The Issue The issue is whether a penalty should be imposed on Pettegrove Equipment for driving a truck over a bridge when the truck weighed more than the posted bridge weight limit.
Findings Of Fact Raymond S. Cran drove a loaded dump truck owned by Pettegrove Equipment over a bridge on State Road 850 which crosses over Florida's Turnpike on September 26, 1990. The truck weighed 69,100 pounds. The truck was a straight truck, not a tractor trailer combination. The bridge which Mr. Cran drove across is a low limit bridge. Signs were posted in five places on the approaches to the bridge of the 26 ton limit for straight trucks. The first is at the intersection of State Road 850 and East Highland Pines Drive, which states "Weight Limit Restriction Ahead." One mile from the bridge at the intersection of Green Meadows Road is a second sign which states "Weight Limit" and has silhouettes of a straight truck and of a tractor trailer combination, showing a 26 ton limit for the straight truck and a 38 ton limit for the tractor trailer combination (tractor trailers have a higher limit because their weight is distributed differently). Similar signs are posted one half mile from the bridge, two tenths of a mile from the bridge, and at the foot of the bridge. Officer Joseph Barkas, a Department of Transportation Motor Carrier Compliance Officer, stopped Mr. Cran and prepared the Load Report and Filed Receipt describing the incident. The Respondent did not dispute that the truck was 17,100 pounds overweight, nor that the penalty for crossing the bridge based on that weight is $865, as shown on the Load Report and Field Receipt. Pettegrove Equipment disputes the fine because it's driver misunderstood the weight limit signs on the approach to the bridge. The silhouette of the straight truck is much shorter than the silhouette of the tractor trailer combination. Mr. Cran believed that the 26 ton limit for a straight truck applied to only small trucks, such as pickup trucks, and not to a large dump truck like the one he was driving. This contention is unpersuasive. Ordinary pickup trucks are incapable of carrying loads any where near 26 tons. Mr. Cran's interpretation is simply unreasonable. The limitations for straight trucks were clearly posted, and were violated.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Transportation sustaining the fine of $865 assessed against Pettegrove Equipment. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 4th day of June 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon Whittier, Esquire Assistant General Counsel WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 4th day of June 1992. Florida Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Ann Porath, Esquire Wellington Country Plaza Suite 209 12773 Forrest Hill Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33414 Ben G. Watts Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Attn: Eleanor F. Turner Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S. 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
Findings Of Fact A commercial vehicle owned by Garrett Enterprises of Tampa, Inc. and operated by Respondent Smith entered the weigh station located on I-4 West in Plant City, Hillsborough County, Florida, on August 8, 1991. During the routine inspection, it was discovered that the vehicle's registration had expired on May 31, 1991. The tag on the vehicle clearly bore the expiration date. The statutory legal weight of 35,000 pounds for an expired registration was subtracted from this vehicle's tax class weight of 76,180 pounds to determine the amount by which the vehicle was overweight. A penalty of 5 cents a pound was assessed upon the difference of 41,180 pounds which amounted to a fine of $2,059.00. Respondent Smith has driven commercial vehicles in Florida for seven years. Prior to the registration at issue in this proceeding, he had never purchased an apportioned tag. Although he was originally aware that the apportioned tag he purchased would expire on May 31, 1991, he did not pay attention to the expiration date noted on the tag because he assumed the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles would mail him a renewal notice prior to its expiration. The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles does not mail renewal notices to owners of vehicles with apportioned tags. Respondent did not become aware of this variation in the Department's notification policy until after his vehicle was inspected and he had paid the penalty. Respondent had the vehicle registration renewed within ten days after the instant fine was levied.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that the penalty of $2,059.00 was correctly assessed and denying Respondent's request for a refund or a reduction. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of October, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 19th day of October, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul Sexton, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Florida Department of Transportation 605 Suwanee Street, M.S. 58 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Jesse Smith 114-L Mitchell Road Land O' Lakes, FL 34639 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation 605 Suwanee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams, General Counsel Department of Transportation 605 Suwanee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458
The Issue Whether the penalties assessed against Respondent by Petitioner in the amount of $336.00, for allowing its vehicle to be operated with a load which exceeds the permissible gross weight, were proper.
