The Issue The issue presented for decision in this case is whether Respondent violated Section 509.032, Florida Statutes, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint dated April 3, 2000.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner is the state agency charged with licensing, regulating, and inspecting public lodging establishments to protect public safety. To accomplish this purpose, Petitioner employs persons trained to respond to citizen complaints about public lodging establishments. Such inspectors visit and inspect the premises about which complaints are made, gather facts, and make reports to document their findings. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner employed Sean Sylvester Grovesnor ("Grovesnor") as a Sanitation and Safety Specialist assigned to its Division of Hotels and Restaurants. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent 1015 Apartments was a licensed public lodging establishment within the meaning of Section 509.013(4)(a), Florida Statutes, operating under license control number 16-04182H, and located at 1015 Northeast 17th Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304-2465. Responding to a complaint on or about February 10, 2000, Grovesnor visited 1015 Apartments. Grovesnor's inspection revealed various violations. Specifically, Grovesnor observed: balcony railing supports in disrepair in front of Apartment No. 204; no smoke detector in Apartment No. 201; an exit sign hanging from exposed wires by Apartment No. 205; a broken window on south side of the building; water stained ceiling tiles in living room of Apartment No. 201; holes in kitchen cabinets in Apartment no. 201; cold water knob in Apartment No. 201 would not work; faucet head not properly attached to the bathtub in Apartment No. 201; mildew and mildew holes in bathroom ceiling of Apartment No. 104. the sewer line clean out pipe cover was missing in the parking lot. Respondent was informed that all violations must be corrected by February 17, 2000. On or about February 18, 2000, Grovesnor made a callback/reinspection visit for the purpose of determining whether Respondent had corrected the violations noted on the previous visit. None of the violations previously noted had been corrected. Each of the above-described violations constitutes a separate and distinct potential hazard to the health and/or safety of individuals on the premises. The balcony railing violation was corrected on March 17, 2000, by Tim's Welding of Fort Lauderdale.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating the above-specified provisions of the Florida Statutes and Florida Administrative Code, and that Respondent be required to pay a fine in the amount of $1,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. FLORENCE SNYDER RIVAS 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 13th day of December, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan R. McKinley, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Charles F. Tunnicliff Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jean Pierre-Louis 1015 Northeast 17th Avenue Apartment 205 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304-2465
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings. Petitioner is the State agency charged with regulating the practice of contracting. During times material hereto, Respondent was licensed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board as a certified air conditioning contractor having been issued licensed number CA C022410. Respondent has been so licensed since May 1982. During December, 1982, Petitioner submitted a change of status application requesting that his license be changed to qualify for All County Air Conditioning (All County) in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. That change of status application was approved by Petitioner and Respondent has remained the qualifier for All County continuously and his license has been renewed as such and is active for the period 1987-1989 (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 4). On September 4, 1985, Respondent through the entity All County, entered into a contract with Ernest D'Esposito to "furnish and install 1 new Whirlpool 2 Ton condensing unit, with new slab, hook-up to existing pipes and electric". The agreed upon price to complete the work was $950.00 with a five year guarantee on the compressor and a one year guarantee on parts and labor. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). Respondent commenced the work as agreed and completed the work as scheduled. Respondent did not obtain a permit for said work from the local building department nor was a permit posted on the job site when Respondent commenced work on the project. While the work was in progress, Respondent did not obtain any inspections for the work from the local building department. A record search of the Pembroke Pines Building and Zoning Department revealed that Respondent did not obtain a permit to install the air conditioning unit at D'Esposito's residence. (Testimony of Marie Bogart, records custodian, Building and Zoning Department, City of Pembroke Pines). Rene Pena, chief mechanical inspector for the City of Pembroke Pines, is the person who checks the installation of all air conditioning work in the City of Pembroke Pines. Mr. Pena did not perform any inspections on D'Esposito's job nor was he requested to perform any inspections by Respondent. Respondent testified at the hearing and admits that no permit was obtained for D'Esposito's job. However, Respondent offered his opinion that the code did not require a permit and that his failure to obtain one was not a violation of the South Florida Building Code. Finally, Respondent offered that to the extent that there was a technical violation of the law, it was not a willful violation and that imposition of a fine would not be appropriate in this instance as his firm "tries to stay within the confines of the South Florida Building Code". Respondent acknowledged that he is the person responsible for ensuring that permits are obtained when required for completion of projects.