The Issue Whether Petitioner should be ordered to pay reasonable costs and attorney's fees to Respondent, and, if so, the determination of the amounts of costs and attorney's fees.
Findings Of Fact On April 16, 1996, pursuant to Section 337.14, Florida Statutes, Petitioner submitted its Application for Qualification (Application) to bid on road and bridge contracts. On May 29, 1996, Respondent notified Petitioner of Respondent’s intent to deny the Application, based in part upon the findings of a federal administrative law judge that Petitioner had violated numerous provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. Sections 651-678 (1970) and should be assessed penalties in the amount of $2,662,834. Petitioner challenged Respondent’s denial with a request for formal administrative hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings. Following requested continuances, a formal hearing on Petitioner’s request was convened on March 18, 1997, in Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 96-3037. In the course of discovery proceedings, Petitioner manifested his intention to participate in the final administrative hearing. However, Petitioner did not appear at the final hearing and did not notify the undersigned or counsel for Respondent that an appearance for Petitioner would not be made. Also, Petitioner did not provide explanation for its nonappearance subsequent to that hearing. Petitioner was previously denied pre-qualification to bid on road and bridge contracts. On June 21, 1995, Petitioner had submitted its Application to Respondent and, following Respondent’s denial dated August 23, 1995, requested formal administrative proceedings. After a formal hearing in that case before the Division of Administrative Hearings, Respondent adopted the Recommended Order in its entirety, denying Petitioner’s Application. See, Recommended Order issued February 23, 1996, in Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 95-5904 (Final Order issued March 28, 1996). On March 17, 1997, the day before the final hearing scheduled in Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 96- 3037, Respondent received yet another Application from a firm named Anastasios Corporation. This firm performs the same type of work as E. Smalis Painting, Inc., the Petitioner in this matter, and contains an almost identical list of employees to that of E. Smalis Painting, Inc. Both applications have been filled out by hand, with handwriting that appears identical on both documents. The proof presented at final hearing in this case establishes that E. Smalis Painting, Inc., is providing financial backing for Anastasios Corporation and that Ernest Smalis is the chief executive officer of both business entities. Petitioner’s expressed intention to pursue this matter to conclusion; its subsequent failure to follow through on that intention by appearing at the final hearing in Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 96-3037, or providing either notification of such absence or subsequent explanation; its previous application filing in Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 95-5904; and its latest filing of an Application for Anastasios Corporation one day before the final hearing in Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 96-3037, establish that Petitioner has participated in this proceeding for a frivolous, improper purpose. Respondent incurred significant time and expense in preparing its case in this matter which would not have been incurred but for Petitioner’s action in requesting these proceedings for a frivolous, improper purpose. Those expenses include: $711.92 for travel, lodging, shuttle, and parking (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) expenses incurred in connection with the depositions of John Morris, a representative of OSHA, and Ernest Smalis, Petitioner’s representative. $893.50 for transcript and service of process costs associated with the above- mentioned depositions. $7,768.75 for attorney time.
Recommendation Accordingly, it is recommended that a final order be entered granting Respondent’s motion for fees and costs in the following amounts: $711.92 for travel, lodging, shuttle, and parking (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) expenses incurred in connection with depositions. $893.50 for transcript and service of process costs associated with the depositions. $7,768.75 for attorney time. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of August, 1997, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DON W. DAVIS 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 21st day of August, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Murray M. Wadsworth, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, Mail Station 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Ernest Smalis E. Smalis Painting Company, Inc. 4073 Liberty Avenue Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15224 Thomas F. Barry, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Pamela Leslie, Esquire Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent violated Section 489.129(1)(j) and (m), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1998), for the reasons stated in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed. (All chapter and section references are to Florida Statutes (Supp. 1998) unless otherwise stated.)
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating the practice of contracting in the State of Florida. At all times material hereto, Respondent was licensed as a certified general contractor and a certified plumbing contractor in the state, pursuant to respective license numbers CG C037614 and CF C037179. Respondent's licenses are currently inactive. Respondent was licensed as the qualifying agent for Landmark Construction Group, Inc. ("Landmark"). As the qualifying agent, Respondent was responsible for all of Landmark's contracting activities, in accordance with Section 489.1195, including all field work at work sites and for financial matters. On April 13, 1999, Respondent, doing business as Landmark, entered into a contract with Dorothy and Michael Stippert (the "Stipperts") to construct a custom home and swimming pool at 7740 Bass Lane, New Port Richey, Florida. The total price for the contract, including change orders, was $129,509.00. The Stipperts paid a total of $3,000.00 to Respondent as a deposit. The Stipperts made additional payments to Respondent from a loan obtained by the Stipperts from Bank of America, their construction lender. The lender paid draws to Respondent in the amount of approximately $36,000. Respondent obtained building permit number 340264 from the Pasco County Building Department for the project. Respondent commenced work in March 2000. Work proceeded sporadically. Respondent cleared the lot and poured the foundation, but the project proceeded more slowly than is normal for the industry in the area. On June 6, 2000, the Pasco County Building Department passed an inspection of the project at the lintel stage. The lintel stage was the last construction performed by Respondent on the Stipperts’ property. Respondent performed no work on the project after June 6, 2000. As of June 6, 2000, Respondent ceased work on the project and abandoned the project. Respondent did not respond to attempts by the Stipperts to contact him regarding the project. On June 19, 2000, William Gregory Sizemore recorded a valid claim of lien against the Stipperts’ property in the amount of $2,201.20. However, Mr. Sizemore has taken no action to foreclose upon the lien. On September 5, 2000, the lender and the Stipperts entered into a contract with Paul Bakkalapulo, doing business as Costa Homes, Inc. ("Costa"), to complete the construction of the home. At the time the Stipperts entered into the contract with Costa, Costa had no business relationship with Landmark or Respondent, nor did Costa enter into one at any time thereafter. In addition to the remaining proceeds from the loan from Bank of America, the Stipperts paid an additional $17,328 of their own money to Costa to complete the same project that Respondent had contracted to complete. The additional cost of $17,328 is attributable to the fact that Respondent left the property exposed to the elements. The exposure required additional work and cost to complete the project. Due to the delays caused by Respondent’s abandonment of the project, and to avoid foreclosure by the lender, the Stipperts paid interest penalties to the Bank of America in the amount of $1,500.00. Petitioner incurred investigative costs in the amount of $470.56.