Findings Of Fact Respondent is licensed by the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Service as a pest control service authorized to perform all functions for which such organizations may be licensed. Gilbert Bellino was certified operator for Respondent from prior to the earliest charge in the Administrative Complaint until mid-1977. He was certified in the four types of treatment authorized by pest control companies, viz. fumigation, general household pest control, including rodent control, termite or other wood infesting organisms control, and lawn and ornamental pest control. A certified operator is required to supervise and direct the activities of all employees engaged in pest control. Many of the complaining witnesses made their first contact with Respondent when answering an advertisement for a onetime household pest treatment and a free termite inspection. Lloyd Green responded to an ad in which Respondent offered a spray treatment of the yard and house for $15. Folsom and Jones appeared and after an inspection of his house advised Green that he had dry wood and subterranean termites and induced him to sign a contract to treat them at a price of $286. After reflection and before any work was done Green called and cancelled the contract. He had the house inspected by Mr. Chapman of Chapman Pest Control who found no evidence of active infestation. All evidence Chapman found of wood damage was done prior to the timber having been processed. The house was later inspected by David Jones, District V Entomologist and he too found no evidence of active infestation. A second inspection of Green's home was made by Jones in company with Casale, the President of Respondent. The only evidence found was one hole in a bed slat which had occurred before the lumber was processed. Turpentine beetles and pine sawyer beetles are wood borers that attack trees but not processed lumber. Once lumber is processed any further damage from these beetles is highly improbable if not impossible. Evidence of the damage they have caused will remain in the wood but is readily distinguishable from an active infestation by one with almost any training in pest control. Wood borers make round holes and any eliptical hole found in timber is indicative that the hole was made before the wood was processed. The oblique angle to the borer's tunnel cut by the saw when the lumber was processed causes an eliptical hole. Charles Casale visited Robert Rankin's house for a free termite inspection and identified himself as an employee of Respondent. He was accompanied by another man who inspected the crawl space under the house. Upon completion of the inspection Casale advised Rankin he had an infestation and needed treatment which would cost $300. After getting an opinion from another pest control company that he did not have termites Rankin called HRS and David Jones inspected the entire house. At this inspection Jones found no evidence of active infestation but a colony of fleas from Rankin's two dogs. At the time of Casale's inspection application for an identification card had not been submitted for Casale. Thelma P. Wray contracted with Respondent for fumigation of her house. No written instructions were given her by Respondent, nor was she advised to remove medicines. She was advised to remove only milk cartons, cheese and open food. The only warning sign placed on front and rear of house during fumigation (Exhibit 4) on November 10, 1974 did not show type of fumigant used and stated house is safe for reentry at 10:30 a.m. December 11, 1974. This sign appeared on the house the evening of December 10, 1974 and was placed only at the front and rear. No notice of this fumigation was provided to the County Industrial Hygienist who maintains records of notices of all fumigations. Neither Mr. nor Mrs. Chaney testified. No one having personal knowledge was called to identify Exhibit 6 and no evidence was offered that Larry A. Donald, Jr. was employed by Respondent and visited the Cheney home without a valid identification card. Mrs. Ruby Moser did not testify. No witness was produced to testify regarding Phillip Jones' visit to the Moser home on June 10, 1975 or identify Exhibit 7. Neither Mr. nor Mrs. Donald R. Seldes testified. No evidence was presented regarding the alleged visit of Bill Gillian, while an employee of Respondent, to the home of the Seldes. Judith Bashline was contacted by Respondent through telephone solicitation for special pest cleanout and termite inspection. One man sprayed for the pest cleanout and he was followed by Phillip Jones and Ken Ely, Jr. who, after inspecting the attic, advised her she had an infestation in the attic in a dormant state which needed immediate treatment. She entered into a contract for spot treatment for $190. After Jones and Ely left Mrs. Bashline began having misgivings and called another pest control company for information. She was referred to HRS and there contacted David Jones who inspected the property. Upon inspection Jones found no evidence of active infestation - only the preprocessed type damage found in the other homes. When Helen M. Hopper purchased her home at 1037 - 12th Street North, St. Petersburg, Florida she acquired a subterranean termite policy from Respondent. She then started monthly sprayings with Respondent. After the first spraying on September 16, 1975, Ken Ely, Jr., an employee of Respondent, went into Hopper's attic and told Mrs. Hopper she had borers in the roof and needed immediate treatment to save the roof. After he left she called another pest control company for verification. When that company inspected the attic they reported no problem with borers. She then called HRS and David Jones inspected the premises October 24, 1975 and in the attic he found only old damage which had occurred before the wood was processed. There was no infestation for which treatment was indicated. When Donald R. Bond II and his wife purchased a home his mother recommended they use Gulf Coast Pest Control. In January, 1977 Robert R. Plowman, an employee of Respondent, advised the Bonds that they had powder post beetles and dry wood termites and the attic needed to be treated. He came back that evening when Mr. Bond was home and a contract for the work was signed. The following day Mrs. Bond had two other pest control companies inspect the house. Whey they advised her there was no evidence of active infestation she cancelled her contract and called HRS. On February 10, 1977 David Jones inspected her property. He found no evidence of borer or termite infestation; however Jones did find evidence of rat infestation. On June 26, 1976 Robert R. Plowman, an employee of Respondent, inspected the home of Rita M. Spera at 9783 - 52nd Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida and reported to her that there was an infestation of wood borers in the attic and she needed to have fumigation. The previous year the Speras had replaced the shingles on the roof and had found the wood in good condition. Accordingly Mrs. Spera really didn't believe Plowman and called HRS for verification. When David Jones Inspected the house on July 2, 1976 he found only evidence of old damage that had occurred before the wood was processed. No evidence of active infestation was observed. Mrs. Ellen M. Hameroff received a telephone solicitation from Respondent for a cleanout and termite inspection. She accepted the offer and on September 2, 1976 Robert R. Plowman, an employee of Respondent, inspected her attic and reported that powder post beetles were present and treatment was needed which would cost $200 to $400. Plowman returned that evening to talk with Dr. Hameroff but they didn't sign a contract. The following day another pest control company was contacted for an inspection. They reported no infestation. She then called HRS and on November 22, 1976 David Jones inspected the property and found only evidence of old damage. On September 1, 1977 William C. Bargren, Scott Askins and F. R. DuChanois, Entomologists with HRS inspected the Hameroff property. They found evidence that pine sawyer beetles had been in the tree from which some sheathing boards in the attic had been processed. There was no evidence of infestation in the Hameroff home. In December, 1976 Robert L. Dill had a spray and free inspection by Respondent on his home at 1551 Citrus Street Clearwater, Florida. Following an inspection of the home, Robert R. Plocnan and John D. Lucas, employees of Respondent, advised Dill that he had powder post beetles in the attic, ceiling and floor under the house and needed treatment. Before agreeing to the treatment for the powder post beetles and preventive treatment for termites for which Respondent wanted $500, Dill had two other pest control companies inspect the property. Both of these companies advised Dill he had no infestation. Jimmy Robinson of Exterminator Terminix, International, a certified operator, inspected the Dill property on November 22, 1976 and found no evidence of powder post beetles or termites for which treatment was indicated. He noticed no damage to floor but did see some evidence of borers before the wood was processed. When Dill reported the incident to HRS, David Jones inspected the property on January 20 and 26, 1977, the second time in company with the Casales, Plowman and Donald. Damage to wood in the floor was done before the lumber was processed and no infestation was present for which treatment was indicated. Lawrence A. Donald, an employee of Respondent, holds a certified operator's license and he found evidence of "tremendous damage due to boring animals" under Dill's house. He opined that there were live larvae in the wood, however, his credibility and expertise left a great deal to be desired. During a monthly contract spraying Robert R. Plowman, an employee of Respondent, told Mrs. Shirley I. Bond that she had powder post wood borer beetles in the attic of her home at 6701 - 19th Street North, St. Petersburg, Florida and needed to have the attic power dusted. Mrs. Bond gave Plowman a check for $295 but after her daughter-in-law's experience, stopped the work. She called HRS and David Jones inspected her property on April 14, 1977. He found no evidence of infestation and in Jones' opinion the power spray of Dridie (a trade name for silica gel) would not be appropriate to treat dry wood termites or powder post beetles. Raymond L. Jackson employed Respondent for the advertised "clean-out" and free inspection. On January 6 and 7, 1977 Robert R. Plowman, an employee of Respondent, inspected Jackson's property at 6243 - 6th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, Florida and advised Jackson that he had active termites and powder post beetles and needed treatment. Jackson signed a contract and paid Plowman $300 for the work. About two weeks later two men power dusted Jackson's attic. After reading an article in the newspaper about powder post beetles Jackson called HRS and his property was inspected by Askins on July 26, 1977 and by Askins and Bargren on August 10, 1977. The only evidence of damage they found was that caused by turpentine beetles prior to the wood being processed. In their opinion no treatment was indicated before the power dusting was done. Mrs. Helen Stambaugh had a "clean-out" and free termite inspection in July, 1977 at her home at 2518 - 67th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, Florida by Respondent. Larry D. Brown, an employee of Respondent, to whom an application for identification card had not been submitted, told Mrs. Stambaugh that dry wood termites were infesting her garage and treatment was necessary. Spot treatment was offered for $130. She contacted another pest control company who, after inspection, advised that no treatment was indicated. She then called HRS and on July 20, 1977, Bargren and Askins inspected her property and found only evidence of old turpentine beetle damage in the garage which had occurred before the wood was processed. No infestation for which treatment was indicated was observed. In October, 1975 representatives from Gulf Coast Pest Control, Louis Casale, the company manager, Carmine Casale the owner and Gilbert Bellino, the certified operator, met with HRS representatives in Jacksonville to discuss the numerous complaints HRS had received about Respondent and to formulate remedial action. At this meeting the need for additional training of their salesman was discussed in connection with the complaints filed by Green, Rankin, Wray, and others with particular emphasis on the need to train their operators to distinguish old damage in the preprocessed tree from damage requiring correction. Respondent agreed to increase their training to improve the quality of their inspectors. Respondent has discharged all of the salesmen who made the misrepresentations noted above. Plowman was finally discharged because "he was too dumb" to learn to distinguish between old damage not requiring treatment and new damage which did require treatment. However, Plowman was continued as an employee even after criminal charges involving fraudulent misrepresentation had been filed against him.
