The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of violating certain statutes and rules regulating the pest control business, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed against him, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Bradford B. Baker is a certified operator, licensed to perform pest control services in the State of Florida. He is also the owner of Baker's Termite and Pest Control. In early June, 1989, Baker's Termite and Pest Control was contacted by Who-To-Call, a real estate brokerage service, to perform an inspection for termites and wood destroying organisms. The structure to be inspected was a residence owned by Mike and Susan Gillen and located at 825 28th Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida. Baker's sent its then-employee Earl M. Nesbit to perform the inspection on June 3, 1989. When Nesbit arrived, he encountered a number of adults and children sitting around the breakfast table. One of the men was Mike Gillen, the woman turned out to be a real estate broker, and the other gentleman identified himself as a prospective buyer who was in the pest control business in New York. When Nesbit completed his inspection, he advised all of the adults that he had found live dry-wood termites and wood-decaying fungi. He recommended that the home be structurally fumigated. He explained to all of the adults the types of gases that could be used, the various processes involved in fumigation, and those things that needed to be performed by the homeowner in preparation for fumigation. Gillen and the prospective buyer specified that they wanted the residence fumigated with Vikane. On June 9, 1989, Nesbit went to Mike Gillen's place of employment. Gillen signed an agreement with Baker's for Baker's to perform the fumigation services on his residence and specified in the contract that Vikane gas was to be used and that the fumigation was to be performed on July 7, 1989. Gillen advised Nesbit that Baker's would be performing the fumigation prior to the closing on the sale of the Gillen residence and that Baker's would be paid for the fumigation services out of proceeds to be placed in escrow at the time of closing. At the same meeting, Nesbit presented Gillen with a Customer's Duties List which specified those items which needed to be performed by the homeowner in preparation for tent fumigation. Gillen signed a copy of that list, and Nesbit orally reviewed. The list with Gillen advising him of all the things to be done prior to the fumigation. The Customer's Duties List reviewed by Nesbit and given to and signed by Gillen contains a list of materials that can be contaminated or damaged by the fumigant, the items to be removed from the structure, and other precautions to be taken by the property owner. On July 7, 1989, the date called for in the contract with Gillen, a crew from Baker's led by Richard Fulton arrived at the Gillen residence at approximately 9:00 a.m. A number of private vehicles were parked in the driveway so that Fulton had to park his vehicle out at the street. Fulton began walking around the outside of the house to see what the job entailed when a man came out of the house and approached him. The man told Fulton that they were not prepared for the fumigation to take place that day and that it would have to be done some other time. Fulton was relieved because he had noted that the trees and bushes around the perimeter of the house had not been trimmed so that it would be possible to drop a tarp from the top of the house down to the ground. The man asked Fulton what gas was going to used, and Fulton advised him that Baker's intended to use Vikane. They discussed the Vikane and Fulton advised the man that the shrubs had to be trimmed back from the house so that they could get a tarp down to the ground. The man never identified himself. Fulton returned to his truck and, using the truck radio, contacted Lloyd Baker, one of Baker's certified operators who was on his way to the Gillen job. As a result of being advised that the job had been cancelled, Lloyd Baker proceeded to the next job, and Fulton and the crew left the Gillen residence. The Gillen job was rescheduled on the morning of July 7, 1989, by a real estate agent, who rescheduled the Gillen job for Friday, September 8, 1989. On Thursday before the scheduled fumigation, a Baker's employee obtained a key to the Gillen residence from the occupants of the house since they would be out of town from Friday morning to Sunday night. In accordance with the rescheduling, the Baker's crew arrived at the Gillen residence on Saturday, September 9, 1989, to perform the fumigation. No one was home when the crew arrived, but the bushes around the house had been trimmed so that the tarps could be dropped to the ground. While preparing the house for introduction of the Vikane, the crew did notice several containers of chemicals in the garage of the residence, which chemicals are restricted and can only be purchased by persons holding the proper licensure. The house was properly fumigated with Vikane. Because Vikane is a colorless, odorless poison, Baker's also used chlor-o-pic, a tear gas which is properly used with Vikane as a warning agent. On Sunday, September 10, Respondent went with the crew to the Gillen residence to lift the tarps. At that time, Respondent also noticed the presence in the garage of restricted chemicals requiring licensure. Respondent walked through the house after the tarp was lifted and the house had been aired. He determined through the use of a device called an Interscan that no Vikane was present in the house. While he was in the house, Baker experienced no nausea or eye irritation from the chlor-o-pic. Fulton, who was also in the house after the tarp was lifted and the house was aired out, experienced no physical irritations resulting from the Vikane or the chlor-o-pic. Respondent Baker placed a treatment sticker on the circuit breaker panel box, which sticker identified the fumigant used as being Vikane. He also placed a notice on the front door indicating that the house was safe to enter. On Monday, September 11, 1989, Respondent Baker received a telephone call from a Mr. Jenkins, complaining that he, his wife and his children had returned to their home the previous evening and had experienced physical discomforts and symptoms necessitating that they leave the house. Jenkins was seeking reimbursement for medical expenses, hotel expenses, and other monies. The first knowledge that Respondent or Baker's had of Mr. and Mrs. Jenkins was the phone call from Mr. Jenkins to Respondent on September 11. At the time that the Gillen residence was fumigated by Baker's, Respondent and Baker's did not know that Mrs. Jenkins had purchased the Gillen residence; that the closing of that real estate transaction had occurred on July 5, two days before the fumigation date scheduled in the contract between Gillen and Baker's; and that the man who had sent away the crew from Baker's on July 7 because he was not prepared was not Mr. Gillen, the owner of the house with whom Baker's had a contract, but rather was Mr. Jenkins, the husband of the new owner of the house. It is uncontroverted that Respondent never saw the contract for purchase and sale between the Gillens and Mrs. Jenkins, that Respondent had no knowledge of any terms of that real estate transaction between the Gillens and Mrs. Jenkins, that Respondent did not know that a closing was scheduled to take place on July 5, or that it had in fact taken place, that Mrs. Jenkins and the Gillens had agreed to close without the fumigation being performed, or that the Jenkins family had moved into the Gillen residence prior to it being fumigated. If Respondent had known that a closing had taken place on the house, he would have required that the new owner enter into a contract with Baker's before Baker's performed fumigation services. Baker's would not have performed fumigation services pursuant to a contract with someone who did not own the property that was being fumigated. In late September, Mrs. Jenkins filed a complaint with Petitioner regarding the fumigation performed by Baker's. Petitioner's entomologist- inspector contacted Baker's, and Respondent returned to the Jenkins residence and again tested for the presence of Vikane. None was detected. Petitioner's inspector later attempted to "scan" the Jenkins residence as part of his investigation in this matter using equipment loaned to him by Baker's, Mr. and Mrs. Jenkins refused to allow him to test their residence. Based upon his investigation, Petitioner's inspector concluded that the fumigation performed by Baker's was not performed in a negligent manner.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint and dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against him in this cause. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 7th day of January, 1991. LINDA N. