The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated October 22, 2001, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency responsible for the investigation and prosecution of complaints involving physicians licensed to practice medicine in Florida. See Section 455.225, Florida Statutes. The Board of Medicine is the entity responsible for regulating the practice of medicine in Florida and for imposing penalties on physicians found to have violated the provisions of Section 458.331(1), Florida Statutes. See Section 458.331(2), Florida Statutes. Dr. Pliskow is, and was at the times material to this proceeding, a physician licensed to practice medicine in Florida, having been issued license number ME 0054211, and he is Board-certified in Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Forensic Medicine. At the times material to this proceeding, Dr. Pliskow practiced obstetrics and gynecology with three other physicians, Dr. Ackerman, Dr. Herbst, and Dr. Aqua, under the name "Advanced Women's Healthcare." In 1996, Dr. Pliskow, Dr. Ackerman, and Dr. Herbst established the Comprehensive Weight Loss & Nutrition Center ("Center") as a separate corporation. Kimberly Payne, an A.R.N.P., was the administrative director of the Center, and, in addition to administrative duties, her job responsibilities included supervision of the nursing staff working in the Center, direct patient care, and staff training. The four physicians practicing at Advanced Women's Healthcare were the designated supervising physicians for staff of the Center. Bariatrics is the subspecialty dealing with the medical treatment of obesity, and the four physicians supervising the Center, as well as Nurse Payne, were members of the American Society of Bariatric Physicians. As members of this organization, the physicians and Nurse Payne received two monthly journals, a biweekly newsletter, a monthly magazine, and faxes and e-mails containing updates on standard-of-care issues, medication changes, updates from the Federal Drug Administration, and suggested treatment changes and recommendations. The organization also provided educational programs and training opportunities for its members. In accordance with the recommendations of the American Society of Bariatric Physicians, the Center's weight loss program included a behavior modification program; a diet providing between 1200 and 1400 kilocalories per day; and an exercise program designed for each of its patients. In addition, if the patient was an appropriate candidate, the Center prescribed anorectic medications, including the combination of the drugs Phentermine and Fenfluramine commonly known as "Phen/Fen." Weight Loss Protocol At the times material to this proceeding, A.R.N.P.s were allowed under Florida law to practice independently under the general supervision of a physician who was accessible to them if they needed a consultation or evaluation of a patient. See Sections 464.003(3)(c) and 464.012(3), Florida Statutes (1995); Rule 64B8-35.002, Florida Administrative Code. Among other things, A.R.N.P.s were allowed to perform physical examinations of patients, to take medical histories, to initiate treatment programs, to prescribe certain types of drugs, and to evaluate patients for signs and symptoms of side effects associated with medications. A.R.N.P.s could not, however, prescribe drugs that were classified as controlled substances. Nurse Payne, and another A.R.N.P. subsequently hired to work at the Center, practiced under the general supervision of Dr. Pliskow, Dr. Ackerman, Dr. Herbst, and Dr. Aqua and in accordance with a protocol setting forth the respective duties of the A.R.N.P.s and of the physicians in the various areas of practice at Advanced Women's Healthcare. The protocol was filed with the appropriate state agency. Section Four of the protocol dealt with weight loss. Pursuant to the general guidelines, the A.R.N.P.s working at the Center were "responsible for the assessment and management of overweight individuals in a comprehensive weight reduction program including nutritional counseling, exercise management, and use of anorectic medications when appropriate." Patient selection criteria were as follows: Any individual who is over their ideal body weight may participate in the nutrition and exercise portions of the program. In order to qualify to participate in the medication portion of the program, the individual must meet the following criteria: Between the ages of 18 and 65 (any person between the ages of 61 and 65 must have medical clearance from their PCP [primary care physician]). Minimum of 20% over ideal body weight. No present history of heart disease, uncontrolled hypertension, cardiac arrhythmia, glaucoma, uncontrolled diabetes, hyperthyroidism, psychotic illness, drug or alcohol abuse, pregnancy, breastfeeding, or impending surgery requiring general anesthesia. Any deviation from these criteria requires collaboration with physician. The following was the General Condition of the weight loss protocol: The A.R.N.P. should consult with the physician on all patients exhibiting abnormal findings which might affect their weight loss management and refer for physician evaluation as needed. Patient C.B. Patient C.B. learned of the Center's weight loss program from her daughter, who had participated in the program and taken weight loss medication. C.B. had an initial consultation at the Center on October 23, 1996. At the time, as recorded on the Center's Weight Reduction Intake Form, C.B. was 62 years of age, her weight was 165 pounds, her height was five feet and four inches, she had a medium frame, her blood pressure was 138/82, and her pulse was 72 beats per minute. The intake form also