The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations set forth in the Administrative Complaint, as amended and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the operation of the pest control industry pursuant to Section 482.032, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this case, Clinton Killingsworth was the owner and Certified Operator in Charge (COIC) of Environmental Security of Okaloosa, Inc., a licensed pest control company in Cantonment, Florida. Counts 4 and 6 2. Counts 4 and 6 of the Administrative Complaint allege as follows: Count 4 During an inspection on July 11, 2003, the Department found that Environmental Security of Okaloosa operated an unlicensed business location at 9100 Hamman Avenue, Pensacola, at which sales solicitations were made and remuneration received. This is a violation of Chapters 482.071(1) and (2), Florida Statutes. Count 6 During an inspection on July 11, 2003 the Department found that Environmental Security of Okaloosa phone numbers terminated in an unlicensed location as 9100 Hamman Avenue. This is a violation of Chapter 5E-14.142(3)(b). Environmental Security of Okaloosa, Inc., d/b/a Environmental Security, is physically located at 4141 Pine Forest Road in Cantonment, Florida, and is listed at this address on its application for business license filed with the Department. Cantonment is located in Escambia County near Pensacola, Florida. Two other pest control companies, Killingsworth Environmental, Inc., and Atlas Termite and Pest Control of Cantonment, Inc., are located at the same address. On July 11, 2003, the Department conducted an inspection of a company called Home Services Marketing and Management, LLC, (hereinafter Home Services) which is located at 9100 Hamman Avenue in Pensacola. Clifford Killingsworth and Clinton Killingsworth2/ are the managers of Home Services. On March 26, 2002, entered into a Management and Marketing Agreement with Home Services, executed by Clinton Killingsworth on behalf of Environmental Security of Okaloosa and by Clifford Killingsworth on behalf of Home Services. Since that agreement was signed, the telephone number for Environmental Security of Okaloosa listed in the local telephone directory terminated at Home Services. Home Services also answers calls for Killingsworth Environmental, Inc. and Atlas Exterminating. Home Services employees do not make "cold calls" to new customers. They receive calls from existing customers. They contact customers with active accounts to set up renewals. They also contact homeowners whose homes were treated during construction and whose initial accounts were with the builder of the home. If a new customer calls, a Home Services employee answers the call, gets the contact information from the potential new client, and then calls the appropriate technician who would then call or visit the potential customer. The appropriate technician is generally determined by the geographic location of the caller. While a Home Services employee might send a preprinted contract to the technician to take to the job site or mail a contract to a customer, Home Services does not enter into any contract to perform pest control services. No pest control trucks or chemicals are stored at Home Services. Home Services also has a payment processing component. Home Services sends bills to pest control customers which instruct customers to make out the check to the appropriate pest control company, not to Home Services. Payments from customers for pest control services are deposited into the account of the appropriate pest control company. No evidence was presented that 9100 Hamman Avenue is an advertised permanent location of Environmental Security of Okaloosa from which business was solicited, accepted, or conducted. After the July 11, 2003, inspection of Home Services, Clinton Killingsworth took steps to get Home Services licensed as a pest control company. Mr. Killingsworth did this because it was his understanding that the Department took the position that Home Services was in the business of practicing pest control services. He employed his brother, Daniel Killingsworth, to be the required licensed person in charge, and contacted several insurance companies to obtain the required insurance. He had difficulty obtaining the required insurance since Home Services does not offer pest control services. Despite these difficulties, Home Services was issued a license in December 2003. Count 5 Count 5 of the Administrative Complaint, as amended, reads as follows: During an inspection on July 16, 2003, the Department found that Environmental Security of Okaloosa, Incorporated stored pesticides at an unlicensed business location at 1830 Galvez Road, Gulf Breeze, Florida, which is a violation of Chapter 5E-14.142(5)(f) and (g), Florida Administrative Code. That in addition, the Respondent, Environmental Security of Okaloosa, Inc., regularly parked trucks containing pesticide at that location during nighttime hours, published in the 2002-2003 Bell South Telephone Directory under Pest Control Services in the yellow pages of the telephone directory, a listing for "Environmental Security", a name under which it did business, and its employees received by facsimile daily work assignments that were sent to them at that location. That the Respondent, Environmental Security of Okaloosa, Inc operated an unlicensed business location at 1830 Galvez Road, Gulf Breeze, Florida, in violation of Section 482.071(2)(a), Florida Statutes.[3/] The property located at 1830 Galvez Drive is surrounded by a fence and contains a structure. The structure is not enclosed. Both Environmental Security of Okaloosa and Killingsworth Environmental park trucks there overnight. They entered the property when the pest control employees arrived. The Department conducted an inspection of 1830 Galvez Drive on July 16, 2003. The gate to the property was locked and the trucks were locked. On the day of the inspection, the Department's inspectors found unmixed chemicals in the trucks. Clinton Killingsworth acknowledges that at the time of the inspection, company trucks parked at the Galvez Drive location overnight and pesticides were in the locked trucks. Company records or contracts are not stored at the Galvez Drive location. No customer contact takes place at or from the Galvez Drive location. The Pest Control Business License Application Form contains a space in which the licensee must respond to the following: "Designate location where pest control records and contracts will be kept and the exact location address for storage of chemicals if other than licenses business location." The applications for business license for Environmental Security of Okaloosa do not reference 1830 Galvez Road as a location where storage of chemicals occurs. Environmental Security of Okaloosa does not have a license for operating a business at this location. The yellow pages for the Pensacola area contains a listing in red ink for "Environmental Security, Inc." It lists an address of 4141 Pine Forest Road with the telephone number 473-1060. There is another reference to "Environmental Security" in black ink in smaller type which lists the address 1830 Galvez Drive with the number 916-7731.4/ Clinton Killingsworth brother, Clifford Killingsworth, arranged to have a phone line for a fax machine to be located in a trailer at the Galvez Drive location. The purpose of installing a fax line at Galvez Drive was for employees to receive daily schedule assignments. The 916-7731 number listed in the yellow pages is the number of the fax machine. Clinton Killingsworth did not request a listing for the number of the fax machine. However, the telephone company listed it in the phone book. Clinton Killingsworth has requested the local telephone company to remove the erroneous listing a number of times.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered assessing a fine against Respondent Environmental Security of Okaloosa, Inc., in the amount of $2,600.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of May, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of May, 2005.