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(j) and (m), suspending Respondent's licenses for two years from the date that Respondent re-activates his licenses, imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $2,000.00, requiring Respondent to pay restitution to Michael Stippert in the amount of $18,828.00, and requiring Respondent to pay costs of Petitioner’s investigation in the amount of $470.56. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 20th day of February, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: David M. Olsen 7917 Knight Drive New Port Richey, Florida 34653 Patrick L. Butler, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Suzanne Lee, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1039 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether the Respondents violated Section 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes, by inducing a seller to enter in a contract for sale of real estate, based on a $50,000.00 earnest money deposit that was never made.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Fred Marberry, Jr. is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate broker-salesman in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0369879 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. Respondent Bernon Earl Thomas is now and was at all times material hereto a licensed real estate salesman in the State of Florida, having been issued license number 0433736 in accordance with Chapter 475, Florida Statutes. During the relevant time, from July through September 1985, Fred Marberry was President of Marberry and Mack Development, Inc., and maintained an office in Altamonte Springs, Florida. James Mack was the Vice-president, Secretary and Treasurer of the company. During the relevant time, from July through September 1985, Bernon Thomas was a real estate salesman with General Realty Management Corporation. His office was in Kissimmee, Florida. In 1985, the two Respondents had worked together on the potential sale and development of a multi-family project in Kissimmee. Thomas was aware of the availability of some commercial property in Kissimmee known as Cross Creek that he felt would be a good deal and shared that information with Marberry. Thomas got his information on Cross Creek from Larry Heninger, who was working with the owner, R. S. Futch, in putting together a development package to present to potential buyers and developers. Heninger had expended considerable effort in working with an engineer and permit agencies and had made contacts with a number of businesses interested in locating on the property. The engineering reports, correspondence and figures supplied to Marberry by Thomas indicated that the parcel comprised 14.75 usable acres. There were letters from the City saying that sewage capacity, utilities and similar public services would be based on this amount. Marberry told Thomas that the development package looked good and to continue working on it. Some time in mid-July 1985, Larry Heninger informed Thomas that some third parties were also interested in the Cross Creek property and that if Marberry and Mack, Inc., wanted to present an offer, they would need to do so immediately as Mr. Futch was leaving on a vacation for several weeks. Thomas called Marberry to relay this information. The details of the conversation are in dispute, but it is uncontroverted that Thomas was made a Vice-president of Marberry and Mack, Inc., for the sole purpose of executing a sales contract immediately. Arrangements were made for Thomas to draw up the contract/offer and have it taken to the Orlando airport where R. S. Futch was either leaving or was en route on his vacation. Marberry and Thomas disagree on what was discussed with regard to an escrow deposit. Thomas contends that Marberry authorized him to provide for a $50,000.00 escrow deposit to be held by Fred Marberry, licensed real estate broker upon acceptance of contract. Marberry denies this and claims that he never maintained an escrow account, that escrow funds were always handled by his (Marberry's) attorney. Marberry claims that the day after signing, when he actually saw the contract, he said something to Thomas about his failure to delete the escrow language on the contract form. Thomas denies this. Both Marberry and Thomas agree that all parties should have known that the deposit could not be escrowed upon acceptance, since Marberry was not there for the signing. The contract was prepared and signed by Thomas in Thomas' Kissimmee office and was taken to the Orlando airport. The contract, prepared on the standard Florida Bar and Association of Realtors approved form, provided a purchase price of $1,600,000.00, the $50,000.00 escrow deposit, and closing on August 25, 1985. The contract provided that closing could be extended by the buyer for 30 days with an additional $50,000.00 deposit. The contract contained the following special clauses: Contingent upon financing. Above described property of [sic] being viable to building Comm. Prop. with all necessary zoning and available utilities. [Pet. Ex. #5] At the airport, R. S. Futch accepted the offer by Marberry and Mack, made a few changes on the contract, initialled them and signed the contract; the changes were also initialled by Bernon Thomas. Later Thomas called Marberry and told him about the changes. The morning after the contract was signed, Marberry and Thomas visited Heninger's engineer to review the project. They reviewed the engineering plans and learned that the property was in a floodplain. Drainage was a problem and parking was a problem and it appeared that only 4.3 acres was actually buildable. On leaving the engineer's office Marberry told Thomas that there was no way the project could work; they could never get financing for a $1.6 million parcel of 14.75 acres, with only 4.3 buildable acres. Marberry felt the contingencies in the contract could not be met and the contract was off. Thomas still believed in the project, and since he had already put so much time and effort in it, he wanted to keep working on pulling it together. Marberry did not dissuade him, but said only to keep him informed on what was going on. Thomas told Heninger that Marberry didn't want the contract. Heninger said he wanted the contract to stay intact and encouraged Thomas to keep working on it. He also tried to get Thomas to do the deal himself, but Thomas told him he did not have the funds. Thomas claims that Heninger told him not to worry about the $50,000.00; Heninger denies this. Nothing was communicated in writing regarding the contract being terminated. The $50,000.00 deposit was never made. The deadline for closing passed, and sometime in September 1985, Larry Heninger arranged a meeting between R. S. Futch and Fred Marberry in a motel in Orlando. The purpose of the meeting was to either extend the contract entered in July (according to R. S. Futch), or to negotiate a new contract for the property (according to Fred Marberry). During the meeting Futch was told that no $50,000.00 deposit had been made on the original contract. The meeting apparently terminated and shortly later Futch filed suit for the $50,000.00. The testimony of the principal witnesses in this case: Marberry, Thomas, Futch and Heninger, establish a picture of lack of communication, misunderstanding, bungling, and unprofessionalism. It is impossible to determine from the rambling and disjointed stories of these witnesses, that either Fred Marberry or Bernon Thomas, individually or together, engaged in "fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing by trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence, and breach of trust..."
