The Issue The issue involved herein is whether or not the Respondent 2/ is guilty of violations set forth hereinafter in detail as stated in the Second Amended Notice to Show Cause filed by Petitioner herein. If so, the secondary issue is what penalty, if any, should be assessed for such violations. Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant:
Findings Of Fact Robert C. Beiter, Sr. is the trustee and legal owner of the subject premises. On July 24, 1981, Petitioner, through its sanitarian, Richard Bragg, made an inspection of the subject premises situated at 610 Northwest Seventh Avenue, Pompano Beach, Florida. The premises is a public lodging establishment and is licensed by the Division of Hotels and Restaurants under license no. 16- 345 OH. During the inspection by Mr. Bragg, the following was observed: Fire extinguishers were overdue for service as indicated by the pressure gauges thereon or by the lack of service tags. Additionally, fire extinguishers were not kept or maintained on each floor at minimum distances of 75 feet apart. The general condition of the building revealed that paint was peeling from the walls, windows and doors were broken, the roof was leaking and there were missing window screens. The premises needed extermination for reaches and rodents. Public lighting in the stairways and walkways were not properly maintained in that the light fixtures were either not working or bulbs were missing. Covers were missing from various electrical outlets. Outside garbage dumpsters were not of sufficient size and placement for the 62 units in the premises, all of which had kitchen and cooking facilities. (See Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1) Inspector Bragg made a second inspection of the subject premises in early September, 1981, and found no compliance with the previous inspections as cited in the July 24, 1981 report. A third visit was made by Mr. Bragg on October 28, 1981, and he found the premises in the same condition with the exception that the public lighting in the stairways was operable and found to be in compliance. Subsequent visits were made by Mr. Bragg on November 17, 1981, and approximately one year later on December 13, 1982, at which time he found the same conditions existed as his original inspection on July 24, 1981, with the exception that some painting had been done. (Petitioner's Exhibits 2, 3, 4 and 5). Respondent's Position Respondent submitted extensive documentary evidence to the effect that substantial monies had been expended to repair or otherwise maintain the subject premises. Most of the documents submitted were for bills subsequent to the Petitioner's initial inspection on July 24, 1981. An observation of the hills submitted indicate that repairs were made to windows, screens, plumbing and roofing. Harry A. Wright served as the office manager charged with the management of the subject property during 1981. Fire extinguishers on the subject premises are routinely inspected and replaced on an annual basis. Mr. Wright concedes that there are leaks in several of the units on the premises. However, a number of problems relating to the plumbing on the premises are caused by the high water pressure which forces leaks in the apartments. Tenants relay their problems to the management by a telephone call to the management company. The dumpsters on the premises are emptied twice per week. The Respondent uses a maintenance crew to place heavy items in the dumpster on the premises. Respondent acknowledges and admits to a problem with the outside lighting, citing as cause, tenants breaking the bulbs or pilferage of lighting fixtures for their apartments. Respondent has made efforts to correct the most pressing problems initially, and efforts are ongoing to correct the remaining problems. (Testimony of Harry A. Wright).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be assessed a civil penalty of $100 each for the six conditions found herein to be violations of the rules of the Division of Hotels and Restaurants. The total of these fines, $600, shall be paid within thirty (30) days of the date of the Petitioner's Final Order with funds made payable to the Treasurer of the State of Florida for credit to the Hotel and Restaurant Trust Fund. It is further RECOMMENDED that if said fine is not paid within such period, the Division of Hotels and Restaurants' license No. 16-34 SOB for the Pinewood International Apartments located at 610 Northeast Seventh Avenue, Pompano Beach, Florida, be suspended for twelve (12) months, or until reinstated for good cause shown by the Division of Hotels and Restaurants. 3/ RECOMMENDED this 14th day of July, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of July, 1983.