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of January, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 90-0944 Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 1 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting a conclusion of law. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 2, 3, and 6-8 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 4, 5, and 12 have been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues involved in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 9- 11, and 13-15 have been rejected as not being supported by competent or credible evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-8 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 9 and 10 have been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues involved in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbers 11 and 12 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting conclusions of law or argument of counsel. COPIES FURNISHED: John Rodriguez Senior Attorney Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Peter T. Gianino, Esquire Grazi, Gianino & Cohen 217 East Ocean Boulevard Post Office Box 2846 Stuart, Florida 34995 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Linda K. Harris, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Philip G. Nicholson, does business as Allstate Termite Control. The Respondent holds a pest control identification card issued by the Office of Entomology of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. On or about September 23, 1977, the Respondent entered into a subterranean termite control contract and service agreement with Roland E. Cooley and Alma P. Cooley with respect to the Cooleys' residence in Lake Worth, Florida. The chemical specified for use on the contract was chlordane. On or about that same date, the Respondent entered into a contract with Roland E. Cooley and Alma P. Cooley to perform a dry wood termite attic prevention treatment on the Cooley's residence. The chemical specified in the dry wood contract was "dri die". Only hearsay testimony was offered to establish what, if any, representations the Respondent made to the Cooleys to induce them to enter into the contracts. The work performed by the Respondent on the Cooleys' residence was not sufficient to provide the protection specified in the contracts, and in the case of the dry wood treatment, was unnecessary. The Cooleys' residence is constructed on a concrete slab. With such structures, the chlordane label, which governs use of the chemical, requires that all voids in hollow masonry units of the foundation be treated at the rate of at least one gallon per five linear feet of wall. It is thus necessary to drill each masonry block so that the chemical can be injected into it. Hollow masonry blocks were used in constructing the foundation of the Cooley house. Only one drill hole was made on the north side of the house into the masonry blocks, and none were made on the south side. If each of the masonry units had been treated as required, drill holes would have been placed at every eighteen inches along the foundation. This was not done, and the treatment for subterranean termite control was thus not in accordance with the label on the chemical, and was substandard. The treatment was inadequate to provide the Cooleys with the protection provided in the subterranean termite control contract. As to the dri die treatment at the Cooley house, the sort of treatment specified would not give the Cooleys any significant termite protection, since it would only protect them from dry wood termites in their attic. It is not a sort of treatment that is ordinarily performed. In order to be performed effectively, however, the dri die must be applied in accordance with the label which gives directions for its use. It is required that all wood surfaces be covered with the chemical at a recommended rate of one pound per one thousand square feet of area. At the Cooley residence, dri die was placed in the area, however, it was placed in a small pile in one part of the attic. It was not evenly spread, all wood surfaces were not covered, and insufficient chemical was utilized. The treatment specified would have provided the Cooleys only with dry wood termite prevention in the one part of the attic where the chemical was piled. The treatment was not in accordance with the label instructions, and was substandard. On or about September 27, 1977, the Respondent entered into a subterranean termite control contract and service agreement with Mr. and Mrs. Walter J. Delaney, for their residence in Lake Worth, Florida. The type of chemical specified for use in the contract was chlordane. The contract sets out the street address and zip code of the Delaneys' residence, but does not state the city. The address set out on the contract is sufficient to establish the location of the Delaneys' residence. Only hearsay evidence was offered at the final hearing to indicate what, if any, representations the Respondent made to the Delaneys in order to induce them to enter into the contract. The work performed by the Respondent on the Delaney home was insufficient to comport with the label instructions for application of chlordane, was substandard, and did not provide the Delaneys with the protection specified in the contract. The Delaneys' home is of concrete slab on-ground construction. The foundation is constructed of hollow masonry units. The voids in the hollow masonry units were not each treated as required on the chlordane label. Only one drill hole was made on the south side of the house and none were made on the north side. Several drill holes were made on the other sides of the house, however, four of them were fake, in other words they did not go all the way through the slab. On or about September 28, 1977, the Respondent entered into a subterranean termite control contract and service agreement with Mrs. Ann Sahlem, for her residence in West Palm Beach, Florida. The chemical specified for use in the contract was chlordane. Only hearsay evidence was offered to establish what representations, if any, were made by the Respondent to induce Mrs. Sahlem to enter into the contract. The work performed by the Respondent on the Sahlem residence did not comport with the label instructions for us of chlordane, was substandard, and was not sufficient to provide Mrs. Sahlem with the protection specified in the contract. The Sahlem residence is constructed on an on-ground concrete slab. The foundation is constructed of hollow masonry units. The voids in each of the hollow masonry units were not filled as required by the chlordane label. No drill holes were made on the west side of the home, and only one was made on the east side. On the north side of the home the holes were too far apart to treat all of the voids. The address set out on the Sahlem contract does not give the city of Mrs. Sahlem's residence although it does give the street address and zip code. The address as given is sufficient to identify the residence. On or about September 30, 1977, the Respondent entered into a subterranean termite control contract and service agreement, and a dry wood termite attic prevention treatment agreement with Mrs. Elizabeth A. Hughes. The chemical specified for use in the subterranean termite control contract was chlordane. The chemical specified in the dry wood termite prevention treatment was "dri die". The contracts were for Mrs. Hughes' residence in Lake Worth, Florida. The contracts do not specify the city of Mrs. Hughes' residence, although the street address and zip code are set out. The address as set out is sufficient to adequately identify the location of Mrs. Hughes' residence. No evidence was offered from which it could be concluded that the Respondent made any misrepresentations to Mrs. Hughes to induce her to enter into the contracts. The work performed under the contracts was, however, not in accordance with the label instructions for chlordane and dri die treatments, was substandard, and was not sufficient to provide the treatment specified in the contracts. Mrs. Hughes' home is constructed on a concrete slab. The foundation is constructed of hollow masonry units. The voids in the masonry units were not each treated as required on the chlordane directions. Furthermore, the drill holes were made three feet above the ground along one wall, and five feet above the ground along another wall, which would be insufficient to allow introduction of the chemicals below the concrete slab. The dri die was not distributed evenly over the attic wood surfaces as required on the dri die label. An insufficient amount of the chemical was utilized, and it was placed at one spot in the attic. The dri die treatment was unnecessary, and even if it had been advisable, it was not accomplished in a manner which would provide any useful protection to Mrs. Hughes. On or about October 27, 1977, the Respondent entered into a subterranean termite control contract and service