included her body measurements as of October 23, 1996. As part of the initial consultation, C.B. completed the Center's Weight Reduction Program Questionnaire, in which she stated that she considered her ideal weight to be 135 pounds, that her biggest obstacle to losing weight was staying on a diet, and that she was interested in using medication in her weight loss program. C.B. indicated that she had no limitations on exercise and played tennis regularly. She disclosed her current medications, and she indicated that she did not then, nor had she ever, had the following conditions: heart disease, irregular heartbeat, high blood pressure, glaucoma, diabetes, psychotic illness, or alcohol or drug abuse. Nurse Payne reviewed the Weight Reduction Program Questionnaire with C.B. and completed the intake form. She noted on the intake form that C.B.'s ideal weight was between 120 and 135 pounds, that her weight goal was 135 pounds, and that her body mass index ("BMI") was 28.1 Nurse Payne reviewed with C.B. the information C.B. provided on the questionnaire, including her medical history, current medications, and drug allergies, and Nurse Payne noted on the intake form that C.B. reported arthritis as her only significant medical history. Nurse Payne and C.B. discussed the 1200-calorie exchange diet that was part of the program, and Nurse Payne developed an exercise plan for C.B. that included walking in the pool twice each week and incorporated C.B.'s usual routine of playing tennis three times each week. Nurse Payne noted on the intake form that Dr. Ira Fine was C.B.'s primary care physician. Nurse Payne also discussed medication options with C.B., including the benefits and risks of medications. The intake form included a printed section on medications, in which the first entry was "Pondimin2 20 mg. po bid and Phentermine 37.5 mg. po qd" and the second entry was "Other." Nurse Payne indicated on the intake form that C.B. would be started on "Phen/Fen pending medical clearance [by] Dr. Fine & EKG." Nurse Payne also advised C.B. that she would need to obtain medical clearance from Dr. Fine before medication would be prescribed. During the initial consultation on October 23, 1996, Nurse Payne provided C.B. with a Consent for Diet Program form and discussed with C.B. in detail the information in the consent form. The consent form contained descriptions of both Phentermine and Fenfluramine, together with the contraindications to their use, and Nurse Payne provided C.B. with an excerpt from the Physician's Desk Reference for Phentermine and the packet insert for Pondimin.3 C.B. signed the consent form on October 23, 1996. A blood specimen was drawn from C.B. on October 23, 1996, and Nurse Payne scheduled C.B. for an EKG on October 26, 1996. Nurse Payne telephoned Dr. Fine's office on October 25, 1996, and spoke with "Betty" about medical clearance for C.B. to participate in the weight loss program; she specifically told Dr. Fine's office the program would include the use of Phen/Fen. Nurse Payne was later advised by Dr. Fine's office that Dr. Fine had medically cleared C.B. to participate in the Center's weight loss program.4 Once medical clearance was obtained for a patient and the results of the blood work and EKG were received, the standard procedure at the Center was for the A.R.N.P. to present the patient's chart to one of the supervising physicians.5 The physician would review the test results and the patient's medical history and determine whether it was appropriate to prescribe medications for the patient. If so, the physician wrote the prescriptions, which were then given to the patient. Neither Dr. Pliskow nor Nurse Payne can recall specifically that this procedure was followed in C.B.'s case, but there is nothing in the record to indicate a deviation from this procedure with respect to C.B. C.B. was cleared for participation in the weight loss program and for the use of Phen/Fen based the results of her blood work and her EKG and on the criteria set out in the weight loss protocol: Her primary care physician had given medical clearance; her weight was 20 percent above her ideal body weight; and she had reported no present history of the conditions identified in paragraph II.B.3 of the protocol. Her blood pressure and pulse were normal. The results of her EKG showed no significant abnormality, and there was nothing in the results of the blood work done on October 23, 1996, that would prevent C.B. from participating in the weight loss program or from taking Phen/Fen. C.B.'s initial prescriptions for Phen/Fen were written on October 28, 1996 and, as noted in her chart, were for Pondimin in the dosage of "20 mg. [milligrams] po [orally] bid [twice daily]" and for Phentermine in the dosage of "37.5 mg. [milligrams] po [orally] qd [daily]."6 The medications and dosage prescribed for C.B. remained the same throughout the time she participated in the Center's weight loss program, and no further notations regarding dosage was included in her chart. C.B. initially visited the Center each week; in late November 1996, the frequency of her visits was decreased to once every two weeks, and then, in early February 1997, to once every four weeks. At each visit, a member of the nursing staff at the Center would note C.B.'s blood pressure, pulse, and weight on the progress forms in her chart, together with the amount of weight lost since her last visit. The chart also contained the notes of Nurse Payne or the other A.R.N.P. working at the Center reporting on C.B.'s success in staying on the diet and exercise plans; noting that her medication was "P/F"; and summarizing C.B.'s general progress, anything unusual she reported, and the plan she would follow until