Findings Of Fact Donna Edwards, W.M. Daniels and Robert J. Avery are employees of Petitioner, Florida Department of Transportation, motor carrier compliance section. While so employed on June 22, 1991, Ms. Edwards issued a load report and field receipt to Respondent's driver, Rick Benafield, who was operating a truck owned by Respondent. Ms. Edwards measured and weighed the truck. The weight was 80,480 pounds and the maximum permissible weight for the truck which was 51 plus feet long, is 80,000 pounds. Ms. Edwards assessed Respondent's driver (Benafield) a penalty of $24.00 for being 480 pounds over the maximum allowable weight. On March 31, 1991, Petitioner's employee, W. M. Daniels, measured and weighed a vehicle owned by Respondent. The weight of the vehicle was 80,740 pounds and the bridge weight was 70,740 pounds. The legal maximum allowable weight for the bridge section of the subject vehicle is 69,500 pounds. As a result of being 1,240 pounds overweight in the bridge section, employee Daniels assessed a penalty of $62.00 against Respondent's driver (Benafield). On June 2, 1991, while on official duty, employee Avery issued a load report and field receipt to Respondent's driver, Rick Benafield, and assessed a $250.00 civil penalty for operating a vehicle which was 5,000 pounds over the gross allowable weight of 80,000 pounds on the extension bridge section of the vehicle. The gross weight of the vehicle was 85,000 pounds and the maximum allowable weight was 80,000 pounds. Employees Edwards, Daniels and Avery used standard operating procedures in weighing Respondent's vehicles. Petitioner's scales are tested and certified for accuracy semi-annually in accordance with its rules and regulations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a Final Order denying Respondent's request for a refund of the $336.00 civil penalty assessed its driver, Rick Benafield. DONE and ENTERED this 14th day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of January, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esq. Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS 58 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 James R. Benafield Gene Hyde Trucking Co. 3315 Swindell Road Lakeland, FL 33809 Ben G. Watts, Secretary ATTN: Eleanor F. Turner Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwanee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams, General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458
The Issue Whether Petitioner was the subject of an Unlawful Employment Practice by being discharged from his employment due to his handicap, obesity with resulting sleep apnea, in violation of the Florida Human Rights Act, Section 760.10, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was hired as a radiology escort in March, 1981, at Sun Coast Hospital. At that time Petitioner weighed approximately 325 - 335 pounds. The essential functions of Petitioner's job require that he transport patients by stretcher and wheelchair to and from the radiology department, and lift and maneuver up to 300 pounds without assistance. Other primary duties include assisting in the radiographic rooms as needed, removing soiled linen to a designated area, monitoring oxygen tanks, cleaning radiographic rooms and performing dark room duties as needed. In 1985, Petitioner received an average work performance evaluation. In 1986, Petitioner did not meet standards in four out of nine areas. Petitioner needed to improve his work habits and relationships with his coworkers. Petitioner frequently complained when requested he perform special tasks. Petitioner received two counsel sheets in 1986. Counsel sheets are the last stage of the progressive discipline procedure. One counsel sheet arose from Petitioner refusing to perform one of his job duties. The other sheet specified that Petitioner was not performing his share of the work. Petitioner complained about his work, slept on the job, and insisted on taking lunch breaks, even if there was a patient that needed assistance. Petitioner's performance improved in 1987. Nevertheless, Petitioner's self motivation was still below standard. In 1988, Petitioner experienced performance problems once again. Petitioner's 1988 annual evaluation specified that Petitioner needed to increase his productivity and decrease his absenteeism. In addition, Petitioner needed to be more self-motivating. In September, 1988, Petitioner received a written warning for falling asleep in the hospital's front lobby. Petitioner was warned not to sleep on hospital time or work premises. When Petitioner returned with a patient, he was short of breath and sweating. In November, 1988, Petitioner received a written counsel sheet again for his poor job performance. Petitioner was slow, did not do his share of the work, and complained in front of patients. Again, when Petitioner returned with a patient, he was short of breath and sweating. Petitioner insisted on sitting down and resting before he transported another patient. Other employees complained to his supervisor that they could not perform their job when Mr. Engleka was not getting patients to them. In 1988, Petitioner did not indicate that he needed reasonable accommodation. Petitioner's position as an escort was a one person job. Petitioner could not rest in between patients because other employees could not get their work done. Delay resulted in radiological tests not being done in a timely fashion which resulted in delayed patient care. At the request of management, Petitioner was evaluated to determine if he was physically able to perform the essential requirements of his position. Dr. Rea, Respondent's personal physician, determined that continued employment of Petitioner would pose a reasonable probability of substantial harm to Petitioner. Petitioner's labile hypertension, evidence of heart disease, obesity, low blood oxygen levels, and the physical requirements of his job placed Petitioner at substantial risk of having a heart attack and/or stroke. Petitioner's prognosis as it stood was determined to be very guarded to poor. There was no way to decrease the substantial risk of potential heart attack or stroke, but for Petitioner to go on medical leave and lose weight. No reasonable accommodations could be made to enable Petitioner to perform his essential job functions and eliminate or reduce the significant risk of heart attack or stroke to Petitioner. It was decided to recommend that Petitioner go on medical leave and participate in a weight loss program to improve his physical well being which could result in improvement of his work performance. Petitioner was advised that the Hospital was placing Petitioner on a medical leave of absence requiring Petitioner to enter the Optifast Weight Loss Program, and get treatment for sleep apnea. Respondent agreed to and did pay for eighty percent (80 percent) of the weight loss program. Petitioner's last day of work was February 14, 1989. When Petitioner was initially told about the requirement for weight loss, he thought it was a good idea. The next Optifast program started in March, 1989. Petitioner was paid all