not contribute to the problem described. As Petitioner selected one of these clearly erroneous options, he cannot be given credit for the choice. As to the two remaining options, while inaccurate, the option that received credit was more likely related to the problem as the stop switch (stop 3) being faulty could cause the described problem if the circuit were to continue to be closed. Petitioner’s answer that described the problem on a relay unrelated to stop 3 would not be the best answer.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Electrical Contractors’ Licensing Board, enter a final order dismissing Petitioner’s challenge to the examination for licensure. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. 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 15th day of December, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Lynne A. Quimby-Pennock Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 John R. Maroney 9641 Northwest 39th Court Cooper City, Florida 33024 Ila Jones, Executive Director Board of Electrical Contractors Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 William Woodyard, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact The findings of fact set out in paragraph 1 of the Recommended Order are based upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1 and FPC exhibits 6, 7, and 8. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 2 are based upon a stipulation of the parties which is recorded in the transcript of the formal hearing, Volume III, pp. 181-182. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 3 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Schaefer and Guillet; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1 and FPC exhibits 1 through 8, and 69. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 4 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Greene, Schaefer, and Conner; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1, and FPC exhibits 1, 5, 14, 47, and 48. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 5 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Greene and Conner; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1, and FPC exhibits 1, 5, 47, 48, and 49. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 6 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Schaefer, Greene, Conner, and Voigts; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1 and FPC exhibits 1, 5, 12, 35 through 45, 59, and 61. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 7 are based upon the testimony of the witness Conner; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1, and FPC exhibits 14,35, and 39 through 43. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 8 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Schaefer, Greene, Marin, Voigts, Guillet, Harp, Lokey, Gilmartin, and Watson; upon the testimony of public witnesses Wagoner, Velden, and Dykes; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1 and FPC exhibits 1, 5, 14, 16, 22, 27, 28, 32 through 34, 39 through 43, 45, 46, 52, 61, and Public exhibit 1. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 9 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Schaefer, Greene, Marin, Voigts, Guillet, Harp, Lokey, Gilmartin, and Watson; upon the testimony of public witnesses Wagoner, Velden, and Dykes; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1 and FPC exhibits 1, 5, 14, 16, 22, 27, 28, 32 through 34, 39 through 43, 45, 46, 52, 61, and Public exhibit 1. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 10 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Marin, Brown, Guillet, Lokey, Gilmartin and Watson; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1 and FPC exhibit 16. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 11 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Brown, Cartensen, and Miller; and upon FPC exhibits 49, 50, 51, and 65. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 12 are based upon the testimony of the witness Brown. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 13 are based upon the testimony of the witnesses Brown and Harp; and upon FPC exhibit 52. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 14 are based upon the testimony of the witness Conner. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 15 are based upon the testimony of the witness Miller; and upon FPC exhibits 51 and 65. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 16 are based upon the testimony of the witness Schaefer; and upon FPC exhibits 9, 10, 11, and 69. The findings of fact set out in paragraph 17 are based upon the testimony of the witness Koszulinski and Guillet; and upon Hearing Officer's exhibit 1, and FPC exhibits 70 through 73. ENTERED THIS 2nd day of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. G. STEVEN PFEIFFER Assistant Director 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 2nd day of June, 1982.
Findings Of Fact On September 12, 1995, Petitioner became a Florida Power customer. He received electricity service in his name at an apartment located at 2950 N. Pinehill Road #31, Orlando, Florida. From September 1994, through December, 1994, Petitioner occupied the apartment at 2950 N. Pinehill Road #31, Orlando, Florida. Petitioner's meter indicated he used 827 Kwh from September 12, 1994, through October 4, 1994. Petitioner's meter indicated he used 1525 Kwh from October 4, 1994, through November 2, 1994. Petitioner's meter indicated he used 1548 Kwh from November 2, 1994, through December 5, 1994. Petitioner's final bill was for December 5, 1994, through December 28, 1994. The meter indicated he used 221 Kwh for this final period. Respondent's tariff sheet 8.05 filed with the Commission sets forth the length of time within which Respondent must disconnect a customer's service after receiving a disconnect order. Respondent must disconnect service within 3 days of receiving the disconnect order. On December 26, 1994, Petitioner requested that his service be disconnected on December 27, 1994. Respondent disconnected Petitioner's service on December 28, 1994. On January 12, 1995, Petitioner's meter was tested in St. Petersburg, Florida. Petitioner's meter registered 99.96 percent accuracy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a Final Order finding that Respondent acted in compliance with applicable law and did not overbill Petitioner. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of January, 1995. DANIEL S. MANRY, 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 2nd day of January, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Rodney Gaddy, Esquire Florida Power Corporation 3201 34th Street, South St. Petersburg, Florida 33711-3828 Thomas Fuller Post Office Box 617217 Orlando, Florida 32861 Robert D. Vandiver, General Counsel Florida Public Service Commission Gerald L. Gunter Building 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 Noreen S. Davis, Director Division of Legal Services Florida Public Service Commission Gerald L. Gunter Building 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850
