Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Richard Tortora (Tortora), held pari-mutuel wagering occupational license number 0066650, as a thoroughbred trainer. Tortora has been licensed since 1979, and has not previously been the subject of a disciplinary proceeding. Tortora was a participating trainer during the 1956 thoroughbred meet at Calder Race Course, an association authorized to conduct thoroughbred racing in the State of Florida. On August 2, 1986, Tortora was the trainer of the horse "Chief Again," the winner of the fourth race at Calder Race Course that day. Immediately following the race, the Division, consistent with its standard practice, took a urine sample from "Chief Again" for analysis by the Division's laboratory. The parties have stipulated that the chain of custody of the urine sample was not breached, and that the urine sample was properly taken, packaged and delivered to the Division's laboratory for testing. The parties have further stipulated that a portion of the urine sample was delivered to Dr. Richard Sams, Equine Testing Laboratory, College of Veterinary Medicine, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, for testing on behalf of Tortora, and that such sample was properly taken, packaged, and delivered. Upon analysis, the urin sample taken from "chief Again" proved positive for the presence of the drug butorphanol, a schedule 3 narcotic. Butorphanol is a potent analgesic, traditionally used to control the intestinal pain associated with equine colic. In therapeutic dosage, butorphanol renders the animal immobile, however, at low dosages it will act as a stimulant. In reaching the conclusion that "Chief Again" was shown to have raced with the narcotic butorphanol in his system, the evidence offered on behalf of Tortora, through Drs. Sams and Maylin, has not been overlooked. Such evidence failed, however to detract from the credible and compelling nature of the Division's proof. The Division's analysis was composed of sequential screening procedures designed to initially identify the presence of an unusual substance and ultimately identify the compound. Throughout the Division's initial procedures, the urine taken from "Chief Again" was consistently identified as containing an opiate with characteristics consistent with those of butorphanol. Ultimately the Division subjected the sample to gas chromatographic/mass spectral analysis. This refined analysis confirmed the presence of butorphonal. The consistency of the Division's findings at all levels of its testing provides compelling evidence that the urine sample taken from "Chief Again" did contain the narcotic butorphonal. Following the Division's testing, Tortora requested that it furnish the balance of the urine sample taken from "Chief Again", approximately 2om1, to Dr. Richard Sams for analysis. Dr. Sams subjected the sample to gas chromatographic/mass spectral analysis and found no evidence of butorphanol. While finding no evidence of butorphanol, Dr. Sams did not conclude that the sample did not contain the narcotic, but merely that he was unable to detect its presence. According to Dr. Sams, the limited volume of urine available for testing compromised his ability to detect the presence of butorphanol. He affirmatively concluded, however, that the Division's data was properly prepared and adequate to support a positive finding of butorphanol in the sample. Dr. Maylin's testimony was premised on a review of Dr. Sams' and the Division's written test reports, he undertook no independent analysis, and was not privy to any testimony offered at hearing. Dr. Maylin opined that if butorphanol were present Dr. Sams should have detected it and, based on certain assumptions, that the Division reported a false finding because of laboratory contamination. Dr. Maylin's opinions are rejected. Dr. Sams is familiar with the equipment and procedures he utilized. He of all people is most familiar with the capabilities and reliability of that analysis. Dr. Maylin's opinion that the analysis ran by Dr. Sams had more import than Dr. Sams ascribed to it is not credible. Dr. Maylin's opinion that the Division reported a false finding is likewise not credited. Dr. Maylin's opinion was predicated on the assumption that proper testing procedures were not followed. Dr. Maylin's assumptions were incorrect. While "Chief Again's" urine was found to test positive for butorphanol, Tortora denies any knowledge of how the narcotic could have been introduced into the horse's system. According to Tortora he was unfamiliar with this narcotic until these charges were brought, and "Chief Again" was not under any medical treatment. Tortora offered no evidence, however, of what provisions he took, if any, to supervise or otherwise protect "Chief Again's" integrity.
The Issue Whether the FHBPA, FTBOA, and OBS have standing to challenge the Division’s issuance of a new summer jai alai permit to Calder; and, if so, whether FHBPA’s petition and FTBOA’s and OBS’s motions to intervene were timely; and, if so, whether the Division properly granted a new summer jai alai permit to Calder pursuant to section 550.0745(1), Florida Statutes (2019), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61D-4.002.
