The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of violating Sections 509.221(1) and (7) and 509.032, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 61C-1.004(5), (6), and (13), 61C- 3.001(2), as set out in the Administrative Complaint dated March 24, 2003.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants (DHR) is the State Agency charged with regulating the operation of hotel establishments pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapter 509, Florida Statutes. At all times material hereto, Respondent has been licensed by DHR or otherwise subject to DHR's jurisdiction, pursuant to issued License No. 26-00783. Respondent's last known business address is Clark Apartment and Rooms, 9762 Bayview Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida 32208. On February 3, 2003, and again on March 10, 2003, a DHR sanitation and safety specialist, John Phelan, inspected Respondent's premises. On February 3, 2003, the initial inspection, Mr. Phelan was accompanied by his superior, David Futlon. At the February 3, 2003, initial inspection, the following deficiencies were observed by both inspectors and noted for Respondent by Mr. Phelan: No proof was observed that the smoke detectors were interconnected as required by law and as stated by management. The door of a gas oven was held in place by a garden spade. Live roaches were on the floor and climbing the walls around the oven. The inspectors observed a stained mattress and a missing mattress pad on the bed in room They also observed that the second floor bathroom was out- of-order, and that shower curtains and shower stalls were dirty with soap scum. On March 10, 2003, Mr. Phelan returned to Respondent's premises by himself and noted that the foregoing problems/violations remained. According to both inspectors, the most serious violation was that there was no documentation that the smoke detectors were interconnected. This is a critical violation because it could present a potential fire hazard. The next violation that was found to be critical was that there was "a garden spade holding the oven door closed." This was seen as a violation because of the potential for fire. Next down the urgent and critical scale was the presence of live roaches around the oven. The absence of a mattress pad on room 17's mattress and the stain on the mattress were of somewhat less concern. However, these bedding problems are violations because they pose a sanitary issue. The next-ranked violation was that the second floor bathroom was out-of-order. The bathroom also presented a lesser sanitary issue, which was that the shower curtain and shower stall were dirty with soap scum. Based on the foregoing uncorrected deficiencies, Mr. Phelan caused an administrative complaint to be issued against Respondent on March 24, 2003, alleging Respondent's violation of Chapter 509, Florida Statutes, and/or the administrative rules promulgated thereunder. Although it was demonstrated at hearing that Mr. Clark, Respondent's principal, had been attempting, between the two inspections, to fix the originally-cited deficiencies, and although some progress at renovation had been made, most problems had not been fully addressed as of the date of the follow-up inspection on March 10, 2003. The credible evidence and testimony as a whole show that Mr. Phelan had recognized that a gas heater which had been cited at the initial inspection had been disconnected by the date of the second inspection and that it was no longer in use at the time of the second inspection. Therefore, the gas heater had been crossed off the notification to Respondent by Mr. Phelan and had not been cited as a violation in the administrative complaint. The stove also had been disconnected prior to the re-inspection. The gas heater and gas stove were disconnected at the same time, so propping the stove door open or closed with a spade had no significance with regard to fire hazard. Like the heater, the stove should have been removed from the premises as a safety precaution, but because Mr. Phelan did not know that the stove had been disconnected when he made his re-inspection, it was cited and included in the administrative complaint. The reason the disconnected stove was still present on the premises was because Respondent was fumigating for roaches by setting off "roach bombs" inside it. The fumigation of the roaches in an area where all other exit holes for them were intentionally sealed had resulted in some dead roaches, but many live roaches had fled into the kitchen in the vicinity of the stove. The live roaches were observed by all the witnesses who saw the kitchen on or about the re-inspection date. The testimony of several witnesses was credible that the upstairs bathroom's sink and tub had been repaired prior to the re-inspection. Mr. Musselwhite recalled credibly that he had screwed the faucet handles back on the tub between the two inspections. However, the testimony of Mr. Musselwhite that he was using the tub and sink upstairs at the time of the re- inspection is not credible. The greater weight of the credible evidence is that the tub and sink upstairs might have been repaired, but they were not actually in working order at the time of the March 10, 2003, re-inspection, because the water had not yet been turned back on. The evidence is clear that plaster board had been installed in the shower by the date of the re-inspection and that this was done to deal with the prior notice concerning discoloration. A dispute among the witnesses as to whether the discoloration on the old shower walls was soap scum, discoloration by scum removers, or mildew cannot be resolved. However, it was proven that, despite several changes of shower curtains between the two inspections, the shower curtains present on the