The Issue Whether Respondents Veg Service, Inc., and Western Surety Company are justly indebted to Dixie Growers, Inc., for Florida- grown agricultural products which Dixie Growers, as the agent for the producers of the products; sold to Veg Service?
Findings Of Fact The Parties Dixie Growers, located in Plant City, Florida, is a producer, packer, and seller of Florida-grown agricultural products. It also acts as a sales agent for growers of Florida agricultural products, and in that capacity is a producer of agricultural products. Ms. Linda T. Lawton is the Vice President/Secretary for Dixie Growers, Inc. Mr. George Locklear is a salesman for the company. It is the practice of Dixie Growers, Inc., to pay the growers who provide it with agricultural products to be sold on the open market within 10 to 14 days of shipment unless the broker or purchaser to whom the products are sold notifies Dixie of a problem. This practice was made known to Veg Service before the incidents which led to these proceedings. Whenever Dixie receives notice of a problem with the shipment prior to payment of the grower, Dixie places a "trouble" memorandum on the top of the file. In such a case, Dixie does not usually pay the grower until the problem has been resolved with the broker and then only in an amount that does not exceed what Dixie receives from the broker or purchaser. Veg Services, Inc., is a negotiating broker of Florida agricultural products, some of which it has purchased from Dixie Growers. In this capacity Veg Services is a dealer in agricultural products. The company is located in Pompano Beach, Florida. Western Surety Company is the issuer of bonds to Veg Services, Inc., in amounts sufficient to cover the disputes involved in this proceeding. Case No. 96-3995A On June 1, 1996, Dixie Growers sold 260 boxes, (1 and 1/9th bushels each), of fancy eggplant to Veg Services. The price was $8.00 per box for a price of $2,080 for the entire shipment. On June 5, 1996, the U. S. Department of Agriculture, at a cost of $278, conducted an inspection of the 260 boxes of eggplant in Providence, Rhode Island at the premises of Tourtellot and Company, Inc. Under the section marked "Grade" in the inspection certificate, the eggplant was found to fail "to grade U.S. No. 1." On the same day as the inspection, Dixie Growers received by fax a copy of the inspection, Inspection Certificate K-195345-4. In accord with its customary practice, Dixie Growers placed a "trouble" memorandum in its file so that it would not pay the grower of the eggplant until the trouble was resolved. On June 17, 1996, Dixie Growers received a fax of the invoice from Veg Services marked, "OK." Interpreting the "OK," to mean that payment would be in full, George Locklear called Veg Service to double-check. He talked with Martin Shield and Marcie, a member of the office staff. First Marcie and then Mr. Shield stated that the invoice would be paid in full. Before the growers were paid on the strength of the representations of the two Veg Service employees made June 17, however, Deborah Lawton, Dixie's bookkeeper asked Mr. Locklear to inquire as to whether the cost of the inspection ($278,) would be deducted from the payment. Marcie told Mr. Locklear that payment would be in full with nothing deducted for the inspection. With the understanding that payment would be made in full with nothing deducted for the cost of the inspection, Dixie Growers paid the growers of the eggplant in full. On July 1, 1996, after payment had been made by Dixie Growers to the growers of the eggplant, it received a fax from Veg Services that it would be paid only $1.60 per box instead of the full $8.00 per box. When Mr. Locklear called to inquire about the fax, Marcie told him that Veg Services had made a mistake when it said that payment would be in full. Dixie Growers received payment in the amount of $416.00 leaving $1,664.00 still due. Case No. 96-3996A On April 27, 1996, Dixie Growers sold 65 boxes of medium squash, 200 boxes of select cucumber and 60 boxes of cabbages to Veg Service. No trouble with the produce was ever reported by Veg Service to Dixie Growers. Nor was there ever made a federal inspection of the produce. The total bill for the sale was $2610.00. On May 9, 1996, another sale was made by Dixie Growers to Veg Service: 154 boxes of medium zucchini, 72 boxes of small squash, 72 boxes of medium squash, 50 boxes of choice cucanelle and 120 boxes of large cucumbers. No trouble with any of the produce was ever reported by Veg Service to Dixie Growers. Nor was there a federal inspection conducted. The bill for the sale was $4,360.00. On June 12, 1996, payment was received for the April 27 sale in the amount of $1,280 leaving a balance of $1,330. The same day payment was received for the May 9 sale in the amount of $2,259.50 leaving a balance due of $2,100.50. Invoices showing the balances due for the two sales were mailed by certified mail to Veg Service. Following phone calls by Dixie Growers, at the request of Veg Service staff, the invoices were later faxed twice to Veg Service. The two balances, totalling $3,430.50, had not been paid as of final hearing. Had any trouble with either sale been communicated to Dixie Growers prior to the payment it made to the growers of the produce, then Dixie Growers would not have paid the growers until the problem was resolved. Since Veg Service did not communicate any problem with either sale in any way, Dixie Growers paid the growers. Case No. 4727A On June 6, 1996, Dixie Growers sold Veg Service 500 boxes of fancy eggplant, 200 boxes of choice eggplant, 600 boxes of large bell peppers, 200 boxes of extra large bell peppers and 50 boxes of long hot peppers. The invoice for the sale shows $14,200 due for the produce and a charge of $23.50 listed for "Temp.Recrd," for a total invoiced amount of $14,223.50. On July 17, 1996, Dixie Growers received a check from Veg Services for $10,262.50 for the June 6 sale leaving a balance of $3,961.00. When George Locklear of Dixie Growers inquired of Veg Service as to why the invoiced amount had not been fully paid, he was told that a federal inspection had shown that the peppers were smaller than as represented by Dixie Growers. This was the first time that Dixie Growers had received any notice from Veg Service that there was any trouble with the June 6 sale. The inspection was faxed to Dixie Growers on July 31, 1996, long after Dixie Growers had paid the growers of the produce. The fee for the inspection by the U.S. Department of Agriculture was $111.00. That fee had been deducted by Veg Service when it paid the invoice amount so that the amount claimed due by Dixie Growers in this case ($3,961) is the sum of the inspection fee ($111) and a balance not paid on the produce sold, ($3,850).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order adjudicating Veg Service, Inc., to be indebted to Dixie Growers, Inc., in the amount of $9,055.50. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of December, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DAVID M. MALONEY 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 31st day of December, 1996. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Richard Tritschler General Counsel Department of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing & Bond Department of Agriculture 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Charles E. Lawton, President Dixie Growers, Inc. Post Office Box 1686 Plant City, Florida 33564-1686 Herbert Shield, President Veg Service, Inc. 150 SW 12th Avenue, Suite 370 Pompano Beach, Florida 33069 Western Surety Company Legal Department 101 South Phillips Avenue Sioux Falls, South Dakota 57102
Findings Of Fact Respondent is licensed by the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Service as a pest control service authorized to perform all functions for which such organizations may be licensed. Gilbert Bellino was certified operator for Respondent from prior to the earliest charge in the Administrative Complaint until mid-1977. He was certified in the four types of treatment authorized by pest control companies, viz. fumigation, general household pest control, including rodent control, termite or other wood infesting organisms control, and lawn and ornamental pest control. A certified operator is required to supervise and direct the activities of all employees engaged in pest control. Many of the complaining witnesses made their first contact with Respondent when answering an advertisement for a onetime household pest treatment and a free termite inspection. Lloyd Green responded to an ad in which Respondent offered a spray treatment of the yard and house for $15. Folsom and Jones appeared and after an inspection of his house advised Green that he had dry wood and subterranean termites and induced him to sign a contract to treat them at a price of $286. After reflection and before any work was done Green called and cancelled the contract. He had the house inspected by Mr. Chapman of Chapman Pest Control who found no evidence of active infestation. All evidence Chapman found of wood damage was done prior to the timber having been processed. The house was later inspected by David Jones, District V Entomologist and he too found no evidence of active infestation. A second inspection of Green's home was made by Jones in company with Casale, the President of Respondent. The only evidence found was one hole in a bed slat which had occurred before the lumber was processed. Turpentine beetles and pine sawyer beetles are wood borers that attack trees but not processed lumber. Once lumber is processed any further damage from these beetles is highly improbable if not impossible. Evidence of the damage they have caused will remain in the wood but is readily distinguishable from an active infestation by one with almost any training in pest control. Wood borers make round holes and any eliptical hole found in timber is indicative that the hole was made before the wood was processed. The oblique angle to the borer's tunnel cut by the saw when the lumber was processed causes an eliptical hole. Charles Casale visited Robert Rankin's house for a free termite inspection and identified himself as an employee of Respondent. He was accompanied by another man who inspected