the next visit. C.B. also completed at each visit a Follow-Up Questionnaire in which she was asked to report whether, since her last visit, she had experienced chest pain, shortness of breath, dizziness, light-headedness, visual problems, palpitations, abdominal pain, bowel changes, fatigue, difficulty sleeping, depression, irritability, difficulty concentrating, memory loss, tremors, or increased appetite. The Center's standard procedure was for the A.R.N.P. meeting with the patient to discuss the answers in the questionnaire with the patient and to question the patient regarding any problems he or she might be having with the program. Once the A.R.N.P. had examined the patient and completed the patient's progress report, the A.R.N.P. would take the chart to the supervising physician, who would review the chart and write the prescriptions for Phen/Fen. None of the prescriptions for Phen/Fen dispensed at the Center were pre-signed. Patients in the weight loss program received new prescriptions for Phen/Fen at each visit to the Center. Because Phentermine and Fenfluramine are controlled substances, there could be no refills on a prescription, so the prescriptions were written for a sufficient number of pills to last until the patient's next visit to the Center. Although the prescriptions were written and signed by one of the supervising physicians, the physicians did not sign the patient's chart. After the supervising physician wrote the prescriptions, the A.R.N.P. would take the prescriptions to the patient, who could have them filled at the pharmacy in the offices of Advanced Women's Healthcare or at a pharmacy elsewhere. There is nothing in the record to indicate that this practice was not followed with respect to the prescriptions issued to C.B.7 On November 4, 1996, her first visit after beginning the program, C.B. reported one episode of light-headedness. Otherwise, C.B. reported none of the symptoms identified in the questionnaire and reported no problems with the program. Had C.B. reported experiencing anything abnormal, Nurse Payne would have called in one of the physicians supervising the Center for a consultation. C.B. participated in the Center's weight loss program through April 7, 1997, which was the date of her last visit. C.B. lost weight on the Center's program at a slow but steady rate, usually between one and four pounds between visits, until, on April 7, 1997, she weighed 141 pounds. C.B.'s treatment with Phen/Fen ended before May 1997, when the Florida Board of Medicine published stricter limitations on the use of these medications.8 Although Dr. Pliskow was not present in the office on October 28, 1996, when C.B.'s first prescriptions for Phen/Fen were written, he was present in the office during four of C.B.'s ten visits to the Center. Because at least one other physician was also present in the office during these four visits, Dr. Pliskow may or may not have reviewed C.B.'s chart and written her prescriptions.9 Summary The evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient to support a finding that Dr. Pliskow practiced medicine below the level of care considered acceptable by a reasonably prudent physician under similar circumstances or to support a finding that Dr. Pliskow failed to document in C.B.'s medical records justification for the course of her treatment in the weight loss program and the dosage of the medications prescribed for her. The evidence is not sufficient to establish clearly and convincingly that the prevailing standard of care required the physician supervising the Center's A.R.N.P.s personally to perform a physical examination of C.B. prior to her being cleared for receiving medication as part of her weight loss program or personally to obtain C.B.'s medical history. Rather, it was appropriate for Nurse Payne and the other A.R.N.P. working at the Center to perform physical examinations and to take medical histories of persons seeking to participate in the Center's weight loss program. In addition, the evidence is not sufficient to establish clearly and convincingly that it was inconsistent with the prevailing standard of care for the Center's supervising physicians to rely on C.B.'s primary care physician to provide medical clearance for her to participate in the weight loss program. Dr. Fine was familiar with C.B.'s overall medical condition as a result of his examination of her on September 12, 1996, and he was, therefore, competent to assess the overall risks of her participation in a weight loss program incorporating the use of anorectic medications. Furthermore, the evidence fails to establish that it was inconsistent with the prevailing standard of care to rely on the verbal medical clearance conveyed to Nurse Payne through Dr. Fine's office; rather, the persuasive evidence suggests that it was the normal practice for clearance to be given in this manner.10 And, significantly, Dr. Fine's medical clearance was not the only basis for C.B.'s clearance to take anorectic medications: C.B.'s vital signs were recorded on the intake form by the Center's nursing staff, and Nurse Payne compiled C.B.'s medical history from C.B.'s answers to questions on the Weight Loss Program Questionnaire and from discussions with C.B; an EKG and extensive blood work were ordered for C.B., and a physician reviewed C.B.'s chart and the results of these tests before writing C.B. prescriptions for anorectic medications.11 The evidence is not sufficient to establish that the physicians practicing at Advanced Women's Healthcare failed to provide the appropriate level of supervision to the A.R.N.P.s who worked in the Center. A.R.N.P.s are independent practitioners, and they are subject only to the general supervision