The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent's certificate as a plumbing contractor in Pinellas County should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaints filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations herein, Petitioner, Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board (Board) was the agency responsible for the certification of plumbing contractors and the regulation of the plumbing trade in Pinellas County. Respondent was certified by the Board as a plumbing contractor, but his certification had been suspended by the Board on August 8, 1999, for failure to provide proof of required liability insurance. Ernie Martin Plumbing (EMP) has been in business in Pinellas County, Florida, since the 1940's. The business was started by Respondent's father, with whom Respondent worked until he took over the business. Respondent operated the business until, due to the demands of health, he relied on two employees, Charlie Pierce and Greg Rowe, to do all the work commencing in the mid-1980's. He actually sold them the business in the late 1980's. Since neither Pierce nor Rowe was a licensed plumber, in October 1984 Respondent changed the status of his certificate to qualify the company on those jobs where certification was required. Because he was not satisfied with the way the business was being run, however, on August 8, 1999, Respondent went to the offices of the Board for the purposes of having his certificate and name removed as the qualifying certification for EMP. At that time he was advised by a clerk at the Board office that his certificate had been suspended for a failure to maintain the required liability insurance for the company. Because of this, Respondent erroneously believed his license was no longer active and could not be used by the company, so he took no further action. On November 8, 1999, Doris Ruttledge called EMP to fix a leak under her kitchen sink in her home at 3800 Fifth Avenue South. A representative of the company came to her home and purportedly fixed the leak. Ms. Ruttledge paid the fee required. She soon found out that the leak had not been properly fixed and still existed. She called EMP several times to come fix it, speaking each time with Greg Rowe, but the repair was not done. She finally had another plumber complete the required repairs. Somewhat earlier, on July 31, 1999, Arthur Arendt experienced problems with the sewer line exiting his home located at 501 36th Avenue North. The line was blocked and sewage was backing up. Arendt called EMP and asked what it would cost to repair the problem. When he was quoted a price of $100.00, he agreed to have the work done, and a representative of EMP came to the house to do it. After digging down about five feet from the house, the plumber determined that the line was clogged and broke through the pipe to remove the blockage. Once the blockage was removed, the plumber asked Mr. Arendt for an empty two-liter soda bottle from which he cut a curved section which he placed over the opening in the pipe as a patch. The plumber then covered the patch with dirt and declared it fixed. The following day, Mr. Arendt noticed that the pipe was leaking at the patch. He called Greg Rowe, the representative of EMP, who said he would fix it but did not do so. Finally, on September 30, 1999, after no-one from EMP had come out to repair the leak, Mr. Arendt repaired it himself. Several weeks later, in November 1999, Mr. Martin came to the Arendt home, examined the repair and Arendt's modification to it, and determined that further work needed to be done. Mr. Martin contacted Greg Rowe and told him he wanted the line repaired correctly and he wanted it done immediately. The required corrections were made. According to Kenneth Klotz, the chief plumbing inspector for St. Petersburg, the use of a piece of plastic bottle is not an acceptable means of repairing a broken sewer line. A seal must be watertight to prevent leakage of sewage from the line into the surrounding ground. Within those parameters, small repairs may be made by patch, but larger repairs require the replacement of the broken pipe section. It is so found.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board enter a final order in this case revoking Respondent's certification (License C-985(RF0040714))as a plumbing contractor in Pinellas County without prejudice to apply for re-certification after one year. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of August, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of August, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: William J. Owens, Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 11701 Belcher Road, Suite 102 Largo, Florida 33773-5116 Ernest J. Martin 5050 34th Street North St. Petersburg, Florida 33714
The Issue The basic issue in this case concerns whether the Petitioners are entitled to reimbursement from the Construction Industries Recovery Fund.
Findings Of Fact On or about December 5, 1994, the Petitioners entered into a contract with an entity named James Plumbing, Inc., pursuant to which James Plumbing, Inc., agreed to perform specified plumbing work for a two-story duplex the Petitioners were building. The total contract price for the plumbing work was $10,000.00. Article 4 of the contract, titled "Progress Payments," contained the following language: On completion of rough-in plumbing $4,000.00 is due, at top out of all riser pipes and runs for plumbing an additional $4,000.00. The final payment of $2,000.00 to be paid upon final completion and hookup of all plumbing items and approval of same by City of Delray Building Department. A lien release will be required upon final payment by James Plumbing, Inc. Owner's (sic) will furnish lien release to James Plumbing, Inc., for execution. The contract described above also included language to the effect that the work to be performed under the contract would be commenced "as per owner/builder schedule," and the work would be substantially completed in the spring or summer of 1995 "as per schedule of owners." At the time of the signing of the contract described above, and at all other times material to this case, James Plumbing, Inc., was a Florida corporation that had been administratively dissolved by the Florida Department of State. At the time of the signing of the contract described above, and at all other times material to this case, an individual named James West was licensed by the CILB as a "Certified Plumbing Contractor." At the time of the signing of the contract described above, and at all other times material to this case, James West purported to be the "qualifier" for the entity known as James Plumbing, Inc. James West was the original incorporator of the corporation named James Plumbing, Inc. At all times material to this case, James West was the only person who had any ownership interest in, or had any control over the affairs of, the corporation named James Plumbing, Inc. James West, doing business under the name of the defunct corporation named James Plumbing, Inc., finished the "rough-in" in June of 1995 and finished the "top out" in March of 1996. Consistent with the terms of the contract, he was paid $4,000.00 in June of 1995 and he was paid $4,000.00 in March of 1996.1 For several reasons not material to the issues in this case, progress on other aspects of the construction project took longer than expected and in was not until the spring of 1999 that the Petitioners contacted James West to schedule the completion of the plumbing work under the contract signed in December of 1994. As a result of disagreements regarding the scheduling of the plumbing work, by letter dated April 12, 1999, the Petitioners advised James West that they had elected to terminate the plumbing contract dated December 5, 1994. Neither James Plumbing, Inc., nor James West individually ever performed the work that remained to be performed under the contract dated December 5, 1994, after the "top out" that was completed in March of 1996. In