The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to supplemental compensation pursuant to Section 633.382(2)(a)2, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is certified as a firefighter. She has been so certified at all material times. The Petitioner is presently employed as a "firefighter-paramedic" with the City of Rivera Beach Fire Department. She has been so employed at all material times. In her present position the Petitioner performs the "essential job functions" described in her job description. Those functions are: Lays, connects and places hose line in operation. Raises and climbs ladders. Enters building and other fire involved areas. Uses extinguishers, bars, hooks, lines, and axes and other hand equipment. Ventilates burning buildings and structures. Throws salvage covers and removes debris. Makes regular inspections of apparatus and equipment and notifies supervisor of defects. Assists Driver-Engineer routine maintenance and apparatus check-out as required. Makes visual and physical inspections of buildings to locate fire hazards. Rescues and removes individuals from danger. Administers Advanced Life Support medical treatment to sick, injured or afflicted persons. Makes periodic inspections of buildings to locate fire hazards. Performs physical cleaning and maintenance tasks on department buildings and equipment using brooms, mops, vacuum cleaners, etc. Performs hydrant maintenance. Attends training and drill sessions in such subjects as firefighting and inspection methods, equipment operations and emergency medical treatment. In her present position the Petitioner is required to have and use the "knowledge, skills, and abilities" described in her job description. The required knowledge, skills, and abilities set forth in the job description are: Knowledge of the street locations, geography and takes of construction in the City. Knowledge of advanced Life Support Emergency Medical procedures, practices and techniques. Knowledge of various types of fire hazards of the City. Knowledge and skill in the use of Advanced Life Support (ALS) emergency medical treatment, practices, and procedures. Knowledge of firefighting techniques, policies, procedures and practices. Ability to learn and perform many and varied fighting techniques and procedures. Ability to understand and follow oral and written instructions. Ability to perform prolonged and arduous work under adverse conditions. Ability to work at heights. Ability to drive fire apparatus over the road safely under emergency conditions. Skill in the use and maintenance of firefighting equipment. In 1987 the Petitioner was awarded a Bachelor of Liberal Studies degree, with a major in Liberal Studies, by Barry University. Review of the Petitioner's transcript from Barry University does not reveal any course that appears to be "readily identifiable as applicable to fire department duties" performed by the Petitioner in her present position.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying the Petitioner's application for Firefighters' Supplemental Compensation. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us. Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Maria Fonzi-Gonzalez 212 Southwest 12th Avenue Boynton Beach, Florida 33435 Maria Fonzi-Gonzalez 14915 78th Place, North Loxahatchee, Florida 33470 Elenita Gomez, Esquire Department of Insurance 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Honorable Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capital, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Petitioner, Danny Rhoda, has applied for eligibility to take the competency examination for licensing as a fire protection system Contractor IV. The issue in this proceeding is whether Mr. Rhoda’s application should be approved.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance enter its Final Order denying Danny D. Rhoda’s application for eligibility to take the Contractor IV licensing examination. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 7th day of January, 1997. MARY CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of January, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Danny D. Rhoda Post Office Box 232 Fruitland Park, Florida 34731 Lisa S. Santucci, Esquire Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Daniel Y. Sumner, Esquire General Counsel Department of Insurance & Treasurer The Capitol, LL-26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
Findings Of Fact On February 15, 1977, Petitioner was employed by the City of Clearwater as a full-time firefighter. He became certified as a firefighter on April 21, 1977, and was issued certificate number 5374. After receiving an associate's degree from St. Petersburg Junior College, Petitioner became eligible to receive firefighters' supplemental compensation benefits on July 1, 1981. After receiving a bachelor's degree from Eckerd College, Petitioner became eligible to receive additional firefighters' supplemental compensation benefits on May 1, 1984. Until July 2, 1986, Petitioner received his supplemental compensation benefits according to the appropriate level. On July 2, 1986, a hearing was held before the City of Clearwater Pension Advisory Committee as to whether Petitioner was entitled to a job- connected disability pension for injuries that he received in firefighting related activity. Following a finding by the Clearwater Pension Advisory Committee that Petitioner was entitled to the disability, the City of Clearwater forwarded to Respondent a Notice of Ineligibility for Supplemental Compensation Benefits, reflecting an ineligibility date for Petitioner of July 2, 1986. Based upon the Notice of Ineligibility, as well as the fact that Petitioner had received a disability that could not be corrected to the satisfaction of the Respondent, Respondent voided Petitioner's certification as a firefighter and terminated his supplemental compensation benefits as of July 2, 1986. Petitioner elected a retirement plan option offered by the City of Clearwater under which he extended his termination of employment date by the amount of time due him for vacation, holiday pay, and one-half of his accrued sick leave. By utilizing the vacation and sick leave time to which he was entitled, Petitioner extended his termination of employment date to October 8, 1987. Between July 2, 1986 and October 8, 1987 Petitioner occupied the status of an employee on vacation or on sick leave, i.e., he was on leave with pay. He received a paycheck at the same time that other employees of the City of Clearwater received theirs, and his paycheck carried the same deductions that other employees would have in their checks. It is uncontroverted that although Petitioner received his disability on July 2, 1986, Petitioner has received compensation from the City of Clearwater on an uninterrupted basis encompassing the period from July 2, 1986 through October 8, 1987 for duties that he performed as a full-time firefighter for the City of Clearwater Fire Departments his employing agency.