The Issue Whether Respondents Lee Ann Kennedy ("Kennedy") and Kenco Industries, L.L.C. ("Kenco"), engaged in various activities constituting pest control under chapter 482 without having obtained the required licenses from Petitioner Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, in violation of sections 482.161(1)(j), 482.165(1), and 465.191(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is the state agency charged with administering the Structural Pest Control Act, chapter 482. Respondent Kennedy is a resident of Wellington, Florida. Respondent Kenco Industries, L.L.C., is a registered Florida Limited Liability Company. Kennedy is the manager and sole member of, and the registered agent for, Kenco. Pest Control Regulation under Chapter 482, Florida Statutes Chapter 482 authorizes Petitioner to regulate activities constituting "pest control" and to impose sanctions for violations of that chapter. "Pest control" is broadly defined in section 483.021(22) as: The use of any method or device or the application of any substance to prevent, destroy, repel, mitigate, curb, control, or eradicate any pest in, on, or under a structure, lawn, or ornamental; The identification of or inspection for infestations or infections in, on, or under a structure, lawn, or ornamental; The use of any pesticide, economic poison, or mechanical device for preventing, controlling, eradicating, identifying, inspecting for, mitigating, diminishing, or curtailing insects, vermin, rodents, pest birds, bats, or other pests in, on, or under a structure, lawn, or ornamental; All phases of fumigation, including: The treatment of products by vault fumigation; and The fumigation of boxcars, trucks, ships, airplanes, docks, warehouses, and common carriers; and The advertisement of, the solicitation of, or the acceptance of remuneration for any work described in this subsection, but does not include the solicitation of a bid from a licensee to be incorporated in an overall bid by an unlicensed primary contractor to supply services to another. Petitioner is authorized to issue licenses to qualified businesses to engage in the business of pest control in this state. § 482.165(1), Fla. Stat. It is unlawful for any person, partnership, firm, corporation, or other business entity to engage in the unlicensed practice of pest control as that term is defined in section 482.021(22). Id. Section 482.191(1) makes unlawful the advertisement of pest control services except as authorized under chapter 482. Absent limited circumstances not applicable here, persons or entities engaging in such advertisement must be licensed by Petitioner to practice pest control. Petitioner also is authorized to fine persons who impersonate an employee of Petitioner. § 482.161(1)(j), Fla. Stat. Respondents' Acts Alleged to Violate Chapter 482 Respondent Kennedy did not hold a pest control business license or other license to practice pest control at any time relevant to this proceeding.2/ Respondent Kenco also did not hold a pest control business license or other license to practice pest control at any time relevant to this proceeding. On or about April 1, 2011, Kennedy entered Saigon Oriental Market in Lake Park, Florida. According to its owner, Hung The Thach, Kennedy walked around the store inspecting it, then told him that she was employed by Petitioner, that some of his produce was infested by insects, and that he would have to have pest control services performed or she would return in a week to conduct another compliance inspection. Kennedy gave Mr. Thach the telephone number for Outside In, a pest control company, and the business card of its owner, Dennis O'Rourke. Concerned that Kennedy would shut down his store or fine him, Mr. Thach called Outside In; the following day, an employee of that company performed pest control services at the store. Outside In performed additional pest control services at the store on or around May 26, 2011. Mr. Thach paid Outside In for these services. In mid-May 2011, Kennedy inspected Fajita's Super Market in Lake Worth, Florida, and told its owner, Ali Jaber, that she was employed by Petitioner as an inspector, and that he had a fly problem in his store. She recommended that he contact Outside In to correct the problem. Mr. Jaber told her he used another pest control company, but thereafter, a representative from Outside In visited the store, left a business card with Mr. Jaber, and offered to provide pest control services for the store for $150.00 per month with no contract. Kennedy returned to the store approximately a week later and wanted to know why nothing had been done to correct the fly problem; she also asked an employee of Fajita's who was going to pay for her time to inspect the store; when she was referred to Mr. Jaber, she left the store and did not return. On or around May 24, 2011, Kennedy entered the Fortune Cookie oriental supermarket in West Palm Beach, Florida, and told its president, David Chang, that she was with an inspector with Petitioner. She inspected the store, told him that there was a fly problem, and stated she would return in two weeks. Mr. Chang testified that Kennedy did not provide him the name of any pest control businesses, but that approximately a week before Kennedy inspected the store, a representative of Outside In had come to the store and tried to sell him pest control services, but that he had declined to purchase the services at that time. Dennis O'Rourke, President of Outside In, testified that Kennedy was not on his company's payroll, but that she had solicited pest control business for his company for approximately four months prior to September 2011. She successfully solicited four accounts and he paid her 30% of the profits made on those accounts. At the time she solicited the accounts, she did not possess a valid identification card to perform pest control services on behalf of Outside In.3/ Mr. O'Rourke subsequently obtained a valid identification card for Kennedy so that she could perform pest control, including business solicitation, for his company. Petitioner initiated an investigation of Kennedy in June 2011, after being notified by several small food markets in Palm Beach County that she was holding herself out as a food inspector with Petitioner, inspecting the stores, notifying the store operators that there was a pest problem, and recommending that Outside In be contacted to correct the problem. In the course of the investigation, on September 7, 2011, John Berquist, an inspector with Petitioner's Bureau of Entomology and Pest Control, took photographs of Kennedy's motor vehicle4/ bearing magnetic signs on the front passenger and driver side doors labeled "Kenco Industries," which depicted a photograph of Kennedy and advertised the provision of pest control services. Berquist checked Petitioner's pest control licensing records and determined that Petitioner had not issued a pest control business license or other pest control license to Kennedy or to Kenco. At the hearing, Kennedy acknowledged that she conducted food store inspections, pointed out pest problems to store operators, and recommended that they contact Outside In for pest control service. However, she denied holding herself out as an employee of Petitioner. She testified that she is certified in food safety by the Department of Health and that if she observed a pest problem while shopping, she would show her food safety certification card to the store operator and point out the problem. She claimed she did this because she is Vietnamese, so often shops at Asian food markets and wants the stores where she purchases her family's food to be pest-free. She also claimed that she only wanted the stores "to get what they needed" in the way of pest control service and that it did not matter whether she was compensated for soliciting business for Outside In. However, she acknowledged that she had been compensated by Outside In for the pest control business she had successfully solicited on their behalf. Kennedy testified that she did not intend to do anything that was against the law, and was not aware that she was engaging in conduct that violated the law. The evidence established that neither Kennedy nor Kenco previously violated chapter 482 or Petitioner's rules. Ultimate Findings of Fact Regarding Alleged Violations Based on the foregoing, Petitioner established, by clear and convincing evidence, that Kennedy impersonated an employee of Petitioner, as alleged in Count 1 of the Amended Administrative Complaint, in violation of section 482.161(1)(j). Kennedy's testimony that she did not hold herself out as an employee of Petitioner was contradicted by all other witnesses and was not credible. Petitioner also established, by clear and convincing evidence, that Kennedy and Kenco advertised pest control services without obtaining a pest control business license in violation of sections 482.165(1) and 482.191(1). There was no dispute that Kennedy advertised the provision of pest control services by herself and by Kenco by placing signs on her vehicle depicting her image and Kenco's business name. Further, Kennedy is Kenco's manager, sole member, and agent, so her actions in advertising the provision of pest control services by Kenco are imputed to Kenco.5/ Petitioner also proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Kennedy solicited pest control business for Outside In for compensation, in violation of sections 482.165(1) and 482.191(1). Kennedy's testimony that she was motivated by altruism and personal interest in food safety at markets where she shopped, rather than by being compensated for soliciting business for Outside In, was not credible. The undisputed evidence establishes that she was compensated by Outside In for soliciting pest control business on its behalf. However, Petitioner did not establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that Kenco solicited business on behalf of Outside In. The evidence does not show that Kennedy represented to the food store operators that she was acting on behalf of Kenco when she solicited business for Outside In. To the contrary, the evidence established that Kennedy represented that she was an inspector employed by Petitioner. Accordingly, it is determined that Kenco did not solicit pest control business for Outside In, in violation of sections 482.165(1) and 482.191(1). As further addressed below, Petitioner's Enforcement and Penalties rule, Florida Administrative Code Rule 5E-14.149, makes the deliberate commission of an act that constitutes a violation of chapter 482 an aggravating factor in determining the applicable fine. Here, the evidence shows that Kennedy intentionally misrepresented that she was employed by Petitioner specifically to solicit and induce food store operators to purchase pest control services for which she would be compensated. Accordingly, it is determined that Kennedy acted deliberately in impersonating an employee of Petitioner and in soliciting business on behalf of Outside In for compensation. Furthermore, the evidence shows that Kennedy——and by operation of the law of agency, Kenco——deliberately engaged in advertising the provision of pest control services without having obtained the required license.