the crawl space under the house. Upon completion of the inspection Casale advised Rankin he had an infestation and needed treatment which would cost $300. After getting an opinion from another pest control company that he did not have termites Rankin called HRS and David Jones inspected the entire house. At this inspection Jones found no evidence of active infestation but a colony of fleas from Rankin's two dogs. At the time of Casale's inspection application for an identification card had not been submitted for Casale. Thelma P. Wray contracted with Respondent for fumigation of her house. No written instructions were given her by Respondent, nor was she advised to remove medicines. She was advised to remove only milk cartons, cheese and open food. The only warning sign placed on front and rear of house during fumigation (Exhibit 4) on November 10, 1974 did not show type of fumigant used and stated house is safe for reentry at 10:30 a.m. December 11, 1974. This sign appeared on the house the evening of December 10, 1974 and was placed only at the front and rear. No notice of this fumigation was provided to the County Industrial Hygienist who maintains records of notices of all fumigations. Neither Mr. nor Mrs. Chaney testified. No one having personal knowledge was called to identify Exhibit 6 and no evidence was offered that Larry A. Donald, Jr. was employed by Respondent and visited the Cheney home without a valid identification card. Mrs. Ruby Moser did not testify. No witness was produced to testify regarding Phillip Jones' visit to the Moser home on June 10, 1975 or identify Exhibit 7. Neither Mr. nor Mrs. Donald R. Seldes testified. No evidence was presented regarding the alleged visit of Bill Gillian, while an employee of Respondent, to the home of the Seldes. Judith Bashline was contacted by Respondent through telephone solicitation for special pest cleanout and termite inspection. One man sprayed for the pest cleanout and he was followed by Phillip Jones and Ken Ely, Jr. who, after inspecting the attic, advised her she had an infestation in the attic in a dormant state which needed immediate treatment. She entered into a contract for spot treatment for $190. After Jones and Ely left Mrs. Bashline began having misgivings and called another pest control company for information. She was referred to HRS and there contacted David Jones who inspected the property. Upon inspection Jones found no evidence of active infestation - only the preprocessed type damage found in the other homes. When Helen M. Hopper purchased her home at 1037 - 12th Street North, St. Petersburg, Florida she acquired a subterranean termite policy from Respondent. She then started monthly sprayings with Respondent. After the first spraying on September 16, 1975, Ken Ely, Jr., an employee of Respondent, went into Hopper's attic and told Mrs. Hopper she had borers in the roof and needed immediate treatment to save the roof. After he left she called another pest control company for verification. When that company inspected the attic they reported no problem with borers. She then called HRS and David Jones inspected the premises October 24, 1975 and in the attic he found only old damage which had occurred before the wood was processed. There was no infestation for which treatment was indicated. When Donald R. Bond II and his wife purchased a home his mother recommended they use Gulf Coast Pest Control. In January, 1977 Robert R. Plowman, an employee of Respondent, advised the Bonds that they had powder post beetles and dry wood termites and the attic needed to be treated. He came back that evening when Mr. Bond was home and a contract for the work was signed. The following day Mrs. Bond had two other pest control companies inspect the house. Whey they advised her there was no evidence of active infestation she cancelled her contract and called HRS. On February 10, 1977 David Jones inspected her property. He found no evidence of borer or termite infestation; however Jones did find evidence of rat infestation. On June 26, 1976 Robert R. Plowman, an employee of Respondent, inspected the home of Rita M. Spera at 9783 - 52nd Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida and reported to her that there was an infestation of wood borers in the attic and she needed to have fumigation. The previous year the Speras had replaced the shingles on the roof and had found the wood in good condition. Accordingly Mrs. Spera really didn't believe Plowman and called HRS for verification. When David Jones Inspected the house on July 2, 1976 he found only evidence of old damage that had occurred before the wood was processed. No evidence of active infestation was observed. Mrs. Ellen M. Hameroff received a telephone solicitation from Respondent for a cleanout and termite inspection. She accepted the offer and on September 2, 1976 Robert R. Plowman, an employee of Respondent, inspected her attic and reported that powder post beetles were present and treatment was needed which would cost $200 to $400. Plowman returned that evening to talk with Dr. Hameroff but they didn't sign a contract. The following day another pest control company was contacted for an inspection. They reported no infestation. She then called HRS and on November 22, 1976 David Jones inspected the property and found only evidence of old damage. On September 1, 1977 William C. Bargren, Scott Askins and F. R. DuChanois, Entomologists with HRS inspected the Hameroff property. They found evidence that pine sawyer beetles had been in the tree from which some sheathing boards in the attic had been processed. There was no evidence of infestation in the Hameroff home. In December, 1976 Robert L. Dill had a spray and free inspection by Respondent on his home at 1551 Citrus Street Clearwater, Florida. Following an inspection of the home, Robert R. Plocnan and John D. Lucas, employees of Respondent, advised Dill that he had powder post beetles in the attic, ceiling and floor under the house and needed treatment. Before agreeing to the treatment for the powder post beetles and preventive treatment for termites for which Respondent wanted $500, Dill had two other pest control companies inspect the property. Both of these companies advised Dill he had no infestation. Jimmy Robinson of Exterminator Terminix, International, a certified operator, inspected the Dill property on November 22, 1976 and found no evidence of powder post beetles or termites for which treatment was indicated. He noticed no damage to floor but did see some evidence of borers before the wood was processed. When Dill reported the incident to HRS, David Jones inspected the property on January 20 and 26, 1977, the second time in company with the Casales, Plowman and Donald. Damage to wood in the floor was done before the lumber was processed and no infestation was present for which treatment was indicated. Lawrence A. Donald, an employee of Respondent, holds a certified operator's license and he found evidence of "tremendous damage due to boring animals" under Dill's house. He opined that there were live larvae in the wood, however, his credibility and expertise left a great deal to be desired. During a monthly contract spraying Robert R. Plowman, an employee of Respondent, told Mrs. Shirley I. Bond that she had powder post wood borer beetles in the attic of her home at 6701 - 19th Street North, St. Petersburg, Florida and needed to have the attic power dusted. Mrs. Bond gave Plowman a check for $295 but after her daughter-in-law's experience, stopped the work. She called HRS and David Jones inspected her property on April 14, 1977. He found no evidence of infestation and in Jones' opinion the power spray of Dridie (a trade name for silica gel) would not be appropriate to treat dry wood termites or powder post beetles. Raymond L. Jackson employed Respondent for the advertised "clean-out" and free inspection. On January 6 and 7, 1977 Robert R. Plowman, an employee of Respondent, inspected Jackson's property at 6243 - 6th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, Florida and advised Jackson that he had active termites and powder post beetles and needed treatment. Jackson signed a contract and paid Plowman $300 for the work. About two weeks later two men power dusted Jackson's attic. After reading an article in the newspaper about powder post beetles Jackson called HRS and his property was inspected by Askins on July 26, 1977 and by Askins and Bargren on August 10, 1977. The only evidence of damage they found was that caused by turpentine beetles prior to the wood being processed. In their opinion no treatment was indicated before the power dusting was done. Mrs. Helen Stambaugh had a "clean-out" and free termite inspection in July, 1977 at her home at 2518 - 67th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, Florida by Respondent. Larry D. Brown, an employee of Respondent, to whom an application for identification card had not been submitted, told Mrs. Stambaugh that dry wood termites were infesting her garage and treatment was necessary. Spot treatment was offered for $130. She contacted another pest control company who, after inspection, advised that no treatment was indicated. She then called HRS and on July 20, 1977, Bargren and Askins inspected her property and found only evidence of old turpentine beetle damage in the garage which had occurred before the wood was processed. No infestation for which treatment was indicated was observed. In October, 1975 representatives from Gulf Coast Pest Control, Louis Casale, the company manager, Carmine Casale the owner and Gilbert Bellino, the certified operator, met with HRS representatives in Jacksonville to discuss the numerous complaints HRS had received about Respondent and to formulate remedial action. At this meeting the need for additional training of their salesman was discussed in connection with the complaints filed by Green, Rankin, Wray, and others with particular emphasis on the need to train their operators to distinguish old damage in the preprocessed tree from damage requiring correction. Respondent agreed to increase their training to improve the quality of their inspectors. Respondent has discharged all of the salesmen who made the misrepresentations noted above. Plowman was finally discharged because "he was too dumb" to learn to distinguish between old damage not requiring treatment and new damage which did require treatment. However, Plowman was continued as an employee even after criminal charges involving fraudulent misrepresentation had been filed against him.