The Issue DOAH Case No. 04-4061: Whether the Petitioner's application for renewal of his pest control operator's certificate JF9079 for 2004 should be granted or denied. DOAH Case No. 06-0132: Whether the Petitioner's application for renewal of his pest control operator's certificate JF9079 for 2005 should be granted or denied. DOAH Case No. 06-0414: Whether the 2005 application of Petitioner's employer for a pest control identification card for the Petitioner should have been granted or denied.
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: At the times material to his proceeding, the Department was the state agency responsible for regulating the pest control industry in Florida and is specifically responsible for licensing and regulating pest control operators and for issuing pest control employee identification cards. See §§ 482.032(1); 482.091; 482.111; and 482.161, Fla. Stat. (2004). On or about May 4, 2001, Mr. Kravitsky pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York to income tax evasion and was sentenced to four months of home confinement and five years' probation. This crime is a felony under federal law. As of the date of the final hearing, Mr. Kravitsky's civil rights had not been restored. Vikane gas is a fumigant that was commonly used in 2004 to treat structures for termites. Pest control operators were required to follow the instructions on the label to ensure that the Vikane gas is used appropriately. The structure to be fumigated must be enclosed in a tent, and the Vikane gas is injected, or "shot," into the tent through a hose that is attached to the tent in a way that prevents significant leakage of the gas. After a structure is fumigated, two aeration procedures must be completed. The first aeration procedure requires that the tent be partially taken down, and the windows and doors of the structure are opened to allow the Vikane gas to leave the structure. This first aeration procedure could take less than one hour. For the second aeration procedure, the tent surrounding the structure is totally removed. The windows of the structure are locked, and the doors are locked with the regular door locks and with secondary locks to which only the pest control operator has the keys. Warning signs are posted on the doors indicating that the structure should not be entered for a minimum of six hours to ensure that the Vikane has been safely cleared from the structure. The warning signs, which are to be put up by the pest control operator-in-charge who actually performed the fumigation, include the name, address, and phone number of the company doing the fumigation; the date and time the Vikane gas was introduced into the structure; and the name of the certified pest control operator responsible for the job. These precautions are to prevent the owner of the structure from entering before the Vikane gas has dissipated to a safe level and to provide information regarding the pest control company handling the fumigation. Pest control companies are required to notify the local office of the Department's Bureau of Entomology and Pest Control whenever a structure is scheduled for fumigation. The notice is provided on a Department form, and the notice must be received by the local office at least 24 hours in advance of the introduction on the fumigant. In the Broward County office, Department inspectors randomly pull Fumigation Notices after they are received, usually by facsimile transmission, and they investigate fumigation sites when the fumigation tents are put up and when they are taken down. The purpose of the inspections is to ensure that all safety procedures had been followed. In the spring of 2004, Mr. Kravitsky was employed by Ship Shape Pest Control, a company that he had previously owned but had transferred to his brother in February 2004. Mr. Kravitsky was a certified pest control operator and often served as the pest control operator-in-charge when Ship Shape Pest Control fumigated a structure. The pest control operator- in-charge is responsible for introducing the fumigant into the structure and for ensuring that all safety procedures are followed. On April 16, 2004, Eric Reiss, who was, at the time, a field inspector with the Broward County, Florida, office of the Department's Bureau of Entomology and Pest Control, received a call from another inspector, Richard Lucas, who was concerned about a fumigation that had been performed by Ship Shape Pest Control to a structure located at 16745 Southwest 300th Street in Homestead, Florida. Mr. Reiss agreed to go to the fumigation site on April 17, 2004, and complete the fumigation aeration inspection. Mr. Reiss arrived at the site at approximately 7:00 a.m. No one from Ship Shape Pest Control was on site. Mr. Reiss walked around and observed that the structure was a single-family residence with a small building that looked like a shed in the back yard, about 50 feet from the main building. Mr. Reiss walked around the property and observed that a PVC pipe emerged from the back of the main structure and apparently ran through the yard and entered the shed. Mr. Reiss could not, however, be certain that the PVC pipe connected the two structures, since he could not see the entire length of the pipe. It appeared to Mr. Reiss that someone, a relative of the homeowner, was living in the shed, but the shed had not been prepared and cleared for fumigation and there was no warning sign or secondary lock on the shed. Mr. Reiss was concerned that, if the PVC pipe was connected to both of the structures, the Vikane gas that had been used to fumigate the main structure could have moved through the pipe into the shed and endangered the life and health of anyone who happened to be in the shed during the fumigation. During Mr. Reiss's first visit to the site, he did not see anyone on the property. Mr. Reiss left the site at approximately 7:30 a.m. and got a cup of coffee. When he returned to the site, he rode down the street, trying to find a place to park so he could observe the final aeration procedure from a "covert" location.1 He was not able to find a hidden location, so he drove back to the fumigation site. When Mr. Reiss arrived back at the site, at approximately 8:10 a.m., Mr. Kravitsky was getting out of his car. Mr. Kravitsky had not done the fumigation at 16745 Southwest 300th Street in Homestead, Florida; he was not the pest control operator in charge of the fumigation; and he had not been responsible for clearing the two structures in preparation for the fumigation. Rather, Avery Huff, an employee of Ship Shape Pest Control, had done the fumigation. Mr. Kravitsky had taken a call from Mr. Lucas at the Ship Shape Pest Control office on April 16, 2004, and Mr. Lucas told him that he was concerned because there were no warning signs or secondary locks on the structure that had been fumigated. Mr. Kravitsky telephoned Mr. Huff, who told him that the job had been "left completely legal."2 Mr. Kravitsky asked Mr. Huff to return to Homestead and meet with the inspector, but Mr. Huff refused. Mr. Kravitsky, therefore, went to the site on April 17, 2004, to check on the job. When Mr. Reiss walked up to Mr. Kravitsky at approximately 8:00 a.m. on April 17, 2004, Mr. Kravitsky had just gotten out of his car. Mr. Kravitsky and Mr. Reiss walked around to the back of the house, and Mr. Reiss observed that the door to the shed was open and that a man was standing near the shed. It was Mr. Reiss's impression that the man lived in the shed but did not want anyone to know this. Mr. Kravitsky was told by the man, who identified himself as "Mr. Lugo," that the PVC pipe connected the two structures. Mr. Kravitsky was very concerned that the man might have been hurt if he had been in the shed during or shortly after the fumigation, but the man appeared to both Mr. Kravitsky and Mr. Reiss to be in fine health. Mr. Kravitsky turned on his interscan, which is a device used in the pest control industry to measure very small amounts of Vikane gas. In 2003-2004, it was considered safe for people to enter buildings when the level of Vikane gas had decreased to five parts per million, and the interscan was used to measure such small quantities of gas. While Mr. Kravitsky's interscan was warming up, a process that takes about 10 minutes, Mr. Kravitsky spoke with Mr. Lugo, who allowed Mr. Kravitsky to go into the shed to check the amount of Vikane gas with the interscan device. Mr. Reiss noted that a label on Mr. Kravitsky's interscan showed that it had been recalibrated on April 15, 2004, and, before Mr. Kravitsky took the device into the shed, Mr. Reiss observed that the reading on the meter was "zero," which indicated that the device was not detecting any Vikane gas. Mr. Reiss was taking pictures during the entire time he was at the fumigation site, and Mr. Lugo told Mr. Reiss he did not want any pictures taken of the inside of the shed. Mr. Lugo, therefore, refused to allow Mr. Reiss into the shed, and Mr. Reiss was not able to observe the reading on Mr. Kravitsky's interscan while he was in the structure. When Mr. Kravitsky emerged from the shed, he told Mr. Reiss that the interscan showed there was no Vikane gas in the shed. Mr. Reiss glanced at the meter when Mr. Kravitsky emerged from the shed, and it appeared to him that the meter reading was close to "zero." Mr. Kravitsky also did an interscan reading in the main structure, and he told Mr. Reiss that the reading also showed no Vikane gas. In actuality, Mr. Kravitsky's interscan showed that the level of Vikane gas in the shed was three parts per million, which indicated that the pipe did connect the two structures and that the person preparing the site for fumigation failed to include the shed. After Mr. Kravitsky and Mr. Reiss finished at the fumigation site, Mr. Kravitsky offered to buy Mr. Reiss lunch. Mr. Reiss refused lunch but told Mr. Kravitsky he could buy him an iced tea at a nearby Dunkin' Donut shop. Mr. Kravitsky ordered coffee, and he and Mr. Reiss talked about Mr. Reiss's vacation. Mr. Kravitsky excused himself and went to the men's room. When he came back and sat down, he pushed a matchbook across the table to Mr. Reiss, telling Mr. Reiss that he had some matches for him. The matchbook actually contained five $100 bills that Mr. Kravitsky had folded inside the matchbook. Mr. Reiss did not open the matchbook, but he was able to see that there was money inside. He pushed the matchbook back to Mr. Kravitsky and told him that he could not accept money. Mr. Kravitsky offered the money to Mr. Reiss on April 17, 2004, to "make him happy."3 According to Mr. Kravitsky, Mr. Reiss had been threatening for the previous year to send him to prison if he committed even the smallest violation of the pest control laws and regulations.4 Mr. Kravitsky, who was on probation at the time, was very worried about Mr. Reiss's threats. On April 18, 2004, Ship