outstanding vacation, holidays, and sick leave until the Hospital outlined the specifics of placing Petitioner on medical leave. On or about March 24, 1989, Petitioner signed the leave agreement which specified Petitioner would be terminated if he did not comply with the weight loss program. Additionally, the Hospital agreed to assist Petitioner in receiving some income. The document specified that Petitioner understood that he would be replaced in his job. The Optifast program lasted at least twenty-six (26) weeks. Petitioner was expected to be on a leave of absence for at least the twenty-six (26) weeks time period, and return to his position once he completed the Optifast program. Petitioner applied for unemployment compensation in February, 1989, but was denied unemployment when Petitioner told the Unemployment Commission that he was on a medical leave of absence. Petitioner started the Optifast program on March 14, 1989. At that time Petitioner weighed four hundred fifty-three (453) pounds. Petitioner had problems with weight loss program compliance in week 6 (April 18, 1989); week 12 (May 30, 1989); and Week 15 (June 20, 1989) when Petitioner gained more than five (5) pounds. Petitioner stopped attending the Optifast program after week 16, (June 27, 1989), of the 26 week program, and did not see the doctor after that date. A very important phase of a fasting program is the behavior modification phase where eating habits are actually changed so the patient does not regain the weight he lost. Petitioner quit the Optifast program before reaching maintenance. Petitioner was not released, nor did he graduate from the Optifast program. Petitioner did not comply with the Optifast Weight Loss Program, because he stopped the program after 16 weeks. Therefore, Petitioner did not comply with the agreement between himself and Sun Coast Hospital. Petitioner understood that he would be terminated by the Hospital if he did not complete the Optifast program. Petitioner was denied Social Security disability benefits in July 17, 1989. At that time, Petitioner told Ken Deibel, former Director of Human Resources for Suncoast Hospital, that he was in desperate need of some type of income. Deibel told Petitioner the Hospital would change Petitioner's status to layoff so he could receive unemployment. Petitioner immediately received two weeks severance pay in keeping with layoff status. Shortly thereafter, Dr. Rea wrote an undated note stating that Petitioner could return to a working status, in order for Petitioner to qualify for unemployment. Dr. Rea wrote this note after Petitioner complained that he would not be able to continue the weight loss program unless he had a source of income. Dr. Rea did not release Petitioner to return to his position of radiology escort. The note was not addressed to or received by the Hospital. The note did not qualify Mr. Engleka to return to work as an escort at Sun Coast Hospital. Petitioner did not receive unemployment compensation following the change of his status from medical leave of absence to layoff. Petitioner did not restart the Optifast program. Petitioner never brought a release from the Optifast program or told the Hospital that he was ready to return to work. On January 14, 1990, Dr. Rea wrote another letter stating Petitioner could return to a "working status." In January, 1990, when Sun Coast Hospital received the release for Petitioner to return to a "working status," Petitioner was not otherwise qualified for the escort position because he had not lost weight, and still represented a substantial risk to himself. At that time Petitioner had regained almost all the weight that he lost while on the Optifast program, weighing 443 pounds. In January, 1992, Petitioner was diagnosed as having congestive heart failure.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED THAT: That a Final Order be issued which DENIES Petitioner's Charge of Discrimination. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of May, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 26th day of May, 1993. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner: Petitioner did not submit proposed findings of fact Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent: Accepted in substance: paragraphs - 1, 2, 4-11, 18-20, 21(in part), 22-42, 45-49, 50 in part Rejected as irrelevant or subsumed: paragraphs - 3, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21(in part), 43, 44 COPIES FURNISHED: Robin E. Greiwe, Esquire Thompson, Sizemore & Gonzalez, P.A. 109 Brush North Suite 200 Tampa, Florida 33602 Mr. Michael David Engleka 2826 Oak Lawn Avenue Apartment B Largo, Florida 34641 Sharon Moultry, Clerk Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149 Dana Baird, Esquire Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Building F Suite 240 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-4149
The Issue The only factual issue in this case is whether the Superior Paving triple axle dump truck being driven by Norman Jones on February 13, 1990, on U.S. 41 in the vicinity of the Gardinier plant near Gibsonton, south of Tampa, Florida, was being operated with its air axle up, resulting in its being over the maximum weight for its remaining tandem rear axle under Section 316.535, Florida Statutes (1989). However, this straightforward factual case also raises several legal and procedural questions, including: (1) whether the Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction; (2) which agency is authorized to take final agency action in the case; (3) who are the actual parties in interest; (4) whether the parties have standing; and (5) which party bears the burden of proof.
Findings Of Fact On February 13, 1990, while traveling south on U.S. 41 in the vicinity of the Gardinier plant near Gibsonton, south of Tampa, Florida, Patty Fagan, a DOT Motor Carrier Compliance Officer, observed a Superior Paving, Inc., dump truck traveling north on U.S. 41 with a full load of rock. She decided to check the load and, as she began to slow, she saw a second Superior Paving dump truck, also heading north with a full load of rock. She testified that the second truck was riding with its air axle up, leaving only two tandem rear axles, along with the steering axle, to bear the weight of the load. Fagan continued a short distance to the south on U.S. 41 until she was able to turn around and pursue the trucks to the north. She passed the second truck between one and two miles from where she turned around and testified that the second truck still was traveling with its air axle up. Fagan pulled up behind the first truck where it had stopped in the left turn lane at the entrance of the Gardinier plant. She got out to check the first truck. Meanwhile, the second truck, driven by Norman B. Jones, pulled up behind Fagan's vehicle. According to Fagan, Jones' truck still had the air axle up. According to Jones, the air axle was down at all times that he was within sight of Fagan until he pulled into the left turn lane behind Fagan's car and, while she was talking to the driver of the first truck, raised the air axle in preparation for