The Issue The issues are as follows: (a) whether Respondents each engaged in the unlicensed practice of contracting as defined in Sections 489.105(3) and 489.105(6), Florida Statutes (2006), in violation of Section 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2006); (b) whether Respondents each engaged in the unlicensed practice of electrical contracting as defined by Sections 489.505(9) and 489.505(12), Florida Statutes (2006), in violation of Section 489.531(1), Florida Statutes (2006); and (c) if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material here, Respondents were married and doing business together as "B and P Enterprises of Central Florida, Inc." The "B and P" stands for Brenda and Phillip. Respondents are not and never have been licensed to engage in contracting or electrical contracting in Florida. In March 2006, Carla Adams had recently purchased her first home and sought to refinance it. The lender required an inspection of the home. The lender also required that any work on the home be performed by a licensed person or entity. In March 2006, an inspector employed by Pillar to Post, Inc., conducted an inspection of Ms. Adams' home. The inspection report, dated March 10, 2006, listed a number of areas that needed work and made recommendations for correction of those problems. In July 2006, Ms. Adams saw an advertisement in a newspaper for the sale of a used car. Ms. Adams and Rev. Tracey Davis went to Respondents' property with the objective of purchasing a used vehicle. While on the property, Ms. Adams and Rev. Davis entered the Respondents' home. Because both women admired the home, Respondents gave them a tour. During the tour, Respondents stated that Henley had performed the work himself. While in Respondents' home, Ms. Adams and Rev. Davis told Respondents that Ms. Adams needed work done on her home. Ms. Adams also told Respondents that her lender required that the work be done by a licensee. Henley, both upon his own volition and after being asked, told Ms. Adams and Rev. Davis that he was a licensed contractor. Henley removed a picture-ID card from his wallet and stated this was his license to practice contracting. Respondent Carpenter condoned this statement. Ms. Adams showed Respondents the March 10, 2006, inspection report. Henley assured Ms. Adams that he could do everything on the report that needed to be done. Henley further stated that his license was issued by “DBPR” - the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. Carpenter affirmatively agreed with this statement. Henley warned Ms. Adams that she should never have work done by anyone that was not licensed or certified and that she could check licensure status with DBPR. Respondent Carpenter affirmed this warning. Before speaking with Respondents, Ms. Adams and Rev. Davis had never heard of DBPR. It was only due to Henley’s reference to DBPR that Ms. Adams knew she could contact Petitioner regarding the issues in this case. Respondents advised Ms. Adams that they were willing to go to Ms. Adams’ home and give her an estimate of what they would charge to perform the needed work. Ms. Adams and Rev. Davis left Respondents' property expecting to see Respondents in the near future. In August 2006, Respondents went to Ms. Adams’ home in Tallahassee, Florida. Ms. Adams told Respondents she needed electrical, structural and plumbing work done as set forth in the Pillar-to-Post report. Respondents then inspected the home, took measurements, and made a verbal offer to perform the needed contracting work. Respondents returned to Ms. Adams’ home later in August 2006. At that time, Respondents presented Ms. Adams with a written estimate of what they would charge to do certain contracting work on her home. The proposal included, but was not limited to, structural, plumbing and electrical work. Respondents' proposal stated as follows in relevant part: REMOVE ALL OLD FLOOR COVERING Carpet Padding Lineoleum (sic) Square Stick tile Tack strip All of the above, but not limited to just above 1,470 Sq. Ft. @ $1.10 Sq. Ft. INSTALL NEW FLOOR COVERING 1,470 Sq. Ft. of tile on floor @ $1.75 Sq. Ft. and install Durarock (sic) or hardi (sic) backing board, if needed KITCHEN Remove wall and old 1/2 bathroom and put back to finished product Not including finishing drywall and painting drywall Remove all old plumbing and re-route Electrical wires HALL BATHROOM Remove bathtub, and tub walls Install durarock (sic) and new plumbing fixtures [a]s provided by homeowner Install 100 Sq. Ft. of wall tile around old tub area @ $1.75 Sq. Ft. [m]aking a new shower in the room Build a curbing, and drypack and install shower floor tile Install drain and rubber pan REMOVE OLD RAILING FROM FRONT PORCH The total price listed for the above referenced work was $5,234.50. Ms. Adams had received other estimates for the work. Therefore, Ms. Adams was pleased with the price and sought assurance that it would not increase. Respondents promised Ms. Adams that the cost would not increase. To further assure her, they both signed the contract in her presence. During the hearing, Henley admitted that he contracted with Ms. Adams to perform the labor as listed on this contract. In an attempt to ascertain Henley’s skill as a contractor, Ms. Adams decided to begin with the renovation of the bathroom located in the entrance way to the master bedroom. Ms. Adams agreed to buy the construction, plumbing, or electrical materials that Henley needed to do the work. Ms. Adams works two jobs and was not always home when Respondents performed the contracted work. As a result, Rev. Davis, who lived nearby, was present at the home to let Respondents in and observe the work. In order to enlarge the bathroom adjoining the master bedroom, Henley demolished a wall between the old bathroom and a walk-in closet. Henley also removed the door into the old bathroom and constructed a single wall with the entrance to the enlarged room through the door to the old closet. In the course of this alteration and expansion, Henley damaged the adjoining wall to the living room. He subsequently repaired the damage. In the enlarged bathroom, Henley removed a sink from the old bathroom area and installed it in the area that had been a closet. The area of the old closet had no plumbing. The removal and installation of the sink required Henley to remove old piping and replace it with larger pipes to increase the water flow. During the hearing, Henley admitted removing the sink and disconnecting the plumbing. Henley installed the custom-built shower as described in the contract in Ms. Adams’ bathroom. During the hearing, Henley admitted cutting a hole in the floor of Ms. Adams’ bathroom and installing a shower drain pan. Henley removed and replaced the toilet in Ms. Adams’ bathroom. Additionally, Henley, with Carpenter's help, removed the old bathtub. Henley admitted removing the bathtub and disconnecting the plumbing. Henley then installed a replacement Jacuzzi bathtub at the location of the previously-removed bathtub in Ms. Adams’ bathroom. Henley had to remove the old piping and replace it with larger pipes to increase the water flow for the replacement Jacuzzi. The toilet, sink, and bathtub removal and the shower- installation required plumbing work that made it necessary to turn off the water to the home. During the course of installing the Jacuzzi bathtub, Henley discovered that his work resulted in drainage problems he could not correct. For the first time, he told Ms. Adams that his