agreement with Mrs.. Fred J. Schultz. The contract was for Mrs. Schultz's residence in Lake Worth, Florida. No direct evidence was offered to establish what, if any, representations were made by the Respondent to induce Mrs. Schultz to enter into the contract. It appears that the contract was solicited and performed by employees of the Respondent, and not by him directly, although he signed the contract and was responsible for the work. The chemical specified for use in the contract is Gold Crest, 72%, which is a trade name for chlordane. The work performed by the Respondent did not comport with the label instructions for use of chlordane, was substandard, and was not sufficient to provide the protection specified in the contract. The Sdchultz's home is constructed on piers with a crawl space. The instructions for application of chlordane contained in the label provide that in treating such structures it is necessary to either rod or dig a narrow trench to the top of the footing along the inside of the foundation walls, around all piers, sewers, pipes, and conduits; and to rod or dig a narrow trench to the top of the footing along the outside of the foundation wall. The Respondent, or his employees who performed the work at the Schultz residence did not make any trenches whatever, and did not even enter the crawl space below the Schultz's home in order to treat the piers. No evidence was presented from which it could be determined that the Respondent performed any dry wood termite treatment on the Schultz's residence. No evidence was presented from which it could be determined that any such work that may have been performed was done improperly, or that it was accomplished with or without a contract. On or about October 21, 1977, the Respondent entered into a subterranean termite control contract and service agreement with Mrs. Hulda Radke. The contract related to Mrs. Radke's residence in West Palm Beach, Florida. The chemical specified for use in the contract was chlordane. The Respondent also entered into contracts to perform home repairs for Mrs. Radke. No evidence was offered from which it could be concluded that the Respondent made any misrepresentations in order to induce Mrs. Radke to enter into the contract for termite control. The termite control work performed by the Respondent on Mrs. Radke's residence did not comport with the label instructions for use of chlordane, was substandard, and was not sufficient to provide the protection specified in the contract. Mrs. Radke's home was of pier constructions with a crawl space. No trenches were made, and the chemical was not trenched or rodded around each pier, and around each foundation wall. The chemical was broadcast along the top of the soil, but was not placed below the surface. The label instructions specify that a chemical should not be broadcast sprayed. On or about October 26, 1977 the Respondent entered into a subterranean termite control contract and service agreement with Mrs. Charles Thompson, for her residence in West Palm Beach, Florida. The chemical specified for use in the contract was chlordane. No direct evidence was offered to establish what, if any, representations were made by the Respondent to induce Mrs. Thompson to enter into the contract. The work performed by the Respondent on the Thompson residence did not comport with the label instructions for use of chlordane, was substandard, and was insufficient to provide the protection specified in the contract. The Thompson residence is of pier and crawl space construction. No trenches or rodding was done as specified on the chlordane label, and each pier was not treated. The address set out on the Thompson contract is insufficient. It gives only a street address, and no city or zip code. The Respondent testified that he used a process known as "long rodding" to treat under concrete slabs. Long rodding is a method whereby the end of a spray assembly is extended, and chemicals introduced under a slab. It is used typically where hollow masonry is not used in constructing the foundation. The process does not work well because the end of the rod cannot be adequately controlled. Even if this process were utilized, the chlordane label would required that all voids in hollow masonry units be treated. Failure to treat each of the voids would render the treatment substandard. It appears that since these incidents occurred, the Respondent has performed numerous termite control contracts in Hillsborough and Pinellas counties without complaint.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Florida Termite and Pest Control, Division of Rentokil, Inc. (Respondent), entered into a service agreement contract with Frank Kaplan on May 7, 1985, for the control of dry wood termites in the Kaplan residence at 4020 W. Cleveland Street, West Tampa. The service was to be performed on May 17, 1985. On May 15, 1985, Respondent's certified operator in charge walked off another job. The certified operator, Larry Lee Grimes, was dissatisfied with his employment conditions and situation and was unsure whether he intended to return to the employ of Respondent. However, Grimes did not notify Respondent of his true thoughts and intentions. Instead, Grimes sent an employee under his supervision to Respondent's office to advise Respondent falsely that Grimes had injured his ankle on the job and had gone home on sick leave. To complete the subterfuge, Grimes had the employee ask Respondent for a worker's compensation form to be taken to Grimes to complete and file. On May 16, 1985, Grimes stayed home from work, continuing the subterfuge. Grimes remained available by telephone and electronic beeper service in the event his services as certified operator in charge were required by Respondent on May 16. By May 17, 1985, Grimes had made the decision to quit his employment with Respondent. However, Grimes did not notify Respondent of his decision. Respondent still believed Grimes was employed as Respondent's certified operator in charge. At the start of the day, on May 17, 1985, Respondent was not sure whether Grimes would appear for work at the Kaplan residence. On May 17, 1985, Michael A. Cabrera and Andrew Pinckert, employee identification cardholders with Respondent, erected a fumigation tent over the Kaplan residence. When the erection of the tent had been completed, Cabrera poured approximately 4 to 8 ounces of the warning agent chloropicrin (more commonly known as tear gas) onto the soil within the tent and adjacent to the front foundation wall of the structure in violation of the applicable registered pesticide label provisions. Cabrera was neither a certified operator nor a special fumigation identification cardholder. But Grimes had taught and permitted him to apply the warning agent in this manner in the past (contrary to Respondent's policy and the instruction of other representatives of Respondent.) Later on the same day, Carl S. Lennon, a special fumigation identification cardholder with Respondent, arrived at the premises and released the fumigant gas Vikane into the tented structure. On May 18, 1985, Grimes left town for the weekend, leaving his company-owned truck at his residence. He still had not notified Respondent of his decision to quit. On May 18, 1985, Lennon returned to the Kaplan residence. Following removal of the tent, Lennon inspected the entire structure, using his own sense of smell to determine whether the structure was safe for human occupancy. Use of one's own sense of smell is one of several acceptable methods of monitoring a treated structure for unacceptable levels of lingering Vikane pesticide. At 1:00 P.M., on May 18, 1985, Lennon declared the Kaplan residence safe for human occupancy. Because Cabrera had violated the pesticide label provisions by pouring some of the tear gas onto the ground outside the residence and because Mrs. Kaplan is unusually sensitive to chloropicrin, the residence became uninhabitable by the Kaplans. Lennon had negligently cleared the residence for occupancy. Upon being notified of the Kaplan's complaint, Respondent took proper action to correct the situation. Respondent also fired Grimes. The evidence is that Respondent consistently appropriately responded to customer complaints and has cooperated with Petitioner, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), in resolving customer complaints. In a separate incident, on August 12, 1985, the Hillsborough Health Unit received a notice of intended fumigation from Respondent. The notice indicated that the structure to be fumigated was located at 2195 San Carlos, Tampa, and that the fumigant would be released at approximately noon on August 12, 1985. Similarly, on August 12, 1985, the Hillsborough County Health Unit received a notice of intended fumigation from Respondent for fumigation of a structure at 1717 Watrous Avenue, Tampa, at approximately 2:00 P.M. on August 12, 1985. Respondent normally mails notices of intended fumigation to the county health unit at least 72 hours before intended release of the fumigant so that the notice will arrive at least 24 hours before release of the fumigant. However, when the contract with the customer calls for fumigation to take place less than 72 hours from the time of the contract, Respondent hand delivers the notice of intended fumigation as soon as possible. In the case of the two notices referred to above, it was not possible to deliver the notices of intended fumigation at least 24 hours before the intended release of fumigant because of the short length of time within which Respondent had contracted to perform the fumigation services.