of a physician. The evidence failed to establish that the prevailing standard of care for physicians supervising A.R.N.P.s required anything more than that the physician be available for consultation. At least one physician was available in the Advanced Women's Healthcare offices at all times for consultation and/or patient evaluation if an A.R.N.P. working at the Center determined that a patient was experiencing any complications or if a patient reported any unusual symptoms. The evidence is not sufficient to establish clearly and convincingly that the type and scope of information collected during C.B.'s regular visits to the Center and the on-going care provided to C.B. were not appropriate under the prevailing standard of care for monitoring patients on weight loss programs such as C.B.'s. The prescriptions for C.B.'s weight loss medications were written by a physician at each of C.B.'s visits, but only after the physician reviewed her chart, which included the A.R.N.P.'s progress notes and C.B.'s answers on the Follow-Up Questionnaires she completed at each visit, to determine whether it was appropriate to continue C.B. on anorectic medications.12 The evidence also fails to establish that the prevailing standard of care required a supervising physician to sign a chart prepared by an A.R.N.P. to indicate that it had been reviewed.13 The evidence is not sufficient to establish that C.B. was not an appropriate candidate for a weight loss program using Phen/Fen under the prevailing standard of care in 1996 and early 1997.14 Adequate justification for the treatment of C.B. with anorectic medications was included in C.B.'s medical records: She was considered obese by 1996 standards because her weight of 165 pounds was more than 20 percent higher than her ideal body weight of 120-to-135 pounds and because her BMI was 28 and she wanted to lose weight. In addition, nothing in the medical history C.B. provided to Nurse Payne or in her tests results indicated that she would be an inappropriate candidate for anorectic medications, and she reported no complications during her follow-up visits.15 The evidence is not sufficient to establish clearly and convincingly that the dosages of Phen/Fen prescribed for C.B. were inappropriate or excessive under the prevailing standard of care in 1996 and early 1997. Rather, the dosages prescribed for C.B. were in the lower range of dosages recommended at the time by the American Society of Bariatric Physicians and in the medical literature in general for the use of Phentermine and Fenfluramine in combination.16 The dosage of both medications was printed on the intake form completed during C.B.'s initial visit to the Center, and the dosages did not change during the time C.B. participated in the Center's weight loss program; in accordance with normal practice, no further notations were made regarding dosages in C.B.'s chart. New prescriptions were written each time C.B. visited the Center, and no refills were permitted, which is also in accordance with the standard practice in dispensing controlled substances.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order dismissing in its entirety the Administrative Complaint against Steven Pliskow, M.D. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 30th day of April, 2002.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent's name is Maurice L. Kaye. The Respondent's current address is 735-49th Street North, St. Petersburg, Florida 33710. The Respondent is now a licensed osteopathic physician in the State of Florida. The Respondent holds osteopathic license No. OS 0000949. The Respondent was a licensed osteopathic physician in the State of Florida at all times alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed in this cause on August 9, 1983. The Respondent served as the "doctor" at the Florida Medical Weight Loss Clinic from approximately January 15, 1983 until February 10, 1983. The Respondent was employed by Lydia Stein of Florida Medical Weight Loss Clinic. The Florida Medical Weight Loss Clinic placed or caused to be placed an advertisement in the Tampa Tribune dated January 24, 1983. This advertisement failed to conspicuously identify the Respondent by name and failed to conspicuously identify the Respondent as the physician providing medical supervision at the Florida Medical Weight Loss Clinics. The Respondent was vicariously responsible for the dissemination of the advertisement described in the paragraph above. The Respondent caused an advertisement to be placed in the St. Petersburg Times which offered a nonsurgical treatment for cataracts. This advertisement was published on January 10, 1983. This advertisement read as follows: CATARACT TREATMENT NON-SURGICAL FREE CONSULTATION By Dr. Alex Dewart MEDICAL HEALTH CENTER 735-49th Street North 321-3341 The advertisement described above in the St. Petersburg Times failed to conspicuously identify the Respondent by name, failed to identify the Respondent as the responsible physician, and failed to identify the Respondent as an osteopathic physician. The Respondent had no professional or contractual relationship with Dr. Alex Dewart or Alex Duarte, neither of whom were ever employees of Medical Health Center or Respondent at 735-49th Street North, St. Petersburg, Florida. Dr. Alex Duarte is a recognized specialist in non- surgical treatment of cataracts. Evidence was presented concerning the efficacy of non- surgical treatment for cataracts. It is concluded that such treatment may be beneficial and that the extent to which such non-surgical treatment is beneficial is a matter about which reasonable men differ. No believable evidence was presented that the Respondent was unable to assess patients.