re-inspection date remained covered with soap scum and/or mildew. Respondent admitted that the lack of a mattress pad on the mattress in room 17 on the date of re-inspection was an oversight. It was proven that a mattress from a first floor room had been moved upstairs to room 17. In the opinion of Respondent's witnesses, this constituted, a "new" mattress which was not stained. In this situation, Mr. Phelan's observation of the mattress stain is more credible. On his first inspection, Mr. Phelan told Mr. Clark that in the absence of other documentation, Mr. Clark needed to have the State Fire Marshall inspect Respondent's smoke detectors, in order to provide documentation that they were interconnected. By "interconnectedness" the parties meant that if one smoke detector sounded, then all of the smoke detectors throughout the hotel should also sound. Mr. McGee and Mr. Clark testified that between the two inspections the issue of the smoke detectors had been "looked into" with employees of Home Depot and at the local fire department. Mr. Clark stated that he had contacted the Jacksonville Fire Department, which would not give him any documentation, but its employees agreed to come and inspect his smoke detectors. Mr. Clark testified convincingly that he had purchased and installed smoke detectors from the Home Depot which did not provide written documentation of interconnectedness but which could be tested for interconnectedness by pushing their buttons. He maintained that if the inspector had punched the button on any single smoke detector on the re-inspection date, the interconnectedness of all the smoke detectors would have been demonstrated by their all "going off" at once. The inspectors did not punch the smoke detectors' buttons during the two inspections because they could not reach the buttons, as they had no ladders. Respondent was written-up by DHR on both occasions because written documentation of interconnectedness was not provided and because interconnectedness was not otherwise demonstrated. In other words, Respondent provided neither papers showing interconnectedness nor a physical demonstration of interconnectedness during the second inspection.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, shall enter a final order: Finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 509.221(1) and (7), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rules 61C-1.004(5) and (6), and 61C-3.001(2), and not guilty of violating Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C- 1.004(13); Ordering Respondent to pay an administrative penalty in the amount of $2,500.00, due and payable to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399, within 30 days of the final order; Requiring Respondent to attend a Hospitality Education Program class within 60 days of the date of the final order and provide proof thereof to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Hotels and Restaurants; and Requiring that Respondent pass a re-inspection of its premises within the same 60 days set out in (3), above. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of July, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS 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 14th day of July, 2004.
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 August 15, 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 inspect public lodging establishments to ensure compliance with health and safety regulations. Such inspectors visit and inspect these premises making routine inspections or, in response to complaints, to gather facts and make reports documenting their findings. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Petitioner employed Susan Cecilione ("Cecilione") as an Inspector assigned to its Division of Hotels and Restaurants. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent, Hidden Cove Apartments, was a licensed public lodging establishment within the meaning of Subsection 509.013(4)(a), Florida Statutes, operating under license control number 15-04455H 000, and located at 1951 Southeast Convair Street, Palm Bay, Florida, 32909. During a routine inspection on or about July 14, 2000, Cecilione visited Hidden Cove Apartments. Cecilione's inspection revealed various violations. Specifically, Cecilione observed: The 2A10BC fire extinguisher at building 1961 was discharged; In apartment 101, building 1961, the electricity flickered on and off in the dining room area; Fire ant hills were observed along the walkways around buildings 1951 and 1961; The shower in apartment 103, building 1951, leaked behind the wall into the closet; The cement driveway was caving in and broken apart; There were no back flow prevention devices on hose bibbs at buildings 1951 and 1961; The laundry room had a heavy accumulation of lint and dirt on floor beside, behind, and beneath the dryer; (i) The front windows in many apartments had been either bolted closed or sealed so they could not be opened without the window falling out; There were broken screens on the sliding glass doors at apartments 103 and 104, building 1951; In apartment 102, building 1951 and apartment 101, building 1961, the front door sweeps and seals (gaskets) around the doors were loose fitting, leaving large gaps. Respondent was informed that all violations must be corrected by July 27, 2000. On or about July 28, 2000, Cecilione made a callback/reinspection visit for the purpose of determining whether Respondent had corrected the violations noted on the previous visit. One of the violations previously noted had been corrected. The laundry room had been cleaned. Each of the uncorrected violations listed in paragraph 5 hereinabove constitutes a separate and distinct potential hazard to the health and/or safety of individuals on the premises.