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Subsections 482.051(5) and 482.161(1)(e), Florida Statutes (2003),1/ and Florida Administrative Code Rules 5E-14.106(1) and 5E-14.106(6), and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At the times of the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaints, Cirrincione was an employee of Diligent Environmental Services. His responsibilities included performing preconstruction soil treatments for prevention of subterranean termites. On March 16 and 22, 2004, Cirrincione was applying the pesticide, Dragnet SFR, at a construction site at 2050 Ocoee/Apopka Road, Ocoee, Florida. The label for Dragnet SFR required that the pesticide be applied at a 0.5 percent concentration for preconstruction soil treatment for subterranean termites. An inspector for the Department took a sample each day of the pesticide being applied at the site. The samples were sent to the Department's laboratory for analysis. The active ingredient in the pesticide, Dragnet SFR, is permethrin. The pesticide analysis reports prepared by the Department's laboratory showed that the concentration level of the pesticide in the sample taken on March 16, 2004, was 0.2 percent, which is 60 percent less than the 0.5 percent concentration required by the Dragnet SFR label. The laboratory report showed that the concentration level for the sample taken on March 22, 2004, was 0.3 percent, which is 40 percent less than the label-required concentration. The concentration amounts of the samples reported by the Department's laboratory were corroborated by independent laboratory analyses performed by Analytical Pesticide Technology Laboratories at the request of Cirrincione's counsel. The parties stipulated, and it is found that on March 16 and 22, 2004, when Cirrincione was applying Dragnet SFR at the 2050 Ocoee/Apopka site, he was not wearing all of the protective equipment required by the Dragnet SFR pesticide label, including a long-sleeved shirt, long pants, socks, shoes, and chemical-resistant gloves.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Ronald Cirrincione violated Subsections 482.161(1)(a) and (e), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 5E-14.106(1) and (6); issuing warning letters for the violations of failing to wear protective equipment as specified by the pesticide label; and imposing an administrative fine of $400 for each violation of applying a deficient concentration of pesticide, for a total of $800. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of January, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of January, 2006.
The Issue The issues to be resolved are as follows: With regard to Count Four of the Amended Petition, whether the Petitioners have sufficiently alleged a rule challenge and more particularly whether sufficient facts have been alleged to identify the challenged rule, whether existing, proposed, or unpromulgated; and whether, through an unpromulgated rule, the Department (Respondent) has prohibited the installation of "pest control insulation" or borate containing insulation by anyone other than a card-carrying employee of a certified pest control operator or licensee. If so, it must be determined whether such action is outside the Respondent's rulemaking authority, whether it is contrary to statute, whether it disregards the exceptions proved in Section 482.211(9), Florida Statutes, and whether it violates Section 482.051, Florida Statutes. With regard to Count Five of the Amended Petition, whether the Petitioners have sufficiently alleged a rule challenge to a proposed or existing rule or have offered evidence legally sufficient to establish a rule, proposed, or existing, which the Petitioners are challenging relating to the Respondent allegedly having selectively investigated pest control operators performing 100 or more pre-construction termite treatments annually, and whether such action is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. With regard to Count Six of the Amended Petition, whether the Petitioners have sufficiently alleged a rule challenge to a proposed or existing rule or have offered evidence legally sufficient to establish a rule, proposed, existing, or unpromulgated, which the Petitioners are challenging relating to the Respondent's alleged enforced application of termiticide arbitrarily and capriciously by not requiring the best available technology and not regulating according to acceptable standards in the manner in which it conducts field investigations. With regard to Count Seven of the Amended Petition, whether the Petitioners have sufficiently alleged a rule challenge based on a proposed or existing rule or have offered legally sufficient evidence to establish a rule, proposed, existing, or unpromulgated, which the Petitioners are challenging relating to the Respondent's enforcement of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, as it relates to preventive soil treatments for new construction and its alleged failure to protect the public. With regard to Counts Two, Three, and Eight of the Amended Petition, whether the Petitioners have alleged any facts or presented any evidence to establish a proposed, existing, or unpromulgated rule substantially affecting the interests of the Petitioners. Whether either the Petitioners or the Respondent are entitled to recovery of attorney's fees and costs.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners conceded at hearing that the Order on the Motion to Dismiss, prior to the hearing, concerning the mootness caused by the withdrawal of the above-referenced agency memos not only disposed of Count One of the Amended Petition, but had rendered moot Counts Two and Three, as well. No evidence was presented as to the those counts. Neither was any evidence or argument presented regarding Count Eight of the Amended Petition. Thus, Counts Two, Three, and Eight, as well as Count One, should be dismissed. The Petitioners, with regard to Count Four of the Amended Petition, did not allege the text of any statement or description of one which could be construed as an unpromulgated rule by the agency, which prohibited the installation of insulation containing borate by anyone other than a "card- carrying" employee of a certified pest control operator or licensee. There was no evidence to establish the existence of such an unpromulgated statement or rule of general application. Cliff Killingsworth testified that he was an officer and party representative of the Petitioners' companies in this case. "In-cide" is a cellulose fiber with borate or borate- containing materials for fire retardancy and fungal control. The manufacturer had increased the borate content in the material so that it could make claims with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the product's pest control value. Mr. Killingsworth acknowledged that it was a licensed and registered "pest control product." While Mr. Killingsworth agreed that claims to the public about the pest control value of the product should be done by a pest control operator, he felt that should not prevent him from subcontracting the installation of the insulation material to a professional insulation installer so that the material would be properly installed in a home or other building. Mr. Killingsworth met with Steve Dwinell and Joe Parker, representatives of the Respondent agency, in Jacksonville, Florida, in the summer of 1997. He provided them with a 30-to-40-page report regarding installation of the insulation with its pest control properties. He received no communication from the Respondent following this meeting and sought no written opinion from the Respondent about the use of the material before he began using it. Mr. Killingsworth invited George Owens, a field inspector for the Respondent in the Northwest Florida area, to observe the product being installed in a structure. Mr. Killingsworth testified that Mr. Owens, thereafter, sent him a letter stating that the Respondent was not going to regulate that material. Mr. Killingsworth, however, did not produce that letter or a copy of it. Mr. Owens testified that he had visited a site in Destin, Florida, at Mr. Killingsworth's invitation, where "Green Stone" insulation was being applied by being blown into a small section of a wall. He did not know that a subcontractor was making the application when he visited the site. He thought that an employee of Mr. Killingsworth was performing the installation of the material. Mr. Owens did not recall telling Mr. Killingsworth or any of his representatives that application of the product by an agent other than Mr. Killingsworth's own company would be prohibited. It was not Mr. Owens' belief that he had authority to make those decisions. He did not believe that he had authority to approve or disapprove the application of a pesticide. Mr. Killingsworth invited Mike McDaniels, another field investigator with the Respondent in the Gainesville, Florida, area to observe the installation of the product in the spring of 1998. Mr. McDaniels commented to Mr. Killingsworth that he was glad that they were doing it, but he made no report. After the Petitioners' companies had been operating for two or three months in the Gainesville area, sharing space with Green Stone Industries, the company producing the insulation, Mr. McDaniels returned. He informed Mr. Killingsworth that the Respondent agency had changed its position on the application of the product. Because it was a "labeled material," that is, labeled and promoted as a certified pest control product, for purposes of EPA regulations, it had to be installed and handled only by a pest control operator meeting the definition of an employee under Chapter 482, Florida Statutes. Mr. McDaniel was shown the insulation in question by Mr. Killingsworth and how it was installed at a job site. He never told Mr. Killingsworth whether he could use the product or not, but during a "non-adversarial inspection," he told him that he had to have "ID cardholders" (i.e., employees