the left turn. It would be difficult for anyone, much less an experienced compliance officer like Fagan, to mistakenly think she saw Jones' truck riding with the air axle up. It is obvious and easy to see whether the air axle is up or down. Likewise, it was easy for Jones to determine whether the air axle was up or down. There is a switch and an air pressure gauge immediately to the right of the driver seat which registers 40 pounds of pressure when the air axle is down and zero when it is up. The factual issue resolves to a question of the relative credibility of Fagan and Jones. Fagan wrote in her report of the incident that Jones first admitted that he had been driving with his air axle up because it was malfunctioning. The report states that Jones told her the problem was noticed when he picked up his first load in Brooksville and that he planned to have the problem fixed after his third load. She wrote that she told him he should have had it fixed before he left the yard with the first load. In fact, Jones only carried two loads that day, as usual, and never planned to carry three loads. He picked up both loads in Center Hill, Florida, about 60 miles northeast of Brooksville, and drove to Gardinier via I-75, also to the east of Brooksville, never going anywhere near Brooksville. Jones denied having made the statements the report attributes to him and stated that he had no reason to mention Brooksville or an alleged third load in the course of his conversation with Fagan. Fagan also wrote in her report that Jones changed his story later in the conversation and claimed that the air axle worked but was slow. Fagan said her response was that the air axle should have been down by the time she passed him for the second time, after she had turned around to head north on U.S. 41. Jones also denied that he ever said the air axle was slow. He testified that the air pressure system was worked on just two weeks before the incident and that it was in perfect operating condition. Neither party adduced any documentary evidence or testimony of third persons to establish whether air pressure system repairs were done on the truck or, if so, when they were done or what the problem was. Jones testified that his last load out Brooksville was "about six months ago." It is not clear whether he meant six months before the incident or six months before the hearing, which would have put it about the time of the incident, and also about the time work was done on the air pressure system. The evidence suggests the possibility that an air pressure problem arose while Jones was carrying a load out of Brooksville and that he had mentioned this to Fagan. In response to questioning by counsel for the DOT, Jones first stated that it is common to have problems with the air axle and that he has had trouble with the air axle on the same truck he was driving on February 13, 1990. In his next breath, he stated that he has had no trouble with the air axle on the truck but said he did have the governor on the air pressure system replaced "about a year and a half ago." (Again, his testimony was not clear whether he meant a year and a half before the incident or before the hearing.) He also again admitted that about two weeks before the incident, the air pressure lines and valves were replaced, and the air axle line was reattached to the new valve. According to Fagan, after checking the first truck, she went back to Jones' truck, asked Jones for his load ticket and, while he was looking for it in the cab, did a routine check by feeling the tires on the air axle and on the front tandem axle on the driver side. She testified that the tire on the air axle was cooler. Jones denies that Fagan ever touched or even got close to the tandem axle. Jones testified that he standing on the step to the cab when Fagan walked up and asked to see the his load ticket and that he just reached in, grabbed it off the dashboard and handed it to her. He testified that he then stepped to the ground and stood between Fagan and the rear axles and that she never walked past him. Later in testimony, Fagan testified that she might have asked Jones for the vehicle registration so that she could check the registered gross weight of the vehicle, and that Jones was looking for it in the cab while she was touching the vehicle tires. But Jones countered that Fagan did not ask for the vehicle registration until later, when they were at the weigh station to which Fagan had Jones drive. Jones testified that the air axle was down all the way from Center Hill except for just two times on each load when he raised it for purposes of negotiating tight turns, as permitted by the DOT's nonrule policy designed to reduce road and truck wear and tear: once when he turned onto U.S. 41; and a second time after he entered the left turn lane at the entrance of the Gardinier plant and stopped behind Fagan's car, while Fagan was talking to the driver of the first truck. However, Jones' description of his route from Center Hill to Gardinier included several other turns that would seem to have been just as tight as the two he says were the only times he raised his air axle. As Jones pointed out, if the rest of his testimony is true, even if the air axle was up the entire time from when he turned onto U.S 41 until he was stopped at the entrance to the Gardinier plant, the air axle tires still would have been hot to the touch. Conversely, if Fagan's testimony that the air axle tire was cool to the touch is true, then the air axle probably was up for most, if not all, of the trip from Center Hill. No statement was taken, or testimony elicited, from the driver of the other company truck to shed light on this factual dispute. Despite the difficulties presented by the evidence in this case, it is found that the DOT has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that Jones was operating the company truck he was driving on February 13, 1990, with the air axle up at least for a mile or two along U.S. 41. After their conversation in the left turn lane at the Gardinier plant entrance, Fagan required Jones to drive to a weigh station. (It angered Jones that this weigh station was five miles out of Jones' way. Jones did not understand why the truck could not have been weighed at the Gardinier plant.) The scale showed that 52,540 pounds of weight was being supported by the rear tandem axles of the truck. After weighing the truck, Fagan issued a citation and $387 fine to Superior Paving, Inc. The company paid the fine and deducted it from Jones' salary. The company never challenged the fine, and there is no evidence in the record that the company authorized Jones to challenge it on the company's behalf. Jones reqested that the Commercial Motor Vehicle Review Board drop or the fine reduce, which it declined to do.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Commercial Motor Vehicle Review Board enter a final order upholding the $387 fine it assessed against Superior Paving, Inc., in this case. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of September, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 September, 1990.
