The Issue The issue is whether Pinewood Estates Assisted Living Facility’s (“Pinewood” or “Petitioner”) application for renewal of its assisted living facility (“ALF”) license should be granted.
Findings Of Fact AHCA is the state agency charged with licensing of ALFs in Florida pursuant to the authority in chapters 408, part II, and 429, part I, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 58A-5. These relevant chapters charge the Agency with evaluating ALFs to determine their degree of compliance with established rules regulating the licensure of and operation of such facilities. At all times relevant, Pinewood was a licensed ALF located in Melbourne, Florida, operating a six-bed ALF under license number 12678. Pinewood’s license also includes limited nursing services, limited mental health (“LMH”), and extended congregate care licenses. The Agency conducts inspections, commonly called surveys, of licensed providers and applicants for licensure to determine the provider or applicant’s compliance with the state’s regulatory scheme governing such facilities. AHCA’s surveys include taking a tour of the facility, reviewing resident records, reviewing the staff files, directly observing the residents, observing the staff’s interaction with the residents, interviewing the facility’s staff, interviewing the residents and their families, observing the dining experience, observing medication pass, observing the activities of the residents during the day, observing the physical plant, conducting an exit interview when possible, and documenting the survey findings. There are different types of surveys. There are initial licensure surveys, relicensure biennial surveys, complaint surveys, monitoring surveys, and revisits, which follow all of the other types. Pursuant to section 408.813(2), the Agency must classify deficiencies according to the nature and scope of the deficiency when the criteria established by law for facility operations are not met. Deficiencies must be categorized as either Class I, Class II, Class III, Class IV, or unclassified deficiencies. In general, the class correlates to the nature and severity of the deficiency. A Class I poses an imminent threat to the residents; a Class II constitutes direct harm; a Class III poses potential or indirect harm to the residents; a Class IV concerns minor violations; and unclassified violations are those that do not fit in the other categories. Normally, when the Agency cites a provider with a Class III violation, it allows 30 days for the provider to correct the deficient practice, unless an alternative time is given. The deficiency must be corrected within 30 days after the facility receives notice of the deficiency. This correction is verified by a revisit survey conducted after the 30 days have elapsed. Correction of a deficiency means not finding the deficient practice during a revisit survey. The Agency conducted a biennial relicensure survey on April 27, 2017, at Pinewood. The Agency cited Pinewood with ten Class III deficiencies related to the following tags or deficiencies: Tag A008, admissions - health assessment; Tag A052, assistance with self-administration; Tag A054, medication records; Tag A078, staffing standards; Tag A084, training – assist with self-administration; Tag A085, training – nutrition and food service; Tag A090, training - Do Not Resuscitate Orders (“DNRO”); Tag A160, records – facility; Tag A167, resident contracts; and Tag AL243, LMH training. Lorraine Henry is the supervisor of the ALF unit for the Orlando office and was in charge of all the surveys conducted at Pinewood. She reviewed and approved all of the deficiencies or tags cited in the surveys and approved the classifications given to each deficiency. The Agency cited Pinewood with Tag A008, for Pinewood’s failure meet the standards related to admissions and health assessments, pursuant to section 429.26(4)-(6) and rule 58A-5.0181(2). Pinewood was required to ensure that the AHCA Health Assessment Form 1823 (“Health Assessment”) was completed entirely by the health care provider for all residents. Pinewood was missing a completed Health Assessment for Resident 4. On page 2, question 4, under “Status,” which asks if the resident “poses a danger to self or others,” was left blank and not answered. On page 4, question B, “Does individual need help with taking his or her medications?” was left blank and not answered. In addition, the type of assistance with medications required was not marked in the appropriate box. This deficiency poses an indirect or potential threat to residents because the facility cannot register changes in a resident’s health unless it has a completed Health Assessment. Because of this indirect threat, it was properly classified as a Class III deficiency. The Agency cited Pinewood with Tag A052, a violation because Pinewood failed to meet the standards of assistance with self-administration, pursuant to rule 58A-5.0185(3). Assistance with self-administration of medication requires trained staff to open the medication container; read the label aloud to the resident; provide the resident with the medication; observe the resident self-administer the medication; and then document that the medication was provided in the resident’s Medical Observation Record (“MOR”). During this survey, Agency personnel observed Pinewood’s employee, Carmeleta Smith, fail to read the label aloud in front of the resident or to inform the resident which medication the resident was taking during the medication pass procedure. This deficiency poses an indirect or potential threat to residents because it increases the likelihood of medication errors, and it was properly classified as a Class III deficiency. The Agency cited Pinewood with Tag A054 due to Pinewood’s failure to meet the standards of medication records pursuant to rule 58A-5.0185(5). Pinewood is required to ensure that the MOR contains all of the required information and that the MOR is updated each time the medication is given. The MOR for Resident 5 failed to include the route of the medication for the 21 medications listed for that resident. The entry for Ocutive did not contain the strength or the route of the medication. Moreover, Agency personnel observed Ms. Smith’s failure to immediately sign the MOR after a medication was given to Resident 4. Also, the MOR for Resident 4 did not reflect that the morning medications had been signed as having been given in the morning for 15 of the resident’s medications. This deficient practice constitutes an indirect or potential risk to residents because it increases the likelihood of medication errors and was properly classified as a Class III deficiency. The Agency cited Pinewood with Tag A085 for its failure to meet the standards of training for nutrition and food service, pursuant to rule 58A-5.0191(6). Pinewood is required to ensure that the person responsible for the facility’s food service received the annual two hours of continuing education. Peter Fellows, as the person responsible for food service, did not have the required two hours of continuing education in 2017. This deficient practice constitutes an indirect or potential risk to residents because it could cause food borne illnesses to spread to the residents, and was properly classified as a Class III deficiency. The Agency cited Pinewood with Tag A090 for Pinewood’s failure to meet the 12 standards of training as to DNRO, pursuant to rule 58A-5.0191(11). Pinewood is required to ensure that the staff must receive at least one hour of training in the facility’s policies and procedures regarding DNRO within 30 days of employment. Pinewood’s employee, Sharon McFall, had not received in-service training on the facility’s policies and procedures regarding DNRO within 30 days of hire. This deficient practice poses an indirect or potential risk to residents because in case of an emergency situation where a resident stops breathing, the staff has to understand the facility’s DNRO procedures and the steps that need to be taken; and, therefore, was properly classified as a Class III deficiency. The Agency cited Pinewood with Tag A160 for Pinewood’s failure to meet the standards of facility records, including admission and discharge records pursuant to rule 58A-5.024(1), which requires Pinewood to maintain accurate admission and discharge logs. Pinewood’s admission and discharge log did not include the name and date of admission for Resident 2. AHCA personnel observed Sherine Wright, the legal assistant for the administrator, and purportedly a contract employee of Pinewood, adding Resident 2’s information to the admission and discharge log after they were already residing in the facility. This deficient practice poses an indirect or potential threat to residents because the facility would be unaware as to the residents who are actually residing in the facility, and was properly classified as a Class III deficiency. The Agency cited Pinewood with Tag A167 for its failure to meet the standards of resident contracts, pursuant to rule 58A-5.024, which requires Pinewood to maintain completed resident contracts in the residents’ files. Resident 4’s resident contract failed to include the following required provisions: the facility’s refund policy that must conform to section 429.24(3), a 45-day notice of discharge, a 30-day advance notice of rate of increase, and that residents must have a health assessment upon admission and then every three years thereafter or after a significant change in the resident’s health. This deficient practice constitutes an indirect or potential risk to residents because it exposes the residents to potential financial abuse because the residents would not know their rights when they are discharged or when the rates are being increased. The deficient practice was properly classified as a Class III deficiency. Finally, the Agency cited Pinewood with Tag AL243 for Pinewood’s failure to meet the standards regarding the LMH training pursuant to section 429.075(1) and rule 58A-5.0191(8). Having elected to maintain a LMH license, Pinewood is required to ensure that the administrator, managers, and staff complete a minimum of six hours of specialized training in working with individuals with mental health diagnosis within six months of employment. Carmeleta Smith did not have the required minimum of six hours of specialized training even though she had been employed at the facility for 16 months. This requirement remains in place whether a LMH resident is present at the facility or not, so long as the facility elects to hold a LMH license. This deficient practice constitutes an indirect or potential risk to residents because without the training, the staff will not be properly trained to care for LMH residents, and was properly classified as a Class III deficiency. Throughout the duration of the relicensure survey, the Agency surveyors were routinely denied full access to facility records, resident files, and areas of the facility by the self- declared representative of Pinewood’s administrator and contract employee, Sherine Wright. Ms. Wright interfered with the Agency’s survey process by restricting access to documents and alerting residents that family interviews would be taking place. Ms. Robin Williams, an Agency surveyor, told Ms. Wright that she was interfering with the survey process, but Ms. Wright continued to control the survey process and continued to give Ms. Williams pieces of paper she said were pulled from files, rather than providing the surveyor with access to the complete files. Ms. Williams also observed Ms. Wright assisting a resident who was returning to the facility with a family member and observed her talking to the family member and helping the resident settle back into her bedroom. Ms. Smith was at the facility at that time, yet she did not assist the resident. It was Ms. Wright who assisted the resident and the family member to settle the resident back into her bedroom. Based upon their observations, she considered Ms. Wright to be staff working at Pinewood. Subsequent to the biennial relicensure survey, the Agency conducted an unannounced monitoring visit in conjunction with a complaint survey (#2017003680) on May 8 through 15, 2017. As a result of this survey, the Agency cited Pinewood with one Class III violation, Tag A190, as to Administrative Enforcement; and with one unclassified violation, Tag CZ814, as to background screening. Lorraine Henry, as the ALF supervisor for the Orlando field office, reviewed and approved the tags or deficiencies cited in this survey and their classifications. The Agency cited Pinewood with Tag CZ814 for failure to meet the standards of background screening pursuant to section 435.12(2)(b)-(d), Florida Statutes, requiring that the facility ensure that all its employees had completed a Level II background screening. During the complaint investigation, Ms. Wright denied that she was a staff person of Pinewood to a senior Agency surveyor, Victor Kruppenbacher. However, because of his observations, Mr. Kruppenbacher considered Ms. Wright to be a staff member working at the facility. Ms. Wright