Findings Of Fact Parties/Standing The Division is the agency charged with regulating pari-mutuel wagering and issuing pari-mutuel permits under the provisions of chapter 550, including section 550.0745 pertaining to summer jai alai permits, and rule 61D-4.002. Calder is a pari-mutuel permitholder authorized to operate thoroughbred horse racing and conduct pari-mutel pools on exhibition sports in Miami-Dade County pursuant to chapter 550. Calder has been a pari- mutuel permitholder authorized to operate thoroughbred horse racing in Miami-Dade County since 1971. The Division issued a new summer jai alai permit to Calder on February 9, 2018. The Division did not provide FHBPA, FTBOA, or OBS with formal notice that Calder had applied for a new summer jai alai permit or that the Division intended to issue a new summer jai alai permit to Calder. The Division subsequently licensed Calder to operate its summer jai alai permit in fiscal years 2018/2019 and 2019/2020. Calder is currently licensed to operate both summer jai alai and thoroughbred racing at its Miami-Dade County facility pursuant to the permits and licenses issued by the Division to Calder for thoroughbred horse racing and summer jai alai. Calder is also currently licensed to operate slot machine gaming. Calder receives approximately $85,000,000 in annual gross revenues from slot machine gaming, making this the most profitable activity Calder conducts at its facility. FHBPA is not a pari-mutuel permitholder. FHBPA is a Florida not-for- profit corporation and an association whose membership consists of a majority of horse owners and trainers (approximately 5,000 to 6,000 "horsemen"), whose horses race at thoroughbred race meets operated by the licensed thoroughbred permitholders in South Florida. Pursuant to section 551.104(10)(a)1., Florida Statutes, no slot machine license or renewal license can be issued to an applicant with a thoroughbred horse racing pari-mutuel permit unless the applicant has on file with the Division a binding, written agreement with FHBPA governing the payment of purses on live thoroughbred horse races conducted at the licensee’s pari- mutuel facility. FHBPA and Calder have a contractual agreement, whereby Calder must run 40 days of thoroughbred horse races under its thoroughbred license. Under the current agreement between Calder and FHBPA, Calder is required to pay FHBPA a sum equal to ten percent of Calder’s gross slot machine revenues to be used for purses. This amounts to approximately $9,000,000 that FHBPA receives from Calder on an annual basis. This contractual agreement expires in 2020. Since 2014, Calder has satisfied its obligation to run a 40-day thoroughbred racing schedule by contracting with a third party, Gulfstream Park, to run races between October and November of each year. FTBOA is not a pari-mutuel permitholder. FTBOA is a Florida not-for- profit corporation, and the statewide trade association representing the interests of thoroughbred breeders and owners in Florida. Horses owned and/or bred by FTBOA members participate in the thoroughbred horse races at Calder’s race course. FTBOA is designated in section 550.2625(3)(h) as the administrator of the thoroughbred breeders’ awards program established by the Florida Legislature in sections 550.26165 and 550.2625(3). As part of this program, FTBOA is responsible for the payment of breeders’ awards on thoroughbred races conducted in Florida. Pursuant to section 550.26165(1), the purpose of breeders’ awards is to "encourage the agricultural activity of breeding and training racehorses in this state." Pursuant to section 551.104(10)(a)1., no slot machine license or renewal license can be issued to an applicant with a thoroughbred horse racing pari- mutuel permit unless the applicant has on file with the Division a binding, written agreement with FTBOA governing the payment of breeders’, stallion, and special racing awards on live thoroughbred races conducted at the licensee’s pari-mutuel facility. FTBOA receives approximately $1,500,000 from Calder each year in breeders’ awards as a result of the Calder racing handle and slot machine revenue. OBS holds a limited intertrack wagering pari-mutuel permit, pursuant to section 550.6308, that authorizes it to conduct intertrack horse racing at its Ocala facility. OBS also holds a non-wagering horse racing permit, pursuant to section 550.505, and a thoroughbred horse sales license, pursuant to chapter 535, Florida Statutes. OBS sells thoroughbred horses at its facility located in Ocala. OBS is the only licensed Florida-based thoroughbred auction sales company in Florida, and it conducts five thoroughbred horse auctions annually. OBS has no pari-mutuel permits located in Miami-Dade County, Florida. On July 31, 2018, Calder filed a Petition for Declaratory Statement with the Division regarding whether it can discontinue the operation of its thoroughbred races and instead operate a full schedule of jai alai performances in order to maintain its eligibility to continue to conduct slot machine gaming. In its petition, Calder made clear its intention to discontinue live thoroughbred horse racing, stating: "Calder desires to discontinue live thoroughbred racing and to obtain a license to operate a full schedule of live jai alai games under its summer jai alai permit. Calder intends on conducting live jai alai games at the same physical location or piece of property where it currently conducts thoroughbred racing." On October 23, 2018, the Division issued its Final Order Granting Declaratory Statement, concluding that Calder may substitute jai alai games in lieu of live horse racing. In its Final Order, the Division also granted FTBOA’s and OBS’s motions to intervene, concluding that FTBOA met its burden of demonstrating associational standing, and that OBS demonstrated its standing pursuant to Agrico Chemical Company v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 406 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). The Division’s Final Order was affirmed on appeal in Florida Thoroughbred Breeders’ Association, Inc. v. Calder Race Course, Inc., 283 So. 3d 843, 845 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019). Calder intends to replace its thoroughbred permit with its jai alai permit as the predicate for maintaining its slot machine gaming permit. An incentive for