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that Petitioner, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, impose a $350 administrative fine on Respondent, Florida Termite and Pest Control, Division of Rentokil, Inc., in this case. RECOMMENDED this 12th day of May, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of May, 1986.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this matter is whether the Department should issue a Warning Letter to the Respondent because of his application of a pesticide in a client's home on September 16, 1994.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department of Agriculture was responsible for the registration, licensing and regulation of pest control applicators in Florida. In September, 1994, Crystal S. Tipton contacted the Respondent, Michael A. Kaeler, as the representative for Terminix International, and requested that he come to her home, located at 6253 Old Trail in New Port Richey, to spray for bugs and fleas. Mrs. Tipton had a contract with Terminix, dated July 19, 1994, which called for periodic applications, and this was the second visit under the plan. On September 16, 1994, Respondent came to the home in response to the call, arriving about 9:00 AM. At that time, Mrs. Tipton advised him that she had had a bad reaction from the July spraying. On September 16, 1994, Mrs. Tipton was in the house alone. Respondent started treating the house shortly after he arrived. Mrs. Tipton had told him not to spray her daughter's bedroom because of the reaction the child had had from the prior treatment. Mrs. Tipton remained in the house, cleaning, while Respondent applied the substance. At no time, she asserts, did Respondent instruct her to leave the house or give her any instructions except to tell her to wear shoes when she walked on the carpet. He did not tell her to stay off the carpet until it dried. According to Mrs. Tipton, while Respondent was applying the pesticide, on occasion she was in the same room with him, and she could smell the spray. At no time did he advise her to leave the room while he sprayed. Respondent also got behind the baseboards to spray, and put pesticide on the ground outside the house. He then left. According to Mrs. Tipton, the smell was worse this time than after the first spraying. Though she opened all the windows, even while Respondent was spraying, the smell remained for hours, and at 11:30 PM, the carpet was still damp, she claims. As she recalls it, the smell stayed in the house until the following day. After Mrs. Tipton realized there was a problem, she contacted several experts to come out and see what could be done. Her husband contacted Mr. Bowen, the Department's local representative, and told him what had happened, but no other complaint was filed. Mrs. Tipton called Terminix the Monday after the spraying to tell them that all the people in the house were sick. They did not respond promptly, so she had the carpets cleaned and a maid service in to clean the house, but even after that the smell was still present. Mrs. Tipton does not know what chemical was applied in her home by Respondent either in July or in September. She recalls only that in July Mr. Kaeler also told her to wear shoes on the damp carpet. On that occasion, the carpet was damp for three to four hours after spraying, but she does not know how much chemical was applied. During the September application, Mrs. Tipton remained in the family room and the kitchen while Mr. Kaeler was applying the substance throughout the house, and even when he was applying in the kitchen, which is tiled. Though he used a broadcast spray in those areas which were carpeted, including the living room, the dining room, the family room, the master bedroom, the halls, and the entrances to the children's bedrooms, he used a pin spray in the kitchen. Whereas the broadcast spray gives a wide application, the pin spray is exact and puts the pesticide in a very limited area. She had told him not to spray in the children's rooms, and claims she asked him not to use the same spray he had used in the earlier visit. Mrs. Tipton claims Mr. Kaeler did not tell her he had used the same spray but in a diluted strength or in a lesser volume. She claims he said he would not use the same spray and would not spray the daughter's bedroom. It would appear he did not spray the children's rooms, but there is no indication he used a different spray in September than in July. Mrs. Tipton claims the carpet remained damp far longer than it did during the July spraying and she thought this was unusual. When Mr. Bowen, the Department's entomologist inspector, was contacted by Mr. Tipton, he gave Mr. Tipton some advice on how to deal with the problem. The children's doctor also called Bowen about what Bowen had told Mr. Tipton. When Mr. Tipton finally suggested that the pesticide had been applied improperly, Bowen opened his investigation. He took Mrs. Tipton's statement and got the doctor's comments. He also took a statement from Mr. Kaeler and his records for the July and September applications, as well as copies of the labels from the containers of the pesticide applied. The Department requires that all products be used consistent with the labeling instructions and the standards of the Department and the Environmental Protection Agency, (EPA). From his investigation, Mr. Bowen determined that the Respondent used Dursban L.O. Mr. Bowen is familiar with that product and determined that the Respondent applied the product at a concentrated rate in a broadcast pattern over the carpets. This was appropriate, but if it were done while people other than the applicator were in the structure, he contend this was specifically prohibited by the label. In his opinion, Mr. Kaeler's actions constitute a violation of the statute and the Department's rule. None of the information received by Mr. Bowen from the family doctor or the Health Department related to the propriety of Respondent's application of the product. These contacts related only to the health of the children. The only reference to possibly improper application is found in Mrs. Tipton's undated statement. The label on the Dursban L.O. product indicates, "Other than the applicator, treated areas should be vacated during application. Do not permit humans or pets to contact treated surfaces until the spray has dried." Mr. Bowen did not contact the manufacturer to see what "areas" being treated meant. He feels that the interpretation is up to his agency, and he agrees with the agency determination that the entire residence must be vacated. No direct evidence was presented to show the agency determination, however, and it appears the determination of propriety of application was left up to Mr. Bowen. A broadcast spray is used for large areas. A pin stream is used for cracks and crevices. A pin stream application does not, in Mr. Bowen's opinion, require vacation of the structure. The broadcast spray for flea control does, however, as he sees it. If the manufacturer were to hold that application did not require evacuation of the entire structure, but only the room being treated, then in that case, Mr. Bowen would conclude that the application by Mr. Kaeler was appropriate. As he recalls, Mr. Kaeler used one half gallon of 1/4 percent solution for an 1800 square foot application. This was a fairly light treatment. Mr. Bowen has, himself, applied Dursban L.O. at this rate. Mr. Kaeler has been employed by Terminix since November, 1993 as a service technician. He underwent 30 days of a training program in identification of insects and application techniques and requirements of pesticides, including Dursban, with the company. He is not licensed. Terminix holds the license under which he operates. Mr. Kaeler admits that when he treated the Tipton house on September 16, 1994, Mrs. Tipton complained of her daughter's head aches resulting from the prior application and asked him not to spray the child's bedroom, but she did not object to the use of this pesticide. He broadcast sprayed all the carpeted area up to the entry to the girls' bedrooms. In all the girls' rooms there were clothes, books and toys on the floor so he did not spray inside. In the kitchen, which, he claims, was the only location where Mrs. Tipton was present while