The Issue Did the Department of Transportation (Department) improperly deny a refund to Petitioner of a penalty assessed pursuant to Chapter 316, Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Department is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility of enforcing the provisions of Chapter 316, Florida Statutes. On June 7, 1999, the Department's Inspector Clemente Igracio stopped Petitioner's truck for an inspection. After inspecting Petitioner's truck, Inspector Igracio issued a Safety Report Citation numbered 0862152 wherein Petitioner was cited for the alleged violations of Sections 316.515(1) and (3) and 316.550, Florida Statutes. The total fine imposed was $1,600.00 which included a fine of $1,250.00 for the alleged violation of Section 316.515(3), Florida Statutes. However, since the maximum fine imposed for a Section 316.515(3), Florida Statutes, violation is $1,000.00, the total fine imposed was $1,350.00, which Petitioner paid. Subsequently, due to mitigating circumstances, the Department refunded Petitioner the $100.00 that it had paid for the alleged violation of Section 316.550, Florida Statutes. Petitioner does not protest the Section 316.515(1), Florida Statutes violation nor does it protest the Section 316.550, Florida Statutes violation. Petitioner stipulated that the combined length of the truck and trailer was 65 feet, 9 inches. Petitioner also stipulated that the length of the trailer was 42 feet, 10 inches. Inspector Igracio categorized the truck as a "straight- truck" because it had two axles and load-carrying capacity on the power unit. The vehicle in question is a two-axle vehicle with the cargo unit and motive power unit located on the same frame so as to form a single, rigid unit. The subject vehicle and trailer combination was 65 feet, 9 inches in overall length. The subject trailer was 42 feet, 10 inches in length. Petitioner did not have a permit to be over the legal length.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order denying the refund sought by Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of June, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Peter Byra West Coast Towing 124 South Berkley Road Auburndale, Florida 32823 Kelly A. Bennett, Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 James C. Myers, Clerk of Agency Proceedings Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Pamela Leslie, General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, Mail Station 58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue The issues concern the intention by Petitioner to levy an $836 fine for the alleged operation of a commercial vehicle on a low-limit bridge when the commercial vehicle exceeded the weight limit for that bridge. See Section 316.545, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact On December 17, 1990, a commercial vehicle driven by William Roy Grayson for the carrier Massey Franklin (Massey Trucking) came into Florida from Georgia on US Highway 17. In doing so it crossed the bridge over the St. Marys River. Petitioner has jurisdiction over that bridge. Petitioner in accordance with law had limited the weight that could be placed on that bridge by a commercial vehicle. That weight restriction was 32 tons. The commercial vehicle in question was weighed shortly after entering Florida at an inspection station operated by Petitioner. It weighed 80,720 pounds. Persons such as Mr. Grayson who operate commercial vehicles coming into Florida across the subject bridge are warned of the weight limit on the bridge by posted signs using symbols from the manual on Uniform Traffic Highway Administration as the national standard in accordance with Title 23 US Code. Those silhouette symbols used to post the weight limit for the bridge show a single unit truck with the weight limit of 27 tons and a combination truck with a weight limit of 32 tons. The truck in question was a combination truck. These warning signs on the weight limit were posted in Georgia at the time in question for the south bound traffic. Respondent's truck was south bound on that date. The first sign in Georgia before you enter Florida states "weight limit restrictions ahead." The second sign provides weight limit symbols showing a combination truck with a limit of 32 tons and notes that the distance from that restriction is three miles. The third sign before arriving at Scrubby Bluff Road in Georgia has the weight limit symbol of 32 tons for a combination truck and notes that this is the last exit before being restricted in weight. A fourth sign shows weight limit symbols with 32 tons for a combination truck and an arrow describing the exit from Scrubby Bluff Road to Interstate 95. The truck in question exceeded the weight limit by 16,720 pounds and was assessed a fine .05 per pound for a total penalty of $836.
Recommendation Based upon the consideration of the facts and the conclusions of law, it is, RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered which imposes a fine in the amount of $836, pursuant to Section 316.545(3)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 5th day of July, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of July, 1991. APPENDIX The proposed facts by the Petitioner are subordinate to facts found. COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S.-58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Franklin Massey Massey Trucking 101 Wind Creek Lane Enterprise, AL 36330 Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building, M.S.-58 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458
The Issue Whether Petitioner properly imposed an administrative fine against the Respondent for allowing one of its vehicles to be operated in violation of a posted load limit.
Findings Of Fact On May 2, 1992, at approximately 7:00 a.m., Petitioner, by its inspection and compliance officer, Rebecca Stalnaker, stopped the Respondent's driver, Jeffrey Leo Speak (Speak) who was operating one of Respondent's vehicles on Lumsden Road in the City of Brandon, Hillsborough County, Florida. Lumsden Road in Brandon, where Respondent's vehicle was stopped, is a low load limit roadway and signs designating the roadway as such, were properly posted. The low load limit posting is relatively new in the area. Petitioner began issuing traffic citations to the vehicular traffic on Lumsden Road for violating the posted load limits during 1992. Petitioner's weight and safety officers began enforcing the posted limits after receiving numerous complaints from residents in the neighboring area around Lumsden Road about non-compliance with the posted weight limits. Petitioner issued a series of warnings to vehicular traffic during early 1992 for vehicles which were traversing the road weighing more than the posted load limits. Those motorists were warned that after April 30, 1992, administrative fines would be imposed against vehicles which exceeded the posted load limits. Speak was unaware that Lumsden Road was a low load limit roadway and he advised Petitioners agent, Rebecca Stalnaker, of his lack of knowledge. This was so, despite the fact that agent Stalnaker followed him past one of the posted load limit signs. There are alternate routes for vehicular traffic to travel in the area of Lumsden Road including a main thoroughfare