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.
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.
Findings Of Fact At all material times, Respondent has been the certified operator in charge of the pest control activities at American Pest Control, Inc. On September 11, 1989, Respondent conducted an inspection for wood- destroying organisms incidental to the purchase of a residence located at 2 Wisteria Drive, Ormond Beach, by Mr. Orren Nye. The residential lot contains two structures: the primary residence and a detached garage. Respondent detected no problems in the house. However, in the garage, Respondent discovered that work had recently been done on the roof. He observed sawdust on the floor in the northwest corner of the garage. On closer examination, Respondent found that a portion of some of the roof rafters had been cut off and new rafters scabbed together with the old. Respondent noticed that some dry rot remained in the old wood at the joint with the new wood. Because the area was not moist and he did not see how further repairs could be undertaken, Respondent decided not to mention the dry rot in his inspection report. Dry rot is a condition caused by the work of fungi, which are wood- decaying organisms. The fungi are active when the wood is wet. After the fungi are no longer active, they typically leave the wood in a dry, weakened condition. It is from this condition that the term, dry rot, is derived. There was no evidence of active fungi in the visible and accessible portions of the garage, which were dry at the time of Respondent's inspection. There was no evidence of any active termite infestation visible and accessible in the garage. The presence of sawdust was did not conclusively indicate the presence of termites in view of such other factors as the absence of any termite pellets. Following his inspection, Respondent prepared a standard wood- destroying organisms inspection report on a form prepared by Petitioner. The report identifies Mr. Nye's residence. The report lists only the "residence" as the "specific structure inspected." However, under "structures on property NOT inspected," the report states, "none." The inspection report describes the scope of the inspection for wood- destroying organisms as including termitesand wood-decaying fungi. The report is expressly limited to "what was visible and accessible at the time of the inspection." The material findings of the report indicate no visible evidence of wood-destroying organisms observed, no live wood-destroying organisms observed, no "visible damage observed," and no "visible evidence of previous treatment . . . observed." On September 20, 1990, Petitioner's entomological investigator visited the Nye residence in response to a complaint received from Mr. Nye. The investigator found active wood-decaying fungi in the areas of the garaged previously inspected by Respondent, including those areas where Respondent had seen dry rot where new and old wood had been joined. The investigator also found considerable evidence of an active termite infestation. The primary problem noted by Petitioner's investigator was the wood- decaying fungi. The evidence was not clear and convincing that any evidence of termite infestation was visible and accessible when Respondent conducted his inspection about one year earlier. The evidence is stronger that any evidence of wood-decaying fungi was visible and accessible at the time of Respondent's inspection. However, in the intervening year, the garage roof had been leaking for at least five months. On balance, Petitioner has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent overlooked visible and accessible evidence of active wood-decaying fungi. However, by Respondent's own admission, he saw visible damage that he failed to report. The dry rot remaining after the roof repairs clearly constituted damage from the work of wood-destroying organisms, which Respondent was required to report regardless of the absence of evidence of the presence of any active fungi or Respondent's estimation of the lack of need of further repairs. It is impossible to dismiss this omission as immaterial in view of the later problems that arose in the same area of the garage roof. This failure constitutes negligence in the performance of pest control and a deviation from good industry practice and standards in connection with inspections. Petitioner seeks to impose an administrative fine of $500 for the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $500. ENTERED this 5th day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 5th day of April, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Treatment Accorded Proposed Findings of Petitioner 1: adopted except for second-to-last sentence, which is rejected as unsupported by clear and convincing evidence. 2: adopted. 3: rejected as hearsay, subordinate, and recitation of evidence. 4: adopted. 5: rejected as subordinate and recitation of evidence except that last sentence is adopted. 6: adopted only as to damage from wood-decaying fungi, not as to the presence of active wood-decaying fungi. 7-8: rejected as recitation of evidence. 9: rejected as unsupported by clear and convincing evidence. Respondent testified to the presence of dry rot. The fungi are active when the area is wet. Because the area was dry, the condition that Respondent observed and failed to report was damage, not active infestation of fungi. 10: rejected as evidence excluded at the hearing. Treatment Accorded Respondent's Proposed Findings 1: adopted except that the inspection report deviated from his observations and the requirements of law as to the indication that Respondent observed no visible damage from wood-destroying organisms. 2: adopted. 3: rejected as subordinate. 4: first sentence adopted. Remainder rejected as subordinate and recitation of evidence except for last sentence. The last sentence is rejected because Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence--namely the testimony of Respondent--that he detected dry rot during his inspection and did not report it. Dry rot is damage from a wood-destroying organism. The damage was visible and accessible because Respondent admitted that he saw it. 5-6: rejected as subordinate and irrelevant. 7-8: rejected because Petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence that the damage from fungi was seen by Respondent during his investigation. COPIES FURNISHED: Ana Sonia Nieves Environmental Health Attorney Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 400 W. Robinson St., Suite S-827 Orlando, FL 32801 Donald A. Myers, Jr. Lowndes, Drosdick, et al. P.O. Box 2809 Orlando, FL 32802-2809 Linda K. Harris Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