Findings Of Fact Twenty-five feet high, 20 feet west of the right of way of State Road 79, about a half mile north of Interstate 10 in Holmes County, stands a sign advertising Simbo's Restaurant and Truck Stop. Because the sign is on the premises of the business it advertises, no sign permit is required. Since March 23, 1985, when the present owner acquired the property, it has spent substantial sums to operate the sign, which was originally erected some 15 years ago. It would cost about $100.00 to modify the sign so that all lights remained on the whole time the sign was lighted. Only when a DOT quality assurance team from Tallahassee raised the question did the present proceedings arise. As a result of the team's visit to northwest Florida, some 200 notices of violations went out to owners of "flashing" signs. On either side of the top (and largest) of five panels, neon script proclaims "Simbo's" in large letters rising diagonally from left to right. In smaller letters "STEAK" appears above and "SEA FOOD" below the name. While the sign is on, "Simbo's" remains lit, but "STEAK" and "SEA FOOD" are illuminated only intermittently. First "STEAK" but not "SEA FOOD" shines for two seconds, then "SEA FOOD" but not "STEAK" is on for two seconds, then both are lit for two seconds, then neither. Both are off for no more than two seconds. While this sequence repeats, blue bulbs bordering the top panel go on and off at intervals of unspecified duration. Milford C. Truett, DOT's acting outdoor advertising supervisor with responsibility for Holmes County, testified that a light is "flashing" if it is on or off for less than five seconds.
Recommendation It is, accordingly recommended that DOT dismiss the violation notice. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of July, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Ben G. Watts, Secretary Attn: Eleanor F. Turner, MS #58 Dept. of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Dept. of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Attorney Dept. of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS #58 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0458 Frank G. Young Simbo's Restaurant & Truck Stop Bonifay, FL 32425
Findings Of Fact Prior to the acquisition of highway right-of-way for Interstate Highway 275, the Appellant operated a barbecue business on the 800 block of 22nd Street South in St. Petersburg, Florida. Appellant rented the premises on an annual lease basis. The rent included the building and the name of the business. It was a very good location for the barbecue business. A barbecue pit had been constructed on the premises. It was constructed of brick and stone, and was part of the building. The barbecue pit was included in the Appellant's lease of the premises. The Appellant's business was known as Geech's Barbecue. Appellant's rent was $200 per month. Geech's Barbecue was located within the right-of-way for a federal aid highway project, specifically Interstate Highway 275. The Respondent acquired the premises for the highway right-of-way. The Respondent gave the Appellant notice that he would have to vacate the premises. Appellant located a facility diagonally across the street. He arranged a seven-year lease, with an option to renew at a monthly rental of $150. The new premises did not include a barbecue pit. Appellant requested that the owner construct a barbecue pit, but the request was denied. In order to engage in the barbecue business at the new location, it was necessary for the Appellant to construct a new barbecue pit. The total cost of the pit was $4,350 of which $2,750 was for labor. It would not have been possible for the Appellant to engage in the barbecue business at the new location without constructing a barbecue pit. The method of construction of the barbecue pit was largely governed by provisions of local building codes. Appellant duly requested relocation assistance benefits. Among the requested benefits was the labor cost for the new barbecue pit. The Respondent paid the Appellant all relocation assistance benefits that he requested, except that the Respondent refused to compensate the Appellant for any expenses relating to the construction of the new barbecue pit. The owner of the old premises was compensated for the loss of the property and building. In appraising the former owner's property, due regard was given to the value of the barbecue pit that was located on the premises. The former owner was fully compensated for loss of the premises including the barbecue pit. The barbecue pit at the old facility was attached to the premises and was real property. Appellant's new barbecue pit is also real property. The Respondent's right-of-way agent who contacted the Appellant respecting the necessity for the Appellant to move and respecting potential relocation assistance benefits, advised the Appellant that he would be reimbursed for the labor cost of constructing a new barbecue pit, but not for materials. This advice is not consistent with the position that the Respondent is now taking, and is not consistent with the advice that the Respondent contends Appellant should have received. The erroneous advice resulted either from erroneous instructions given to the right-of-way agent by his supervisor, or from an erroneous interpretation of the instructions.