license did not allow him to perform plumbing work. Henley then told Ms. Adams that, as the contractor on the job, he could subcontract the needed plumbing work. In early September 2006, Henley called Roto-Rooter as a plumbing subcontractor. Roto-Rooter performed the following plumbing work at Ms. Adams' home: Hooked up all the basic [drain] lines and the toilet in new bathroom to the m/l [main line]. Also ran water lines for the new sink, but found problem with shower valve. It was put in wrong and will not work until it's moved. Note: Everything else is working at this time. Price includes parts and labor. ( * * * out the tile and fix shower valve, not everything is working.) The Roto-Rooter invoice indicates a total cost in the amount of $1,432.78 for the work performed in Ms. Adams' home. Ms. Adams and Respondents had a financial dispute about which party had to pay Roto-Rooter. The dispute ultimately led to a falling out regarding the completion of the contracted work. Ms. Adams’ bathroom currently is inoperable because the toilet and Jacuzzi bathtub do not work. There is raw sewage underneath her home. In order to repair her bathroom, Ms. Adams received an estimate of approximately $5,000.00. Ms. Adams’ decision to begin with the renovation of her bathroom also involved ascertaining Henley’s skills as an electrical contractor. Based on his assurances that he could do the work, Ms. Adams allowed Henley to remove and relocate electrical light fixtures and switches in the bathroom, closet, and hallway. During the course of this work, Henley left hot wires exposed. On or about September 14, 2006, Carpenter came to Ms. Adams’ home and presented an invoice for $1,200.00 for the contracted work that had been performed pursuant to the initial contract. The invoice was on the letter head of “Brenda & Phillip, Phillip Henley, Inc." It stated as follows in relevant part: Remodel Master Bathroom Take out all fixtures-sink, cabinet, cast iron tub, toilet and replace with new Jacucci (sic) tub, new sink and cabinet, new shower and put back old toilet. Take out old tile on walls and drywall, take out two closets to enlarge bathroom. Re-wire and re-plumb all fixtures and installed durarock (sic) on floor, walls and wet areas and installed blueboard on balance of walls. Built a custom shower and installed custom tile design on walls and floor. Cost: $1,900.00 Less cash advances: 8/9 $100 8/16 $300 8/22 $300 $700 -700.00 $1,200.00 Plus: Materials & receipts: 8/11 $ 81.19 8/17 23.67 8/19 26.84 8/24 108.51 $240.21 +$240.21 Balance Due: $1,440.00 Other labor -240.00 $1,200.00 The invoice was signed by Henley and Carpenter and included the following statement: "Thank you for doing business with Brenda & Phillip!" The invoice stated that the check should be payable to Carpenter. Excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, Petitioner has expended $554 in total cost relative to the investigation and prosecution of DOAH Case No. 09-2541 against Carpenter and $1,005.67 in total cost relative to the investigation and prosecution of DOAH Case No. 09-2545 against Henley.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order finding that each Respondent violated Sections 489.127(1)(f) and 489.531(1), Florida Statutes, imposing a total administrative fine in the amount of $11,000 against each Respondent, and assessing costs in the amount of $554 against Carpenter and $1,005.67 against Henley. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 23rd day of February, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Maura M. Bolivar, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Brenda Carpenter Phillip Henley 5209 Southwest U.S. 221 Greenville, Florida 32331 Amy Toman, Hearing Officer Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Reginald Dixon, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent based on alleged violations of section 489.127(1)(f)1, Florida Statutes, as charged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner DBPR is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of contracting, pursuant to section 20.165, Florida Statutes, and chapters 455 and 489, part I, Florida Statutes. Petitioner has jurisdiction over the unlicensed practice of contracting, pursuant to section 455.228. At all times material, Respondent, Earnest Knight, was not licensed, nor had he ever been licensed by the state of Florida to engage in contracting. At some point in the past Respondent had taken the state exam required for licensure but had not passed it. In early June 2007, Respondent met with Izell Montgomery and Laitima Wilson-Montgomery (“the Montgomerys”) to discuss building an addition to, and remodeling, the Montgomery’s home in Tallahassee, Florida. According to the unrebutted testimony of Respondent, the Montgomerys initiated the contact.2/ There is conflicting testimony as to whether Respondent represented himself as a licensed contractor to the Montgomerys at this initial meeting or at any subsequent time.3/ However, he did give the Montgomerys one of his business cards bearing the name "Knight Construction Services," drawings of a mason and a carpenter, and his contact information. Although the record is clear that no written contract existed at the commencement of the project, the testimony again conflicts as to whether a verbal contract was joined before the work began, and more important, what role Respondent was to play in bringing the project to fruition. According to the Montgomerys, Respondent was to serve as the general contractor of the project and in that capacity be responsible for entering into subcontracts for certain aspects of the project as well as overall supervision of the project. According to Respondent, his role was to "assist" the Montgomerys in the construction of their owner-built project. In return, he was to be compensated for his time. The project was a two-story addition to an existing home that would include the enlargement of the master bedroom upstairs and the enlargement of the kitchen downstairs. The successful completion of the project would entail foundation work, structural framing, heating and air-conditioning system work, electrical system work, roofing, and plumbing. On September 14, 2007, Mrs. Montgomery and Respondent went together to the City of Tallahassee Growth Management Office and applied for, and obtained, an "owner-built" building permit. According to Mrs. Montgomery, Respondent explained that the permitting process would be quicker if she applied for the permit as an owner-builder as opposed to Respondent applying as a general contractor. An owner-builder permit allows the work to be performed by or under the direct onsite supervision of the owner of the building. It does not allow the work to be delegated by the owner to an unlicensed contractor, such as Respondent. On October 30, 2007, Respondent received a proposal from Jack Bryant for the structural framing work on the project. The quoted price for the framing work was $10,000.00. The proposal was evidently accepted by Respondent since Bryant began the framing work on the project sometime thereafter. However, following a heated disagreement4/ between Respondent and Mr. Bryant, Respondent terminated the relationship with him. On December 22, 2007, Mrs. Montgomery wrote a check for $700.00 to Respondent with the intention that it be used to pay Mr. Bryant for the work he had performed prior to his termination. In fact, Mr. Bryant was paid only $600.00 by Respondent for the framing work