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint against both Fred Marberry and Bernon Thomas, be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of August, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARY CLARK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: James R. Mitchell, Esquire Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Robert D. Gatton, Esquire Maitland Center 1051 Winderley Place Maitland, Florida 32751 Bernon Earl Thomas 4226 Match Point Drive Augusta, Georgia 30909 Van Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Harold Huff, Executive Director Division of Real Estate 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties, on the exhibits received in evidence, and on the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact. The Respondent has been licensed as a professional engineer in the State of Florida since 1964 (license number PE 0010812), having become licensed by examination in the field of mechanical engineering. He has practiced professional engineering since 1964 in and around Fort Walton Beach and Okaloosa County, Florida, as an individual practitioner and as an officer of the Royster Construction Company. The Respondent's formal education and professional experience are in the fields of civil, structural, and mechanical engineering. Although testimony indicates that the Respondent has had some contact with the field of electrical engineering, he lacks significant formal education or professional experience in that specialty. Findings regarding Count I In July 1984 plans for a proposed project to be known as the White Sands Bowling Center were prepared, signed, and sealed by the Respondent in his capacity as a professional engineer. The plans included sheets numbered 1 through 9, of which sheet number 6 and sheet number 9 depict electrical components of the proposed structure. Findings regarding Count II The electrical engineering plans (sheet number 6 and sheet number 9) contain errors and omissions including the following: The "symbol legend" necessary to define components depicted on the plans has been omitted. Fixture types and wattage specifications necessary to determine adequate and appropriate loading of circuits have been omitted. Electrical component and fixture circuit identification numbers necessary to identify such components and fixtures have been omitted. Specifications necessary to determine air conditioning connections have been omitted. Details of fire alarm circuitry required by applicable building codes in force at the time of design have been omitted. Emergency exit fixtures and circuitry required by applicable building codes in force at the time of design have been omitted. Electrical panel details necessary to complete construction have been omitted. Details of connections necessary for installation of indicated aluminum wiring have been omitted. The specification depicted for grounding of the electrical system is not in compliance with applicable building codes in force at the time of design. The electrical riser depicted on the plans is incomplete and does not provide sufficient information to complete construction. The Respondent failed to meet a standard of due care in the preparation of the plans depicting electrical engineering for the White Sands Bowling Center and was negligent in his preparation of those plans. Findings regarding Count III The mechanical engineering plans (sheet number 7, air conditioning, and sheet number 8, plumbing) contain errors and omissions including the following: Specifications of air conditioning units and associated ducting are in conflict and do not provide details necessary to complete construction. Details showing "returns" from outside air are in conflict with known standards of design and do not provide details sufficient to complete construction. Specifications of condensation features do not provide sufficient detail to complete construction and are not in compliance with applicable building codes in force at the time of design. Toilet exhaust system details are not sufficient to complete construction and are not in compliance with applicable building codes in force at the time of design. Details of water supply system source and sanitary collection and disposal required by applicable building codes in force at the time of design have been omitted. The Respondent failed to meet a standard of due care in the preparation of the plans depicting mechanical engineering for the white Sands Bowling Center and was negligent in his preparation of those plans. Findings regarding Count IV The structural engineering plans (sheet number 3) do not contain details sufficient to complete construction, and if built as designed, there is no reasonable assurance that the structure would comply with applicable building codes in force at the time of design. The Respondent failed to meet a standard of due care in the preparation of the plans depicting structural engineering for the White Sands Bowling Center and was negligent in his preparation of those plans.