order to finish the plumbing work that remained to be done under the contract dated December 5, 1994, the Petitioners hired another plumbing contractor, Lee Wilder Plumbing, Inc. ("Wilder"). During the course of finishing the plumbing work, Wilder discovered that some of the work done by James West was incomplete and that some of the work done by James West had been done improperly and had to be redone. Wilder finished the work that remained to be done under the contract dated December 5, 1994, and also corrected the mistakes in the work that James West had done. For these services the Petitioners paid Wilder a total of $2,967.50. In order to correct the mistakes made by James West, it was also necessary to remove portions of existing interior walls and to then rebuild and paint those portions of the interior walls. This work on the interior walls cost the Petitioners an additional $1,000.00. As a result of the matters described in paragraphs 6, 7, and 8, above, the completion of the Petitioners' building was delayed. By reason of the delay, the Petitioners lost rental income in the amount of $4,350.00. The Petitioners filed a civil action in the County Court in Palm Beach County, Florida, against James West seeking to recover compensation for the harm caused by the failure of James West to properly perform his obligations under the contract of December 5, 1994. On September 3, 2002, the Petitioners obtained a final judgment against James West, individually. The judgment was in the total amount of $8,082.35, comprised of the following elements: Plumbing completion and repairs $2,967.50 Demolition and repair of walls $1,000.00 Cost of water heaters2 $400.00 Loss of rental income $4,350.00 Subtotal $8,717.50 Less $2,000.00 set off ($2,000.00) Plus prejudgment interest $1,364.85 Total Judgment $8,082.35 The final judgment includes the following language: Under the contract, work was to be completed by spring or summer, 1995. The Defendant actually finished the top-out installation in 1996 but the project was delayed due to a dispute the Plaintiffs had with the city in regard to paving an alley. The Plaintiffs contacted the Defendant in 1999 to finish the work, however, the Defendant requested additional money which he wanted up front. The Plaintiffs did not mind the additional money but objected to paying up front. They terminated the 1994 contract and hired Lee Wilder Plumbing, Inc., to complete the job of installing the fixtures. In May, 2000, the Plaintiffs discovered there was no hot water. The Defendant refused to come out and check on the problem so Lee Wilder Plumbing, Inc., was called. The evidence showed that cuts had to be made in the walls and floor to find the problem. While the Defendant asserts that the problem was crossed pipes which was easy to correct, he never came out to look at the job site. Instead, the evidence showed that there was a hot water pipe missing, that the two cold water pipes were not connected to anything and a new pipe had to be installed getting hot water to the second floor. The evidence further showed that the Defendant did all of the rough plumbing under the slab and top- out plumbing inside of the walls. Pursuant to F.S. 95.11(3)(c), the Court finds the plumbing defect to be a latent defect. Further, the Court finds that the Defendant is responsible for that latent defect. In addition to damages to correct the latent defect, the Plaintiffs seek damages for the cost of hot water heaters and loss of rent/loss of use for three months delay to correct the plumbing problem. It is well settled that the purpose of damages are (sic) to place the injured party in the position it would have been. Tucker v. John Galt Ins. Agency Corp., 743 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). The Court finds that Plaintiffs are entitled to [re]cover the cost of repairing the latent defect in the amount of $2,967.50 and $1,000.00 for the cost of repairing the walls and floor. Further, the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover for the cost of the water heaters of $400.00 and loss of rental income for one unit at $4,350.00. In addition, the Defendant is entitled to a set off of $2,000.00, as the Plaintiffs agreed to pay the Defendant $10,000.00 for the plumbing work in which they actually paid the Defendant $8,000.00. The measure of damages is the cost to complete contract price because parties already agreed to pay contract price for completed work. American Structural Systems, Inc. v. R. B. Gay Const. Co., Inc., 619 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). Measure of damages is contract price diminished only by damages suffered. Fleming v. Urdl's Waterfall Creations, Inc., 549 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). In addition to the final judgment described above, the Petitioners also received a judgment for costs against James West in the amount of $972.27. The amounts of the final judgment ($8,082.35) and the judgment for costs ($972.27) total $9,054.62. Following the entry of the judgments against James West, the Petitioners made numerous unsuccessful efforts to satisfy the judgment. Despite diligent search and inquiry, the Petitioners were never able to locate any property of James West that could be applied to the satisfaction of the judgments against James West. On or about November 27, 2002, the Petitioners signed a claim form seeking restitution from the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. Their claim was received by the CILB on or about December 3, 2002. Following consideration of the Petitioners' claim, the CILB voted to deny the claim. An order to that effect was issued and filed on January 28, 2004. In that order the CILB gave the following reasons for its denial of the claim: Upon consideration of the documentation and testimony submitted, it is ORDERED: Claimants filed to satisfy all requirements for payment from the Recovery Fund. There is no evidence in the file to support the amount of actual damages suffered. Section 489.141(2)(c), states that a person is not qualified to make a claim for recovery from the Construction Industries Recovery Fund, if such person has suffered damages as the result of making improper payments to a contractor as defined in part I of chapter 713. There is no evidence in the file that the liens filed by subcontractors were valid liens under Chapter 713, Florida Statutes. At the beginning of the final hearing the Respondent stated on the record that it was still relying on the reason set forth in subparagraph a, above, but that it was abandoning the reasons for denial set forth in subparagraphs b and c, above. The Respondent also stated on the record that it was of the view that there were two additional reasons for denying the subject claim. The two additional reasons were described as follows: That the underlying court judgment on which the Petitioners' claim is based is not a judgment based on an act that constitutes a violation of subsections (g), (j), or (k) of Section 489.129, Florida Statutes, and That the corporation for which the individual contractor purported to be the qualifier was not licensed at the time of the violations that caused financial harm to the Petitioners. The Petitioners' first notice of the CILB's change in position appears to have been when these two new reasons were stated during the opening moments of the final hearing. In its proposed recommended order the Respondent raises for the first time a third new reason for denying the subject claim. This third new reason is set forth in the underscored portion of the following language from paragraph 28 of the Respondent's proposed recommended order: 29. An asset search indicates that there are no assets from which the judgment can be satisfied. However, James West held at the time of the judgment, and still holds today, an active license. There is no proof that Petitioners exhausted all efforts and demonstrated an inability to collect the judgment as required by Rule 61G4-21.003(2), Florida administrative Code.