of a licensed pest control operator) install the insulation, since it had advertised pesticide qualities. Mr. McDaniel was shown a warehouse with two different types of insulation. One had borate advertised as a fire retardant. The other had a higher content of borate which was advertised to have pesticide qualities. Mr. McDaniel determined that employees applying the second type of product were conducting pest control by installing that product and should, therefore, have pest control operator identification cards. He explained that to Mr. Killingsworth and thought he may have written that opinion on an inspection form which he supplied to Mr. Killingsworth. He also believes he notified his supervisor, Phil Helseth. His normal practice, when a new material is reported to him or observed, is to inform his superior of the facts concerning that product. He never told Mr. Killingsworth or his representatives that they could not install the product in question. He informed them that since it was listed as a pesticide that they would have to be have employees of a licensed pest control operator to legally install the product. Mr. McDaniel did not consult with anyone at the Respondent agency about this, but rather relied on his own judgment as to agency policy and the interpretation of the statutes and rules enforced by the Respondent. He testified that he had no central direction from his superiors at the Department on the issue and was unaware what other districts or regions under the Department's regulation were doing to address this question. He simply determined that if the Petitioners' personnel were applying a product that was a registered pesticide insulation that, under his understanding of the broad statutory definition of pesticides as anything that "curbed, mitigated, destroyed, or repelled insects," then the installers would have to be employees of a registered pesticide operator. Mr. Dwinell testified as the bureau chief for the Bureau of Entomology and Pest Control. He met with Mr. Killingsworth along with Mr. Parker, another employee of the bureau. Mr. Killingsworth made a presentation regarding the product in dispute, the borate-impregnated cellulose insulation. He determined that the product was a pesticide because it was advertised as a registered pesticide and performed pesticide functions, in addition to its insulation function. He did not recall that the precise issue of subcontracting with a non- licensed pest control operator or insulation installer was a topic of their conversation. Following that meeting, he may have discussed the question with Mr. Helseth, in a general way, but does not recall discussing it with any other person. He recalls some discussion concerning the Gainesville office of the Killingsworth companies and whether Mr. Killingsworth, or that office of his company, was licensed as a certified operator. He believes he recalls that a cease and desist letter informing the Killingsworth companies of the need to have the application of the product performed by someone licensed to do pest control may have been sent, although he is not certain. Mr. Dwinell established that the Respondent agency had never published anything regarding pest control insulation. He noted that a pesticide was a pesticide under the statutory definition, whether a corn bait, insulation, or mixed in a jug. The same laws applied to it and under Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, a pesticide must be applied by a licensed applicator. Mr. Killingsworth insisted that the insulation product, though a registered pesticide, was exempt from the provisions of Section 482.211(9), Florida Statutes, because it was a derivative wood product. He agreed that the product in question was a wood by-product and not wood. If a product did not meet the statutory definition of being exempt, then it would be appropriate for the Respondent to issue a cease and desist directive until the Petitioners came into compliance with Chapter 482, Florida Statutes. Mr. Dwinell opined that the subject insulation product was not exempt under the provisions of Section 482.211(9), Florida Statutes. Unlike pre-treated lumber, which is exempt, the installation product at issue is a registered pesticide. Pre-treated lumber, though treated with pesticide in the manufacturing process, is not intended to be used as pesticide, nor is it a registered pesticide. The Petitioners have not stated a basis for a rule challenge pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, as to Counts Five and Six of the Amended Petition. Although references were made to alleged "actions" by the Respondent agency, the Petitioners have not alleged with particularity, nor adduced any competent, substantial evidence of any rule provisions alleged to be invalid, nor have they shown, in an evidential way, any to be invalid. The evidence does not show that there is a rule, either proposed, existing, or as an unpromulgated agency statement of general applicability, which is actually being challenged by the Petitioners. There has not been a definitive showing by preponderant evidence that such exists concerning the product and operation at issue. The Petitioners in Count Seven of the Amended Petition have not stated any basis for a rule challenge in accordance with Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. There are numerous references to provisions of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, but it is not alleged with any particularity which rule provisions are purported to be invalid, nor has preponderant evidence been adduced to establish any rule provisions either proposed, existing, or as unpromulgated agency statements, which have imposed a substantial effect on the Petitioners. In this regard, the Petitioners' counsel argued at the hearing: Your Honor, what we have suggested is that the rule that's being challenged is the Department's statutory obligation under the statute as it relates to their promulgated Rule 5E-14.105, and as it relates to their treatment guarantees or warranties that are required by that regulation for a treatment that just doesn't work. The Department rule requires a certain warranty and requires a renewable warranty, placing that upon the pest control operator under the guise of protecting the consumer, but the fact of the matter is, it doesn't protect the consumer, and it just endangers the pest control operator. And so I guess the actual rule is the 5E-14.105. In addition to that we have the statutory obligations of the Department, which is to provide a protection to the public health and the economic benefit of the consumer and evaluate these chemicals that they are requiring warranties for. That's the basis of the rule challenge, and admittedly, this one is a little bit nebulous, but there is a regulatory, I guess, mandate of these preconstruction soil treatments as a method, as the preferred method, and to the extent that the operators, who are the regulated entity in this case are required to--is mandated to require a warranty for a method they know doesn't work . . . . Mr. Killingsworth acknowledged in his testimony that he was not contending that there should not be a warranty requirement for treatments of subterranean termites, as stated in the above-cited Rule 5E-14.105, Florida Administrative Code. He also acknowledged that he was not contending that the Respondent should require warranties from pest control companies for every kind of pest control performed. He thought there were a lot of factors not within a pest control operator's control affecting particular wood fungi, but what was in the pest operator's control was the opportunity to do a preventive treatment for more than just subterranean termites and they, in his view, should not be prevented from doing so. When asked what preventive treatment he had been prevented from doing by the Respondent, his reply was: The effect of memos and other actions prevented us from doing our choice of preventative treatment, the borate application, through the effects of raising questions in building officials' eyes, through the effects of increasing the economic impact to us to get it done. Builders will not pay enough to do both soil treatment and bait and borate. The memoranda referred to as preventing Mr. Killingsworth from doing his choice of preventive treatment were not actually identified in the record, however. Mr. Dwinell testified that the EPA guidelines require an efficacy standard for soil treatments which states: "Data derived from such testing should provide complete resistance to termite attack for a period of five years." The EPA also provides guidelines for preventive treatment/wood impregnation: "When acceptable data derived from testing for at least two years, or less than five years, shows complete resistance to termite attack, the product may be registered." The efficacy standard for borate, thus, was not five years, but two years. Mr. Dwinell had concerns about the type of data that had been relied upon by the EPA for registration and how that data related to the situation in Florida. That was the basis for the negotiated rulemaking process that the Respondent was engaged in at the time of the hearing in this case. The purpose of the negotiated rulemaking process was to comply with the statute that required a rule, but ultimately the purpose was to have a mechanism in the State of Florida where the product was registered for use under construction and a reliable set of data that could show whether the product would actually protect against termites when applied. The ultimate goal of the statute at issue is to protect the consumer, which is the Respondent's statutory duty. Borate pesticides are registered for use, with label directions for use during construction. They are one of three categories of materials for use in construction, including soil- applied pesticide materials, baiting products, and wood treatments, the last being the borates. There are no directives issued by the Respondent that specifically preclude the use of either borate as a stand-alone treatment or a baiting system as a stand-alone treatment. The Respondent does not require soil treatments only. Mr. Dwinell has never told any licensee that he could not use borate products if he were licensed.