while the $100.00 balance was retained by Respondent. Respondent hired Derrick Smith as the replacement framer to complete the framing of the project. It was agreed between Respondent and Mrs. Montgomery that payments to Mr. Smith would be made directly by Mrs. Montgomery upon approval by Respondent. On May 14, 2008, Mrs. Montgomery wrote a check for $500.00 payable to Respondent. As noted in the “memo” line of the check, this payment was compensation to Respondent for arranging for the subcontractors on the project. Respondent hired Jesse Shabazz of Al Hajj Services to perform the necessary HVAC work on the project. Respondent paid Mr. Shabazz $700 for completion of phase I of the HVAC system. During the time Respondent was supervising the project there was no written contract between the Montgomerys and Mr. Shabazz.5/ Respondent engaged George E. Gunn Surveying and Mapping to conduct a boundary survey of the project site. That survey was completed on June 15, 2007. Respondent hired R. Carver to do the electrical work on the project. Following approval by Respondent for work completed, R. Carver was paid directly by the Montgomerys. On January 24, 2008, the Montgomerys contracted directly with the Frascona Plumbing Company for all of the plumbing work associated with the project. Following approval by Respondent for work completed, Frascona Plumbing was paid directly by the Montgomerys. The Montgomerys contracted directly for the tile work and cabinetry work associated with the project. Respondent installed the insulation for the project, and did some of the landscaping and job site cleanup. Upon the completion of each phase of the project, Respondent would inform the Montgomerys that it was time to call the city and arrange for an onsite building inspection. On June 17 or 18, 2008, Respondent abandoned the project. On June 24, 2008, Respondent delivered a hand-written statement to the Montgomerys detailing the amounts he claimed were owed to him by the Montgomerys. In addition to several line items of materials costs to be reimbursed, there was also the line item "oversee job" with a corresponding charge of $2,000.00. Respondent contends that he was not paid the $2,000.00 fee appearing on the June 24, 2008, statement he presented to the Montgomerys. Ms. Montgomery contends that Respondent was paid some or all of the $2,000.00 fee, although she was not able to produce any cancelled checks or receipt to corroborate payment. However, there is no dispute that Respondent was paid at least $500.00 for his role in hiring subcontractors and “overseeing” the project. The Montgomerys were not happy with the quality of the work done on their home. Among their complaints were a leaking roof, walls that were cracking, and holes around some of the electrical outlets. The Department incurred investigative costs of $195.49 related to Complaint No. 2008-040905.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation issue a final order that: Finds Respondent guilty of unlicensed contracting in violation of sections 489.127(1)(f) and 489.13, and imposes an administrative fine of $2,000, with $1,000 payable upon entry of the final order and the other $1,000 payable one year from that date unless Respondent provides satisfactory evidence to DBPR that he obtained a state contractor’s license within that period; Requires Respondent to pay the Department’s investigative costs of $195.49. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of February, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S W. DAVID WATKINS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of February, 2011.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondents have violated various statutes and rules governing persons licensed to install and service fire extinguishers and fire suppression systems and, if so, what penalties Petitioner should impose.
Findings Of Fact General Respondents hold Class A and C licenses as fire extinguisher dealers, Class D licenses as pre-engineered systems dealers, Class 01 licenses as fire extinguisher permittees, and Class 04 licenses as pre-engineered systems permittees. Respondent Todd Jacobs (Jacobs) is the qualifier for Respondent National Fire and Safety Corporation (NFS). NFS has been in the fire-safety business for about 15 years. Jacobs received his first permit about ten years ago. Neither Respondent has been disciplined prior to the suspension of all of their licenses and permits effective May 15, 1997, for the incidents described below. The suspension has remained continuously in effect through the present. Pre-engineered systems are custom installations of fire-suppression systems. These pressurized systems, which are activated by heat-sensitive fusible links and small cylinders known as cartridges, feature large metal cylinders that supply the powder through pipes to specific hazard areas. Pre-engineered systems must be installed in accordance with pretested limitations and configurations. Petitioner has cited various violations of the standards of the National Fire Protection Association. As noted in the conclusions of law, violation of these standards, which are incorporated into the rules, provide the basis for discipline. The relevant standards of the National Fire Protection Association are divided into two sections: one governs persons dealing with fire extinguishers and the other governs persons dealing with pre-engineered systems. National Fire Protection Association 10 is titled, “Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers.” National Fire Protection Association 10, Standard 1-3 defines a “portable fire extinguisher” as a “portable device carried on wheels and operated by hand containing an extinguishing agent that can be expelled under pressure for the purpose of suppressing or extinguishing a fire.” National Fire Protection Association 10 applies to fire extinguishers, not pre-engineered systems. National Fire Protection Association 10, Chapter 4 governs the inspection, maintenance, and recharging of fire extinguishers. National Fire Protection Association 10, Standard 4-1.4 provides that “[m]aintenance, servicing, and recharging” of fire extinguishers shall be performed by trained persons “having available the appropriate servicing manual(s), the proper types of tools, recharge materials, lubricants, and manufacturer’s recommended replacement parts or parts specifically listed for use in the fire extinguisher.” National Fire Protection Association 10, Standard 4-5.1.2 requires that persons recharging a fire extinguisher shall follow the “recommendations of the manufacturer.” National Fire Protection Association 10, Standard 4-5.3.1 requires that persons recharging fire extinguishers use “[o]nly those agents specified on the nameplate or agents proven to have equal chemical composition, physical characteristics, and fire extinguishing capabilities ” National Fire Protection Association 10, Standard 4-5.3.2 prohibits persons recharging fire extinguishers from mixing “[m]ultipurpose dry chemicals” with “alkaline-based dry chemicals.” National Fire Protection Association 10, Chapter 5 governs the hydrostatic testing of fire extinguishers. Table 5-2 provides that the longest hydrostatic test interval for fire extinguishers is 12 years. National Fire Protection Association 10, Standard 5-1.2 provides that the hydrostatic testing of fire extinguishers shall be performed by trained persons “having available suitable testing equipment, facilities, and appropriate servicing