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: Petitioner, Construction Industry Licensing Board, enter a Final Order imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500.00), the payment of which shall be made to Petitioner within a time frame deemed appropriate by Petitioner. Respondent's license as a certified air conditioning contractor be placed on probation for a period of thirty (30) days. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of January, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of January, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: G. Vincent Soto, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Michael B. Falls 4611 Southwest 30th Way Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Fred Seely, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Tom Gallagher, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William O'Neill, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether, under the facts and circumstances of this case, Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the Amended Notice To Show Cause issued November 9, 1989 by the Division of Hotels and Restaurants, Department of Business Regulation.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times material to this case, the Respondent, Barkap, Inc., d/b/a Flamingo Inn (Flamingo) held a valid public lodging establishment license located at 2011 South Atlantic Avenue, Daytona Beach, Volusia County, Florida, license number 74-03605H. Flamingo is operated by Peter Kappelman, President of Barkap Inc., and his wife who is also a corporate officer of Barkap, Inc. Flamingo has only 24 rental units. Prior to June 1988, George Houllis, Environmental Health Inspector, with the Division of Hotels and Restaurants (Division), was assigned to inspect Flamingo's establishment. While attempting to inspect a fire extinguisher Houllis broke the glass in the door of a cabinet containing a fire extinguisher. Houllis contends that the glass door was already cracked, while Kappelman contends that it was not cracked, and that Houllis attempted to "cover it up". At Kappelman's insistence, the Division paid for the repair at a cost of approximately $35.00. However, as a result of this incident, Charles Casper, another Environmental Health Inspector with the Division, was assigned to inspect the Flamingo establishment beginning June 1988. The Division's policy is to inspect licensed public lodging establishments on a quarterly basis and, in accordance with that policy, Charles Casper inspected the Flamingo on at least a quarterly basis beginning in June 1988. Shortly after Casper began inspecting the Flamingo, the relationship between Casper and Kappelman deteriorated and reached a point where each party became personal with their remarks, with Kappelman refusing to sign the inspection report, describing Casper's behavior as "Gestapo methods", and alleging that the Flamingo was being treated differently than other establishments along the "strip" on Daytona Beach. While Casper may have been strict with his inspections of the Flamingo, there is insufficient evidence to show that his behavior could be described as arbitrary or that he treated the Flamingo differently than any other licensed establishment. Violations of a minor nature are normally cited on the inspection report to document, warn or educate the licensee of corrections that need to be made, usually by the next routine inspection date. However, where corrections of minor violations are not made by the date indicated on the inspection report, a minor violation can become a major violation, usually at the discretion of the inspector. The Flamingo had been warned on the September 12, 1988 inspection report by Casper for having exit doors propped open on all floors and listed the violation as a minor violation. There was no date for making the correction on the report, but two subsequent inspection reports dated December 15, 1988 and January 12, 1989 did not show exit doors being propped open as a violation on those dates. The record is not clear as to why another inspection was made within a month of the December 15, 1988 inspection, but apparently it was a follow-up inspection concerning a major violation listed on the September 12, 1988 inspection report concerning locking devices on doors wherein a Notice To Show Cause was issued. However, this matter was settled without the necessity of a hearing and the case dismissed. Flamingo was cited again on June 5, 1989 for having exit doors propped open with wooden wedges and advised to remove all props from the exit doors and given until the next routine inspection date to make the correction. The next routine inspection of the Flamingo was on September 25, 1989, and at that time Flamingo was cited again for having exit doors propped open with wooden wedges on the first second and third floors. Since the same violation had been cited on June 5, 1989 and not corrected by the time of the next routine inspection on September 25, 1989, Casper considered this violation as a major violation and requested that a Notice To Show Cause be issued. In addition to the major violation cited on September 25, 1989, Casper cited six minor violations on the inspection report issued on September 25, 1989. These violations were as follows: (1) Failure to provide exit sign for stairway exit door; (2) Failure to maintain walkway emergency light in good repair; (3) Failure to maintain fiberglass shower liners, building exteriors, stairways, inside cabinet under sink and walls in good repair and failure to maintain proper cleanliness of back panel and wall behind trash can; (4) Failure to maintain proper cleanliness of tub and bathroom walls in good repair (walls need paint); (5) Failure to provide covers for exterior trash cans and; (6) Failure to provide room rate for door in unit number 204. A Notice To Show Cause was issued by the Division on November 9, 1989 charging Flamingo with the major and minor violations discussed above. Casper conducted a pre-conference re-inspection of Flamingo on November 28, 1989 to determine compliance with the September 25, 1989 inspection report. While Flamingo did not totally