he sprayed, he used the pin stream technique. The entire spraying took about 30 minutes. Mr. Kaeler also sprayed the windows and doors from the outside and the garage, using the pin stream spray in all those locations. The one half gallon of solution was used to do all the spraying at the Tipton's house that day, both inside and out. Mr. Kaeler believes that the solution he sprayed on the carpeted areas on September 16, 1994 should have dried in no more than an hour. He confirms that Mrs. Tipton opened the windows and turned on the fans while he was still spraying. He had told her to do this the first time. As Mr. Kaeler understands it, Terminix's policy is that occupants of property being broadcast sprayed for insects should stay off the carpet being sprayed but need not vacate the structure. Dr. Ellen Thoms, an entomologist working for the manufacturer of the chemical in issue, indicates that the label instructions on containers of Dursban L.O. were intended by the company to mean that the term "area" where the chemical is being applied by broadcast spray includes not the entire structure but the immediate area of the application because of the possibility of spraying the chemical on someone. The danger is in contact with the substance through the skin or through oral ingestion, not in the odor or the fumes. In Dr. Thoms' opinion, Mr. Kaeler's application was consistent with the terms of the label, which uses the term "should" rather than the term "must". The drying time for carpet sprayed with Dursban L.O. by broadcast spray is effected by the thickness of the carpet and the relative humidity in the sprayed area. Since a greater amount of applied substance dried more quickly in the high humidity of July, in Dr. Thoms' opinion it is unlikely a smaller amount applied in September would take more than 14 hours to dry. She does not know what the climate factors were that day, however. Dr. Mangold, a technical specialist for Terminix, and an entomologist certified in all four categories of pest control, reviewed all the material evidence in this case and heard the testimony given at hearing. He has concluded that what Mr. Kaeler did was conservatively to apply a very diluted spray, usually applied at a rate of one gallon per 1,600 square feet. His one half gallon application for an 1,800 square foot house, plus outside, is an appropriate maintenance application. In Dr. Mangold's opinion, Mr. Kaeler's application in September, 1994 was consistent with the label requirements in amount, concentration and percent, and with the requirement that all other persons be out of the area being treated. He does not believe, in light of what was shown, it could have taken in excess of fourteen hours for this application to dry. In his opinion, drying should have taken between twenty minutes and an hour, and he can see no possible explanation for it having taken as long as Mrs. Tipton claims. Dr. Mangold defines the term "area treated" as being the immediate area being treated - an eighteen inch swath and some adjacent area, to-wit: the area being contacted by the spray. Mr. Lemont, a fully certified entomologist-consultant reviewed the file on this case and heard the testimony given at hearing. In his opinion, the term, "area treated" includes the contact area, not the entire structure. He believes Mr. Kaeler performed consistently with the label instructions and there was no violation. The words, "should" and "may", are interpreted in the trade as permissive and non-enforceable. Stronger words, such as "shall" and "must", are directive and enforceable. Mr. Lemont agrees that the application by Mr. Kaeler was a light application. Drying depends on humidity, but often an application dries before the operator leaves. He cannot believe this application would have taken more than two to three hours, even under the most adverse atmospheric conditions. Certainly, it would not have taken more than fourteen hours. In Lemont's opinion, the issue of how close an applicator can come to others while applying Dursban L.O. by broadcast spray is a judgement call. The issue is contact. Mrs. Tipton was not positive on the issue of Mr. Kaeler's being in the room with her, other than the kitchen, while applying the substance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED THAT a Warning Letter not be issued to either Michael A. Kaeler or Terminix International Co., LP., as a result of Mr. Kaeler's application of Dursban L.O. at the Tipton residence in New Port Richey, Florida on September 16, 1994. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of July, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of July, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert G. Worley, Esquire Department of Agriculture Room 515, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 James M. Nicholas, Esquire P.O. Box 814 Melbourne, Florida 32902 The Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Harry Hooper General Counsel Department of Agriculture Room 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
The Issue Whether 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
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations set forth in the Administrative Complaint, as amended, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the operation of the pest control industry pursuant to Section 482.032, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this case, Clifford Killingsworth was the owner and Certified Operator in Charge (COIC) of Killingsworth Environmental, Inc., d/b/a Environmental Security, a/k/a KEFL, Inc., a licensed pest control company in Cantonment, Florida. Counts 9 and 11 Counts 9 and 11 of the Administrative Complaint allege as follows: Count 9 During an inspection on July 11, 2003, the Department found that Killingsworth Environmental, Incorporated operated an unlicensed business location at 9100 Hamman Avenue, Pensacola, at which sales solicitations were made and remuneration received. This is a violation of Chapters 482.071(1) and (2), Florida Statutes. Count 11 During an inspection on July 11, 2003 the Department found that Killingsworth Environmental, Incorporated phone numbers terminated in an unlicensed location at 9100 Hamman Avenue. This is a violation of Chapter 5E-14.142(3)(b). Killingsworth Environmental, Inc., d/b/a Environmental Security, a/k/a KEFL (hereinafter KEFL), is physically located at 4141 Pine Forest Road in Cantonment, Florida, and is listed at this address on its application for business license filed with the Department. Cantonment is located in Escambia County near Pensacola, Florida. Two other pest control companies, Environmental Security of Okaloosa, Inc., and Atlas Termite and Pest Control of Cantonment, Inc., are located at the same address. On July 11, 2003, the Department conducted an inspection of a company called Home Services Marketing and Management, LLC (hereinafter Home Services), which is located at 9100 Hamman Avenue in Pensacola. Clifford Killingsworth and Clinton Killingsworth2/ are the managers of Home Services. On March 26, 2002, KEFL entered into a Management and Marketing Agreement with Home Services, executed by Clifford Killingsworth on behalf of KEFL and by Clinton Killingsworth on behalf of Home Services. Since that agreement was signed, the telephone number for KEFL listed in the local telephone directory terminated at Home Services. Home Services also answers calls for Environmental Security of Okaloosa and Atlas Termite and Pest Control of Cantonment, Inc. Through their computer system and caller ID, the Home Services employee knows which company is being called and answers accordingly. Home Services employees do not make "cold calls" to new customers. They receive calls from existing customers. They contact customers with active accounts to set up renewals. They also contact homeowners whose homes were treated during construction and whose initial accounts were with the builder of the home. If a new customer calls, a Home Services employee answers the call, gets the contact information from the potential new client, and then calls the appropriate technician who would then call or visit the potential customer. The appropriate technician is generally determined by the geographic location of the caller. While a Home Services employee might send a preprinted contract to the technician to take to the job site or mail a contract to a customer, Home Services does not enter into any contract to perform pest control services. No pest control trucks or chemicals are stored at Home Services. Home Services also has a payment processing component. Home Services sends bills to pest control customers which instruct customers to make out the check to the appropriate pest control company, not to Home Services. Payments from customers for pest control services are deposited into the account of the appropriate pest control company. No evidence was presented that 9100 Hamman Avenue is an advertised