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services impose a fine of $2,600.00 on Respondent Lee Ann Kennedy, and impose a fine of $1,000.00 on Respondent Kenco Industries, L.L.C. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of June, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 27th day of June, 2012.
Findings Of Fact On September 25, 1989, Fredrick Hassut, Jr., an entomologist-inspector in the Department's Winter Park office, received a telephone call from Mary Ellen Jenkins complaining about fumigation services which had been rendered by Petitioner. In response to that telephone call, Hassut forwarded to her the Department's official form for complaints against pest control companies. Hassut received Jenkins' completed form, together with her five-page handwritten letter of complaint, on October 6, 1989. On October 9, 1989, Hassut sent to Petitioner the Department's official form for pest control companies to use in responding to consumer complaints made against them. Hassut received Petitioner's completed form on October 16, 1989. Between September 27, 1989, and November 13, 1989, when Hassut completed his investigation, he had numerous telephone conversations with Petitioner concerning Jenkins' allegations, had visited the Jenkins' residence, and had reviewed the contract entered into between Mike and Susan Gillen and Petitioner for tent fumigation of the subject residence. By the conclusion of his investigation, Hassut knew the following facts. Petitioner had been contacted by a real estate brokerage company to do an inspection for termites and wood destroying organisms at a residence, attendant to a contract for the purchase and sale of that residence. The residence was owned by Mike and Susan Gillen. Petitioner's employee performed the inspection, located drywood termites, and recommended tent fumigation for eradication. On June 9, 1989, a contract was entered into between Petitioner and Mike and Susan Gillen for fumigation services, and the contract established July 7, 1989, as the date on which such services would be performed. Although the contract called for cash upon completion of service, subsequent arrangements had been made, and Petitioner had agreed that he would be paid for the fumigation services from monies to be escrowed at the closing, a routine business arrangement in the industry. A fumigation crew went to the residence on July 7 as agreed by contract, but the services were postponed to Friday, September 8, 1989. On Saturday, September 9, the residence was tented, and a certified operator employed by Petitioner injected Vikane, the fumigant specified in the contract. On Sunday, the tarps were removed, and Petitioner "cleared" the residence, using an Interscan to test for the presence of Vikane. One of the complaints made by Jenkins and by her husband who works in the pest control industry and had done so for the previous six years was that Petitioner had failed to furnish them with a printed list of items to be removed from the structure, prior to fumigation. Mrs. Jenkins told Hassut that she was the new owner of the residence which she had purchased from Mike and Susan Gillen, that the closing on the sale had taken place on July 5, and that the Jenkins had moved into the structure prior to the structure being treated for termites. Mrs. Jenkins never represented to Hassut that she had advised Petitioner, prior to fumigation, that the ownership of the property had changed. Petitioner advised Hassut that he had never heard of Mrs. Jenkins or her husband until the day after the fumigation services were completed when Mr. Jenkins called to complain about the services. Petitioner advised Hassut that he did not know that a closing had in fact taken place and that a new owner was occupying the structure when the fumigation services were performed. Petitioner believed at all times through the completion of the fumigation work that he was dealing with the Gillens. Petitioner advised Hassut that Mike Gillen had been given a Customer Duty List, which included the written list of items to be removed from the structure, on June 9, 1989, when Mike Gillen signed the contract with Petitioner for fumigation services, and that Gillen had signed a copy of that list to show that it had been provided to him. Petitioner had assumed the closing had been postponed because the fumigation services were postponed, and termite treatment is normally a condition precedent to a closing. Had Petitioner known that there was a new owner of the structure, he would have obtained a contract from the new owner prior to the rendering of services rather than performing services for someone with whom he did not have a contract. At the time, Hassut believed that a pest control operator is under no legal duty to verify that the owner of a structure for which there is a contract for fumigation services is still the owner at the time that the services are performed. Hassut further believed that if Petitioner did not know that the Gillens had completed the sale of their home to Mrs. Jenkins and if Petitioner had given the required printed list of items to be removed to the Gillens, then Petitioner would have complied with the regulations requiring provision of that printed list. Hassut made no attempt to contact either Mike or Susan Gillen to ascertain if they had advised Petitioner that the ownership of the house had changed or to ascertain if they had been provided the required printed list, as Petitioner contended. Further, he made no attempt to contact the real estate agent or the title company involved in the closing to ascertain if they had advised Petitioner that ownership of the property had changed. Hassut specifically determined that Petitioner was not negligent in the performance of fumigation services at the Jenkins residence. When Hassut completed his consumer investigation, he prepared his Notice of Recommended Enforcement Action containing his conclusions as to violations he found during his investigation. He forwarded that document to the Department's Jacksonville office, specifically to James Bond, the enforcement coordinator, for final decision as to whether Petitioner would be charged with violating any of the statutes and rules regulating the pest control business. Hassut recommended that Petitioner be charged with two violations only. Section 482.226(6), Florida Statutes, requires that a Notice of Treatment be posted at premises where fumigation services have been performed and that the location of that Notice be notated on the service contract. Since Hassut was unable to locate the Notice of Treatment, he recommended that Petitioner be charged with violating Section 482.226(6). He also recommended that Petitioner be charged with violating Section 10D-55.110(3), Florida Administrative Code, for failing to furnish to the property owner or agent a printed list of items to be removed prior to fumigation. James Bond reviewed Hassut's investigative report and recommendations, and then forwarded that report together with Bond's own recommendation to Philip R. Helseth, Jr., pest control administrator, who made the decision that an administrative complaint should be filed against Petitioner. Part of the reason that Helseth determined to take action against Petitioner was the fact that on one occasion during Petitioner's ten and one-half years in business, Petitioner had received a warning letter from the Department. Before the Administrative Complaint was prepared and served on Petitioner, no one referred the investigation back to Hassut with instructions that he further investigate by interviewing the Gillens. Further, no one in the Jacksonville office