The Issue Did Respondent violate Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, through fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme, or device, culpable negligence, or breach of trust in a business transaction?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is responsible for the licensing and regulation of persons who practice real estate in Florida. Authority for the licensure and regulation is set forth in Chapters 20, 120, 455, and 475, Florida Statutes, and associated provisions of the Florida Administrative Code. Respondent has been licensed as a Florida real estate broker at all times relevant to the inquiry. Respondent holds license no. 0237202 as broker for Shad and Shad Realty, Inc., located at 9955 Lem Turner Road, Jacksonville, Florida 32208. At all times relevant to this case, Respondent served as a property manager for the Veteran's Administration in relation to property held by that governmental body. The property management function which Respondent performed for the Veteran's Administration was as a management broker. Property at 3128 Plum Street, Jacksonville, Florida, was one of the properties managed by Respondent for the Veteran's Administration. In the interest of selling the property Respondent invoiced the Veteran's Administration and charged a management fee for his services in relation to that parcel to be paid by the Veteran's Administration. Respondent's management involved the correction of problems with the home at that address. Among the fee services provided by Respondent was the arrangement to have the house treated to rid the premises of fleas, the installation of signs, installing a lock, and certain other repairs. In these circumstances, Petitioner would have other persons responsible for performing the work or would perform the work himself. A related responsibility which Respondent performed for the Veteran's Administration in reference to the Plum Street property was to order a wood-destroying organism inspection to be performed by a licensed firm, J. F. Yearty and Sons, Inc., of Jacksonville, Florida, and for that firm to report the results of its findings in writing. That inspection was performed on June 7, 1995, and a report was prepared. The report which Respondent was provided and read, pointed out visible evidence of wood-destroying organisms observed to the extent, "old signs of powder post beetles scattered throughout the substructure." The report referred to live wood-destroying organisms observed as subterranean termites in the wall studs, sills, and bracing of the right side of the home. The report also stated the following: Water rot to the siding and trim scattered around the entire house. Heavy subterranean termites damage to the wall studs, sills, and bracing on the right side. Water stains to the kitchen and bathroom subflooring. Water stains to the flooring on the porch left front corner of the house. Respondent sent the inspection report to the Veteran's Administration. Realizing that the report referred to active termites, Respondent ordered termite treatment for the home. In doing so he understood that there were problems with termites in the wall studs, sills, and bracing. In his experience Respondent further understood that the extent of the damage that had been found at the home could be major. Respondent obtained a termite bond following the treatment. Respondent knew that there was a contract pending for the purchase of the Plum Street property. The buyer was John Harold Bamping. Mr. Bamping was represented by Shirley Jean Irons as a real estate sales agent for Lester W. Jenkins Real Estate, Inc., Lester Jenkins Broker, whose business address is 5147 San Juan Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida 32210. In preparation for the closing on the Plum Street property, Ms. Irons went to Respondent's office, who was acting as the seller's representative for the Veteran's Administration in this context. Ms. Irons obtained a property receipt, the termite bond involving the treatment of the Plum Street property and the keys to the property. The bond constituted evidence that the property had been treated for termites but did not explain the degree of the problem for which treatment was necessary. At the time these items were picked up, Ms. Irons asked Respondent's wife for the termite inspection report related to the property. The wife told Ms. Irons that reports were not given out, only bonds. Ms. Irons told the wife that Ms. Irons needed the termite inspection report. The wife summoned Respondent from another part of the Respondent's office. Respondent then told Ms. Irons that he did not furnish the termite inspection report, properly referred to as wood-destroying organism inspection report. Respondent told Ms. Irons that the bond for termite treatment would be the only item provided to Ms. Irons in relation to the upcoming real estate closing. At hearing, Respondent indicated that his practice is not to provide a copy of the termite inspection report unless it is specifically asked for and then that