The Issue Whether Respondent violated section 70-54, Pinellas County Code, which prohibits retaliation against a person who has opposed a discriminatory employment practice, by terminating the Petitioner's employment, and, if so, the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Menz was hired by Dr. Weisel as a receptionist for his dental office located in Tarpon Springs, Pinellas County, Florida, on October 6, 2007. Ms. Menz's job responsibilities included answering the phone, checking patients in and out of the office, collecting co-payments, and entering treatment plans in the record. According to Dr. Weisel, Ms. Menz was a good employee because she was eager to learn, and she was very people orientated. Respondent is a professional association located in Tarpon Springs, Pinellas County, Florida. Respondent employees less than 15 employees and is in the business of providing dentistry services. Respondent is subject to the Pinellas County Code concerning human relations. In June 2008, Dr. Weisel sold his Tarpon Springs dental practice to Dr. Kontos. Dr. Kontos had graduated from dental school in May 2007 and had worked for another dentist office. By January 2008, Dr. Kontos wanted to purchase a dental practice in his hometown, Tarpon Springs. When Dr. Kontos purchased the practice from Dr. Weisel, Dr. Kontos had no experience in owning a business or managing employees. According to Dr. Kontos, he decided to keep all of Dr. Weisel's employees for continuity. Dr. Kontos described Ms. Menz's job duties as opening the practice in the morning, "in-putting insurance," collecting co-payments, and "doing treatment plans." By July 2008, Dr. Kontos had promoted one of the dental assistants, Daniel Mauzerolle (Mr. Mauzerolle), to office manager. During the time that Mr. Mauzerolle worked for Dr. Kontos, they became friends and would socialize together. Ms. Menz testified that she had complained to Dr. Kontos in the past about Mr. Mauzerolle about issues from work. Ms. Sholtes, a former dental hygienist for Dr. Kontos, also testified on Ms. Menz's behalf. She testified that Ms. Menz was a good employee and courteous to patients. By November 2008, Dr. Kontos hired Ms. Marchese to collect aging insurance claims and account receivables, as well as review his office procedures. According to Dr. Kontos, the dental practice had a "phenomenal" amount of outstanding insurance claims, in excess of $20,000.00, which had been denied. Ms. Marchese had worked in the dental field since 1991 and was familiar with software systems used to run dental offices. Further, she was familiar with the submission of insurance forms for dental reimbursement. On May 11, 2009, Ms. Menz opened the office at 7:00 a.m. As she turned on her computer, Ms. Menz noticed the internet web history showed that someone had used her computer the night before. Ms. Menz found that one site had been visited 28 times. Upon visiting the site, Ms. Menz found that the website contained pornographic images. Further, because Mr. Mauzerolle was the only person that worked in the evening in the office, Ms. Menz assumed that Mr. Mauzerolle was the person who had accessed the pornographic site. Ms. Menz credibly testified that she informed Dr. Kontos and told him that Mr. Mauzerolle's actions were unacceptable to her. Ms. Menz credibly testified that she told Dr. Kontos that she could not work under the conditions that she considered to be a hostile workplace environment. Dr. Kontos informed Ms. Menz that he would "take care of it." Dr. Kontos credibly testified that Mr. Mauzerolle, in addition to being the office manager, was his friend and that he was not happy with Ms. Menz reporting the issues concerning the pornography in his office. Two days later, on May 13, 2009, Dr. Kontos terminated Ms. Menz's employment. Ms. Menz credibly testified that at the time of her termination, Dr. Kontos did not provide her a reason for her termination, only stating "nothing personal, but I'm going to have to let you go." Dr. Kontos testified that he had already decided to terminate Ms. Menz's employment before May 11, 2009, when Ms. Menz complained about the pornography. According to Dr. Kontos, Ms. Marchese had informed him since the end of 2008 about errors that Ms. Menz had been making at work that cost the dental practice money. Dr. Kontos indicated that Ms. Menz made errors such as failing to collect co-payments or collecting improper co-payments and failing to fill out the insurance forms correctly. The result was that insurance claims would be denied and the dental office would lose money. According to Dr. Kontos and Ms. Marchese, on or before April 8, 2009, Ms. Menz made an error that almost cost the dental practice $2,000.00. The alleged error involved putting the wrong information concerning an insurance plan for a patient. Based on this error, Dr. Kontos testified that he made a decision with Mr. Mauzerolle and Ms. Marchese to place an advertisement for a receptionist with Craigslist to replace Ms. Menz. Later that day, Mr. Mauzerolle placed the advertisement with Craigslist. On April 9, 2009, potential job applicants began calling Dr. Kontos' office about the receptionist position. Ms. Menz took the phone messages from the applicants, including Ms. Kristen Chase. Ms. Menz credibly testified that based on phone calls that she asked Dr. Kontos about the job advertisement and whether or not she was doing a good job. Ms. Menz credibly testified that Dr. Kontos stated that she was doing a good job and not to worry about the advertisement. Further, Ms. Menz credibly testified that she asked Ms. Marchese about the advertisement. Ms. Menz testified that Ms. Marchese stated that Dr. Kontos was seeking to replace Christina Benzel (Ms. Benzel), a co-worker who worked the front desk with Ms. Menz. Ms. Menz believed Ms. Marchese because Ms. Menz had observed that Ms. Benzel's job responsibilities had been reduced. According to Dr. Kontos, sometime at the beginning of May 2009, he and Mr. Mauzerolle interviewed Ms. Chase for the receptionist job. According to Dr. Kontos, he offered Ms. Chase the job after the interview, and he had decided to replace Ms. Menz. Dr. Kontos's testimony on the point that he offered Ms. Chase the job in early May and had decided to replace Ms. Menz is not credible. Ms. Chase credibly testified that she did not receive the job offer from Dr. Kontos at the interview in early May. Further, Ms. Chase credibly testified that, because she did not hear anything from Dr. Kontos, she had assumed that she had not gotten the job. Further, Ms. Chase credibly testified that she was offered the job on May 14, 2009. Dr. Kontos testified that he had decided to terminate Ms. Menz on April 8, 2009, but that he did not tell her before May 13, 2009, because he "had to build up the nerve to do it." He