Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. Respondent is ETC Investments, Inc., licensed at all times pertinent to these proceedings to operate Tarpon Springs Care Center, an adult congregate living facility in Tarpon Springs, Florida. Petitioner's employees conducted inspections of Respondent's facility on September 30, 1986; May 29, 1987; and June 30, 1987. As a result of these inspections, certain deficiencies were discovered. Dates for correction of the deficiencies were determined by Petitioner's employees. Respondent was informed of the correction deadlines. Upon subsequent inspections by Petitioner's employees, some of the deficiencies continued to exist. On September 30, 1986, Petitioner's employees determined that Respondent did not have an admission and discharge record which was being properly maintained. Respondent was required to make available to Petitioner's representative by October 7, 1986, documentation indicating that a current register was being maintained. The deficiency remained uncorrected on May 29, 1987. The deficiency consisted of Respondent's failure to record the name of one resident on the facility's central log or register and a failure to note the discharge of three other residents in that register. A required health assessment form was not present in the file of one resident in Respondent's facility on September 30, 1986; a correction deadline of October 30, 1986 was set. The required form was still not in the file as required on May 29, 1987. On May 29, 1987, Respondent still had not provided proof of continuing liability insurance availability for Petitioner's review. This deficiency had been noted on September 30, 1986, with correction to be made by Respondent by October 30, 1986. Respondent failed to provide evidence at the September 30, 1986 inspection that weights of two residents of the facility were recorded semiannually. The purpose of weight records is to assist in ascertaining if a resident has a health problem. This deficiency remained uncorrected on May 29, 1987, although, as a result of the September 30, 1986 inspection, correction had been required to be made by October 30, 1986. On May 29, 1987, Respondent had not provided documentation for review by Petitioner's representative indicating that quarterly fire alarm tests were conducted; likewise, Respondent had not provided documentation indicating the performance of required smoke detector tests and inspections. These deficiencies were noted in the September 30, 1986 inspection. Documentation of testing in both instances was required to be made available by Respondent no later than October 30, 1986. Respondent has been charged with failure to provide documentation of food service policies as a result of the September 30, 1986 inspection. However, in the absence of direct testimony, Petitioner exhibit number 1, alleged to be a statement of deficiencies issued by Petitioner, is not corroborative or credited with probative value as to existence of Respondent's failure to provide documentation of the facility's food service policies and procedures by the deadline of October 30, 1986. Further, testimony of Respondent's witness, that correction of this deficiency was overlooked during subsequent inspections by Petitioner's employees, is corroborated by the witness' provision of a copy of Respondent's policies dated October 3, 1986.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order finding the commission of six class III violations by Respondent and assessing total civil penalties of $900 for such violations. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of February, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 15th day of February, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward A. Haman, Esquire 7827 N. Dale Mabry Highway Tampa, Florida 33614 Elaine Chicles, pro se President, ETC Investments, Inc. 1210 East Oakwood Street Tarpon Springs, Florida 34689 Gregory L. Coler Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 =================================================================
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Galilee was licensed by the Department. Galilee's last known address is 4685 Haverhill Road, West Palm Beach, Florida. Galilee is a lodging establishment, consisting of rental apartments. It was originally constructed in 1995 as an assisted living facility but, as a business decision, the owner subsequently converted it to rental apartments. The Department's inspector inspected the outside of Galilee on December 18, 2002, and again on January 17, 2003. The inspector found deficiencies at the first inspection, and at the second inspection three deficiencies remained uncorrected. The uncorrected deficiencies were (1) the current report of the annual inspection for the fire sprinkler system was not available; (2) fire extinguishers failed to have state certification tags affixed; and (3) no backflow prevention device on the exterior hose connection to the apartment building. The failure to have available the current report of the annual inspection for the fire sprinkler system was a critical violation. The deficiency was classified as a critical violation because the annual report is the only way that an inspector can ascertain that the fire sprinkler system is operational. The inspector requested the current annual report at the first visit but it was not available. The failure of the fire extinguishers to have state certification tags affixed was a critical violation. The deficiency was classified as a critical violation because the state certified tag verifies that an extinguisher is in proper working order and is being properly maintained. The failure to have a backflow prevention device on the exterior hose connection to the apartment building was not a critical violation. The backflow prevention device stops negative water pressure. At the first inspection, the inspector explained the violations to the owner and gave him a 30-day warning to have the violations corrected, advising the owner that she would return on January 17, 2003, for a follow-up inspection. The violations were not corrected at the follow-up inspection 30 days later. The evidence shows that all the violations were corrected within a month to a month and a half after the second inspection. Galilee provided mitigating circumstances for the violations not being corrected at the time of the second inspection. As to the deficiency regarding availability of the current report of the annual inspection for the fire sprinkler system, Galilee has a current report dated February 27, 2003. Also, Galilee suggests that the inspector did not request the report. The undersigned finds the inspector's testimony credible that she requested the report. Further, the evidence shows that Galilee confused the requested report with the report of the fire department's inspection. The inspector testified, and her testimony is found credible, that the report of the annual inspection for the fire sprinkler system is generated by a private company, not the fire department, because the fire