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a gasoline distributor that provided the gasoline in question to the South Bay Arrow Service Station in South Bay, Florida, which is operated by an independent contractor. On October 10, 1979, a petroleum inspector, Fen Frederick, took a gasoline sample for analysis of unleaded gasoline from the South Bay Arrow Service Station at South Bay, Florida. This sample was tested by the state gasoline laboratory at Port Everglades in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and on October 11, 1979, the laboratory notified Mr. Frederick that the unleaded gasoline did not meet state standards, in that it contained 2.24 grams of lead per gallon, which is in excess of .05 grams per gallon allowable under the respondent department's rule. On the basis of this information, Mr. Frederick went to the South Bay Arrow Service Station and placed a stop-sale notice on the tank that dispensed the unleaded gasoline. The tank in question at the time had a remaining 2,400 gallons of gasoline. Since the independent owners of South Bay Arrow Service Station could not post a cash bond for the release of the stop-sale, Petitioner, Carl McKinney, agreed to post a bond of $1,000.00 for the release of the stop-sale of the impounded gasoline. The gasoline which Petitioner sold to the service station met state standards at the time of delivery and Petitioner has no direct knowledge of how the gasoline came to be substandard. Petitioner has not challenged the authority of the Department to utilize cash bonds in lieu of confiscation and sale of substandard gas.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department deny Petitioner's request for the return of the $1,000.00 bond posted in lieu of confiscation of substandard unleaded gasoline. DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of May, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Robert A. Chastain, Esquire General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Room 513, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Carl McKinney C & K Oil Company, Inc. U.S. 27 and Second Street Post Office box 1086 Moore Haven, Florida 33471 Mr. John Whitton Division of Standards Bureau of Petroleum Inspection Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent should be assessed the cost of a clean-up of contaminant which resulted from a motor vehicle accident in which he was involved on June 16, 1997, on State Road 64.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Ray W. Crawley, is a professional truck driver. On June 16, 1997, he owned a 1990 Mack tractor and an open dump trailer. At approximately 12:15 a.m., on June 16, 1997, Respondent was driving his rig east toward Lake Wales on State Road 64. He chose that road because, having driven it frequently, he knew it to experience normally low traffic and to be a high quality highway. On numerous occasions he had seen both cattle and deer on the highway, and it is a generally accepted fact that the wildlife have the right-of-way. Mr. Crawley had just passed through Zolfo Springs when, in his lights, he saw a cow on the roadside off in the distance. Before he could take any action to slow down, another cow ran onto the road from the south and into his truck. Later examination of the vehicle revealed that this caused the axle pin to shear. As a result, Mr. Crawley, who was driving between 55 and 60 miles per hour in a 60 mile per hour speed zone, lost control of his vehicle. It veered off the road to the right, struck a power pole, demolished a mailbox, went through a fence, and ended up on its side on the south side of the highway in a pasture owned by Ms. Carrie Graham. Mr. Crawley was pinned inside the cab of the truck for a while, but suffered only a cut on his head and pulled muscles. He either was able to extricate himself from the wreck or was freed by emergency medical technicians who arrived at the scene shortly after the incident, and who insisted he be taken to the hospital for observation. Mr. Crawley was not cited for speeding or for any other violation as a result of this accident. As a result of the overturning, Respondent’s truck leaked diesel fuel and hydraulic oil from the tractor onto the ground, and this material had to be removed from the site. Approximately 80 gallons of diesel fuel and 40 gallons of hydraulic oil were spilled. The Department contacted Ms. Graham’s brother, Mr. Ken Willis, and Mr. Crawley to inform them that the spill had to be cleaned up. Mr. Willis declined to do so because the cow which caused the