testified that he felt bad having to terminate her and that he let her go because she made too many mistakes. For support concerning the number of errors made by Ms. Menz, Respondent offered the testimony of Ms. Marchese and numerous exhibits. Ms. Marchese testified that because of the number of errors occurring in the office that she moved her work space to be next to Ms. Menz. According to Ms. Marchese, she was monitoring Ms. Menz and providing "one-on-one training." Further, Ms. Marchese offered testimony that each day she would conduct an "audit trail" of the office and bring errors to Dr. Kontos's attention daily. Ms. Marchese testified that Ms. Menz failed to collect co-payments; entered insurance information incorrectly, resulting in insurance reimbursements being denied; failed to provide adequate information to support insurance billings; and gave patients incorrect estimates on the amount that the patient would owe for different treatments based on the patient's insurance plan. Ms. Marchese testified that she estimated that Ms. Menz had cost the dental office approximately $100,000.00 in lost revenue and made 90 percent of the office errors. Ms. Marchese identified a number of exhibits that supported Respondent's claim that Ms. Menz was terminated for numerous errors. Ms. Marchese further testified that in March 2009 that she told Dr. Kontos and Mr. Mauzerolle that Ms. Menz was "untrainable" and that she should be terminated. According to Ms. Marchese, in April 2009, she discussed with Dr. Kontos and Mr. Mauzerolle the error that nearly cost the practice $2,000.00 and the decision to advertise for the new receptionist. After the advertisement was taken out in Craigslist for the new receptionist, Ms. Marchese remembered being asked by Ms. Menz about the advertisement and about whether or not Dr. Kontos was seeking to replace her. Ms. Marchese testified that she told Ms. Menz that she did not know if Dr. Kontos was seeking to replace her. Ms. Marchese denied telling Ms. Menz that Dr. Kontos was seeking to replace Ms. Benzel. Ms. Marchese, however, admitted that Dr. Kontos had been unhappy with Ms. Benzel based on her internet usage at the office. Ms. Marchese testified that she informed Dr. Kontos about each of these errors daily and testified about a group of exhibits. A review of the exhibits identified by Ms. Marchese, Exhibits 25, 27, 29, 30, 31, 34, 35, 36, 41, and 44 shows that the documents are dated December 18 and 21, 2009. When questioned about the dates on the exhibits, Ms. Marchese testified that these exhibits were documentation from the "daily sheets" and that she had "minimized the amount of discovery." Also, she explained that the documents were "printed to condense the information into one page instead of, for instance, on exhibit 25, it would have been over 30 pages." Further, she testified that she had added the notes explaining Ms. Menz's errors to the sheets on or after December 18, 2009. The "daily sheets" were not admitted into evidence. At best, the offered exhibits may be considered summaries. Even considering the documents, the record shows that the offered exhibits show that the documents were compiled to support Ms. Menz's termination after May 13, 2009, and in response to the investigation by Pinellas County. Thus, the exhibits carry little weight in the consideration. Similarly, Exhibits 10, 11, 18, 23, and 24 are all dated after Ms. Menz's termination date of May 13, 2009. A review of Exhibit 10 shows a "Single Patient Ledger" printed up on September 8, 2009. Based on Ms. Marchese's testimony, the document shows that on April 8, 2009, the patient received two dental procedures that cost $1,050.00. According to Ms. Marchese, the patient was told to pay $215.00 for two treatments. Presumably, the balance of the dental bill would be paid by insurance. However, Ms. Marchese testified that the patient did not have dental coverage for the two procedures. Consequently, the dental office lost money on the two procedures because the patient refused to pay, and there was no insurance to bill. Although the testimony shows this event occurred before the termination, the "Single Payer Ledger" is dated after the termination. Further, a hand-written notation from the patient's chart, which is part of Exhibit 10, stating that "Valerie dropped the ball on the correct fee twice" is dated May 14, 2009, the day after her termination. Similarly, a review of Exhibits 23 and 24 shows that they are insurance claims that were denied before May 13, 2009. Ms. Marchese testified that Dr. Kontos was aware of these errors. However, Exhibits 23 and 24 only show that insurance claims were re- submitted after the date of Ms. Menz's termination. The exhibits do not support the finding that the claims were denied because of Ms. Menz or that these errors were considered before terminating her employment. These exhibits were prepared after the termination as a justification for the action as opposed to contemporaneous proof of Ms. Menz's performance. In contrast to the above listed exhibits, Exhibits 6, 7, 8, and 9 are examples of errors and notes that were documented before Ms. Menz's termination. A review of these exhibits shows that the complained of errors occurred on January 22, 2009; February 3, 2009; March 2, 2009; and April 27, 2009. Respondent also offered the testimony of other employees from the dental office. Ms. Little, a dental hygienist, testified that she was aware that Ms. Menz made errors in entering codes for different treatment plans. She had spoken to Ms. Menz about the error, and Ms. Menz indicated that she would try to correct the problem. According to Ms. Little, the errors continued, but were not as bad. Finally, Ms. Little testified that Ms. Marchese was responsible for insurance claims with the office. Similarly, Ms. O'Leary, a dental hygienist, testified that she knew that Ms. Menz had some issues with insurance, but that she had a good working relationship with Ms. Menz. Ms. Menz candidly admitted that she made mistakes at her work and credibly testified that she was never told of the many errors that Respondent was claiming she had made or that she had cost Respondent money. Dr. Kontos admitted that that he did not individually counsel Ms. Menz about her errors. Rather than counsel individual employees, Dr. Kontos testified that it was his practice to speak to his employees as a group about errors because he wanted to avoid similar errors. Ms. Menz testified that she earned $10.75 an hour and that she had been out of work for 87 weeks. Ms. Menz agreed with her counsel's question that her calculated damages were $37,410.00. The record also shows that Ms. Menz filed for unemployment compensation, but was unclear about whether or not she received any compensation.