department does not perform the inspection required for the requested report. As to the deficiency regarding tagging of the fire extinguishers, Galilee's owner purchased fire extinguishers from Home Depot and was not aware that the extinguishers were required to be tagged at the time of the first inspection. Subsequent to the second inspection, the fire extinguishers were tagged by the AAC United Fire and Safety Department, with which Galilee has a contract to inspect the fire extinguishers. As to the deficiency regarding backflow prevention device, it too was corrected subsequent to the second inspection. Furthermore, even though the deficiencies were corrected subsequent to the second inspection, Galilee began the process to correct the deficiencies after the first inspection. Galilee was not ignoring the deficiencies. The deficiencies were not timely corrected because Galilee's owner was attempting to obtain, whom he considered, the proper people to perform the tasks involved and have the tasks performed at a reasonable expense. No evidence of prior disciplinary action being taken against Galilee by the Department was presented.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants enter a final order: Finding that Galilee violated NFPA Life Safety Code 25, 1-8.2 and Food Code Rule 5-204.12. Dismissing the violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C-1.004(5). Imposing an administrative fine of $1,500.00, payable under terms and conditions deemed appropriate. S DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ____ ERROL H. POWELL 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 31st day of October, 2003.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondents are entitled to a renewed license for their facility. HRS' position is that the renewal should be denied because the sleeping room windows do not comply with the 1981 Life Safety Code. The Brevigs argue that HRS's interpretation of the code is too rigid, that the 1985 code is the applicable edition, and that they are entitled to an exception contained within the later code.
Findings Of Fact Tom and Jeannie Brevig own Florida Haven Retirement Home #1, located in Maitland, Florida. They purchased the facility in 1981. Prior to 1984, Florida Haven was licensed as an adult congregate living facility (ACLF) by the HRS District Office and fire safety inspections were conducted by Seminole County inspectors. In 1984, the HRS Office of Licensure and Certification acquired jurisdiction and a fire inspector from that office conducted an inspection in July 1984. At that time a citation was issued for deficiencies in the sleeping room windows. In October 1984, the Brevigs sold the facility. Ray Heyser is an inspector certified by the State Fire Marshal. He is employed by HRS' Office of Licensure and Certification and conducts inspections of ACLFs in accordance with Chapter 22 of the Life Safety Code. On July 2, 1985, he inspected Florida Haven and personally measured the windows. He found the following: The front north bedroom window had a clear opening of 16 inches high, by 48 inches wide, and the sill was 42 inches from the floor. The rear south bedroom window was 16 inches high, by 32 inches wide, and the sill was 42 inches from the floor. The side south bedroom window was 10 inches high, by 48 inches wide, with a 54 inch sill. The front south bedroom was 16 inches high, by 48 inches wide, with a 34 inch sill. The remaining front bedroom window was also 16 inches high, by 48 inches wide, with a 34 inch sill. Each of these bedrooms was used as a sleeping room. None of the rooms has exterior doors. The Life Safety Code requires that an outside window in a sleeping room have a clear opening of not less than 24 inches in height, 20 inches in width, and 5.7 square feet in area. The bottom of the opening must be no more than 44 inches from the floor. "Clear opening" means the unobstructed passage when the window is opened. The reasons for the requirement are to allow emergency egress and to permit access by fire service personnel who may be equipped with large cylinder breathing apparatus. None of the sleeping room windows at the facility met the height requirement for clear opening and one window was out of compliance as to the height from the floor. In January 1986, the Brevigs regained ownership of the facility and were granted a transfer license. In August 1986 the home was again cited for deficiencies in the windows. This was noted as a "Class III" deficiency and the recommendation was a "conditional license pending correction". (Petitioner's Exhibit #1) At a re-investigation in February 1987, the window deficiencies still existed. By a letter dated July 7, 1987, Tom Brevig was informed that his license for Florida Haven Retirement Home #1 expired on June 30, 1987. Since he had not corrected the deficiencies noted in his conditional license, he was told to relocate the residents. HRS adopted the 1985 Life Safety Code in April 1987. Both that code and the prior edition provide for exceptions or variances to the window requirements in certain circumstances. HRS' policy is that exceptions are only rarely granted, and then only when the applicant affirmatively presents its basis for an exception. Tom Brevig discussed the possibility of an exception with HRS's architect but did not make a specific proposal. Tom Brevig claims that he was given an exception by a prior HRS inspector, but the HRS Office of Licensure and Certification has nothing in writing that would indicate that an exception was granted. The ACLF Director for that HRS office has no knowledge that HRS ever approved the windows as a pre-existing means of escape or entry.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby RECOMMENDED: That a renewal license be withheld from Florida Haven Retirement Home #1, until the deficiencies are corrected or the owner provides an alternative proposal consistent with the standards in the Life Safety Code, 1985 Edition and Rule 4A- 40.004, F.A.C. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 19th day of February, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of February, 1988. APPENDIX The following constitute rulings on the findings of fact proposed by counsel for the Brevigs: Adopted in paragraph #1. Adopted in paragraph #2. Rejected as unsupported by competent evidence. Mr. Brevig's argument is a conclusion based on the fact of his obtaining a license. He did not establish that the windows were approved or that their size was at issue when the Seminole County inspections were made. Adopted in substance in paragraph 3, although it was not clearly established that this was the first citation by HRS. It was the first citation by the OLC. Adopted in paragraph 4. Rejected as uncorroborated hearsay. Adopted in paragraph 5. Adopted in paragraph 8. Rejected as unnecessary and a mischaracterization of the discussion as evidenced in the cited portions of the transcript. Adopted in paragraph 9. Rejected as irrelevant and hearsay. Adopted in part in paragraph 6. Access from the outside is not the sole reason for the