accident did not belong to him or Ms. Graham, and he did not think liability for the cleanup was their responsibility. Mr. Crawley also declined responsibility for the cleanup. He claimed the accident was not his fault, and that because of the injuries he sustained, he was incapable of overseeing a contractor hired to effect the cleanup. Mr. Crawley’s tractor and the trailer were both totally destroyed as a result of this accident. His insurance paid him $20,000 for the tractor and $16,000 for the trailer. However, his insurance company declined to cover the cost of the cleanup, asserting a lack of fault on his part. Because Respondent did not agree to clean up the spill, the Department hired a contractor to remove the diesel fuel and hydraulic oil on June 20, 1997. The cost of the cleanup was $3,333.95, which was paid from the Water Quality Assurance Trust Fund. Respondent does not deny that a cleanup was required; that the Department paid to have the cleanup done by a contractor; that the cost of the cleanup was as stated; or that the cost was reasonable and proper. The cow which ran into the side of Mr. Crawley’s truck and prompted the accident was not owned by him. Though it is impossible to tell at this time, it would appear that this cow was with several (approximately 15) cows which were owned by Mr. John Eason, a citrus grower and rancher who runs cattle both on his home property and on pasture which he leases from someone else. The pasture he leases runs along State Road 64, and is totally fenced. There are two gates on the side which abuts the highway, and another gate which permits access to the pasture from the barn. There is also a small gate which permits access from the outside to the yard behind the owner’s property, from which access to the pasture may be gained through the barn. Mr. Eason relates he was called to the accident scene the evening in question and was told his cattle had escaped from the pasture. By the time he arrived, most of the cattle had been rounded up and were being put back into the pasture. He was also advised that it appeared the cattle had escaped through the second gate further down the road from the accident site. Since the cows could not have opened the gate, it is clear that the gate was left open by someone who used it earlier. After helping with the round-up of the remaining escapees, Mr. Eason got them back into the pasture and the gates were all closed. Once that was done, Mr. Eason made an examination of the dead animal and determined that it was a heifer. Mr. Eason claims not to have owned any heifers. If his claim is accepted as true, the dead animal was not his. He did not claim the carcass at the time, and the animal was hauled away by the driver of the wrecker which came to the scene. None of the animals owned by Mr. Eason bear his brand. Most are not branded at all, and those which are branded bear the brand of a prior owner from whom Eason purchased the animal. Taken together, the evidence presented at the hearing fails to show any negligence in this accident on the part of Mr. Crawley. The ownership of the cow in question cannot be determined with any degree of certainty, but it is likely the animal was owned by Mr. Eason. No evidence was presented to indicate who was responsible for leaving open the pasture gate through which the cow was given access to the highway. It does not appear that any identifiable party was negligent in this matter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a Final Order holding Respondent responsible for clean-up costs in the amount of $3,333.95 arising out of the spill in which he was involved on June 16, 1997. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _ ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Kisha R. Pruitt, Esquire Thomas M. Beason, Esquire Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Paul S. Reed, Esquire Leonard A. McCue and Associates, P.A. 524 Ninth Street West Bradenton, Florida 34205-7737 Virginia B. Wetherell, Secretary Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 F. Perry Odom, General Counsel Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kathy Carter, Agency Clerk Department of Environmental Protection 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue Whether the Respondent, a licensed general contractor, committed the offenses alleged in the three administrative complaints and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of contracting pursuant to Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent has been licensed as a general contractor by the Petitioner. Respondent was issued license number CG C010162 in 1975 and has held that licensure ever since. The first complaint against Respondent’s licensure, like the three complaints at issue in this proceeding, arose from a post-Hurricane Andrew contract. That complaint was resolved by stipulation of the parties. Respondent did not admit to wrongdoing in his stipulation. Respondent was financially unable to comply with the terms of the settlement. Consequently, his license was suspended at the time of the formal hearing. There was no explanation as to why this complaint, which occurred at approximately the same time as the three contracts at issue in this proceeding, was prosecuted separately. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was the qualifier for Allstate Construction Management, Inc. (Allstate), a Florida corporation. THE RODRIGUEZ CONTRACT (DOAH CASE 96-4580) On March 17, 1993, Allstate entered into a contract with Anthony Rodriguez to build a garage at 15525 SW 209th Avenue, Miami, Florida. The contract price was $16,250.00, which included “plans, permit and cleanup.” Allstate was paid the sum of $4,062.50 on March 17, 1993. Allstate obtained the Dade County building permit for the project on March 26, 1993. Allstate was paid the sum of $5,593.75 on April 5, 1993, after the concrete blocks were installed. On April 8, 1993, Allstate requested a tie beam/reinforcing inspection from the Dade County building department. In response to that request, Antonio Varona inspected the project on April 12, 1993. The inspector noted that the project was not ready for inspection because no truss plans were available. Respondent testified, credibly, that he had to construct the roof conventionally because of the difficulty in obtaining pre-fabricated trusses; however, that testimony does not explain why there were no truss plans available for inspection. Appropriately engineered truss plans are required for a roof to pass inspection. Despite the failure of the project to pass inspection, Mr. Rodriguez accepted the roof and paid Allstate $4,968.75 on May 21, 1993. As of May 21, 1993, there remained a final payment of $1,625 on the contract. After May 21, 1993, Respondent and Allstate left the Rodriguez job. There was a dispute in the evidence as to whether Mr. Rodriguez fired Allstate or whether Allstate abandoned the project. This dispute is resolved by finding that the evidence was insufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Allstate abandoned the Rodriguez project. When Allstate left the Rodriguez job, there were sufficient funds remaining unpaid to complete the project. Because he had obtained the initial building permit, it was incumbent upon Respondent to either obtain a final inspection of the project or notify the building department that his company had been terminated by the owner. Respondent did neither. THE ELLIS CONTRACT (DOAH CASE 96-4581) At the times pertinent to this proceeding, William R. Ellis owned the Arleen House, which is an apartment building located at 2191 N.E. 168th Street, North Miami Beach, Florida. This building suffered damages from Hurricane Andrew. On September 11, 1992, Respondent and Mr. Ellis inspected the building and Respondent prepared an estimate as to the items that had been damaged by the hurricane and other non-hurricane related repairs that should be made. The mansard roof for this building had been damaged by Hurricane Andrew to the extent that it contained gaping holes. Shortly after that inspection, Mr. Ellis met with his insurance adjuster who gave him a check in the amount of $13,000 to repair the roof. It was necessary to dry in the roof and repair the mansard as soon as possible to avoid additional damage to the building from rains. While there was a dispute as to the extent of the services Allstate was to provide Mr. Ellis, the record is clear that Respondent, on behalf of Allstate, agreed to undertake the roof repair for the sum of $13,000. Respondent told Mr. Ellis that his company had a roofing crew ready to begin work on the roof repairs as soon as Mr. Ellis paid the sum of $13,000. Between September 11 and September 15, 1992, Mr. Ellis gave Allstate a check in the amount of $13,000 with the understanding that the check he had received from the insurance company had to clear before his bank would honor the check he was giving to Allstate. Immediately thereafter1 Allstate sent a roofing crew to the project for the purpose of temporarily covering exposed areas. Despite having been told by Mr. Ellis that the check he was giving Allstate would not be good until after the check for the insurance proceeds had cleared, Allstate did not wait to deposit Mr. Ellis’ check. Respondent was promptly notified that the check Mr. Ellis had given him would not be honored by Mr. Ellis’ bank. Respondent immediately thereafter withdrew the roofing crew from the project. The roofing crew had made only minor repairs at the time they were withdrawn from the project. Respondent knew, or should have known, that the building was vulnerable to further damage from rain. On September 15, 1992, Mr. Ellis gave Respondent a second check in the amount of $13,000. This