Calder to substitute its jai alai permit for its thoroughbred permit is that if it stops racing horses after December 2020, Calder will be under no obligation to share the millions of dollars in revenue it receives through its slot machines with FHBPA or FTBOA. FHBPA, FTBOA, and their members will be substantially affected if Calder is allowed to use a summer jai alai permit in place of thoroughbred racing to qualify for the continued operation of its slot machine facility. Millions of dollars that would otherwise be available to FHBPA, FTBOA, and their members through the payment of purses and awards from thoroughbred racing will be lost if Calder is permitted to substitute its underlying pari- mutuel activity from racing thoroughbreds to conducting jai alai games. FHBPA’s and FTBOA’s substantial injury is of a type or nature which this proceeding is designed to protect. Likewise, OBS will be substantially affected if Calder is allowed to use a summer jai alai permit in place of thoroughbred racing. The demand to breed and purchase racehorses, and the value of breeding and selling thoroughbred horses, will decrease significantly as a consequence of Calder discontinuing thoroughbred horse racing and replacing the races with summer jai alai games. In addition, as a guest track, OBS retains seven percent of the wagers placed at OBS on thoroughbred races in Florida. OBS intertrack wagering generally handles approximately $1,000,000 on thoroughbred races conducted at Calder and Tropical Park, which directly results in revenue to OBS. OBS’s substantial injury is of a type or nature which this proceeding is designed to protect. Calder’s Summer Jai Alai Permit Application and the Division’s Proper Calculation of "Play or Total Pool" Under Section 550.0745(1) On August 31, 2017, Calder submitted an application to the Division for the issuance of a new summer jai alai permit pursuant to section 550.0745(1). The parties stipulate that, at all times material hereto, Calder was a qualified applicant as to all statutory requirements, but for the dispute as to whether a summer jai alai permit was "made available" pursuant to the second sentence in section 550.0745(1). Section 550.0745(1) provides, in pertinent part, as follows: 550.0745 Conversion of pari-mutuel permit to summer jai alai permit.- The owner or operator of a pari-mutuel permit who is authorized by the division to conduct pari- mutuel pools on exhibition sports in any county having five or more such pari-mutuel permits and whose mutual play from the operation of such pari- mutuel pools for the 2 consecutive years next prior to filing an application under this section has had the smallest play or total pool within the county may apply to the division to convert its permit to a permit to conduct a summer jai alai fronton in such county during the summer season commencing on May 1 and ending on November 30 of each year on such dates as may be selected by such permittee for the same number of days and performances as are allowed and granted to winter jai alai frontons within such county. If a permittee who is eligible under this section to convert a permit declines to convert, a new permit is hereby made available in that permittee’s county to conduct summer jai alai games as provided by this section, notwithstanding mileage and permit ratification requirements. Accompanying Calder’s application was a cover letter stating that the application was for the summer jai alai permit associated with state fiscal years 2005/2006 and 2006/2007. The determination of whether the Division properly granted Calder a new summer jai alai permit pursuant to section 550.0745(1) turns on whether a new summer jai alai permit was "made available" for issuance in Miami- Dade County associated with state fiscal years 2005/2006 and 2006/2007. Whether a new summer jai alai permit was made available, in turn, centers on whether there was a single, pari-mutuel permitholder with the "smallest play or total pool" within the county for the two consecutive fiscal years of 2005/2006 and 2006/2007. FHBPA, FTBOA, and OBS maintain that no new summer jai alai permit was made available for issuance in Miami-Dade County for state fiscal years 2005/2006 and 2006/2007, because there was no single Miami-Dade permitholder that had the "smallest play or total pool" in Miami-Dade County during those two consecutive fiscal years. The disagreement between the parties concerning the existence of an available permit with the "smallest play or total pool" in Miami-Dade for the fiscal years 2005/2006 and 2006/2007 centers on their different methods of interpreting section 550.0745(1) and disagreement regarding the types of wagers the Division must use in its calculation of a permitholder’s "play or total pool" pursuant to section 550.0745(1). For purposes of this case, the various types of wagers are summarized as follows: Wagers placed at a permitholder’s facility into the pool conducted by the permitholder on its own live performance are called "live on-track wagers." In addition to wagers placed at a particular facility on its live races or games, bettors may place wagers on races or games occurring offsite through intertrack wagering, which allows bettors at a guest-permit facility in Florida to bet on a race or game transmitted from and performed live at another host- permit facility in Florida. The facility holding the live event is referred to as the "host" track, and the facility taking the wager on the event being held elsewhere is referred to as the "guest" track. Wagers placed at the facility of an out-of-state entity on a live event conducted by a Florida host-permitholder are called "simulcast export wagers." Wagers placed at the facility of a Florida permitholder on a live event occurring at an out-of-state