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered: Finding that Respondent violated section 70-54, Pinellas County Code. Ordering Respondent to pay Ms. Menz the sum of $37,410.00 and interest at the prevailing statutory rate; and Ordering Respondent to pay Ms. Menz reasonable costs and attorney's fees. Jurisdiction is retained to determine the amount of costs and attorney's fees, if the parties are unable to agree to the amount. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of May, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S THOMAS P. CRAPPS 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 12th day of May, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: William C. Faulkner, Esquire Pinellas County Attorney's Office 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 33756 Jeremy W. Rodgers, Esquire Spector Gadon and Rosen, LLP 390 Central Avenue, Suite 1550 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Matthew K. Fenton, Esquire Wenzel, Fenton, and Cabassa, P.A. 1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300 Tampa, Florida 33602 Leon W. Russell, Director/EEO Officer Pinellas County Office of Human Rights 400 South Fort Harrison Avenue, 5th Floor Clearwater, Florida 33756 Peter J. Genova, Jr., EEO Coordinator Pinellas County Office of Human Rights 400 South Fort Harrison Avenue, 5th Floor Clearwater, Florida 33756
The Issue Whether the license of Respondent, O. Tom Macon, should be suspended, or whether other disciplinary action should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, O. Tom Macon, is a registered real estate salesman residing in Fort Myers, Florida, who holds License number 0054554 as a real estate salesman. On April 20, 1978, an administrative complaint was filed against the Respondent alleging that he was guilty of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, false promises, false pretenses, dishonest dealing, trick, scheme or device, culpable negligence, or breach of trust in a business transaction. The Respondent requested an administrative hearing. In January of 1974, Mr. James Fortiner, Dr. David Brown, and Respondent Macon purchased the Professional Arts Building in Fort Myers, Florida. The transaction was documented by a deed from the seller to the Respondent as trustee. Title was transferred to a corporation, Professional Arts Building of Fort Myers, Inc., in December of 1974. James Fortiner transferred his interest in the property to Respondent Macon, leaving the Respondent with a two-thirds interest in the property and Dr. Brown with a one-third interest. At a later date Respondent Macon obtained a $20,000.00 personal loan from a man by the name of Phil Elliott, secured by a second mortgage on the subject property. He did not secure Dr. Brown's permission to mortgage the property or tell him of the encumberance. Subsequently, Respondent Macon contracted to sell the Professional Arts Building to Jeanne L. Eveleth in February of 1976. At the closing in March of 1976, which Dr. Brown did not attend, a check for $33,433.42 was deposited to the account of the Professional Arts Building, Limited. Simultaneously, Respondent Macon paid his personal debt to Mr. Elliott out of the proceeds of the sale and satisfied the mortgage. A final statement established that Respondent Macon owed personal debts to the limited partnership in the amount of $6,972.45, and that the limited partnership owed Dr. Brown this amount of money. After the sale of the property and the payment of Respondent's personal debt out of the proceeds, there were no assets left in the corporation. When confronted with this situation, the Respondent promised Dr. Brown he would pay him the money the Respondent had used without authorization, but in November of 1976, the Respondent went into voluntary bankruptcy. At that time Respondent Macon still owed Dr. Brown the full amount due to Dr. Brown as a result of the sale of the subject property. Bankruptcy, however, has no effect on the authority of Petitioner to discipline. Both parties submitted proposed findings of fact, memoranda of law and proposed recommended orders. These instruments were considered in the writing of this order. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been adopted in, or are inconsistent with, factual findings in this order they have been specifically rejected as being irrelevant or not having been supported by the evidence.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends suspension of Respondent O. Tom Macon's license until such time as he makes full restitution to Dr. Brown. DONE and ORDERED this 7th day of July, 1979, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth M. Meer, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Harry A. Blair, Esquire Post Office Box 1467 Fort Myers, Florida 33902
The Issue Whether Respondent, Florida Physician Medical Group (Respondent or FPMG), violated Florida law by engaging in discriminatory, disparate treatment of Petitioner, Dr. Phillip St. Louis (Petitioner). Petitioner maintains that Respondent refusal to employ him constitutes discrimination based upon his race or national origin.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a black male born in Trinidad. He is fully educated and qualified to practice medicine in the State of Florida, and has done so for a number of years. Petitioner specialty is neurosurgery. He has practiced at a number of hospitals in the greater Orlando area for over ten years. The instant case arose when Petitioner was denied employment with Respondent. Petitioner maintains he is fully competent and qualified to become employed by Respondent and that the company has denied him employment based upon his race (black) and national origin. Prior to March 2009, Respondent considered hiring Petitioner for employment. With that end as the objective, Petitioner submitted an application for malpractice coverage through an entity that insures Respondent's physicians. That entity, described in the record as (the Trust), reviews applications for coverage and considers whether it can provide malpractice coverage for a physician based upon a number of factors, including but not limited to, past work history, education and training, and past malpractice claims made against and paid by the subject physician. Approval for medical malpractice coverage by Adventist Health System (AHS) through the Risk Management Department (Risk Management) was a prerequisite to employment with Respondent. The requirement to obtain professional liability coverage was pursuant to the company-wide policy CW RM 220. At all times material to his application, Petitioner knew or should have known that Respondent required medical malpractice coverage. As of the time of the hearing and for at least nine years prior thereto, Petitioner has performed neurosurgery without malpractice coverage. This