Shape Pest Control sent a Fumigation Notice to the Department's Bureau of Entomology and Pest Control in Boynton Beach, Florida, indicating that, at 11:00 a.m. on April 19, 2004, it intended to fumigate a structure located at 279 Southeast 8th Terrace in Deerfield Beach, Florida; that Vikane gas would be used; that Lori Kelley was the certified operator-in-charge of the fumigation, and that the length of the fumigation would be 36 hours. The Fumigation Notice was sent by facsimile transmission, and it was picked up by Mr. Reiss. Mr. Reiss intended to go to the fumigation site early on April 20, 2004, and to initiate covert surveillance of the first aeration. On the afternoon of April 19, 2004, Mr. Kravitsky went to 279 Southeast 8th Terrace to check on the progress of the job. When he arrived, the crew had the structure almost completely wrapped, and almost the entire the tent had been erected. Mr. Kravitsky entered the structure to clear it for fumigation. As he was opening cabinets and checking the building, Mr. Kravitsky discovered a sticker on the water heater that showed that the structure had been fumigated about seven months earlier by a company called Dead Bug Edwards. Mr. Kravitsky decided that he should not fumigate the structure with Vikane gas since it had been fumigated seven months previously. Also, he had not found any live termites on site and believed that it would be sufficient to treat the structure with borate. He told the crew that the structure was not to be fumigated. However, Mr. Kravitsky thought the tent looked good and, with the Ship Shape Pest Control banner in front of the structure, would be good advertising for the company, so, before he left the site, he told the crew finish erecting the tent and to close it up. Mr. Kravitsky intended to leave the tent up until the following day. Mr. Kravitsky went to the Ship Shape Pest Control office the following day, April 20, 2004, which was a Saturday. He wrote in long-hand on the Fumigation Notice that had been sent to the local office of the Department's Bureau of Entomology and Pest Control that the job was to be cancelled and changed to Borate. He added a note: "Advise realtor - fumed 7 months ago Dead Bug Edwards adjust price." Mr. Kravitsky dated the hand-written note "4/20/04," and sent the cancellation notice to the local office of the Department's Bureau of Entomology and Pest Control by facsimile transmittal on the morning of April 20, 2004.5 Mr. Kravitsky called Diane Brito, the realtor who had engaged Ship Shape Pest Control to do the fumigation, from the fumigation site and told her that the structure had previously been fumigated and was still under warranty and that Ship Shape Pest Control would do a treatment with Borate and pick up the Dead Bug Edwards' warranty on the termite fumigation. Mr. Kravitsky also told Ms. Brito that the price would be reduced because fumigation with Vikane gas was more expensive than a Borate treatment.6 Mr. Reiss arrived at 279 Southeast 8th Terrace at approximately 11:20 a.m. on April 20, 2004, and noted that it was a three-unit multi-family structure located in a residential neighborhood. He was unable to find a location from which to conduct covert surveillance, so he pulled up in front of the structure. He took out his Tiff meter, which is an instrument that measures the presence of gas in quantities exceeding 50 parts per million. His intent was to determine if there were any major leaks of Vikane gas from the tent, so he walked around the tent taking readings with the Tiff meter and videotaping the site. Mr. Reiss noted that there was a warning sign on the tent that reflected that the Vikane gas had been injected into the structure at 7:00 p.m. on April 19, 2004. Ms. Kelley and Mr. Kravitsky were both identified on the warning sign as pest control operators in charge. Although Mr. Reiss found holes in the tent and inserted the Tiff meter into the holes to obtain readings, the Tiff meter did not register any Vikane gas, which Mr. Reiss considered unusual. Mr. Reiss also noted that the hose that would have been used to introduce the Vikane gas into the tent was lying outside the tent. It appeared to Mr. Reiss, from all indications at the site, that the structure had been fumigated; the only indication that it had not been fumigated was the failure of the Tiff meter to register Vikane gas at a level of 50 parts per million or more. Mr. Reiss called the telephone number shown on the warning sign, and Mr. Kravitsky answered the call. Mr. Reiss told Mr. Kravitsky that there did not seem to be any gas in the building, and he told Mr. Kravitsky to meet him at the fumigation site as soon as possible. Mr. Kravitsky arrived at the site at approximately 12:25 p.m. Mr. Kravitsky did not see Mr. Reiss, but he did see the warning sign that indicated that the structure had been fumigated the previous evening and that he had done the fumigation. Mr. Kravitsky did not fumigate the structure, even though his name was on the warning sign, and he had no idea who put the sign up. Mr. Kravitsky immediately began warming up his interscan so he could measure the amount of Vikane gas at the site. Mr. Reiss had waited for Mr. Kravitsky in his car, but he did not see Mr. Kravitsky arrive. When Mr. Reiss saw Mr. Kravitsky's car parked in the driveway, Mr. Reiss got out of his car and walked up to Mr. Kravitsky. He noticed that Mr. Kravitsky was already warming up his interscan, and Mr. Reiss took care to note that the reading on the interscan, as it was warming up, was "zero." Mr. Kravitsky and Mr. Reiss engaged in a light conversation as Mr. Kravitsky searched for a place to take a reading of the Vikane gas level. Mr. Kravitsky found an opening in the tent and stuck the interscan probe into the hole. The reading on the interscan was "zero," indicating that no Vikane gas had been detected. Mr. Kravitsky checked several other openings in the tent, and the interscan continued to register "zero." After first telling Mr. Reiss that he intended to leave the tent up until the next morning, April 21, 2004, which was a Sunday. Mr. Kravitsky did not want to remove the tent in Mr. Reiss's presence because he was afraid that the inside of the structure had not been properly prepared for fumigation and that Mr. Reiss would cite him for a violation of pest control regulations. Mr. Reiss told Mr. Kravitsky that he would be at the site the next morning because he intended to be present when the tent was taken down, Mr. Kravitsky admitted to Mr. Reiss that he had told the residents that they could return to the structure that night. Mr. Reiss arranged to meet Mr. Kravitsky at the structure at 2:00 p.m. so Mr. Reiss could observe Mr. Kravitsky go through the aeration procedure. Even though Mr. Kravitsky knew that the structure had not been fumigated, he went through the active aeration procedure at approximately 2:00 p.m. on April 20, 2004. According to Mr. Reiss's Fumigation Inspection Report, Mr. Kravitsky opened the tent in Mr. Reiss's presence; entered the structure wearing a self-contained breathing apparatus and opened the doors and windows. Mr. Reiss observed that warning signs were on the exterior doors and that the doors also had secondary locks. Mr. Kravitsky completed the one-hour active aeration and replaced the warning signs and secondary locks on the exterior doors. These precautions were not necessary, however, because no Vikane gas had been introduced into the structure. Mr. Kravitsky was extremely worried that Mr. Reiss would cite him for a violation of pest control laws or regulations and that the citation would interfere with the sale of Ship Shape Pest Control, which he was trying to negotiate at the time, or would result in the revocation of his probation. Mr. Kravitsky described himself as confused and uncertain about how to handle the situation; he just wanted to avoid having Mr. Reiss cite him for a violation. Mr. Kravitsky, therefore, tried to "dance through without getting a violation" and wanted to "feel out" Mr. Reiss to find out how much he knew about the fumigation.7 Mr. Kravitsky avoided telling Mr. Reiss that the structure had not been fumigated, and he told Mr. Reiss that he would have to check with the certified pest control operator-in- charge to find out why there was no Vikane gas inside the tent. By his own admission, Mr. Kravitsky behaved as though he believed the structure had been fumigated with Vikane gas. At some point, however, Mr. Kravitsky did tell Mr. Reiss that he had found a sticker in the structure showing that the structure had been fumigated approximately seven months prior to April 2004 and that no Vikane gas had been used to fumigate the structure.8 Although not mentioned in the report Mr. Reiss prepared of the fumigation aeration inspection, Mr. Reiss and Mr. Kravitsky had a conversation at the fumigation site on April 20, 2004, that Mr. Reiss inadvertently recorded on the audio of his video camera.9 During this conversation, Mr. Kravitsky admitted to Mr. Reiss that he had lied to him on April 17, 2004, when he told Mr. Reiss that the reading Mr. Kravitsky took in the shed showed no Vikane gas. Mr. Kravitsky admitted that the interscan registered Vikane gas in the shed at three parts per million, a quantity that does not pose a risk to humans. Mr. Kravitsky also offered to give Mr. Reiss "an envelope" during this April 20, 2004, conversation. According to Mr. Kravitsky, his reference to "an envelope" was a direct reference to the incident that took place in April 2003. In any event, Mr. Kravitsky offered Mr. Reiss "an envelope" on April 20, 2004, in hopes that Mr. Reiss would not cite him for a violation of pest control laws or regulations with respect to the fumigation that was to have taken place at 279 Southeast 8th Terrace. Mr. Reiss, however, did not respond to Mr. Kravitsky's offer during that conversation.10 On June 16, 2004, Mr. Kravitsky pleaded guilty to one count of "failing to refrain from the law," and his probation was revoked by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The charge related to having offered Mr. Reiss unlawful compensation. Mr. Kravitsky was sentenced to 10 months' in prison.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services enter a final order in DOAH Case No. 04-4061 denying Larry Kravitsky's application for renewal of his pest control operator certificate JF 9079 for 2004; in DOAH Case No. 06-0132 denying Larry Kravitsky's application for renewal of his pest control operator certificate JF 9079 for 2005; and in DOAH Case No. 06-0414 denying the application of Sears Pest Control d/b/a Ship Shape Pest Control for a pest control employee-identification card for Larry Kravitsky. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of July, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA M. HART 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 July, 2009.