comply by correcting all cf the violations cited in the September 25, 1989 inspection report, it did correct several of the violations. For convenience, Kappelman leaves the wooden wedges in the vicinity of the exit doors for use by the guest in propping open doors while carrying luggage in and out of their rooms and the cleaning staff while carrying linen and other items in and out of the rooms and other areas of the motel. Kappelman did not remove the wooden wedges from the vicinity of the exit doors after Flamingo was cited for this violation on June 5, 1989. Casper did not observe any persons, including maids or guest, in the vicinity of the exit doors that were propped open on September 25, 1989. Although not every inspection report shows the time of day the inspection was made, those reports that do show the time indicate the inspection was made during the time of day when the maids would be cleaning and guests would be checking out of their rooms. Flamingo is aware that the doors are being propped open for short periods of time for the purposes previously stated but does not feel that this is a violation. The minor violation cited in the September 25, 1989 inspection report concerning the missing exit sign on second floor west was not cited in the November 28, 1989 inspection report as a violation. Apparently it had been corrected, because the exit sign was missing on September 25, 1989 as admitted to by Kappelman. However, there is insufficient evidence to show that there was not another approved exit sign that clearly marked the exit and visible from any direction of the exit access. Likewise, there was insufficient evidence to show that low level exit signs were specifically required in the Flamingo. The minor violation cited in the September 25, 1989 inspection report for failure to maintain the walkway emergency light by Room 106 in good repair in violation of Rule 7C-1.004(3), Florida Administrative Code, was also cited in the November 28, 1989 inspection report as a violation. However, there was insufficient evidence to show that the area of Flamingo serviced by this emergency light would not be well-lighted during the day and night in the event the regular light was not functioning. On September 25, 1989 Casper inspected Rooms 204 and 303 as suggested by Kappelman because these rooms were unoccupied and available for rent. In both rooms (204 and 303) Casper cited Flamingo for bathtub liners having loose caulking resulting in the liner separating from the wall. The violation had not been corrected at the time of the re-inspection on November 28, 1989. Casper cited cleanliness violations on September 25, 1989 as follows: (1) in room 204 a substance on back portion of cabinet; (2) hair on tub in room 303; (3) splatter on wall behind trash can in room 303; and (4) exterior trash can lid missing by rooms 103 and 106. The re-inspection report indicates the splatter on wall behind trash can to be in room 204 rather than room 303 as indicated in September 25, 1989 inspection report. Kappelman admits that a splatter the size of a quarter was present. The remaining cleanliness citations in the September 25, 1989 inspection report appear to have been corrected at the time of re-inspection. Numerous cracks were noted on the exterior of stairwell and outer walls on September 25, 1989. Casper assumed these cracks to be maintenance cracks and not structural in nature (settling cracks) because, with one exception, the cracks did not have any monitoring devices (measuring gauges). These cracks were still evident at the re-inspection. However, the cracks previously had measuring gauges to determine if there was settling, but had been removed without Kappelman's knowledge. The record is not clear whether the cracks were eventually determined to be structural or maintenance cracks. However, all of the cracks were monitored for a period of time. In any event, the cracks had not been repaired at the time of re-inspection, but are now repaired. Casper determined that the "paint job" on the bathroom walls in Room 303 was poor because it appeared that there was only one coat of paint resulting in the dry wall bleeding through. There was no mention of the bathroom walls needing paint in Room 204. However, in the re-inspection report Casper noticed that the bathroom walls in Room 204 needed painting. It is not clear whether Casper made an error in room numbers or if both rooms needed painting and Room 303 had been corrected on November 28, 1989. However, it is clear that the bathroom walls in all rooms were not painted as such but the drywall was impregnated with paint to give the appearance of being painted. There is insufficient evidence to show that painting would be applicable in either room due to the type of wall. Flamingo was cited on September 25, 1989 for failure to have room rates posted in room 204. Based upon Casper's thorough job of inspecting that day, as testified to by Rappelman, it has been shown that that the room rates were neither posted on the door nor in the room, notwithstanding Kappelman's testimony to the contrary.
Recommendation In making the following recommendation I am mindful of the Division's "guidelines" of increasing the penalty five times for a major violation and doubling the penalty of a minor violation when the violation is not corrected at the time of the Informal Conference Call-Back Inspection. However, these guidelines would appear to have a "chilling effect" on a licensee's decision to challenge the Division in the administrative forum, and also conclusively presume that the penalty should be the same regardless of the facts and circumstances surrounding the violation. Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the circumstances surrounding the violations, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of: (1) the major violation of securing exit doors in an open position in violation of Section 17-2.2.1(a) and 5.2.2.8 of the Code as adopted by Rule 4A-43.006, Florida Administrative Code; (2) the minor violation of failing to properly maintain the fiberglass liner and the cleanliness of the inside of the cabinet and the area behind the trash can in violation of Section 7C-1.003(1), Florida Administrative Code; (3) the minor violation of failing to keep the lid on an exterior trash can in violation of Section 7C-1.003(5), Florida Administrative Code, and (4) the minor violation of failing to post room rates in room 204 in violation of Section 7C-3.002(2), Florida Administrative Code, and for such violations assess an administrative fine of $100.00 for the major violation and $50.00 for each of the three minor violation for a total fine of $250.00. It is further recommended that all other violations cited in the Amended Notice to Show Cause be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of April, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of April, 1990. APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 90-0183 Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner 1-4. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1, 2, 3 and 3, respectively. 5-7. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4, 5 and 5, respectively as modified. Adopted in Findings of Fact 10 and 16. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15. Adopted in Findings of Fact 7 and 9. 11-12. Adopted in Findings of Fact 17, and 10, respectively. 13-16. Adopted in Findings of Fact (4,6), (7,9), 18, 19, and (20,21), respectively. Adopted in Findings of Fact 22 and 23 with the exception of the room number which should be 303. Rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record. 19-21. Adopted in Findings of Fact 22, 5, and 25, respectively. 22. Not material or relevant to this proceeding. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent The Respondent did not file any proposed findings of fact with the Division of Administrative Hearings. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth C. Masters, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Paul J. Dubbeld, Esquire First Union Bank Building Suite 815 444 Seabreeze Boulevard Daytona Beach, Florida 32118 Fred Fluty, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Stephen R. MacNamara Secretary Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action, if any, should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state licensing and regulatory agency charged with the responsibility and duty to prosecute administrative complaints pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida. Respondent is now and has been at all times material to this proceeding a licensed real estate salesman in the state, holding license number 0488568. The license was issued %Tequesta Properties, Inc., 169 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida 33458 ("Tequesta"). On June 29, 1989, Respondent negotiated a contract for the sale and purchase of a single family residence located at 65 Willow Road, Tequesta, Florida (the "contract"). The residence was listed for sale with Tequesta. The sellers were Frank and Hilda Sceusa, and the buyers were Dale and Cathy Favre. The buyers first saw the listed property at an open house. Respondent was present at the open house because the listing agent was busy with another transaction. The contract provided: Inspection, Repair And Maintenance: Seller warrants that as of 10 days prior to closing, the ceiling, roof . . . and exterior and interior walls do not have any VISIBLE EVIDENCE of leaks or water damage and that the septic tank, pool, all major appliances, heating, cooling, electrical, plumbing systems, and machinery, are in WORKING CONDITION. Buyer may, at Buyer's expense, have inspections made of those items by an appropriately Florida licensed person dealing in the construction, repair, or maintenance of those items and shall report in writing to Seller such items that do not meet the above standards as to defects together with the cost of repairing them prior to Buyer's occupancy or not less than 10 days prior to closing whichever occurs first. Unless Buyers report such defects within that time, Buyer shall be deemed to have waived Seller's responsibilities as to defects not reported. . . . Buyer shall be permitted access for inspection of property to determine compliance with this Standard. Respondent failed to give the buyers a reasonable opportunity to inspect the house or to have it inspected by a professional inspector. Buyers requested a pre-closing inspection approximately three or four times. Each time the buyers made their request through Respondent. The buyers asked Respondent to arrange for their access into the property for the purpose of conducting an inspection. Respondent ultimately accompanied the buyers through the premises the night before the closing. Respondent misrepresented the condition of plumbing in the house. During the walk-through the night before the closing, the buyers asked Respondent about a rag covering the goose neck under the kitchen sink. Respondent advised the buyers that the rag was left there after cleaning and that nothing was wrong with the plumbing. Respondent misrepresented the provisions of a warranty that was transferred to the buyers with the sale of the house. The house was sold to the buyers with a home owners warranty ("HOW") purchased by the listing broker. Respondent told the buyers they did not have to worry about the appliances in the house, including the air conditioning, because the entire property was covered by the warranty. Respondent specifically represented that the air conditioning system was in good working order. Respondent never read the HOW contract and did not explain to the buyers exclusions for preexisting conditions, prorations for other conditions, and the requirement that the buyers pay a $100 deductible for each covered defect. Respondent failed to familiarize himself with the house and failed to inquire of the sellers as to any problems that existed in the house. The kitchen sink backed up within a month after the date of closing because it was clogged with sand. The pipe was rusted completely through and there was a three inch gash in the pipe. The rag that had covered the pipe during the walk through concealed the defects in the pipe that otherwise would have been readily visible. The air conditioning