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered reinstating Petitioner's supplemental compensation benefits from July 2, 1986 through October 8, 1987 and directing that those benefits be paid to Petitioner forthwith. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 23rd day of October, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 23rd day of October, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: William Gunter State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Fredric S. Zinober, Esquire Village Office Park, Suite 107 2475 Enterprise Road Clearwater, Florida 33575 Lisa S. Santucci, Esquire Department of Insurance 413-B Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact At all times, material to this case, Petitioner has been licensed by the Department to operate an adult congregate living facility (ACLF) which is located at 6200 West Fairfield Drive, Pensacola, Florida, and is known as the Warrington House. Francis Cooper is the sole shareholder and operator of the Warrington House. Prior to 1984, the Warrington House was known as the Heritage House and was owned by a Mr. Mitchell. Sometime in 1984, Mr. Mitchell was criminally charged with elderly abuse on his residents and the Heritage House went into receivership. Another branch of HRS who was represented by Esther Ward, asked Ms. Francis Cooper to take over the facility. HRS was apparently well satisfied with Ms. Cooper's qualifications in running an ACLF since she had another such facility. When Ms. Cooper took over the Heritage House the electrical power to the facility was about to be turned off. Only by Ms. Cooper's pleading with Gulf Power was that circumstance forestalled. There were only thirteen (13) patients at the facility out of the sixteen (16) that were supposed to have been there. Three (3) of the patients had been mysteriously removed during the night. The residents that were at the house could not identify themselves and very few resident records were at the facility. The building was infested with roaches, there was raw sewage in the yard and the sewage system was completely blocked to the extent that sewage came up through the showers when a toilet was flushed. There was urine in every carpet. None of the appliances in the house worked. There were no air conditioners, fans or plastic dishes. The floors were in bad shape. In fact, Ms. Cooper fell through two of the bathroom floors. When Ms. Cooper questioned HRS representatives about the appalling conditions of the facility, she received no responsive answer. After Ms. Cooper had taken over the facility, she discovered that Mr. Mitchell had absconded with three months advance rent from the residents. Ms. Cooper, therefore, had to operate the premises for three months without income from the residents that were there. She used her own money. Ms. Cooper started with the air conditioning, flooring and carpeting. All these items were replaced. The bathrooms were tiled and additional bathrooms were added. She put in a $6,000.00 sewage system, a lift station and paid $1,000.00 to hook the building onto city sewage. She also brought in an exterminator to get rid of the bugs. All of this took place over a period of two years wherein Ms. Cooper worked diligently to bring the building up to "snuff." In fact, in the time since she has had the facility she has accomplished wonders in improving conditions at the house. These conditions clearly did not appear overnight, but over several years and were apparently overlooked by Respondent until the crisis with Mr. Mitchell had occurred. Ms. Cooper went into the house with the understanding that the corporation would eventually build another facility and close what had become the Warrington House. The reason for the new construction was that the current building, regardless of the amount of repair, was still an old building not worth maintaining and which was allowed to deteriorate badly prior to her stewardship. However, due to a falling out with her brother, who was then a co- shareholder of the corporation, Ms. Cooper was unable to complete her plans for moving the residents of the Warrington House to a new facility. She continues to attempt to obtain financing to build a new facility. At least once a year, HRS does a full survey on a ACLF like the Warrington House. A full survey is simply an inspection of the property in order to determine the degree of compliance with HRS rules and regulations. Upon completing the inspection, the inspector goes through an exit briefing with the ACLF's management. During the exit briefing, the inspector will go over any deficiencies he or she has discovered and attempt to establish mutually agreeable correction dates. The inspector also explains that these time periods are the best estimates that they can come up with at that point to allow a reasonable amount of time for the required corrections to be made. If any problems should arise, the inspector requests that the manager communicate with his or her office and ask for an extension. Extensions are not always forthcoming. After the full survey inspection is done, a follow-up visit is normally scheduled to determine whether the earlier cited deficiencies have been corrected. If, after the follow-up survey there are items that are still not corrected, the inspector will explain to the person in charge that they are subject to administrative action and that he or she will report he facility's noncompliance to his or her office. Whether or not administrative action is taken is determined at a level above the inspector. However, it appears that the customary practice of the office is to pursue an administrative fine for any noncompliance after the correction date has been passed. After the first follow-up survey has been made it depends on the particular factual situation whether or not further follow-up surveys are made until compliance is achieved. If there are efforts being made to correct the problems further follow-up surveys will be made. If not, further follow-up surveys may not be made. In this case, James Temkin, an HRS Fire Protection Specialist, performed a full survey fire safety inspection on the Warrington House on September 24, 1986. During that survey, he cited 11 deficiencies. Various compliance dates were established for the deficiencies. A follow-up survey was conducted by Mr. Temkin on January 14, 1987. During that survey, he noted that 6 of the previously cited deficiencies had not been corrected. He recommended administrative action on all the uncorrected deficiencies. The six remaining uncorrected deficiencies were as follows: No up to date fire plan and the July 7th fire