The Issue The issues to be resolved are as follows: With regard to Count Four of the Amended Petition, whether the Petitioners have sufficiently alleged a rule challenge and more particularly whether sufficient facts have been alleged to identify the challenged rule, whether existing, proposed, or unpromulgated; and whether, through an unpromulgated rule, the Department (Respondent) has prohibited the installation of "pest control insulation" or borate containing insulation by anyone other than a card-carrying employee of a certified pest control operator or licensee. If so, it must be determined whether such action is outside the Respondent's rulemaking authority, whether it is contrary to statute, whether it disregards the exceptions proved in Section 482.211(9), Florida Statutes, and whether it violates Section 482.051, Florida Statutes. With regard to Count Five of the Amended Petition, whether the Petitioners have sufficiently alleged a rule challenge to a proposed or existing rule or have offered evidence legally sufficient to establish a rule, proposed, or existing, which the Petitioners are challenging relating to the Respondent allegedly having selectively investigated pest control operators performing 100 or more pre-construction termite treatments annually, and whether such action is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. With regard to Count Six of the Amended Petition, whether the Petitioners have sufficiently alleged a rule challenge to a proposed or existing rule or have offered evidence legally sufficient to establish a rule, proposed, existing, or unpromulgated, which the Petitioners are challenging relating to the Respondent's alleged enforced application of termiticide arbitrarily and capriciously by not requiring the best available technology and not regulating according to acceptable standards in the manner in which it conducts field investigations. With regard to Count Seven of the Amended Petition, whether the Petitioners have sufficiently alleged a rule challenge based on a proposed or existing rule or have offered legally sufficient evidence to establish a rule, proposed, existing, or unpromulgated, which the Petitioners are challenging relating to the Respondent's enforcement of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, as it relates to preventive soil treatments for new construction and its alleged failure to protect the public. With regard to Counts Two, Three, and Eight of the Amended Petition, whether the Petitioners have alleged any facts or presented any evidence to establish a proposed, existing, or unpromulgated rule substantially affecting the interests of the Petitioners. Whether either the Petitioners or the Respondent are entitled to recovery of attorney's fees and costs.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners conceded at hearing that the Order on the Motion to Dismiss, prior to the hearing, concerning the mootness caused by the withdrawal of the above-referenced agency memos not only disposed of Count One of the Amended Petition, but had rendered moot Counts Two and Three, as well. No evidence was presented as to the those counts. Neither was any evidence or argument presented regarding Count Eight of the Amended Petition. Thus, Counts Two, Three, and Eight, as well as Count One, should be dismissed. The Petitioners, with regard to Count Four of the Amended Petition, did not allege the text of any statement or description of one which could be construed as an unpromulgated rule by the agency, which prohibited the installation of insulation containing borate by anyone other than a "card- carrying" employee of a certified pest control operator or licensee. There was no evidence to establish the existence of such an unpromulgated statement or rule of general application. Cliff Killingsworth testified that he was an officer and party representative of the Petitioners' companies in this case. "In-cide" is a cellulose fiber with borate or borate- containing materials for fire retardancy and fungal control. The manufacturer had increased the borate content in the material so that it could make claims with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the product's pest control value. Mr. Killingsworth acknowledged that it was a licensed and registered "pest control product." While Mr. Killingsworth agreed that claims to the public about the pest control value of the product should be done by a pest control operator, he felt that should not prevent him from subcontracting the installation of the insulation material to a professional insulation installer so that the material would be properly installed in a home or other building. Mr. Killingsworth met with Steve Dwinell and Joe Parker, representatives of the Respondent agency, in Jacksonville, Florida, in the summer of 1997. He provided them with a 30-to-40-page report regarding installation of the insulation with its pest control properties. He received no communication from the Respondent following this meeting and sought no written opinion from the Respondent about the use of the material before he began using it. Mr. Killingsworth invited George Owens, a field inspector for the Respondent in the Northwest Florida area, to observe the product being installed in a structure. Mr. Killingsworth testified that Mr. Owens, thereafter, sent him a letter stating that the Respondent was not going to regulate that material. Mr. Killingsworth, however, did not produce that letter or a copy of it. Mr. Owens testified that he had visited a site in Destin, Florida, at Mr. Killingsworth's invitation, where "Green Stone" insulation was being applied by being blown into a small section of a wall. He did not know that a subcontractor was making the application when he visited the site. He thought that an employee of Mr. Killingsworth was performing the installation of the material. Mr. Owens did not recall telling Mr. Killingsworth or any of his representatives that application of the product by an agent other than Mr. Killingsworth's own company would be prohibited. It was not Mr. Owens' belief that he had authority to make those decisions. He did not believe that he had authority to approve or disapprove the application of a pesticide. Mr. Killingsworth invited Mike McDaniels, another field investigator with the Respondent in the Gainesville, Florida, area to observe the installation of the product in the spring of 1998. Mr. McDaniels commented to Mr. Killingsworth that he was glad that they were doing it, but he made no report. After the Petitioners' companies had been operating for two or three months in the Gainesville area, sharing space with Green Stone Industries, the company producing the insulation, Mr. McDaniels returned. He informed Mr. Killingsworth that the Respondent agency had changed its position on the application of the product. Because it was a "labeled material," that is, labeled and promoted as a certified pest control product, for purposes of EPA regulations, it had to be installed and handled only by a pest control operator meeting the definition of an employee under Chapter 482, Florida Statutes. Mr. McDaniel was shown the insulation in question by Mr. Killingsworth and how it was installed at a job site. He never told Mr. Killingsworth whether he could use the product or not, but during a "non-adversarial inspection," he told him that he had to have "ID cardholders" (i.e., employees of a licensed pest control operator) install the insulation, since it had advertised pesticide qualities. Mr. McDaniel was shown a warehouse with two different types of insulation. One had borate advertised as a fire retardant. The other had a higher content of borate which was advertised to have pesticide qualities. Mr. McDaniel determined that employees applying the second type of product were conducting pest control by installing that product and should, therefore, have pest control operator identification cards. He explained that to Mr. Killingsworth and thought he may have written that opinion on an inspection form which he supplied to Mr. Killingsworth. He also believes he notified his supervisor, Phil Helseth. His normal practice, when a new material is reported to him or observed, is to inform his superior of the facts concerning that product. He never told Mr. Killingsworth or his representatives that they could not install the product in question. He informed them that since it was listed as a pesticide that they would have to be have employees of a licensed pest control operator to legally install the product. Mr. McDaniel did not consult with anyone at the Respondent agency about this, but rather relied on his own judgment as to agency policy and the interpretation of the statutes and rules enforced by the Respondent. He testified that he had no central direction from his superiors at the Department on the issue and was unaware what other districts or regions under the Department's regulation were doing to address this question. He simply determined that if the Petitioners' personnel were applying a product that was a registered pesticide insulation that, under his understanding of the broad statutory definition of pesticides as anything that "curbed, mitigated, destroyed, or repelled insects," then the installers would have to be employees of a registered pesticide operator. Mr. Dwinell testified as the bureau chief for the Bureau of Entomology and Pest Control. He met with Mr. Killingsworth along with Mr. Parker, another employee of the bureau. Mr. Killingsworth made a presentation regarding the product in dispute, the borate-impregnated cellulose insulation. He determined that the product was a pesticide because it was advertised as a registered pesticide and performed pesticide functions, in addition to its insulation function. He did not recall that the precise issue of subcontracting with a non- licensed pest control operator or insulation installer was a topic of their conversation. Following that meeting, he may have discussed the question with Mr. Helseth, in a general way, but does not recall discussing it with any other person. He recalls some discussion concerning the Gainesville office of the Killingsworth companies and whether Mr. Killingsworth, or that office of his company, was licensed as a certified operator. He believes he recalls that a cease and desist letter informing the Killingsworth companies of the need to have the application of the product performed by someone licensed to do pest control may have been sent, although he is not certain. Mr. Dwinell established that the Respondent agency had never published anything regarding pest control insulation. He noted that a pesticide was a pesticide under the statutory definition, whether a corn bait, insulation, or mixed in a jug. The same laws applied to it and under Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, a pesticide must be applied by a licensed applicator. Mr. Killingsworth insisted that the insulation product, though a registered pesticide, was exempt from the provisions of Section 482.211(9), Florida Statutes, because it was a derivative wood product. He agreed that the product in question was a wood by-product and not wood. If a product did not meet the statutory definition of being exempt, then it would be appropriate for the Respondent to issue a cease and desist directive until the Petitioners came into compliance with Chapter 482, Florida Statutes. Mr. Dwinell opined that the subject insulation product was not exempt under the provisions of Section 482.211(9), Florida Statutes. Unlike pre-treated lumber, which is exempt, the installation product at issue is a registered pesticide. Pre-treated lumber, though treated with pesticide in the manufacturing process, is not intended to be used as pesticide, nor is it a registered pesticide. The Petitioners have not stated a basis for a rule challenge pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, as to Counts Five and Six of the Amended Petition. Although references were made to alleged "actions" by the Respondent agency, the Petitioners have not alleged with particularity, nor adduced any competent, substantial evidence of any rule provisions alleged to be invalid, nor have they shown, in an evidential way, any to be