Recommendation In view of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be issued in this case concluding that the Petitioners are entitled to reimbursement from the Construction Industries Recovery Fund in the amount of their final judgment and their cost judgment, for a total reimbursement amount of $9,054.62. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of July, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of July, 2004.
Findings Of Fact 11. The factual allegations contained in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment issued on March 6, 2009, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on March 11, 2009, and the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment issued on October 15, 2009, which are fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this case.
Conclusions THIS PROCEEDING came on for final agency action and Alex Sink, Chief Financial Officer of the State of Florida, or her designee, having considered the record in this case, including the Stop- Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment and the Amended Orders of Penalty Assessment served in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 09-059-D7, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that: 1. On March 6, 2009, the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (hereinafter “Department”) issued a Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 09-059-D7 to CHRISTOPHER BURTIS DBA C BURTIS PLUMBING SERVICE. The Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein CHRISTOPHER BURTIS DBA C BURTIS PLUMBING SERVICE was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. 2. On March 6, 2009, the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was served by personal service on CHRISTOPHER BURTIS DBA C BURTIS PLUMBING SERVICE. A copy of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit A” and incorporated herein by reference. 3. On March 11, 2009, the Department issued an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in Case No. 09-059-D7 to CHRISTOPHER BURTIS DBA C BURTIS PLUMBING SERVICE. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $23,054.38 against CHRISTOPHER BURTIS DBA C BURTIS PLUMBING SERVICE. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein CHRISTOPHER BURTIS DBA C BURTIS PLUMBING SERVICE was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. 4. On March 11, 2009, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment was served by personal service on CHRISTOPHER BURTIS DBA C BURTIS PLUMBING SERVICE. A copy of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit B” and incorporated herein by reference. 5. On March 11, 2009, CHRISTOPHER BURTIS DBA C BURTIS PLUMBING SERVICE signed a Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty in Case No. 09- 059-D7. A copy of the Payment Agreement Schedule for Periodic Payment of Penalty is attached hereto as “Exhibit C” and incorporated herein by reference. 6. On March 11, 2009, the Department issued an Order of Conditional Release from Stop-Work Order in Case No. 09-059-D7 to CHRISTOPHER BURTIS DBA C BURTIS PLUMBING SERVICE. A copy of the Order of Conditional Release from Stop-Work Order is attached hereto as “Exhibit D” and incorporated herein by reference. 7. _ On March 27, 2009, CHRISTOPHER BURTIS DBA C BURTIS PLUMBING SERVICE filed a Petition for Formal Hearing Under Sections 120.569 and 120.57 with the Department. The Petition for Formal Hearing Under Sections 120.569 and 120.57 was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings on April 13, 2009, and the matter was assigned DOAH Case No. 09-1841. 8. On October 15, 2009, the Department issued a Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in Case No. 09-059-D7 to CHRISTOPHER BURTIS DBA C BURTIS PLUMBING SERVICE. The Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment assessed a total penalty of $5,599.61 against CHRISTOPHER BURTIS DBA C BURTIS PLUMBING SERVICE. A copy of the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit E” and incorporated herein by reference. 9. On October 16, 2009, the Department filed an Unopposed Motion to Amend Order of Penalty Assessment. The Administrative Law Judge entered an Order on October 19, 2009, which granted leave to amend the order of penalty assessment and filed for record the Second Amended Order of Penalty Assessment. A copy of the ‘Order is attached hereto as “Exhibit F” and incorporated herein by reference. 10. On November 2, 2009, CHRISTOPHER BURTIS DBA C BURTIS PLUMBING SERVICE filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with the Division of Administrative Hearings. Subsequently, on November 4, 2009, the Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Closing File which relinquished jurisdiction to the Department for final agency action. A copy of the Order Closing File is attached hereto as “Exhibit G” and incorporated herein by reference.