consulted Hassut regarding the numerous violations which were included in the Administrative Complaint to determine if Hassut agreed that his investigation had revealed facts supporting the expanded list of violations. The Administrative Complaint prepared by the Department and served on Petitioner charged Petitioner with violating three statutory provisions and four of the Department's regulations. Interestingly, the one statutory violation which appeared in Hassut's recommendation--failure to post a Notice of Treatment and notate its location on the contract--was not one of the charges included in the Administrative Complaint. The Administrative Complaint charged Petitioner with having violated Sections 482.161(1)(a), 482.161(1)(e), and 482.161(1)(f), Florida Statutes, and Sections 10D-55.105(2), 10D-55.106(1), 10D-55.108(3)(c), and 10D-55.110(3), Florida Administrative Code. After service of the Administrative Complaint on him, Petitioner timely requested a formal hearing regarding the allegations contained within that Administrative Complaint. The matter was subsequently transferred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the conduct of that formal proceeding and was assigned DOAH Case No. 90-0944. The final hearing was conducted on September 27, 1990, in Stuart, Florida. At the commencement of the final hearing, the Department dismissed several of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against Petitioner. The Department announced on the record that the only statutes and rules Petitioner was still alleged to have violated were Sections 482.161(1)(a) (violating the Department's statutes or rules), 482.161(1)(f) (performing pest control in a negligent manner), Section 10D-55.108(3)(c) (using an improper fumigant and/or using a proper fumigant improperly), and Section 10D-55.110(3) (failing to furnish the property owner or agent a printed list of items to be removed from the structure prior to fumigation). The Recommended Order entered after the conclusion of the final hearing found that the Department offered no evidence that Petitioner used an improper fumigant or used the fumigant improperly; that the evidence was uncontroverted that Petitioner supplied Gillen, the property owner, with a Customer Duty List, the accepted common name of the fumigant to be used, notification of which materials may be contaminated or damaged by the fumigant, as well as other precautions to be taken by the property holder; that the Department offered no evidence that Petitioner was guilty of performing pest control in a negligent manner; and that Petitioner had not violated any of the Department's statutes or rules with which he was charged. That Recommended Order, entered on January 7, 1991, recommended that a final order be entered finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint and dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against him. On February 15, 1991, the Department entered its Final Order adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Recommended Order, finding Petitioner not guilty of the violations with which he was charged, and dismissing the Administrative Complaint. The Department had no reasonable basis in law and fact at the time that it issued its Administrative Complaint against Petitioner. Petitioner expended the sum of $6,923.50 in attorney's fees and $698.30 in costs, for a total of $7,621.80, in successfully defending himself and his company in the administrative action resulting from the Department's Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is and at all material times has been a certified pest control operator in the category of fumigation. He works for Thumb Pest Control, Inc. He was the supervisor present when the company performed the tent fumigation of a residential structure located at 11 West Muriel Street, Orlando, Florida, on May 29, 1987. On May 28, 1987, Respondent gave Petitioner and the Orlando Fire Department written notice of the details of the job, including his night telephone number. The night number was for Respondent's home telephone. Respondent lived in Tampa. His telephone number was in the "813" area code, not the "305" area code of Orlando. The notice did not disclose Respondent's area code. However, the form bore the address of Thumb Pest Control, Inc., which was in Tampa. It was Respondent's understanding-- uncontradicted by Petitioner-- that he was required by law to give this notice only to Respondent; he gave the notice to the Orlando Fire Department as an added precaution. Respondent and Tim Lightner, a certified operator and the Orlando branch manager of Thumb Pest Control Inc., testified that the tent did not have tears when they released the fumigant at around 3:00 p.m. on May 29, 1987. Their testimony is credible and unrebutted. The fumigant that they used was methyl bromide. The fumigant also included chloropicrin, which is a warning odorant accompanying the odorless methyl bromide. The commercial formulation of the fumigant in this case was Brom-O-Gas. This is a highly toxic gas which causes nausea, convulsions, and death to humans exposed to it. The manufacturer states in a booklet accompanying Brom-O-Gas that "two persons trained in the use of this product must be present at all times when worker exposure exceeds 5 PPM. . . ." Petitioner's Exhibit Number 4, page 1. In another document, entitled "Structural Fumigant: A guide for fumigating effectively with Bromo-O-Gas," the manufacturer emphasizes, as the title suggests, methods designed to increase the killing efficiency of the pesticide. The manufacturer suggests frequent monitoring during fumigation when persons are occupying an adjacent building sharing a common wall with the building being fumigated. Petitioner's Exhibit Number 5, page 2. By negative implication, the manufacturer does not suggest monitoring when persons occupy buildings that are nearby but not sharing a common wall. At around 8:30 p.m., the Orlando Fire Department received a telephone call from a neighbor living nearby the tented house. She reported that fumigant was escaping from the tent. Members of the Orlando Fire Department responded to the call and found that the tent had approximately ten tears in it with some as much as one foot long. It took six firemen about two hours to repair the tears with duct tape. Prior to making the repairs, the firemen contacted their dispatcher and directed him to try to reach a representative of Thumb Pest Control, Inc. There was no admissible evidence concerning precisely how the dispatcher or dispatchers, who did not testify, tried to reach Respondent or other representatives of Thumb Pest Control, Inc. In any event, the Orlando Fire Department was unable to reach anyone with Thumb Pest Control, Inc. that evening. Respondent testified that he, his wife, and one-year old child were home all evening on May 29, 1987, and that he received no calls. He also testified that he uses a telephone answering machine when away from home and, even though he was home all night, he had no messages from that evening. There does appear to have been some confusion concerning area codes. There also was no positive testimony that anyone tried to telephone the night number of Respondent, as shown on the fumigation notice that he had delivered the prior day, together with the "813" area code.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Philip G. Nicholson, does business as Allstate Termite Control. The Respondent holds a pest control identification card issued by the Office of Entomology of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. On or about September 23, 1977, the Respondent entered into a subterranean termite control contract and service agreement with Roland E. Cooley and Alma P. Cooley with respect to the Cooleys' residence in Lake Worth, Florida. The chemical specified for use on the contract was chlordane. On or about that same date, the Respondent entered into a contract with Roland E. Cooley and Alma P. Cooley to perform a dry wood termite attic prevention treatment on the Cooley's residence. The chemical specified in the dry wood contract was "dri die". Only hearsay testimony was offered to establish what, if any, representations the Respondent made to the Cooleys to induce them to enter into the contracts. The work performed by the Respondent on the Cooleys' residence was not sufficient to provide the protection specified in the contracts, and in the case of the dry wood treatment, was unnecessary. The Cooleys' residence is constructed on a concrete slab. With such structures, the chlordane label, which governs use of the chemical, requires that all voids in hollow masonry units of the foundation be treated at the rate of at least one gallon per five linear feet of wall. It is thus necessary to drill each masonry block so that the chemical can be injected into it. Hollow masonry blocks were used in constructing the foundation of the Cooley house. Only one drill hole was made on the north side of the house into the