invalid. The evidence does not show that there is a rule, either proposed, existing, or as an unpromulgated agency statement of general applicability, which is actually being challenged by the Petitioners. There has not been a definitive showing by preponderant evidence that such exists concerning the product and operation at issue. The Petitioners in Count Seven of the Amended Petition have not stated any basis for a rule challenge in accordance with Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. There are numerous references to provisions of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, but it is not alleged with any particularity which rule provisions are purported to be invalid, nor has preponderant evidence been adduced to establish any rule provisions either proposed, existing, or as unpromulgated agency statements, which have imposed a substantial effect on the Petitioners. In this regard, the Petitioners' counsel argued at the hearing: Your Honor, what we have suggested is that the rule that's being challenged is the Department's statutory obligation under the statute as it relates to their promulgated Rule 5E-14.105, and as it relates to their treatment guarantees or warranties that are required by that regulation for a treatment that just doesn't work. The Department rule requires a certain warranty and requires a renewable warranty, placing that upon the pest control operator under the guise of protecting the consumer, but the fact of the matter is, it doesn't protect the consumer, and it just endangers the pest control operator. And so I guess the actual rule is the 5E-14.105. In addition to that we have the statutory obligations of the Department, which is to provide a protection to the public health and the economic benefit of the consumer and evaluate these chemicals that they are requiring warranties for. That's the basis of the rule challenge, and admittedly, this one is a little bit nebulous, but there is a regulatory, I guess, mandate of these preconstruction soil treatments as a method, as the preferred method, and to the extent that the operators, who are the regulated entity in this case are required to--is mandated to require a warranty for a method they know doesn't work . . . . Mr. Killingsworth acknowledged in his testimony that he was not contending that there should not be a warranty requirement for treatments of subterranean termites, as stated in the above-cited Rule 5E-14.105, Florida Administrative Code. He also acknowledged that he was not contending that the Respondent should require warranties from pest control companies for every kind of pest control performed. He thought there were a lot of factors not within a pest control operator's control affecting particular wood fungi, but what was in the pest operator's control was the opportunity to do a preventive treatment for more than just subterranean termites and they, in his view, should not be prevented from doing so. When asked what preventive treatment he had been prevented from doing by the Respondent, his reply was: The effect of memos and other actions prevented us from doing our choice of preventative treatment, the borate application, through the effects of raising questions in building officials' eyes, through the effects of increasing the economic impact to us to get it done. Builders will not pay enough to do both soil treatment and bait and borate. The memoranda referred to as preventing Mr. Killingsworth from doing his choice of preventive treatment were not actually identified in the record, however. Mr. Dwinell testified that the EPA guidelines require an efficacy standard for soil treatments which states: "Data derived from such testing should provide complete resistance to termite attack for a period of five years." The EPA also provides guidelines for preventive treatment/wood impregnation: "When acceptable data derived from testing for at least two years, or less than five years, shows complete resistance to termite attack, the product may be registered." The efficacy standard for borate, thus, was not five years, but two years. Mr. Dwinell had concerns about the type of data that had been relied upon by the EPA for registration and how that data related to the situation in Florida. That was the basis for the negotiated rulemaking process that the Respondent was engaged in at the time of the hearing in this case. The purpose of the negotiated rulemaking process was to comply with the statute that required a rule, but ultimately the purpose was to have a mechanism in the State of Florida where the product was registered for use under construction and a reliable set of data that could show whether the product would actually protect against termites when applied. The ultimate goal of the statute at issue is to protect the consumer, which is the Respondent's statutory duty. Borate pesticides are registered for use, with label directions for use during construction. They are one of three categories of materials for use in construction, including soil- applied pesticide materials, baiting products, and wood treatments, the last being the borates. There are no directives issued by the Respondent that specifically preclude the use of either borate as a stand-alone treatment or a baiting system as a stand-alone treatment. The Respondent does not require soil treatments only. Mr. Dwinell has never told any licensee that he could not use borate products if he were licensed.
The Issue Petitioners seek attorney's fees and costs from Respondent, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. The parties have stipulated that Petitioners are "small business parties" under that section, and that the fees and costs being sought are "reasonable." The issues remaining for disposition, therefore, are: Whether Petitioners "prevailed" in all four underlying cases, including the two that were settled prior to final hearing; Whether the Department "initiated" the procedures, or was merely a "nominal party"; Whether the Department had a "reasonable basis in law and fact" at the time that it initiated the proceedings; Whether special circumstances exist which would make an award unjust; and Whether the statutory $15,000 cap should be applied collectively or separately to the four underlying cases.
Findings Of Fact (The facts are substantially uncontroverted and the facts established in the underlying cases nos. 94-2801, et al are incorporated by reference. The following facts are recounted to establish a background for the contested issues of law.) As stipulated, the Petitioners are small business parties within the meaning of Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. They are Florida corporations, with their principal offices in Florida, with less than 25 full-time employees and net worth of less than $2 million. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (department) is the state agency responsible for administering and maintaining the pesticide- sensitive and especially pesticide-sensitive person registries as provided in Section 482.2265(3), Florida Statutes (1993). Carol Ann Rodriguez, Jacqueline V. Dilworth, Susan L. Maxwell and Carrietta Kelly are four individuals, among approximately twenty-seven individuals, who applied to the department for designation as "especially pesticide-sensitive" pursuant to subsection 482.2265(3), Florida Statutes, (1993). The pesticide-sensitive and especially pesticide-sensitive registries are described in the department's final order entered August 4, 1995, adopting all but two findings of fact in the Hearing Officer's recommended order in Case No. 94-2801, et al. These findings, and the findings related to the department's review of applications, need not be repeated here. In summary, however, the department did not investigate the merits of the applications but merely determined whether the certifying physicians were qualified according to the department's liberal interpretation of its own rule. That review function was delegated primarily to the secretary for the administrator of the department's pest control section. After review, the department published quarterly notices in the Florida Administrative Weekly of its intent to grant applications of especially pesticide-sensitive persons. The notices listed the names and addresses of the applicants and described the process for pest control operators to request hearings pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. These were clear points of entry. Petitioners here, and the Florida Pest Control Association, Inc. filed their requests for hearings, challenging the department's proposed action. The underlying consolidated cases resulted. Prior to the formal hearing, several individual applicants, including Carol Ann Rodriguez and Jacqueline Dilworth, settled their cases by withdrawing their applications and agreeing to be placed on the less restrictive pesticide- sensitive registry. This outcome was favorable to Petitioners because they were thereby relieved of the more onerous notification requirements which attach when an individual is designated "especially pesticide-sensitive." This was the relief Petitioners sought. After vigorous prehearing motion and discovery activity, approximately twenty consolidated cases proceeded to formal hearing. Among those were the individual cases of Susan L. Maxwell and Carrietta Kelly. The department, through counsel, participated in the formal hearing. It presented evidence through exhibits and witnesses, and cross-examined witnesses presented by other parties. Evidence to support Susan Maxwell's application was limited to a certification signed by Dr. Albert Robbins, an osteopathic physician. The certification was not supported by any non-hearsay evidence. Evidence to support Carrietta Kelly's application was limited to Dr. Robbins' testimony that he signed her certificate after she and her physician husband called him and wrote him a letter. Mrs. Kelly was never Dr. Robbins' patient and he never met her. The outcome of the formal hearing was a recommended order which found that no individual in the multiple cases presented adequate proof of the need for notification at greater distance than that specified for pesticide-sensitive persons. In other words, the applicants failed to prove entitlement to designation as "especially pesticide-sensitive." The department entered its final order on August 4, 1995, and adopted all but two findings by the hearing officer. The first rejected finding was that nothing in evidence indicated that one of the certifying individuals, "Roy P. Doyle," was a physician. The second finding rejected by the department was that the department had failed to justify or explicate its policy for qualifying physicians other than those specified in its own rule. The department's final order removed all of the individual parties from the registry as "especially pesticide-sensitive" and left them on the pesticide-sensitive list. Petitioners thus prevailed on the central issue in dispute: whether the individuals were entitled to designation as "especially pesticide- sensitive." The fees and costs incurred by Petitioners in their successful defense, as well as fees incurred in pursuing the instant claims, are appropriately described in affidavits filed with the petitions and amended petitions. The department accedes to the reasonableness of the fees and costs, except where they are duplicated in more than one case. The affidavits establish that the Petitioners incurred $22,348.70 in attorney's fees and $4,085.26 in costs related to the four underlying cases. In addition, and not included in the above total, are minor fees incurred in individual cases: Rodriguez $374.00 Dilworth $368.50 Maxwell $115.50 $858.00 Petitioners also claim $2,530.00 (23 hours x $110/hour) for fees incurred in their Section 57.111 cases here. These costs and fees are reasonable, and amount to a total of $29,821.96. The calculation which leads to that total avoids duplication (charges for the same work computed more than once). The calculation also reflects that the three Petitioners joined together, two Petitioners each, in the four underlying cases, hired a single attorney and avoided duplication of effort by separate attorneys for each Petitioner.