Respondent does not always give the report to the party requesting the report "because that's VA property. That belongs to the VA." The VA refers to Veteran's Administration. Ms. Irons made John Bamping and Audrey Bamping his wife aware of the fact that Respondent was not providing a copy of the wood-destroying organism inspection report for purposes of the closing. This meant that the only evidence of the circumstances associated with the termite problem remained the termite bond. On July 11, 1995, the transaction closed for purchase of the Plum Street property, utilizing forms prepared by the Veteran's Administration. Ms. Irons and the Bampings attended the closing. Subsequent to the closing the Bampings became aware of the wood-destroying organism damage at the Plum Street house. The problems discovered were not evident when Ms. Bamping first saw the home before it was purchased. After the Bampings discovered the extent of the problem, they obtained a copy of the wood-destroying inspection report from Yearty and Sons which reflected the exact nature of the problems with the dwelling. Attempts were made to try and resolve the issue concerning the damage to the home. Eventually, the Bampings found it necessary to hire an attorney to assist them in addressing the damage to the home caused by the wood-destroying organisms. A suit was filed against the Veteran's Administration and damages were recovered in the amount of $2,000, and the Veteran's Administration was released in full from all claims for the wood-destroying organism damage. The Bampings also authorized their lawyer to file a complaint with Petitioner concerning Respondent's failure to disclose the wood-destroying organism inspection report.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered finding Respondent in violation of Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and imposing a 30-day suspension and a fine of $1,000. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 9th day of April, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Laura McCarthy, Esquire Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation Suite N308 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801-1772 Vernon B. Shad Shad and Shad Realty, Inc. Post Office Box 9750 Jacksonville, Florida 32208 Herbert S. Fecker, Division Director Division of Real Estate Department of Business and Professional Regulation 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802-1900 William Woodyard, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue in this case is whether an application for a pest control employee-identification card filed by Respondent, Larry Kravitsky, with Petitioner, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, should be denied for the reasons stated in Administrative Complaint # A61227, BEPC Case # 09-0850.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Bureau of Entomology and Pest Control (hereinafter referred to as the “Department”), is charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the provisions of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, the “Structural Pest Control Act.” Among other duties, the Department is responsible for issuing pest control employee-identification cards. On or about February 13, 2007, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint and Settlement Agreement, Notice to Cease and Desist, BEPC Case Number 06-1951, Administrative Complaint Number A47018, against Larry Kravitsky (hereinafter referred to as the “Disciplinary Administrative Complaint”). It is alleged in Count 1 of the Disciplinary Administrative Complaint that Mr. Kravitsky committed a violation of Section 482.165(1), Florida Statutes (2006), by “practicing pest control in the State of Florida without a Pest Control Business License . . . .” In Count 2 it is alleged that Mr. Kravitsky violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 5E- 14.106(1) by “[a]pplying a pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its labeling ” On or about February 28, 2007, Mr. Kravitsky disputed the facts upon which the Disciplinary Administrative Complaint is based and requested a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Sections 120.569, and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. On December 4, 2007, the matter was filed by the Department with the Division of Administrative Hearings requesting that an administrative law judge be assigned to conduct the formal hearing requested by Mr. Kravitsky. The matter was designated DOAH Case No. 07-5600PL and was assigned to the undersigned. An evidentiary hearing was held in DOAH Case No. 07- 5600PL on December 18, 2008. On June 2, 2009, a Recommended Order was entered in DOAH Case No. 07-5600PL. The Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and recommendation in that case are hereby incorporated by reference into this Recommended Order. In the Recommended Order Mr. Kravitsky was found to have violated Section 482.165, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 5E- 14.106(6), as alleged in the Disciplinary Administrative Complaint. On July 14, 2009, a Final Order was entered by the Department in the disciplinary Administrative Complaint case. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth in the Recommended Order were adopted “in their entirety” and Mr. Kravitsky was ordered to pay a fine of $4,000.00. On or about January 6, 2009, subsequent to the issuance of Disciplinary Administrative Complaint and prior to the entry of the Recommended Order in DOAH Case No. 07-5600PL, Mr. Kravitsky applied with the Department for a pest control employee-identification card. By Administrative Complaint # A61227, BEPC Case # 09- 0850, the Department notified Mr. Kravitsky that his January 6, 2009, application for a pest control employee-identification card was being denied based upon the following: A copy of an Administrative Complaint and Settlement Agreement against Larry Kravitsky dated February 13, 2007, Administrative Complaint Number A47018, BEPC Case Number 06-1951 is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The factual allegations against Mr. Kravitsky in Exhibit A are incorporated by reference herein. Based on the factual allegations in Exhibit A, Larry Kravitsky practiced pest control on or about June 5, 2006, in the State of Florida without a pest control business license and without an identification card in violation of Section 482.165(1), Florida Statutes. Based on the factual allegations in Exhibit A, Larry Kravitsky applied a pesticide on or about June 5, 2006, in a manner inconsistent with its labeling in violation of Section 5E-14.106(1), Florida Administrative Code. The Department is authorized by Florida Statutes, Section 482.161(1)(a) to deny the application for licensure of an identification cardholder for the violation of any provision of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes or of any rule adopted by the Department pursuant to Chapter 482, Florida Statutes. The alleged violations against Larry Kravitsky set forth in Exhibit A were tried in an administrative hearing on December 8, 2008, before Honorable Larry Sartin Administrative Law Judge in Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) Case Number 07-5600. A Recommended Order has not yet been issued in that case. Mr. Kravitsky disputed the foregoing allegations and requested a formal administrative hearing. His request was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings and designed DOAH Case No. 09-2300.
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 denying the application for a pest control employee-identification card filed by Larry Kravitsky due to his violation of Section 482.165, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 5E-14.106(6), as alleged in the Disciplinary Administrative Complaint and found in DOAH Case No. 07-5600PL. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of August, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 10th day of August, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: David W. Young, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Suite 520 407 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Larry Kravitsky 3300 South Ocean Boulevard, Apartment 917 Highland Beach, Florida 33487 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
The Issue The issue posed herein is whether or not the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services' revocation of Respondent's pest control business license, operator's certificate and employee's identification is warranted based on conduct set forth hereinafter in detail as set forth in the Petitioner's revocation notice dated June 4, 1979. 1/
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, the arguments and briefs of counsel and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Pursuant to Petitioner's Notice of Violation dated June 4, 1979, the administrative proceeding herein commenced on December 6, 1979, on twenty-six of the thirty-nine specific violations alleged to have been committed by Respondent. The specific alleged violations are as set forth below based on a separation by complainant or victim with the alleged date of violation: On February 28, 1977, it is alleged that Respondent and/or its agents, performed pest control services for Ms. Ethel Atkinson and Ms. Loree Atkinson, 1903 East Leonard Street, Pensacola, Florida, and violated the following Administrative Code sections and/or statutes: Treated the Atkinsons' residence with fumigant gas, methyl bromide, without notifying in advance, the Escambia County Health Department, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.110(1), Florida Administrative Code. Failed to perform the fumigation of the Atkinson residence in strict accordance with the registered label directions for methyl bromide, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.111(4), Florida Administrative Code. On March 17, 1977, Respondent failed to perform subterranean termite control treat- ment for the Atkinsons, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.142(1)(b), Florida Administra- tive Code. During July, 1978, Respondent's agents and/or employees, Steven R. Foster and Gerald A. Caudill, inspected the Atkinson residence and told them that the home was infested with powder-post beetles and proposed a treatment when no such infestation existed, and thus no treatment was required, which acts constitute violations of Chapter 10D-55.104(4), Florida Administrative Code. Respondent, during times material, failed to apply for and obtain an I.D. card for Steven R. Foster, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.143(1), (2) and (3), Florida Adminis- trative Code. Respondent performed Phostoxin fumi- gation on residences when Phostoxin is not labeled or registered for residential fumi- gation, in violation of Chapters 10D-55.106(1); 10D-55.111(4) and 10D-55.144(1), Florida Administrative Code. Respondent and/or its agents, during times material but particularly during July, 1978, illegally used Phostoxin for fumigation purposes in a residential structure, in vio- lation of Chapter 10D-55.116(2), Florida Administrative Code. During July, 1978, Respondent per- formed Phostoxin fumigation without notifying the Escambia County Health Department, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.110(1), Florida Administrative Code. During July, 1978, Respondent performed Phostoxin fumigation without the knowledge and personal supervision of its certified registered operator in charge of fumigation for Killingsworth, Inc., Elmer Logan, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.108(1) and (2), Florida Administrative Code. Shumpert/Graham Case On April 22, 1977, Respondent performed services for Robert Shumpert and/or R. A. Graham of 109 Harris