Recommendation For failing to identify himself as the responsible osteopathic physician in the Tampa Tribune advertisement contrary to Rule 21R-14.01(2) , Florida Administrative Code and Section 459.015(1)(d), Florida Statutes, it is recommended that the Respondent be fined by the Board the amount of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000). For having placed the advertisement in the St. Petersburg Times falsely representing that Dr. Alex Dewart was associated with the Medical Health Center contrary to Section 459.015(1)(d) , Florida Statutes, it is recommended that Dr. Kaye's license be suspended for one (1) year and be reinstated upon payment for the fine levied above, and that thereafter Dr. Kaye be placed upon a two (2) year probation period pursuant to Section 459.015(2) , Florida Statutes. DONE and ORDERED this 15th day of January, 1985 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of January, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Maurice L. Kaye, D.O. 735-49th Street, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33710 Ms. Dorothy Faircloth Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue The issue for consideration in this matter is whether the Respondent violated the weight limitations for truck traffic over a low limit bridge on SR 850 in Palm Beach County, Florida on November 12, 1991, and if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Department of Transportation, was the state agency responsible for enforcing the state statutes involving commercial carrier weight compliance in this state which it does through its Office of Motor Carrier Compliance staffed with uniformed certified law enforcement officers who have the authority to cite drivers and owners of commercial vehicles which violate the load limits on the streets and highways of this state. On November 12, 1991, at approximately 2:30 PM, Officer Roy Neff stopped the Respondent's open board truck for crossing the low limit bridge located on State Road 850 in North Palm Beach, Florida, while apparently overloaded. The truck was carrying a load of drywall sheets and stucco. Officer Neff weighed the vehicle with the Department's portable scales he carried with him. These scales are calibrated for accuracy every 6 months. He utilized the standard Department weighing procedure which calls for a weight under each axle combined to give a total vehicle weight. This vehicle weighed 68,000 pounds loaded, according to this procedure used. Because this particular bridge was allowed no more than 26 tons, (52,000 pounds), of weight for a vehicle in this category, (non-trailer with 2 axles), Officer Neff cited the Respondent's driver for an overweight of 16,000 pounds. Since overweight is penalized at 5 per pound, the penalty assessed was $800.00. The approach to this bridge was clearly marked at several locations with signs indicating the maximum weight permitted for this bridge was 26 tons. These signs were located at sites which were far enough away from the bridge (1 mile and 1/2 mile) to give a driver ample opportunity to turn around or to take an alternate route to his destination on roads situated between the signs and the bridge. When the citation was issued here, the driver posted an acceptable bond and the vehicle was released. Respondent does not deny its vehicle as loaded exceeded the state's weight limitations for this bridge. However, it contends that the amount of overweight was less than that determined by officer Ness and it therefore overpaid the penalty by $252.30. Respondent bases this calculation on what it claims was the load on the truck at the time, multiplied by the weight per piece as provided by the manufacture of the product. In support of its claim, Respondent offered a handwritten, self-made list of weights purportedly taken from manufacturer furnished documents. These weights are then utilized in a computation of total load weight based on another handwritten list of materials, reportedly on the truck at the time, which was reconstructed from the delivery ticket for that trip approximately one week or so after the citation was issued. The weakness of this evidence is compounded by the fact that there is no weight in the "manufacturer's" list for the 30 sheets of 14 foot long drywall which Respondent claims weigh a total of 4,284 pounds. There is also no source for the 6,000 pounds of stucco. Presumably, the "75 stucco" relates to 75 bags at 80 pounds per bag. No doubt Respondent's protestations of overpayment are honestly made and made with good intentions. However, its evidence in support of its claim does not outweigh the evidence that the Department scales used to conduct the inspection here were calibrated for accuracy every 6 months. There is no evidence to indicate either that they were not accurate when used or that the weighing procedures followed were improper.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered assessing a civil fine in the amount of $800.00 against the Respondent, Delta Building Supplies. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon L. Whittier, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS - 58 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 20th day of July, 1992. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Tim Czencz Delta Building Supplies 12951 SW 124th Street Miami, Florida 33186 Ben G. Watts Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