one mile to the North, i.e., State Road 60. The posted and legal weight limit for Lumsden Road is 5 tons (10,000 pounds). Respondent's vehicle had a gross weight of 50,250 pounds or 40,250 pounds over the posted limit. As a result, agent Stalnaker imposed an administrative fine of .05 per pound for each pound that Respondent's vehicle exceeded the posted limit or $2,012.50. Agent Stalnaker weighed Respondent's vehicle alongside the roadway using authorized portable scales. She followed Petitioner's usual and approved procedures for weighing vehicles. During times material, the Board has considered and ruled on eleven cases similar to the instant case. Of the eleven cases, seven drivers/owners were afforded relief in the form of waiving all fines except the minimum of $500.00 for driving vehicles with loads that exceeded the posted limits. After April 30, 1992, the Board adopted a policy indicating that no relief would be given to vehicular traffic traversing the area of Lumsden Road as the "window of opportunity" had passed for vehicular traffic to be informed of the low load limit designation on Lumsden Road. The Board has discretion to waive, modify or cancel the imposition of administrative fines levied against vehicles for exceeding the posted load limits.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $1,006.25. 1/ DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of January, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 13th day of January, 1993.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint dated October 22, 2001, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency responsible for the investigation and prosecution of complaints involving physicians licensed to practice medicine in Florida. See Section 455.225, Florida Statutes. The Board of Medicine is the entity responsible for regulating the practice of medicine in Florida and for imposing penalties on physicians found to have violated the provisions of Section 458.331(1), Florida Statutes. See Section 458.331(2), Florida Statutes. Dr. Pliskow is, and was at the times material to this proceeding, a physician licensed to practice medicine in Florida, having been issued license number ME 0054211, and he is Board-certified in Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Forensic Medicine. At the times material to this proceeding, Dr. Pliskow practiced obstetrics and gynecology with three other physicians, Dr. Ackerman, Dr. Herbst, and Dr. Aqua, under the name "Advanced Women's Healthcare." In 1996, Dr. Pliskow, Dr. Ackerman, and Dr. Herbst established the Comprehensive Weight Loss & Nutrition Center ("Center") as a separate corporation. Kimberly Payne, an A.R.N.P., was the administrative director of the Center, and, in addition to administrative duties, her job responsibilities included supervision of the nursing staff working in the Center, direct patient care, and staff training. The four physicians practicing at Advanced Women's Healthcare were the designated supervising physicians for staff of the Center. Bariatrics is the subspecialty dealing with the medical treatment of obesity, and the four physicians supervising the Center, as well as Nurse Payne, were members of the American Society of Bariatric Physicians. As members of this organization, the physicians and Nurse Payne received two monthly journals, a biweekly newsletter, a monthly magazine, and faxes and e-mails containing updates on standard-of-care issues, medication changes, updates from the Federal Drug Administration, and suggested treatment changes and recommendations. The organization also provided educational programs and training opportunities for its members. In accordance with the recommendations of the American Society of Bariatric Physicians, the Center's weight loss program included a behavior modification program; a diet providing between 1200 and 1400 kilocalories per day; and an exercise program designed for each of its patients. In addition, if the patient was an appropriate candidate, the Center prescribed anorectic medications, including the combination of the drugs Phentermine and Fenfluramine commonly known as "Phen/Fen." Weight Loss Protocol At the times material to this proceeding, A.R.N.P.s were allowed under Florida law to practice independently under the general supervision of a physician who was accessible to them if they needed a consultation or evaluation of a patient. See Sections 464.003(3)(c) and 464.012(3), Florida Statutes (1995); Rule 64B8-35.002, Florida Administrative Code. Among other things, A.R.N.P.s were allowed to perform physical examinations of patients, to take medical histories, to initiate treatment programs, to prescribe certain types of drugs, and to evaluate patients for signs and symptoms of side effects associated with medications. A.R.N.P.s could not, however, prescribe drugs that were classified as controlled substances. Nurse Payne, and another A.R.N.P. subsequently hired to work at the Center, practiced under the general supervision of Dr. Pliskow, Dr. Ackerman, Dr. Herbst, and Dr. Aqua and in accordance with a protocol setting forth the respective duties of the A.R.N.P.s and of the physicians in the various areas of practice at Advanced Women's Healthcare. The protocol was filed with the appropriate state agency. Section Four of the protocol dealt with weight loss. Pursuant to the general guidelines, the A.R.N.P.s working at the Center were "responsible for the assessment and management of overweight individuals in a comprehensive weight reduction program including nutritional counseling, exercise management, and use of anorectic medications when appropriate." Patient selection criteria were as follows: Any individual who is over their ideal body weight may participate in the nutrition and exercise portions of the program. In order to qualify to participate in the medication portion of the program, the individual must meet the following criteria: Between the ages of 18 and 65 (any person between the ages of 61 and 65 must have medical clearance from their PCP [primary care physician]). Minimum of 20% over ideal body weight. No present history of heart disease, uncontrolled hypertension, cardiac arrhythmia, glaucoma, uncontrolled diabetes, hyperthyroidism, psychotic illness, drug or alcohol abuse, pregnancy, breastfeeding, or impending surgery requiring general anesthesia. Any deviation from these criteria requires collaboration with physician. The following was the General Condition of the weight loss protocol: The A.R.N.P. should consult with the physician on all patients exhibiting abnormal findings which might affect their weight loss management and refer for physician evaluation as needed. Patient C.B. Patient C.B. learned of the Center's weight loss program from her daughter, who had participated in the program and taken weight loss medication. C.B. had an initial consultation at the Center on October 23, 1996. At the time, as recorded on the Center's Weight Reduction Intake Form, C.B. was 62 years of age, her weight was 165 pounds, her height was five feet and four inches, she had a medium frame, her blood pressure was 138/82, and her pulse was 72 beats per minute. The intake form also included her body measurements as of October 23, 1996. As part of the initial consultation, C.B. completed the