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; that Respondent be required to pay a fine in the amount of $2,400; and that Respondent's license be suspended until the fine is paid. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of September, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ JEFF B. CLARK 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 16th day of September, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan R. McKinley, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 David Moallem Hidden Cove apartments 2115 Palm Bay Road, Northeast No. 3 Palm Bay, Florida 32909
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for her responses to Question Nos. 14 and 21 of the Special State Firesafety Inspector Certification Examination administered on November 13, 2003.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: Petitioner, Alma Elaine Carlus, is an applicant for certification as a firesafety inspector in the State of Florida. Applicants for certification as firesafety inspectors are required to complete a training course, which consists of 80 hours of training in firesafety inspection and must be completed prior to taking the Special State Firesafety Inspector Certification Examination. The approved textbooks for the Special State Firesafety Inspector Certification Examination training courses are Fire Inspection and Code Enforcement (6th Edition), which is published by the International Fire Service Training Association, and the National Fire Prevention Association Life Safety Code. Petitioner successfully completed the required training program and, thereafter, took the Special State Firesafety Inspector Examination on May 29, 2003. The Special State Firesafety Inspector Examination is a written examination containing 50 multiple choice, objective questions, worth two points each. The candidates are given two hours to complete the exam. In order to obtain a passing score, an applicant must earn a score of at least 70 percent. Petitioner did not pass the examination on May 29, 2003. On November 13, 2003, Petitioner retook the examination and earned a score of 66 percent. Because a minimum score of 70 percent is required to pass the examination, Petitioner needs an additional four points to earn a passing score. Petitioner challenged the scoring of two questions on the Special State Firesafety Inspector Examination, Question Nos. 14 and 21. Question No. 14 required the examinee to identify the "least important" characteristic involved in evaluating storage of flammable and combustible liquids. The answer choices given were: (a) the foundations and supports; (b) size and location of vents; (c) design of the tank; and (d) size of the tank. Question No. 14 is clear and unambiguous and the correct answer is included among the choices provided. The answer to Question No. 14 is found on page 325 of the textbook, Fire Inspection and Code Enforcement (Sixth Edition). The correct answer to Question No. 14 is "(d) size of the tank." Petitioner did not select "d" as the correct response and, thus, is not entitled to any additional points for Question No. 14. Question No. 21 states: In above ground tanks containing liquids classified as Class I, Class II, or Class IIIA, the distance between the tanks must be at least the sum of their diameters. The answer choices given were: a) 3/4; b) 1/2; c) 1/4; and d) 1/6. Question No. 21 is clear and unambiguous and the correct answer is included among the choices provided. The answer to Question No. 21 is found on page 327 of the textbook Fire Inspection and Code Enforcement (Sixth Edition). The correct answer to Question No. 21 is "(d) 1/6." Petitioner did not select "d" as the correct response and, thus, is not entitled to any additional points for Question No. 21. The knowledge tested in the Special State Firesafety Inspector Examination is essential for any firesafety inspector to know in order to properly conduct inspections required of individuals in that position.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Petitioner is not entitled to additional points for her responses to Question Nos. 14 and 21 of the Special State Firesafety Inspector Examination and denying Petitioner's application for certification as a special state firesafety inspector. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 21st day of April, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Casia R. Belk, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Alma Elaine Carlus 2419 Paradise Drive Kissimmee, Florida 34741 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Fred A. Lane, has operated Whispering Pines as an Adult Congregate Living Facility, since 1978. The location of this facility has been 441 Molly Avenue in Deland, Florida. By letter dated December 12, 1979, the Petitioner notified the ACLF Licensure Section of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services of his intention to cease operations as a licensed ACLF at the Molly Avenue site. The reasons stated by the Petitioner were (1) lack of adequate funding for the program, (2) financial infeasibility of continued operations, and (3) proposed regulations made further participation impossible. The Petitioner's letter went on to advise that the Molly Avenue facility had been leased to the Volusia County Drug Council beginning on January 1, 1980, and that this necessitated relocation of the 14 ACLF residents then in Whispering Pines. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, with the help and cooperation of the Petitioner, removed and relocated all residents from the Whispering Pines facility, which on January 29, 1980, stood empty and unused. Subsequent to the Petitioner's letter of December 12, 1979, an occupational license was issued by Volusia County for the site of the former Whispering Pines ACLF, showing the licensee as Reality House, operated by the Volusia County Drug Council. The location of this licensed facility was 441 Molly Avenue in Deland. Also subsequent to the Petitioner's letter of December 12, 1979, a license was issued by the Deputy Director of District IV, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, for the former Whispering Pines location, showing the licensee to be the Volusia County Drug Council, located at 441 Molly Avenue in Deland. The Petitioner's license for the operation of an ACLF at the Molly Avenue location would have expired on March 26, 1980, if the facility had not ceased to provide services. However, on March 10, 1980, when the Petitioner applied for what he testified was relicensure or continued licensure of Whispering Pines as an ACLF, the Molly Avenue site was licensed for a different use, as a Volusia County Drug Council facility. On March 17, 1980, the Petitioner was advised that his application was being processed as a new application. However, whether the application was for a new license or for reissuance of an existing license, the same licensure standards set forth in Chapter 10A-5 of the Florida Administrative Code are applicable. Upon inspection for licensure, the Respondent determined that the Whispering Pines facility did not meet the minimum standards established for ACLF licensees, and the Petitioner's application was denied. In particular, the inspectors found a well that was less than 100 feet from a possible source of pollution (bathroom waste), and the facility had casement windows which did not open to the required dimensions, creating a fire hazard. The Petitioner contends that there is conflicting evidence as to the precise distance between the well and the pollution source, and that this dispute should be resolved in favor of licensure because the Respondent did not show that there was any leakage from pipes leading from the pollution source, and there was no evidence of bacteriological contamination. However, the burden of proof is not upon the Respondent in this case. The Petitioner is required to clearly demonstrate entitlement to a license, and there is not sufficient evidence on this record to support a finding that the subject facility is in compliance with all state standards.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner's application for a license as an Adult Congregate Living Facility be denied. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 11 day of March, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard W. Withers, Esquire P. O. Drawer 2600 Daytona Beach, Florida 32015 Leo J. Stellwagen, Esquire P. O. Box 2417 F Jacksonville, Florida 32231 WILLIAM B. THOMAS 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 11th day of March, 1981.