requirement, in spite of the testimony from witness Mauger. The plain language of the section of the Code and the Handbook explanation establish the requirement as relating to a means of escape from the inside. Rejected as hearsay and inconsistent with the history of Rule 4A-40.005, F.A.C. Adoption was in 1987, not 1986, according to the F.A.C. Addressed in paragraph 2, Conclusions of Law. Rejected as unnecessary. This fact is not in issue. COPIES FURNISHED: James A. Sawyer, Jr., Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Service 400 West Robinson Street Suite 911 Orlando, Florida 32801 Thomas C. Brevig 1680 Maitland Avenue Maitland, Florida 32751 Michael J. Bittman, Esquire DEMPSEY AND GOLDSMITH, P.A Suite 500, Day Building 605 E. Robinson Street Post Office Box 1980 Orlando, Florida 32802 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Suite 407 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact Respondent, ACLF, was inspected May 5, 1985, and some 29 Class III deficiencies were noted and a schedule of correction was established to have these deficiencies corrected by June 6, 1985. At a follow-up visit July 11, 1985, some 19 of these deficiencies had been corrected while 10 remained uncorrected. As a result of failure to timely correct these deficiencies Respondent was assessed a $1000 fine which was paid. A subsequent inspection of Respondent's facility was conducted on February 3, 1986, with the following previously reported violations uncorrected: No personnel policies and work assignments. No written work schedule for employees. No assurance staff trained in providing personal hygiene care. Written job descriptions not available for review. Employees not furnished written policies governing conditions of employment. Strong urine odor in rear bedroom. Additionally, eight new Class III deficiencies were noted with four classified as food service standards, three physical plant standards and one fire safety standard. Respondent submitted a schedule to correct these deficiencies (Exh. 3) indicating all deficiencies corrected prior to 2/27/86. No reinspection has been conducted by Petition to confirm these Class III deficiencies have been corrected. New discrepancies noted on February 3, 1986, included menu not posted where it could easily be seen by residents, menu not corrected as served, oven door broken off, potentially hazardous food at room temperature in kitchen, screen on front door torn, clothes closet door off track, vanity in bedroom had part of facing missing, exposed wiring in living room area, shower head missing in one bathroom, and two ceiling fans serviced by extension cord wiring. The menu was posted on the side of the refrigerator where it had been kept for three years and was readily visible to residents. Respondent testified the menu was corrected as served on the back of the menu, but the inspector contended such corrections must be on a separate paper. This testimony was not rebutted. The inspection on February 3, 1986, occurred shortly after the breakfast meal was served and all of the food had not been replaced in the refrigerator. This included one can of fruit that was the subject of this discrepancy. No inquiry was made as to how or when the screen was torn on the front door. Exhibit 3 indicates the deficiency was repaired February 10, 1986. All of these discrepancies were corrected by February 21, 1986 (Exh. 3). All discrepancies at any inspection relating to fire safety were timely corrected by Respondent. Respondent facility is operated by Mrs. Gilpin, her husband and adult daughter, who comprise the employees of the facility. Each testified that he/she has all of the certifications required to work in an ACLF and that each job description was included in the daily work schedule that was posted. It appears from the testimony that at times other employees have been utilized and Ms. Gilpin stated they fill out time cards showing time they commenced and stopped work and that their work schedule is included in the cleaning schedule they carry out. Respondent explained the strong urine odor as coming from the room occupied by a patient with a urostomy early in the morning before the room was cleaned. The death of this person subsequently solved the odor problem.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondents have violated various statutes and rules governing persons licensed to install and service fire extinguishers and fire suppression systems and, if so, what penalties Petitioner should impose.
Findings Of Fact General Respondents hold Class A and C licenses as fire extinguisher dealers, Class D licenses as pre-engineered systems dealers, Class 01 licenses as fire extinguisher permittees, and Class 04 licenses as pre-engineered systems permittees. Respondent Todd Jacobs (Jacobs) is the qualifier for Respondent National Fire and Safety Corporation (NFS). NFS has been in the fire-safety business for about 15 years. Jacobs received his first permit about ten years ago. Neither Respondent has been disciplined prior to the suspension of all of their licenses and permits effective May 15, 1997, for the incidents described below. The suspension has remained continuously in effect through the present. Pre-engineered systems are custom installations of fire-suppression systems. These pressurized systems, which are activated by heat-sensitive fusible links and small cylinders known as cartridges, feature large metal cylinders that supply the powder through pipes to specific hazard areas. Pre-engineered systems must be installed in accordance with pretested limitations and configurations. Petitioner has cited various violations of the standards of the National Fire Protection Association. As noted in the conclusions of law, violation of these standards, which are incorporated into the rules, provide the basis for discipline. The relevant standards of the National Fire Protection Association are divided into two sections: one governs persons dealing with fire extinguishers and the other governs persons dealing with pre-engineered systems. National Fire Protection Association 10 is titled, “Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers.” National Fire Protection Association 10, Standard 1-3 defines a “portable fire extinguisher” as a “portable device carried on wheels and operated by hand containing an extinguishing agent that can be expelled under pressure for the purpose of suppressing or extinguishing a fire.” National Fire Protection Association 10 applies to fire extinguishers, not pre-engineered systems. National Fire Protection Association 10, Chapter 4 governs the inspection, maintenance, and recharging of fire extinguishers. National Fire Protection Association 10, Standard 4-1.4 provides that “[m]aintenance, servicing, and recharging” of fire extinguishers shall be performed by trained persons “having available the appropriate servicing manual(s), the proper types of tools, recharge materials, lubricants, and manufacturer’s recommended replacement parts or parts specifically listed for use in the fire extinguisher.” National Fire