facility are called "simulcast import wagers." Wagers placed at the facility of a Florida guest permitholder on a live event, conducted at an out-of-state facility that is being rebroadcast through a Florida host permitholder’s facility to the Florida guest-permitholder’s facility, are called "intertrack simulcast as a guest." The Florida facility rebroadcasting the out-of-state signal is the "intertrack simulcast in-state host." The Division’s calculations of "smallest play or total pool" of permitholders in Miami-Dade County for the two consecutive fiscal years of 2005/2006 and 2006/2007 included the following three types of wagers, only: (1) live wagers; (2) intertrack wagers (a/k/a intertrack wagers as a host); and (3) simulcast export wagers. The Division did not include intertrack wagers as a guest, simulcast import wagers, simulcast intertrack as a guest wagers, or simulcast intertrack as a host wagers in its calculations. In the state fiscal years 2005/2006 and 2006/2007, five or more pari- mutuel permitholders were authorized and licensed by the Division to conduct pari-mutuel pools on exhibition sports in Miami-Dade County. None of them applied to convert their permits to summer jai alai permits. The Division initially determined that West Flagler had the "smallest play or total pool" of permitholders in Miami-Dade County for the state fiscal years 2005/2006 and 2006/2007, and therefore, concluded that a summer jai alai permit was made available in Miami-Dade County. On February 9, 2018, based on the Division’s determination that Calder was a qualified applicant under chapter 550, and the rules promulgated thereto, and that a permit was available in Miami-Dade County, the Division approved Calder’s application and issued Calder a summer jai alai permit. On November 18, 2018, Calder received an operating license to conduct a full schedule of summer jai alai performances in May and June 2019. On December 9, 2018, the Division received an e-mail from FHBPA’s counsel regarding "Bet Miami," a greyhound dog racing permitholder located in Miami-Dade County, which was authorized to conduct pari-mutuel pools on exhibition sports in both Miami-Dade and Broward Counties in the state fiscal year 2005/2006, and in Miami-Dade County in the state fiscal year 2006/2007. In response to this e-mail, the Division reviewed its records, confirmed the dates that "Bet Miami" operated in Miami-Dade County in the state fiscal year 2005/2006, and calculated the amount that "Bet Miami" pooled in Miami-Dade County in this fiscal year. The Division also reviewed the operating licenses for each of the permitholders in Miami-Dade and Broward Counties and confirmed that "Bet Miami" operated in Miami-Dade County during the entire fiscal year of 2006/2007. The Division corrected its data to reflect that "Bet Miami," in fact, had the "smallest play or total pool" in Miami-Dade County for fiscal years 2005/2006 and 2006/2007. The Division now takes the position that "Bet Miami" had the "smallest play or total pool" in Miami-Dade County for the fiscal years 2005/2006 and 2006/2007.1 "Bet Miami" declined to convert its greyhound dog racing permit to a summer jai alai permit. The "Bet Miami" permit was never converted nor was an application to convert the "Bet Miami" permit to a summer jai alai permit, pursuant to section 550.0745(1), ever received by the Division. Calder built a jai alai fronton in Miami-Dade County and conducted its first jai alai meet in May and June 2019, pursuant to its operating license. 1 There is no dispute over the authenticity and accuracy of the financial information supplied by the Division’s annual reports or of the authenticity and accuracy of the "simulcast export" figures supplied by the Division. On May 15, 2019, Calder received an operating license to conduct a full schedule of jai alai performances in August and September 2019. FHBPA, FTBOA, and OBS contend that the Division erred in failing to consider all the various types of wagers in its calculation of "smallest play or total pool." According to FHBPA, FTBOA, and OBS, had the Division considered all the various types of wagers, no permit would be available for the fiscal years 2005/2006 and 2006/2007. Based on the persuasive evidence presented at hearing, the Division properly considered only live on-track wagers, intertrack wagers, and simulcast export wagers in its calculations of "smallest play or total pool" under section 550.0745(1). This is because pari-mutuel pools are only formed at the host permitholder’s track where the live race is conducted, pursuant to the annual license that authorizes that permitholder to conduct pari-mutuel pools in that county. Had the Division included the other types of wagers (i.e., intertrack wagers as a guest, simulcast import wagers, simulcast intertrack as a guest wagers, or simulcast intertrack as a host wagers) in its calculations, the handle for these various wager types would be counted twice--at the host and guest tracks. Double-counting the wagering handle would result in the Division substantially overstating the amount of handle received by permitholders.2 The Division properly found that "Bet Miami" had the "smallest play or total pool" based on its calculation of the permitholders’ in Miami-Dade 2 All wagering data is compiled by a totalizator system, such as AmTote, which calculates the overall amount of "handle" collected by each pari-mutuel facility for each transaction. The Division utilizes a sub-system called "Central Monitoring System" ("CMS"), which captures the totalizator wagering data and applies it to a racing monitoring system to calculate the overall handle from each pari-mutuel facility. The Division uses the CMS report to calculate the total amount of wagering handle pooled by a facility in