manual(s).” National Fire Protection Association 10, Standard 5-5.1.1 requires that persons hydrostatically testing fire extinguishers first conduct an internal examination of the cylinder. National Fire Protection Association 10, Standard 5-5.1.2 requires that persons hydrostatically testing fire extinguishers do so in accordance with the “procedures specified in the pamphlet Methods for Hydrostatic Testing of Compressed Gas Cylinders (CGA C-1), published by the Compressed Gas Association.” National Fire Protection Association 10, Standard 5-5.2 provides that the testing procedures for low-pressure cylinders, shells, and hose assemblies are detailed in Appendix A. Appendix A contains detailed material, but, according to a prefatory statement, “[t]his Appendix is not part of the requirements of this National Fire Protection Association document but is included for informational purposes only.” National Fire Protection Association 17 is titled, “Standard for Dry Chemical Extinguishing Systems.” National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 1-4 defines “pre- engineered systems,” in part, as [t]hose having predetermined flow rates, nozzle pressures, and quantities of dry chemical [with] specific pipe size, maximum and minimum pipe lengths, flexible hose specifications, number of fittings and number and types of nozzles prescribed by a testing laboratory.” National Fire Protection Association 17 applies to pre- engineered systems, not fire extinguishers. National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 1-4 defines “inspection” as a “’quick’ check to give reasonable assurance that the extinguishing system is fully charged and operable.” The definition adds that this is done by “seeing that the system is in place, that it has not been activated or tampered with, and that there is no obvious physical damage or condition to prevent operation.” National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 3-8.3.1 requires that the dry chemical container and expellant gas assemblies of a pre-engineered system shall be located “so as not to be subjected to severe weather conditions or to mechanical, chemical, or other damage.” National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 3-9.1 provides that, for pre-engineered systems, the “pipings and fittings shall be installed in accordance with good commercial practices.” National Fire Protection Association 17, Chapter 9 governs the inspection, maintenance, and recharging of pre- engineered systems. National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 9-1.1 provides that, when dry chemical pressure containers are not attached to piping or hand hose lines, the discharge outlet shall have a protective diffusing safety cap to protect persons from recoil and high-flow discharge in case of accidental activation. The caps shall also be used on empty National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 9- 1.4 provides that “[a]ll dry chemical extinguishing systems shall be inspected in accordance with the owner’s manual and maintained and recharged in accordance with the manufacturer’s listed installation and maintenance manual and service bulletins.” National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 9-3.2 provides that “[f]ixed temperature-sensing elements of the fusible metal allow type shall be replaced at least annually from the date of installation. They shall be destroyed when removed.” National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 9-3.2.1 provides that the “year of manufacture and date of installation of the fixed temperature-sensing element shall be marked on the system inspection tag[,]” and the “tag shall be signed or initialed by the installer.” National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 9-4.2 provides that “[s]ystems shall be recharged in accordance with the manufacturer’s listed installation and maintenance manual.” National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 9-5 requires that trained persons hydrostatically testing pre- engineered systems have “available suitable testing equipment, facilities, and an appropriate service manual(s).” This standard requires hydrostatic testing at 12-year intervals for the dry chemical container, auxiliary pressure containers (unless less than two inches in outside diameter and two feet in length or unless they bear the DOT stamp, “3E”), and hose assemblies. National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 9-5.1 requires that persons hydrostatically testing pre- engineered systems subject the tested components of hydrostatic test pressure equal to the marked factory test pressure or the test pressure specified in the manufacturer’s listed installation and maintenance manual. This test prohibits any leakage, rupture, or movement of hose couplings and requires test procedures in accordance with the manufacturer’s detailed written hydrostatic test instructions.” National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 9-5.2 requires that persons hydrostatically testing pre- engineered systems remove and discard the dry chemical agent from the containers prior to the test. Page Field (Counts I and II) In March 1997, Rick Clontz, a Lee County employee, asked Roland Taylor, an NFS employee, to service components of the fire-safety system at the Lee County Hazardous Materials Facility at Page Field in Fort Myers. This fire-safety system protects an area at which Lee County stores corrosive, flammable, and poisonous materials. Initially, Mr. Taylor removed three ten-pound ABC fire extinguishers. These are small portable cylinders, whose “ABC” designation refers to their ability to suppress a broad range of fires. According to the National Fire Protection Association standards, Class A fires involve “ordinary combustible materials, such as wood, cloth, paper, rubber, and many plastics.” Class B fires involve “flammable liquids, oils greases, tars, oil-based paints, lacquers, and flammable gases.” Class C fires involve “energized electrical equipment . . . .” On April 1, 1997, Mr. Taylor returned the three 10- pound ABC fire extinguishers. Later inspection revealed that Mr. Taylor had properly removed and discarded the ABC powder from each cylinder, but he had refilled only one of the three cylinders entirely with ABC powder. He erroneously filled the other two cylinders with mixtures of 75 percent and 50 percent BC powder. The improper filling of two of the fire extinguishers at the Page Field Hazardous Materials Facility threatened the public health, safety, and welfare. Meeting Mr. Taylor at the Page Field facility when Mr. Taylor returned the three small cylinders, Mr. Clontz asked him to remove the 50-pound Ansul SPA 50 cylinder and hydrostatically test it. Mr. Taylor noted that the cylinder was not yet due for this test, but quoted a price to which Mr. Clontz agreed, and Mr. Taylor disconnected the cylinder from the pre-engineered system and transported it from the site. Hydrostatic testing is a hydraulic interior pressurization test that measures ductility, which is the ability of cylinder walls to expand and contract. The purpose of hydrostatic testing is to determine the suitability of a cylinder for continued service. Hydrostatic testing requires the tester to release the pressure and empty the contents of a cylinder. Using specialized equipment, the tester then fills the cylinder with water, pressurizing it to twice the service pressure or, for the systems cylinders involved in this case, 1000 pounds