Findings Of Fact William R. Rifenburgh, Jr. is licensed as a certified general contractor (License No. CG C011375), certified pool contractor (License No. CP C010307) and registered pool contractor (License No. RP 0023263). Respondent held the above licenses at all times material to this action. In early 1978, Rifenburgh entered an oral contract with Personalized Construction Company to install a Nautilus Spa at a house this company was constructing at 9186 Northwest 21st Street, Coral Springs. Respondent then installed the spa exclusive of deck, electrical and brick work. Periodic inspections of the spa project were conducted between February and December, 1978, by the City of Coral Springs Building Department. The facility did not pass final inspection because of electrical wiring deficiencies and the purchaser's contention that the spa lost water. A follow-up final inspection has never been requested. The house was purchased by Nathaniel Gerold in March, 1978. Gerold paid about $5,200 to Personalized Construction Company for the spa, but later recovered this amount in a judgment against Personalized Construction. Between May and December, 1978, Gerold called Respondent numerous times regarding the inability of the spa to hold water. Nothing substantial was done by Respondent during those months. However, Respondent did return to the site in January, 1979, at the urging of the Coral Springs Building Department, but was refused access to the property by Gerold. As a result of Gerold's complaints, the City of Coral Springs Building Department withheld Respondent's building permit privileges beginning in March, 1980. However, no hearing was held nor was formal disciplinary action taken by the municipality. Respondent's building permit privileges were restored by the Building Department in February, 1981, on advice of the City Attorney. Respondent and Personalized Construction had several disagreements regarding the amount and schedule for payments to Respondent. However, Respondent was paid in May, 1978, by Personalized Construction for completion of the project, and was not a party to the lawsuit wherein Gerold recovered from Personalized Construction for the defective spa. Personalized Construction subcontracted the deck work, and this subcontractor was responsible for breaking some of the spa plumbing Respondent had installed. Although the underground pipes were repaired, they remain a possible source of water loss. It was not established if the current water loss is occurring through these pipes, from leaks in the prefabricated spa or through normal evaporation.
Recommendation From the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint be DISMISSED. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of June, 1981 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER 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 16th day of June, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Andrew M. Chansen, Esquire Suite 108 2000 East Oakland Park Boulevard Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33306
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner’s application for certification as a plumbing inspector should be granted.1/
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the executive branch agency within the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR) charged, among other duties, with administering part XII, chapter 468, Florida Statutes, and issuing standard and provisional certification of plumbing inspectors. On March 8, 2013, Petitioner submitted an application to the Board for initial certification by examination as a plumbing inspector. The application included sections for Petitioner’s personal information, method of qualification for certification, employment history, education, background information, affidavits of work experience, and an affirmation by written declaration executed by Petitioner.5/ The Board has an application review committee (ARC) composed of code enforcement professionals. One of the requirements that the ARC had to determine was whether Petitioner had clearly demonstrated five years of experience related to plumbing in order to be approved for the examination. Such experience could have been broken down into having done plumbing, inspected plumbing, or performed plumbing plan reviews. Petitioner submitted several affidavits to establish the requisite five years of experience necessary to qualify for the plumbing inspector certification examination. The instructions in “Section VIII-Work Experience” provided: 6/ This section must be completed by an architect, engineer, contractor or building code administrator, who has personal knowledge of the applicant’s experience for the period of time listed below. Instructions: Provide employment verification for the years of experience required for qualification for certification. Attach additional copies of this page as necessary. Note: Local Government Employees- To qualify for the fee reduction local government employees must provide Work Experience showing current employment with a local government agency that is signed by the building code administrator. * * * Describe in detail the applicant’s duties, including hands-on, supervisory or management responsibilities. Please be specific when explaining the applicant’s duties and hands- on experience. Mr. Thorne, the current Longboat Key building official, has supervised Petitioner for approximately two years, the length of his employment with Longboat Key. Petitioner submitted an affidavit by Mr. Thorne to demonstrate Petitioner’s work experience. Mr. Thorne’s affidavit did not provide the specific duties and hands-on experience to reflect the required plumbing experience. Mr. Thorne did not provide any additional supportive information during his testimony. J. Kent Kimes, the president of Kimes Engineering/Southwest Florida Building Inspections, and Harry R. Fowler, the former Longboat Key building official, both provided affidavits purporting to support Petitioner’s application. Neither affidavit described in specific terms Petitioner’s experience, job duties or overall knowledge of the plumbing trade. The affidavits did not provide the necessary information to support Petitioner’s application, nor did they accurately reflect the time of their respective supervision of Petitioner. Petitioner is employed by a public entity, the City of Longboat Key. The Board has issued him several licenses including: “a standard plans examiner’s license with the endorsements of electric and mechanical and plans examiner;” and “a Florida standard inspector’s license . . . with the endorsements for building, commercial electric; 1 and 2 family dwelling inspector; mechanical inspector, which would be commercial; and residential electrical inspector.” However, the experience required for these licenses could not be used to appropriately demonstrate how much experience Petitioner had in the plumbing trade. At all times material, Robert McCormick was the Board’s Chairman, and a member of the ARC. Mr. McCormick is a master electrician, a certified building official, a certified building code administrator, a plans examiner, a plans inspector and a member of the Council of the American Building Officials. He was tendered as and accepted as an expert. Each construction trade has a specific and complex code of regulations. Inspectors in each category must ensure compliance with that trade’s regulations. Plumbing inspectors must be versed in both residential and commercial construction codes. The plumbing trade is, at minimum, concerned with water systems, drains, pipes, and gas. Both the ARC and the Board were looking for affidavits that showed specific expertise in the plumbing trade category, not just experience in a general sense. The Board denied Petitioner’s application for certification as a plumbing inspector because his application: [d]oes not demonstrate, affirmed by affidavit signed by an architect, engineer, contractor, or building code administrator that you have the required experience for the certification sought.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Building Code Administrators and Inspectors Board issue a final order denying Petitioner’s application for certification as a plumbing inspector. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of August, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK 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 27th day of August, 2014.