was the person who greeted him, and was the person who called the Administrator, Mr. Fellows, on the phone when questions arose concerning access to files or to Pinewood residents. Mr. Kruppenbacher further observed Ms. Wright interacting with the residents and providing guidance and direction to the residents. Mr. Kruppenbacher observed a resident asking Ms. Wright a question, after which she put her arms around the resident and guided the resident into the resident’s bedroom. Ms. Wright was very familiar with the resident population, called residents by their names, and answered the residents’ questions. Ms. Wright clearly appeared to control the operations at the facility; and had access to the residents, their belongings, and their areas of the facility. Therefore, she was required to have a Level 2 background screening according to Florida law, which she did not have. This deficient practice was properly classified as an unclassified violation, since it did not fall within the four classes of violations, yet exhibited a failure to follow the law regarding ALF staff members. The Agency also cited Pinewood with Tag A190, for failure to meet the standards of Administrative Enforcement pursuant to section 429.075(6) and rule 58A-5.033(1) and (2). The facility may not restrict the Agency’s surveyors from accessing and copying the facility’s records including the employee files, the facility’s records, and the residents’ files. The facility may not restrict the Agency’s surveyors from conducting interviews with the facility staff or with the residents. Once again, Ms. Wright interfered with the survey process. She would not let the other staff member on site, Ms. Smith, answer any of his questions, which left Ms. Wright, the non-licensed person on-site, as the only one who answered any of the surveyor’s questions. She would not let the surveyor speak to the residents and would not provide him with the records he requested, including the residents’ records and the staffing schedule. She refused to allow the surveyor into all of the rooms within the licensed facility and would not identify a person working in the facility, about whom he inquired. She refused to let the surveyor speak with Mr. Fellows after she called him on the phone. At the beginning of the survey, Ms. Wright denied Mr. Kruppenbacher access to an unlicensed property contiguous to the facility and tried to deny him access to the licensed facility. Ms. Wright refused to allow a worker, who was working in the office in the facility, to provide her name to the surveyor. Ms. Wright refused to identify herself to the surveyor and would only state that she was Mr. Fellows’ business partner. Ms. Smith, the staff member present, identified her as Sherine Wright. At 2:00 p.m., Ms. Wright contacted the facility’s administrator, Mr. Fellows, by telephone, but would not allow the surveyor to speak with Mr. Fellows. This deficiency poses an indirect or potential threat to residents because the Agency is unable to get a clear picture of how the facility is being operated and was properly classified as a Class III deficiency. On August 1, 10, and 11, 2017, the Agency conducted multiple revisits (revisit survey dated August 11, 2017, CGOJ12) to the relicensure survey of April 27, 2017. As a result, the Agency cited Pinewood with nine uncorrected Class III violations for the following tags: Tag A008, admissions and health assessment; Tag A054, medication records; Tag A078, staffing standards; Tag A084, training with assist with self- administration of meds; Tag A085, training as to nutrition and food service; Tag A090, training on DNRO; Tag A160, records as to the facility; Tag A167, resident contracts; Tag AL243, LMH training. These deficient practice tags all remained uncorrected from the original survey of April 27, 2017. Pinewood was only able to demonstrate that it had corrected the practice cited in Tag A052, which was cleared by the Agency as corrected. The deficiencies and the classifications were reviewed and approved by the Agency’s regional ALF supervisor, Lorraine Henry. During the revisit, Mr. Kruppenbacher was accompanied by two other surveyors, Vera Standifer and Krystal Hinson. During this relicensure survey, Pinewood’s alleged contracted employee, Ms. Wright, was not cooperative and would not provide the surveyors with the documentation they requested, for the third consecutive survey event. Ms. Wright would not provide AHCA personnel with the staff files, claiming they were privileged legal office documents from the law office of Peter Fellows. During the revisit survey, the Agency once again cited Pinewood with Tag A008 for failure to meet the standards of the admissions and health assessments. The Agency surveyors requested the file of each current resident, including the Health Assessments. The records given by Pinewood’s staff showed that Resident 1 was admitted on September 1, 2016; Resident 2 was admitted on March 23, 2017; Resident 3 was admitted on December 6, 2016; Resident 4 was admitted on March 1, 2016; and Resident 5 was admitted on January 15, 2016. Resident 1’s Health Assessment was not provided by the facility. Residents 2, 3, and 4’s Health Assessments did not include a signed and completed Section 3 related to “Services offered or arranged by the facility for the resident.” Further, Resident 5’s Health Assessment, completed on January 15, 2016, noted that the resident had a PEG tube. (A PEG tube is a percutaneous endoscopic medical procedure in which a tube is passed into the patient’s stomach through the abdominal wall most commonly to provide a means of feeding when oral intake is not adequate.) On August 10, 2017, Resident 5 no longer had a PEG tube, but the resident’s file did not contain an updated Health Assessment documenting the removal of the PEG tube. Ms. Hinson interviewed Resident 5, who stated that the PEG tube had been removed months earlier. The resident should have had an updated Health Assessment reflecting the removal of the PEG tube because this is considered a change of circumstances requiring an updated Health Assessment. There was no updated Health Assessment to show what the current risk factors would be for this resident. Moreover, the medical certification on Resident 5’s Health Assessment was incomplete because the name of the examiner was not printed; the signature of the medical examiner was illegible; there was no medical license number and no address or phone number for the examiner; and no date for the examination. Section 3 of the Health Assessment was not completed by the facility or signed by the facility. This deficient practice poses an indirect or potential risk to residents and was properly classified as an uncorrected Class III deficiency. The Agency again cited Pinewood with Tag A054 for failure to meet the standards of medication records. The Agency’s surveyors requested resident records, including the MORs from Pinewood’s employee, Ms. Smith. Pinewood’s other employee, Ms. Wright, would not give full access to the MORs and would only hand the surveyors some of the records from the MOR book that she determined the Agency could see instead of the entire MOR book, which is what the surveyors requested. The surveyors were only able to review the MORs from August 1 through August 10, 2017, instead of two months of MORs that were requested and customarily reviewed. The Agency was able to determine that Resident 3’s MORs were left blank for the dosage of two medications for various days: the dosage of Donepezil on August 9, 2017, at 9:00 p.m., and the dosage of Clonazepam for August 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Additionally, the MORs were not provided for Resident 4. The MORs for Resident 5 were left blank for the dosage of Loratadine from August 1 through 10, 2017, and for Oxycodone for August 9, 2017. This deficiency constitutes an indirect or potential risk to residents and Tag A054 was properly classified as an uncorrected Class III deficiency. During the same revisit surveys on August 1, 10, and 11, 2017, the Agency again cited Pinewood with Tag A167 as to records and resident contracts, and requested all of the resident files. Resident 1’s file was not provided to the surveyors; therefore, the surveyors were not able to review the resident’s contract. Resident 3’s resident contract was signed by someone other than Resident 3, but the file did not contain a power of attorney for Resident 3. Resident 4’s resident contract was never provided to the surveyors so they were not able to review it. This deficient practice constitutes an indirect or potential risk to residents and was properly classified as an uncorrected Class III deficiency. The Agency conducted a complaint survey on August 1, 10, and 11, 2017 (survey dated August 11, 2017, USQF11), and cited Pinewood with two Class III violations for Tag A055 related to medication storage and disposal, and for Tag A057 for medication over-the-counter (“OTC”). Lorraine Henry, the ALF supervisor, again reviewed the proposed deficiencies and the classifications and approved them. Pinewood violated Tag A055 as to storage and disposal of medication pursuant to rule 58A-5.0185(6), which required the facility to ensure that the medications be centrally stored and kept in a locked cabinet or a locked cart at all times. On August 17, 2017, Mr. Kruppenbacher observed that the medication cart was left unlocked and accessible to residents. Pinewood’s failure to keep medications in a locked cabinet or cart posed an indirect or potential risk to residents because a resident could have easily taken and ingested a medication from the unlocked cart. This deficient practice was properly classified as a Class III deficiency. The Agency also cited Pinewood with Tag A057 related to medication OTC, pursuant to rule 58A-5.0185(8), which required Pinewood to ensure that OTC products be labeled with the resident’s name and the manufacturer’s label. Mr. Kruppenbacher performed an inventory of the centrally-stored medication cart and found five unlabeled OTC medications stored in the medication cart which did not contain the name of a resident. This deficient practice posed an indirect for potential threat to residents, because any resident could have ingested one of the medications from the unlocked cart, and was properly classified as a Class III deficiency. AHCA conducted an unannounced complaint survey on August 1, 10, and 11, 2017 (survey dated August 11, 2017, EN1W11), which resulted in Pinewood being cited for the following: Tag A077, related to staffing standards as to administrators as a Class II; Tag A161, related to staff records as a Class III; Tag A162, related to resident records as a Class III; and Tag CZ816, as to background screening and the compliance attestation as an unclassified violation. Ms. Henry personally wrote Tag A077 and approved the other three tags and their classifications. During the unannounced complaint survey on August 1, 10, and 11, 2017, the Agency cited Pinewood with Tag A077 for failure to meet the requirements of staffing standards as to administrators pursuant to section 429.176 and rule 58A-5.019(1), which requires that the facility be under the supervision of an administrator, who is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the facility, including the management of all staff and all persons who have access to the residents and their living areas and belongings; and who must ensure that the staff are qualified to work in the facility and have documentation of an eligible Level 2 background screening, annual documentation of being free from symptoms of communicable disease, and documentation of all of the required training. Pinewood must also maintain and provide complete resident records for all of the residents. On August 10, 2017, the surveyors’ observations led them to conclude that Ms. Wright was in control of the day-to-day operation of the facility. Ms. Wright provided all of the answers when questions were asked concerning the operation of the facility. Ms. Wright would not allow staff to answer questions without her input. She controlled what information the surveyors were allowed to review and what documents were provided to the surveyors. Ms. Wright would not allow the staff at the facility to access records, employee files, or resident records. The staff schedule provided to the surveyors by Ms. Wright revealed that “Sharon” (a/k/a Sherine) Wright was listed as the administrator. As such, Ms. Wright was required to have a Level 2 background screening. Pinewood provided no evidence that Ms. Wright had proper training, background screening results, or CORE certification to be the administrator of an ALF. Mr. Fellows, the listed Administrator according to facility filings with the Agency, was not present at the facility on August 1, 10, or 11, 2017, while the Agency survey was being conducted. On August 10, 2017, the surveyors requested the employee files and resident records from Pinewood’s staff member Ms. Smith. The facility failed to provide the employee files. After the request to Ms. Smith, Ms. Wright stated that the