state fiscal years, and together with a review of the pari-mutual licenses, determines whether a summer jai alai permit was "made available" in that county for the purpose of section 550.0745(1). "'Handle' means the aggregate contributions to pari-mutuel pools." §550.002(13), Fla. Stat. Handle is not equivalent to revenue or profitability, and a facility’s revenue has no impact on the calculation of a facility’s play or total pool. County live wagers, intertrack wagers as a host, and simulcast export wagers for the two consecutive fiscal years 2005/2006 and 2006/2007.3 Calder’s Application Complies with rule 61D-4.002 The parties stipulate that Calder was a qualified applicant as to all rule requirements, but for the dispute as to whether it has complied with rule 61D-4.002. Rule 61D-4.002 provides, in pertinent part, as follows: 61D-4.002 Evaluating a Permit Application for a Pari-Mutuel Facility. In evaluating a permit application, the division shall deny any application where the applicant fails to establish the following criteria: Financial profitability of the prospective permitholder as derived from the assets and liabilities of the applicant; the existence of any judgment or current litigation, whether civil, criminal, or administrative; the type of pari-mutuel activity to be conducted and desired period of operation; and net income projected over the first three years of operation with the permit. If the applicant is able to show any profitability as outlined in this paragraph, the Division will review the following criteria in paragraph (b). That the issuance of the permit will preserve and protect the pari-mutuel revenues of the state by generating an increase of total state revenue. In determining the financial profitability of an applicant, the Division evaluates the applicant’s overall financial situation, including its total assets and liabilities. The Division does not measure financial profitability by simply looking at the prospective pari-mutuel activity to be conducted pursuant to the permit application. 3 As discussed more fully in the Conclusions of Law below, the Division’s method of calculating the "smallest play or total pool" for purposes of section 550.0745(1) is consistent with the clear, unambiguous, and plain language of section 550.0745(1), and Florida appellate decisions. In the instant case, Calder demonstrated its profitability as derived from its assets and liabilities. Calder submitted financial statements, annual reports, balance sheets, and tax reports. The uncontroverted evidence adduced at hearing demonstrates that Calder is a financially stable and profitable company. As to the existence of any judgment or current litigation, whether civil, criminal, or administrative, Calder submitted a list of its active litigation. As to the type of pari-mutuel activity to be conducted and the desired period of operation, Calder provided the information on its application. As to the net income projected over the first three years of operation with the permit, Calder submitted an initial pro forma. The Division sent Calder a deficiency letter following its review of the initial pro forma. In response, Calder submitted an amended pro forma showing the projected net income derived from the operation of the permit over the first three years. Ms. Swain, the Division’s program administrator, testified that the amended pro forma included $32,329 in year one for projected live gaming taxes to the State, which is not unreasonable. The amended pro forma also included additional amounts for projected intertrack gaming taxes to the State and an additional $72,000 to the State each year for projected license fees. As Ms. Swain persuasively testified, the amounts paid by Calder to the State of Florida in taxes and license fees over the first three years of operation of the permit would result in an increase in state revenues. These tax revenues and license fees would not be available to the State of Florida without the issuance of the summer jai alai permit to Calder.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, enter a final order approving Calder Race Course, Inc.’s, application for a new summer jai alai permit and subsequent licenses.6 6 FHBPA, FTBOA, and OBS challenge the issuance of Calder’s operating licenses for fiscal years 2018/2019 and 2019/2020 based solely on the alleged invalidity of the underlying summer jai alai permit. Because Calder is entitled to the summer jai alai permit, it is also entitled to the operating licenses. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of April, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DARREN A. SCHWARTZ Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of April, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Megan S. Silver, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Bradford J. Beilly, Esquire Beilly and Strohsahl, P.A. 1144 Southeast Third Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316 (eServed) Wilbur E. Brewton, Esquire Brewton Plante, P.A. 