The Issue Whether respondent's pest control operator's certificate should be revoked on charges that she violated Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, by acting as a certified operator when her primary occupation and full-time employment were not in the pest control business.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent's certificate as a pest control operator be revoked; but such revocation should be stayed for 30 days and vacated if, during such period, she terminates her part-time employment as a certified pest control operator in charge of Burkes' pest control activities. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 12th day of November, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 12th day of November, 1982.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Charles T. Noegel operates Seminole-Gator Exterminator, Tallahassee, Florida. Inspection reports made by Respondent with respect to the residences of the four owners named in the Administrative Complaint show that he held business license number 519 and ID Card No. 7750, issued by the Petitioner, at the time of the four inspections. (Petitioner's Exhibits 1-3, 5-8). On August 13, 1981, Respondent inspected the property of Gene Gandy, 2504 Hartsfield, Tallahassee, Florida, and issued a "wood-destroying organism inspection report," HRS Form 1145. He also entered into a termite control contract and warranty guarantee with Mr. Gandy on the same date, which included protection against powder-post beetles. Respondent's inspection report apparently was made in connection with the sale of the house to Mr. Gandy. Respondent's report reflected that active infestation and visible damage by powder-post bettles had been observed under the house. Gandy then authorized Respondent to treat the house for the control of powder-post beetles, and Respondent proceeded to provide such treatment. (Testimony of Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibit 6). On September 10, 1981, Mr. Gandy filed a written request with Petitioner's Office of Entomology to inspect his property because he had found evidence of powder-post beetle damage inside the house and in the garage. Pursuant to the request, William E. Page, entomologist-inspector for Petitioner, inspected the Gandy property on September 18, 1981, and rendered a report of his investigation on October 12, 1981. He found that there was active powder-post beetle infestation in the wall studs of a bedroom and in the walls of the garage, old beetle and termite damage under the house, and in the wall studs of another bedroom, and water and fungus damage in kitchen and bathroom walls. Respondent conceded at the hearing that he had re-treated the house for powder-post beetles after being informed of Page's inspection and had had no further complaints from Mr. Gandy since that time. (Testimony of Page, Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibit 6) Prior to purchasing a home at 1937 Sageway Drive, Tallahassee, Florida, Dennis G. Fagen observed some "wrinkled" wood on the wall of the spa room. He requested the real estate salesman to arrange for a termite inspection. Respondent performed an inspection of the property on June 24, 1982, and rendered a negative report as to the presence of wood destroying organisms. The inspection occurred on the date that the Fagens closed the transaction for the purchase of the property. Mrs. Fagen accompanied Respondent during part of his "walk through" of the premises. During the course of his inspection, Respondent noted that the wood in the spa room was suspicious, and, in fact, poked his finger through the pine wood on the wall. Although the evidence is conflicting as to whether Mrs. Fagen was present in the room at that time, it is apparent that both the Fagens and Respondents were aware of the potential problem prior to the completed purchase of the home. The Fagens were of the opinion that it probably consisted of wood rot, and relied on Respondent's negative report as to the presence of wood destroying organisms. About a year later, after the suspicious area had increased in size, Mr. Fagen pulled a board off the wall and discovered that there was active termite infestation. Mr. Fagen contacted Respondent concerning the problem, but he declined to take any remedial action because the Fagens had been aware of the potential damage and Respondent had pointed out the area to the real estate salesman at the time of his inspection. Respondent is of the belief that he was not required to reflect the damaged area on his inspection report because it was damage that had occurred prior to his inspection which he was not required to report on the inspection form, and which would have necessitated removing finished wood to make a determination of the presence of wood-destroying organisms beyond the scope of his inspection, as provided for on HRS form 1145. Mr. Fagen thereafter filed a complaint with Petitioner's Entomology Office and requested a state inspection. William E. Page, the State Entomologist-Inspector investigated the complaint on July 8, 1983, and filed a report reflecting his findings that active infestation of subterranean termites and wood rot were present in the walls and ceiling of the spa room. This finding was confirmed by his observation of termite tubes on the exterior wall of the room, and it was his opinion that termites had been active for several years in that location. Mr. Page's findings were confirmed by a further inspection made on July 14, 1983, by another local pest control firm. Mr. Page was of the opinion that there was obvious damage in the room which should have been listed by Respondent on his inspection report. This opinion is deemed credible. By letter of September 1, 1983, Respondent wrote the Fagens and reiterated his belief that he was not responsible in any respect with regard to the termite damage. (Testimony of D. Fagen, B. Fagen, Page, Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibits 3-4, 7, Respondent's Exhibit 1) On April 12, 1982, Respondent performed a wood destroying organism inspection at 1409 Pichard Drive, Tallahassee, Florida, prior to its purchase by John E. Ellis. His inspection report was rendered on the same date on HRS Form 1145 and was negative as to the presence of any damage or infestation. Mr. Ellis was particularly concerned about this aspect of the house since he had previously cancelled a contract in another state for the purchase of a home when an inspection revealed the presence of termites. Consequently, he had insisted on a clause in his present sales contract which permitted him to void the same if a termite problem existed. Mr. Ellis closed the house purchase in May 1982, lived there a month, and after a trip to North Carolina, came back to the dwelling on July 4. At this time, he found that he had a flea problem in the house and accordingly, called a local pest control firm, Florida Pest Control, to spray for fleas and treat the property for termite control. That firm performed the treatment on July 6 and apparently did not find any problems. On July 7, Mr. Ellis observed what looked to be dry rot at the base of four wooden posts on his front deck. It also appeared that Florida Pest Control had dug around each post slightly to treat the ground. Mr. Ellis then traveled again to North Carolina and returned on September 30. Two days later he examined the posts again and noticed that a piece of wood on one corner of a deck post had fallen off. He called the Florida Pest Control who found that the deck posts were damaged as high as four inches above the deck. Mr. Ellis, one of that firm's representatives, told him that although one post showed termite damage, the treatment in July must have killed the termites since there was none existing at that time. He also indicated that the damage to the other posts was either water damage or dry rot. Mr. Ellis contacted Respondent concerning the problem, but he declined to do anything about it because he considered that the damage was not visible or accessible, and therefore outside the scope of his inspection as provided on HRS Form 1145. Mr. Ellis thereupon filed a written complaint with Petitioner's Office of Entomology and requested a state inspection. William E. Page, the State Entomologist Inspector, investigated the complaint on October 15, 1982, and his report of inspection indicated that there was evidence of termite damage in one post of the front deck and rot damage at the base of all the posts. In the opinion of Mr. Page, a normal inspection should have found signs of termite damage to the posts underground and that the damage had been progressing for at least a period of one year. He was further of the opinion that it would have been necessary to remove the dirt from the first two or three inches below the ground surface in order to find the damage and that such an area would be "accessible." He found damage to the posts at least eight inches above the ground, although he acknowledged that part of the damage could have been done after Respondent had made his inspection. Mr. Ellis later sued Respondent in civil court and recovered a judgment which was subsequently satisfied. Repair damages to the posts were approximately $585. (Testimony of Ellis, Page, Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibit 5, 8) Respondent conducted a wood-destroying organism inspection of the property located at 711 Piedmont Drive, Tallahassee, Florida, on May 5, 1983 incident to the subsequent purchase of the property by Mr. David Jones on June 1, 1983. Respondent's inspection report on HRS Form 1145 was negative in all respects except that it was noted that the property showed evidence of previous treatment. Mr. Jones talked to Respondent prior to closing of the transaction and Respondent assured him that everything was all right with the property. While moving into the home on June 1, 1983, Mr. Jones observed an area of wrinkled paint above a window in the family room. When he touched the area, his finger went through the wood. He proceeded to call another pest control firm, Florida Pest Control, to inspect the house. Their inspection indicated that there was evidence of termites by the presence of termite tubes on the wall of the utility room. They also found that there was wood rot damage to the subfloor under a bathroom. Mr. Jones got in touch with Respondent who again examined the property and agreed to repair the damage in the family room, but was unwilling to do anything about the other problems. Jones filed a complaint with Petitioner's Office of Entomology on June 10, 1983, and requested that a state inspection of the premises be performed. Entomologist-Inspector William E. Page conducted an investigation on July 1, 1983, and found that, although there was no active infestation, old termite tubes were present in the utility room and subterranean termite damage and wood rot were located in a beam about the window, and in the window frame in the family room and the wall of the utility room, and that rot damage existed in the sub-flooring of a bathroom. Mr. Page was of the opinion that a light tap on the wall would have revealed the damage in the family room, and that the termite tubes in the utility room were obvious. He was of the further opinion that a thorough inspection would have found most of the damage that he noted. Respondent testified that he did not believe that HRS Form 1145 provided for the entry of information concerning inactive infestation. He acknowledged that he had not noticed the damaged area above the window of the family room because it had been painted over. (Testimony of Jones, Page, Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibit 1-2) HRS Form 1145 limits the scope of a licensee's inspection of property to the "visible and accessible areas of the structure." It does not include areas concealed