system failed after closing. The repairs to the air conditioning system were not covered by the HOW contract. Representatives of HOW determined that the problems with the air conditioning system were preexisting and not covered under the terms of the contract. The air conditioning unit was replaced by the buyers who were reimbursed by the listing broker. The buyers experienced problems with a number of the components in the house. In addition to the previously mentioned air conditioning and plumbing problems, there were electrical problems and all of the appliances had to be replaced. Respondent misrepresented the amount of known repairs. The buyers knew prior to closing that the pool needed to be re-marcited. Respondent represented that the cost of such a repair would be approximately $1,000. The actual cost was approximately $3,000. Some of the problems experienced by the buyers were patent defects and some were latent defects. All of the problems, however, could have been discovered and corrected prior to closing if an inspection had been conducted by a Florida licensed person experienced in the construction, repair, and maintenance of such matters. Respondent failed to carry out his responsibilities as a real estate professional. It is customary practice in the community for the selling agent to arrange for pre-closing inspections done by professional licensed inspectors. The listing agent for the residence asked Respondent the day before the closing if Respondent had scheduled the pre-closing inspection. Respondent admitted that he had forgotten to schedule the inspection. When Respondent scheduled a walk through for the buyers the night before closing, there was insufficient time for the buyers to schedule an inspection by a professional inspector. The buyers relied upon the representations of Respondent with respect to the HOW contract and the condition of the house.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner should enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of misrepresentation and culpable negligence in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, suspending Respondent's license for 90 days, imposing an administrative fine of $600, and placing Respondent on probation for one year. The Final Order should further provide that during the period of probation Respondent should complete 60 hours of post-licensure education. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 23rd day of January 1992.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued against him and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is a Spanish-speaking native of Cuba with little or no understanding of the English language. He has resided in Miami-Dade County since coming to this country 18 or 19 years ago. In or around 2006, Respondent decided he wanted to start an air conditioning contracting business in Miami-Dade County, and he went to the downtown Miami location of the Miami- Dade County Code Compliance Office (Compliance Office) to inquire about the licensing requirements with which he would have to comply to legally operate such a business in the county. The Compliance Office is responsible for licensing construction contractors (in various trades) operating in Miami- Dade County. The contractors whom the Compliance Office licenses include mechanical contractors doing air conditioning work. Individuals who desire to go into the air conditioning contracting business in Miami-Dade County must complete and submit to the Compliance Office an eight-page "initial application," accompanied by "letters of experience" and a $315.00 application fee. The application is reviewed by the Miami-Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board (CTQB). If the CTQB determines that the applicant is qualified to take the licensure examination, the applicant is allowed to sit for the examination. Passing the examination is a prerequisite to licensure. If a passing score is attained, the applicant is notified by the Compliance Office and given the opportunity to submit a "business application" and supporting material (including proof of liability insurance and workers' compensation coverage), accompanied by another $315.00 application fee. If the CTQB approves the "business application," the "applicant is issued a contractor's license number" and given a "competency card" (reflecting such licensure) by the Compliance Office. The applicant then must register with the Department before being able to engage in any contracting work in the county. When Respondent went to the Compliance Office's location in downtown Miami, he was approached by a man carrying a clipboard who spoke Spanish. Respondent was led to believe by the man that he worked for the county (although the man did not present any identification verifying his employment status). The man offered to help Respondent apply for a license, an offer Respondent accepted. After obtaining information from Respondent, the man filled out an application form (which was in English) for Respondent and "kept" the completed form. He then collected from Respondent $350.00. The man told Respondent that Respondent would be receiving his license "by mail." Respondent did nothing further (including taking the licensure examination) to obtain a Compliance Office-issued license for his air conditioning contracting business. Given what he was told by the man (whom he trusted) at the Compliance Office's downtown Miami location, Respondent did not think anything else was required of him, and he acted accordingly. Approximately a month after his visit to the Compliance Office, Respondent received what, on its face, appeared to be a Compliance Office-issued "competency card" indicating that his business, G & G Air Conditioning, Inc., had been issued an "A/C UNLTD" license, License No. 05M000987, with an expiration date of September 30, 2007, and that he was the "qualifying agent" for the business. Although Respondent did not realize it at the time, the "competency card" was a "fraudulent document." The Compliance Office had never in fact issued any license to Respondent or his air conditioning contracting