Findings Of Fact Respondent Bard Opsahl is an employee of his father's corporation, Respondent John G. Opsahl, Inc. September 22, 1994, Respondent Opsahl was driving a truck of Respondent John G. Opsahl, Inc. He had just acquired a load of dirt from a pit and had turned north on Taylor Road from Jones Loop Road. On the east side of Taylor Road, immediately north of the Jones Loop Road intersection, there was a sign marked "Weight Limit." A sign beside the "Weight Limit" sign warned that a weight-limited bridge was ahead. The Weight Limit sign contained profiles of three trucks and three tractor-trailer combinations. Each of the profiles displayed a number of axles. Beside four of the profiles were numbers followed by "Ts," which indicates tons. The bottom profile was of a five-axle tractor-trailer. Next to it was a 22-ton limit. The next profile from the bottom was of a four-axle, cab-over- engine tractor-trailer, which bore an 18-ton weight limit. The next profile was of a three-axle tractor-trailer, which bore a 22-ton weight limit. The next profile was of a four-axle truck, which bore a 15-ton weight limit. The top two profiles were of a two-axle truck and a three-axle truck. What appeared to be a piece of wide, white tape ran between the numbers and the "T's" down the entire length of the sign. Beside the top two profiles, another piece of tape obscureed the numbers, so that they could not be read. Based on the Load Report Citation, Respondent Opsahl was driving a three-axle truck (i.e., without a trailer). The weight limit for this type of vehicle was one of the two that was obscured. There was no Weight Limit sign at the bridge itself on the day in question. Respondent Brad Opsahl drove his vehicle across the bridge on Taylor Road north of Jones Loop Road. There are two facts adverse to Respondents. First, the tape on the Weight Limit sign did not appear to invalidate all weight limits, especially in view of the sign next to it warning of a "bridge weight restriction ahead." In other words, Respondent Brad Opsahl should have understood that the bridge was a weight-limited bridge. Second, Respondents' truck weighed 59,800 pounds, or 30 tons, which exceeded the highest limit posted on the Weight Limit sign. Although Respondent Opsahl was a young, relatively inexperienced driver, it is inconceivable that he would think that a three-axle truck could better distribute a load than a five- axle tractor-trailer combination without a cab-over-engine. The limit for the latter vehicle, which was the highest visible limit, was 22 tons. Respondents have already paid the fine of $1290 cited in the citation.
Recommendation It is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Commercial Motor Vehicle Review Board enter a final order imposing a penalty against Respondents in the amount of $790 and refunding $500 of the $1290 already paid by Respondents. ENTERED on June 13, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings on June 13, 1995. APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings 1-2: adopted or adopted in substance. 3: rejected as subordinate. 4-5: adopted or adopted in substance. 6: rejected as recitation of evidence. 7: rejected as irrelevant. 8: rejected as recitation of evidence. 9-13: rejected as subordinate and recitation of evidence. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings 1-6: adopted or adopted in substance. 7-8: rejected as irrelevant. 9: adopted or adopted in substance as to amount paid. The amount of the recommended refund is different. COPIES FURNISHED: Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 ATTN: Eleanor F. Turner, M.S. 58 Thornton J. Williams, General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Cindy S. Price Assistant General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399 John L. Polk John L. Polk, P.A. P.O. Box 1221 Punta Gorda, FL 33951-1221 Commercial Motor Vehicle Review Board 1815 Thomasville Road Tallahassee, FL 32303-5750
Findings Of Fact On or about September 11, 1989, a commercial, dump truck owned by Petitioner, Alamazan Brothers Trucking, Inc., was travelling on State Road 807. Mr. Michael Roberts, Safety and Hazardous Materials Officer for Respondent, Department of Transportation, noticed that the truck did not have the required identification on the door and stopped the truck for further investigation. After the truck stopped, Mr. Roberts noted that the truck possessed an expired temporary license tag, and the driver did not have a valid registration for the truck. Mr. Roberts, then, weighed the truck with his portable scale and calculated a gross weight of 65,900 pounds. Mr. Roberts gave the driver the opportunity to contact the owner of the truck about the registration and, in accordance with policy of the Department, allowed the owner over one hour to produce a valid registration. A representative of the owner appeared and showed Mr. Roberts a duplicate registration certificate purchased the same day as the incident which indicated that the authorized gross weight for the truck was 24,680 pounds. Mr. Roberts made the determination that the registration was not valid at the time of the stop and imposed a fine for overweight of $1,545. The fine was calculated for the amount of the gross weight in excess of 35,000 pounds times five cents per pound. Existent law establishes that, for the purposes of calculation of a penalty such as the one at issue, the authorized gross weight for an unregistered vehicle is 35,000 pounds. An additional $50 was imposed as the fine for not having the required identification on the door of the truck. The total penalty of $1,595 was paid under protest. However, Petitioner did, in fact, have a valid registration on the day of the stbp. Through administrative delay, the registration certificate had not been mailed to Petitioner. On or around September 7, 1989, Petitioner purchased the truck and a temporary tag was issued to Petitioner by the dealer from which he purchased the truck. At that