practice, known in the record as working "bare," is disfavored by Respondent. All physicians who seek to be employed by Respondent must submit an application for review and approval for professional liability coverage under the self-insured Trust. Personnel employed with AHS's Risk Management review applications and recommend disposition of the requests for coverage. Stacy Prince joined AHS as a director of Risk Management in 2005. Stacy Prince and Sandra Johnson were responsible for deciding whether Petitioner would qualify for medical malpractice coverage. The decision to deny coverage for Petitioner was reached without regard for Petitioner's race or national background. At the time that Petitioner was being considered for medical malpractice coverage with the Trust, Stacy Prince and his supervisor (Sandra Johnson) did not know the Petitioner’s race or national origin. The Risk Management decision was based on Petitioner's malpractice claims history, as is more fully explained below. Neurosurgery is a high-risk medical practice. It is possible that this specialty group of physicians are exposed to more claims and more serious claims than other specialty physicians. Nevertheless, in determining whether a physician can be covered, Risk Management must look at the totality of the circumstances to evaluate whether a candidate can be covered by the Trust. Most physicians covered by the Trust do not have any malpractice claims. Of those who do have malpractice claims, the vast majority have had only one or two incidents of alleged malpractice. Because each candidate's application for coverage was reviewed on a case-by-case basis, the factual circumstances surrounding a malpractice claim may be pertinent to the decision of whether a physician may be covered. An example of a malpractice claim that would not be given much gravity would be one that occurred while a physician was in training under the supervision of a licensed physician. In such instances, the training physician is named incidentally to the primary supervising physician. Such "shotgun" claims typically name everyone who provided care for the patient, regardless of the personal interaction or level of care actually rendered. None of Petitioner’s claims fell within this category. A second type of malpractice claim that might be discredited would be one that did not result in any monetary award or damages to the patient. None of Petitioner’s claims fell within this category. Based upon Stacy Prince's review of Petitioner's history of claims, Petitioner was deemed too great a risk to provide medical malpractice coverage. The malpractice history reviewed included four claims disclosed by Petitioner and a fifth claim that was not reported by Petitioner, but was discovered by Risk Management. The fact that the fifth claim was not disclosed to Risk Management in the application process was also a concern to Mr. Prince and influenced his decision. No physician, regardless of specialty, with claims similar to Petitioner’s has been insured by the Trust. Additionally, although unknown to Petitioner at the time of application, a sixth medical malpractice claim was made against Petitioner. The potential for additional claims (that could be also unknown to Petitioner) was a concern in determining whether to provide coverage for Petitioner. With regard to Petitioner's claims, at least two of the claims were unresolved, as of the time of review of Petitioner's application. Additionally, a parallel investigation and administrative action by the Florida Department of Health regarding one claim was also a concern for Risk Management. Whether or not Petitioner practices within the standard of care expected of physicians in Florida is of significant importance to Respondent. No other candidate for employment presented to Respondent with similarly-serious claims. Petitioner's lack of candor regarding the number of claims against him and the severity of claims was also a concern to the undersigned. No physician was given preferential treatment by Respondent who was similarly situated, as no other physician reviewed in this record had similar claims. The factors resulting in the denial of coverage were: the number of claims, the open claims, the history of damages awarded, the unknown amount of future damages based upon unresolved claims, the lack of malpractice coverage, and Petitioner's failure to fully and accurately disclose information needed to review his application. None of the physicians who Petitioner identified as comparably situated, and who allegedly received more favorable treatment, had the number or severity of claims, the level of damages associated with the claims, or were practicing "bare" for the period of time Petitioner has chosen to practice. All of the doctors were eligible for medical malpractice coverage at all times material to this case or during employment with Respondent. In contrast, Petitioner practiced "bare" for almost nine years since his insurer canceled his insurance coverage due to the “Nature of Claim” in July of 2000. Petitioner was cancelled by his insurer after the insurer had to pay its policy limits of $500,000. An example of a malpractice claim associated with Petitioner was his operation on the wrong side of a patient’s head. That surgery resulted in a $1.75 million dollar settlement. Petitioner presented no evidence to establish that any of Respondent's actions or inactions were based upon his race or national origin. Respondent articulated bona fide business reasons for why the Trust denied medical malpractice coverage for Petitioner. More important, had Risk Management agreed to provide coverage for Petitioner, then Bryan Stiltz, Respondent's CEO, would have hired Petitioner. The decision not to hire Petitioner due to his failure to qualify for medical malpractice coverage was not based on Petitioner’s race or national origin and was consistent with Respondent’s employment policy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding no cause for an unlawful employment practice as alleged by Petitioner, and dismissing his employment discrimination complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of August, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH 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 3rd day of July, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerry Girley, Esquire The Girley Law Firm 125 East Marks Street Orlando, Florida 32803 Alan M. Gerlach, Esquire Adventist Health System-Legal Services 111 North Orlando Avenue Winter Park, Florida 32789-3675 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mark H. Jamieson, Esquire Moran, Kidd, Lyons, Johnson & Berkson, P.A. 111 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1200 Orlando, Florida 32801-2361 Larry Kranert, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated provisions of the Food Code and, if so, what penalties should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Division is responsible for monitoring all places of public food service and preparation in the state. It is the Division's duty to ensure that all public eating establishments comply with the standards set forth in relevant statutes and rules. Steagles, LLC, operates a food establishment located at 1395 Cypress Avenue, No. C, Melbourne, Florida. For purposes of this Recommended Order, the establishment will be referred to as “Steagles.” On January 30, 2012, at 11:10 a.m., the Division conducted an unannounced health and safety inspection of Steagles. A number of violations, both critical and non- critical, were found. Critical violations are those which are likely to lead to food-borne illnesses; non-critical violations are those which are not as likely to lead to such illnesses. At the conclusion of inspection, the Division notified Respondent that a “callback” inspection would be performed on March 29, 2012, at 8:00 a.m., and that all the violations were to be corrected by that time. On the specified date, but at 1:26 p.m., the callback inspection was conducted at Steagles. The callback inspection resulted in a finding of three critical violations and four non-critical violations which had not been corrected since the initial inspection. The critical violations found during the callback inspection were as follows: 31-09-1 The sink used by employees to wash their hands was blocked by a bucket of towels. 22-81-1 The interior of a microwave was heavily soiled; the interior of a reach-in cooler was heavily soiled; and, there was heavy encrusted material on a can opener. 32-04-1 The restroom doors did not have self-closing devices attached to them, nor did the trash receptacles have lids. The non-critical violations found during the callback inspection included the following: 14-35-1 Cardboard was being used as a shelf liner; a cutting board was badly scored. 15-35-1 A wooden shelf did not have sealant on it. 37-06-1 Walls were heavily soiled with grease. 38-07-1 There were no shields or caps on some of the lighting fixtures. The storage of towels or other items in the sink used for washing hands could lead to cross-contamination which could lead to food-borne illness. The soiled microwave, can opener, and reach-in cooler could lead to bacterial growth and could cause physical contamination of food. The absence of self-closing doors and lids on restroom trash cans could result in the attraction and harborage of insects and rodents. The non-critical violations, though less serious, could result in bacterial growth, the attraction of rodents, or other problems. The conditions found during the inspection were attested to at final hearing by the inspector who made the observations. Respondent did not rebut or disprove any of the alleged violations.
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 Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, imposing a fine in the amount of $1,350.00, to be paid by Respondent, Steagles, LLC, within 30 days of the entry of a Final Order in this matter. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of December, 2012, 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 27th day of December, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Suite 42 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Michael J. Patrick Steagles, LLC No. 6 1395 Cypress Avenue Melbourne, Florida 32935 William L. Leach, Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 J. Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
The Issue The issue is whether the contractor's license of Respondent, Robert L. Fountain, Jr., (Fountain) should be revoked or otherwise penalized based on the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Robert L. Fountain, Jr., is a certified building contractor in the State of Florida, license no. CB C022113. On or about May 22, 1987, Fountain contracted with Joseph L. Webster for the construction of a custom home for a price of $206,469.00. Webster paid Fountain a deposit of $20,646. Webster was denied financing for the construction of the home. Even though Fountain maintains that financing was available, he presented no credible evidence in this regard to rebut the testimony of Webster. Webster requested that the deposit be returned to him. Fountain refused to refund the deposit. Fountain maintains that he does not have to repay the deposit because it represents compensation for the time he spent on the project before and after the contract was signed and for the profit he would have received on the job. Except for receipts totaling $1,553.70, Fountain has no documentation to establish the amount of time allegedly spent, the expenses incurred or the value of the time spent on the Webster project. Financing was never secured and construction never commenced. Because of Fountain's refusal to refund the deposit, Webster sued Fountain for the money. A Final Judgment was entered in Case No. 89-46, in the Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit for Leon County, Florida, on January 31, 1991. The Final Judgment found for Webster and ordered Fountain to pay Webster $20,646.90, plus interest of 12% from January 4, 1988, in the amount of $7,622.70, and costs of $327.50. Fountain has not satisfied that judgment.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a Final Order and therein: Find Robert L. Fountain, Jr., guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(m) by committing misconduct in the practice of contracting. Impose a fine of $1,000. Suspend the license of Robert L. Fountain, Jr., until the damage suffered by Joseph L. Webster, Sr., as reflected by the Circuit Court's Final Judgment, has been relieved. RECOMMENDED this 18th day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE K. KIESLING Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of April, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-6655 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 2-6(1-6). Proposed finding of fact 1 is unnecessary. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent, Robert L. Fountain, Jr. Each of the following proposed findings of fact is adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parentheses is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding of fact: 2-4(1&2). Proposed finding of fact 1 is unnecessary. Proposed finding of fact 5 is unsupported by the competent and substantial evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: G. W. Harrell, Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Robert L. Fountain, Jr. 2124 Shady Oaks Drive Tallahassee, FL 32303 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Daniel O'Brien Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202