permanent location of KEFL from which business was solicited, accepted, or conducted. After the July 11, 2003, inspection of Home Services, Clinton Killingsworth, Clifford Killingsworth's brother, took steps to get Home Services licensed as a pest control company. Clifford Killingsworth did this because it was his understanding that the Department took the position that Home Services was in the business of practicing pest control services. He employed his brother, Daniel Killingsworth, to be the required licensed person in charge, and contacted several insurance companies to obtain the required insurance. He had difficulty in obtaining the required insurance since Home Services does not offer pest control services. Despite these difficulties, Home Services was issued a license in December 2003. Count 10 Count 10 of the Administrative Complaint, as amended, reads as follows: During an inspection on July 16, 2003, the Department found that Killingsworth Environmental, Incorporated stored pesticides at an unlicensed business location at 1830 Galvez Road, Gulf Breeze, Florida, which is a violation of Chapter 5E- 14.142(5)(f) and (g), Florida Administrative Code. That in addition, the Respondent, Killingsworth Environmental, Inc., regularly parked trucks containing pesticide at that location during nighttime hours, published in the 2002-2003 Bell South Telephone Directory under Pest Control Services in the yellow pages of the telephone directory, a listing for "Environmental Security", a name under which it did business, and its employees received by facsimile daily work assignments that were sent to them at that location. That the Respondent, Killingsworth Environmental, Inc operated an unlicensed business location at 1830 Galvez Road, Gulf Breeze, Florida, in violation of Section 482.071(2)(a), Florida Statutes.[3/] The property located at 1830 Galvez Drive is surrounded by a locked fence and contains a structure. The structure is not enclosed. Both KEFL and Environmental Security of Okaloosa park trucks there overnight. The Department conducted an inspection of 1830 Galvez Drive on July 16, 2003. When the inspectors arrived, the gate to the property was locked and the trucks were locked. They entered the property when pest control employees arrived. On the day of the inspection, the Department's inspectors found unmixed chemicals in the trucks. Clifford Killingsworth acknowledges that at the time of the inspection, company trucks parked at the Galvez Drive location overnight and pesticides were in the locked trucks. Company records or contracts are not stored at the Galvez Drive location. No customer contact takes place at or from the Galvez Drive location. The Pest Control Business License Application Form contains a space in which the licensee must respond to the following: "Designate location where pest control records and contracts will be kept and the exact location address for storage of chemicals if other than licensed business location." The applications for business license for KEFL d/b/a Environmental Security do not reference 1830 Galvez Road as a location where storage of chemicals occurs. KEFL does not have a license for operating a business at this location. The yellow pages for the Pensacola area contains a listing in red ink for "Environmental Security, Inc." It lists an address of 4141 Pine Forest Road with the telephone number 473-1060. There is another reference to "Environmental Security" in black ink in smaller type which lists the address 1830 Galvez Drive with the number 916-7731.4/ Clifford Killingsworth arranged to have a phone line for a fax machine to be located in a trailer at the Galvez Drive location. The purpose of installing a fax line at Galvez Drive was for employees to receive daily schedule assignments. The 916-7731 number listed in the yellow pages is the number of the fax machine. Clifford Killingsworth did not request a listing for the number of the fax machine. However, the telephone company listed it in the phone book. Clinton Killingsworth has requested the local telephone company remove the erroneous listing a number of times. Count 13 Count 13 of the Administrative Complaint reads as follows: During an inspection on July 11, 2003 the Department found that pesticide was kept at 4141 Pine Forest Road in a container other than application equipment and not accurately identified through the use of permanent, durable label or tag, showing the common or chemical name(s) of principal active ingredients(s), which is a violation of Chapter 5E-14.106(4), Florida Administrative Code. On July 11, 2003, the Department conducted an inspection of KEFL's business location, 4141 Pine Forest Road. One of the inspectors that day was Bruce Nicely, a regional supervisor of the Department's Bureau of Entomology and Pest Control. He was accompanied by Paul Matola of the Department, who did not testify at the hearing. During the inspection, Clifford Killingsworth opened a storage trailer for inspection. Mr. Killingsworth described the trailer as a jug disposal trailer, where empty jugs and drums were stored until they could be recycled or disposed of properly. At the back of the trailer, Mr. Nicely found a two- and-one-half gallon unmarked jug inside a five-gallon bucket. An unidentified substance was inside the jug. Mr. Nicely took a sample of the substance inside the jug, pouring it directly into an eight-ounce sample jar. He labeled the jar "PHY number 07110346060107" and placed the sample in a sealed sample collection bag which was put in a cooler of ice. When completing the pesticide collection report, he wrote "pesticide screen" in a blank after the words, "List active ingredient(s) and/or compounds to analyze for." Mr. Nicely then gave the sample to Steven Dwinnel, at 4:35 p.m. on July 11, 2003.5/ Mr. Dwinnel relinquished the sample to Mike Page at 8:03 p.m. on July 11, 2003. At the time, Mr. Page was the director of the Department's pesticide laboratory. Mr. Page has an undergraduate degree in chemistry and a graduate degree in toxicology and pharmacology with over 16 years of experience as an analytical chemist. When Mr. Page received the pesticide collection report, the word "Lindane" also appeared on the report along with the request for a pesticide screen. It is not clear who wrote the word "Lindane" on the collection report or when the word "Lindane" was written. According to Mr. Page, a pesticide screen includes testing for Lindane. He therefore concluded that whether or not the word "Lindane" was included in the request for analysis made no difference in the lab's testing. An analysis of the sample was performed revealing that the sample contained a concentration of 34.2 percent Lindane and 46 parts per million of Chlorophyrifos. Mr. Page described the amount of Chlorophyrifos compared to the Lindane as a minuscule amount. Both Lindane and Chlorophyrifos are pesticides. The undersigned is persuaded that the Department appropriately maintained the chain of custody of the sample regardless of whether or not the word "Lindane" appeared on the collection report. The fact that "Lindane" appeared on the collection report sometime after Mr. Nicely relinquished it and the sample is of no consequence as to the validity of the laboratory testing of the sample. Clifford Killingsworth is uncertain as to whether his company ever used Lindane but is certain that they have not used it in recent years as it has been "off the market" since approximately 1999. Two other pest control companies, Environmental Security of Okaloosa, Inc. and Atlas Termite and Pest Control of Cantonment, Inc., also use the trailer from which the sample was taken, to store empty pesticide containers. Clifford Killingsworth does not know if the jug from which the sample was taken belonged to his company. Although he was aware that his company stored empty pesticide jugs in the trailer, he was unaware that a jug in the trailer contained an unidentified substance. When asked under cross-examination what he would have done had he been aware of a jug containing an unidentified substance, he answered that he probably would have called the landfill to see when the next "roundup" would be as that is when the landfill takes "unidentifieds."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered assessing a fine against Respondents in the amount of $2,600. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of May, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of May, 2005.