The Issue The issue posed herein is whether or not the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services' revocation of Respondent's pest control business license, operator's certificate and employee's identification is warranted based on conduct set forth hereinafter in detail as set forth in the Petitioner's revocation notice dated June 4, 1979. 1/
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, the arguments and briefs of counsel and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Pursuant to Petitioner's Notice of Violation dated June 4, 1979, the administrative proceeding herein commenced on December 6, 1979, on twenty-six of the thirty-nine specific violations alleged to have been committed by Respondent. The specific alleged violations are as set forth below based on a separation by complainant or victim with the alleged date of violation: On February 28, 1977, it is alleged that Respondent and/or its agents, performed pest control services for Ms. Ethel Atkinson and Ms. Loree Atkinson, 1903 East Leonard Street, Pensacola, Florida, and violated the following Administrative Code sections and/or statutes: Treated the Atkinsons' residence with fumigant gas, methyl bromide, without notifying in advance, the Escambia County Health Department, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.110(1), Florida Administrative Code. Failed to perform the fumigation of the Atkinson residence in strict accordance with the registered label directions for methyl bromide, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.111(4), Florida Administrative Code. On March 17, 1977, Respondent failed to perform subterranean termite control treat- ment for the Atkinsons, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.142(1)(b), Florida Administra- tive Code. During July, 1978, Respondent's agents and/or employees, Steven R. Foster and Gerald A. Caudill, inspected the Atkinson residence and told them that the home was infested with powder-post beetles and proposed a treatment when no such infestation existed, and thus no treatment was required, which acts constitute violations of Chapter 10D-55.104(4), Florida Administrative Code. Respondent, during times material, failed to apply for and obtain an I.D. card for Steven R. Foster, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.143(1), (2) and (3), Florida Adminis- trative Code. Respondent performed Phostoxin fumi- gation on residences when Phostoxin is not labeled or registered for residential fumi- gation, in violation of Chapters 10D-55.106(1); 10D-55.111(4) and 10D-55.144(1), Florida Administrative Code. Respondent and/or its agents, during times material but particularly during July, 1978, illegally used Phostoxin for fumigation purposes in a residential structure, in vio- lation of Chapter 10D-55.116(2), Florida Administrative Code. During July, 1978, Respondent per- formed Phostoxin fumigation without notifying the Escambia County Health Department, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.110(1), Florida Administrative Code. During July, 1978, Respondent performed Phostoxin fumigation without the knowledge and personal supervision of its certified registered operator in charge of fumigation for Killingsworth, Inc., Elmer Logan, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.108(1) and (2), Florida Administrative Code. Shumpert/Graham Case On April 22, 1977, Respondent performed services for Robert Shumpert and/or R. A. Graham of 109 Harris Street, Pensacola, Florida, by fumigation of their residence at 109 Harris Street, without informing the Escambia County Health Depart- ment, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.110(1), Florida Administrative Code. On or about April 22, 1977, Respondent fumigated the Shumpert/Graham residence with "Vikane" gas in a manner not in accordance with the label instructions, nor were occupants of the residence properly warned of the hazards, in violation of Chapters 10D-55.106(1); 10D-55.110(3); 10D-55.111(4) and 10D-55.144(1), Florida Adminis- trative Code. On or about April 22, 1977, Respondent used Phostoxin for residential fumigation for the Graham/Shumpert residence, in violation of Chapters 10D-55.106(1); 10D-55.111(4) and 10D-55.144(1), Florida Administrative Code. On or about April 22, 1977, Respondent fumigated the Graham/Shumpert Residence with Phostoxin without informing the occupants of the hazards, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.110(3), Florida Administrative Code. During approximately April 22, 1977, Respondent performed a fumigation with Phostoxin without advance notification to the Escambia County Health Department, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.110(1), Florida Administrative Code. During April 22, 1977, Respondent performed a Phostoxin fumigation without the knowledge and personal supervision of its certified operator in charge of fumigation, Elmer Logan, in violation of Chapter10D-55.108(1) and (2), Florida Administrative Code. During May 22, 1978, Respondent per- formed pest control services for Mrs. Ann Boyett of 706 North Lynch Street, Pensacola, Florida, and during the course of such treatment, through its agent and employee, Steven R. `Foster, placed Phostoxin pellets under the Boyett residence for control of powder-post beetles, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.108(1) and (2), Florida Administrative Code. Respondent used Phostoxin in resi- dential fumigation in violation of Chapter 10D-55.106(1); 10D-55.111(4) and 10D-55.144(1), Florida Administrative Code. Respondent, during May 23, 1978, released Phosphine gas during use of Phostoxin. which is highly inflammable and its use in resi- dential structures is illegal pursuant to Chapter 10D-55.116(2), Florida Administrative Code. During May 23, 1978, Respondent performed a fumigation with Phostoxin without informing the Escambia County Health Department, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.110(1), Florida Administrative Code. Respondent, during May 23, 1978, per- formed a fumigation with Phostoxin without informing the homeowner of the hazards, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.110(3), Florida Administrative Code. Respondent, during May 23, 1978, failed to apply for and obtain an employee I.D. card for Steven R. Foster, in violation of Section 482.091(1), (2) and (4), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-55.143(1),(2) and (3), Florida Administrative Code. Based on the foregoing activities, it is alleged that Respondent violated his duties as a certified operator in charge of the pest control activities of a licensee, in violation of Section 482.152(1), (2),, (4), and (5), Florida Statutes. During July 12, 1978, Respondent performed pest control work for John A. Sanders, Jr. , at his residences located at 912, 914 and 916 North 63rd Avenue, Pensacola, Florida. During the course of this treatment it is alleged that Respondent failed to per- form the work in accordance with the label directions of any registered termiticide or by the use of methods and equipment generally suitable and accepted as good industry practice, in violation of Chapters 10D-55.106(1); 10D-55.135(2) and 10D-55.144(1), Florida Adminis- trative Code. Based on the conduct set forth in the paragraph next above, it is alleged that the Respondent violated the duties of a certified operator in charge of pest control activities of a licensee, in violation of Section 482.152(1), (4), and (5), Florida Statutes. The Hinote Case During December 21, 1978, it is alleged that Respondent's agent Wayne Thompson, repre- sented to Ms. Lee Hinote of 1405 East Gonzales Street, Pensacola, Florida, that wood borers were infesting her residence and that treatment was needed, when no such infestation existed and no treatment was required, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.104(4), Florida Administrative Code. Based on the alleged conduct set forth in the paragraph next above, it is alleged that the Respondent engaged in conduct violative of Section 482.152(1), (2), (4), and (5), Florida Statutes. William E. Grimsley, Supervisor, Environmental Health Unit of the Escambia County Health Department, is the person in charge of inspecting and ensuring that within the county no violations of Chapter 10D-55.110(1), Florida Administrative Code, occur. All pest control companies operating in the county, including Respondent, are required to notify the