Street, Pensacola, Florida, by fumigation of their residence at 109 Harris Street, without informing the Escambia County Health Depart- ment, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.110(1), Florida Administrative Code. On or about April 22, 1977, Respondent fumigated the Shumpert/Graham residence with "Vikane" gas in a manner not in accordance with the label instructions, nor were occupants of the residence properly warned of the hazards, in violation of Chapters 10D-55.106(1); 10D-55.110(3); 10D-55.111(4) and 10D-55.144(1), Florida Adminis- trative Code. On or about April 22, 1977, Respondent used Phostoxin for residential fumigation for the Graham/Shumpert residence, in violation of Chapters 10D-55.106(1); 10D-55.111(4) and 10D-55.144(1), Florida Administrative Code. On or about April 22, 1977, Respondent fumigated the Graham/Shumpert Residence with Phostoxin without informing the occupants of the hazards, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.110(3), Florida Administrative Code. During approximately April 22, 1977, Respondent performed a fumigation with Phostoxin without advance notification to the Escambia County Health Department, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.110(1), Florida Administrative Code. During April 22, 1977, Respondent performed a Phostoxin fumigation without the knowledge and personal supervision of its certified operator in charge of fumigation, Elmer Logan, in violation of Chapter10D-55.108(1) and (2), Florida Administrative Code. During May 22, 1978, Respondent per- formed pest control services for Mrs. Ann Boyett of 706 North Lynch Street, Pensacola, Florida, and during the course of such treatment, through its agent and employee, Steven R. `Foster, placed Phostoxin pellets under the Boyett residence for control of powder-post beetles, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.108(1) and (2), Florida Administrative Code. Respondent used Phostoxin in resi- dential fumigation in violation of Chapter 10D-55.106(1); 10D-55.111(4) and 10D-55.144(1), Florida Administrative Code. Respondent, during May 23, 1978, released Phosphine gas during use of Phostoxin. which is highly inflammable and its use in resi- dential structures is illegal pursuant to Chapter 10D-55.116(2), Florida Administrative Code. During May 23, 1978, Respondent performed a fumigation with Phostoxin without informing the Escambia County Health Department, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.110(1), Florida Administrative Code. Respondent, during May 23, 1978, per- formed a fumigation with Phostoxin without informing the homeowner of the hazards, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.110(3), Florida Administrative Code. Respondent, during May 23, 1978, failed to apply for and obtain an employee I.D. card for Steven R. Foster, in violation of Section 482.091(1), (2) and (4), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10D-55.143(1),(2) and (3), Florida Administrative Code. Based on the foregoing activities, it is alleged that Respondent violated his duties as a certified operator in charge of the pest control activities of a licensee, in violation of Section 482.152(1), (2),, (4), and (5), Florida Statutes. During July 12, 1978, Respondent performed pest control work for John A. Sanders, Jr. , at his residences located at 912, 914 and 916 North 63rd Avenue, Pensacola, Florida. During the course of this treatment it is alleged that Respondent failed to per- form the work in accordance with the label directions of any registered termiticide or by the use of methods and equipment generally suitable and accepted as good industry practice, in violation of Chapters 10D-55.106(1); 10D-55.135(2) and 10D-55.144(1), Florida Adminis- trative Code. Based on the conduct set forth in the paragraph next above, it is alleged that the Respondent violated the duties of a certified operator in charge of pest control activities of a licensee, in violation of Section 482.152(1), (4), and (5), Florida Statutes. The Hinote Case During December 21, 1978, it is alleged that Respondent's agent Wayne Thompson, repre- sented to Ms. Lee Hinote of 1405 East Gonzales Street, Pensacola, Florida, that wood borers were infesting her residence and that treatment was needed, when no such infestation existed and no treatment was required, in violation of Chapter 10D-55.104(4), Florida Administrative Code. Based on the alleged conduct set forth in the paragraph next above, it is alleged that the Respondent engaged in conduct violative of Section 482.152(1), (2), (4), and (5), Florida Statutes. William E. Grimsley, Supervisor, Environmental Health Unit of the Escambia County Health Department, is the person in charge of inspecting and ensuring that within the county no violations of Chapter 10D-55.110(1), Florida Administrative Code, occur. All pest control companies operating in the county, including Respondent, are required to notify the County Health Department when a fumigation is to take place and the approximate time that the "gas" will be released. Fumigation notices are required to be submitted to the Health Department twenty-four hours in advance of the fumigation. Thee Health Department inspects the premises to be certain that the tent is properly sealed, that there is first aid equipment readily available and to generally ensure that the operator is qualified to perform the fumigation Mr. Grimsley recalled having received no fumigation notices from Respondent. Specifically, Mr. Grimsley testified that his office, the County Health Department, received no fumigation notice from Respondent for the Atkinson residence during April of 1977, for the Sumpert residence during times material, or for Ann Boyett's residence during the period of May, 1978. During May of 1978, Mr. Grimsley, through the Escambia County Health Department, received a complaint from the Atkinsons regarding the pest