per square inch. Cylinder failure from the loss of structural integrity can result in a dangerous rupture, possibly causing an improperly bracketed cylinder to launch like an unguided missile. A cylinder that passes its hydrostatic test does not have to be retested for 12 years. Three days later, Mr. Taylor returned the Ansul cylinder with a tag stamped to show the date on which NFS had hydrostatically tested the cylinder. Mr. Taylor reconnected it to the pre-engineered system, changing the three fusible links. However, Mr. Taylor did not tighten the actuation piping wrench-tight, as required by the manufacturer’s specification. Instead, Mr. Taylor left the actuation piping sufficiently loose that it might cause a failure of the pre- engineered system to activate. As Respondents conceded, the loose actuation piping threatened the public health, safety, and welfare. Finished with his work, Mr. Taylor gave Mr. Clontz a receipt, but no diagram or report, as Mr. Clontz usually received after such service. Consistent with the work requested by Lee County, the receipt stated that NFS had hydrostatically tested and recharged the three ten-pound and one 50-pound cylinders. However, NFS had not hydrostatically tested the 50- pound Ansul SPA 50 cylinder. NFS had not even changed the powder in the cylinder. Jacobs was personally aware of these facts and personally authorized the deceitful stamping of the tag to show a hydrostatic testing. The fraudulent misrepresentation concerning the hydrostatic testing of the Ansul SPA 50 cylinder threatened the public health, safety, and welfare. Additionally, NFS had replaced the three fusible links with three other fusible links. Petitioner failed to prove that there are material differences between the two types of links so as to justify discipline. There are two differences between the links. First, NFS used Globe links rather than Ansul links. However, Ansul links are manufactured by Globe. The Ansul expert testified that Ansul subjects the links to an additional inspection. However, the record does not reveal whether Globe does not also subject its brand-name links to another inspection that it does not perform for the links that it manufactures for Ansul. The Ansul expert did not testify as to the defect rate resulting from the Ansul inspection or any difference between the performance of the “two” links. On this record, then, there is no demonstrated difference in the two brand-named fusible links. The second difference is that NFS installed an ML link rather than the newer K link currently in use. Ansul approved the ML link in the Ansul SPA 50 pre-engineered system until five years ago. At that time, Ansul authorized use of the older ML link until dealer inventories were depleted. Even assuming that the K link represents a safety advance, compared to the ML link, Ansul’s gradual introduction of the new link precludes a finding that the difference was material, unless one were to assume that Ansul disregarded public safety when authorizing the gradual introduction of the new link. Respondents conceded that they did not have a copy of the Ansul SPA 50 manual when they serviced the Ansul SPA 50 system. They have since obtained the manual. Petitioner failed to show that the failure to have the manual threatened the public health, safety, or welfare. Respondents conceded that they did not produce the inspection form for the system. They had provided such a form previously. Petitioner failed to show that the failure to produce an inspection form threatened the public health, safety, or welfare. At the hearing, Petitioner agreed not to pursue the claim against Respondents regarding the LT10R cartridge. Petitioner effectively conceded that Respondents were not required to hydrostatically test the cartridge because it is exempt from such testing. Petitioner evidently elected not to pursue the recharging issue for other reasons. Mobile Service Units (Counts III-V The service truck operated by Mark Thackeray did not have a conductivity tester, certified scales, or proper manuals. The conductivity tester ensures that the braiding is intact on carbon dioxide hoses. The certified scales ensures that the cylinder is filled with the proper amount of dry chemical. The manuals ensure that the person servicing a pre- engineered system understands all of its components and how it works. Additionally, one cylinder in the truck had a drill bit instead of a safety pin installed in the head of the bottle. Petitioner also proved that the fire extinguisher and pre-engineered system tags bore the Naples and Fort Myers addresses for NFS. As noted below, the Fort Myers location was inactive, used only for storage and drop-offs and not for shop work or retail sales activity. For several years, Petitioner’s representatives knew that the tags bore both addresses and knew that the Fort Myers location was inactive, but never objected to Respondents’ practice. The only violation involving Mr. Thackeray’s truck that threatened the public health, safety, or welfare was the failure to have certified scales. The service truck operated by Ward Read lacked an operational inspection light, six-inch vise, and proper manuals. Additionally, Mr. Read’s truck had tags with the Fort Myers and Naples addresses for NFS. However, none of these violations involving Mr. Read’s truck threatened the public health, safety, or welfare. Petitioner failed to prove that Mr. Read’s truck lacked leak testing equipment. The truck had a bottle of Leak Tech with which to detect leaks in fire extinguishers. The truck also had a cable-crimping tool. The truck lacked a Kidde tool, but Petitioner failed to prove that Mr. Read installed Kidde systems off this truck or that the crimping tool present on the truck could not service adequately Kidde installations. The service truck operated by Donald Zelmanski lacked an inspection light, a six-inch vise, certified scales, leak-testing equipment, and proper manuals. Mr. Zelmanski’s truck contained tags with the Fort Myers and Naples addresses. The only violation that threatened the public health, safety, or welfare was the failure to have certified scales. Naples and Fort Myers Facilities (Counts VI-VII) The NFS Naples facility lacked operational hydrostatic test equipment on April 9, 1997. Respondents claim that they were having the equipment upgraded and calibrated at the time of the inspection. Ordinarily, this defense might be creditable, but not in this case. While the hydrostatic test equipment was out of service, NFS accepted the Page Field cylinder for hydrostatic testing and returned it to service, fraudulently representing that the cylinder had been hydrotested. This is precisely the practice against which the requirement of operational testing equipment is designed to protect. The Naples facility also lacked certified gauges for low-pressure testing. Respondents claim that the equipment upgrade described in the preceding paragraph would allow them to test high- and low-pressure cylinders on the same machine. However, due to Respondents’ fraudulent handling of the Page Field cylinder during the equipment downtime, this defense is unavailing. The Naples facility lacked an adapter to allow Respondents to recharge an Ansul SPA 50 cylinder. Jacobs drove the Page Field cylinder to St. Petersburg to have the cylinder recharged by a competitor that had such an adapter. However, the requirement that a facility have an adapter reduces the risk that a licensee will ignore its professional