surveyors would not be allowed to review the employee files because they are privileged legal office records. On August 10, 2017, the facility’s information on the background screening indicated that Pinewood staff member Sharon McFall was listed as an employee on the background clearinghouse database. The staff schedule, which covered the period from August 1 through 12, 2017, documented Ms. McFall as working at the facility. Ms. Smith admitted that Ms. McFall works at the facility. The Agency’s background screening website showed that Ms. McFall was hired on November 1, 2015, and that her background screening had expired on March 25, 2017, almost five months prior to this visit. On August 10, 2017, Ms. Wright stated that the surveyors would not be allowed to review the employee files because they are legal documents. Pinewood refused to allow the surveyors to review the employees’ files; failed to have an eligible Level 2 background screening for Ms. McFall, as well as for Ms. Wright, who was in charge of the day-to-day operations; failed to provide access to the resident file for one resident; and provided an incomplete file for another resident. Taken together, these events posed a direct threat to the physical or emotional health, safety, or security of the residents. Without access to this information, the Agency is unable to determine exactly what is happening with the residents, and to determine if the facility is operating according to Florida’s applicable statutes and rules governing ALFs. Moreover, anyone who has direct access to the residents, to their personal belongings, and to their rooms, must have a Level 2 background screening. Tag A077 was properly classified as a Class II deficiency. During the same unannounced complaint survey of August 1, 10, and 11, the Agency cited Pinewood with Tag A161, related to staff records pursuant to section 429.275(2) and rule 58A-5.024(2). Pinewood was required to maintain personnel records for each staff member, which include, at a minimum, documentation of compliance with Level 2 background screening; documentation of compliance with all of the required training and continuing education requirements; and a copy of all licenses or certifications for all staff. As discussed at length above, Ms. Wright told the surveyors that they would not be allowed to review the employee files because they were legal documents from the legal office of Mr. Fellows. No employee files were provided to the surveyors on any of the August survey dates. This deficient practice poses an indirect or potential threat to the residents because the surveyors were not able to verify whether the staff has the required training to carry out their duties and the required documentation, such as Level 2 background screenings. This tag was properly cited as a Class III deficiency. During the same unannounced complaint survey of August 1, 10, and 11, the Agency cited Pinewood with Tag A162, related to resident records, pursuant to rule 58A-5.024(3). Pinewood was required to maintain each resident’s records, which must contain, among other things, a Health Assessment; a copy of the resident’s contract; documentation of the appointment of a health care surrogate, health care proxy, guardian, or a power of attorney; and the resident’s DNRO. On August 10, 2017, the surveyors requested all of the resident files from Ms. Smith. Resident 1’s file was not provided. Resident 5’s file did not contain an updated Health Assessment reflecting when the PEG tube had been removed, as detailed in paragraph 23 above. Pinewood’s failure to maintain the resident files and current Health Assessments poses an indirect or potential threat to residents and was properly classified as a Class III deficiency. During the same unannounced complaint survey of August 1, 10, and 11, the Agency cited Pinewood with Tag CZ816 related to background screening and compliance with attestation to section 408.809(2)(a)–(c). Pinewood was required to ensure that its staff members received a Level 2 background screening every five years. As documented above, Pinewood did not have a current background screen on file for employee Sharon McFall. Pinewood also refused to provide a background screening result for contracted employee Ms. Wright. Pinewood’s failure to have current Level 2 background screenings for its staff was properly labeled an unclassified violation. The Agency conducted an unannounced monitoring visit related to the complaint investigation (#2017003680) regarding unlicensed activity at Pinewood on August 1, 10, 11, and 15, 2017 (survey dated August 15, 2017, TYOU12), and cited Pinewood with Tag A190 for administrative enforcement for one Class II deficiency, and Tag CZ814 for background screening clearinghouse for one unclassified violation. During this monitoring visit, the Agency cited Pinewood with Tag A190 for administrative enforcement pursuant to section 429.075(6) and rule 58A-5.033(1), (2), and (3)(b) as a Class II violation. Pinewood is required to cooperate with Agency personnel during surveys, complaint investigations, monitoring visits, license applications and renewal procedures, and other activities to ensure compliance with chapters 408, part II, and 429, part I; and Florida Administrative Code Chapters 58A-5 and 59A-35. During this survey, Mr. Kruppenbacher was interviewing Ms. Smith when Ms. Wright interrupted the interview and stated that she was the legal representative of Mr. Fellows’ law firm and his legal representative. When Mr. Kruppenbacher asked Ms. Wright if she worked at the facility, she would not answer. Mr. Kruppenbacher asked Ms. Wright the correct spelling of her name, at which time she walked out of the interview. At 11:40 a.m., Mr. Kruppenbacher was again interviewing Ms. Smith when Ms. Wright interrupted the interview. Mr. Kruppenbacher had asked Ms. Smith to provide him with MORs for review. Ms. Wright removed the MORs from the medication cart and stated that she would give the surveyors what they needed to see. While Ms. Wright was pulling MORs from the notebook, Mr. Kruppenbacher took a second notebook that was on the medication cart. Ms. Wright grabbed the notebook from him and would not let him see it, stating that this was something that the Agency did not need to see. On August 10, 2017, Mr. Kruppenbacher asked the staff for a second time to provide access to the employee files. Ms. Wright then stated that the surveyors would not be allowed to review the employee files because they are legal office records. No employee files were provided to the surveyors despite multiple requests, both written and oral. On August 10, 2017, Mr. Kruppenbacher requested to see the background screening for staffer F, Thomas Weaver, from Ms. Wright. Mr. Weaver was listed on the staff schedule provided to the surveyors that same day, and he was observed driving Pinewood’s residents to an activity. Ms. Wright said that he was only the maintenance man and did not need a background screening. Later, AHCA surveyors requested that Ms. Wright provide the file for Resident 1, but the file was never provided. At 3:00 p.m., a surveyor was attempting to interview Resident 3, and Ms. Wright stopped the surveyor from speaking to the resident. On August 10, 2017, at 3:15 p.m., during an attempted exit interview, Mr. Kruppenbacher asked Ms. Wright if her name was pronounced “Sharon” Wright or “Sherine” Wright. Ms. Wright refused to tell him whether her first name was Sherine or Sharon and demanded that he leave the facility immediately. The identity of Sherine Wright, who also calls herself Sharon, has been a constant problem during all of the surveys. The undersigned expressed an interest during the hearing in having Ms. Wright testify, since she seemed to be a central figure throughout the survey process. Neither Ms. Wright nor any employee of Pinewood (except the Administrator, Mr. Fellows) testified at the hearing concerning the issues raised and deficiencies found by AHCA surveyors. The Agency had subpoenaed Ms. Wright to testify at hearing, yet she neither appeared nor gave an excuse for not appearing. The surveyors testified to Ms. Wright giving her name as both Sherine and Sharon at different times. Regardless of how she identified herself, the credible evidence supports that there was only one Ms. Wright present at the various surveys conducted by AHCA. Ms. Wright lives on the property where Pinewood is located, in the “back” house, which is about 30 feet behind the ALF. Ms. Wright is the owner of record of the property at 4405 Pinewood Road, Melbourne, Florida 32034, where Pinewood is located. After the surveys at issue were conducted, the Agency discovered that Sherine Wright has been convicted of a second degree felony for exploitation of an elderly person in the amount of $20,000 to under $100,000, pursuant to section 825.103, Florida Statutes, in Broward County, Florida, Case No. 01-4230CF10B. The conviction includes the special condition that Ms. Wright should not be employed or have any financial involvement with the elderly (status over 60). This second degree felony conviction is a disqualifying offense under section 435.04, which means that Ms. Wright could never receive an eligible Level 2 background screening allowing her to work at Pinewood or any licensed facility serving the elderly. From the eye witness testimony of several of the AHCA surveyors on different occasions, Ms. Wright had access to residents’ rooms, their living areas, and, presumably, their personal belongings. One surveyor, Kristal Hinson, observed Ms. Wright entering residents’ rooms on August 10, 2017. Another, Vera Standifer, observed the same behavior by Ms. Wright. At the April 27, 2017, visit, surveyor Robin Williams saw Ms. Wright take a resident to her room and help her settle in. Mr. Kruppenbacher observed Ms. Wright with her arm around a resident, walking him to his room. Ms. Wright clearly had access to files, to resident records, and to staff records. She was observed having access to residents’ medications and the medications chart. Despite these observations by AHCA surveyors, Mr. Fellows testified that Ms. Wright was merely a contract employee of Pinewood who had no access to residents, their belongings, or their private living spaces. The overwhelming evidence in this matter support AHCA’s surveyors on Ms. Wright’s involvement with resident care. Other than Mr. Fellows’ testimony on this issue, no evidence was presented by Pinewood to support a contrary view. Not only did Ms. Wright have access to all aspects of the residents’ lives and the facility’s files, but she was forcefully obstructionist whenever any surveyor made reasonable requests for files and records that are required by state law and rules to be kept by the facility. She was neither a licensed professional in any aspect of resident care nor was she an attorney, yet she repeatedly refused to cooperate with even the most basic requests from the surveyors, often claiming some unspecified legal privilege concerning the documents. She only added to the surveyors’ personal observations leading to findings that significant violations occurred. After all, how can a surveyor confirm the existence of required records when the only identified, non-licensed person present at the surveys refused them access, often, as she said to the surveyors, because the requested documents were somehow “legally protected” with her being some sort of representative of Mr. Fellows’ law firm? They were “legally protected,” but only from unlicensed Pinewood personnel who had no business seeing them, not from AHCA surveyors with every right to examine all facility records, especially on a relicensure survey. The surveyors had every justification for believing Ms. Wright was involved in the day-to-day operations of the facility. Moreover, when the surveyors were on site, she was the one who contacted the absent Mr. Fellows by telephone to inform him as to what was transpiring. Yet Mr. Fellows never asked to speak with the surveyors when called during their visits, nor did he direct Ms. Wright to cooperate with their reasonable requests. Each of the surveyors frankly testified that they believed Ms. Wright worked for Mr. Fellows or was his business partner. They were each justified in citing the facility for its complete failure to cooperate throughout the survey process. From at least April 27 to August 11, 2017, Pinewood had an individual working at the facility and running its day-to-day operations with a second degree felony conviction for exploitation of the elderly, a disqualifying offense. Having such a person working at Pinewood poses a direct threat to the physical or emotional health, safety, or security of the residents because this is a person who, as a matter of law, is forbidden to work with the residents of an ALF because her criminal history places the residents’ health and welfare at serious and direct risk of harm. This deficient practice is a serious offense that was properly classified as a Class II violation. During the exit interview, the surveyors informed the facility that it had failed to provide the