Center's Weight Reduction Program Questionnaire, in which she stated that she considered her ideal weight to be 135 pounds, that her biggest obstacle to losing weight was staying on a diet, and that she was interested in using medication in her weight loss program. C.B. indicated that she had no limitations on exercise and played tennis regularly. She disclosed her current medications, and she indicated that she did not then, nor had she ever, had the following conditions: heart disease, irregular heartbeat, high blood pressure, glaucoma, diabetes, psychotic illness, or alcohol or drug abuse. Nurse Payne reviewed the Weight Reduction Program Questionnaire with C.B. and completed the intake form. She noted on the intake form that C.B.'s ideal weight was between 120 and 135 pounds, that her weight goal was 135 pounds, and that her body mass index ("BMI") was 28.1 Nurse Payne reviewed with C.B. the information C.B. provided on the questionnaire, including her medical history, current medications, and drug allergies, and Nurse Payne noted on the intake form that C.B. reported arthritis as her only significant medical history. Nurse Payne and C.B. discussed the 1200-calorie exchange diet that was part of the program, and Nurse Payne developed an exercise plan for C.B. that included walking in the pool twice each week and incorporated C.B.'s usual routine of playing tennis three times each week. Nurse Payne noted on the intake form that Dr. Ira Fine was C.B.'s primary care physician. Nurse Payne also discussed medication options with C.B., including the benefits and risks of medications. The intake form included a printed section on medications, in which the first entry was "Pondimin2 20 mg. po bid and Phentermine 37.5 mg. po qd" and the second entry was "Other." Nurse Payne indicated on the intake form that C.B. would be started on "Phen/Fen pending medical clearance [by] Dr. Fine & EKG." Nurse Payne also advised C.B. that she would need to obtain medical clearance from Dr. Fine before medication would be prescribed. During the initial consultation on October 23, 1996, Nurse Payne provided C.B. with a Consent for Diet Program form and discussed with C.B. in detail the information in the consent form. The consent form contained descriptions of both Phentermine and Fenfluramine, together with the contraindications to their use, and Nurse Payne provided C.B. with an excerpt from the Physician's Desk Reference for Phentermine and the packet insert for Pondimin.3 C.B. signed the consent form on October 23, 1996. A blood specimen was drawn from C.B. on October 23, 1996, and Nurse Payne scheduled C.B. for an EKG on October 26, 1996. Nurse Payne telephoned Dr. Fine's office on October 25, 1996, and spoke with "Betty" about medical clearance for C.B. to participate in the weight loss program; she specifically told Dr. Fine's office the program would include the use of Phen/Fen. Nurse Payne was later advised by Dr. Fine's office that Dr. Fine had medically cleared C.B. to participate in the Center's weight loss program.4 Once medical clearance was obtained for a patient and the results of the blood work and EKG were received, the standard procedure at the Center was for the A.R.N.P. to present the patient's chart to one of the supervising physicians.5 The physician would review the test results and the patient's medical history and determine whether it was appropriate to prescribe medications for the patient. If so, the physician wrote the prescriptions, which were then given to the patient. Neither Dr. Pliskow nor Nurse Payne can recall specifically that this procedure was followed in C.B.'s case, but there is nothing in the record to indicate a deviation from this procedure with respect to C.B. C.B. was cleared for participation in the weight loss program and for the use of Phen/Fen based the results of her blood work and her EKG and on the criteria set out in the weight loss protocol: Her primary care physician had given medical clearance; her weight was 20 percent above her ideal body weight; and she had reported no present history of the conditions identified in paragraph II.B.3 of the protocol. Her blood pressure and pulse were normal. The results of her EKG showed no significant abnormality, and there was nothing in the results of the blood work done on October 23, 1996, that would prevent C.B. from participating in the weight loss program or from taking Phen/Fen. C.B.'s initial prescriptions for Phen/Fen were written on October 28, 1996 and, as noted in her chart, were for Pondimin in the dosage of "20 mg. [milligrams] po [orally] bid [twice daily]" and for Phentermine in the dosage of "37.5 mg. [milligrams] po [orally] qd [daily]."6 The medications and dosage prescribed for C.B. remained the same throughout the time she participated in the Center's weight loss program, and no further notations regarding dosage was included in her chart. C.B. initially visited the Center each week; in late November 1996, the frequency of her visits was decreased to once every two weeks, and then, in early February 1997, to once every four weeks. At each visit, a member of the nursing staff at the Center would note C.B.'s blood pressure, pulse, and weight on the progress forms in her chart, together with the amount of weight lost since her last visit. The chart also contained the notes of Nurse Payne or the other A.R.N.P. working at the Center reporting on C.B.'s success in staying on the diet and exercise plans; noting that her medication was "P/F"; and summarizing C.B.'s general progress, anything unusual she reported, and the plan she would follow until the next visit. C.B. also completed at each visit a Follow-Up Questionnaire in which she was asked to report whether, since her last visit, she had experienced chest pain, shortness of breath, dizziness, light-headedness, visual problems, palpitations, abdominal pain, bowel changes, fatigue, difficulty sleeping, depression, irritability, difficulty concentrating, memory loss, tremors, or increased appetite. The Center's standard procedure was for the A.R.N.P. meeting with the patient to discuss the answers in the questionnaire with the patient and to question the patient regarding any problems he or she might be having with the program. Once the A.R.N.P. had examined the patient and completed the patient's progress report, the A.R.N.P. would take the chart to the supervising physician, who would review the chart and write the prescriptions for Phen/Fen. None of the prescriptions for Phen/Fen dispensed at the Center were pre-signed. Patients in the weight loss program received new prescriptions for Phen/Fen at each visit to the Center. Because Phentermine and Fenfluramine are controlled substances, there could be no refills on a prescription, so the prescriptions were written for a sufficient number of pills to last until the patient's next visit to the Center. Although the prescriptions were written and signed by one of the supervising physicians, the physicians did not sign the patient's chart. After the supervising physician wrote the prescriptions, the A.R.N.P. would take the prescriptions to the patient, who could have them filled at the pharmacy in the offices of Advanced Women's Healthcare or at a pharmacy elsewhere. There is nothing in the record to indicate that this practice was not