responsibilities and simply return a cylinder to service without first discharging it and performing a visual internal inspection. Respondents’ failure to discharge their other professional responsibilities underscores the materiality of the requirement that they keep an adapter for the Ansul SPA 50 that they elected to accept for service. Respondents kept tags at the Naples facility with tags containing addresses of the Naples and Fort Myers facilities. At the time of the inspection, Respondents also lacked documentation for two of eight scales, including a scale in 1/4-pound increments. Jacobs’ claim that they sent the two uncertified scales for servicing immediately after the inspection does not obviate the fact that, at the time of the inspection, they were available for use and in disrepair. Respondents failed to include serial numbers of serviced fire extinguishers on the relevant invoices. Respondents also failed to include the necessary permit number on inspection forms. Respondent falsely represented that they had hydrotested the Page Field Ansul SPA 50 cylinder at the Naples facility when they had not done so. Respondents stored cylinder bottles without safety caps in place. Petitioner failed to prove that Respondents did not post DOT certification near the hydrostatic testing equipment or that they stocked nitrogen cylinders without an acceptable blow-out disk in place. The blow-out disks were not Ansul brand, but Petitioner failed to prove that the disks were not UL listed or the substantial equivalent of Ansul disks. Respondents concede that the Fort Myers location lacked the items alleged by Petitioner. However, the Fort Myers location is inactive and serves merely as a drop-off or storage facility. All shop work and retail sales activities occur at the Naples location. At the time of the April 1997 inspection, Respondents surrendered the license for the inactive Fort Myers location. Other Jobs (Counts VIII-XI) Respondents installed a pre-engineered system at the SunTrust Bank in Naples. The cylinder is in the bank vault, which it is designed to protect. Petitioner charged that Respondents improperly located the cylinder in the hazard area, but Petitioner did not discuss the fact that the cylinder at Page Field was in the hazard area. Obviously, the corrosive effect of the hazardous materials at Page Field represents a greater risk to the cylinder than the corrosive effect of money and other valuables in the vault at the SunTrust. Additionally, some language in the Ansul manual cautions not to locate the cylinder in the hazard area, but only if the hazard is corrosive. Respondents replaced the fusible links at SunTrust annually. However, they failed to record the year of manufacture of the fusible links on the system tag when last servicing the system in October 1996. There is no evidence as to whether Respondents had suitable Ansul manuals and adapters when it serviced the system at that time. Respondents installed a pre-engineered system at the VFW Post in Naples. In doing so, their employee, who also misfilled the three fire extinguishers at Page Field, left the end-pipe-to-nozzle loose, so as to risk a loss of pressure in case of fire. This condition threatened the public health, safety, and welfare. Although Respondents fired this employee shortly after discovering his poor performance, this action does not eliminate the safety violations for which he, and they, are responsible. Petitioner also proved that Respondents located the 260 nozzle over the griddle in the wrong location. This condition threatened the public health, safety, and welfare because the system might not extinguish a fire on the griddle. Petitioner failed to prove that Respondents located the 230 nozzle in the wrong location. The Ansul manual allows this nozzle to be located anywhere along or within the perimeter of the fryer, if aimed to the center of the fryer. The 230 nozzle was so located and aimed. Respondents installed two pre-engineered systems at Mozzarella’s Café in Naples. In the course of this job, Respondents committed several violations governing documentation. Respondents improperly combined two pre- engineered systems on one inspection report, failed to include in the inspection report references to the manufacturer’s drawings and page numbers, failed to list in the inspection report a second gas valve on the front hood of one system, and failed to include in the inspection report Respondents’ permit number. However, Petitioner failed to prove that Respondents failed to list in the inspection report the type of fusible links in each hood. Respondents serviced a pre-engineered system at Kwan’s Express in Fort Myers in December 1996. Respondents failed to list in the inspection report the degree and types of fusible links installed and a reference to the drawing and page number in the manufacturer’s manual. However, Respondents listed in the inspection report the model number of the system. Red Lobster (Count XII) Several months after Petitioner had suspended Respondents’ licenses and permits, counsel for both parties negotiated a settlement agreement. Under the agreement, Petitioner would immediately lift the suspension. Jacobs and his general manager, Judson Schroyer, learned that Respondents’ counsel had received an unsigned, final draft settlement agreement on Monday, August 18, 1997. The settlement conditions were acceptable to Respondents, and Jacobs knew that Respondents’ counsel had signed the agreement and faxed it back to Petitioner’s counsel for execution by Petitioner’s representative. On August 18, the general manager of the Red Lobster in Naples called NFS and spoke with Jacobs. The general manager described a job involving the installation of a new oven, which would necessitate the relocation of other kitchen equipment a few feet. Thinking that the settlement agreement would be fully executed by then, Jacobs agreed to visit the general manager at the site the following morning. The next morning, Jacobs and Mr. Schroyer met the general manager at the Red Lobster. Giving the general manager NFS business cards with their names, Jacobs and Mr. Schroyer briefly examined the pre-engineered system in the kitchen, as the three men walked through the kitchen, and assured the general manager that there would be no problem doing the work in the short timeframe that the customer required. The purpose of the visit was much more for marketing than it was for preparation for the relatively simple job that the general manager envisioned. Shortly after leaving the Red Lobster, Mr. Schroyer realized that Respondents might not have their licenses and permits reinstated in time to do the job. He conveyed this concern to his supervisor, Jacobs, who spoke with Respondents’ counsel on the evening of August 19 and learned that they could not do the job. Jacobs instructed Mr. Schroyer to call another company in Fort Myers, FireMaster, to which Respondents had referred work during their suspension. Mr. Schroyer called a representative of FireMaster, and he agreed to perform the work. FireMaster assigned the job to Ward Read, who, as is authorized by Petitioner, held a dual permit, which means that he was permitted to work for two licensed dealers. One was NFS, and the other was FireMaster. Mr. Read reported to the Red Lobster in the predawn hours of August 21, as requested by the general manager of Red Lobster. Because his FireMaster truck had insufficient supplies, Mr. Read used an NFS truck, the equipment tags, inspection report, and invoice all bore the name of FireMaster.