business. Indeed, the Compliance Office had not even received a licensure application, or, for that matter, anything else, from Respondent (including the $350.00 he had paid for what he thought was an application fee). Reasonably, but erroneously, believing that the "competency card" was authentic, Respondent, with the assistance of a friend able to read and write English, completed and submitted the paperwork necessary to register with the Department so that he would be able to engage in the business of air conditioning contracting in Miami-Dade County. Respondent had picked up the application packet (the contents of which were in English) when he had visited the Compliance Office's downtown Miami location. Respondent's friend translated the contents of the application materials for Respondent. For each item requiring a response, Respondent told his friend what entry to make. The final page of the application materials contained the following "Attest Statement," which Respondent signed (after it was translated for him by his friend): I have read the questions in this application and have answered them completely and truthfully to the best of my knowledge. I have successfully completed the education, if any, required for the level of licensure, registration, or certification sought. I have the amount of experience required, if any, for the level of licensure, registration, or certification sought.[1] I pledge to comply with the applicable standards of practice upon licensure, registration, or certification. I understand the types of misconduct for which disciplinary proceedings may be initiated. Among the representations Respondent made in his completed application was that he possessed a valid "local competency card" issued by the Compliance Office. He believed, in good faith, but again, incorrectly, that the "competency card" he had received in the mail was such a card. In accordance with the instructions in the application materials, Respondent attached a copy of this card to his application. The Department received Respondent's completed application for registration on April 20, 2006. On May 23, 2006, the Department issued the registration for which Respondent had applied. Had the Department known that the "competency card" Respondent had attached to his application and had falsely, but not fraudulently, claimed to be valid was in fact a counterfeit that did not accurately represent the local licensure status of Respondent and his business, the Department would have denied Respondent's application for registration. Following a police investigation, two Compliance Office employees, along with a former Compliance Office employee, were arrested for selling "fraudulent licenses." The police alerted the Compliance Office of the results of its investigation in or around July 2006 (after the Department had already granted Respondent's application for registration). The Compliance Office thereupon conducted an audit, which revealed that Respondent was among those who had received a "fraudulent competency card" from the arrestees. Respondent was so notified by letter (sent by the Compliance Office). Prior to his receipt of the letter, Respondent had no idea that the "competency card" he had received in the mail was not what it purported to be. Had he known it was a "fraudulent document" he would have never applied for registration with the Department. The total investigative and prosecutorial costs incurred by the Department in connection with the instant case (excluding costs associated with any attorney's time) was $32.66.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board issue a Final Order revoking Respondent's registration and requiring him to pay the Department $32.66 (representing the Department's investigative and prosecutorial costs, excluding costs associated with attorney time) for the violation of Section 489.129(1)(a), Florida Statutes, Section 455.227(1)(h), Florida Statutes, and Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, described above that the Department alleged in its Administrative Complaint and subsequently proved by clear and convincing evidence at the final hearing. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 22nd day of October, 2007.
Findings Of Fact On September 19, 1979, Lester Nelson, Hospital Consultant for the Petitioner, conducted a survey of Monticello Manor and discovered certain Class III deficiencies, one of which was roach infestation in the cabinets beneath the kitchen sink. Ms. Rhoades was present on that date and was aware of the deficiencies to be cited. The facility was notified by letter dated October 22, 1979, that the deficiencies cited were to be corrected by November 1, 1979. A revisit of the nursing home was made by Mr. Nelson on November 27, 1979, by which time all deficiencies had been corrected with the exception of the roach infestation. On that date, roaches were observed in three of the five cabinets inspected. At the time of the September 19 survey, Monticello Manor had in effect a Service Agreement with Truly Nolen for pest control services. In addition, a maintenance man was spraying the premises twice a week. On December 1, 1979, Respondent entered into a contract with a different exterminating company after cancelling its contract with Truly Nolen.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED THAT: The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter its final order imposing a civil penalty in the amount of one hundred dollars against the Respondent. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of June, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Department of Administration Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of June, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold L. Braynon, Esquire District X Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 91 West Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Ms. Carolyn Rhoades Administrator Monticello Manor 1701 North Federal Highway Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Steven W. Huss, Esquire Staff Attorney Central Operations Services Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