The Issue The basic facts are not really disputed. Petitioner has many years experience as a plumber. The law is controverted. The agency says the required experience as a contractor must be with a fire sprinkler contractor. The Petitioner argues the statute does not define "contractor," and its common meaning would include plumbing contractor. Evidence was received that the agency has long held "contractor" to be limited to fire sprinkler installation contractors, and that this is based upon the special expertise required in design and installation of these systems. The argument of the Respondent that "contractor/ contracting" as it is used in the statute generally applies to fire sprinkler contractors is more persuasive based upon the evidence. The parties have submitted posthearing Proposed Findings of Fact. A ruling has been made on each proposed finding of fact in the Appendix to this Recommended Order.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Frederick Hagen applied with the Department of Insurance, Office of the State Fire Marshal, to take the written examination for a license to engage in the business of designing and installing fire protection systems as a Contractor II, type 7, class 12, as defined by Section 633.021(5)(b), Florida Statutes. On July 8, 1985, his original application was hand- delivered back to him for failure to submit the appropriate application fee and the appropriate application form. Mr. Hagen's application was denied by the Department of Insurance, Office of the State Fire Marshal because he did not submit evidence of four years proven experience as required by Section 633.521(3), Florida Statutes. On August 8, 1985, Mr. Hagen requested a formal hearing on the denial of his application. At the hearing on November 12, 1985, Mr. Hagen submitted an original application and the appropriate fee to the Department of Insurance, Office of the State Fire Marshal. Petitioner's application was denied in accordance with long-standing agency policy because he did not submit evidence to show that he had the requisite experience as a fire sprinkler installation contractor or the educational background, or a combination thereof to be allowed to sit for the examination. (Transcript pages 16,17; Petitioner's Exhibit 1) At all times material herein, Frederick D. Hagen held a license from the Construction Industry Licensing Board and has been a plumbing contractor for over 12 years. (Transcript pages 25, 26) As a licensed plumbing contractor, he has been involved in the supervision of and actual installation of fire line stand pipes and fire sprinklers to the extent authorized by law. Petitioner submitted no evidence at the hearing of his education and experience in the design of sprinkler installations. Petitioner indicated that he considered the design of these systems as similar to design of a plumbing system, given the building codes and plans. Design of sprinkler installations is integral to the work performed by a Contractor II, type 7, class 12. Design of sprinkler installations is based upon codes plus experience received in working in the profession. Employees of these specialized contractors receive special educational training in design of systems. Experience of a plumbing contractor in reading codes and applying them in installing plumbing systems would be inadequate experience to qualify one to design a sprinkler system.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is: RECOMMENDED that Mr. Hagen's application for examination to engage in the business of fire protection systems as a Contractor II, type 7, class 12, be DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of December 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of December 1985.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Petitioner should obtain credit for the answers he gave to questions 1, 3, 4, 12, 13, 14, 17 and 19 of the June, 1990 certified plumbing contractor examination.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received, the following findings of fact are made: The Petitioner is an unsuccessful applicant for licensure to become a certified plumbing contractor. Petitioner took the examination administered in June, 1990, and timely filed written challenges to questions numbered 1, 3, 4, 12, 13, 14, 17 and 19. The examination was developed by the National Assessment Institute, a division of ASCI, for the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Department). Petitioner's challenges were disallowed by the Department and the instant review was initiated by Petitioner. The challenged questions can be divided into two categories: questions 1, 3, and 4 of the exam required the applicant to review a plan view of a plumbing configuration and to draw an isometric view of the plumbing design. The second group of questions: 12, 13, 14, 17 and 19 required the applicant to answer multiple choice options based upon the Standard Plumbing Code and the illustrations related to each question. With regard to questions 1, 3, and 4 the skill tested was the applicant's ability to look at the plan view, a single dimension floor plan, and to draw the isometric view, a three dimensional plan of the piping system with elevations relative to the fixtures being depicted. As to each of these questions the applicant was to assume the following: GIVEN: Floor plan for a sanitary waste and vent system serving a typical commercial building. Assume the drawing and piping arrangement are in accordance with the Standard Plumbing Code. Draw an isometric piping diagram in the space provided on the right. Maintain the same fixture arrangement and piping configuration. Do not show pipe sizes. With regard to question 1, the Petitioner challenged the question because the isometric drawing for the floor drain would have to be lower than the other fixtures. Since the plan view only depicted one pipe, which connected the water closets and the urinals, Petitioner determined that the floor drain could not be drawn at the appropriate elevation. To correctly draw the isometric for this question Petitioner would have had to assume the question deviated from a normal construction drafting method and "hid" a pipe below the pipe serving the other fixtures. Instead of indicating the second pipe for the floor drain, Petitioner omitted it altogether since he believed only one pipe was there. Petitioner altered the piping configuration with regard to the shower for question 1 in that he tied the vent stack to the one vent through the roof instead of showing the shower with its own vent. Consequently, Petitioner's isometric drawing for question 1 was incorrect. With regard to question 3, Petitioner challenged this question since he felt his isometric drawing correctly depicted the plumbing configuration. Question 3 showed a plan view of four bathrooms utilizing a "T" shaped pipe to which the fixtures would drain. Petitioner's isometric drawing did not show traps for the lavatories to be installed. Instead, Petitioner indicated "LAVS" next to the piping configuration. Traps are required for all lavatories and should have been depicted on the isometric drawing. The Petitioner's drawing for question 3 was therefore incorrect. Petitioner's challenge to question 4 was based upon his assertion that the plan view did not depict a kitchen sink vent and that, therefore, his isometric of that plan would only need to draw the piping as shown. Additionally, Petitioner noted that the sink was not described in the schedule of fixtures listed in the legend