employee files, the MORs notebook, the August 2017 MOR for Resident 4, the resident file for Resident 1, and the dates of birth for apparent staffers Ms. Wright and Mr. Weaver, as well as background screenings for Ms. Wright. Pinewood failed to cooperate with the survey process, to allow the surveyors to conduct a private interview with Resident 3, to provide requested employee records, to provide Resident 1’s file, and to provide the complete MORs. These facts, along with the failure to have Ms. Wright identify herself, and to provide the dates of birth for Mr. Weaver and herself pose a direct threat to the physical or emotional health, safety, or security of the clients because the Agency cannot determine whether Pinewood is following the applicable state rules and statutes; and, therefore, the Agency cannot ensure the safety of the residents. Tag A190 was correctly classified as a Class II deficiency. To add to the lack of control by Mr. Fellows as the nominal administrator of Pinewood, interviews with non-facility nursing personnel further supported the lack of institutional control demanded of facilities that care for the elderly. One local nurse interviewed by Mr. Kruppenbacher said she was uncomfortable working at the facility because the facility required her to provide nursing care in the bathroom, and required a staff person to be present in the bathroom when the care was being provided. This negated any privacy rights of the resident under that nurse’s care. Pinewood failed to provide a safe environment, and to keep certain residents free from verbal abuse and neglect. Its failure to allow residents to be treated with respect and consideration for personal dignity and privacy, along with the failure to provide a 45-day notice before discharging Resident 6 over an insurance issue, posed a direct threat to the physical or emotional health, safety, or security of that resident. This supports that Tag A030 was properly classified as a Class II deficiency. During the licensure period, Pinewood committed 30 deficiencies, including nine uncorrected Class III deficiencies, three Class II violations, and three unclassified violations involving background screening. All of these demonstrate that Pinewood did not meet the minimum licensure standards to maintain licensure, and was never in compliance with the requirements set out in the authorizing statutes and applicable rules during the surveys conducted at the ALF. During this period, Pinewood did not pass a single biennial survey, a revisit survey, a complaint survey, or monitoring surveys, thus never demonstrating regulatory compliance. Pinewood’s willingness to operate in regulatory noncompliance in addition to allowing a person with a disqualifying offense, and who should have been prohibited from working at an ALF, to operate the facility, and to allow non- background screened employees to provide care and services to residents poses a direct and indirect threat to the health and safety of Pinewood’s residents. Therefore, upholding the Agency’s denial of licensure renewal is the only way to ensure the health, safety, and welfare of Petitioner’s residents. At the hearing, Mr. Fellows submitted exhibits, which he testified he sent to the Agency by facsimile or by mail sometime after April 27, 2017, in an attempt to correct the deficiencies cited in the April 27, 2017, survey. However, Mr. Fellows does not know or remember the dates when the documents were mailed or faxed or who sent them. The Agency objected to Petitioner’s exhibits on the grounds of authenticity. Without any testimony from agents or employees of Pinewood, it is impossible to determine whether these documents were prepared in the normal course of resident care; whether they were completed well after the actual care, if any, had been provided; or are even responsive to the deficiencies alleged in the NOI issued by AHCA. Therefore, they are entitled to little, if any weight, for purposes of this Recommended Order. Mr. Fellows testified that the Agency is required to do a desk review of documents he allegedly faxed to AHCA’s regional office. He claims the documents offered clear up any and all issues raised by the Agency in its NOI. However, without authentication as to the timeliness and thoroughness of the documentation as responsive to the violations found by AHCA, these documents are hearsay, unsupported by evidence as to their authenticity by anyone in a position to know when, how, and upon what basis they were created. The undersigned cannot rely upon the faxed documentation, even if it did address some of the principal issues raised by the Agency, as evidence of compliance. The most honest statement made by Mr. Fellows was that he probably got in “over his head” concerning his venture of trying to run an ALF. He was rarely present at the facility during the many months the surveys were taking place. During this time, he was practicing law in Miami, far from the day-to- day operations of Pinewood. Administrators are not supposed to run facilities as absentees, having no other licensed administrative staff present. Moreover, he never had a licensed assistant administrator or other professional present to speak to the surveyors on his behalf. The Agency was justified in making all of its findings in the series of seven surveys in 2017.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order upholding the Agency’s decision to deny Pinewood’s application for relicensure. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of November 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT S. COHEN 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 30th day of November, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Lourdes A. Naranjo, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive North, Suite 330 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 (eServed) Andrew Beau-James Thornquest, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 525 Mirror Lake Drive North, Suite 330 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 (eServed) Peter Fellows Pinewood Estates Assisted Living Facility 4055 Pinewood Road Melbourne, Florida 32934 (eServed) Richard Shoop, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Shena Grantham, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Thomas M. Hoeler, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Stefan Grow, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed) Justin Senior, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Stop 1 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact Vedder and Associates Incorporated's (VAI's) application for minority certification dated January 22, 1992 was received by the Department of Management Services on January 27, 1992. Petitioner's application for minority certification was denied by the Department of Management Services in a letter dated May 22, 1992. VAI was established in October of 1991 and offers as its principal service "land surveying." VAI is licensed to do business in Florida and is fifty-one percent (51 percent) owned by Kathleen Vedder, a Caucasian female, and forty-nine percent (49 percent) owned by John Vedder her husband, a Caucasian male. Kathleen A. Vedder and John F. Vedder were the sole directors of the corporation at the time of certification denial, with Kathleen A. Vedder serving as president/secretary and John F. Vedder serving as vice-president/treasurer. On September 16, 1992, after the denial of certification, John Vedder resigned as a director of VAI. No business reason was offered for this decision. Kathleen Vedder, the minority owner, is presently the sole director of the corporation. As sole director, she represents a majority of the board of directors. She continues to serve as president and secretary. John Vedder continues to serve as treasurer. It is not clear if he still serves as vice- president. (See Findings of Fact 5-11 and 28-29). At all times material, Kathleen Vedder has owned 51 percent of the stock through a greater monetary investment than John Vedder, who owns 49 percent of the stock. At all times material, Kathleen Vedder has served as the principal officers, president and secretary. At all times material, Kathleen Vedder has made up at least 50 percent of the board of directors. Since September 16, 1992, she has made up 100 percent of the board of directors. At all times material, John Vedder has served as a principal officer, treasurer. Up until September 16, 1992, John Vedder made up 50 percent of the board of directors. Thereafter, he did not serve on the board. At all times material, Article VII of VAI's Articles of Incorporation have permitted an increase or decrease in the board of directors as permitted by the bylaws, but never less than one director. At all times material, Item III of VAI's bylaws have provided that corporate officers hold office at the "satisfaction" of the board of directors; that the president shall be the chief executive officer; and that subject to any specific assignment of duties by the board of directors, the vice-president, the secretary, and the treasurer act under the direction of the president. VAI was formed by the purchase of assets from the Perry C. McGriff Company, which had employed Kathleen and John Vedder. Kathleen Vedder began her career with the surveying firm of Keith & Schnars, P.A., in Fort Lauderdale in 1976. She was the administrative assistant to the President. In 1981 she and John Vedder moved to Gainesville to manage the Perry C. McGriff Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of Keith & Schnars. John Vedder handled the surveying aspects of the business, and Kathleen Vedder handled most of the management of the company other than the surveying portion, including purchasing, handling business accounts and financial affairs, client relations, insurance, and correspondence. This continued until 1991 when the assets of the Perry C. McGriff Company were sold to VAI. Kathleen Vedder now performs for VAI basically the same functions as she did for the predecessor company with certain additions. John Vedder served as the director of survey for the Perry C. McGriff Company which employed both Mr. and Mrs. Vedder prior to the formation of VAI. In his position as director of survey at Perry C. McGriff Company, he was responsible for all contracts and negotiations and coordination of personnel to ensure timely completion of contracts. His background by education, training, and experience is extensive in the technical applications to perform land surveying. The business of VAI essentially began on December 6, 1991. Prior to that date, husband and wife had discussed the purchase of the McGriff assets. Kathleen Vedder discussed the purchase of the business with her husband and informed him that she wanted to run the business. He accepted this relationship and her role as "boss" because he hated working in the office and wanted nothing to do with running the business. Kathleen Vedder contacted the old Perry C. McGriff clients and facilitated the transition from the old company to the new company. The Perry C. McGriff Company was purchased for $100,000 with a $15,000 down payment and the remainder to be paid over 7 years. Funds for the original purchase price of the assets were obtained by cashing Kathleen Vedder's 401K plan, two IRA's, and by loans against her life insurance policies for an investment of $57,185.62 by Kathleen Vedder and $25,682.25 of marital assets held with her husband, John Vedder. John Vedder participated in the negotiations to buy Perry C. McGriff Company. John Vedder provided input and expertise regarding the assets of Perry C. McGriff Company which were to be purchased, whether survey equipment was acceptable, and the vehicles to be purchased. John Vedder discussed and consulted with Kathleen Vedder regarding the financial aspects of the purchase of Perry C. McGriff Company. He discussed with her the starting salaries of employees to be hired/transferred to VAI, and the leasing and location of business premises for VAI and purchase of furniture. Kathleen Vedder established the corporate policies, the accounting procedures, the job costing, and the standard management practices of the new company. Kathleen Vedder, as VAI president, made all of the final decisions regarding implementation of the new business such as renting the office, moving the assets purchased from the old Perry C. McGriff Company, establishing lines of insurance, determining the manner and location of the survey records purchased, and hiring the staff. Kathleen Vedder and John Vedder made it clear to all of the employees from the beginning of the company that she was the "boss". The takeover of Perry C. McGriff Company by VAI was explained to former employees during a field visit by John Vedder. His explanation was made at Kathleen Vedder's direction and took place while these employees were already in the field, during a time of transition, in a spirit of damage control when Kathleen and John Vedder were concerned that rumors might affect the new company's ability to retain good personnel from the old company and over concern