control services performed by Respondent. Mr. Grimsley referred Ms. Atkinson to Mr. William E. Page, Petitioner's agent in the Office of Entomology, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. During October of 1978, Mr. William Page and Mr. William Grimsley removed a sample of a white powdery substance found in the Atkinsons' attic. The sample was analyzed by Chris Bush, a chemist employed by Petitioner, who determined that the substance was a residue of Phostoxin. (Petitioner's Exhibits 32 and 40.) The Atkinson residence was treated by Respondent during, April of 1977. As stated, the Atkinsons complained to the Health Department during May of 1978, approximately fifteen months after the treatment. Samples of a white powdery residue found in the attic were analyzed by Petitioner's chemist during. October, 1978, and were determined to be a Phostoxin residue. Respondent and its agents and employees denied treating the Atkinson residence with anything other than Lindane and Methyl Bromide. During late 1978, Messrs. Grimsley and Page visited the residence of Mrs. Ann Boyett of 704 North Lynch Street, Pensacola, Florida. Mr. Page removed two prepac Phostoxin strips from underneath the Boyett residence. Steven Roy Foster (Moneyhun) also known as Steven Roy Foster was employed by Respondent from March of 1978 through July of 1978. Foster was hired by Respondent to perform mechanical work, although he assisted in tapings for fumigations and assisted Respondent's pest control operators. Foster placed two prepac Phostoxin strips under the Boyett residence. Foster was assigned to do the work by Respondent's agent, Frank Ancarrow, and was paid by the Boyetts for the work. (Petitioner's Exhibit 13.) Respondent and its agents, Frank Ancarrow and former employee, Elmer Logan, denied any knowledge, authorization or other assistance in the use of the treatment of residential structures with Phostoxin. Phostoxin is not authorized for the use in residential construction according to its label use restrictions. (Petitioner's Exhibit 12.) Respondent treated the Graham-Shumpert residence at 109 Harris Street, Pensacola, Florida, for subterranean termites and old house wood borers during late April, 1977. The old house wood borers were located in the attic and, according to Respondent, were treated by him using a "spot" fumigation treatment of Methyl Bromide. 3/ Approximately two years later, Mr. Shumpert detected traces of termites again swarming in the kitchen of his home and called Frank Roberts of Roberts Pest Control Company to check on the termites. Mr. Roberts inspected the Shumpert residence and noted what he found in the attic, a residue of suspected Phostoxin. Mr. Roberts engaged the services of a private laboratory in Pensacola, Florida, to analyze the residue of the substance he found in the Shumpert residence. The sample was analyzed and, according to the lab analysis, the residue of the sample was Phostoxin. Gail Thompson, a former employee of the Respondent, testified that he treated the Shumpert residence for termites and that he assisted in taping the house in preparation for the fumigation which was performed by Respondent Billy F. Killingsworth. Respondent testified that he treated the Shumpert house by a "spot" fumigation using Methyl Bromide as a localized treatment to eradicate the infestation which was concentrated on a few joists. Respondent's testimony to the effect that the infestation was localized to a few joists conflicts with the testimony of witnesses William Page, Carlton Layne and John Boitnott, who testified that the damage and infestation was severe and widespread. Based on the extended hiatus between the treatment by Respondent and the inspections by Messrs, Page, Layne and Boitnott, it cannot be concluded that the condition of the premises as found by Respondent, continued unchanged until the subsequent and, of course, more recent visit by the investigating officials. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3.) When the Shumpert residence was treated, it was under contract to be sold by Mims-Snow Realty of Pensacola, Florida. Prior to sale, it was necessary to receive an FHA wood infestation report which admittedly, as testified to by Respondent's secretary and assistant, Joyce Beard, was filed incorrectly using information from another wood infestation report for another property. (Petitioner's Exhibits 6 and 9.) According to that report, Vikane gas was used as a fumigant, which, if used according to the petitioner's licensing administrator, Warren T. Frazier, was not applied in accordance with the label instructions of that fumigant. 4/ On or about July 12, 1978, Mr. John A. Sanders entered into a contract with Respondent for pest control treatment of three houses that he owned on North 63rd Avenue, Pensacola, Florida. (Petitioner's Exhibits 17, 15 and 19.) Respondent contracted to control household pests, fleas, etc. in the Sanders' residences for a total price of $520.00. According to 14r. Sanders, the treatment period lasted approximately twenty minutes and no trenches were dug, no drilling took place and there was no treatment for powder-post beetles contrary to his payment and contract for these services. Mr. Sanders filed a complaint with local and state officials and executed a complaint form. (Petitioner's Exhibits 20 and 21.) Respondent's former employee, Steven Foster, was assigned the task of treating the Sanders' residences. Foster acknowledged that he inadequately and incompletely treated the Sanders' residences for termites and powder-post beetles. Testimony of Warren Frazier, John Sanders and William Page corroborate Foster's testimony to the effect that the treatment was substandard and was not in accordance with the label directions of any registered termiticide. Additionally, the treatment fell below what is generally accepted as good industry Practice. Respondent