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the State Fire Marshal enter a final order suspending the licenses and permits of both Respondents for two years, commencing from the effective date of the earlier emergency order of suspension. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of December, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Attorney Mechele R. McBride Attorney Richard Grumberg Department of Insurance and Treasurer 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Mark H. Muller Quarles & Brady, P.A. 4501 North Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34103 Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Respondents committed the violations alleged in the amended administrative complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating fire extinguisher dealers. Respondent, Ricardo Cabrera, holds a fire extinguisher permit class 03 license (No. 109176000192) and is the qualifier for the company, B.C. & A.B.C. Fire Extinguisher Maintenance (license No. 702193000190 - Fire Extinguisher Dealer Class "C"). At all times material to the amended administrative complaint, Carlos Javier Gonzalez-Clavell was employed by Respondent but was not licensed or permitted to service fire extinguishers. In August, 1995, Respondents were placed on probation for a period of two (2) years. A special condition of Respondents' probation required Ricardo Cabrera to supervise all activities undertaken by the company to insure its employees complied with all regulations. In response to a complaint unrelated to the quality of Respondent's work performance, Ms. Barrow directed an investigation of the Respondent's business premises. Mr. Parks was assigned the investigation of whether Respondents were employing unlicensed workers to perform servicing or recharge of fire extinguishers. On January 29, 1996, Mr. Parks went to Respondent's place of business and observed someone loading a vehicle with fire extinguisher equipment and supplies. He also observed the male near a tank which he presumed was nitrogen. He assumed the person was recharging a fire extinguisher. During the described activity Respondent was not in sight. The person described in paragraph 7 later identified himself as Carlos Javier Gonzalez-Clavell. The vehicle being loaded belonged to Mr. Clavell. Respondent was on the business premises at all times noted above. He was out of view but supervising Mr. Clavell's activities. Mr. Clavell did not recharge fire extinguishers and was not permitted to perform license activities.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Insurance and Treasurer enter a final order dismissing the amended administrative complaint. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 5th day of February, 1997. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of February, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Joe Demember, Esquire Division of Legal Services 512 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Ricardo Cabrera 3340 South Lake Drive Miami, Florida 33155 Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Y. Sumner General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, LL-26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent committed the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaints and, if so, what penalty is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Respondent provides “handyman” services through BK and H Corporation. Respondent is not licensed by the Department as a contractor or an electrical contractor, and his corporation is not licensed by or registered with the Department in those fields. Respondent’s corporation has an occupational license from Collier County. The classification listed on the license is “handyman repair service (no contracting).” The occupational license includes the notation “HIGHLY RESTRICTED” in bold type. The license also states that it “is not a certification that the licensee is qualified” and that it “does not permit the licensee to violate any existing regulatory zoning laws of the state, county or cities nor does it exempt the licensee from any other license or permits that may be required by law.” On or about April 11, 2005, Respondent presented a written “Estimate” to Robert Brown for a variety of work that Mr. Brown wanted done to his home. The Estimate was on the letterhead of Respondent’s corporation. Respondent testified that the Estimate was not a proposal for work to be performed, but rather was an itemized list of the work that he and others hired by Mr. Brown had already performed and that Mr. Brown had already paid for. Respondent’s testimony regarding the purpose of the Estimate was not credible. First, if, as Respondent claims, the Estimate was intended to be an itemization of work that had already been performed and that Mr. Brown had already paid for, there would have been no reason for Mr. Brown to pay additional money to Respondent after April 11, 2005, as he did (see Findings of Fact 12 and 13), and there would also have been no reason for Mr. Brown to execute a power of attorney after that date to give Respondent authority to “pull” building permits on Mr. Brown’s behalf (see Findings of Fact 15 and 16). Second, Respondent’s characterization of the Estimate is inconsistent with that of his fiancée, Kimberly Frye, who credibly testified that she prepared the document “based on some handwritten notes after Mr. Brown and [Respondent] first initiated [sic] at the home, and they made a list of items that Mr. Brown solicited from [Respondent] to do services.”1 The more persuasive evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that the Estimate was a proposal by Respondent to perform the work listed on the Estimate at Mr. Brown’s home for compensation. The work listed on the Estimate included electrical work (e.g., installation of a 200 Amp service outlet box and two lights in the front yard); structural work (e.g., repairs to Mr. Brown’s roof and the removal and replacement of a pool deck); and other miscellaneous remodeling work inside and around Mr. Brown’s home. The price listed on the Estimate was $8,500. That amount did not include the cost of materials, which according to the Estimate, were to be paid for by Mr. Brown. On April 25, 2005, Mr. Brown paid Respondent $2,000 in cash “toward labor” and $500 in cash “toward materials.” Mr. Brown paid Respondent an additional $2,000 in cash on May 15, 2005, and another $2,000 by check on June 16, 2005. Respondent acknowledged receiving $6,000 from Mr. Brown related to the work listed on the Estimate.2 Respondent claimed that he was only serving as a conduit for the money and that he paid the money to other people that Mr. Brown had hired to perform work on his home at the same time Respondent was working there. Respondent did not present any evidence to corroborate this self-serving testimony, and it is not found credible. On April 25, 2005, Mr. Brown executed a document titled “Specific Power of Attorney for Collier County and City of Naples.” The document purports to give Respondent “power of [Mr. Brown’s] signature for any and all necessary permits, inspections and permit pick up” related to the work on Mr. Brown’s home. According to Respondent, the document was prepared and given to him by Mr. Brown so that he could “pull” owner-builder permits from the Collier County and/or the City of Naples on Mr. Brown’s behalf. An owner-builder permit allows