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 825 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Daniel Hernandez, Esquire Shutts & Bowen LLP 4301 West Boy Scout Boulevard, Suite 300 Tampa, Florida 33607 (eServed) Tamara S. Malvin, Esquire Akerman LLP 350 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1600 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (eServed) Raymond Frederick Treadwell, General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 (eServed) Brittany Adams Long, Esquire Radey Law Firm, P.A. 301 South Bronough Street, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (eServed) Johnny P. ElHachem, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Halsey Beshears, Secretary Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 (eServed) Louis Trombetta, Director Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2601 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating licensees in the pari-mutuel industry. Respondent, Albert P. Polito, holds a pari-mutuel wagering occupational license, license number 12037440-1081, and at all times material to this case was operating as a trainer at Pompano Park, a pari-mutuel wagering race grounds. In 1993, Respondent was employed by the Erenstoft family to train and race a standardbred horse named "Handy A." "Handy A" was purchased by Mrs. Erenstoft in 1992. Mrs. Erenstoft paid $4,500 for the horse. As is customary in the industry, "Handy A" was delivered to Respondent's care and custody. As the trainer Respondent was responsible for the stable fees, food, training, and care of the horse. In return, the owner paid Respondent a monthly trainer's fee. When "Handy A" sustained an injury in July, 1994, he was unable to continue racing. Respondent wanted to turn the horse out. Turning a horse out allows them recuperative time to determine whether the injury will heal sufficient to allow the horse to return to racing. In this case, the Erenstofts agreed that Respondent could turn out "Handy A." Respondent advised the Erenstofts that "Handy A" was turned out to a farm somewhere in central Florida. The Erenstofts paid all monies which were owed to Respondent for the care and training of "Handy A." The Erenstofts have not sold nor agreed to sell "Handy A." The Erenstofts have not seen "Handy A" since July, 1994. When Respondent did not return "Handy A" to Pompano Park after demands for same were made, the Erenstofts began inquiries to attempt to locate the horse. Since no attempt to register a new owner has occurred it is presumed the new owner does not race "Handy A" within the regulated pari-mutuel industry. One market available for such a horse is with the Amish. Typically buyers representing the Amish visit Pompano Park to acquire standardbred horses trained to pull carts. In this case, Respondent told Vic Papeo he had "Amished" the subject horse. If, in fact, "Handy A" was sold to the Amish it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to recover the horse. Respondent has not paid the Erenstofts for the sale of "Handy A." CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of, these proceedings. Section 550.105(6), Florida Statutes, provides, in pertinent part: The division may deny, revoke or suspend any occupational license if the applicant therefor or holder thereof accumulates unpaid obligations or defaults in obligations... Furthermore, Rule 61D-1.006(3)(a) states: The division may deny a license to or revoke, suspend or place conditions upon or restrictions on a license of any person, or rule off or declare ineligible any person who: 2. Has unpaid fines or financial obligations; In this case, there has been clear and convincing evidence presented that Respondent incurred a financial obligation to the Erenstofts and failed to return the horse, "Handy A." It is presumed Respondent disposed of the horse, by sale or otherwise, without the owner's permission. Respondent has failed to meet financial obligations and is, therefore, ineligible for licensure.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering enter a final order revoking the pari-mutuel wagering occupational license of Respondent. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of December 1996. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings 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 Hearings this 24th day of December 1996. APPENDIX Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 14 are accepted. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Royal H. Logan, Acting Director Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Thomas W. Darby, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Albert Polito 5440 Northwest 55th Boulevard Apartment 11-207 Coconut Creek, Florida 33073
The Issue Whether the respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, the penalty which should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: Dr. Allen is, and has been at all times relevant to this proceeding, a licensed veterinarian in the State of Florida, having been issued license number VM 0003475 by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. The Department is the licensing authority for persons who seek to practice veterinary medicine in Florida. The Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering ("Division") is a subdivision of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. It is the licensing authority for the pari-mutuel wagering industry, with the responsibility for issuing occupational licenses to persons connected with racetracks, including veterinarians. The Division does not have jursidiction to issue or discipline licenses to practice veterinary medicine in Florida. Three stewards are assigned to a racetrack to ensure that the rules of racing are followed; one is employed by the state and two by the racing association at the particular pari-mutuel facility. The stewards have the authority to impose discipline upon persons who have pari-mutuel wagering occupational licenses if they find that the rules have been violated. On December 21, 1993, Dr. Allen was working at Calder Race Course as a veterinarian, and he was fined $500.00 in a ruling of the stewards at the Tropical Park at Calder Race Course for violation of Calder Racing Association Rule 1.21(4). The fine was imposed for Dr. Allen's failure "to conduct his business in a proper manner as an equine veterinarian in regard to the keeping of his records and the filing of bills." The charge which was the subject of the stewards' ruling derived from testimony Dr. Allen gave during a