testified that the Sanders' residences were treated by Carl Heichel. Heichel was unavailable and did not testify in this proceeding. Opal Lee Hinote of 1405 East Gonzalez Street contacted Respondent during December, 1978, for an annual renewal inspection of her residence. Respondent's agent, Wayne Thompson, performed the annual inspection. (Petitioner's Exhibit 27.) Additionally, Respondent's agent, Thompson, represented to Ms. Hinote that old house wood borers were affecting her residence and that treatment was needed. Thompson discussed a treatment price of $175.00, which was reduced, after some negotiation, to $125.00. Ms. Hinote, being suspicious, called Elmer Logan, Respondent's former employee who presently operates Fireman Pest Control, to inspect her premises. Mr. Logan advised Ms. Hinote that there were no wood borers in her house but merely old traces of wood borer activity. Ms. Hinote, still concerned, contacted Petitioner's agent, William Page, who inspected the house and confirmed Logan's report that there was no present wood horer activity to her residence. (Petitioner's Exhibits 28, 29 and 30.) Respondent's position on Ms. Hinote's complaint is that it is difficult to discern whether or not there is active or inactive wood borer activity and that Thompson, being a sales representative only for a short time when he made the inspection, was unable to discern whether or not the activity signs were evidences from old damage by powder-post beetles and wood borers. 5/ Mr. F. R. Du Chanois is Petitioner's supervisor for pest control records and has in excess of twenty-six years experience as an Entomologist. Mr. Du Chanois, who is Petitioner's records custodian, also receives and assigns complaints for investigation. Based on the complaints received about Respondent, Mr. Du Chanois directed an Inquiry to the manufacturer respecting the application of Phostoxin for residential application. Mr. Du Chanois determined and received confirmation that there are presently no registered uses for residential application for Phostoxin fumigations to control wood destroying insects. (Petitioner's Exhibit 42.) According to Du Chanois, the responsibility for obtaining an I.D. card is jointly placed on the operator and the employee. See Section 482.091(1) and (2), Florida Statutes. Billy F. Killingsworth, the certified operator and owner of Killingsworth pest control business, has been in business for approximately eleven years in Escambia County. Respondent has a B.S. degree in Entomology from Auburn University and is certified in all areas of pest control, i.e,. general household pest and rodent control, subterranean termites, lawn and ornamental, and fumigation. According to Respondent, it is very difficult to determine whether powder-post beetles are in an active or inactive status. Respondent uses Lindane as a residual treatment for the eradication of beetles and Methyl Bromide as a fumigant to control beetles, dry wood termites and rodent control. Respondent only uses Phostoxin as a commodity fumigant since it is only labeled for such uses and since it is one-half to two-thirds more expensive than other registered fumigants. Respondent, Billy F. Killingsworth, is the only certified operator within his employ in Escambia County who is registered to use Phostoxin. (Testimony of Billy F. Killingsworth.) According to the worksheets, Tommy Phelps was the card holder assigned to perform the work for the Atkinson job. Respondent performed the fumigation, using oil based Lindane in the attic. Respondent acknowledged that he erroneously issued a termite contract for the Atkinsons. Respondent considers a "spot" fumigation as being superior to a complete or tent fumigation, in that it permits a larger concentration of gas to be infused to the exposed area and is least expensive. Respondent has performed less than ten structural fumigations since he has been in business. (Respondent's Exhibits 4, 5 and 6.) Respondent employed Steven Roy Foster (Moneyhun) to help in repairing hydraulic pumps, refrigeration equipment and to do mechanical and other minor maintenance tasks based on his (Foster's) prior experience. Respondent denied that Foster was assigned to assist or perform fumigations within the short period that Foster was employed by Respondent. Respondent acknowledged that the FHA Wood Infestation Report given to Ms. Graham of Mims-Snow Realty was erroneously issued based on the realtor's rush to sell the property. (Respondent's Exhibit 8.) Respondent performed the fumigation for the Shumpert residence and placed a warning sign on the front and back doors of the house. At the time of the fumigation, the house was unoccupied. Respondent used Methyl Bromide to fumigate the Shumpert residence and had no explanation as to the presence of Phostoxin in the attic of the Shumpert residence. Respondent assigned Carl Heichel to do the termite and beetle treatment for the Boyett residence. (Respondent's Exhibit 9.) Lindane and Heptachloride were used for the treatment. Heichel left Respondent's employ approximately October of 1978. According to Respondent, Heichel was also assigned to perform the work for the Sanders' houses on 63rd Avenue. (Respondent's Exhibit 10.) Respondent testified that he attempted to correct the problems in connection with the Sanders residence but was unable to arrange a mutually convenient schedule to resolve the matter. Wayne Thompson was assigned to perform the pest control treatment for the Hinote residence. Thompson had only been employed approximately six months when he was assigned to inspect the Hinote residence. Respondent noted that it was a mistake not to apply for an I.D. card for Steven R. Foster. He acknowledged that there was no reason not to apply for an I.D. card for Foster; however, the fact that Foster was hired to do mechanical work delayed his decision to apply for or to obtain an I.D. card for Foster. Respondent treated the Shumpert residence using Methyl Bromide which was registered and labeled "Dowfume MC-2". 