drills were not documented; No fire alarm test since July 1986 and fire alarm zones were not shown on the actuator panel; Smoke detectors not working in four (4) rooms; Exit sign lights burned out at the front and center exits, emergency lights not working at the front, rear and upstairs exit halls; Sleeping rooms had hollow core doors; and There was no documentation of fire safety on the wood paneling and tile ceilings on the first and second floors. All other deficiencies cited during the September 24, 1986 full survey were corrected. As to the alleged deficiencies contained in the latter half of (b) and (c)-(f) above, none appear at any point in HRS' rules governing ACLF's. Supposedly, these deficiencies are cited in the NFPA life safety code, which is incorporated by reference in the Fire Marshal's rule on ACLF's, Rule 4A-40, Florida Administrative Code. The 1984 version of Rule 4A-40, Florida Administrative Code is incorporated by reference in HRS' rule, Rule 10A-5, Florida Administrative Code. Both HRS' rule and the Fire Marshal's rule are contained in the Florida Administrative Code. However, the 1984 version of NFPA is nowhere to be found in the Administrative Code. The current Fire Marshal's rule adopts portions of the 1985 NFPA life safety code. However, the HRS' rule adopts the 1984 version of the Fire Marshal's rule. No showing was made by Respondent as to what the 1984 version of the NFPA code contained. The HRS inspector's testimony regarding a particular deficiency's inclusion in the NFPA cannot be relied on since both inspectors apparently used the 1985 version of the NFPA which is not the 1984 version included in HRS's rule. Without proof of the contents of the NFPA, HRS has failed to prove any deficiencies for which it may take administrative actions. As to the other deficiencies, attempts to comply were in fact made by the Warrington House. The facility's personnel in fact thought they had complied with HRS' desires based upon previous inspections. However, for one reason or another, these attempts were rejected by the HRS inspector and the deficiency was cited again, but because of another reason. The lack of an up- to-date fire plan (cited in (a) above) was met by the Warrington House when they obtained a fire plan prior to the established correction date from another arm of HRS responsible for devising such plans. However, upon the January 14th follow-up inspection, the plan obtained from HRS by Petitioner was considered insufficient in that it did not outline staff responsibilities during a fire. The same thing occurred with the lack of fire alarm tests, cited in the latter part of (a) and the first part of (b) above. The Warrington House obtained the testing document and test from another branch of HRS responsible for such testing. However, the inspector at the follow up survey did not deem his own agency's testing documents sufficient since it did not show a different type sending unit was being tested at least once a year. 1/ These are simply not repeat deficiencies since in each instance the earlier grievance had been met and it was another grievance which cropped up. On July 9, 1987, a second follow-up survey to the Temkin September 24, 1986, full survey was performed by O.B. Walton, an HRS fire safety inspector. The evidence was not clear as to any remaining uncorrected deficiencies, if any, he found. Therefore, Respondent failed to establish any repetitive deficiencies as a result of the July 9 follow-up survey. Apparently, however, Mr. Walton, did perform another full survey on July 9, 1987. Several additional deficiencies were cited by him. A follow-up visit was conducted by Mr. Walton on October 23, 1987. Four alleged deficiencies remained uncorrected as follows: Ceiling not repaired in hot water heater closet, i.e. not taped; Kitchen fire door latch was jammed open so it would not latch, but it would stay closed; Plug by hot water heater had no cover; No documentation that drapes were fire retardant. Again, none of the above alleged deficiencies appear in HRS' rules or in the fire marshal's rule and a reasonable person could not glean from any of the other provisions contained in HRS' rules that the above conditions might be included in these provisions. The lack of clarity or uniformity in interpretation of HRS' rules is especially born out in this case since two different inspectors while inspecting the same building cited different deficiencies under their respective interpretation of the rules. When the experts differ it is difficult to see how a reasonable lay person could even begin to know or understand the contents of HRS or the Fire Marshal's rules. This lack is especially true since the relevant contents of the 1984 NFPA life safety code are not contained in the Florida Administrative Code and were not demonstrated by HRS. HRS, therefore, failed to prove any repeat deficiencies from the October 23, 1987 follow-up survey. A third fire safety follow-up visit was conducted by Pat Reid, a human services program analyst, on January 21, 1988. She has no expertise or license to perform fire safety inspections. She found all of the earlier cited uncorrected deficiencies corrected except for the documentation on the drapes. That alleged deficiency was partially corrected since Petitioner was replacing the drapery with metal blinds. However, as indicated earlier the lack of documentation for fire retardant drapes was not proven to be a violation by Respondent. Ms. Reid had previously conducted a full survey of Petitioner on August 17 and 18, 1987 in her area of expertise operation and general maintenance of an ACLF. Several deficiencies were cited and correction dates were established. Ms. Reid conducted a follow-up survey to the August 17 and 18 full survey on October 23, 1987. The following alleged deficiencies had not been corrected: Facility staff do not have documentation of being free of communicable diseases; The physical examination (Health Assessment) of resident identified as M. B. does not indicate that the resident is free from communicable disease; Broken or cracked window panes in windows of second floor exit door, both first floor bathrooms nearest kitchen, and resident rooms identified as C. W., W. S., and W. L.; Shower tile missing in second floor bathroom nearest exit door; Linoleum of first floor bathroom is loose as well as badly stained with cigarette burns; Hole in wall next to sink and toilet of second floor bathroom nearest exit door and square hole in wall of second floor blue bathroom; Faucet of first floor bathroom is loose; Carpeting in first floor resident room (#7) is badly stained; Three vinyl chairs in dining room have tears, exposing foam padding; Second floor bathroom faucet nearest exit does not clearly distinguish between hot and cold water taps. As to the alleged deficiency contained in (a) above, the