stewards' hearing regarding a positive drug test on a race horse named Ski Robbery. The charges at issue in the hearing were not brought against Dr. Allen but against the trainer of Ski Robbery. However, during the course of his testimony at the hearing, Dr. Allen admitted that he had added money to a bill submitted to the trainer for services rendered to Ski Robbery. On January 31, 1994, the Division filed an Administrative Complaint against Dr. Allen's pari-mutuel wagering occupational license, alleging violation of several of the Division's rules. In its Administrative Complaint, the Division alleged, among other things, that Dr. Allen had admitted to padding his bill to an owner/trainer by administering only one of the several drugs listed on the bill and that Dr. Allen had included an entry on a Veterinary Report of Medication filed with the state which was, by his own admission, false. On June 7, 1994, Dr. Allen entered into a Consent Order with the Division to settle the case and avoid further litigation. The Division of Pari- Mutuel Wagering agreed to accept a fine of $1,000 from Dr. Allen in full resolution of the matters contained in the Administrative Complaint. The Consent Order expressly stated that Dr. Allen did not admit liability or culpability with regard to the charges alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Board of Veterinary Medicine enter a Final Order finding Jonathan S. Allen guilty of violating section 474.214(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1993), imposing an administrative fine of $500.00 for this violation, and dismissing Count II of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of March 1996. PATRICIA HART MALONO Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of March 1996.
Findings Of Fact Nancy Boles owns and has operated Happy Days Guest Ranch for some 14 years. This facility is licensed as an ACLF and has no record of complaints other than those contested at this proceeding. On or about March 4, 1987, DHRS received a report from an undisclosed source that a resident at the Happy Days Guest Ranch ACLF had been abused by the proprietor, Nancy Boles, and an investigator was sent to the ACLF. Apparently the allegation was that Respondent had slapped a resident. At this time there were approximately 6 residents at the ACLF. After talking to these residents and with Respondent, the investigator, Katherine Massaro, concluded that a substantiated report of abuse had occurred. The HRS Division of License and Certification was notified and a decision was made to relocate the six residents and place a moratorium on further admissions to the ACLF. Additionally, Respondent's application to renew her ACLF license was denied. No evidence was presented that the HRS Division of Adult Services, filed a notification of a confirmed report of abuse against Respondent and placed her on the abuse register. Accordingly, this is not a proceeding challenging a confirmed report of abuse of the aged but is a license revocation proceeding. It is apparent that HRS notified the State Attorney's Office of the alleged abuse and the charges disposed of in Exhibit 1 were preferred. No adjudication of guilt was made in that case. Petitioner's eye witnesses to the alleged abuse were two elderly women. The younger, Mardell Surrency, whose deposition is Exhibit 2, was 75, and the other, Alice Beasley, whose deposition is Exhibit 3, was 86. Both of these women testified that they saw Respondent slap Fowler Simmons, another resident of the ACLF who is senile or has other mental impairment that led these witnesses to conclude that mentally Simmons was "real bad" with the mind of a child who had to be told everything to do. Both witnesses gave an indication (pantomined) of how Respondent slapped Simmons. Unfortunately, a verbal description of this act is not contained in their deposition. Surrency testified that Beasley "was 86 years old so she didn't pay much attention to anything." Beasley, on the other hand, testified that she and "Modelle" were sitting alongside each other when the incident occurred and she and "Modelle" had often talked about how mean Respondent talked to Simmons. Neither ever saw any bruise on Simmons' face or body or ever saw Respondent strike Simmons other than this one time. Both testified Respondent told Simmons to not sit there "like a damn fool." Respondent's version of the incident was that she did indeed slap Simmons, but gently on the mouth, to get him to eat the meal she had prepared. She demonstrated a very light slap with the palm of her hand on the lips. This evidence is deemed more credible than the often rambling and disjointed testimony of the two female residents of the ACLF.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Frank D. Inserra, violated Section 550.105(7), Florida Statutes (2007), as alleged in Count I of an Amended Administrative Complaint issued by Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, on October 15, 2007, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against his Florida pari-mutuel wagering occupational license.