Protection Association 10, Standard 4-5.1.2 requires that persons recharging a fire extinguisher shall follow the “recommendations of the manufacturer.” National Fire Protection Association 10, Standard 4-5.3.1 requires that persons recharging fire extinguishers use “[o]nly those agents specified on the nameplate or agents proven to have equal chemical composition, physical characteristics, and fire extinguishing capabilities ” National Fire Protection Association 10, Standard 4-5.3.2 prohibits persons recharging fire extinguishers from mixing “[m]ultipurpose dry chemicals” with “alkaline-based dry chemicals.” National Fire Protection Association 10, Chapter 5 governs the hydrostatic testing of fire extinguishers. Table 5-2 provides that the longest hydrostatic test interval for fire extinguishers is 12 years. National Fire Protection Association 10, Standard 5-1.2 provides that the hydrostatic testing of fire extinguishers shall be performed by trained persons “having available suitable testing equipment, facilities, and appropriate servicing manual(s).” National Fire Protection Association 10, Standard 5-5.1.1 requires that persons hydrostatically testing fire extinguishers first conduct an internal examination of the cylinder. National Fire Protection Association 10, Standard 5-5.1.2 requires that persons hydrostatically testing fire extinguishers do so in accordance with the “procedures specified in the pamphlet Methods for Hydrostatic Testing of Compressed Gas Cylinders (CGA C-1), published by the Compressed Gas Association.” National Fire Protection Association 10, Standard 5-5.2 provides that the testing procedures for low-pressure cylinders, shells, and hose assemblies are detailed in Appendix A. Appendix A contains detailed material, but, according to a prefatory statement, “[t]his Appendix is not part of the requirements of this National Fire Protection Association document but is included for informational purposes only.” National Fire Protection Association 17 is titled, “Standard for Dry Chemical Extinguishing Systems.” National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 1-4 defines “pre- engineered systems,” in part, as [t]hose having predetermined flow rates, nozzle pressures, and quantities of dry chemical [with] specific pipe size, maximum and minimum pipe lengths, flexible hose specifications, number of fittings and number and types of nozzles prescribed by a testing laboratory.” National Fire Protection Association 17 applies to pre- engineered systems, not fire extinguishers. National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 1-4 defines “inspection” as a “’quick’ check to give reasonable assurance that the extinguishing system is fully charged and operable.” The definition adds that this is done by “seeing that the system is in place, that it has not been activated or tampered with, and that there is no obvious physical damage or condition to prevent operation.” National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 3-8.3.1 requires that the dry chemical container and expellant gas assemblies of a pre-engineered system shall be located “so as not to be subjected to severe weather conditions or to mechanical, chemical, or other damage.” National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 3-9.1 provides that, for pre-engineered systems, the “pipings and fittings shall be installed in accordance with good commercial practices.” National Fire Protection Association 17, Chapter 9 governs the inspection, maintenance, and recharging of pre- engineered systems. National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 9-1.1 provides that, when dry chemical pressure containers are not attached to piping or hand hose lines, the discharge outlet shall have a protective diffusing safety cap to protect persons from recoil and high-flow discharge in case of accidental activation. The caps shall also be used on empty National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 9- 1.4 provides that “[a]ll dry chemical extinguishing systems shall be inspected in accordance with the owner’s manual and maintained and recharged in accordance with the manufacturer’s listed installation and maintenance manual and service bulletins.” National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 9-3.2 provides that “[f]ixed temperature-sensing elements of the fusible metal allow type shall be replaced at least annually from the date of installation. They shall be destroyed when removed.” National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 9-3.2.1 provides that the “year of manufacture and date of installation of the fixed temperature-sensing element shall be marked on the system inspection tag[,]” and the “tag shall be signed or initialed by the installer.” National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 9-4.2 provides that “[s]ystems shall be recharged in accordance with the manufacturer’s listed installation and maintenance manual.” National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 9-5 requires that trained persons hydrostatically testing pre- engineered systems have “available suitable testing equipment, facilities, and an appropriate service manual(s).” This standard requires hydrostatic testing at 12-year intervals for the dry chemical container, auxiliary pressure containers (unless less than two inches in outside diameter and two feet in length or unless they bear the DOT stamp, “3E”), and hose assemblies. National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 9-5.1 requires that persons hydrostatically testing pre- engineered systems subject the tested components of hydrostatic test pressure equal to the marked factory test pressure or the test pressure specified in the manufacturer’s listed installation and maintenance manual. This test prohibits any leakage, rupture, or movement of hose couplings and requires test procedures in accordance with the manufacturer’s detailed written hydrostatic test instructions.” National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 9-5.2 requires that persons hydrostatically testing pre- engineered systems remove and discard the dry chemical agent from the containers prior to the test. Page Field (Counts I and II) In March 1997, Rick Clontz, a Lee County employee, asked Roland Taylor, an NFS employee, to service components of the fire-safety system at the Lee County Hazardous Materials Facility at Page Field in Fort Myers. This fire-safety system protects an area at which Lee County stores corrosive, flammable, and poisonous materials. Initially, Mr. Taylor removed three ten-pound ABC fire extinguishers. These are small portable cylinders, whose “ABC” designation refers to their ability to suppress a broad range of fires. According to the National Fire Protection Association standards, Class A fires involve “ordinary combustible materials, such as wood, cloth, paper, rubber, and many plastics.” Class B fires involve “flammable liquids, oils greases, tars, oil-based paints, lacquers, and flammable gases.” Class C fires involve “energized electrical equipment . . . .” On