time, an application for registration was made to the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. The application was for a registration authorizing a gross weight of 64,000 pounds. Petitioner had not received the permanent tag or registration by the date the stop occurred. After Petitioner was alerted at the stop, Petitioner obtained a duplicate registration within the time allotted to him by Respondent. This duplicate, the one shown to Mr. Roberts on the day of the stop, indicated an authorized gross weight of 24,680 pounds, an obvious typographical error. The gross weight did not match the gross weight applied for, instead, it duplicated the amount of the empty weight into the gross weight category. On September 13, 1989, Petitioner returned the form to the issuer and requested a corrected duplicate registration. The second duplicate also was in error. This time the form indicated the correct gross weight of 64,000 pounds, but, also, repeated that gross weight amount in the empty weight category. At the hearing, Petitioner also presented the application for registration which indicated it had applied for and was taxed for a gross weight of 64,000 pounds. It was only due to administrative delay that the correct registration was not presented at the time of the stop. However, no competent evidence was received which indicated that the truck did possess the required identification on the door, and Mr. Robert's testimony about the lack of such identification is deemed credible. Although the correct gross weight for which Petitioner is licensed is 64,000, his load at the time of the stop was 65,900 or 1,900 in excess of his 64,000 pound authorized amount. At five cents a pound his penalty for overweight should be $95.00 and not $1,545.00. The $95.00 plus the $50.00 for the failure to display the required identification yields a corrected fee of $145.00 and a refund due to Petitioner of $1,400.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Department of Transportation issue a Final Order correcting the fine imposed on Petitioner, establishing the appropriate fine at $145.00 and refunding $1,400 to Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 5th day of June, 1990. JANE C. HAYMAN 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 5th day of June, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-2088 The following represents the rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties. The rulings are by paragraph within the proposed findings of fact and indicate the paragraph in the findings of fact portion of the attached recommended order which addresses the proposed finding of fact, if deemed appropriate. RESPONDENT Adopted in relevant part in paragraphs 1,2 and 3. Adopted in relevant part in paragraphs 4,5 and 9. Adopted in relevant part in paragraphs 6,7,8 and 10. COPIES FURNISHED: Dewey H. Varner, Esquire Varner, Cole & Seaman 2601 Tenth Avenue, North, Suite 410 Lake Worth, Florida 33461 Vernon T. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Attn: Eleanor F. Turner Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Robert Scanlan Interim General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue Whether or not Petitioner correctly assessed a penalty against the Respondent in the amount of $585.00 on May 6, 1991. 1/
Findings Of Fact Steve Ward has been employed by Petitioner, Department of Transportation in the motor carrier compliance section for approximately three years. His official duties include, inter alia, weighing trucks, checking license plates, fuel permits and insurance compliance. On May 6, while working at the official weight station in Old Town, Florida, Steve Ward weighed a truck owned by Respondent which had a gross weight of 91,700 pounds. The load was a "multi-load" which consisted of a crane counter weight and a roll of cable. Respondent's driver presented Ward with a state of Florida "blanket permit". Upon reviewing the permit, Steve Ward advised Respondent's driver that since his truck carried a "multi-load", the blanket permit was ineffective and therefore the maximum load allowed on his vehicle was 80,000 pounds. Steve Ward completed a load report and field receipt and gave a copy of the report/receipt to Respondent's driver, Pat Wheeler. Respondent was assessed a $585.00 penalty for operating a vehicle with a load 11,700 pounds over the 80,000 pound maximum load limit. Steve Ward followed the standard procedures in weighing Respondent's vehicle. The weight scales at the Old Town Official Station in Dixie County are inspected semi-annually pursuant to Petitioner's rules and regulations. As stated, Respondent, or a representative on its behalf, failed to appear at the hearing to contest the penalty assessed against its driver, Pat Wheeler, on May 6.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a Final Order denying Respondent's request for a refund of the penalty assessed against it on May 6, 1991 in the amount of $585.00. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of January, 1992.