The Issue The issues for determination in this proceeding are whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating persons certified as fire fighters and fire safety inspectors. Respondent is certified in the state as a fire fighter and fire safety inspector. She is currently employed by Volusia County Fire Services as an Emergency Medical Technician. On or about October 16, 1980, Respondent was charged in circuit court with vehicular manslaughter and driving under the influence of alcohol. Vehicular manslaughter is a felony under Sections 860.01(1)and (2), Florida Statutes. 1/ Driving under the influence of alcohol is a misdemeanor under Section 316.193. On or about April 15, 1981, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the charge of "Manslaughter by Operation of a Motor Vehicle while Intoxicated or Deprived of Full Possession of Normal Faculties." The court withheld adjudication, placed Respondent on probation for two years, and restricted her driver's license to business purposes for the first three months of her probation. Respondent successfully completed her probation on April 15, 1983. On or about September 15, 1992, Respondent completed an application for certification as a fire fighter. The application asked, "Do you have a record of conviction of a felony or a misdemeanor?" Respondent answered, "No." Respondent did not answer the foregoing questions untruthfully. Respondent was advised by counsel that there had never been an adjudication of guilt and that she should state that she had never been convicted of the charges in 1981. On or about September 10, 1993, Respondent completed an application for certification as a fire safety inspector. The application asked, "Have you ever been convicted of a felony, or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude?" Respondent answered, "No." Respondent believed that she had never been convicted of such an offense because adjudication of guilt had been withheld, and she had successfully completed her probation. Petitioner certified Respondent as a fire fighter and as a fire safety inspector. Petitioner relied, in part, upon Respondent's answers to the questions quoted in the preceding paragraphs. Respondent did not intentionally misrepresent her criminal history to Petitioner on either application. Respondent relied on advice of counsel and a good faith belief in the truthfulness and correctness of her responses. Respondent is actively employed as a fire fighter. She is seeking certification as a fire safety inspector to further her career and to obtain employment closer to her residence.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent not guilty of all of the charges in the Administrative Complaint except the charge of pleading nolo contendere to a felony within the meaning of Section 633.081(6)(d). It is further recommended that Petitioner enter a Final Order authorizing the issuance of a written reprimand. RECOMMENDED this 9th day of January, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL S. 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 9th day of January, 1995.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent properly denied Petitioner's application for certification as a firesafety inspector.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an applicant for certification as a firesafety inspector. In order to be certified, Petitioner was required to successfully complete the Firesafety Inspector Training Course and pass a firesafety inspector certification examination. Petitioner successfully completed his required coursework at the Florida State Fire College and Daytona State College. To pass the written examination, an applicant must achieve a score of at least 70 percent. Petitioner took the exam the first time and did not receive a passing score. After a month or so, Petitioner took a "retest." He received a score of 68 on the retest, which is below the minimum passing score of 70. By letter dated October 11, 2011, Respondent notified Petitioner that he did not receive a passing grade on the retest. The notice also informed Petitioner that because he failed both the initial and retake examinations, it would be necessary for him to repeat the Inspection Training Program before any additional testing can be allowed. The notice further informed Petitioner that if he enrolled in another training program, he would have to submit a new application. Petitioner submitted a letter which was received by the Department on September 27, 2011, in which he raised concerns about the quality of instruction he received at Florida State Fire College. Petitioner asserted that in two classes he took, the instructors had not taught the class before. He also asserted that the books used for class were not always the books used for testing, and that he believed that some of the state inspector test questions were irrelevant to how or what he would need to know in performing an actual inspection. Attached to this letter were five questions which had been marked as being answered incorrectly on the examination. Petitioner's letter and attachments were treated as a request for administrative hearing, which was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings, which resulted in this proceeding. Marshall Shoop took classes with Petitioner at the Florida State Fire College. It was also Mr. Shoop's understanding that at least one instructor had never taught the class before. Karl Thompson is the Standard Supervisor for the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training. At hearing, Mr. Thompson reviewed each question offered by Petitioner and the answer Petitioner thought to be correct. Mr. Thompson concluded that Petitioner answered each of the five questions incorrectly. Mr. Thompson explained that the firesafety test is a secure document and, pursuant to a contract with a third party, persons who take the test and later review their incorrect answers are not allowed to write down the questions or copy anything from the test. The test must remain secure so that it is not compromised. The test questions and answers are not in evidence. Petitioner has been shadowing a part-time fire inspector for the City of Flagler Beach. Martin Roberts is the Fire Chief for the City of Flagler Beach. Chief Roberts would feel comfortable with Petitioner taking on the role of fire inspector despite Petitioner's grades on the fire safety inspector certification examination. While attending Daytona State College, Petitioner earned an "A" in a building construction course and a "B+" in a course in "construction codes and materials rating."