regulations do not contain a requirement that any documentation be kept regarding staff members being free of communicable disease. The regulations only require that the facility administrator assure that staff is free of communicable disease. The evidence showed that Petitioner had in fact assured that the staff was free of communicable disease. Therefore, no violation occurred. The alleged deficiency cited in (b) above does constitute a violation of Rules 10-5.081(1)(b), (2)(a)4.d., and (2)(b), Florida Administrative Code. However, in this instance, there are several mitigating circumstances. Foremost is the fact that Petitioner attempted on several occasions to obtain this information from another arm of HRS who had M. B. under its care prior to his admission to Petitioner's facility and had actually failed to complete M. B.'s Health Assessment form properly. Petitioner received many assurances from HRS that it would obtain and forward the information. HRS failed to do so. Moreover, after several years of M. B. living at the Warrington House and after several years of HRS care prior to his admission, common sense would dictate that M. B. is free of communicable diseases. Petitioner has in fact received confirmation of that fact from an examining physician who certified M. B. free of communicable diseases. 2/ As to (c) above, the evidence showed that the windows were only cracked and not broken. No evidence was presented as to the severity of the cracks. Cracked windows are not included in Rule 10A-5.022(a), Florida Administrative Code, which only addresses broken window panes. Moreover, cracked windows without proof of the severity of the cracks is not sufficient evidence of the lack of good repair or other hazardous conditions similar to those listed in Rule 10A-5.022(a), Florida Administrative Code. The Rule requires proof of the hazardous nature of such a condition. Cracked windows are not hazardous in and of themselves and no showing was made that these cracked panes constituted a hazard. Nor do cracked window panes standing alone constitute a violation of Rule 10A-5.022(d). The rule requires evidence that such cracked panes are unreasonably unattractive and no showing was made that the cracks were unreasonably unattractive. Likewise, the missing shower tile in (d) above fails to constitute a violation of Rule 10A-5.022(a) since the deficiency is not listed, and no showing was made that the missing tile constituted a hazardous condition. Similarly, the missing tile, by itself, does not constitute a violation under Rule 10A-5.022(d) since no showing was made that the missing tile was unreasonably unattractive. The same failure of proof occurs with the alleged deficiencies listed in (e), (f), (g), (h) and (i). See Rules 10A-5.022(c), (e) and (i). The alleged deficiency cited in (j) above does constitute a violation of 10A-5.023(9)(e). However, the violation was not repeated after October 1, 1987, the effective date of Section 400.414(2)(d), Florida Statutes. Ms. Reid conducted a second follow-up survey to the August 17 and 18 full survey when she performed the fire safety follow-up on January 21, 1988. All previously cited deficiencies had been corrected except for: Facility staff do not have documentation of being free of communicable diseases. The physical examination (Health Assessment) of resident identified as M. B. does not indicate that the resident is free from communicable diseases. The following maintenance problems exist: broken or cracked window panes in windows of second floor exit door, both first floor bathrooms and resident room identified as W. S. A third follow-up was conducted by Ms. Reid on April 15, 1988. All the previously cited deficiencies had been corrected except for: The physical examination (Health Assessment) of resident identified as M. B. does not indicate that the resident is free from communicable disease. Broken or cracked window panes in windows of second floor exit door, both first floor bathrooms nearest kitchen, and resident rooms identified as C. W., W. S., and W. L.; Shower tile missing in second floor bathroom nearest exit door; Linoleum of first floor bathroom is loose as well as badly stained with cigarette burns; Hole in wall next to sink and toilet of second floor bathroom nearest exit door and square hole in wall of second floor blue bathroom. All of the alleged deficiencies cited in the January 21, 1988 follow- up and the April 15, 1988 follow-up survey were carried forward from the alleged deficiencies discussed above, cited in the October 23, 1987 follow-up survey. The same findings are made as to the alleged deficiencies which were carried forward. Only the physical health assessment of M. B. was cited by Respondent and shown to be a repeated deficiency since the information was not obtained by the established correction dates occurring after October 1, 1987. By the date of the hearing all the above alleged deficiencies had been corrected. Respondent notified Petitioner that it proposed to deny renewal of Petitioner's license to operate the Warrington House on December 23, 1987. The basis for the denial was Section 400.414(1) and (2)(d) which states: 400.414 Denial, revocation, or suspension of license; imposition of administrative fine; grounds. The department may deny, revoke or suspend a license or impose an administrative fine in the manner provided in chapter 120. Any of the following actions by a facility or its employee shall be grounds for action by the department against a licensee: * * * (d) Multiple and repeated violations of this part or of minimum standards or rules adopted pursuant to this part. The language of Subsection (d) was added to Section 400.414 F.S. on October 1, 1987. Prior to that date Respondent had no authority to take punitive action against the license of an ACLF licensee for multiple and repeated violations of Respondent's statutes and rules. The only action Respondent could take against a facility for such violations was in the form of a civil fine the amount of which could be raised if the violation was repetitive. Section 400.426, Florida Statutes. No multiple violations were shown by the evidence through the April 15, 1988 follow-up survey. More importantly, however, no multiple violations were shown by Respondent after October 1, 1987, the effective date of the statutory language at issue in this case. No showing was made by Respondent as to any legislative intent that the statute operate retrospectively. The statute operates only prospectively. Therefore, any alleged deficiencies cited prior to October 1, 1987 are irrelevant for purposes of imposing the punishment contemplated under Section 400.414, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services renew Petitioner's license. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 9th day of November, 1988.