followed with respect to the prescriptions issued to C.B.7 On November 4, 1996, her first visit after beginning the program, C.B. reported one episode of light-headedness. Otherwise, C.B. reported none of the symptoms identified in the questionnaire and reported no problems with the program. Had C.B. reported experiencing anything abnormal, Nurse Payne would have called in one of the physicians supervising the Center for a consultation. C.B. participated in the Center's weight loss program through April 7, 1997, which was the date of her last visit. C.B. lost weight on the Center's program at a slow but steady rate, usually between one and four pounds between visits, until, on April 7, 1997, she weighed 141 pounds. C.B.'s treatment with Phen/Fen ended before May 1997, when the Florida Board of Medicine published stricter limitations on the use of these medications.8 Although Dr. Pliskow was not present in the office on October 28, 1996, when C.B.'s first prescriptions for Phen/Fen were written, he was present in the office during four of C.B.'s ten visits to the Center. Because at least one other physician was also present in the office during these four visits, Dr. Pliskow may or may not have reviewed C.B.'s chart and written her prescriptions.9 Summary The evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient to support a finding that Dr. Pliskow practiced medicine below the level of care considered acceptable by a reasonably prudent physician under similar circumstances or to support a finding that Dr. Pliskow failed to document in C.B.'s medical records justification for the course of her treatment in the weight loss program and the dosage of the medications prescribed for her. The evidence is not sufficient to establish clearly and convincingly that the prevailing standard of care required the physician supervising the Center's A.R.N.P.s personally to perform a physical examination of C.B. prior to her being cleared for receiving medication as part of her weight loss program or personally to obtain C.B.'s medical history. Rather, it was appropriate for Nurse Payne and the other A.R.N.P. working at the Center to perform physical examinations and to take medical histories of persons seeking to participate in the Center's weight loss program. In addition, the evidence is not sufficient to establish clearly and convincingly that it was inconsistent with the prevailing standard of care for the Center's supervising physicians to rely on C.B.'s primary care physician to provide medical clearance for her to participate in the weight loss program. Dr. Fine was familiar with C.B.'s overall medical condition as a result of his examination of her on September 12, 1996, and he was, therefore, competent to assess the overall risks of her participation in a weight loss program incorporating the use of anorectic medications. Furthermore, the evidence fails to establish that it was inconsistent with the prevailing standard of care to rely on the verbal medical clearance conveyed to Nurse Payne through Dr. Fine's office; rather, the persuasive evidence suggests that it was the normal practice for clearance to be given in this manner.10 And, significantly, Dr. Fine's medical clearance was not the only basis for C.B.'s clearance to take anorectic medications: C.B.'s vital signs were recorded on the intake form by the Center's nursing staff, and Nurse Payne compiled C.B.'s medical history from C.B.'s answers to questions on the Weight Loss Program Questionnaire and from discussions with C.B; an EKG and extensive blood work were ordered for C.B., and a physician reviewed C.B.'s chart and the results of these tests before writing C.B. prescriptions for anorectic medications.11 The evidence is not sufficient to establish that the physicians practicing at Advanced Women's Healthcare failed to provide the appropriate level of supervision to the A.R.N.P.s who worked in the Center. A.R.N.P.s are independent practitioners, and they are subject only to the general supervision of a physician. The evidence failed to establish that the prevailing standard of care for physicians supervising A.R.N.P.s required anything more than that the physician be available for consultation. At least one physician was available in the Advanced Women's Healthcare offices at all times for consultation and/or patient evaluation if an A.R.N.P. working at the Center determined that a patient was experiencing any complications or if a patient reported any unusual symptoms. The evidence is not sufficient to establish clearly and convincingly that the type and scope of information collected during C.B.'s regular visits to the Center and the on-going care provided to C.B. were not appropriate under the prevailing standard of care for monitoring patients on weight loss programs such as C.B.'s. The prescriptions for C.B.'s weight loss medications were written by a physician at each of C.B.'s visits, but only after the physician reviewed her chart, which included the A.R.N.P.'s progress notes and C.B.'s answers on the Follow-Up Questionnaires she completed at each visit, to determine whether it was appropriate to continue C.B. on anorectic medications.12 The evidence also fails to establish that the prevailing standard of care required a supervising physician to sign a chart prepared by an A.R.N.P. to indicate that it had been reviewed.13 The evidence is not sufficient to establish that C.B. was not an appropriate candidate for a weight loss program using Phen/Fen under the prevailing standard of care in 1996 and early 1997.14 Adequate justification for the treatment of C.B. with anorectic medications was included in C.B.'s medical records: She was considered obese by 1996 standards because her weight of 165 pounds was more than 20 percent higher than her ideal body weight of 120-to-135 pounds and because her BMI was 28 and she wanted to lose weight. In addition, nothing in the medical history C.B. provided to Nurse Payne or in her tests results indicated that she would be an inappropriate candidate for anorectic medications, and she reported no complications during her follow-up visits.15 The evidence is not sufficient to establish clearly and convincingly that the dosages of Phen/Fen prescribed for C.B. were inappropriate or excessive under the prevailing standard of care in 1996 and early 1997. Rather, the dosages prescribed for C.B. were in the lower range of dosages recommended at the time by the American Society of Bariatric Physicians and in the medical literature in general for the use of Phentermine and Fenfluramine in combination.16 The dosage of both medications was printed on the intake form completed during C.B.'s initial visit to the Center, and the dosages did not change during the time C.B. participated in the Center's weight loss program; in accordance with normal practice, no further notations were made regarding dosages in C.B.'s chart. New prescriptions were written each time C.B. visited the Center, and no refills were permitted, which is also in accordance with the standard practice in dispensing controlled substances.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Medicine enter a final order dismissing in its entirety the Administrative Complaint against Steven Pliskow, M.D. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 2002.