masonry blocks, and none were made on the south side. If each of the masonry units had been treated as required, drill holes would have been placed at every eighteen inches along the foundation. This was not done, and the treatment for subterranean termite control was thus not in accordance with the label on the chemical, and was substandard. The treatment was inadequate to provide the Cooleys with the protection provided in the subterranean termite control contract. As to the dri die treatment at the Cooley house, the sort of treatment specified would not give the Cooleys any significant termite protection, since it would only protect them from dry wood termites in their attic. It is not a sort of treatment that is ordinarily performed. In order to be performed effectively, however, the dri die must be applied in accordance with the label which gives directions for its use. It is required that all wood surfaces be covered with the chemical at a recommended rate of one pound per one thousand square feet of area. At the Cooley residence, dri die was placed in the area, however, it was placed in a small pile in one part of the attic. It was not evenly spread, all wood surfaces were not covered, and insufficient chemical was utilized. The treatment specified would have provided the Cooleys only with dry wood termite prevention in the one part of the attic where the chemical was piled. The treatment was not in accordance with the label instructions, and was substandard. On or about September 27, 1977, the Respondent entered into a subterranean termite control contract and service agreement with Mr. and Mrs. Walter J. Delaney, for their residence in Lake Worth, Florida. The type of chemical specified for use in the contract was chlordane. The contract sets out the street address and zip code of the Delaneys' residence, but does not state the city. The address set out on the contract is sufficient to establish the location of the Delaneys' residence. Only hearsay evidence was offered at the final hearing to indicate what, if any, representations the Respondent made to the Delaneys in order to induce them to enter into the contract. The work performed by the Respondent on the Delaney home was insufficient to comport with the label instructions for application of chlordane, was substandard, and did not provide the Delaneys with the protection specified in the contract. The Delaneys' home is of concrete slab on-ground construction. The foundation is constructed of hollow masonry units. The voids in the hollow masonry units were not each treated as required on the chlordane label. Only one drill hole was made on the south side of the house and none were made on the north side. Several drill holes were made on the other sides of the house, however, four of them were fake, in other words they did not go all the way through the slab. On or about September 28, 1977, the Respondent entered into a subterranean termite control contract and service agreement with Mrs. Ann Sahlem, for her residence in West Palm Beach, Florida. The chemical specified for use in the contract was chlordane. Only hearsay evidence was offered to establish what representations, if any, were made by the Respondent to induce Mrs. Sahlem to enter into the contract. The work performed by the Respondent on the Sahlem residence did not comport with the label instructions for us of chlordane, was substandard, and was not sufficient to provide Mrs. Sahlem with the protection specified in the contract. The Sahlem residence is constructed on an on-ground concrete slab. The foundation is constructed of hollow masonry units. The voids in each of the hollow masonry units were not filled as required by the chlordane label. No drill holes were made on the west side of the home, and only one was made on the east side. On the north side of the home the holes were too far apart to treat all of the voids. The address set out on the Sahlem contract does not give the city of Mrs. Sahlem's residence although it does give the street address and zip code. The address as given is sufficient to identify the residence. On or about September 30, 1977, the Respondent entered into a subterranean termite control contract and service agreement, and a dry wood termite attic prevention treatment agreement with Mrs. Elizabeth A. Hughes. The chemical specified for use in the subterranean termite control contract was chlordane. The chemical specified in the dry wood termite prevention treatment was "dri die". The contracts were for Mrs. Hughes' residence in Lake Worth, Florida. The contracts do not specify the city of Mrs. Hughes' residence, although the street address and zip code are set out. The address as set out is sufficient to adequately identify the location of Mrs. Hughes' residence. No evidence was offered from which it could be concluded that the Respondent made any misrepresentations to Mrs. Hughes to induce her to enter into the contracts. The work performed under the contracts was, however, not in accordance with the label instructions for chlordane and dri die treatments, was substandard, and was not sufficient to provide the treatment specified in the contracts. Mrs. Hughes' home is constructed on a concrete slab. The foundation is constructed of hollow masonry units. The voids in the masonry units were not each treated as required on the chlordane directions. Furthermore, the drill holes were made three feet above the ground along one wall, and five feet above the ground along another wall, which would be insufficient to allow introduction of the chemicals below the concrete slab. The dri die was not distributed evenly over the attic wood surfaces as required on the dri die label. An insufficient amount of the chemical was utilized, and it was placed at one spot in the attic. The dri die treatment was unnecessary, and even if it had been advisable, it was not accomplished in a manner which would provide any useful protection to Mrs. Hughes. On or about October 27, 1977, the Respondent entered into a subterranean termite control contract and service agreement with Mrs.. Fred J. Schultz. The contract was for Mrs. Schultz's residence in Lake Worth, Florida. No direct evidence was offered to establish what, if any, representations were made by the Respondent to induce Mrs. Schultz to enter into the contract. It appears that the contract was solicited and performed by employees of the Respondent, and not by him directly, although he signed the contract and was responsible for the work. The chemical specified for use in the contract is Gold Crest, 72%, which is a trade name for chlordane. The work performed by the Respondent did not comport with the label instructions for use of chlordane, was substandard, and was not sufficient to provide the protection specified in the contract. The Sdchultz's home is constructed on piers with a crawl space. The instructions for application of chlordane contained in the label provide that in treating such structures it is necessary to either rod or dig a narrow trench to the top of the footing along the inside of the foundation walls, around all piers, sewers, pipes, and conduits; and to rod or dig a narrow trench to the top of the footing along the outside of the foundation wall. The Respondent, or his employees who performed the work at the Schultz residence did not make any trenches whatever, and did not even enter the crawl space below the Schultz's home in order to treat the piers. No evidence was presented from which it could be determined that the Respondent performed any dry wood termite treatment on the Schultz's residence. No evidence was presented from which it could be determined that any such work that may have been performed was done improperly, or that it was accomplished with or without a contract. On or about October 21, 1977, the Respondent entered into a subterranean termite control contract and service agreement with Mrs. Hulda Radke. The contract related to Mrs. Radke's residence in West Palm Beach, Florida. The chemical specified for use in the contract was chlordane. The Respondent also entered into contracts to perform home repairs for Mrs. Radke. No evidence was offered from which it could be concluded that the Respondent made any misrepresentations in order to induce Mrs. Radke to enter into the contract for termite control. The termite control work performed by the Respondent on Mrs. Radke's residence did not comport with the label instructions for use of chlordane, was substandard, and was not sufficient to provide the protection specified in the contract. Mrs. Radke's home was of pier constructions with a crawl space. No trenches were made, and the chemical was not trenched or rodded around each pier, and around each foundation wall. The chemical was broadcast along the top of the soil, but was not placed below the surface. The label instructions specify that a chemical should not be broadcast sprayed. On or about October 26, 1977 the Respondent entered into a subterranean termite control