The Issue The issue presented for decision in this case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to supplemental compensation pursuant to the Firefighters Supplemental Compensation Program, by virtue of his Bachelor of Arts degree with a major course of study in Communications.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner, James A. Barr, is a certified firefighter/EMT. He has been employed full-time by the City of St. Petersburg Fire Department since 1996. On or about May 11, 1998, Petitioner applied for admission to the Firefighter’s Supplemental Compensation Program (the “Program”), pursuant to Section 633.382, Florida Statutes. The Program is a state fund providing additional compensation to firefighters who meet certain educational criteria over and above the basic training required for certification as a firefighter pursuant to Section 633.35, Florida Statutes. The Program’s purpose is to provide an incentive for firefighters to pursue educational opportunities related to their fire department duties. Petitioner received a Bachelor of Arts degree, with a major in Communications, from the University of South Florida in August 1995. Petitioner applied for compensation from the Program for his Bachelor of Arts degree in Communications. Respondent denied the application because a degree in Communications is not one of the nine acceptable majors listed in Rule 4A-37.084(5), Florida Administrative Code, nor is it otherwise “readily identifiable” to Petitioner’s duties as a firefighter. The pertinent portion of the rule states: (5) “Major Study Concentration Area” as identified on official sealed transcripts, includes a major in fire science, municipal management, public administration, business administration, computer science, engineering, management information systems, emergency medical technology, and paramedic technology. Petitioner conceded that Communications is not one of the listed “Major Study Concentration Areas,” but contended that a Communications major is “readily identifiable as applicable to fire department duties,” as stated in Rule 4A-37.084(3), Florida Administrative Code. Thomas M. Burton, Assistant Fire Chief, testified that the St. Petersburg Fire Department is very active in fire prevention, public education, and community service activities. New employees are required to take a five-week training program that includes public education activities. Trainees are required to develop a teaching outline covering safety concepts that a firefighter might use with elementary school children, and then must make a fifteen-minute presentation using vocabulary appropriate to a second grade class. Once on the job, firefighters are required to perform all manner of public education activities, addressing groups as diverse as senior citizens, college students, and elementary schoolchildren. The presentations may include discussion of smoke detectors, CPR, fall prevention, and swimming pool safety. The firefighters themselves are required to prepare their own presentations for these activities. Mr. Burton testified that he believes Petitioner’s Communications degree relates to many of his duties, especially the public education aspects of the job. Mr. Burton conceded that all firefighters must perform the public education duties he described, and that Petitioner is in no way singled-out for assignment to these duties. The City of St. Petersburg Fire Department’s written job description for firefighters does not include the public education activities described by Mr. Burton. The job description does include a statement that a firefighter must possess the ability “to communicate clearly and concisely, both orally and in writing.” Mr. Burton minimized the import of the written job description, stating that it is not an operating document that firefighters use to manage their day-to-day activities. He described it as more in the nature of a “mission statement” or a “value statement.” Larry McCall, Field Representative Supervisor for the Division of State Fire Marshall, is the person responsible for managing the Program. Mr. McCall reviews the applications and makes the decisions on accepting or denying them. Mr. McCall made the decision to deny Petitioner’s application. Mr. McCall testified that he reviews the applicant’s college transcript and written job description to determine whether the applicant’s college major relates to the duties set forth in the job description. Mr. McCall determined that Petitioner’s major in Communications was not “readily identifiable” to the fire department duties set forth in the job description. Mr. McCall acknowledged the language in the job description requiring firefighters to “communicate clearly and concisely,” but he described that as a generic phrase that is included in all or most job descriptions. He stated that firefighters are able to perform public presentations effectively without degrees in Communications. Mr. McCall testified that he would consider other factors, such as whether the applicant had been assigned to special duties relating to his college major. For example, Mr. McCall testified that he had previously approved an application for a Communications major where the applicant had been assigned to the training division and was the department’s video production person. Petitioner in this instance had been given no such special assignment.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that a final order be entered denying James A. Barr’s application for entry into the Firefighters’ Supplemental Compensation Program, without prejudice to his ability to reapply in the event of changes to his job description or assignments. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of February, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LAWRENCE P. STEVENSON 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of February, 1999. www.doah.state.fl.us COPIES FURNISHED: Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Elenita Gomez, Esquire Division of Legal Services Department of Insurance 200 East Gaines Street 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Gabriel Mazzeo, Esquire Division of State Fire Marshall Department of Insurance 200 East Gaines Street 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Sylvia A. Barr, Esquire 2900 55th Street North St. Petersburg, Florida 33710
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Respondents committed the violations alleged in the amended administrative complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating fire extinguisher dealers. Respondent, Ricardo Cabrera, holds a fire extinguisher permit class 03 license (No. 109176000192) and is the qualifier for the company, B.C. & A.B.C. Fire Extinguisher Maintenance (license No. 702193000190 - Fire Extinguisher Dealer Class "C"). At all times material to the amended administrative complaint, Carlos Javier Gonzalez-Clavell was employed by Respondent but was not licensed or permitted to service fire extinguishers. In August, 1995, Respondents were placed on probation for a period of two (2) years. A special condition of Respondents' probation required Ricardo Cabrera to supervise all activities undertaken by the company to insure its employees complied with all regulations. In response to a complaint unrelated to the quality of Respondent's work performance, Ms. Barrow directed an investigation of the Respondent's business premises. Mr. Parks was assigned the investigation of whether Respondents were employing unlicensed workers to perform servicing or recharge of fire extinguishers. On January 29, 1996, Mr. Parks went to Respondent's place of business and observed someone loading a vehicle with fire extinguisher equipment and supplies. He also observed the male near a tank which he presumed was nitrogen. He assumed the person was recharging a fire extinguisher. During the described activity Respondent was not in sight. The person described in paragraph 7 later identified himself as Carlos Javier Gonzalez-Clavell. The vehicle being loaded belonged to Mr. Clavell. Respondent was on the business premises at all times noted above. He was out of view but supervising Mr. Clavell's activities. Mr. Clavell did not recharge fire extinguishers and was not permitted to perform license activities.