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering (hereinafter referred to as the “Division”), is an agency of the State of Florida created by Section 20.165(2)(f), Florida Statutes, and charged with the responsibility for the regulation of the pari- mutuel wagering industry pursuant to Chapter 550, Florida Statutes. Respondent, Frank D. Inserra, is, and was at the times material to this matter, the holder of a pari-mutuel occupational license, number 115731-1021, issued by the Division. On or about June 14, 2005, a Complaint was filed by Kenneth Posco against Mr. Inserra in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and for Broward County, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the “Posco Complaint”). In relevant part, the Posco Complaint alleged the following: This is an action for damages in excess of $15,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. At all times material hereto, Posco was and is an individual residing in Fitchburg, Massachusetts. At all times material hereto, Inserra was and is an individual residing in Broward County and is otherwise sui juris. . . . . On or about November 11, 2004, after a negotiated agreement for the purchase of certain thoroughbred racehorses was not honored by Inserra, Posco and Inserra entered into and [sic] agreement for the repayment of the funds previously forwarded by Posco to Inserra for such purchase (the ”Contract”). . . . Pursuant to the Contract, Inserra was to make certain periodic payments, in order to make full payment of the agreed upon sum of $40,186.00. Inserra has failed to make any of the periodic or final payments described in the Contract. . . . . The Contract referred to in the Posco Complaint is a settlement agreement entered into between Mr. Inserra and Mr. Posco to resolve Mr. Inserra’s failure to abide by the terms of an oral contract whereby Mr. Inserra agreed to sell four thoroughbred horses to Mr. Posco which were to be used by Mr. Posco in pari-mutuel racing. The Contract was entered into by Mr. Inserra and Mr. Posco on or about November 11, 2004. Pursuant to the Contract referred to in the Posco Complaint Mr. Inserra acknowledged, in part, the following: WHEREAS, Inserra, Seller, and Posco, as Purchaser, entered into an oral agreement for the purchase of certain horses (hereinafter “Agreement”) in which Inserra agreed to furnish four (4) total horses together with all required paperwork, in exchange for $36,750.00, prepaid by Posco; and WHEREAS, a dispute has arisen concerning the performance of Inserra under the Agreement; and WHEREAS, Inserra produced Stormin Hillbilly without the required papers (Jockey Club Registration) to allow Posco to race the horse, as anticipated by the Agreement, thus Posco has paid $3,436.00 for training fees, which he now seeks to be reimbursed as the horse has never been able to race; and WHEREAS, Inserra failed to produce any of the remaining three horses; and WHEREAS, Inserra and Posco are desirous of resolving all disputes and controversies regarding the proposed sale. NOW, THEREFORE inconsideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth and other valuable consideration, the parties hereby agree as follows: Inserra shall, within [30] days, pay to Posco $16,000.00. Inserra will then, within [90] days pay to Posco $10,250.00. Inserra will then, within [120] days pay to Posco $13,936.00. . . . . When Mr. Inserra failed to live up to the terms of the settlement agreement, Mr. Posco filed the Posco Complaint. On or about January 6, 2006, Mr. Posco filed Plaintiff, Keneth [sic] Posco’s Motion for Summary Judgment. On February 8, 2006, the Motion was granted and a Judgment was entered in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and for Broward County, Florida, against Mr. Inserra (hereinafter referred to as the “Judgment”). Mr. Inserra was ordered to pay Kenneth Posco $42,075.78. The Judgment was issued as a direct consequence of Mr. Inserra’s breach of the contract he entered into with Mr. Posco for the sale and purchase of thoroughbred racehorses in Florida, a contract which related directly to the sport of racing in pari-mutuel facilities in Florida. On June 18, 2007, the Judges/Stewards at Calder Race Course issued the following written ruling (Calder Order) against Mr. Inserra as a result of the Judgment: Judgment issued by the 17th Judicial Circuit Court in and for Broward County, Florida, on February 8th, 2006, orders Frank D. Inserra to Pay [sic] Kenneth Posco $42,075.78 plus attorney fees. This judgment has not been satisfied. Owner Frank D. Inserra, having been afforded a formal hearing before the Board of Stewards at Calder Race Course on Monday, June 18th, 2007, is suspended sixty days or until such time as the judgment is satisfied or vacated by the court. Suspension will commence on Thursday, June 21, and continue through and including Monday, August 20th, 2007. Denied access, use, and privileges of all grounds under the jurisdiction of the Florida Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering requiring a license for admission during the term of suspension. The Calder Order was affirmed in a Final Order of the Division entered on or about August 24, 2007. As of the date of the final hearing of this matter, the obligation imposed on Mr. Inserra by the Judgment, which arose out of a transaction relating directly to the sport of racing being conducted at pari-mutuel facilities within Florida, remained unpaid.
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 Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering: Dismissing Count II of the Amended Administrative Complaint; Finding that Respondent is guilty of the violation alleged in Count I of the Amended Administrative Complaint; and Suspending Mr. Inserra’s pari-mutuel wagering occupational license for a period of not less than ten days and continuing until Mr. Inserra provides satisfactory proof that he has satisfied his outstanding financial obligation to Kenneth Posco as ordered in the Judgment. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of April, 2008, in Tallahassee, 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 9th day of April, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles T. “Chip” Collette Assistant General Counsel Office of the General Counsel Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Frank D. Inserra 2649 Sable Palm Drive Miramar, Florida 33023 David J. Roberts, Director Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