County Health Department when a fumigation is to take place and the approximate time that the "gas" will be released. Fumigation notices are required to be submitted to the Health Department twenty-four hours in advance of the fumigation. Thee Health Department inspects the premises to be certain that the tent is properly sealed, that there is first aid equipment readily available and to generally ensure that the operator is qualified to perform the fumigation Mr. Grimsley recalled having received no fumigation notices from Respondent. Specifically, Mr. Grimsley testified that his office, the County Health Department, received no fumigation notice from Respondent for the Atkinson residence during April of 1977, for the Sumpert residence during times material, or for Ann Boyett's residence during the period of May, 1978. During May of 1978, Mr. Grimsley, through the Escambia County Health Department, received a complaint from the Atkinsons regarding the pest control services performed by Respondent. Mr. Grimsley referred Ms. Atkinson to Mr. William E. Page, Petitioner's agent in the Office of Entomology, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. During October of 1978, Mr. William Page and Mr. William Grimsley removed a sample of a white powdery substance found in the Atkinsons' attic. The sample was analyzed by Chris Bush, a chemist employed by Petitioner, who determined that the substance was a residue of Phostoxin. (Petitioner's Exhibits 32 and 40.) The Atkinson residence was treated by Respondent during, April of 1977. As stated, the Atkinsons complained to the Health Department during May of 1978, approximately fifteen months after the treatment. Samples of a white powdery residue found in the attic were analyzed by Petitioner's chemist during. October, 1978, and were determined to be a Phostoxin residue. Respondent and its agents and employees denied treating the Atkinson residence with anything other than Lindane and Methyl Bromide. During late 1978, Messrs. Grimsley and Page visited the residence of Mrs. Ann Boyett of 704 North Lynch Street, Pensacola, Florida. Mr. Page removed two prepac Phostoxin strips from underneath the Boyett residence. Steven Roy Foster (Moneyhun) also known as Steven Roy Foster was employed by Respondent from March of 1978 through July of 1978. Foster was hired by Respondent to perform mechanical work, although he assisted in tapings for fumigations and assisted Respondent's pest control operators. Foster placed two prepac Phostoxin strips under the Boyett residence. Foster was assigned to do the work by Respondent's agent, Frank Ancarrow, and was paid by the Boyetts for the work. (Petitioner's Exhibit 13.) Respondent and its agents, Frank Ancarrow and former employee, Elmer Logan, denied any knowledge, authorization or other assistance in the use of the treatment of residential structures with Phostoxin. Phostoxin is not authorized for the use in residential construction according to its label use restrictions. (Petitioner's Exhibit 12.) Respondent treated the Graham-Shumpert residence at 109 Harris Street, Pensacola, Florida, for subterranean termites and old house wood borers during late April, 1977. The old house wood borers were located in the attic and, according to Respondent, were treated by him using a "spot" fumigation treatment of Methyl Bromide. 3/ Approximately two years later, Mr. Shumpert detected traces of termites again swarming in the kitchen of his home and called Frank Roberts of Roberts Pest Control Company to check on the termites. Mr. Roberts inspected the Shumpert residence and noted what he found in the attic, a residue of suspected Phostoxin. Mr. Roberts engaged the services of a private laboratory in Pensacola, Florida, to analyze the residue of the substance he found in the Shumpert residence. The sample was analyzed and, according to the lab analysis, the residue of the sample was Phostoxin. Gail Thompson, a former employee of the Respondent, testified that he treated the Shumpert residence for termites and that he assisted in taping the house in preparation for the fumigation which was performed by Respondent Billy F. Killingsworth. Respondent testified that he treated the Shumpert house by a "spot" fumigation using Methyl Bromide as a localized treatment to eradicate the infestation which was concentrated on a few joists. Respondent's testimony to the effect that the infestation was localized to a few joists conflicts with the testimony of witnesses William Page, Carlton Layne and John Boitnott, who testified that the damage and infestation was severe and widespread. Based on the extended hiatus between the treatment by Respondent and the inspections by Messrs, Page, Layne and Boitnott, it cannot be concluded that the condition of the premises as found by Respondent, continued unchanged until the subsequent and, of course, more recent visit by the investigating officials. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3.) When the Shumpert residence was treated, it was under contract to be sold by Mims-Snow Realty of Pensacola, Florida. Prior to sale, it was necessary to receive an FHA wood infestation report which admittedly, as testified to by Respondent's secretary and assistant, Joyce Beard, was filed incorrectly using information from another wood infestation report for another property. (Petitioner's Exhibits 6 and 9.) According to that report, Vikane gas was used as a fumigant, which, if used according to the petitioner's licensing administrator, Warren T. Frazier, was not applied in accordance with the label instructions of that fumigant. 4/ On or about July 12, 1978, Mr. John A. Sanders entered into a contract with Respondent for pest control treatment of three houses that he owned on North 63rd Avenue, Pensacola, Florida. (Petitioner's Exhibits 17, 15 and 19.) Respondent contracted to control household pests, fleas, etc. in the Sanders' residences for a total price of $520.00. According to 14r. Sanders, the treatment period lasted approximately twenty minutes and no trenches were dug, no drilling took place and there was no treatment for powder-post beetles contrary to his payment and contract for these services. Mr. Sanders filed a complaint with local and state officials and executed a complaint form. (Petitioner's Exhibits 20 and 21.) Respondent's former employee, Steven Foster, was assigned the task of treating the Sanders' residences. Foster acknowledged that he inadequately and incompletely treated the Sanders' residences for termites and powder-post beetles. Testimony of Warren Frazier, John Sanders and William Page corroborate Foster's testimony to the effect that the treatment was substandard and was not in accordance with the label directions of any registered termiticide. Additionally, the treatment fell below what is generally accepted as good industry Practice. Respondent testified that the Sanders' residences were treated by Carl Heichel. Heichel was unavailable and did not testify in this proceeding. Opal Lee Hinote of 1405 East Gonzalez Street contacted Respondent during December, 1978, for an annual renewal inspection of her residence. Respondent's agent, Wayne Thompson, performed the annual inspection. (Petitioner's Exhibit 27.) Additionally, Respondent's agent, Thompson, represented to Ms. Hinote that old house wood borers were affecting her residence and that treatment was needed. Thompson discussed a treatment price of $175.00, which was reduced, after some negotiation, to $125.00. Ms. Hinote, being suspicious, called Elmer Logan, Respondent's former employee who presently operates Fireman Pest Control, to inspect her premises. Mr. Logan advised Ms. Hinote that there were no wood borers in her house but merely old traces of wood borer activity. Ms. Hinote, still concerned, contacted Petitioner's agent, William Page, who inspected the house and confirmed Logan's report that there was no present wood horer activity to her residence. (Petitioner's Exhibits 28, 29 and 30.) Respondent's position on Ms. Hinote's complaint is that it is difficult to discern whether or not there is active or inactive wood borer activity and that Thompson, being a sales representative only for a short time when he made the inspection, was unable to discern whether or not the activity signs were evidences from old damage by powder-post beetles and wood borers. 