April 1, 1997, Mr. Taylor returned the three 10- pound ABC fire extinguishers. Later inspection revealed that Mr. Taylor had properly removed and discarded the ABC powder from each cylinder, but he had refilled only one of the three cylinders entirely with ABC powder. He erroneously filled the other two cylinders with mixtures of 75 percent and 50 percent BC powder. The improper filling of two of the fire extinguishers at the Page Field Hazardous Materials Facility threatened the public health, safety, and welfare. Meeting Mr. Taylor at the Page Field facility when Mr. Taylor returned the three small cylinders, Mr. Clontz asked him to remove the 50-pound Ansul SPA 50 cylinder and hydrostatically test it. Mr. Taylor noted that the cylinder was not yet due for this test, but quoted a price to which Mr. Clontz agreed, and Mr. Taylor disconnected the cylinder from the pre-engineered system and transported it from the site. Hydrostatic testing is a hydraulic interior pressurization test that measures ductility, which is the ability of cylinder walls to expand and contract. The purpose of hydrostatic testing is to determine the suitability of a cylinder for continued service. Hydrostatic testing requires the tester to release the pressure and empty the contents of a cylinder. Using specialized equipment, the tester then fills the cylinder with water, pressurizing it to twice the service pressure or, for the systems cylinders involved in this case, 1000 pounds per square inch. Cylinder failure from the loss of structural integrity can result in a dangerous rupture, possibly causing an improperly bracketed cylinder to launch like an unguided missile. A cylinder that passes its hydrostatic test does not have to be retested for 12 years. Three days later, Mr. Taylor returned the Ansul cylinder with a tag stamped to show the date on which NFS had hydrostatically tested the cylinder. Mr. Taylor reconnected it to the pre-engineered system, changing the three fusible links. However, Mr. Taylor did not tighten the actuation piping wrench-tight, as required by the manufacturer’s specification. Instead, Mr. Taylor left the actuation piping sufficiently loose that it might cause a failure of the pre- engineered system to activate. As Respondents conceded, the loose actuation piping threatened the public health, safety, and welfare. Finished with his work, Mr. Taylor gave Mr. Clontz a receipt, but no diagram or report, as Mr. Clontz usually received after such service. Consistent with the work requested by Lee County, the receipt stated that NFS had hydrostatically tested and recharged the three ten-pound and one 50-pound cylinders. However, NFS had not hydrostatically tested the 50- pound Ansul SPA 50 cylinder. NFS had not even changed the powder in the cylinder. Jacobs was personally aware of these facts and personally authorized the deceitful stamping of the tag to show a hydrostatic testing. The fraudulent misrepresentation concerning the hydrostatic testing of the Ansul SPA 50 cylinder threatened the public health, safety, and welfare. Additionally, NFS had replaced the three fusible links with three other fusible links. Petitioner failed to prove that there are material differences between the two types of links so as to justify discipline. There are two differences between the links. First, NFS used Globe links rather than Ansul links. However, Ansul links are manufactured by Globe. The Ansul expert testified that Ansul subjects the links to an additional inspection. However, the record does not reveal whether Globe does not also subject its brand-name links to another inspection that it does not perform for the links that it manufactures for Ansul. The Ansul expert did not testify as to the defect rate resulting from the Ansul inspection or any difference between the performance of the “two” links. On this record, then, there is no demonstrated difference in the two brand-named fusible links. The second difference is that NFS installed an ML link rather than the newer K link currently in use. Ansul approved the ML link in the Ansul SPA 50 pre-engineered system until five years ago. At that time, Ansul authorized use of the older ML link until dealer inventories were depleted. Even assuming that the K link represents a safety advance, compared to the ML link, Ansul’s gradual introduction of the new link precludes a finding that the difference was material, unless one were to assume that Ansul disregarded public safety when authorizing the gradual introduction of the new link. Respondents conceded that they did not have a copy of the Ansul SPA 50 manual when they serviced the Ansul SPA 50 system. They have since obtained the manual. Petitioner failed to show that the failure to have the manual threatened the public health, safety, or welfare. Respondents conceded that they did not produce the inspection form for the system. They had provided such a form previously. Petitioner failed to show that the failure to produce an inspection form threatened the public health, safety, or welfare. At the hearing, Petitioner agreed not to pursue the claim against Respondents regarding the LT10R cartridge. Petitioner effectively conceded that Respondents were not required to hydrostatically test the cartridge because it is exempt from such testing. Petitioner evidently elected not to pursue the recharging issue for other reasons. Mobile Service Units (Counts III-V The service truck operated by Mark Thackeray did not have a conductivity tester, certified scales, or proper manuals. The conductivity tester ensures that the braiding is intact on carbon dioxide hoses. The certified scales ensures that the cylinder is filled with the proper amount of dry chemical. The manuals ensure that the person servicing a pre- engineered system understands all of its components and how it works. Additionally, one cylinder in the truck had a drill bit instead of a safety pin installed in the head of the bottle. Petitioner also proved that the fire extinguisher and pre-engineered system tags bore the Naples and Fort Myers addresses for NFS. As noted below, the Fort Myers location was inactive, used only for storage and drop-offs and not for shop work or retail sales activity. For several years, Petitioner’s representatives knew that the tags bore both addresses and knew that the Fort Myers location was inactive, but never objected to Respondents’ practice. The only violation involving Mr. Thackeray’s truck that threatened the public health, safety, or welfare was the failure to have certified scales. The service truck operated by Ward Read lacked an operational inspection light, six-inch vise, and proper manuals. Additionally, Mr. Read’s truck had tags with the Fort Myers and Naples addresses for NFS. However, none of these violations involving Mr. Read’s truck threatened the public health, safety, or welfare. Petitioner failed to prove that Mr. Read’s truck lacked leak testing equipment. The truck had a bottle of Leak Tech with which to detect leaks in fire extinguishers. The truck also had a cable-crimping tool. The truck lacked a Kidde