contract and service agreement with Mrs. Charles Thompson, for her residence in West Palm Beach, Florida. The chemical specified for use in the contract was chlordane. No direct evidence was offered to establish what, if any, representations were made by the Respondent to induce Mrs. Thompson to enter into the contract. The work performed by the Respondent on the Thompson residence did not comport with the label instructions for use of chlordane, was substandard, and was insufficient to provide the protection specified in the contract. The Thompson residence is of pier and crawl space construction. No trenches or rodding was done as specified on the chlordane label, and each pier was not treated. The address set out on the Thompson contract is insufficient. It gives only a street address, and no city or zip code. The Respondent testified that he used a process known as "long rodding" to treat under concrete slabs. Long rodding is a method whereby the end of a spray assembly is extended, and chemicals introduced under a slab. It is used typically where hollow masonry is not used in constructing the foundation. The process does not work well because the end of the rod cannot be adequately controlled. Even if this process were utilized, the chlordane label would required that all voids in hollow masonry units be treated. Failure to treat each of the voids would render the treatment substandard. It appears that since these incidents occurred, the Respondent has performed numerous termite control contracts in Hillsborough and Pinellas counties without complaint.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Subsections 482.121(1)(a) and 482.121(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2007),1 and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact PFSG, Inc., d/b/a US Lawns of Destin (US Lawns),2 submitted a Pest Control Business License Application to the Petitioner, listing Mr. Lewis as its certified operator in charge for lawn and ornamental pest control, effective August 9, 2007. Mr. Lewis’ certificate number is Jf 13685. US Lawns had been operating on an emergency certificate from June 6, 2007, until Mr. Lewis’ employment on August 8, 2007. In its application for a business license, US Lawns requested that its emergency certificate be canceled as of August 8, 2007. In order for a pest control company to operate, the company has to have a certified pest control operator in charge of the pest control activities at the licensed business location. If a company does not have a certified operator to serve as the certified operator in charge, an emergency certificate can be issued and renewed monthly up to a year, allowing an employee who did not have a certified operator’s certificate to serve as the certified operator in charge. As the certified operator in charge for US Lawns, Mr. Lewis applied to Petitioner for a pest control employee identification card, effective August 9, 2007. He listed the commencement of his employment with US Lawns as August 9, 2007. He also stated that his last employment with a pest control company had ended on June 11, 2007. A pest control employee identification card was issued to Mr. Lewis by Petitioner. Mr. Lewis’ wife died on July 4, 2007. Petitioner received a complaint that Mr. Lewis was not working full time for US Lawns and was allowing US Lawns to use his certificate to maintain its business license. Based on the complaint, Michael Walters, who is employed by Petitioner as an environmental specialist II, began an investigation. Mr. Walters went to US Lawns' office and made an inspection. On October 31, 2007, Mr. Walters went to see Mr. Lewis at Mr. Lewis’ home for the purpose of interviewing Mr. Lewis. Mr. Lewis gave Mr. Walters a signed affidavit, which stated: I work full time with U.S. Lawns of Santa Rosa Beach. I have been part time since the loss of my wife, but I do go to work at least once a week and check on things. I do all the training for card holders and such. As soon as I feel better I should be back fulltime. I have been there around 5 yrs., minus one year with another company. In his request for an administrative hearing, Mr. Lewis stated: “I was on vacation for 4 weeks, due to the death of my wife,” and I was not working part time ever. The evidence is clear that Mr. Lewis was not working full time for US Lawns from the time of his wife’s death until at least the date of his affidavit, October 31, 2007.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Mr. Lewis violated Subsection 482.121(1)(a) and 482.121(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and revoking his certified operator’s certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of August, 2008, 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 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of August, 2008.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this matter is whether the Department should issue a Warning Letter to the Respondent because of his application of a pesticide in a client's home on September 16, 1994.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department of Agriculture was responsible for the registration, licensing and regulation of pest control applicators in Florida. In September, 1994, Crystal S. Tipton contacted the Respondent, Michael A. Kaeler, as the representative for Terminix International, and requested that he come to her home, located at 6253 Old Trail in New Port Richey, to spray for bugs and fleas. Mrs. Tipton had a contract with Terminix, dated July 19, 1994, which called for periodic applications, and this was the second visit under the plan. On September 16, 1994, Respondent came to the home in response to the call, arriving about 9:00 AM. At that time, Mrs. Tipton advised him that she had had a bad reaction from the July spraying. On September 16, 1994, Mrs. Tipton was in the house alone. Respondent started treating the house shortly after he arrived. Mrs. Tipton had told him not to spray her daughter's bedroom because of the reaction the child had had from the prior treatment. Mrs. Tipton remained in the house, cleaning, while Respondent applied the substance. At no time, she asserts, did Respondent instruct her to leave the house or give her any instructions except to tell her to wear shoes when she walked on the carpet. He did not tell her to stay off the carpet until it dried. According to Mrs. Tipton, while Respondent was applying the pesticide, on occasion she was in the same room with him, and she could smell the spray. At no time did he advise her to leave the room while he sprayed. Respondent also got behind the baseboards to spray, and put pesticide on the ground outside the house. He then left. According to Mrs. Tipton, the smell was worse this time than after the first spraying. Though she opened all the windows, even while Respondent was spraying, the smell remained for hours, and at 11:30 PM, the carpet was still damp, she claims. As she recalls it, the smell stayed in the house until the following day. After Mrs. Tipton realized there was a problem, she contacted several experts to come out and see what could be done. Her husband contacted Mr. Bowen, the Department's local representative, and told him what had happened, but no other complaint was filed. Mrs. Tipton called Terminix the Monday after the spraying to tell them that all the people in the house were sick. They did not respond promptly, so she had the carpets cleaned and a maid service in to clean the house, but even after that the smell was still present. Mrs. Tipton does not know what chemical was applied in her home by Respondent either in July or in September. She recalls only that in July Mr. Kaeler also told her to wear shoes on the damp carpet. On that occasion, the carpet was damp for three to four hours after spraying, but she does not know how much chemical was applied. During the September application, Mrs. Tipton remained in the family room and the kitchen while Mr. Kaeler was applying the substance throughout the house, and even when he was applying in the kitchen, which is tiled. Though he used a broadcast spray in those areas which were carpeted, including the living room, the dining room, the family room, the master bedroom, the halls, and the entrances to the children's bedrooms, he used a pin spray in the kitchen. Whereas the broadcast spray gives a wide application, the pin spray is exact and puts the pesticide in a very limited area. She had told him not to spray in the children's rooms, and claims she asked him not to use the same spray he had used in the earlier visit. Mrs. Tipton claims Mr. Kaeler did not tell her he had used the same spray but in a diluted strength or in a lesser volume. She claims he said he would not use the same spray and would not spray the daughter's bedroom. It would appear he did not spray the children's rooms, but there is no indication he used a different spray in September than in July. Mrs. Tipton claims the carpet remained damp far longer than it did during the