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Insurance and Treasurer enter a final order dismissing the amended administrative complaint. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 5th day of February, 1997. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of February, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Joe Demember, Esquire Division of Legal Services 512 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Ricardo Cabrera 3340 South Lake Drive Miami, Florida 33155 Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Y. Sumner General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, LL-26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Is Petitioner eligible for Respondent sponsored retraining?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: Petitioner sustained a workers’ compensation injury (injury) to his right knee on November 26, 1989, while working for the Polk County Fire Department (Fire Department), as a firefighter. Following the injury, Petitioner received authorized medical care at the expense of his employer, which included surgery, followed by approximately one year of physical rehabilitation. After completing approximately one year of physical rehabilitation and light duty work, Petitioner was returned to full duty work with the Fire Department in January 1991. Petitioner continued to experience problems with his right knee, including pain and swelling. However, Petitioner continued on full time duty receiving medical care for his knee. Petitioner’s right knee remained problematic and required regular medical attention between 1990 and 1996. In January 1996, Thomas F. Winters, Jr., M.D. performed a second surgical procedure on Petitioner’s right knee. Following the second surgical procedure, Dr. Winters provided conservative treatment for a brief period before releasing Petitioner to full duty on March 9, 1996, without any restrictions. On March 12, 1996, Dr. Winters placed Petitioner at maximum medical improvement (MMI). Dr. Winters is of the opinion that Petitioner had some degenerative changes to his knee but that those changes were related to a previous arthritic problem, not to the workman’s compensation injury; and if Petitioner was performing full firefighter duties before the injury then he could perform those duties after March 9, 1996. However, based on the opinions expressed by Dr. Barrett, and Dr. McGregor, Dr. Croft, it appears that Dr. Winters did not properly take into account Petitioner’s continued problem with his knee when Dr. Winters found Petitioner at MMI and put Petitioner on full firefighter’s duty. At the time of his release by Dr. Winters on March 9, 1996, and placed at MMI, Petitioner’s knee was so weak that he could not climb stairs or climb ladders or lift anything with any degree of certainty and Petitioner did not feel himself capable of safely performing the full duties of a firefighter. Because of his knee, Petitioner did not return to full duty as a firefighter but instead requested another medical opinion. Petitioner was authorized to see Carl L. Croft, M.D. for a second opinion. Dr. Croft agreed that Petitioner could not perform full duty as a firefighter and recommended that he receive further physical therapy. This physical therapy was never authorized. Petitioner did not return to full duty as a firefighter following Dr. Winters’ release. Instead, Petitioner requested the additional care recommended by Dr. Croft. This additional care was never authorized. Ultimately, Petitioner exhausted his sick leave and vacation time and was forced to return to work in May 1996. Upon his return to work in May 1996, Petitioner advised his employer of his continued concerns as they related to his knee and his inability to perform the essential functions of a firefighter. At this point, Petitioner’s employer changed Petitioner’s work duties and he was not functioning as a firefighter. Because of Petitioner’s physical limitations on performing full firefighter duties his employment could not be considered "suitable gainful employment" as that term is defined in Section 440.491(1)(g), Florida Statutes. Petitioner was placed on administrative leave in October 1996, and remained on administrative leave until his termination for cause on January 17, 1997. At the time of termination, Petitioner’s right knee continued to be problematic. Petitioner sought retraining through Respondent and was approved for retraining on July 14, 1998. However, the Fire Department and its insurance carrier objected on the basis that Petitioner had returned to work for 90 days or more after the injury and therefore, retraining was precluded by rule. After a reevaluation, the Respondent determined that Petitioner had worked more than 90 days after being released by Dr. Winters to return to full-time work and, additionally, had worked more than 90 days after Dr. Winters had determined that Petitioner had reached MMI. Therefore, Petitioner was denied retraining on the basis that retraining was precluded by rule. Thereafter, Respondent’s initial decision to grant retraining was revoked and retraining denied by letter dated August 5, 1998. Petitioner worked full-time for more than 90 days after his injury when he was returned to full firefighter’s duty by Dr. Winters in January 1991, and when he returned to work after Dr. Winters had determined that Petitioner had reached MMI on March 12, 1996. However, neither of these periods of employment could be considered as "suitable gainful employment" as that term is defined in Section 440.491(1)(g), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Respondent enter a final order granting Petitioner’s request for retraining. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th of May, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary Hooks, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Sherri Wilkes-Cape, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Geoffrey Bichler, Esquire Geoffrey Bichler, P.A. 533 West New England Avenue, Suite C Winter Park, Florida 32789 Nancy Staff Slayden, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security Suite 307, Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189
Conclusions THE PARTIES resolved all disputed issues and executed a Stipulation and Agreement, which is attached and incorporated by reference. The parties are directed to comply with the terms of the attached Stipulation and Agreement. Based on the foregoing, this file is CLOSED. DONE AND ORDERED this 7D day of DcMen... I 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. I T&a . t:lo Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration A PARTY WHO IS ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ORDER IS ENTITLED TO JUDICIAL REVIEW, WHICH SHALL BE INSTITUTED BY FILING THE ORIGINAL NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE AGENCY CLERK OF AHCA, AND A COPY, ALONG WITH THE FILING FEE PRESCRIBED BY LAW, WITH THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL IN THE APPELLATE DISTRICT WHERE THE AGENCY MAINTAINS ITS HEADQUARTERS OR WHERE A PARTY RESIDES. REVIEW PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FLORIDA APPELLATE RULES. THE NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE RENDITION OF THE ORDER TO BE REVIEWED. Filed November 2, 2009 1:20 PM Division of Administrative Hearings. Case No. 08-1995MPI ARCA vs. City of Jacksonville Fire Division Rescue Service Final Order CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished by United States Mail and by facsimile transmission (904)630-1731 to Loree L. French, Esquire, Attorney for the Respondent; City of Jacksonville, 117 West Duval Street, t::5-_ Suite 480, Jacksonville, Florida 32202 this ...5.. 1) day of October, 2009. ?Sb RICHARD J. S::P, A:;y Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, MS #3 Tallahassee, FL 32308 (850) 922-5873 2