tool, but Petitioner failed to prove that Mr. Read installed Kidde systems off this truck or that the crimping tool present on the truck could not service adequately Kidde installations. The service truck operated by Donald Zelmanski lacked an inspection light, a six-inch vise, certified scales, leak-testing equipment, and proper manuals. Mr. Zelmanski’s truck contained tags with the Fort Myers and Naples addresses. The only violation that threatened the public health, safety, or welfare was the failure to have certified scales. Naples and Fort Myers Facilities (Counts VI-VII) The NFS Naples facility lacked operational hydrostatic test equipment on April 9, 1997. Respondents claim that they were having the equipment upgraded and calibrated at the time of the inspection. Ordinarily, this defense might be creditable, but not in this case. While the hydrostatic test equipment was out of service, NFS accepted the Page Field cylinder for hydrostatic testing and returned it to service, fraudulently representing that the cylinder had been hydrotested. This is precisely the practice against which the requirement of operational testing equipment is designed to protect. The Naples facility also lacked certified gauges for low-pressure testing. Respondents claim that the equipment upgrade described in the preceding paragraph would allow them to test high- and low-pressure cylinders on the same machine. However, due to Respondents’ fraudulent handling of the Page Field cylinder during the equipment downtime, this defense is unavailing. The Naples facility lacked an adapter to allow Respondents to recharge an Ansul SPA 50 cylinder. Jacobs drove the Page Field cylinder to St. Petersburg to have the cylinder recharged by a competitor that had such an adapter. However, the requirement that a facility have an adapter reduces the risk that a licensee will ignore its professional responsibilities and simply return a cylinder to service without first discharging it and performing a visual internal inspection. Respondents’ failure to discharge their other professional responsibilities underscores the materiality of the requirement that they keep an adapter for the Ansul SPA 50 that they elected to accept for service. Respondents kept tags at the Naples facility with tags containing addresses of the Naples and Fort Myers facilities. At the time of the inspection, Respondents also lacked documentation for two of eight scales, including a scale in 1/4-pound increments. Jacobs’ claim that they sent the two uncertified scales for servicing immediately after the inspection does not obviate the fact that, at the time of the inspection, they were available for use and in disrepair. Respondents failed to include serial numbers of serviced fire extinguishers on the relevant invoices. Respondents also failed to include the necessary permit number on inspection forms. Respondent falsely represented that they had hydrotested the Page Field Ansul SPA 50 cylinder at the Naples facility when they had not done so. Respondents stored cylinder bottles without safety caps in place. Petitioner failed to prove that Respondents did not post DOT certification near the hydrostatic testing equipment or that they stocked nitrogen cylinders without an acceptable blow-out disk in place. The blow-out disks were not Ansul brand, but Petitioner failed to prove that the disks were not UL listed or the substantial equivalent of Ansul disks. Respondents concede that the Fort Myers location lacked the items alleged by Petitioner. However, the Fort Myers location is inactive and serves merely as a drop-off or storage facility. All shop work and retail sales activities occur at the Naples location. At the time of the April 1997 inspection, Respondents surrendered the license for the inactive Fort Myers location. Other Jobs (Counts VIII-XI) Respondents installed a pre-engineered system at the SunTrust Bank in Naples. The cylinder is in the bank vault, which it is designed to protect. Petitioner charged that Respondents improperly located the cylinder in the hazard area, but Petitioner did not discuss the fact that the cylinder at Page Field was in the hazard area. Obviously, the corrosive effect of the hazardous materials at Page Field represents a greater risk to the cylinder than the corrosive effect of money and other valuables in the vault at the SunTrust. Additionally, some language in the Ansul manual cautions not to locate the cylinder in the hazard area, but only if the hazard is corrosive. Respondents replaced the fusible links at SunTrust annually. However, they failed to record the year of manufacture of the fusible links on the system tag when last servicing the system in October 1996. There is no evidence as to whether Respondents had suitable Ansul manuals and adapters when it serviced the system at that time. Respondents installed a pre-engineered system at the VFW Post in Naples. In doing so, their employee, who also misfilled the three fire extinguishers at Page Field, left the end-pipe-to-nozzle loose, so as to risk a loss of pressure in case of fire. This condition threatened the public health, safety, and welfare. Although Respondents fired this employee shortly after discovering his poor performance, this action does not eliminate the safety violations for which he, and they, are responsible. Petitioner also proved that Respondents located the 260 nozzle over the griddle in the wrong location. This condition threatened the public health, safety, and welfare because the system might not extinguish a fire on the griddle. Petitioner failed to prove that Respondents located the 230 nozzle in the wrong location. The Ansul manual allows this nozzle to be located anywhere along or within the perimeter of the fryer, if aimed to the center of the fryer. The 230 nozzle was so located and aimed. Respondents installed two pre-engineered systems at Mozzarella’s Café in Naples. In the course of this job, Respondents committed several violations governing documentation. Respondents improperly combined two pre- engineered systems on one inspection report, failed to include in the inspection report references to the manufacturer’s drawings and page numbers, failed to list in the inspection report a second gas valve on the front hood of one system, and failed to include in the inspection report Respondents’ permit number. However, Petitioner failed to prove that Respondents failed to list in the inspection report the type of fusible links in each hood. Respondents serviced a pre-engineered system at Kwan’s Express in Fort Myers in December 1996. Respondents failed to list in the inspection report the degree and types of fusible links installed and a reference to the drawing and page number in the manufacturer’s manual. However, Respondents listed in the inspection report the model number of the system. Red Lobster (Count XII) Several months after Petitioner had suspended Respondents’ licenses and permits, counsel for both parties negotiated a settlement agreement. Under the agreement, Petitioner would immediately lift the suspension. Jacobs and his general