5/ Mr. F. R. Du Chanois is Petitioner's supervisor for pest control records and has in excess of twenty-six years experience as an Entomologist. Mr. Du Chanois, who is Petitioner's records custodian, also receives and assigns complaints for investigation. Based on the complaints received about Respondent, Mr. Du Chanois directed an Inquiry to the manufacturer respecting the application of Phostoxin for residential application. Mr. Du Chanois determined and received confirmation that there are presently no registered uses for residential application for Phostoxin fumigations to control wood destroying insects. (Petitioner's Exhibit 42.) According to Du Chanois, the responsibility for obtaining an I.D. card is jointly placed on the operator and the employee. See Section 482.091(1) and (2), Florida Statutes. Billy F. Killingsworth, the certified operator and owner of Killingsworth pest control business, has been in business for approximately eleven years in Escambia County. Respondent has a B.S. degree in Entomology from Auburn University and is certified in all areas of pest control, i.e,. general household pest and rodent control, subterranean termites, lawn and ornamental, and fumigation. According to Respondent, it is very difficult to determine whether powder-post beetles are in an active or inactive status. Respondent uses Lindane as a residual treatment for the eradication of beetles and Methyl Bromide as a fumigant to control beetles, dry wood termites and rodent control. Respondent only uses Phostoxin as a commodity fumigant since it is only labeled for such uses and since it is one-half to two-thirds more expensive than other registered fumigants. Respondent, Billy F. Killingsworth, is the only certified operator within his employ in Escambia County who is registered to use Phostoxin. (Testimony of Billy F. Killingsworth.) According to the worksheets, Tommy Phelps was the card holder assigned to perform the work for the Atkinson job. Respondent performed the fumigation, using oil based Lindane in the attic. Respondent acknowledged that he erroneously issued a termite contract for the Atkinsons. Respondent considers a "spot" fumigation as being superior to a complete or tent fumigation, in that it permits a larger concentration of gas to be infused to the exposed area and is least expensive. Respondent has performed less than ten structural fumigations since he has been in business. (Respondent's Exhibits 4, 5 and 6.) Respondent employed Steven Roy Foster (Moneyhun) to help in repairing hydraulic pumps, refrigeration equipment and to do mechanical and other minor maintenance tasks based on his (Foster's) prior experience. Respondent denied that Foster was assigned to assist or perform fumigations within the short period that Foster was employed by Respondent. Respondent acknowledged that the FHA Wood Infestation Report given to Ms. Graham of Mims-Snow Realty was erroneously issued based on the realtor's rush to sell the property. (Respondent's Exhibit 8.) Respondent performed the fumigation for the Shumpert residence and placed a warning sign on the front and back doors of the house. At the time of the fumigation, the house was unoccupied. Respondent used Methyl Bromide to fumigate the Shumpert residence and had no explanation as to the presence of Phostoxin in the attic of the Shumpert residence. Respondent assigned Carl Heichel to do the termite and beetle treatment for the Boyett residence. (Respondent's Exhibit 9.) Lindane and Heptachloride were used for the treatment. Heichel left Respondent's employ approximately October of 1978. According to Respondent, Heichel was also assigned to perform the work for the Sanders' houses on 63rd Avenue. (Respondent's Exhibit 10.) Respondent testified that he attempted to correct the problems in connection with the Sanders residence but was unable to arrange a mutually convenient schedule to resolve the matter. Wayne Thompson was assigned to perform the pest control treatment for the Hinote residence. Thompson had only been employed approximately six months when he was assigned to inspect the Hinote residence. Respondent noted that it was a mistake not to apply for an I.D. card for Steven R. Foster. He acknowledged that there was no reason not to apply for an I.D. card for Foster; however, the fact that Foster was hired to do mechanical work delayed his decision to apply for or to obtain an I.D. card for Foster. Respondent treated the Shumpert residence using Methyl Bromide which was registered and labeled "Dowfume MC-2". 6/ Respondent acknowledged that it is unlawful to use a registered pesticide in a way which is inconsistent with the label. He also acknowledged that certified operators are charged with the duty of using fumigants in accordance with the registered labels consonant with the structure to be fumigated. (Testimony of Billy F. Killingsworth.) Several of Respondent's former employees who were employed during times material herein testified that they were unaware of any illegal uses of Phostoxin by Respondent and/or its employees. These employees included J. D. White, Sr., of Sterling, Illinois; Gerald Caudill of Evansville, Indiana; Frank Ancarrow; Elmer Logan and Gail Thompson. J. D. White, Sr. , of Sterling, Illinois, was formerly employed by Respondent from June, 1973, through the end of 1974. Mr. White worked for Frank Roberts, a competitor of Respondent during the period July, 1976, through August of 1977. Mr. White was party to conversations between Frank Roberts to the effect that he was; "out to get" Respondent and was privy to conversations with Mr. Roberts to the effect that Roberts had communicated with various Federal regulatory and state agencies to register complaints about Respondent and other competitors in the area. White testified that he was offered money to spray the yards of customers who were on annual contract with Respondent using the wrong chemicals to destroy the grass. Gerald Caudill presently is employed by Economy Pest Control of Evansville, Indiana. He was formerly employed by Respondent from approximately March, 1978, through approximately April of 1979. Caudill did a localized treatment for powder-post beetles for the Atkinson residence on Leonard Street in Pensacola, Florida. Caudill was shown by the Atkinsons, signs of what he viewed to be an active infestation in the attic of the Atkinson residence and advised them that they needed treatment in their attic. Frank Ancarrow, Respondent's sales manager, has been employed in that capacity for approximately four years and has approximately eight years' experience with another pest control company. Mr. Ancarrow is certified in all categories except fumigation. Messrs, Ancarrow and Thompson prepared the Shumpert residence for fumigation. The Shumpert residence was treated by Gail Thompson for subterranean termites and the Respondent fumigated the attic for old house wood borers. Frank Ancarrow was shown the statement given in an affidavit taken by Carlton Layne of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the effect that Gail Thompson was in charge of the fumigation of the Shumpert residence. Mr. Ancarrow testified that that was a mistake and that Thompson only prepared the house for fumigation. (Petitioner's Exhibits 5 and 26.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby, Recommended: That the Respondent's Pest Control Operator's Certificate Number 1306; Respondent's Pest Control Employee Identification Card Numbers 5832 and 5843 and Respondent's Pest Control Business License Number 78 be SUSPENDED for a period of two (2) years. In all other respects, the June 10, 1980 Recommended Order previously entered herein remains unchanged. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of July, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jon W. Searcy, Vsquire Department of IIIS 160 Governmenta] Center Pensacola, Florida 32522 Larry Parks, Esquire Murphy, Beroset and Parks 216 Government Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Alvin J. Taylor, Secretary Department of IRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= STIPULATION TO CONSENT FINAL ORDER =================================================================