Findings Of Fact The parties agreed that the City of Winter Park or the City Commission was the Public Employer as defined by Chapter 477, Florida Statutes. The Public Employees Relations Commission's file contains the affidavit of Pat Hill attesting to the fact that the Winter Park Professional Fire Fighters Local #1598 was a duly registered employee organization as of the date of hearing. This affidavit was executed on May 2, 1975. The Petition recites that recognition of Petitioner was requested on January 16, 1975. The Public Employer has not responded to the request for recognition. The Winter Park Fire Department is composed of full-time and volunteer fire fighters. The Petitioner seeks to represent only full-time fire fighters, of which there are approximately 38, and would seek to represent all fire fighters in the Department except the chief. The Winter Park Fire Department is composed of the chief, fire inspector (fire marshall), three captains, three lieutenants, one mechanic, various engineers and fire fighters. There are two fire stations, Station 1 and Station 2, each station having three shifts. Station 1 is commanded by a captain and Station 2 is commanded by a lieutenant who reports to the captain who also is the shift commander. It should be noted, however, that the captain would not respond to a fire in Station 2's area, therefore, generally, a lieutenant would not work on a fire scene for the captain. Each shift has approximately eleven men, including the captain and lieutenant, assigned, and there are approximately 6-5 at Station 1 and 4-5 at Station 2. The Mechanic is a fully qualified fire fighter and the Chief feels that this dual capability makes him more valuable to the Department. The Fire Inspector (Fire Marshall) is a special staff officer who inspects building plans for compliance with fire safety codes, assist in operational planning, and directs the activities of fire safety inspectors assigned to him. The Deputy Chief acts as the second in command of the Department, assistant to the Fire Chief, and coordinates and directly supervises the shift captains. He would respond to any fire alarm in Area 1 or 2 which was other than a minor fire, and command the fire scene, except those to which the Chief responded. It was apparent that the Fire Chief was the major policy maker, but the Deputy Chief was the "detail man" charged with developing and executing major polices determined by the Chief. The Deputy Chief prepared the Standing Operating Procedures (SOP's), letters of change to the SOP's, and other letters of direction received from the Chief. Although the Chief would consult with the Deputy Chief on budgetary, personnel, and planning matters, the Chief retained the authority to determine policy. The Deputy Chief was authorized to exercise his discretion in implementing these polices particularly those related to personnel; assignments, transfers, and approval of leaves. The Mechanic is assigned to maintain and repair all the department's trucks and pumps. The Chief testified that the Mechanic had and needed knowledge of regular gasoline engines, diesel engines, and pumps. The Chief further testified that the Mechanic's position was held by a man who had been an engineer with the Department, who had the requisite skills, and the Chief had promoted him to provide him additional compensation in order that he would take the job. The Mechanic spends almost all of his 40-hour week in the performance of mechanic's duties, but as a qualified fire fighter he is qualified to perform fire fighting duties if necessary. In actuality the Mechanic does not fight fires, but has the capability if required. The Mechanic schedules his own work and reports to the Deputy Chief. He is on call when not on duty. He is assisted as required by other firemen if additional physical strength is necessary to perform a specific task. The status of the current mechanic is apparently in flux, and the Chief has referred to a study committee of firemen and officers the problem of to what rank and seniority the individual should revert. The Mechanic is not required to be a fire fighter. It was apparent from the Chief's testimony regarding various major policy decisions that he consulted with fire department personnel who would be effected by a proposed policy either by means of a group meeting, study committee or similar decision making process. Such input was obtained from personnel not so much on the basis of rank in the Department but rather on the issue involved and who it affected. The Chief was dependent upon his special staff members, i.e., the Deputy Chief and Fire Marshall, for special plans and operational advice, however, the pattern for decision making did not restrict input solely to officer personnel. The company officers provide budgetary information by preparing lists of their stations' and shifts' projected equipment, consumable, and capital outlay needs in the upcoming fiscal year. Based upon this data the Chief and Deputy Chief prepare the budget for submission to the City Manager. Items requested by company officers are reviewed by the Chief and Deputy Chief and are generally approved if they are not too expensive and appear to be justifiable. The Chief indicated that he gave careful consideration to such requests, pointing out an expensive hose dryer purchased at the request of Station 2's officers and a coffee maker needed and requested by Lt. Legarde, the latter being a direct authorization purchase from current funding. The company officers were responsible for the assignment of duties of subordinate personnel at their station on their shift both on equipment and station work details. Because of the limited numbers of personnel assigned at the stations, the company officers participated in clean up details including the handling of the light clean up duties. The company officers had only limited authority to grant leaves. Company officers would not have authority to suspend personnel except under those circumstances in which the individual would pose a hazard to himself and others such as an employee reporting to work drunk. Disciplinary cases would be referred through the Deputy Chief to the Chief for final action with appeal rights to the civil service board. The authority to grant regular leave similarly would necessitate approval by the Deputy Chief. The company officers forward the request to the Deputy Chief and explain the basis for the request. According to the testimony, officers would not generally present a recommendation regarding approval to the Deputy Chief. Company officers do have authority to grant temporary exchanges of duty although this would be reported as a courtesy to the Deputy Chief. Company officers do evaluate personnel and these evaluations would be a considerable but not determinative factor in promotion. It would be one of several things which a panel of fire officers from surrounding communities would consider in evaluating an employee's eligibility for promotion. The Chief indicated that although by law he could select from the several highest individuals recommended, he had established a policy that he would promote the highest recommended. Merit increases were authorized and dependent upon evaluations, however, because of nonavailability of funds, merit increases had not been paid for some time and no one could foresee their payment. The relationship of company officers on the table of organization would indicate that the Lieutenant at Station 2 was subordinate to the Captain at Station 1. However the Captain is more closely under the supervision of the Deputy Chief. The conduit for information is through the chain of command, however, any person who was not present or otherwise reasonably available would be skipped.