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for certification as a Firesafety Inspector, and permitting Petitioner to repeat the required coursework before retaking the Firesafety Inspector certification examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of February, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of February, 2012.
Findings Of Fact During the period November 14 - 16, 1985, DHRS conducted a life safety survey of the Sanchez Retirement Apartments located at 1400 S.W. 26th Street, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. As a result of that survey, certain deficiencies were discovered which were discussed with Mrs. Sanchez, then the owner and operator of the facility. Some deficiencies were to be corrected by December 15 and others by January 15, 1986. Those due to be corrected by December 15, 1985 were, in fact, corrected, but because of the impending sale of the property by Mrs. Sanchez to Mr. Holck, Mrs. Sanchez requested an extension of the time for correction of the January 15, 1986 deficiencies until February 15, 1986. On January 30, 1986, Mr. Leroy C. Dykes, Area Supervisor for DHRS, advised Mrs. Sanchez that a 30 day extension was granted so that the prospective new owners could complete the fire safety deficiencies by February 15, 1986. Mr. Holck took over ownership and operation of the facility on February 7, 1986. This was somewhat later than had been anticipated and made it impossible for him to rectify the remaining deficiencies by February 15. He requested of DHRS that someone come to the facility to explain to him what exactly had to be done since he was not present during the original inspection. He wanted to know with detailed clarification, what had to be done and how, and consistent with this request, was advised that someone from DHRS would be there, he contends in April, 1986. As a result, he took no additional action to remedy the remaining deficiencies then. However, before this individual could come, Mr. Bravo of DHRS conducted a follow-up survey on March 18, 1986, and again, wrote up several of the deficiencies that had been cited on the original inspection report. These form the basis of the violations outlined in the Administrative Complaint, and include: smoke detectors not powered by the house electric current and interconnected to the fire alarm system, paneling in the means of egress is not fire rated as Class A or B, doors in the facility between the resident rooms and common areas are not solid core doors, doors between resident rooms and common areas are not self-closing, and the kitchen and storage area is not separated from other parts of the facility with a material having a one hour fire rating including a one hour self-closing fire rated door. Mr. Bravo recommended sanctions to include a $250.00 fine for each of the five deficiencies with the exception of (c) for which he recommended a $200.00 fine. This recommendation was approved by the area supervisor, Mr. Dykes; the Human Services Program Director, Mr. Chastain; and by Amy Jones, Director of the Office of Licensure and Certification. All of the violations were classified as Class III violations and all were ultimately corrected before the final follow-up inspection on July 15, 1986. Respondent contends that he did not take immediate corrective action when he took over the property because, due to his prior experience dealing with DHRS as the operator of an adult congregate living facility, he had come to the conclusion that when there was any question as to the exact meaning of a DHRS write-up, it was best to have clarification from the agency in detail prior to commencing any corrective action. He requested an explanation visit from DHRS and, he claims, was visited by a Mr. Grassi in April, 1986, who, answered his questions. Thien Grassi returned for a follow-up in June, he found all the deficiencies to be corrected. This latter Grassi visit is subsequent to Mr. Bravo's follow-up inspection in March, 1986. Petitioner contends, on the other hand, that it is Respondent's responsibility to get the work done. If he could not get the previous owner to make the corrections prior to the transfer of the property, it was his responsibility to have requested clarification earlier on and that if he did not get an answer that would satisfy him and answer his questions, he should have gone higher up in DHRS to get one. The agency claims, "He should have shaken DHRS up," and tried to negotiate more time. It is DHRS policy to grant an extension if there is a showing that Respondent has already taken some affirmative step to effect corrective action. Here Respondent had not done so but was apparently waiting until he got clarification from the agency before even beginning to solicit bids for corrective construction or before issuing any purchase or work orders to acquire the materials necessary to do so. The majority of deficiencies identified on the original write-up were corrected by either Mrs. Sanchez prior to transfer of the property or by the Respondent after transfer but before the follow-up visit by Mr. Bravo. It, therefore, cannot be said that Respondent had not made some substantial effort to correct the deficiencies. If Respondent's allegation is correct, and there is no reason to believe it is not, based on his prior experience, it was to his benefit to not proceed with the remaining corrective action until such time as DHRS had given a definitive clarification of the actual work that needed to be done. DHRS contends that no additional clarification was required since the violations are violations of the standard safety code and anyone familiar with the code, including the fire department, could have given the Respondent the information he needed. DHRS, therefore, contends it was not necessary for Respondent to wait for its agent to come out and give the clarification requested. This is specious reasoning since the citation was issued by DHRS and it is not at all unreasonable for Respondent to request clarification from the agency writing up the alleged violation in the first place.