for the examination. Petitioner's challenge to question 4 is valid because the configuration shown in the plan view would be improper and contrary to code. Consequently Petitioner's isometric, while not to code standard, conforms to the plan requested. The Department's assertion that the wall clean out should be viewed also as a vent is contrary to the way vents are depicted throughout the test and was not credible. The Petitioner's challenge to question 12 claimed that while his answer was incorrect the Department's answer was also incorrect. The most correct selection from the options offered was "D". Petitioner has substantiated this claim based upon the horizontal branch having a sufficient diameter to accommodate the four "sink" fixtures. Consequently, this question should be deleted from scoring. This question could have reasonably been calculated based upon two interpretations of the code. Accordingly, the only correct answer was "D". Question 13 related to a horizontal fixture branch for a public bathroom setting. In the diagram two back-to-back bathrooms with three water closets (tank type) and two lavatories were depicted. As drawn the Department claimed the illustration complies with the code. The Petitioner determined that the loop vent for the configuration was too small. The essence of Petitioner's claim is based upon an assertion that the developed length of the piping for fixture clearances must be considered to compute the vent size on the vertical rise. Based upon the code requirements the 2 inch vent depicted in zone "H" cannot meet standards. Consequently, the system does not comply with the code. Petitioner should receive credit for this question. Question 14 related to zone "I" which depicted a bathroom configuration. According to the Department, the system, as illustrated, complied with the code. Petitioner's response to the question found the vertical vent through the roof to be too small. The issue for this question relates to whether the floor drain should be assigned 5 drainage fixture units or 1 drainage fixture unit. The number of the fixture units dictates the pipe size. In this instance the 1 1/2 inch vent pipe is incorrect. Consequently, the Department's answer for this question was incorrect. The Petitioner's answer was more correct but was also erroneous since the size pipe through the roof was large enough. Zone "L" depicted a horizontal combination for a waste and vent system located within an area which did not allow the fixtures to be individually vented. Question 17 required the applicant to review the configuration and to determine whether the drawing was correct or incorrect. If incorrect, the options required the applicant to specify the reason the system failed to meet code. For this question the Department and the Petitioner both concluded that the system was incorrect. The reasons differed, however, as to why the depicted design failed. In this instance the system could be permitted if the upstream system were washed. The Petitioner's answer was as correct as that of the Department; consequently, Petitioner should receive credit for his answer. Petitioner's challenge to question 19 claimed that the Department's answer required the applicant to look at a separate zone ("M") to reach the answer. The review of the second zone was contrary to the general instructions according to Petitioner. Petitioner's assertion in this regard was incorrect since the zones were interrelated and reasonably had to be reviewed together. Based upon that assessment the Department's answer was the most correct.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered granting Petitioner's challenge to the examination as to questions 4, 12, 13, 14, and 17; giving Petitioner credit for his answers to questions 4, 13, and 17, and deleting questions 12 and 14. Further, that the examination questions and answers provided at hearing be sealed and not open to public inspection. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of May, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of May, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Rulings on the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the Petitioner: Petitioner did not submit proposed facts in a form to allow specific rulings as to acceptance or rejection of a stated fact. The unnumbered paragraphs consuming 10 pages contained argument, comment, and supposition in addition to factual matters related to the challenge. The paragraphs (referred to in order of their presentation) which can be accepted are as follows: 2, 4, 14, 15, 17, 18, 21 and 22. All other paragraphs contain either comment or are too nonspecific to accept in the form presented. Consequently they are rejected as argument, recitation or citation to testimony, or irrelevant. Rulings on the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the Respondent: Respondent also failed to present proposed findings of fact in a form to allow rulings on a convenient basis. Rulings are addressed by numbered paragraphs as to those accepted: The first sentence of paragraph 1 is accepted. The last three sentences of paragraph 1 are accepted. With regard to paragraph 2, the first sentence and the last two sentences of the paragraph are accepted. The first sentence of paragraph 3 is accepted. The first three sentences of paragraph 4 are accepted. The first three sentences of paragraph 5 are accepted. The last sentence of paragraph 7 is accepted. The first three sentences and the last sentence of paragraph 8 are accepted. The remaining portions of the proposed facts are rejected as recitation of testimony, comment, or argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Anthony S. Rachuba, Jr. TR Mechanical, Inc. 1665 Foulkrod Street Philadelphia, PA 19124 Vytas J. Urba, Staff Atty. Dept. of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St., Ste. 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Daniel O'Brien, Exec. Director DPR-Construction Industry Licensing Board P.O. Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Jack McRay, General Counsel Dept. of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe St., Ste. 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue Whether or not Respondent's denial of Petitioner's application for certification as a licensed plumber was proper.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record 1/ compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. During mid-April of 1981, Petitioner, David L. Mooney, filed an application to be certified to sit for the next Certified Contractors' Examination with the Respondent, Construction Industry Licensing Board. Since approximately 1969, Petitioner had been a resident of Newton, New Jersey, where he was licensed as a Master Plumber. While residing in New Jersey, Petitioner was in a private plumbing business which was fairly successful, however, due to the weather conditions in the New Jersey area, the plumbing business is primarily a seasonal business. As a result of the seasonal nature of the plumbing business in New Jersey, Petitioner's business also had cash-flow problems. Petitioner also experienced personal financial problems in connection with his adoption of a son while in New Jersey. Petitioner was forced to expend a substantial amount of money in legal fees and had to leave the State of New Jersey in order to gain the release of the adopted son. Briefly, and more specifically, evidence reveals that the adopted son had several brushes with the law, including an involvement in an armed robbery and arson of a country club. (Testimony of Petitioner.) Petitioner's application was examined by members of the Respondent, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Board), and the Board decided that it could not certify Petitioner to sit for licensure as a certified contractor due to a lack of financial responsibility. An examination of Petitioner's application for licensure to sit for the Certified Contractors' examination reveals that at the time in which he filed his application, his cash on hand amounted to $500.00 with virtually no assets and he had incurred liabilities in excess of $118,000.00. Petitioner's application reveals that there were outstanding judgments against him, tax liens, and several past due and delinquent accounts and/or bills.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent deny Petitioner's application for certification as a plumbing contractor in the State of Florida. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of February, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of February, 1982