The Issue The Administrative Complaint alleges that Respondent violated certain provisions of Chapter 509, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 61-C, Florida Administrative Code, regarding the absence of required equipment, equipment not operative, and failure to post required signs for public information. Specifically, Respondent, after notice of specific violations and lapse of the allotted time to correct those violations, Respondent failed to do so.
Findings Of Fact On or about February 29, 2000, an employee of the Agency, Kenneth Phillips, supervised inspector trainee, Rick Decker, who performed the initial inspection of Respondent's establishment. A copy of the Public Lodging Inspection Report, citing specific violations noted in or about the establishment was prepared, and each violation was fully explained to Virgie Fowler. A copy of the inspection report was given to Mr. Fowler. Kenneth Phillips advised Mr. Fowler that a call-back re-inspection for correction of cited violations would be made on or about March 13, 2000. On or about March 13, 2000, inspectors Kenneth Phillips and Rick Decker undertook a call-back re-inspection. Previously cited violations not corrected were observed by both inspectors, and entries were made in their re-inspection report, which constituted the Administrative Complaint herein filed. The Agency is charged with the regulation of public lodging establishments and public food service establishments, pursuant to authority granted by Chapter 509, Section 509.032, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Gardenville Motel, is holder of State of Florida License No. 39-01017-H, with a last-known business address of 11549 US Highway 41, Gibsonton, Florida 33534-5210. Respondent is owned and operated by Virgie Fowler.1 Gardenville Motel has a total of 16 non-sequentially numbered rooms available to rent. The Division of Hotels and Restaurants has employed for four years Kenneth Phillips as a Sanitation and Safety Specialist. His primary duties are the inspection of hotels, restaurants, apartment complexes, and mobile vehicles, for the purpose of ascertaining licensees' compliance with safety and sanitation requirements provided by Chapter 509, Florida Statutes. Mr. Phillips has a four-year college degree in criminal justice and a two-year degree in environmental technology. He is a certified special fire inspector and receives ongoing training in food safety and inspection criteria. On or about February 29, 2000, Mr. Phillips and Rick Decker conducted an inspection of the Gardenville Motel (hereinafter "Motel"), following a consumer's complaint of not being satisfied with the conditions of his motel room and management's delay in refunding his money. Rick Decker recorded the results of their initial inspection in a "Food Service Inspection Report," under the supervision and direction of Kenneth Phillips. The Report noted 25 safety and sanitation violations. The Report contained the notification: "Warning: Violations in the operations of your establishment must be corrected by: Date: 2/13/00. Time: 8:00". The date for re-inspection was a scrivener's error. The corrected date is "3/13/00."2 On the day of the inspection, a copy of the report was provided to the owner/manager, Virgie Fowler, who acknowledged receipt, by his signature at the bottom of the report. Kenneth Phillips and Rick Decker discussed with Mr. Fowler, each cited violation contained in the report including the 15-day period before re-inspection for compliance (i.e. correct date of 3/13/00). On March 13, 2000, Mr. Phillips and Mr. Decker, conducted their re-inspection of the Motel to determine whether violations cited on February 29, 2000, were corrected. The two inspectors found eight uncorrected violations. A "Callback/Re- inspection Report" noting the uncorrected violations was completed. A copy of the Callback/Re-inspection Report was signed by and provided to Richard Mercurio, who signed the report as "Manager."3 Critical violations, noted on the initial report by an asterisk to the left of the cited violations, are considered dangerous. Critical violations present a risk to the personal health and safety of guests entering or staying at the motel. Respondent had three critical violations that were not corrected at the time of re-inspection. Violations cited were: no smoke detectors in Rooms 7 and 9; the smoke detectors in Room 5 were inoperative; no fire extinguishers in Rooms 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26; lack of hot water in Rooms 7 and 9; electrical wire exposure in Room 9; and current license not displayed nor available upon request. There was excessive trash in the rear of the premises. Every hotel, motel, and other public rental establishment is required by rule to post room rental rate cards in each room. The report cited Respondent for not posting a room rental rate charge card in each room offered for rent. At the time of the re-inspection Respondent had not corrected three critical violations and one non-critical violation. Respondent did not appear at the final hearing to present mitigating circumstances.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a final order imposing a fine in the amount of $1,000 per critical violation per day beginning on March 13, 2000, forward until each of the three critical violations has been corrected. It is recommended that the Board impose a separate and additional fine in the amount of $500 per non-critical violation per day from beginning on March 13, 2000, forward until the one non-critical violation has been corrected. It is recommended that the Board suspend License No. 39- 0107-H until full compliance with all sanctions herein imposed is made. Finally, it is recommended that the Board impose upon Virgie Fowler, owner of the motel, the requirement to attend, at personal expense, an appropriate Education program to be designated by the Hospitality Educational program director prior to renewal or reinstatement of license No. 39-01017-H. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of January, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FRED L. BUCKINE 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 January, 2001.