Recommendation Rased on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that the citations be upheld but that the civil penalties be waived. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of August, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of August, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Ronald J. Holck, Administrator Sanchez Retirement Apartments 1400 Southwest 26th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33315 Leonard T. Helfand, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 5190 Northwest 167th Street Miami, Florida 33014 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Did the Respondent commit the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint Following Emergency Closure and, if so, what penalty should be imposed?
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 licensing and regulating public lodging establishments. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was a licensed public lodging establishment as that term is defined in Section 509.013(4)(a), Florida Statutes, license number 38-00194-H, located at 1720 US Highway 27, Avon Park, Florida. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Richard Barnhart was employed by the Department as a Sanitation and Safety Specialist. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Ed Madden was employed by the Department as a Sanitation and Safety Supervisor. On March 10, 2000, Barnhart performed a routine inspection of Respondent's public lodging establishment (Litto's Apartments) and observed two safety violations which were classified as violations of critical concern. A violation classified as of critical concern is required to be corrected immediately. The safety violations observed by Barnhart were: (a) fire extinguisher missing on north side of Units 1 an 2 which resulted in some of the apartments located in Units 1 and 2 not having a fire extinguisher available within a maximum distance of 75 feet; and (b) no smoke detectors in apartments 1, 3, and 8. On March 10, 2000, Barnhart prepared a Lodging Inspection Report advising Respondent of, among other things, the safety violations that had to be corrected by March 18, 2000. Eugene Riggs, Respondent's Apartment Manager, acknowledged receipt of the inspection report listing the violations and the date for correction of the violations of critical concern. On March 21, 2000, Barnhart performed a Call Back/Re- Inspection of Litto's Apartments and observed the same safety violations that were observed on March 10, 2000. On March 21, 2000, Barnhart prepared a Call Back/Re- Inspection Report advising Respondent that the violations observed on March 10, 2000, had not been corrected. This report advised Respondent that the report should be considered a warning and that Respondent would be issued a Notice to Show Cause why sanctions should not be assessed against Respondent's license. Eugene Riggs acknowledged receipt of a copy of the Call Back/Re-Inspection Report. During a routine inspection conducted on March 21, 2000, Barnhart observed that: (a) the apartments' water supply was less than 75 feet from a septic tank and drain field, a sanitation violation of critical concern not observed on March 10, 2000; (b) there was raw sewage in an open septic tank on the premises, a sanitation violation of critical concern not observed on March 10, 2000; and (c) a septic tank had been disconnected resulting in raw sewage being dumped on the ground, a sanitation violation of critical concern not observed on March 10, 2000. Barnhart prepared a Lodging Inspection Report listing the violations observed during his routine inspection on March 21, 2000. Eugene Riggs acknowledged receipt of a copy of this report which, among other things, advised Respondent of the deadline of March 28, 2000, for correcting the additional violations observed on March 21, 2000, and the deadline of March 21, 2000, for correcting the violation observed on March 10, 2000, and not corrected by March 21, 2000. On March 28, 2000, Barnhart performed a Call Back/Re-Inspection of Litto's Apartments and observed that the violations observed on March 10, 2000, and March 21, 2000, had not been corrected. Barnhart prepared a Call Back/Re- Inspection Report on March 28, 2000, advising Respondent that the violations had not been corrected and that a Notice to Show Cause why sanctions