6/ Respondent acknowledged that it is unlawful to use a registered pesticide in a way which is inconsistent with the label. He also acknowledged that certified operators are charged with the duty of using fumigants in accordance with the registered labels consonant with the structure to be fumigated. (Testimony of Billy F. Killingsworth.) Several of Respondent's former employees who were employed during times material herein testified that they were unaware of any illegal uses of Phostoxin by Respondent and/or its employees. These employees included J. D. White, Sr., of Sterling, Illinois; Gerald Caudill of Evansville, Indiana; Frank Ancarrow; Elmer Logan and Gail Thompson. J. D. White, Sr. , of Sterling, Illinois, was formerly employed by Respondent from June, 1973, through the end of 1974. Mr. White worked for Frank Roberts, a competitor of Respondent during the period July, 1976, through August of 1977. Mr. White was party to conversations between Frank Roberts to the effect that he was; "out to get" Respondent and was privy to conversations with Mr. Roberts to the effect that Roberts had communicated with various Federal regulatory and state agencies to register complaints about Respondent and other competitors in the area. White testified that he was offered money to spray the yards of customers who were on annual contract with Respondent using the wrong chemicals to destroy the grass. Gerald Caudill presently is employed by Economy Pest Control of Evansville, Indiana. He was formerly employed by Respondent from approximately March, 1978, through approximately April of 1979. Caudill did a localized treatment for powder-post beetles for the Atkinson residence on Leonard Street in Pensacola, Florida. Caudill was shown by the Atkinsons, signs of what he viewed to be an active infestation in the attic of the Atkinson residence and advised them that they needed treatment in their attic. Frank Ancarrow, Respondent's sales manager, has been employed in that capacity for approximately four years and has approximately eight years' experience with another pest control company. Mr. Ancarrow is certified in all categories except fumigation. Messrs, Ancarrow and Thompson prepared the Shumpert residence for fumigation. The Shumpert residence was treated by Gail Thompson for subterranean termites and the Respondent fumigated the attic for old house wood borers. Frank Ancarrow was shown the statement given in an affidavit taken by Carlton Layne of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to the effect that Gail Thompson was in charge of the fumigation of the Shumpert residence. Mr. Ancarrow testified that that was a mistake and that Thompson only prepared the house for fumigation. (Petitioner's Exhibits 5 and 26.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby, Recommended: That the Respondent's Pest Control Operator's Certificate Number 1306; Respondent's Pest Control Employee Identification Card Numbers 5832 and 5843 and Respondent's Pest Control Business License Number 78 be SUSPENDED for a period of two (2) years. In all other respects, the June 10, 1980 Recommended Order previously entered herein remains unchanged. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of July, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Jon W. Searcy, Vsquire Department of IIIS 160 Governmenta] Center Pensacola, Florida 32522 Larry Parks, Esquire Murphy, Beroset and Parks 216 Government Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Alvin J. Taylor, Secretary Department of IRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= STIPULATION TO CONSENT FINAL ORDER =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing, the following facts are found: At all time material to these proceedings, Respondent DiFalco, was employed by Sears Termite and Pest Control (Sears) of Tallahassee, Florida, a licensee as defined in Section 482.021(12), Florida Statues. Although Respondent was an employee of a licensee, Sears, there was no evidence that Respondent was a "certified operator", or an "identification cardholder" or a "special identification cardholder" as defined by Section 482.021(5)(9), Florida Statutes, and Section 482.151, Florida Statutes, respectively. On or about May 31, 1988, Respondent, representing Sears and responding to a request by Dixie Lee Mims (Mims), inspected the residential property of Mims and represented to Mims that her home was infested with subterranean termites and powder post beetles and that control treatment was needed. Subsequently, though Sears, Respondent entered into a contract, number 96232, with Mims for the control of termites at a cost of $875.00 to be paid through Mims' Sears charge account. Respondent advised Mims that the cost for control of the beetles was included in the contract even though such control was omitted in the contract. Subsequent inspection of the Mims' home by an independent pest control firm and by Petitioner's entomologist revealed no visible signs of present or recent infestation of termites or beetles. Roger White, Manager, Sears, based on an additional inspection by Sears worked out a settlement with Mims whereby Mims would be given $500 credit on her Sears charge account and retain her contract with Sears.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the fcregong Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed herein. Respectfully submitted and entered this 16th day of May, 1989 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of May, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Anthony T. DiFalco Route 5, Box 215, #3 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John L. Pearce, Esquire District 2 Legal Office 2639 North Monroe Street Suite 200-A Tallahassee, 32303-4082 Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