that some might have trouble working for a woman. Kathleen Vedder hired six employees initially from the old Perry C. McGriff Company. Kathleen Vedder set the initial pay scale for the employees of the company and maintained the documentation relevant to this function. The additional four persons hired by the company since it began were Robert Henderson, Tom Crossman, George Gruner, and Doug Zimmerman, each of whom were hired by Kathleen Vedder who interviewed them, who set their wages and benefits, and who described their job functions to them as new employees. VAI has a business license posted on its premises issued by the City of Gainesville, Florida, in the name of John Vedder, authorizing the performance of land survey services. VAI currently employs eight permanent employees and the qualifying agent is John F. Vedder, who serves as a principal officer, treasurer. He holds a land survey license issued by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Land Surveying Board. In order to be qualified as a licensed land surveying corporation, a principal officer must be a licensed land surveyor. The participation of John Vedder or another duly-licensed land surveyor is required to satisfy the requirements of Chapter 472 F.S., for a qualifying agent. Under that statute, the qualifying agent must have a license as a land surveyor and hold a position as a principal officer in VAI. If John Vedder were to lose his professional land surveyor license, there would be three licensed land surveyors remaining with the company, and it would be possible for VAI to continue if one of these were designated as a principal officer. Kathleen Vedder holds no license or certification other than a notary public. In terms of any special needs or requests, such as medical needs, all employees are required to report to Kathleen Vedder. Kathleen Vedder earns $14.50 per hour. The survey party chiefs, including John Vedder, now earn $13.00 per hour. These amounts are commensurate with Kathleen Vedder's percentage of VAI ownership of fifty-one percent (51 percent). The evidence is conflicting as to whether another crew chief earned more than John Vedder in one year due to a higher rate of pay or more hours worked in that period. No one in the company draws any bonus, commission or has any particular insurance coverage as a benefit of employment. The company has not posted any dividends or distributed any proceeds from business investments or engaged in any profit sharing. The corporation has, as a risk of doing business, the liability connected with its $85,000.00 promissory note to Keith & Schnars, P.A. It also has the risk associated with premises liability, with motor vehicle liability, with general errors and omissions liability, and with professional liability. Kathleen Vedder has procured insurance to cover all these risks. These premiums are paid by the corporation. There has been no additional ownership interest acquired by anyone since the inception of the corporation. There are no third party agreements. There are no bonding applications. The company has not at any time entered into an agreement, option, scheme, or created any rights of conversion which, when exercised, would result in less than fifty-one percent (51 percent) minority ownership and minority control of the business by Kathleen Vedder. Kathleen Vedder controls the purchase of the goods, equipment, business inventory and services needed in the day-to-day-operation of the business. Kathleen Vedder expressly controls the investments, loans to and from stockholders, bonding, payment of general business loans, and payments and establishment of lines of credit. The corporate business account of VAI contains the signatures of John Vedder and Kathleen Vedder on the bank signature card. Only one signature is required to transact business. Of the 823 checks issued by VAI since it began, John Vedder signed one at Kathleen Vedder's direction when it was not possible for her to be in two places at once, and Kathleen Vedder signed 822 checks. Although he is treasurer, John Vedder professed to know nothing of VAI's finances and deferred to Kathleen Vedder in all matters of financing from the very beginning. Nonetheless, the corporate documents list the treasurer as the chief financial officer in ultimate charge of all funds. Kathleen Vedder has knowledge of only the minimum technical standards required for a survey. In her certification interviews, Mrs. Vedder did not know how to establish true north or how a line survey would establish true north. She lacks basic survey knowledge and could not identify Polaris as the north star or state the standard measurement (length of a chain) for a surveyor. Identifying Polaris is not particularly important in modern surveying. Kathleen Vedder is capable of doing the necessary paper search and telephone call regarding underground utilities for surveyors in the field. Kathleen Vedder has extensive experience in the production of a surveying product and is able to manage the surveyors who perform the technical aspects of the business. Upon acquisition of the assets and formation of the new company, Kathleen Vedder began directing the two field crews newly employed by VAI to the various projects and work which she had scheduled. This direction has primarily been in the timing and coordination of projects and is commensurate with some of the work previously done by John Vedder when he was director of survey for the predecessor company, Perry C. McGriff Company. (See Finding of Fact 14). Technical problems involving a particular site do not arise very often so as to require a discussion among the land surveyors of the company but if they do, the professional land surveyors jointly or singly make all technical surveying decisions. Surveys must be signed by a registered land surveyor pursuant to Chapter 472 F.S. John Vedder provides Kathleen Vedder technical advice, coordinates field crews' work, makes decisions pertaining to technical work which is not within Kathleen Vedder's abilities, consults with Kathleen Vedder once a week concerning the general financial picture of VAI, and does some job estimating and quality control. Kathleen Vedder rarely visits work sites in the field. Employees in the field report to John Vedder whenever they have a problem and report to Kathleen Vedder if the problem is in the nature of project coordination. John Vedder is responsible for training and working with employees and providing technical training required for the performance of land surveys. He does computer aided drafting (CAD) and provides technical assistance to the CAD operator, which Kathleen Vedder cannot do, however she works it afterward on her computer. Kathleen Vedder does not work in the field, and of the two, John Vedder performs the majority of work in the field. Kathleen Vedder defers to John Vedder to handle technical matters because he has more experience. Party Chief John Vedder supervises his crew. Party Chief Louis Crosier supervises his crew. Kathleen Vedder supervises Louis Crosier and John Vedder and a third crew chief when one is used, usually Robert Henderson. Kathleen Vedder established a fee schedule for the company and a method of formulating the estimates and bids which the company would propose to prospective clients. John Vedder is not knowledgeable in this area. When a job comes in, the prospective client initially contacts Kathleen Vedder. If a client calls requesting a survey, Kathleen Vedder does the research and provides the estimate or bid without further input from any surveyor if the survey requested is a standard routine survey. If the job is complex, Kathleen Vedder requires man hour estimates from two land surveyors, one of whom is often John Vedder. She takes these estimates and applies previous histories, experience, and adjustments in order to prepare the final bid or survey estimate. Once she has received the man-hour estimate, Kathleen Vedder reviews it, compares it with previous surveys, applies a job costs analysis to it, applies any other known costs to it, and presents the final estimate or bid. There is a difference between compiling the work hours necessary for the estimate and compiling the estimate itself. Kathleen Vedder has the ultimate responsibility for finalizing complex estimates and bids. Kathleen Vedder makes presentations as a part of her function which involve technical presentations of the survey services rendered by VAI. In the fourteen month period since the business began, Kathleen Vedder has given approximately eight presentations of a technical nature to prospective clients, including the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT). Kathleen Vedder is capable of complying with DOT bid specifications to submit material on a DOS disc. DOT has qualified VAI under its Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program. Petitioner's witnesses skilled in land surveying consistently testified that without Kathleen Vedder's skilled contributions to the firm, technical land surveying could be accomplished but the firm would not show a profit. Rule 13A-2.005(3)(d)(4), requires minority owners to have managerial, technical capability, knowledge, training, education and experience to make decisions regarding the business. In interpreting this rule, the Respondent agency relies on Barton S. Amey v. Department of General Services, DOAH Case No. 86-3954, (RO 3/5/87; FO 4/21/87), aff'd Fla. DCA February 11, 1988, No. 87-235. The agency has no further refinement by way of rule or policy which applies specifically to the land surveying industry. It does not require the minority owner to have a land surveying license per se. It does not require the minority business owner to have an extensive knowledge of surveying.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that a final order be entered certifying Vedder Associates, Incorporated as a Minority Business Enterprise. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of June, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. 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 7th day of June, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER 92-3763 The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to S120.59(2), F.S., upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF). Petitioner's PFOF: The so-called "stipulated facts" is accepted, as stipulated, but not as to the inserted conclusion of law/argument. 1-19 Accepted except to the degree it is unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative. 20-21 Accepted, but not dispositive, subordinate. Rejected as a conclusion of law or argument. Accepted, but not dispositive, subordinate. Rejected as a conclusion of law or argument. 25-33 Accepted as modified to more closely conform to the record, and to eliminate mere leal argument, conclusions of law, and unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative material. Also testimony was to 823 checks. Rejected as stated as not supported by the greater weight of the credible evidence. Accepted, except to the degree it is unnecessary, subordinate or cumulative. Rejected as out of context, a conclusion of law, or argument. 37-46 Accepted, as modified, except to the degree it is unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative. 47-48 Rejected as out of context, a conclusion of law, or argument. 49-53 Covered to the degree necessary in Finding of Fact 65, otherwise irrelevant and immaterial to a de novo proceeding under Section 120.57(1) F.S. 54-56 Accepted except to the degree unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative. 57 Rejected as out of context, a conclusion of law, or argument. 58-60 Accepted except to the degree unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative. Petitioner's "factual conclusions" are rejected as proposed conclusions of law not proposed findings of fact. Respondent's PFOF: 1-10 Accepted except to the degree unnecessary or cumulative. 11 Rejected as subordinate. 12-14 Rejected as stated as argument. Covered in Findings of Fact 27-30, absent argument, conclusions of law, and erroneous statements not supported by the greater weight of the credible competent evidence. Rejected as argument. Mostly accepted except to the degree it is unnecessary, subordinate or cumulative. However, the job estimating as stated is not supported by the record nor the argument of "day-to-day business." 17-19 Accepted as modified to conform to the record evidence, and except to the degree it is unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative. 20 Rejected as argument. 21-22 Accepted but incomplete, irrelevant and immaterial in a de novo Section 120.57(1) F.S. proceeding. Also, the footnote is rejected as mere argument. 