should not be assessed against Respondent's license would be issued. On April 7, 2000, Barnhart and Supervisor Madden conducted a joint routine inspection of Litto's Apartments and observed that the violations of March 10, 2000, March 21, 2000, and March 28, 2000, had not been corrected. On April 7, 2000, a Lodging inspection Report was prepared advising Respondent that the violations noted on March 10, 2000, March 21, 2000, and March 28, 2000, had not been corrected. Based on the testimony of Richard Barnhart and Ed Madden, whose testimonies I find to be credible, there is sufficient evidence to show that: (a) a fire extinguisher was missing from the north side of the Units 1 and 2 which resulted in some of the apartments in Units 1 an 2 not having a fire extinguisher available within a maximum distance of 75 feet at the time of the inspection on March 10, 2000, and no fire extinguisher had been installed on the north side of Units 1 and 2 at time of the inspection on April 7, 2000, or during the intervening time; (b) smoke detectors were not installed in apartments 1, 3, and 8 at the time of the inspections on March 10, 2000, and smoke detector had not been installed in apartments 1, 3, and 8 at the time of the inspection on April 7, 2000, or during the intervening time; (c) at the time of the March 21, 2000, inspection, there was raw sewage in an open septic tank and sewage on the ground due to a septic tank blowout which had not been corrected at the time of the inspection on April 7, 2000, or during the intervening time; and (d) the water supply was located less than 75 feet from septic tank and drain field at the time of the inspection on March 21, 2000, which had not been corrected at the time of the inspection on April 7, 2000, or during the intervening time. Respondent's failure to have sufficient fire extinguishers properly located on its premises and Respondent's failure to correct this violation resulted in a significant threat to the public safety and welfare in that the residents were not properly protected from the danger of fire. Respondent's failure to provide smoke detectors in all of the apartments resulted in a significant threat to the public safety and welfare in that the residents were not being properly protected from the danger of fire. Respondent's failure to correct the contaminated water supply, correct the situation concerning the raw sewage being dumped on the ground, and to correct the situation where raw sewage was being left in an open septic tank resulted in a significant threat to the public health, safety, and welfare in that not only were the tenants being subjected to those unsanitary conditions but the general public as well. An Order of Emergency Suspension of License and Closure was issued by Respondent and signed by Gary Tillman, District Administrator, having been delegated this authority by the Director of Hotels and Restaurants. The Order of Emergency Suspension of License and Closure is dated March 7, 2000. However, this appears to be scrivener's error in that the order alleges violation that are alleged to have occurred on March 10, 21, 28, 2000, and April 7, 2000. Also, the Certificate of Service is dated April 7, 2000. The Order of Emergency Suspension of License and Closure was still in effect on December 18, 2000, the date of the hearing.
Recommendation Having considered the serious nature of the offenses committed by the Respondent, that Respondent is presently under an Order of Emergency Suspension of License and Closure for these same offenses, and that the Department is requesting that only an administrative fine be imposed against Respondent, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order finding that Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint Following Emergency Closure and imposing an administrative fine of $1,200.00 as requested by the Department. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th of February, 2001, 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 15th day of February, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Division of Hotels and Restaurant Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Litto's Apartments 1720 U.S. Highway 27 Avon Park, Florida 33825-9589 Ahmed Anjuman 1720 U.S. Highway 27 Avon Park, Florida 32825-9589 Susan R. McKinney, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