The Issue Whether the Respondent's license as a registered building contractor should be disciplined for violating Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, the Respondent was licensed by the State of Florida as a registered building contractor. The Respondent held license number RB 0047309. In June of 1983, the Respondent, doing business as Gamble's Construction Company, contracted with James B. Sampson, Jr., to construct an open steel shelter on Mr. Sampson's property, the Bull Frog Dairy Farm. The contract called for the payment of $42,052.00 for the construction of the shelter. The shelter measures 108 feet by 150 feet. The shelter consists generally of a tin roof sitting on columns. The sides of the shelter are open. The shelter was to be, and is, used as a feed barn for dairy cows. The Respondent purchased the shelter to be constructed on Mr. Sampson's property from Steel Concepts, a steel manufacturing company in Sparks, Georgia. The Respondent had purchased steel structures from Steel Concepts for several years prior to 1983. The Respondent had not, however, purchased or erected a steel structure of the size and design of the shelter to be erected on Mr. Sampson's property. The steel structure purchased by the Respondent for erection on Mr. Sampson's property was designed by Donald Gibbs, then President of Steel Concepts. Mr. Gibbs was not licensed or trained as an engineer, an architect or a contractor. Mr. Gibbs' design of the steel structure purchased by the Respondent for erection on Mr. Sampson's property was never reviewed by a licensed engineer. The Respondent made no effort to ensure that the design of the steel structure purchased for erection on Mr. Sampson's property had been approved by a licensed engineer. Construction of the shelter began in August, 1983, and was completed in September, 1983. The Respondent first designed and constructed the foundation for the shelter. The foundation consisted of a series of concrete-block piers. The concrete-block piers rested on concrete footers (concrete under the ground). The shelter included twenty-eight vertical columns which were each to be attached to one of the concrete block piers by four nuts and anchor bolts. The anchor bolts were embedded into the piers. The Respondent supervised and assisted several employees in constructing the foundation and erecting the steel structure. The Respondent used all the materials furnished to him by Steel Concepts for the shelter. Although cross bracing was provided for, and attached to, the roof of the shelter, no cross-bracing was provided for use in bracing the columns. Holes for the attachment of cross bracing of the vertical columns were provided in the columns. The Respondent should have known that cross-bracing of the vertical columns was necessary. Therefore, the Respondent should have questioned Steel Concepts about the lack of such bracing or the Respondent should have added cross-bracing on the columns. On January 22, 1987, a wind and rain storm struck the Bull Frog Dairy Farm. The next morning, Mr. Sampson discovered that the shelter erected by the Respondent was listing to the east. The structure was approximately twelve to twenty degrees off vertical. Mr. Sampson arranged for emergency repairs to prevent the shelter from collapsing. The Respondent did not make the emergency repairs because it was Friday and the Respondent had released his employees. The Respondent personally helped, however, with the emergency repairs. The damage caused to the shelter by the storm was caused by the lack of cross-bracing on the columns and the failure to properly tighten approximately one-half of the nuts to the anchor bolts connecting the columns to the piers. The Respondent should have insured that the nuts were properly tightened on the anchor bolts holding the columns to the piers. The Respondent's failure to properly supervise the tightening of the anchor bolts constituted a failure to meet acceptable industry standards of supervision. The Respondent's erection of the shelter was not within acceptable industry standards. The Respondent's failure to insure that cross-bracing was provided or to ask Steel Concepts why no bracing was provided, and the Respondent's failure to insure that all the nuts were properly tightened constituted incompetency. Although there had been erosion of the soil around the shelter, the erosion did not contribute to the damage to the shelter. The possibility of erosion should have been taken into account by the Respondent before constructing the footers and piers. This is the first complaint ever filed against the Respondent. The Respondent attempted to resolve the matter with Mr. Sampson.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order finding that the Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Department impose a fine of $1,500.00 on the Respondent payable within thirty (30) days from the date of the final order in this case. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of May, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of May, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-5391 The parties have submitted proposed findings of fact. Petitioner's Motion to Strike Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order has been granted and no consideration has been given to the Respondent's proposed recommended order. It has been noted below which of the Department's proposed findings of fact have been generally accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they have been accepted, if any. Those findings of fact proposed by the Department which have been rejected and the reason for their rejection have also been noted. The Department's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in Recommended Order of Fact Number of Acceptance or Reason for Rejection 2 2 and 4. 3 11. 4 5-8. 5 10, 12-13 and 15-16. 6 17-19. 7-10 See 16, 20 and 22-23. These proposed findings of fact are pertinent in determining the weight to be given to the testimony of various witnesses or recite opinions of those witnesses. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Swanson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 J. Victor Africano, Esquire Post Office Box 1450 Live Oak, Florida 32060 Fred Seely Executive Director Post Office Box Jacksonville, Florida 32201 William O'Neil General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