July spraying and she thought this was unusual. When Mr. Bowen, the Department's entomologist inspector, was contacted by Mr. Tipton, he gave Mr. Tipton some advice on how to deal with the problem. The children's doctor also called Bowen about what Bowen had told Mr. Tipton. When Mr. Tipton finally suggested that the pesticide had been applied improperly, Bowen opened his investigation. He took Mrs. Tipton's statement and got the doctor's comments. He also took a statement from Mr. Kaeler and his records for the July and September applications, as well as copies of the labels from the containers of the pesticide applied. The Department requires that all products be used consistent with the labeling instructions and the standards of the Department and the Environmental Protection Agency, (EPA). From his investigation, Mr. Bowen determined that the Respondent used Dursban L.O. Mr. Bowen is familiar with that product and determined that the Respondent applied the product at a concentrated rate in a broadcast pattern over the carpets. This was appropriate, but if it were done while people other than the applicator were in the structure, he contend this was specifically prohibited by the label. In his opinion, Mr. Kaeler's actions constitute a violation of the statute and the Department's rule. None of the information received by Mr. Bowen from the family doctor or the Health Department related to the propriety of Respondent's application of the product. These contacts related only to the health of the children. The only reference to possibly improper application is found in Mrs. Tipton's undated statement. The label on the Dursban L.O. product indicates, "Other than the applicator, treated areas should be vacated during application. Do not permit humans or pets to contact treated surfaces until the spray has dried." Mr. Bowen did not contact the manufacturer to see what "areas" being treated meant. He feels that the interpretation is up to his agency, and he agrees with the agency determination that the entire residence must be vacated. No direct evidence was presented to show the agency determination, however, and it appears the determination of propriety of application was left up to Mr. Bowen. A broadcast spray is used for large areas. A pin stream is used for cracks and crevices. A pin stream application does not, in Mr. Bowen's opinion, require vacation of the structure. The broadcast spray for flea control does, however, as he sees it. If the manufacturer were to hold that application did not require evacuation of the entire structure, but only the room being treated, then in that case, Mr. Bowen would conclude that the application by Mr. Kaeler was appropriate. As he recalls, Mr. Kaeler used one half gallon of 1/4 percent solution for an 1800 square foot application. This was a fairly light treatment. Mr. Bowen has, himself, applied Dursban L.O. at this rate. Mr. Kaeler has been employed by Terminix since November, 1993 as a service technician. He underwent 30 days of a training program in identification of insects and application techniques and requirements of pesticides, including Dursban, with the company. He is not licensed. Terminix holds the license under which he operates. Mr. Kaeler admits that when he treated the Tipton house on September 16, 1994, Mrs. Tipton complained of her daughter's head aches resulting from the prior application and asked him not to spray the child's bedroom, but she did not object to the use of this pesticide. He broadcast sprayed all the carpeted area up to the entry to the girls' bedrooms. In all the girls' rooms there were clothes, books and toys on the floor so he did not spray inside. In the kitchen, which, he claims, was the only location where Mrs. Tipton was present while he sprayed, he used the pin stream technique. The entire spraying took about 30 minutes. Mr. Kaeler also sprayed the windows and doors from the outside and the garage, using the pin stream spray in all those locations. The one half gallon of solution was used to do all the spraying at the Tipton's house that day, both inside and out. Mr. Kaeler believes that the solution he sprayed on the carpeted areas on September 16, 1994 should have dried in no more than an hour. He confirms that Mrs. Tipton opened the windows and turned on the fans while he was still spraying. He had told her to do this the first time. As Mr. Kaeler understands it, Terminix's policy is that occupants of property being broadcast sprayed for insects should stay off the carpet being sprayed but need not vacate the structure. Dr. Ellen Thoms, an entomologist working for the manufacturer of the chemical in issue, indicates that the label instructions on containers of Dursban L.O. were intended by the company to mean that the term "area" where the chemical is being applied by broadcast spray includes not the entire structure but the immediate area of the application because of the possibility of spraying the chemical on someone. The danger is in contact with the substance through the skin or through oral ingestion, not in the odor or the fumes. In Dr. Thoms' opinion, Mr. Kaeler's application was consistent with the terms of the label, which uses the term "should" rather than the term "must". The drying time for carpet sprayed with Dursban L.O. by broadcast spray is effected by the thickness of the carpet and the relative humidity in the sprayed area. Since a greater amount of applied substance dried more quickly in the high humidity of July, in Dr. Thoms' opinion it is unlikely a smaller amount applied in September would take more than 14 hours to dry. She does not know what the climate factors were that day, however. Dr. Mangold, a technical specialist for Terminix, and an entomologist certified in all four categories of pest control, reviewed all the material evidence in this case and heard the testimony given at hearing. He has concluded that what Mr. Kaeler did was conservatively to apply a very diluted spray, usually applied at a rate of one gallon per 1,600 square feet. His one half gallon application for an 1,800 square foot house, plus outside, is an appropriate maintenance application. In Dr. Mangold's opinion, Mr. Kaeler's application in September, 1994 was consistent with the label requirements in amount, concentration and percent, and with the requirement that all other persons be out of the area being treated. He does not believe, in light of what was shown, it could have taken in excess of fourteen hours for this application to dry. In his opinion, drying should have taken between twenty minutes and an hour, and he can see no possible explanation for it having taken as long as Mrs. Tipton claims. Dr. Mangold defines the term "area treated" as being the immediate area being treated - an eighteen inch swath and some adjacent area, to-wit: the area being contacted by the spray. Mr. Lemont, a fully certified entomologist-consultant reviewed the file on this case and heard the testimony given at hearing. In his opinion, the term, "area treated" includes the contact area, not the entire structure. He believes Mr. Kaeler performed consistently with the label instructions and there was no violation. The words, "should" and "may", are interpreted in the trade as permissive and non-enforceable. Stronger words, such as "shall" and "must", are directive and enforceable. Mr. Lemont agrees that the application by Mr. Kaeler was a light application. Drying depends on humidity, but often an application dries before the operator leaves. He cannot believe this application would have taken more than two to three hours, even under the most adverse atmospheric conditions. Certainly, it would not have taken more than fourteen hours. In Lemont's opinion, the issue of how close an applicator can come to others while applying Dursban L.O. by broadcast spray is a judgement call. The issue is contact. Mrs. Tipton was not positive on the issue of Mr. Kaeler's being in the room with her, other than the kitchen, while applying the substance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED THAT a Warning Letter not be issued to either Michael A. Kaeler or Terminix International Co., LP., as a result of Mr. Kaeler's application of Dursban L.O. at the Tipton residence in New Port Richey, Florida on September 16, 1994. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of July, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 24th day of July, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert G. Worley, Esquire Department of Agriculture Room 515, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 James M. Nicholas, Esquire P.O. Box 814 Melbourne, Florida 32902 The Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Harry Hooper General Counsel Department of Agriculture Room 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