23-24 Rejected as argument. Accepted, but not complete or dispositive; unnecessary and cumulative. Accepted to the degree stated except to the degree unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative. She also did more. Rejected as partially not supported by the record; other parts are rejected as unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative. Accepted except to the degree unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative or not supported by the record. Accepted in part and rejected in part upon the greater weight of the credible, competent record evidence. Rejected as argument. Rejected as stated as not supported by the greater weight of the credible, competent record evidence, also unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative. Accepted except to the degree it is unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative. Rejected as argument 34-35 Accepted in part. Remainder rejected as stated as not supported by the greater weight of the credible, competent record evidence, and as a conclusion of law contrary to Mid State Industries, Inc. v. Department of General Services, DOAH Case No. 92-2110 (RO 9/14/92). 36 Rejected as argument. 37-38 Accepted in part, and rejected in part because not proven as stated. Rejected as argument. Rejected as stated because out of context or not supported as stated by the greater weight of the credible, competent record evidence. Rejected as argument. Accepted, except to the degree unnecessary, subordinate or cumulative. Rejected as argument. 44-46 Rejected as subordinate. 47,(No #48),49 Accepted except to the degree unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative. 50-55 Rejected as subordinate or unnecessary or as conclusions of law or argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Peter C. K. Enwall, Esquire Post Office Box 23879 Gainesville, FL 32602 Terry A. Stepp, Esquire Department of Management Services Koger Executive Center Suite 309, Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950 William H. Lindner, Secretary Knight Building, Suite 307 Koger Executive Center 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950 Susan B. Kirkland, Esquire Department of Management Services Koger Executive Center Suite 309, Knight Building 2737 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, FL 32399-0950
The Issue Whether Petitioner, Gateway Farms, LLC, is entitled to payment from Landscape Service Professionals, Inc., and the Gray Insurance Company, as Surety, pursuant to sections 604.15 through 604.34, Florida Statutes (2015), for the purchase of trees; and, if so, in what amount.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Gateway is a producer and seller of agricultural products, including slash pine trees. Gateway operates tree farms on 200 acres in five different locations in Columbia, Alachua, and Suwannee Counties. David Hajos is the owner and principal operator of Gateway. Mr. Hajos has 17 years of experience in growing, harvesting, and selling pine and other species of trees in Florida. Respondent Landscape is a Florida licensed dealer in agricultural products, pursuant to chapter 604. Landscape is a full-service landscape business located in Tamarac, Florida. Sandy Benton has been the president of Landscape for 18 years. Respondent, Insurance Company, filed a denial of the claim and was represented at hearing by Landscape’s counsel. Gateway has been doing business with Landscape for many years, with no indication of prior problems relating to the quality of trees provided. Lynn Griffith, Landscape’s plant and soil expert, considers Gateway to be a competent and professional grower. The Setting At all relevant times, Landscape was a contractor responsible for installing landscaping at the Palm Beach County Solid Waste Authority (SWA) site on Jog Road in Palm Beach County, Florida. Pursuant to orders placed by Landscape, Gateway sold a total of 148 slash pines for use at the SWA site. The invoices for those pines are dated January 22 and 23, and February 9 and 16, 2015. Upon their arrival at the site, authorized personnel of Landscape received, inspected, and accepted the 148 slash pine trees. No problems or concerns were expressed regarding the delivery or condition of the slash pines. The Dispute Giving Rise to this Proceeding Between 20 and 30 of the trees ordered from Gateway were intended as replacement trees for the approximately 150 slash pines provided by six other vendors that had been planted by Landscape, and then died. When the dead trees were removed by Landscape, pine beetles were observed infesting the trees. Within several weeks of planting, 58 of the slash pines purchased from Gateway began to show signs of decline, resulting in their eventual death. Landscape consulted with the Palm Beach County Extension Service and industry professionals as to the cause of the death and decline of the slash pine trees, who undertook an investigation into the same. Slash pine trees are very sensitive and can be easily stressed. Stress can be caused by a variety of factors including: transplanting; harsh handling; bark exposure to sunlight, including superficial wounds to the bark; too much or too little water; or planting too deeply. The stress will cause a tree to emit chemicals that attract beetles, which inhabit the trees and may kill a stressed tree within a week or two of the infestation. In March 2015, Lynn Griffith, an agricultural consultant, conducted an SWA site visit. Mr. Griffith noted that a majority of the planted pines were healthy, but there were some that were not doing well; some had holes in them indicative of a pine beetle infestation. In his report dated March 12, 2015, Mr. Griffith opined on the impact of the ambrosia (pine) beetle infestation on the slash pines: The quantities of boreholes in some of the dead or declining pines would lead me to conclude that borers could be a primary cause of death, but in other cases the number of holes was low, indicating the pine decline was initiated by other factors. In an e-mail dated April 24, 2015, Ms. Benton advised Gateway (and JWD Trees, another supplier of slash pines to the SWA site) that the cause of the death and decline of the slash pine trees were because the two suppliers failed to properly prepare them in the nursery, and had sold them to Landscape with root systems inadequate to support the normal performance of the plant. At hearing, Ms. Benton’s opinion regarding the cause of death of the pines was echoed by John Harris, accepted as an expert in landscape economics and arborism. Mr. Harris’s opinion centered on only one possible explanation for the trees’ demise: a failure to have an adequate root system or an inability of the roots to generate new growth. Typically, this is caused by improper “hardening off” of the root system by the grower. However, on cross-examination, Mr. Harris acknowledged that while pine beetles typically infest stressed trees, if the beetle population builds up enough in an area they will attack otherwise healthy trees. At hearing, Mr. Hajos testified that the pine trees he supplied to Landscape had been properly hardened off for a period of six weeks: Hardened off is a process when you dig a tree and you hold it until it starts to regenerate new roots, so instead of just digging it up and selling it we dig it up and hold it under optimal irrigation and nursery conditions before we ship the tree. Mr. Hajos further testified that any trees that are going to die due to the stress of being dug out of the ground will die during the hardening off process. Mr. Hajos attributed the death of the Gateway trees to several factors, including stress caused by improper lifting of the trees during loading and unloading, stress caused by a delay in planting the trees after they arrived at the SWA site, and the pre-existing pine beetle infestation. Mr. Hajos examined a photograph received in evidence and explained that it showed a tree being improperly lifted by Landscape personnel during unloading. The photograph showed the strap around the tree trunk doing the primary lifting. The result is that rather than distributing the pressure between the trunk and the strap on the root ball, the root ball will be loosened, which will stress the tree. Mr. Hajos testified that he was aware that the Gateway trees that had been delivered to the SWA site were left on the ground for days before being planted. This testimony was corroborated by Landscape’s Daily Job Report log which reflected the delivery of the first load of Gateway pines to the SWA site on January 23 and 24, 2015, but that planting of those trees did not begin until January 29, 2015. On one occasion, a Landscape truck that had picked up trees from Gateway, broke down in Ocala on its return trip to Palm Beach County and had to return to the Gateway site in High Springs. There, the trees were unloaded, and then reloaded onto a different truck where they were delivered two days later to the SWA job site. This inordinate delay and additional loading and unloading further stressed the trees. Once Landscape became aware that it had a beetle infestation at the SWA site, it began a preventative spray program. However, once a pine beetle has entered the bark of a pine tree preventative spraying will be ineffective at eradicating the pest. Newly planted pine trees at the SWA site were not sprayed on the day of planting, thereby providing the pine beetles an opportunity to infest the new trees. Guy Michaud was Landscape’s job foreman at the SWA site. Mr. Michaud has been in the business of planting trees since 1983, and has worked for Landscape for 14 years. Mr. Michaud could not testify with certainty that the Gateway trees died of inadequate roots, as opposed to a beetle infestation. None of the other species of trees sold by Gateway for use at the SWA site experienced problems. Based on the totality of the evidence, it is more likely than not that a combination of factors contributed to the SWA slash pine deterioration, including delays in planting the trees after delivery, rough handling, and the beetles. None of these causes are attributable to the actions of Gateway. Likewise, the greater weight of the evidence does not support a conclusion that the trees sold by Gateway to Landscape were non- viable nursery stock. Subsequent to filing its claim in the amount of $13,462.30 with the Department, Gateway received a payment of $5,528.84 from Landscape. Thus, the unpaid balance due Gateway for the 58 slash pines is $7,933.46. Gateway is entitled to payment in the amount of $7,933.46 for the slash pine trees it provided to Landscape. Besides the amount set forth above, Gateway claims the sum of $50.00 paid for the filing of the claim against Landscape and its bond. The total sum owed to Gateway by Landscape is $7,983.46.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services approving the claim of Gateway Farms, LLC, against Landscape Professional Services, Inc., in the total amount of $7,983.46 ($7,933.46 plus $50 filing fee); and if Landscape Professionals Services, Inc., fails to timely pay Gateway Farms, LLC, as ordered, that Respondent, The Gray Insurance Company, as Surety, be ordered to pay the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services as required by section 604.21, Florida Statutes, and the Department reimburse the Petitioner as set out in section 604.21, Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of March, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS 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 18th day of March, 2016.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Coggin and Deermont, Inc. (C&D) has forty-odd employees. The company owns a building and, among other equipment, bulldozers, loaders, scrapers, graders, draglines, and dump trucks. Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. C&D clears, grubs, grades, and otherwise prepares roadbeds and constructs roads through the stage called "base work." C&D has qualified as a prime contractor with respondent Department of Transportation. The firm also builds culverts and storm drainage structures, including head walls, and does other concrete work. After Mr. Deermont died, at age 94, his partner carried on their road- building business with the help of Ralph C. Carlisle, a 25-year employee, and, until recently, president of C&D. Mr. Coggin died last year at 88, and the Carlisle family decided to acquire the rest of C&D's stock. Mr. Carlisle's wife Bertha, nee Lopez, had inherited Six Thousand Dollars ($6,000) from her father, who, like her mother, was born in Mexico. Blonde and blue-eyed, Mrs. Carlisle herself was born in the United States, on April 26, 1929. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. FAMILY BUYS COMPANY On February 10, 1982, the Carlisles bought all of C&D's stock Mr. Carlisle did not already own. They used Bertha's inheritance to make a Six Thousand Dollar ($6,000) cash payment and executed a promissory note in the amount of One Hundred Seventy-three Thousand, Three Hundred Twenty-five Dollars ($173,325), Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, for the balance of the purchase price. The note was secured by a mortgage encumbering three parcels of real estate owned jointly by Ralph C. and Bertha L. Carlisle. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. The expectation is that income from C&D will make it possible for Mr. and Mrs. Carlisle to make the installment payments promised in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. C&D owes some Ninety Thousand Dollars ($90,000) to various banks. Mr. and Mrs. Carlisle are personally liable for some, if not all, of C&D's debt. They are not obligated to begin installment payments on the note they executed to pay for the stock until March 10, 1983. Mrs. Carlisle paid Two Hundred Twenty-five Dollars ($225) per share for her stock. (T. 58.) Only one hundred (100) shares are outstanding. Respondent's Exhibit No. 1. Mrs. Carlisle holds fifty-one percent (51 percent) of C&D's stock, and her husband holds thirty-four percent (34 percent). Mr. and Mrs. Carlisle have two sons, Ralph C. III and Richard D., to whom they gave ten percent (10 percent) and five percent (5 percent) of C&D's stock, respectively. All the Carlisles are directors of the corporation. Dividends have not been paid since the Carlisles took over. At some point, the Carlisles "decided [they] were going to apply for minority business enterprise [certification] and use [Mrs. Carlisle's] ethnic origin." (T. 64.) PRESIDENT'S DUTIES Mrs. Carlisle did not bring any particular expertise to C&D, even though she had accompanied her husband on some of his travels for C&D (without compensation). After graduation from high school, attendance at "business school," and two years as a clerk in a stock broker's office, she married Mr. Carlisle and began a twenty-five-year career as a housewife, which was interrupted recently by a two-year stint as an interior designer in a gift shop. (T. 65.) When she became majority stockholder, Mrs. Carlisle voted herself president of C&D. She succeeded her husband in that office. Her salary is One Thousand, One Hundred Twenty-Five Dollars ($1,125) weekly, and his is Eight Hundred Ninety-five Dollars ($895) 1/ weekly. They "combine" their salaries. (T. 90.) Machinery is not Mrs. Carlisle's strong point; she has some difficulty distinguishing among the different types of heavy equipment C&D uses. Field operations are not her primary concern. As a matter of company policy, she ordinarily visits job sites only in the company of her husband. (T. 63, 66- 67.) Her routine upon returning from site inspections she described as follows: [W]hen I come back I always check my mail and my phone calls or--something like that. Most of the time when I go out on the job, like I say, it's quite a distance away from home and I go back to the office and check to see what problems we have had, I have had. He checks his desk and I check my desk. And then we'll go on home and that's when we confer with our sons again. And business starts all over again. (T. 67-68.) She also buys most of the office supplies and signs weekly payroll checks, which are prepared by an employee and countersigned both by her husband and Patricia Kirkland, who keeps C&D's books. Mrs. Carlisle has only limited knowledge of basic accounting concepts. (T. 85-86.) She acts as C&D's "EEO representative," (T. 53) a task she took over from a secretary, Mrs. Cook. Mrs. Carlisle has other duties in connection with bid preparation. She reads some ten newspapers published in Chipley, Florida, and surrounds "to see which jobs are going to be coming up" (T. 50) and orders the plans for jobs C&D might be interested in; she and her husband ["he's the engineer and has all the experience . . ." (T. 51)] inspect the site; she inquires by telephone of "salesmen and people to get the prices" (T. 52) for pipe, concrete, and other materials, but does not negotiate prices. According to Mrs. Carlisle, her "husband is the one that is doing all of the figuring on the job," (T. 52) but Mrs. Carlisle works at figuring, particularly when she travels with her husband to Tallahassee. MINORITY OWNERS Both sons work for C&D and had held salaried positions with C&D before the Carlisles bought out the other owners. Their combined experience amounted to less than five years. The older boy, Ralph C. III, serves as corporate treasurer and as general superintendent "overseeing all the work that the company has under construction" (T. 20) and overseeing maintenance. He has power to hire and fire and has exercised it. As treasurer, he reviews a treasurer's report prepared by Mrs. Kirkland and signs rental agreements. He can operate every piece of equipment C&D owns. He has never supervised a road-building project from start to finish, but he worked on one project as a timekeeper and grade man from start to finish. He worked for C&D for a year after he graduated from high school. Since then he has had two years of college; he took math, engineering, and accounting courses. After college, he worked for Ardaman & Associates in Tallahassee for eight or nine months taking soil samples, before returning to C&D in February of 1982. He is paid Two Hundred Twenty-Five Dollars ($225) weekly. Richard D. works as foreman of a six-man crew, at a salary of One Hundred Seventy Dollars ($170) per week, and has full authority in the field in his father's absence, including the power to hire and fire the men he supervises. He began at C&D as a laborer. He has finished 60 hours of drafting technology courses at a junior college and may graduate in December. EFFECTIVE CONTROL As vice-president and general manager, answerable only to his wife, Ralph C. Carlisle has charge of C&D and manages day-to-day operations. He is trained as an engineer and does surveying for C&D. He is "the job estimator" (T. 90); he stakes out jobs and prepares cost reports. Richard D. Carlisle testified as follows: Q: Who do you report to? A: My daddy. Q: Do you receive instructions from him? A: Mostly. And I receive instructions from my brother and my mother. She will help us out. (T. 13.) Ralph C. Carlisle III testified, as follows: Well, basically I have the control of field supervising. If I make a decision in the field and it doesn't work then I ask [my father] to make a decision. That way he has a little more experience than I do, not a little more, a lot more. I make ninety- nine per cent of the decisions in the field. (T. 28-29.) He explained the lines of authority at C&D in these words: Totally to my mama, I'm totally responsible to her. But in the meantime I'm still re- sponsible to my daddy too. What I'm saying is, basically I do not have to report my day to day activities to anybody. If I have to, if there is something that arises I tell my mama first, being the stockholder, if she is available. If not then I go over it with my daddy. Basically my daddy and I have a little conference every evening on the field activ- ities, which my mama is also in on. We have a little conference every evening. We do report our activities to each other every evening. When it gets right down to it we don't have to. When asked whether decisions she makes in the field are joint decisions, Mrs. Carlisle answered: Yes. Just really because I'm president of the company that still doesn't mean -- that still means that we share it. My husband has a lot of say so just like I do. He has more knowledge in this field than I have. And this is what he is educated in too. (T. 70.) Mrs. Carlisle does not make policy for C&D by herself. (T. 76.) Mr. Carlisle is involved with all technical decisions. (T. 91.) The four owners live together as a family and discuss business at home as well as on the job.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent deny petitioner's application for certification as a minority business enterprise. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of September, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of September, 1982.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner's application for certification as a minority business enterprise should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Omni Outdoors, Inc., a for-profit corporation located in Coral Springs, Florida, is engaged in the business of commercial landscaping and irrigation. It was incorporated on September 19, 1995, by Bruce Reeb. When incorporated, Petitioner issued its 100 shares of stock as follows: 24 shares to Bruce, 26 shares to his wife Terry, 24 shares to Kevin McMahon, and 26 shares to Kevin's wife Michele. Accordingly, the Reebs and the McMahons each own 50 percent of the business. Both Reebs and both McMahons became the 4-member Board of Directors. Bruce became the president and the secretary of the corporation, and Kevin became the vice-president and the treasurer. According to the corporation's By-laws, the President is the chief executive officer of the corporation, responsible for the general supervision of its business. Bruce is a certified general contractor in the State of Florida and is the qualifier for Petitioner. Kevin holds an irrigation license and is the qualifier for Petitioner in that area. Bruce handles estimating, pricing, and proposal preparation and presentation. Kevin runs the field operations and purchasing of materials. In October 1996 Terry quit her job as a flight attendant to begin working for Petitioner, handling accounting and personnel matters. Her name was added to the corporation's bank accounts as an authorized signature. Bruce and Kevin remain as authorized signatures on the accounts, and only one signature is required for the corporation's checks. She was given the title "chief executive officer" of the corporation in January 1997, a position authorized by an amendment to the By-laws in March 1997. She was given a smaller salary than Bruce or Kevin, who were paid the same amount. Kevin's wife Michele has never been involved in the day- to-day activities of the corporation. She has never received a salary from the business. In January 1997 Terry filed an application with Respondent for the corporation to be certified as a minority business enterprise, under the status of "American Woman." Around the time the corporation filed its application, Terry's salary was increased to $600 per week so she would be making the same as Kevin, and Bruce's salary was decreased to $400 per week. Even after Terry's full-time employment by the corporation, the signatures of her husband or of Kevin continue to appear on corporate obligations, such as an indemnity agreement and corporate promissory notes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying Petitioner's application for certification as a minority business enterprise. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Terry M. Reeb, Chief Executive Officer Omni Outdoors, Inc. 1742 Northwest 112 Terrace Coral Springs, Florida 33071 Joseph L. Shields, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast The Hartman Building, Suite 307 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Edward A. Dion, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast The Hartman Building, Suite 307 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189 Douglas L. Jamerson, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast The Hartman Building, Suite 303 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189
The Issue The issues presented are whether Respondent, Smallwood Design Group/Smallwood Landscape, Inc. (Smallwood or the company), owes Petitioner $12,817.17 for agricultural products and, if so, whether the surety is liable for any deficiency.