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint? If so, what punitive action should be taken against Respondent?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Respondent is a plumbing contractor. He is now, and has been at all times material to the instant case, licensed to engage in the plumbing contracting business in the State of Florida. His license number is CF C020307. At all times material to the instant case, Respondent was the primary qualifying agent for A'Aabbott, a plumbing contracting business located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. In August of 1992, A'Aabbott entered into a written contract (Contract) with Nereo Agostinelli in which it agreed, for $3,225.00, "[t]o furnish labor and materials to install [on Agostinelli's property in Plantation, Florida a] 600 sq. ft. drain field to all codes at standard practice." Respondent signed the Contract on behalf A'Aabbott. His license number, however, was not written or otherwise displayed on the Contract. The Contract contained the following warranty provision: "3 year conditional warranty-must upkeep interior plumbing." Agostinelli paid the $3,225.00 Contract price by check. A'Aabbott thereafter installed a 600 square foot drain field on Agostinelli's property, as it had agreed to do. Approximately two days after it had been installed (which was within the three-year warranty period), the system failed and raw sewage backed up into Agostinelli's residence on the property. The system failed because pipe that A'Aabbott had installed as part of the project had been cracked during installation by a large rock and had become clogged with soil and therefore could not carry effluent to the drain field. The "interior plumbing" that Agostinelli was required maintain as a prerequisite to his receiving the benefit of the Contract's "3 year conditional warranty" did not cause the failure of the system. Agostinelli made numerous attempts to contact A'Aabbott and request that it fix the problem, as A'Aabbott was required to do under the Contract. When Agostinelli spoke with Respondent, Respondent told him that A'Aabbott had no intention of doing anything further for him. Although A'Aabbott was made aware of the system's failure, it failed to take any action to repair the system. Sewage continued to back up into Agostinelli's residence. On three occasions, Agostinelli had Raider Rooter Sewer and Drain Cleaning, Inc., (Raider Rooter) come to his residence and remove sewage. The total cost to Agostinelli of Raider Rooter's services was $355.00. Agostinelli would not have incurred these costs had the system installed by A'Aabbott not failed. Having been unsuccessful in his efforts to have A'Aabbott honor its warranty under the Contract, Agostinelli contracted with B and N Dozing and Bobcat Service (B and N), on or about March 23, 1993, to make the necessary repairs to the system. He paid B and N $670.00 to make these repairs. There have not been any problems with the system since it was repaired by B and N.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue a final order: (1) finding Respondent guilty of the violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, alleged in Counts I and II of the Amended Administrative Complaint, and (2) fining Respondent $1,100.00 for having committed these violations and requiring him to pay $1,025.00 to Agostinelli in restitution and to reimburse the Department for all reasonable costs associated with the Department's investigation and prosecution of the charges set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of July, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of July, 1997.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Connie H. Sanders ("Mrs. Sanders") violated provisions of Florida Administrative Code Chapter 64E-6, and, if so, whether revocation of her septic tank contractor's certification is warranted.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the State agency responsible for, inter alia, enforcing the provisions of chapter 381 and chapter 489, Part III, Florida Statutes, and the rules contained in chapter 64E-6, as those statutes and rules relate to septic tank contractor registrations. Mrs. Sanders has been a registered septic tank contractor since 1993. She has been in the septic tank business since 1982. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Mrs. Sanders operated under the name Lehigh Septic, Inc. She has since begun operating under the name AAA Lehigh Septic Tank Service. Mrs. Sanders' husband is also a registered septic tank contractor. When Mrs. Sanders began operating her new business, Mr. Sanders took over Lehigh Septic, Inc. Both Mrs. Sanders' business and Mr. Sanders' business operate from the same office and share administrative staff. Mrs. Sanders generally remains in the office to handle the business aspects of the two entities. Mr. Sanders goes into the field and conducts the hands-on, practical aspects of the businesses. The charges against Mrs. Sanders arose from the provision of services to a group home or assisted living facility (the testimony at final hearing referenced it both ways) located at 413 Richmond Avenue, Lehigh Acres, Florida, and referred to herein as the "Property." On January 18, 2011, George Harris called Mrs. Sanders' office seeking septic services at the Property. He said he had a problem with "smells" at the Property, which he attributed to the septic system. Mrs. Sanders, or her secretary, took the message and gave it to Mr. Sanders for follow-up. Harris called back the following day as well. On that day, a note was made on the phone log that someone was to do the work "today." A price of $350.00 was written in the margin of the note. Mr. Sanders went to the Property on or around the period including January 18 through 21, 2011, and pumped out a 900-gallon septic tank. Mr. Sanders had actually done septic tank work at the Property in 2008, but he has done work on thousands of tanks and does not have a specific memory as to what he did at the Property three years earlier. On January 24, 2011, Mrs. Sanders' telephone log indicated receipt of another call from Harris. This time, Harris said there was a problem with the septic tank "we [pumped out] last week." Harris said there was a defective drain field associated with the septic tank and wanted to know the "next step" and how much it would cost to repair it. On the following day, there was a note in the telephone