by wall coverings, or any portion of the structure in which inspection would necessitate removing or defacing finished wood. The form provides for the entry of findings concerning the observation of "active infestation," "other evidence of infestation," and "visible damage," together with locations of such observations, and the organisms observed or which caused the damage. It also provides for findings as to whether the property shows evidence of previous treatment. By requiring that a finding be entered as to "active infestation" and the organism observed, it is intended that the term "other evidence of infestation" refers to situations where organisms are not observed, but there is some other kind of evidence of either active or inactive infestation, such as the presence of termite tubes. It is intended that the term "visible damage" is also applicable to damage caused by active or inactive infestation. The terms used in the form are commonly understood by the industry to have the meaning indicated above which is the agency interpretation. In all instances, suspicious areas which might indicate infestation should be noted on the form as "visible damage," even though the licensee is unable to determine exactly what has caused the problem without removing or defacing finished wood. In such cases, "tapping" of the wood may produce a hollow sound which should be listed as possible hidden damage. Powder-post beetles can be detected by the observation of holes with powder falling out. If wood is damaged, it is possible to trace it to termite infestation with a probe. It is therefore expected that a thorough inspection will reveal signs of past or present infestation. HRS Form 1143 was revised in May 1983 at the request of the industry, but the changes were not substantiated, nor did they essentially change the required findings. The form is utilized in the sale of property and is designed to protect the purchaser. It is therefore important that the inspection be accurate and thorough in all instances since the public relies on the expertise of qualified licensees as to wood-destroying organisms. (Testimony of Page, Bond, Respondent's Exhibit 2)
Recommendation That a final order be entered which suspends the pest control business license, pest control operator's certificate, and pest control employee identification card of Respondent Charles T. Noegel for a period of three months, and that he be placed on probation thereafter for a period of one year for violation of Section 482.161(1)(f), Florida Statutes. DONE AND EXTENDED this 25th day of January, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM 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 25th day of January, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: John Pearce, Esquire Department of HRS District II Legal Counsel 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Charles T. Noegel Seminole Gator Exterminator 1409 Pichard Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 David Pingree, Secretary Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether or not James D. Cooley, d/b/a Murder, Inc., is entitled to a business license to engage in pest control in Florida, in the category of general household pest control. Whether or not James D. Cooley is entitled to the issuance of an identification card under the licensee James D. Cooley, d/b/a Murder, Inc., and in direction and control of James D. Cooley, certified pest control operator. Whether or not James D. Cooley is entitled to the issuance of a certified pest control operator's license in the general household category.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, James D. Cooley, is the holder of pest control operator's certificate no. 2236 held with the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. This category of pest control operator's certificate qualifies the Petitioner to perform treatment on termites and wood-infesting organisms. By separate action, the Respondent has moved to suspend the aforementioned pest control operator's certificate held by the Petitioner for a period of six (6) months, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 482, F.S. It has as an aspect of the contention the failure of the Petitioner to make a timely renewal of the pest control operator's certificate. The basis of this separate action by the Respondent is premised upon a letter of August 8th, 1977, addressed to the Petitioner, apprising him of the factual allegations and statutory references upon which its action is predicated. A copy of that letter is attached and made a part of the record herein. The facts reveal that the Petitioner, James D. Cooley, entered into an agreement with the proprietors of the "Romp and Tromp Day Care Center" located at 143 State Road 13, St. Johns County, Florida, for purposes of spraying for roaches. At that time, James D. Cooley was operating under the name "Tropical Pest Control", located at 355 Monument Road, Jacksonville, Florida. He identified himself in the form of a business card, (which is Petitioner's Exhibit 3 admitted into evidence in the Division of Administrative Hearings' Case Number 77-1564), as a termite control and complete pest control service. Cooley did, in fact, spray the "Romp and Troop Day Care Center: for the extermination of roaches. The sprayings took place in April and May, 1977. The substance being sprayed had a peculiar odor which the witnesses, Alice E. Stock and Ellen Perry Church indicated seemed like household bug spray. They also indicated that they noticed a resulting improvement with the roach problem after spraying. James D. Cooley, under the guise of "Tropical Pest Control", also sprayed the residence of Ellen Perry Church, which is at 1975 State Road 13, St. Johns County, Florida. He sprayed this premises for roaches and ants. Again the substance had an odor which was similar to retail bug spray. The ant and roach problem did not go away in her home. In both instances, when dealing with the proprietors of the "Romp and Troop Day Care Center" and the residence of Ellen Perry Church, James D. Cooley had identified himself as the owner of "Tropical Pest Control" and a person qualified to perform complete pest control services. In fact, James D. Cooley was not qualified to perform general household pest control, which is the category of treatment he was performing in spraying for roaches and ants. By that, it is meant that James D. Cooley at the time he performed the functions for the proprietors of the "Romp and Troop Day Care Center" and the residence of Ellen Perry Church, was not the holder of a certified operator's license in the category of general household pest control, as contemplated by Chapter 482, F.S. Moreover, the company he was operating under, to wit "Tropical Pest Control", was not licensed with the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and no identification card was on file for James D. Cooley as an employee of "Tropical Pest Control". The only document on record pertaining to James D. Cooley was one pertaining to his certified operator's license for termites and other wood-infesting organisms, license no. 2236, which at the time of the investigation of Mr. Cooley's activities was due for renewal in accordance with the terms of Section 482.071, F.S. By his actions in dealing with the premises known as "Romp and Troop Day Care Center" and the residence of Ellen Perry Church, the Respondent, in performing these tasks as "Tropical Pest Control", was unlawfully operating a pest control business that was not licensed by the Respondent, in violation of Section 482.071, F.S. Cooley was also in charge of the performance of pest control activities of a category in which he was not properly certified, namely general household pest control, thereby violating Section 482.111(4), F.S. In addition, James D. Cooley failed to have a valid pest control identification card as am employee of "Tropical Pest Control", because "Tropical Pest Control" was not licensed and no employee for that organization could have an identification card, thus causing a violation of Section 482.091, F.S. By his activities in dealing with the two premises, the Respondent was unlawfully soliciting, practicing, performing or advertising in pest control in a fashion that was not authorized by Chapter 482, F.S., in violation of Section 482.191(1), F.S. Finally, James D. Cooley, by holding himself out to be a certified operator in general household pest control, was guilty of fraudulent or misleading advertising or advertising in an unauthorized category, in violation of Section 482.161(8), F.S. For these violations, set forth above, sufficient grounds have been established for the Respondent to suspend, revoke or stop the issuance or renewal of any certificate or identification card, under authority of Section 482.161, F.S. The Respondent has taken action to bring about a suspension of certified pest control operator's license no. 2236, in keeping with the provisions of Section 482.171, F.S., and is warranted in suspending, revoking or stopping the issuance or renewal of any certificate or identification card. In consideration of the violations established in the Petitioner's dealings with the "Romp and Troop Day Care Center" and Ellen Church, the Respondent has refused to issue a business license to James Cooley, d/b/a Murder, Inc., which intends to do business in the general household pest control category. If James D. Cooley is not granted his certified operator's license in the category of general household pest control, then he may not serve as a certified operator in that category, in behalf of the proposed licensee James D. Cooley, d/b/a Murder, Inc. If James D. Cooley is unable to serve in the capacity of certified pest control operator, general household category, them the business known as James D. Cooley, d/b/a Murder, Inc., must employ am alternate certified operator in the general household category, before the Respondent shall issue a license to the business to operate in the general household category. That operator must be a resident of the State of Florida. This is in keeping with the license requirements of Section 482.071, F.S. James D. Cooley does not qualify for certification in the category of general household pest control, because through the violations established in his dealings with the "Romp and Tromp Day Care Center" and Ellen Perry Church, he has shown himself not to be of good character and good reputation for fair dealings, as required by Section 482.132, F.S., prior to the issuance of any certificate. Therefore, the only possibility that James D. Cooley, d/b/a Murder, Inc., would have for operating under the general household pest control category and for receiving a license would be to have another duly qualified certified operator in general household pest control to be hired by the licensee. No identification card can be issued to James D. Cooley or any other person who might be employed by James D. Cooley, d/b/a Murder, Inc., to operate in the general household pest control business, unless it will be under the supervision of a certified pest control operator in the specialty of general household pest control, other than James D. Cooley. The results of the examination which James D. Cooley completed in the general household pest control specialty, should stand until he is otherwise qualified or the requirements for certification have changed prior to his obtaining further qualification in the terms of his good character and good reputation for fair dealings. This conclusion is reached upon a reading of Rule 10D-55.177 (5 FAC) which only prohibits those persons from being examined who have been suspended, revoked or on probation. James D. Cooley was not in one of those categories prior to taking the examination which he passed and was notified of the passing grade in September, 1977.