Findings Of Fact On September 25, 1989, Fredrick Hassut, Jr., an entomologist-inspector in the Department's Winter Park office, received a telephone call from Mary Ellen Jenkins complaining about fumigation services which had been rendered by Petitioner. In response to that telephone call, Hassut forwarded to her the Department's official form for complaints against pest control companies. Hassut received Jenkins' completed form, together with her five-page handwritten letter of complaint, on October 6, 1989. On October 9, 1989, Hassut sent to Petitioner the Department's official form for pest control companies to use in responding to consumer complaints made against them. Hassut received Petitioner's completed form on October 16, 1989. Between September 27, 1989, and November 13, 1989, when Hassut completed his investigation, he had numerous telephone conversations with Petitioner concerning Jenkins' allegations, had visited the Jenkins' residence, and had reviewed the contract entered into between Mike and Susan Gillen and Petitioner for tent fumigation of the subject residence. By the conclusion of his investigation, Hassut knew the following facts. Petitioner had been contacted by a real estate brokerage company to do an inspection for termites and wood destroying organisms at a residence, attendant to a contract for the purchase and sale of that residence. The residence was owned by Mike and Susan Gillen. Petitioner's employee performed the inspection, located drywood termites, and recommended tent fumigation for eradication. On June 9, 1989, a contract was entered into between Petitioner and Mike and Susan Gillen for fumigation services, and the contract established July 7, 1989, as the date on which such services would be performed. Although the contract called for cash upon completion of service, subsequent arrangements had been made, and Petitioner had agreed that he would be paid for the fumigation services from monies to be escrowed at the closing, a routine business arrangement in the industry. A fumigation crew went to the residence on July 7 as agreed by contract, but the services were postponed to Friday, September 8, 1989. On Saturday, September 9, the residence was tented, and a certified operator employed by Petitioner injected Vikane, the fumigant specified in the contract. On Sunday, the tarps were removed, and Petitioner "cleared" the residence, using an Interscan to test for the presence of Vikane. One of the complaints made by Jenkins and by her husband who works in the pest control industry and had done so for the previous six years was that Petitioner had failed to furnish them with a printed list of items to be removed from the structure, prior to fumigation. Mrs. Jenkins told Hassut that she was the new owner of the residence which she had purchased from Mike and Susan Gillen, that the closing on the sale had taken place on July 5, and that the Jenkins had moved into the structure prior to the structure being treated for termites. Mrs. Jenkins never represented to Hassut that she had advised Petitioner, prior to fumigation, that the ownership of the property had changed. Petitioner advised Hassut that he had never heard of Mrs. Jenkins or her husband until the day after the fumigation services were completed when Mr. Jenkins called to complain about the services. Petitioner advised Hassut that he did not know that a closing had in fact taken place and that a new owner was occupying the structure when the fumigation services were performed. Petitioner believed at all times through the completion of the fumigation work that he was dealing with the Gillens. Petitioner advised Hassut that Mike Gillen had been given a Customer Duty List, which included the written list of items to be removed from the structure, on June 9, 1989, when Mike Gillen signed the contract with Petitioner for fumigation services, and that Gillen had signed a copy of that list to show that it had been provided to him. Petitioner had assumed the closing had been postponed because the fumigation services were postponed, and termite treatment is normally a condition precedent to a closing. Had Petitioner known that there was a new owner of the structure, he would have obtained a contract from the new owner prior to the rendering of services rather than performing services for someone with whom he did not have a contract. At the time, Hassut believed that a pest control operator is under no legal duty to verify that the owner of a structure for which there is a contract for fumigation services is still the owner at the time that the services are performed. Hassut further believed that if Petitioner did not know that the Gillens had completed the sale of their home to Mrs. Jenkins and if Petitioner had given the required printed list of items to be removed to the Gillens, then Petitioner would have complied with the regulations requiring provision of that printed list. Hassut made no attempt to contact either Mike or Susan Gillen to ascertain if they had advised Petitioner that the ownership of the house had changed or to ascertain if they had been provided the required printed list, as Petitioner contended. Further, he made no attempt to contact the real estate agent or the title company involved in the closing to ascertain if they had advised Petitioner that ownership of the property had changed. Hassut specifically determined that Petitioner was not negligent in the performance of fumigation services at the Jenkins residence. When Hassut completed his consumer investigation, he prepared his Notice of Recommended Enforcement Action containing his conclusions as to violations he found during his investigation. He forwarded that document to the Department's Jacksonville office, specifically to James Bond, the enforcement coordinator, for final decision as to whether Petitioner would be charged with violating any of the statutes and rules regulating the pest control business. Hassut recommended that Petitioner be charged with two violations only. Section 482.226(6), Florida Statutes, requires that a Notice of Treatment be posted at premises where fumigation services have been performed and that the location of that Notice be notated on the service contract. Since Hassut was unable to locate the Notice of Treatment, he recommended that Petitioner be charged with violating Section 482.226(6). He also recommended that Petitioner be charged with violating Section 10D-55.110(3), Florida Administrative Code, for failing to furnish to the property owner or agent a printed list of items to be removed prior to fumigation. James Bond reviewed Hassut's investigative report and recommendations, and then forwarded that report together with Bond's own recommendation to Philip R. Helseth, Jr., pest control administrator, who made the decision that an administrative complaint should be filed against Petitioner. Part of the reason that Helseth determined to take action against Petitioner was the fact that on one occasion during Petitioner's ten and one-half years in business, Petitioner had received a warning letter from the Department. Before the Administrative Complaint was prepared and served on Petitioner, no one referred the investigation back to Hassut with instructions that he further investigate by interviewing the Gillens. Further, no one in the Jacksonville office consulted Hassut regarding the numerous violations which were included in the Administrative Complaint to determine if Hassut agreed that his investigation had revealed facts supporting the expanded list of violations. The Administrative Complaint prepared by the Department and served on Petitioner charged Petitioner with violating three statutory provisions and four of the Department's regulations. Interestingly, the one statutory violation which appeared in Hassut's recommendation--failure to post a Notice of Treatment and notate its location on the contract--was not one of the charges included in the Administrative Complaint. The Administrative Complaint charged Petitioner with having violated Sections 482.161(1)(a), 482.161(1)(e), and 482.161(1)(f), Florida Statutes, and Sections 10D-55.105(2), 10D-55.106(1), 10D-55.108(3)(c), and 10D-55.110(3), Florida Administrative Code. After service of the Administrative Complaint on him, Petitioner timely requested a formal hearing regarding the allegations contained within that Administrative Complaint. The matter was subsequently transferred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the conduct of that formal proceeding and was assigned DOAH Case No. 90-0944. The final hearing was conducted on September 27, 1990, in Stuart, Florida. At the commencement of the final hearing, the Department dismissed several of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against Petitioner. The Department announced on the record that the only statutes and rules Petitioner was still alleged to have violated were Sections 482.161(1)(a) (violating the Department's statutes or rules), 482.161(1)(f) (performing pest control in a negligent manner), Section 10D-55.108(3)(c) (using an improper fumigant and/or using a proper fumigant improperly), and Section 10D-55.110(3) (failing to furnish the property owner or agent a printed list of items to be removed from the structure prior to fumigation). The Recommended Order entered after the conclusion of the final hearing found that the Department offered no evidence that Petitioner