log concerning the Property. The note indicated the call was about a "tank cert[ification]" and that someone needed to call the County Health Department regarding the size of the tank at the Property. On or about January 31, 2011, a DH Form 4015, entitled Department of Health Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal System Existing System and System Repair Evaluation, was completed, in part, by Mr. Sanders. Specifically, the certification section of the form was filled out by Mr. Sanders. He listed the following existing tank information: 1350 gallons septic tank, made of concrete and baffled; and An approximately 350 gallons dosing tank, made of concrete. Mr. Sanders also certified that "[t]he listed tanks were pumped on 1/24/11 by Lehigh Septic, Inc., have the volumes specified as determined by [method of determination left unchecked], are free of observable defects or leaks, and have a [type of filter not checked] installed." The certification was then signed as Connie H. Sanders, Lehigh Septic, Inc., but Mr. Sanders actually wrote the signature. Under the signature were the words, "[i]nstalled in series,"2/ and then the form is dated January 31, 2011. This form will be referred to herein as the "January 31 Certification." Mr. Sanders was authorized by Mrs. Sanders to sign documents on her behalf, so the January 31 Certification is essentially Mrs. Sanders' certified statement. Mr. Sanders delivered the January 31 Certification to Harris, assuming the certification was needed as part of Harris' licensure application for his assisted living facility or group home. Mr. Sanders believed he had provided such a certification for the Property in the past, and he often provided certifications to other group home type facilities. Mr. Sanders avers that he was not hired to do any additional work on the septic system at the property. Harris then apparently had some repair work done on his septic system by another company, Southwest Environmental, LLC. A permit application was filed at the Department on or about February 4, 2011, by Trinity Property, Inc. (apparently the entity which owns the Property), which sought approval to replace the drain field at the Property. Attached to the application was the January 31 Certification completed by Mr. Sanders. Neither Mr. Sanders, nor Mrs. Sanders, had knowledge the permit application was going to be filed at the Department as part of a repair permit application. Upon receipt of the permit application by the Department, it was quickly ascertained that the January 31 Certification was in error concerning the septic tank information. The 1350-gallon septic tank identified by Mr. Sanders did not exist. In fact, the Property had a 900-gallon septic tank, a 450-gallon septic tank, and a 400-gallon dosing tank. On February 10, 2011, Sabins contacted Mr. Sanders to let him know about the discrepancies on his DH Form 4015 related to the Property. Mr. Sanders indicated he would go out and pump the other two tanks, then submit a corrected certification form.3/ Mr. Sanders pumped the remaining tanks the very next day. Mr. Sanders also called the Department and spoke to Whelan. It was at that time that Mr. Sanders was advised that he could use the tank certifications he had done in 2008, because the certifications are good for up to three years. Mr. Sanders then submitted two more certifications to the Department. He submitted the certification from his 2008 visit (the "2008 Certification") and a revised certification dated February 11, 2011 (the "February 11 Certification"). The 2008 Certification identifies the two septic tanks and one dosing tank that existed on the Property. Mr. Sanders had pumped out at least one of those tanks on October 6, 2008. Invoices for that work indicated that Mr. Sanders had pumped the 900-gallon tank, but had not pumped the other two tanks. He went back on October 8, 2008, and pumped the remaining tanks. The invoice for the additional work says, "Pump dosing tank & cleaned sludge [no charge] per David/Driver. Didn't know other tanks were there." Under the quantity column on the invoice, however, 500 gallons is listed for the October 8, 2010, visit, even though there was a 450-gallon septic tank and a 400-gallon dosing tank that were allegedly pumped. The 2008 Certification is then signed and dated as of February 11, 2011, the same day as the other corrected certification. The February 11 Certification indicated that the Property had a 900-gallon septic tank, a 450-gallon septic tank, and a 400-gallon dosing tank. The certification said that all three tanks were pumped on February 11, 2011; however, Mr. Sanders actually pumped out the 900-gallon tank earlier (in the January 18 through 21, 2011, time period) and pumped the other two tanks on February 11, 2011. Neither the February 11 Certification, nor the 2008 Certification, is completely accurate in all respects, but they are sufficiently accurate to provide the Department the information it required. The purpose of a septic tank certification is to ensure that the tank is free from observable defects or leaks. As of October 6 through 8, 2008, Mr. Sanders believed the three tanks at the Property were in good condition. He did not have any knowledge whether they were in good condition as of the date he provided the January 31 Certification to the owner of the Property. However, Mr. Sanders could have relied upon his 2008 Certification at that time, thus, no further inspection was absolutely necessary. There is no evidence that Mrs. Sanders was personally aware of the errors made by Mr. Sanders concerning the activities at the Property; nor is there evidence that Mrs. Sanders had any knowledge that Mr. Sanders had prepared a certification (or three of them) containing her signature. However, Mrs. Sanders authorized Mr. Sanders to act on her behalf and must be held accountable for his actions in that regard. There were three prior disciplinary actions taken against Mrs. Sanders by the Department: In July 2003, the Department entered a Final Order imposing a fine of $1,000.00 for failing to properly abandon a septic tank and creating a sanitary nuisance; in May 2009, a Final Order was entered fining Mrs. Sanders $1,000.00 for failing to remove the entire contents of an onsite septic sewage treatment and disposal system and for doing business under an unauthorized name; and in June 2007, a Final Order imposed a fine of $1.000.00 for failing to remove the entire contents of an onsite septic treatment and disposal system. There is no evidence in this case that consideration of the three prior offenses would be necessary in order to prove a material fact in the present action. Mrs. Sanders became a septic tank contractor after marrying her husband. It has become her life's work and is the only thing she is qualified to do in order to make a living. She is responsible for operations of both her and her husband's businesses, and if she is not certified, both businesses could fail. Her husband is not in good health, and Mrs. Sanders is concerned that loss of her certification would be financially devastating for her and Mr. Sanders.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Department of Health, imposing a fine against Respondent, Connie H. Sanders, in the amount of $500.00 and that a letter of warning be issued stating the potential penalty for any repeat violation. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of September, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 8th day of September, 2011.