check cleared the banking process on September 18, 1992. Mr. Ellis made repeated efforts to have Allstate send a crew to repair the roof. After it withdrew the crew that had been sent to the property when Allstate received the first check, Allstate did not take action to protect the property by repairing the exposed areas of the roof. Towards the end of September 1992, a heavy rainstorm caused additional damages to Mr. Ellis’ building. Allstate did not send a crew to the project again until October 6, 1992. Mr. Ellis hired this crew away from Allstate. He testified he did so because the crew complained about Allstate not paying for the materials they were using to repair the roof and because the workmen were threatening to file liens against the property. Mr. Ellis paid this crew the sum of $3,400 to temporarily repair the roof. He then entered into a contract with another contractor to complete the roofing repairs for the sum of $17,500. Mr. Ellis demanded the return of the $13,000 he paid to Allstate, but, as of the time of the formal hearing, he had not been repaid. THE KUCHENBACKER CONTRACT (DOAH CASE 96-4582) On November 6, 1992, Allstate entered into a contract with Carl F. Kuchenbacker to repair his residence at 18500 SW 88th Road, Miami, Florida. Mr. Kuchenbacker’s residence had been damaged by Hurricane Andrew. The initial contract price was $33,375.00. Respondent secured the building permit and Allstate began work on the project. During the course of the work, additional work was added to the contract, which raised the total contract price to $38,015.00. In late February or early March, 1993, Allstate abandoned the project without just cause and without notice to the owner. At the time it abandoned the project, Allstate had been paid the sum of $26,620.00. Allstate failed to pay all of the subcontractors and materialmen who had performed work or provided material for the Kuchenbacker job. As a result of that failure, valid liens were recorded against Mr. Kuchenbacker’s property. The following liens were recorded: Rite-Way Plumbing and Plastery, Inc. in the amount of $3,520.00; Commercial Lighting and Maintenance, Inc., in the amount of $1,835.00; and Scott Bornstein Plumbing, Inc., in the amount of $798.00. Allstate had received sufficient funds from the owner to pay these liens, but neither Respondent nor Allstate paid these liens. Mr. Kuchenbacker and Petitioner’s expert witness testified that the value of the work performed by Allstate before it abandoned the job was $21,000.00. Mr. Kuchenbacker also testified as to the items that remained undone and as to the percentage of the work that had been completed. From that testimony and from the testimony as to the estimated costs of completing the job, it is found that the sum of $11,395.00, which was the difference between the total contract price and the total amount that was paid to Allstate, was sufficient to complete the project and pay off the liens on the property. Respondent did not call for a final inspection of the property and he did not advise the Dade County Building Department that he was abandoning the project. Allstate abandoned the Kuchenbacker project because it went out of business.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that that Petitioner enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein. It is further recommended that Petitioner impose fines totaling $5,000 against Respondent’s licensure as follows: For the violation established by Count I of DOAH Case 96-4580, an administrative fine in the amount of $500. For the violation established by Count II of DOAH Case 96-4580, an administrative fine in the amount of $500. For the violation established by Count IV of DOAH Case 96-4580, an administrative fine in the amount of $250. For the violation established by DOAH Case 96-4581, an administrative fine in the amount of $500. For the violation established by Count I of DOAH Case 96-4582, an administrative fine in the amount of $750. For the violation established by Count II of DOAH Case 96-4582, an administrative fine in the amount of $2,000. For the violation established by Count III of DOAH Case 96-4582, an administrative fine in the amount of $500. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED THAT in addition to the fines recommended for the violations found in DOAH Case 96-4581, Respondent’s licensure be suspended for two years. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED THAT in addition to the fines recommended for the violations found DOAH Case 96-4582, Respondent’s licensure be suspended for two years, to run concurrently with the suspension recommended for DOAH Case 96- 4581. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of May, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Hearings Hearings CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 23rd day of May, 1997