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Florida corporation licensed by the Department as a “dealer in agricultural products,” within the meaning of Subsection 604.15(2), Florida Statutes (2006) (agricultural dealer).1 The license number and business address of Petitioner are 68954 and 3930 14th Street North, Naples, Florida 34103. Smallwood is a Florida corporation licensed by the Department as an agricultural dealer pursuant to license number 68513. The sole shareholder and registered agent for Smallwood is Ms. JoAnn Smallwood. The business address for Smallwood is 2010 Orange Blossom Drive, Naples, Florida 34109. Hartford Fire Insurance Company (Hartford) is the surety for Smallwood pursuant to bond number 21BSBCI1473 issued in the amount of $100,000 (the bond). The term of the bond is December 9, 2005, through December 9, 2006. Petitioner conducts a garden center business that, in relevant part, sells agricultural products, defined in Subsection 604.15(1). Petitioner sells products at wholesale and retail to businesses and consumers in the Naples area. Smallwood purchased agricultural products from Petitioner from 1983 until sometime in 2006. The purchases were made in the ordinary course of Smallwood's architectural landscape construction and horticultural management business (landscape business). The terms of purchase required payment from Smallwood within 30 days. Any monthly balance that remained unpaid after 45 days was subject to interest at a monthly rate of 1.5 percent and an annual rate of 18 percent.2 With one exception, Smallwood paid Petitioner within 60 days of delivery. The exception to Smallwood's payment history with Petitioner is the subject of this proceeding. From May 11 through September 26, 2006, Smallwood did not pay Petitioner $12,817.17 for 66 invoices involving 440 items (pallets or pieces) of sod that Petitioner delivered to Smallwood.3 The sod consisted of varieties identified in the record as: Floratam, Seville, Zoysia, Croton, and Fountain Grass.4 Smallwood does not deny that Petitioner should be paid $12,817.17. However, Smallwood alleges that Petitioner has filed its claim against the wrong party. Smallwood alleges that, on June 13, 2006, another corporation purchased the assets of Smallwood, including the right to conduct the landscape business in the name of Smallwood, and assumed Smallwood's liability to Petitioner for any prior purchases. Subsequent purchases are allegedly the obligation of the successor corporation. Ms. Smallwood filed a Response to Amended Claim with the Department on January 7, 2007 (the Response). The Response identifies the successor corporation as Spartan Partners, Inc., an Illinois corporation, located at 350 Pfingsten Road, Suite 109, Northbrook, Illinois 60062 (Spartan), and alleges that Petitioner’s claim is not valid because: [Smallwood] sold its assets and has not been engaged in business since June 13, 2006. Specifically, pursuant to an Asset Purchase Agreement, [Smallwood] sold its assets (including its name) to Spartan . . . , and thereafter, Spartan continued operating the business for a period of time and then sold some of the assets and ceased operations. (emphasis supplied) Smallwood . . . does not have knowledge of the accounts of Spartan, which continued doing business under the Smallwood name after the sale of assets on June 13, 2006. If items purchased from [Petitioner] have not been paid for, Spartan is the responsible and liable party. (emphasis supplied) The Response filed in January of 2007 was not the first time Petitioner had seen the Smallwood defense. Smallwood sent Petitioner a form letter, dated September 14, 2006, that: contained a salutation addressing “All Vendors of [Smallwood],” referenced the "Termination of Credit Arrangements and Guaranties," and was signed by Ms. Smallwood on behalf of Smallwood (notice letter). The notice letter provided in relevant part: The purpose of this letter is to advise you that the assets of [Smallwood], including the company name, were sold to Spartan . . . as of June 13, 2006. Since [Smallwood] sold all of its assets, that corporate entity is no longer actively engaged in any business. The business known as [Smallwood] is now conducted by [Spartan]. (emphasis supplied) As a result of the sale of assets and the fact that [Smallwood] is no longer actively engaged in business, the relationship or agreement you had with that particular corporate entity is hereby terminated and of no further force and effect. If you are continuing to do business with [Spartan], you should, if you have not done so already, make or confirm your business arrangements with that entity. Furthermore, if I signed any document that could be construed as a personal guaranty of payment for any obligations of [Smallwood], please consider this letter to be a formal revocation, cancellation and termination of any such document. (emphasis supplied) Petitioner's Exhibit 3 (P-3). Part of the Smallwood defense is supported by the evidence. Smallwood did sell its assets to Spartan. The Asset Purchase Agreement between Smallwood and Spartan was admitted into evidence as Petitioner’s Exhibit 2 (P-2). The Agreement shows that Spartan purchased the assets of Smallwood on June 13, 2006, for $1.030 million, of which $883,602.11 was allocated to accounts receivable due the seller. The seller is identified in the Asset Purchase Agreement as Ms. Smallwood and the company. The seller received $895,500.00 in cash at the closing. The remaining part of the Smallwood defense involves two allegations. First, Smallwood alleges that Spartan assumed a liability of $3,834.43 for 23 purchases of sod by Smallwood from May 11 through June 13, 2006. Second, Smallwood alleges that Spartan owes Petitioner $8,982.74 for 43 purchases of sod from June 14 through September 26, 2006. If the evidence were to support both allegations, the result may effectively deprive Petitioner of an administrative remedy. The corporate documents attached to the Asset Purchase Agreement do not show that Spartan complied with the bond and license requirements in Subsection 604.19 prior to conducting the landscape business in the name of Smallwood. Spartan sold the assets needed to satisfy a judgment against Spartan, Spartan is a foreign corporation, and Spartan no longer conducts the landscape business in Florida. It would be unnecessary to determine whether Smallwood or Spartan is liable for the $12,817.17 if: the terms of the bond were to allow an assignment of the bond to Spartan, and the Asset Purchase Agreement were to show that the bond was one of the contracts assigned to Spartan or one of the assets purchased by Spartan. The bond would cover both Smallwood and Spartan in such a case, and a determination of which shell hid the proverbial pea would be moot. A copy of the bond did not find its way into the record. Petitioner did not submit a copy of the bond for admission into evidence, and the Department did not transmit a copy of the bond when the agency referred the matter to DOAH. The copy of the Asset Purchase Agreement admitted into evidence does not include a schedule of the contracts assigned to Spartan or a schedule of the assets sold to Spartan. A finding that Spartan expressly assumed Smallwood's liability to pay Petitioner $3,834.43 for sod delivered from May 11 through June 13, 2006, is not supported by the evidence. In relevant part, the Asset Purchase Agreement provides: At Closing, Purchaser shall assume those liabilities of Company specifically defined and listed on the Schedule 1.6(b) attached hereto (“Assumed Liabilities”), and Purchaser shall not assume, incur, guarantee, or be otherwise obligated with respect to any liability whatsoever of Company other than as so stated. . . . (emphasis not supplied) Purchaser shall cause Stockholder [Ms. Smallwood] to be released as guarantor or obligor under the Assumed Liabilities. . . . P-2 at 2. Schedule 1.6(b) is missing from the copy of the Asset Purchase Agreement that was admitted into evidence. Even if a complete exhibit were to show that Spartan assumed Smallwood's liability to Petitioner, neither of the respondents submitted evidence or cited legal authority to support a finding that such an assumption released Smallwood from its obligation to Petitioner or otherwise extinguished that obligation. Nor is there any evidence that Petitioner acquiesced in an assumption by Spartan or otherwise released Smallwood from the obligation to pay Petitioner for sod delivered prior to June 13, 2006. The remaining allegation in the Smallwood defense is that Spartan, rather than Smallwood, purchased the sod Petitioner delivered between June 13 and September 26, 2006. It allegedly is Spartan that owes Petitioner $8,982.74. The remaining allegation implicitly argues that, after June 13, 2006, Smallwood was no longer a viable corporation with the legal capacity to purchase sod from Petitioner because the asset sale resulted in what courts describe as a “de facto merger” of Smallwood into Spartan or a “mere continuation of business” by Spartan. The law pertaining to these two doctrines is discussed in the Conclusions of Law, but certain factual findings are relevant to both doctrines. The Smallwood defense is a mutation of the doctrines of "de facto merger" and "mere continuation of business," either of which have been utilized by courts to hold a successor corporation liable for the obligations of the corporate predecessor. The Smallwood defense takes the relevant judicial doctrines a step further. The defense implicitly assumes that if a "de facto merger" or "mere continuation of business" occurred as a result of the asset sale, Smallwood "merged" into Spartan, and Smallwood was no longer a viable corporate entity with the legal capacity to purchase sod from Petitioner. Two facts preclude the application of either judicial doctrine to the sale of Smallwood's assets. First, there is no commonality or continuity of ownership interests between Smallwood and Spartan. Spartan did not acquire some or all of the stock of Smallwood, and Ms. Smallwood did not become a shareholder in Spartan. The two corporations do not share common directors or officers. The second fact involves the purchase price paid for the Smallwood assets. The purchase price does not suggest a cozy relationship between Smallwood and Spartan that otherwise may have persuaded a court to disregard the separate corporate existence of Smallwood after the asset-sale. No evidence suggests that the price paid was not the fair market value of the Smallwood assets negotiated at arms length between a willing buyer and a willing seller. Smallwood remained in existence as a viable Florida corporation after the asset-sale on June 13, 2006. No legal impediment prevented Smallwood from purchasing sod from Petitioner, and Smallwood had the legal capacity to do so. The purchases may have breached the terms of the Asset Purchase Agreement, but the legal capacity of Smallwood to purchase sod from Petitioner is not driven by contractual arrangements between Smallwood and private third parties. Smallwood remained in existence as a Florida corporation at least through January 7, 2007, when Ms. Smallwood filed the Response with the Department. The Response does not allege as a factual matter that Smallwood had been liquidated and was no longer in existence as a Florida corporation; or that the $895,500 the seller received for the sale of assets was not in corporate solution and available to pay invoices submitted by Petitioner. The Response merely states that Smallwood was not actively engaged in the conduct of business. Smallwood was actively engaged in the landscape business after June 13, 2006. Smallwood maintained its customary banking account; continued to issue checks imprinted with the company name; paid Petitioner for goods that Petitioner delivered to Smallwood before May 11, 2006; accepted without objection or disclaimer 43 invoices totaling $8,982.74 that were billed to the company for sod delivered to the company at the company's business address; issued the notice letter to its creditors; and purported to terminate credit agreements and guarantees. Prior to receiving the notice letter, Petitioner had no reason to believe that Smallwood was not conducting the landscape business. The face of Smallwood remained unchanged. Ms. Smallwood continued to operate the landscape business pursuant to a long-term employment contract with Spartan. Spartan signed Mr. Keith Whipple, another key employee of Smallwood, to a similar contract. Copies of the employment contracts are attached to the Asset Purchase Agreement.5 Between June 13 and September 14, 2006, Ms. Smallwood continued to sign Smallwood checks imprinted with the company name and issued on the Smallwood business account. Ms. Smallwood signed the checks as the authorized representative of Smallwood. Smallwood accepted 35 invoices issued to the company for $7,007.13 and deliveries of the sod at the company's customary business address. The notice letter was dated September 14, 2006, but Petitioner received the letter on or about September 26, 2006. Between September 14 and 26, 2006, Smallwood accepted eight invoices for sod purchased for $1,975.61. The evidence does not show when Smallwood actually mailed the notice letter, and Petitioner did not stamp the notice letter with the date it was received. The chief operating officer for Petitioner testified at the hearing but does not recall the date Petitioner actually received the notice letter. However, the witness testified that Petitioner stopped all sales to Smallwood immediately upon receipt of the notice letter to allow time for Petitioner to complete a credit check of Spartan. The trier of fact finds the relevant testimony to be credible and persuasive. The failure to timely disclose the identity of Spartan as a successor entity operating in the name of Smallwood misled Petitioner, if not other creditors.6 Between June 13 and September 26, 2006, Petitioner extended credit for purchases of $8,982.74 before Petitioner had the opportunity to ensure the credit worthiness of Spartan and, if desired, to obtain a written guarantee from the individual officers and shareholders.7 Smallwood, rather than Spartan, purchased sod from Petitioner from May 11 through September 26, 2006. Smallwood owes Petitioner $12,817.17. Hartford does not claim that the terms of the bond do not ensure payment of the purchases made by Smallwood. Hartford’s sole objection in its PRO is that the bond proceeds must be paid directly to the Department rather than to Petitioner. Hartford correctly cites Subsection 604.21(8) in support of its objection.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order directing Smallwood to pay $12,817.17 to Petitioner, and, in accordance with Subsection 604.21(8), requiring Hartford to pay over to the Department any amount not paid by Smallwood. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of August, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 15th day of August, 2007.