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Raysbrook Sod, Inc. (Respondent), is indebted to Florida Sod, Inc. (Petitioner), related to the sale and purchase of sod, and, if so, in what amount.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a corporation engaged in the business of harvesting sod. Petitioner is located in LaBelle, Florida. Respondent is a corporation located in Riverview, Florida, and is also engaged in the sod business. In September 2007, Respondent was interested in purchasing some sod in order to satisfy a customer's needs. Respondent's regional supervisor, Gabriel Monsivais, approached a gentleman by the name of Trampis Dowdle about purchasing sod. Monsivais had never met Dowdle and, in fact, knew him only as "Mr. Trampis." Dowdle represented that he could obtain sod from Petitioner, and a deal was struck. There was no written contract between Monsivais and Dowdle, nor--quite interestingly- -between Petitioner and Respondent. Nonetheless, Respondent had its drivers go to Petitioner's sod field and begin loading sod for Respondent's use. In all, approximately 1,700 pallets of sod were acquired from Petitioner's field by Respondent. Each time a load of pallets was taken, a Load Sheet was created to show the number of pallets, the location of the field, and the name of the person taking the sod. The driver of the truck was expected to sign the Load Sheet, indicating that the sod had indeed been received. There is no dispute between the parties about the number of pallets taken by Respondent's drivers.1 As sod was taken by Respondent, Petitioner would issue an invoice reflecting the amount of sod and the price to be paid. The invoices were sent to Respondent via U.S. Mail. The total amount billed for the sod was $42,559.16. Respondent issued a check (No. 8899) in the amount of $1,271.16, made payable to Petitioner on November 30, 2007, in payment of the first invoice from Petitioner. No further checks from Respondent were received by Petitioner, leaving a balance due of $41,288.00.2 Respondent, however, did attempt to make payments for the sod it purchased. Respondent wrote checks to Dowdle based on Dowdle's representations that he either owned Petitioner's company or was working for Petitioner. In fact, Dowdle neither owned nor was in any way affiliated with Petitioner. Dowdle was apparently defrauding Respondent (and possibly Petitioner as well). Respondent's representative, Joseph Bushong, and Petitioner's representative, Jake Alderman, had never met prior to the day of the final hearing in this matter. There was no written contract between the parties. The entire business relationship between the parties was done orally, based on conversations between Monsivais and Dowdle. Nonetheless, Respondent did obtain over $42,000.00 worth of sod from Petitioner. Respondent does not contest this fact. Respondent's actions indicate acknowledgement of the presumed relationship between the parties. Respondent submitted a credit application to Petitioner with references and credit information to be used by Petitioner in extending credit to Respondent for the sod it was purchasing. Respondent issued at least one check directly to Petitioner for payment of the sod in response to an invoice issued by Petitioner. The check was made payable to "Florida Sod" in the amount of $1,271.16. That check directly corresponds to the amount in Invoice No. 1697 from Petitioner dated October 8, 2007. Respondent did receive additional invoices from Petitioner for the sod Respondent had purchased and received. Clearly, there was an understanding between the two companies that a business relationship existed. After making its first payment to Petitioner, Respondent's subsequent payments for the sod were made directly to Dowdle and his companies. One such payment, made by way of a credit card, was actually applied to a restaurant with which Dowdle apparently had some business connection. Other payments were made via checks made payable to other Dowdle interests. Respondent made payments to Dowdle in the mistaken belief that Dowdle was the agent of or employed by Petitioner. In fact, Dowdle has never been affiliated with Petitioner. Petitioner did not receive any of the payments made by Respondent to Dowdle. Petitioner and Dowdle are not related or affiliated in any fashion (other than a prior arm's-length sod purchase between the two). It is clear that Dowdle received the payments intended for Petitioner in payment for the sod purchased by Respondent. Dowdle, whose whereabouts are unknown by the parties, did not provide Petitioner with the payments. Rather, from the evidence, it appears that Dowdle kept the payments, thereby committing a fraud on both Petitioner and Respondent. Though both parties are somewhat at fault in this matter for failure to utilize normal and acceptable business practices, one or the other party must necessarily bear the burden of payment. The evidence supports Petitioner in this regard because it best followed normal business procedures. Had Respondent made its remittance checks payable to Petitioner (who had issued the invoices), Dowdle would not have been able to abscond with the money. Had Respondent obtained some affirmative proof that Dowdle was an agent of Petitioner, Respondent would have known better than to provide money to Dowdle. Had Respondent contacted Petitioner directly instead of relying on third parties (its foreman and Dowdle), the deception would have been uncovered. However, the facts of this case support the proposition that Petitioner made a valid sale of sod to Respondent, and Respondent did not pay Petitioner for the sod.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services requiring Respondent to pay Petitioner the sum of $41,288.00 within 30 days of entry of a final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 2008.
Findings Of Fact On March 21, 1995, Respondent's truck driver was referred by another nursery to Petitioner. Pursuant to instructions from Kevin Laux, coowner of Respondent, the driver was looking to purchase Washingtonian palms for resale. The driver went to Petitioner's nursery, found Washingtonian palms, and telephoned Mr. Laux. Mr. Laux and Wilfred Perez, vice president of Petitioner, spoke on the telephone about the plants. In the conversation, Mr. Perez represented that the Washingtonian plants were two and one-half to three feet tall, but the plants delivered were half that height. Mr. Perez also described other plants that Mr. Laux ordered. These were calypso oleanders, three types of ixora, and 15 paurotis palm. Mr. Perez described the calypso oleanders as somewhat taller than those delivered, but, more importantly, the plants were infested with yellow aphids and required insecticide treatment by Mr. Laux. The ixora were somewhat smaller than described. Also, the paurotis palms were infested with scale and mealy bugs and required more extensive insecticide treatment than did the oleanders. Mr. Perez presented the driver with an invoice for $1550, which was the price upon which Mr. Perez and Mr. Laux agreed for the plants. The invoice stated: "All merchandise should be checked before accepting. We terminate our liability upon acceptance of merchandise." The driver gave Mr. Perez a check for $1550. When Mr. Laux inspected the shipment early the next morning, he called Mr. Perez and complained. After inspecting other plants at the nursery, Mr. Perez called Mr. Laux the same day and they agreed on an adjustment of $187.50. In the meantime, Mr. Laux had stopped payment on the check, and three attempts by Mr. Perez to cash the check were fruitless. Mr. Perez believed that the $1550 check should be paid before he issued a credit. Mr. Laux wanted a check for the credit from Mr. Perez before sending another check. There were a number of obvious solutions available, such as the issuance of a draft by Mr. Laux for the reduced amount due, payable upon receipt by the bank of the check for $1550. Instead, the parties did nothing to try to work out a means by which to credit Mr. Laux for the amount agreed except to resort to administrative litigation.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order determining that Respondent owes Petitioner the sum of $1362.50. ENTERED on July 7, 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 July 7, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Hon. Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0810 Brenda Hyatt, Chief Bureau of Licensing and Bond Department of Agriculture 508 Mayo Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0800 Wilfred Perez Vice President Tropical Resort Marketing, Inc. 20701 Williams Drive North Ft. Myers, FL 33917 Kevin Laux Citrus and Palm Gardens 12426 US Highway 441 Belleview, FL 34420