used an improper fumigant or used the fumigant improperly; that the evidence was uncontroverted that Petitioner supplied Gillen, the property owner, with a Customer Duty List, the accepted common name of the fumigant to be used, notification of which materials may be contaminated or damaged by the fumigant, as well as other precautions to be taken by the property holder; that the Department offered no evidence that Petitioner was guilty of performing pest control in a negligent manner; and that Petitioner had not violated any of the Department's statutes or rules with which he was charged. That Recommended Order, entered on January 7, 1991, recommended that a final order be entered finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint and dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against him. On February 15, 1991, the Department entered its Final Order adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Recommended Order, finding Petitioner not guilty of the violations with which he was charged, and dismissing the Administrative Complaint. The Department had no reasonable basis in law and fact at the time that it issued its Administrative Complaint against Petitioner. Petitioner expended the sum of $6,923.50 in attorney's fees and $698.30 in costs, for a total of $7,621.80, in successfully defending himself and his company in the administrative action resulting from the Department's Administrative Complaint.
The Issue Issues for consideration in this case were those promoted through an administrative complaint brought by the Petitioner against the Respondent. Under the authority of Chapter 487, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 5E, Florida Administrative Code, the Petitioner seeks to impose an administrative fine against the Respondent for the use or application of certain restricted use pesticides without the benefit of an applicator's license.
Findings Of Fact Chapter 487, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 5E, Florida Administrative Code, empower the State of Florida, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Petitioner) to regulate a category of pesticide known as "restricted- use pesticide." More particularly, as it is related to this dispute, the statute requires that those persons purchasing or using a restricted-use pesticide must be licensed by the Petitioner. The license is known as an applicator's license. Bobby Yon (Respondent) had held an applicator's license through October 31, 1983. On that date the applicator's license expired. Yon did not renew the license within sixty days of the expiration date. Consequently, it was incumbent upon Respondent to obtain a new applicator's license, in contrast to renewing the license as described in this paragraph before purchasing or using restricted-use pesticides in the future. Having failed to renew the license which expired on October 31, 1983, on that date or within the grace period which lasted for sixty days beyond that date, Respondent, without the benefit of a license, made the aerial application of a restricted-use pesticide known as "Nudrin 1.8," EPA Reg. No. 201-347. This application was made by Respondent in his capacity as an agricultural pilot. The application dates were April 25, May 6 and June 2, 1985, on an acreage of gladiolus at a business known as Scott's Gladiolus. On April 25, 1955, Respondent made aerial application of Nudrin to watermelons belonging to Steve Basford. The Nudrin which Respondent applied in the instances mentioned before was obtained by the Respondent from Altha Farmers Coop. That Nudrin was delivered to the airstrip where Respondent has his business and from there loaded on his plane. In a statement prepared by the Respondent upon a form provided by Petitioner through its employee Hal A. Davis, Respondent gave written acknowledgment of his use of Nudrin in the instances spoken to in the course of this recommended order. A copy of that affidavit may be found as Petitioner's composite Exhibit 1 admitted into evidence. In the statement he describes the acreage which was sprayed in the four instances mentioned and indicates that his son mixed and loaded the treatment into the plane while wearing rubber boots. It is further indicated that no other safety equipment was utilized. The Nudrin applications at issue are described as being made at the rate of two to four and a half gallons per acre total solution, depending on other things that may have been in the mixture. Respondent described how the Nudrin containers were rinsed in mixing tanks and later burned on site. Respondent points out the records of these applications were photographed by Davis; however, these records or copies of the records were not produced at the final hearing. Finally, in describing the experience with the substance Nudrin, Respondent states in his affidavit that he is aware that a restricted-use pesticide license was necessary to legally apply the restricted-use pesticide Nudrin. On June 30, 1984, without the benefit of an applicator's license, Respondent aerially applied the restricted-use pesticide known as "Red Panther 8 lb Toxaphene," EPA Reg. No. 42761-9. This was applied to a pea crop on the property of James Edenfield. One gallon of Toxaphene was mixed into twenty or twenty-five gallons of water. This substance was delivered to Respondent by the Farmers Coop, in a five gallon can. The balance of this substance is still at the airstrip location at his property and is seen by the Respondent as being part of the Coops inventory. In the affidavit made by the Respondent, he acknowledges that the documents related to this application were made available to Davis and were photographed by Davis. Nonetheless, as with the situation pertaining to Nudrin, copies of the documentation were not presented at hearing. Respondent acknowledges in the affidavit that he was aware at the time that he treated the land with the Toxaphene that a restricted-use pesticide license was needed to make that application. The Toxaphene which was applied to the Edenfield acreage had been purchased by Edenfield from the Farmers Coop. The affidavit that has been alluded to in the course of this recommended order had been prepared by Respondent upon the occasion of an inspection of his business premises in Altha, Florida, conducted by Hal A. Davis on June 5, 1985. As a part of the affidavit, Petitioner's composite Exhibit 1, Respondent makes mention of liability insurance held with Air South Insurance of Dothan, Alabama. On the other hand, Respondent acknowledges that although Florida law requires proof of liability insurance for the use of the subject chemicals or the posting of a bond, his insurance policy did not provide chemical liability. This requirement in law pertains to a necessary prerequisite to obtaining a license for purchase and use of restricted-use pesticides in Florida, as contemplated by Chapter 487, Florida Statutes. In addition to not having the necessary insurance coverage, Respondent had failed to post bond with the Department. Therefore, he could not have been licensed on the date of the inspection. By Respondent's remarks in the course of the final hearing, it is evident that Respondent recognized the necessity of being appropriately licensed before applying the restricted- use pesticides mentioned in this factual rendition, and that he was unable to obtain the necessary license, given the fact that he was without requisite liability insurance and had failed to post a bond in lieu of that insurance. His protestation that he had not renewed his license to apply restricted-use pesticides beyond the expiration date of October 31, 1983, based upon some misunderstanding with officials within the petitioning agency concerning forms for obtaining his new license is without credence. The more likely explanation is the fact that the Respondent, as he alluded to in his testimony, did not feel that he could afford the insurance coverage or bond amount and simply did not renew his license. In any event, it was incumbent upon the Respondent to seek and obtain timely renewal of his existing applicator's license or in the failure to do that, to obtain a new license as an applicator before setting out to apply restricted-use pesticides. Respondent failed to do this and during the hiatus between licenses which existed between October 31, 1983, and June 19, 1985, when he obtained a new applicator's license, Respondent applied restricted-use pesticides without the benefit of a license. In his testimony Respondent makes some reference to a license which he held in the period at question which pertains to dealers who sell restricted-use pesticides, this license being number 002027. This license did not allow him to purchase or use restricted-use pesticides. It only would allow selling to others who had the necessary license or authorization to purchase or use restricted-use pesticides, which, unlike the others, Respondent did not have.