The Issue Whether or not the Petitioner, Kenneth F. Feathers, d/b/a Feathers Exterminating Company, is entitled to the renewal of an emergency pest control certificate in accordance with the terms and conditions of Subsection 482.111(10), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact This cause comes on for consideration based upon the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services' refusal to renew the emergency pest control certificate of Kenneth F. Feathers, d/b/a Feathers Exterminating Company. On November 6, 1978, a representative of the Respondent wrote to the Petitioner and indicated the basis for denying the renewal request, after which the Petitioner requested a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. The testimony in the course of the hearing revealed that the Petitioner, Kenneth F. Feathers, d/b/a Feathers Exterminating Company, is involved with the structural pest control business. Kenneth F. Feathers, the licensee, is the holder of a special identification card under the authority of Section 482.151, Florida Statutes. He does not hold a pest control operator's certificate as described in Section 482.111, Florida Statutes. In the years 1977 and 1978 the Petitioner had listed at various times, the names of Wayne Neal Pearce and Michael D. Brennan as being the certified pest control operators in charge of all categories of pest control being carried out by Feathers Exterminating Company. In fact, Pearce and Brennan, though certified as pest control operators and listed by the Petitioner as being the certified operator in charge of the Feathers Exterminating Company, were in fact employed in Gainesville, Florida, in other primary occupations which they worked contemporaneously with the work day of the Feathers Exterminating Company. Under the arrangement they were merely on call and never actually performed supervisory duties for the Petitioner. Mr. Pearce was a police officer with the Gainesville, Florida, Police Department and subsequently opened up his own pest control business in Gainesville. Mr. Brennan was and is primarily employed by Clay Electric Company. When these discoveries were made by employees of the Respondent, the Petitioner was advised that neither Mr. Pearce nor Mr. Brennan could serve in the capacity as certified pest control operators for the Feathers Exterminating Company, in view of the fact that these individuals were not employed on a full-time basis by Feathers Exterminating Company, in the sense of being in charge of all categories of pest control. After these discoveries on the part of the Respondent, the Petitioner requested an emergency pest control certificate under authority of Subsection 482.111(10), Florida Statutes, and this emergency certificate was granted. That initial request occurred sometime in October, 1978. On October 28, 1978, the Petitioner requested a renewal of the emergency pest control certificate which brought about the denial which is the issue in this hearing. At present and during the time for which the original emergency certificate had been granted and a renewal requested, the Petitioner does not and did not have a certified pest control operator in charge of the categories of pest control conducted by Feathers Exterminating Company. Both Pearce and Brennan have terminated their involvement with the Feathers Exterminating Company, even in an advisory capacity, and the Petitioner's efforts at arranging for a replacement certified pest control operator have not been successful. This has been the outcome notwithstanding the long-term efforts on the part of the Respondent, beginning in 1975, to assist the Petitioner in complying with the requirements for having a certified pest control operator in charge of the Petitioner/licensee's business activities conducted under Chapter 482, Florida Statutes. In view of these facts, the Petitioner is not entitled to a renewal of the emergency pest control certificate. Subsection 482.111(3), Florida Statutes, states: "Each category of each licensee shall be in the charge of a certified operator who is certified for the particular category..." Under the current statement of the law found in Section 482.152, Florida Statutes (1978), whose effective date was October 1, 1978; for the business activity of the licensee to be in the charge of a certified operator, it is necessary for that certified pest control operator to fulfill the duties set forth in this section. Section 482.152, Florida Statutes (1978), contained the following language: "Duties of certified pest control operator in charge of pest control activities of licensee.--A certified operator in charge of pest control operations of a licensee shall be a Florida resident whose primary occupation is in the structural pest con trol business, who is employed on a full time basis by the licensee, and whose principal duty is the personal supervision of and participation in the pest control operations of the licensee as the same relate to the following: ..." It can be seen by the language set forth in this Section 482.152, Florida Statutes, that neither Pearce nor Brennan would qualify as certified pest control operators for the benefit of the Petitioner, because they either do not have their primary occupation in the structural pest control business, and/or are not employed on a full-time basis by the Petitioner and do not have their principal duties as one of personal supervision and participation in the pest control operations of the Petitioner, even if those individuals consented to continue their prior arrangement with Feathers. Nevertheless, the Petitioner might be entitled to an emergency certified pest control operator's certificate if provisions of Subsection 482.111(10), Florida Statutes, could be satisfied; however, the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he has any reasonable expectation of hiring a certified pest control operator who may fulfill the requirements of Section 482.152, Florida Statutes, in terms of the duties incumbent on a certified operator through whom the licensee intends to transact business in accordance with the requirements of Section 482.111, Florida Statutes. In addition, the testimony clearly demonstrated that the Petitioner at one time was using the certificates of Pearce and Brennan to secure or keep his license at a time when Pearce and Brennan were not in charge of the pest control activities, and the Petitioner was thereby in violation of Subsection 482.121(2), Florida Statutes, which violation in turn would constitute a sufficient ground for denying the renewal of the emergency pest control operator's certificate. This ground for denial is authorized by Subsection 482.161(1), Florida Statutes, which states that a license renewal may be denied on the basis that a Provision of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, has been violated. In summary, the renewal of the emergency certified pest control operator's certificate should be denied because the Petitioner has failed to give sufficient reasons for such renewal and because the Petitioner, by violating Subsection 482.121(2), Florida Statutes, has given the Respondent an affirmative ground for such a denial under provision Subsection 482.161(1), Florida Statutes. (At the conclusion of the hearing the Petitioner indicated his intention to stand for an examination under Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, which would allow him to obtain a pest control operator's certificate that would allow him to operate his business in those categories which he desired to be employed in. On March 22, 1979, the attorney for the Respondent informed the undersigned that Mr. Feathers had successfully passed those portions of the examination which would allow him to obtain a certificate to operate in the areas of lawn and ornamental pest control and general household pest control. On this occasion, Mr. Feathers was not successful in passing the portion of the examination involved in termite pest control. It would therefore appear that the Petitioner is entitled to a certificate to operate in the fields of lawn and ornamental pest control and general household pest control, after the payment of the appropriate fees. Under these circumstances, the Petitioner would not be entitled to operate in the area of termite pest control in the sense of being the holder of such a certificate and in keeping with the undersigned's impression of this case, the affect of this Recommended Order would be a recommendation that the Petitioner not be granted a renewal of his emergency pest control operator's certificate in the termite pest control specialty.)
Recommendation It is recommended that the Petitioner's request for the renewal of his emergency pest control operator's certificate be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of March 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of March, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Kenneth F. Feathers Feathers Exterminating Company 1527 Northeast 8th Avenue Ocala, Florida 32670 Joseph E. Hodges, Esquire District III Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2002 Northwest 13th Street Gainesville, Florida 32601