Recommendation Pursuant to the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a business license for James D. Cooley, d/b/a Murder, Inc., only be issued if some person other than James D. Cooley will be serving in the capacity of a certified pest control operator in the category of general household pest control, which is the desired license specialty. That no identification card be issued to James D. Cooley as an employee of James D. Cooley, d/b/a Murder, Inc., in view of the fact that the license is not being issued to that organization and no employee shall receive an identification card without being employed by a licensed pest control business and under the authority of a certified operator. This position of the recommendation shall be in effect until and unless a separate certified operator is employed, which would allow the license to be given to James D. Cooley, d/b/a Murder, Inc. That James D. Cooley's application to be a certified operator in the category of general household pest control be denied, because he has been shown to' be lacking in good character and good reputation for fair dealings. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Robert M. Eisenberg, Esquire Department of HRS 5920 Arlington Expressway Jacksonville, Florida Paul M. Harden, Esquire 2601 Gulf Life Tower Jacksonville, Florida 32207 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations set forth in the Administrative Complaint, as amended and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the operation of the pest control industry pursuant to Section 482.032, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this case, Clinton Killingsworth was the owner and Certified Operator in Charge (COIC) of Environmental Security of Okaloosa, Inc., a licensed pest control company in Cantonment, Florida. Counts 4 and 6 2. Counts 4 and 6 of the Administrative Complaint allege as follows: Count 4 During an inspection on July 11, 2003, the Department found that Environmental Security of Okaloosa operated an unlicensed business location at 9100 Hamman Avenue, Pensacola, at which sales solicitations were made and remuneration received. This is a violation of Chapters 482.071(1) and (2), Florida Statutes. Count 6 During an inspection on July 11, 2003 the Department found that Environmental Security of Okaloosa phone numbers terminated in an unlicensed location as 9100 Hamman Avenue. This is a violation of Chapter 5E-14.142(3)(b). Environmental Security of Okaloosa, Inc., d/b/a Environmental Security, is physically located at 4141 Pine Forest Road in Cantonment, Florida, and is listed at this address on its application for business license filed with the Department. Cantonment is located in Escambia County near Pensacola, Florida. Two other pest control companies, Killingsworth Environmental, Inc., and Atlas Termite and Pest Control of Cantonment, Inc., are located at the same address. On July 11, 2003, the Department conducted an inspection of a company called Home Services Marketing and Management, LLC, (hereinafter Home Services) which is located at 9100 Hamman Avenue in Pensacola. Clifford Killingsworth and Clinton Killingsworth2/ are the managers of Home Services. On March 26, 2002, entered into a Management and Marketing Agreement with Home Services, executed by Clinton Killingsworth on behalf of Environmental Security of Okaloosa and by Clifford Killingsworth on behalf of Home Services. Since that agreement was signed, the telephone number for Environmental Security of Okaloosa listed in the local telephone directory terminated at Home Services. Home Services also answers calls for Killingsworth Environmental, Inc. and Atlas Exterminating. Home Services employees do not make "cold calls" to new customers. They receive calls from existing customers. They contact customers with active accounts to set up renewals. They also contact homeowners whose homes were treated during construction and whose initial accounts were with the builder of the home. If a new customer calls, a Home Services employee answers the call, gets the contact information from the potential new client, and then calls the appropriate technician who would then call or visit the potential customer. The appropriate technician is generally determined by the geographic location of the caller. While a Home Services employee might send a preprinted contract to the technician to take to the job site or mail a contract to a customer, Home Services does not enter into any contract to perform pest control services. No pest control trucks or chemicals are stored at Home Services. Home Services also has a payment processing component. Home Services sends bills to pest control customers which instruct customers to make out the check to the appropriate pest control company, not to Home Services. Payments from customers for pest control services are deposited into the account of the appropriate pest control company. No evidence was presented that 9100 Hamman Avenue is an advertised permanent location of Environmental Security of Okaloosa from which business was solicited, accepted, or conducted. After the July 11, 2003, inspection of Home Services, Clinton Killingsworth took steps to get Home Services licensed as a pest control company. Mr. Killingsworth did this because it was his understanding that the Department took the position that Home Services was in the business of practicing pest control services. He employed his brother, Daniel Killingsworth, to be the required licensed person in charge, and contacted several insurance companies to obtain the required insurance. He had difficulty obtaining the required insurance since Home Services does not offer pest control services. Despite these difficulties, Home Services was issued a license in December 2003. Count 5 Count 5 of the Administrative Complaint, as amended, reads as follows: During an inspection on July 16, 2003, the Department found that Environmental Security of Okaloosa, Incorporated stored pesticides at an unlicensed business location at 1830 Galvez Road, Gulf Breeze, Florida, which is a violation of Chapter 5E-14.142(5)(f) and (g), Florida Administrative Code. That in addition, the Respondent, Environmental Security of Okaloosa, Inc., regularly parked trucks containing pesticide at that location during nighttime hours, published in the 2002-2003 Bell South Telephone Directory under Pest Control Services in the yellow pages of the telephone directory, a listing for "Environmental Security", a name under which it did business, and its employees received by facsimile daily work assignments that were sent to them at that location. That the Respondent, Environmental Security of Okaloosa, Inc operated an unlicensed business location at 1830 Galvez Road, Gulf Breeze, Florida, in violation of Section 482.071(2)(a), Florida Statutes.[3/] The property located at 1830 Galvez Drive is surrounded by a fence and contains a structure. The structure is not enclosed. Both Environmental Security of Okaloosa and Killingsworth Environmental park trucks there overnight. They entered the property when the pest control employees arrived. The Department conducted an inspection of 1830 Galvez Drive on July 16, 2003. The gate to the property was locked and the trucks were locked. On the day of the inspection, the Department's inspectors found unmixed chemicals in the trucks. Clinton Killingsworth acknowledges that at the time of the inspection, company trucks parked at the Galvez Drive location overnight and pesticides were in the locked trucks. Company records or contracts are not stored at the Galvez Drive location. No customer contact takes place at or from the Galvez Drive location. The Pest Control Business License Application Form contains a space in which the licensee must respond to the following: "Designate location where pest control records and contracts will be kept and the exact location address for storage of chemicals if other than licenses business location." The applications for business license for Environmental Security of Okaloosa do not reference 1830 Galvez Road as a location where storage of chemicals occurs. Environmental Security of Okaloosa does not have a license for operating a business at this location. The yellow pages for the Pensacola area contains a listing in red ink for "Environmental Security, Inc." It lists an address of 4141 Pine Forest Road with the telephone number 473-1060. There is another reference to "Environmental Security" in black ink in smaller type which lists the address 1830 Galvez Drive with the number 916-7731.4/ Clinton Killingsworth brother, Clifford Killingsworth, arranged to have a phone line for a fax machine to be located in a trailer at the Galvez Drive location. The purpose of installing a fax line at Galvez Drive was for employees to receive daily schedule assignments. The 916-7731 number listed in the yellow pages is the number of the fax machine. Clinton Killingsworth did not request a listing for the number of the fax machine. However, the telephone company listed it in the phone book. Clinton Killingsworth has requested the local telephone company to remove the erroneous listing a number of times.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered assessing a fine against Respondent Environmental Security of Okaloosa, Inc., in the amount of $2,600.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of May, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of May, 2005.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, James Bartley, violated Section 482.091(1), Florida Statutes (2007), as alleged in Petitioner’s Amended Administrative Complaint issued by Petitioner, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, on October 31, 2007, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against his Florida pest control certified operator’s license.
Findings Of Fact Rudy L. Benvin was employed as a pest control employee by Diligent Environmental Services, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “DESI”), on February 15, 2007. While DESI was the “licensee” for which Mr. Benvin was employed, the evidence failed to prove who the certified operator in charge (hereinafter referred to as the “Certified Operator”) was upon Mr. Benvin’s employment. Clearly, Mr. Bartley was not the Certified Operator when Mr. Benvin was employed or during the 30-day period thereafter. DESI failed to apply for a pest control identification card for Mr. Benvin upon his employment, during the 30 days after his employment, or at any time that Mr. Benvin was employed by DESI. Respondent, James Bartley, became the Certified Operator of DESI on April 12, 2007. Mr. Bartley was employed as the DESI Certified Operator until May 24, 2007. Mr. Benvin was still in the employee of DESI on April 12, 2007, and continued as an employee of DESI during the period that Mr. Bartley served as the DESI Certified Operator. Because Mr. Benvin was already “employed” by DESI at the time Mr. Bartley became Certified Operator and had been continuously so employed since February 15, 2007, Mr. Bartley could not have, simply by becoming the DESI Certified Operator, “employed” Mr. Benvin. On or about August 14, 2007, an application for an identification card was filed by Mr. Bartley with Petitioner, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (hereinafter referred to as the “Department”). The name of the employing company reported on the application by Mr. Bartley was incorrect. Mr. Benvin continued his employment with DESI until sometime during the week of September 9, 2007. In settlement of DOAH Case No. 07-5417, DESI agreed that it had violated Section 482.091(1), Florida Statutes, by failing to apply for a pest control identification card for Mr. Benvin “within 30 days after employment of [Mr. Benvin] ”
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint against James Bartley. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LARRY J. SARTIN 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 8th day of February, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Howard J. Hochman, Esquire Law Offices of Howard J. Hochman 7695 Southwest 104th Street, Suite 210 Miami, Florida 33156 David W. Young, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Suite 520 407 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Suite 520 407 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Honorable Charles H. Bronson Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