manager, Judson Schroyer, learned that Respondents’ counsel had received an unsigned, final draft settlement agreement on Monday, August 18, 1997. The settlement conditions were acceptable to Respondents, and Jacobs knew that Respondents’ counsel had signed the agreement and faxed it back to Petitioner’s counsel for execution by Petitioner’s representative. On August 18, the general manager of the Red Lobster in Naples called NFS and spoke with Jacobs. The general manager described a job involving the installation of a new oven, which would necessitate the relocation of other kitchen equipment a few feet. Thinking that the settlement agreement would be fully executed by then, Jacobs agreed to visit the general manager at the site the following morning. The next morning, Jacobs and Mr. Schroyer met the general manager at the Red Lobster. Giving the general manager NFS business cards with their names, Jacobs and Mr. Schroyer briefly examined the pre-engineered system in the kitchen, as the three men walked through the kitchen, and assured the general manager that there would be no problem doing the work in the short timeframe that the customer required. The purpose of the visit was much more for marketing than it was for preparation for the relatively simple job that the general manager envisioned. Shortly after leaving the Red Lobster, Mr. Schroyer realized that Respondents might not have their licenses and permits reinstated in time to do the job. He conveyed this concern to his supervisor, Jacobs, who spoke with Respondents’ counsel on the evening of August 19 and learned that they could not do the job. Jacobs instructed Mr. Schroyer to call another company in Fort Myers, FireMaster, to which Respondents had referred work during their suspension. Mr. Schroyer called a representative of FireMaster, and he agreed to perform the work. FireMaster assigned the job to Ward Read, who, as is authorized by Petitioner, held a dual permit, which means that he was permitted to work for two licensed dealers. One was NFS, and the other was FireMaster. Mr. Read reported to the Red Lobster in the predawn hours of August 21, as requested by the general manager of Red Lobster. Because his FireMaster truck had insufficient supplies, Mr. Read used an NFS truck, the equipment tags, inspection report, and invoice all bore the name of FireMaster.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the State Fire Marshal enter a final order suspending the licenses and permits of both Respondents for two years, commencing from the effective date of the earlier emergency order of suspension. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 12th day of December, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Attorney Mechele R. McBride Attorney Richard Grumberg Department of Insurance and Treasurer 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Mark H. Muller Quarles & Brady, P.A. 4501 North Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34103 Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), should fine the Respondent, Willie Mae Johnson, d/b/a Leisure Living Retirement Home, based on an Administrative Complaint that alleges that ten Class III deficiencies have persisted despite notice of the deficiencies and of the requirement that they be corrected.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Willie Mae Johnson, d/b/a Leisure Living Retirement Home, is licensed to operate Leisure Living Retirement Home, 401 S.E. 9th Avenue, Mulberry, Florida, as an adult congregate living facility (ACLF) under Chapter 400, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 10A-5, Florida Administrative Code. On January 9, 1989, the day of an HRS survey of the Respondent's ACLF, the following Class III deficiencies, among others, were present: The facility did not have on its staff at all times at least one staff person with training in an approved first aid course, and there was no evidence that all staff were free of communicable disease. Daily records of supervised self- administered medications had not been kept for some residents since 1/3/89. Others showed the medications had been logged sporadically, while one medication, Inderol 10 mg, had never been logged. Because of this haphazard system, there was no way to be sure residents were receiving medications at the proper times and in the correct dosages. Of eight health assessments reviewed three did not indicate the residents to be free of communicable disease. One did not indicate whether the resident was capable of self-administering medications with supervision or assistance from staff. Appropriateness of admissions and continued residency was not based on the medical records. See subparagraph C, above. Medications were not given as prescribed. As the medications had not been logged or given according to the medication label, there is a potential for over- or under- medicating the residents, which could lead to serious health problems for the residents. All rooms where food or drink was prepared and served were not clean or in good repair as evidenced by: Live and dead cockroaches were observed on the kitchen and dining room floor and in the kitchen cabinets. There were spills inside the microwave oven. There was an accumulation of dust on top of the refrigerator and the freezer. The curtains in the dining room were torn. All potentially hazardous food was not held at safe temperatures. Liver had been left at room temperature to thaw. It could not be determined if the freezer was 0 degrees Fahrenheit or colder, as the thermometer had not been placed in the freezer until shortly before the surveyor exited the facility. The last annual inspection of the portable fire extinguisher in the main building was done December, 1987. Documentation of monthly fire drills and quality tests of smoke detectors and the fire alarm system was not available at time of survey. The facility needed to institute an effective insect control system. There were roaches crawling up the wall near the phone, creating an atmosphere ripe for the spread of disease. (These lettered subparagraphs correspond to the lettered subparagraphs in paragraph (3) of the Administrative Complaint in this case.) At the conclusions of the January 9, 1989, survey, the Respondent agreed to the following schedule for correcting each of the deficiencies listed in the subparagraphs of Finding 2, above (each lettered subparagraph below corresponds to the deficiency identified in the same lettered subparagraph of Finding 2, above): February 15, 1989 Immediate and ongoing. February 9, 1989. February 9, 1989. Immediate. January 20, 1989. January 9, 1989. January 16, 1989. February 9, 1989. Immediate. On April 27, 1989, HRS personnel returned to the Respondent's facility. They found that the deficiencies listed in the lettered subparagraphs of Finding 2, above, were not corrected, as the Respondent agreed to do. Instead, as to each deficiency, they found: Of the two staff, neither had first aid, and only one had a "no communicable disease" statement. Medications had not been logged since the morning of April 25, 1989. One of the three still did not indicate that the resident was free of communicable disease. See subparagraph C, above. One medication prescribed April 1, 1989, was never used, according to the logs. A live roach was seen crossing the kitchen counter. Breaded frozen fish was left on the counter. The stand-up freezer was 20 degrees Fahrenheit. The last documented quarterly smoke detector test was January 26, 1989, and the last documented fire drill was February 6, 1989. A live roach was seen on food left to defrost on the kitchen counter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, enter a final order finding the Respondent, Willie Mae Johnson, d/b/a Leisure Living Retirement Home, guilty as charged in the Administrative Complaint in this case and fining her $2500. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of May, 1990 in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 31st day of May, 1990.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the administrative complaint dated July 23, 1992; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent filed an application for fire safety inspector certification on or about March 4, 1992. One of the questions on the application for fire safety inspector certification posed the following: Have you ever been convicted of a felony, or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude? Respondent answered the foregoing question by marking the space before "NO." On or about March 8, 1989, Respondent was charged by information issued through the State Attorney's Office in Lake County, Florida, with aggravated assault. Aggravated assault is a felony. On or about June 2, 1989, the information referenced above was amended but continued to allege aggravated assault. On June 8, 1989, the Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the offense of aggravated assault and was placed on probation for a period of three years. Adjudication of guilt was withheld at that time. Subsequently, the Respondent was discharged from probation and the proceedings in the criminal case were terminated. Respondent had completed his probation at the time his application for certification as a firesafety inspector was made. Respondent is currently certified as a firesafety inspector, certificate number FI-66318. Additionally, Respondent is employed as a firefighter with the Reedy Creek Fire Department. Subsequent to the receipt of Respondent's application for certification, the Department requested information from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding Respondent's criminal record. The information received from those sources led to the discovery of the facts addressed in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, and 6 above and the initiation of these proceedings.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Insurance and Treasurer enter a final order revoking Respondent's certification as a firesafety inspector. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 27th day of January, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 27th day of January, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-4921 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 11 are accepted. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph Egan, Jr. EGAN, LEV & SIWICA, P.A. Post Office Box 2231 Orlando, Florida 32802 Daniel T. Gross Division of Legal Services 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Tom Gallagher, Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil, General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner's application for supplemental compensation pursuant to Section 633.382, Florida Statutes, should be granted or denied.
Findings Of Fact 1. The Petitioner holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Michigan State University. The degree was earned in the College of Communication Arts and Science. The major on the Petitioner's degree is advertising. 2. The transcript of the courses taken by the Petitioner to earn his bachelor's degree does not list any courses that appear to come within the criteria listed at Rule 4A- 37.084(5) (b)1, Florida Administrative Code. 3. The transcript of the courses taken by the Petitioner to earn his bachelor's degree lists several courses that appear to come within the criteria listed at Rule 4A-37.084(5) (b)2, Florida Administrative Code. However, there are not enough of such courses to comprise a major. 4. The transcript of the courses taken by the Petitioner to earn his bachelor's degree lists one course that appears to come within the criteria listed at Rule 4A.37.084(5) (b)3, Florida Administrative Code. 5. The Petitioner is presently employed by the Miami Beach Fire Department as a Firefighter I. The Petitioner has been employed full-time in his present firefighter position at all times material to the pending application. 6. The Petitioner's fire department duties are described in a written position description for the Firefighter I position. It is clear from the description of those duties that a Firefighter I position with the Miami Beach Fire Department is not one of the "management positions within a fire department," nor is it a position that includes "arson investigators." Such a position is also not one of the "special positions" contemplated by Rule 4A-37.084(5) (b)4, Florida Administrative Code. 7. When the Petitioner submitted his present application, Floyd Jordan, the Fire Chief of the Miami Beach Fire Department, by letter dated November 15, 2000, advised the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training as follows: After review of the attached college transcript and the City of Miami Beach Job Description for Firefighter I, it is my conclusion that this request does not meet the requirements of the Firefighters Supplemental Compensation Program. As of the date of the final hearing, Chief Jordan continued to be of the same view of the matter. 8. The Petitioner was previously employed by the Boca Raton Fire-Rescue Services as a firefighter/paramedic. The Petitioner's job duties in the Boca Raton position were essentially the same as his job duties in his present position. While employed with the Boca Raton Fire-Rescue Services, the Petitioner applied for supplemental compensation on the basis of the same bachelor's degree on which he bases his present application. The Petitioner's prior application was approved and he received supplemental compensation while employed with the Boca Raton Fire-Rescue Services.
Conclusions For Petitioner: Chuck Pereny, pro se 259 Northwest 90th Avenue Coral Springs, Florida 33071 For Respondent: Elenita Gomez, Esquire James B. Morrison, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333
Recommendation On the basis of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order denying the Petitioner's application and dismissing the petition in this case. Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. = DONE AND ENTERED this CS “day of June, 2001, in CH heseu Loe € MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 Q — day of June, 2001.