the work to be performed by or under the direct onsite supervision of the owner of the building. It does not allow the work to be delegated by the owner (through a power of attorney or otherwise) to an unlicensed contractor, such as Respondent. Mr. Brown testified that he asked Respondent whether he was a licensed general contractor and Respondent told him that he was. Respondent testified that he told Mr. Brown on several occasions that he was not a licensed contractor. Respondent’s testimony was corroborated by Ms. Frye. Mr. Brown’s testimony on this issue was not credible, and it is more likely than not based upon the totality of the circumstances -- cash payments, preparation of the power of attorney, Mr. Brown’s overall demeanor while testifying, etc. -- that Mr. Brown knew, or had reason to believe, that Respondent was not a licensed contractor. Respondent testified that the only work that he personally performed at Mr. Brown’s house was the installation of flooring, drywall, and closet doors. He claimed that the other work listed on the Estimate, including the electrical work, was performed by other persons hired by Mr. Brown. Respondent denied that he was responsible for supervising the other persons that he contends were working on Mr. Brown’s home, although he testified that Mr. Brown gave him money to pay those workers. Respondent did not identify any of the other workers who, according to him, performed work on Mr. Brown’s home and that he allegedly paid on Mr. Brown’s behalf. Mr. Brown was at work while Respondent was working on his home. He did not provide direct on-site supervision of Respondent. Mr. Brown did not observe other persons working with Respondent on his home, except for one occasion that Respondent had a “helper” with him. The identity of that person, and the work that he or she performed, is unknown. Mr. Brown did not personally see Respondent performing all of the work listed on the Estimate. He did, however, see Respondent working on the water heater, an electrical switch in the laundry room, and the ceiling fans. Respondent’s testimony regarding the limited scope of the work that he performed on Mr. Brown’s home was not credible or persuasive, and the totality of the evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that Respondent offered to perform and did perform contracting and electrical contracting work at Mr. Brown’s home. At some point after Respondent stopped working at Mr. Brown’s home, Mr. Brown was advised by an electrical contractor that some of the electrical work needed to be redone because it posed a fire risk. Mr. Brown had the work redone by an electrical contractor, which cost him $2,400. He was also required to pay $400 to Florida Power and Light for some reason. Thereafter, Mr. Brown filed complaints against Respondent with the Department and with Collier County. After investigating the complaints, Collier County issued two citations to Respondent and imposed fines totaling $900. The fines were not based upon the performance of unlicensed contracting or electrical contracting, but rather were based upon Respondent advertising his ability to provide those services through the Estimate. Respondent did not contest the fines imposed by Collier County. He paid the fines in full. The Department provided its investigative file related to this incident to the State Attorney’s Office (SAO) in Collier County, as it was required to do by Section 455.2277, Florida Statutes. The SAO makes the decision whether to file criminal charges against an individual for unlicensed contracting. The Department is not involved in that decision. The SAO brought criminal charges against Respondent for the unlicensed contracting that he performed at Mr. Brown’s home, but the case was “nol prossed” by the SAO. Respondent is in the process of applying for a general contractor’s license from the Construction Industry Licensing Board. He testified that he took and passed the licensing exam on August 16, 2006. The Department incurred investigative costs of $296.99 related to Complaint No. 2005-042280, which is DOAH Case No. 06-1929. The Department incurred investigative costs of $307.45 related to Complaint No. 2005-042281, which is DOAH Case No. 06-1934.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation issue a final order that: finds Respondent guilty of unlicensed contracting in violation of Sections 489.127(1)(f) and 489.13, Florida Statutes, and imposes an administrative fine of $1,000, with $500 payable upon entry of the final order and the other $500 payable one year from that date unless Respondent provides satisfactory evidence to the Department that he obtained a state contractor’s license within that period; finds Respondent guilty of unlicensed electrical contracting in violation of Sections 455.228 and 455.531, Florida Statutes, and imposes an administrative fine of $1,000; and requires Respondent to pay the Department’s investigative costs of $604.44. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of October, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S T. KENT WETHERELL, II 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 October, 2006.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to a passing grade on the practical portion of the Florida Minimum Standards Examination for firefighters taken May 22, 2002.
Findings Of Fact At times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner held certification as a firefighter (Firefighter Certificate of Completion #81191) issued by the State Fire Marshal. For at least three years prior to December 5, 2001, Petitioner had not been active as a firefighter or as a volunteer firefighter with an organized fire department. Pursuant to Section 633.352, Florida Statutes, Petitioner was required to successfully complete the practical portion of the Florida Minimum Standards Examination for firefighters to retain his certification. 1/ The practical examinations at issue in this proceeding consisted of four sections: the Self Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) section, the Hose and Nozzle Operation section, the Ladder Operation section, and the Fireground Skills section. A candidate must pass each section to pass the practical examination. On November 16, 2001, Petitioner applied to sit for the practical examination scheduled for December 5, 2001. Petitioner sat for and failed all four sections of the practical examination administered December 5. Respondent's Rule 4A- 37.0527(6), Florida Administrative Code, permits a candidate to retake the practical examination once without further training. Petitioner thereafter applied to retake the examination, which was scheduled for May 22, 2002. Petitioner passed the Hose and Nozzle Operation and the Ladder Operation sections of the practical examination on May 22, and the scoring on those sections are not at issue in this proceeding. At issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner failed the SCBA section and/or the Fireground Skills section of the practical examination administered May 22, 2002. The SCBA section of the practical examination consisted of questions for which a candidate was awarded credit and certain items that a candidate was required to successfully complete (fatal items). If a candidate missed a fatal item, the candidate failed the SCBA section of the examination and, consequently, the entire practical examination. The Firegrounds Skills section of the examination tests a candidate on a variety of skills a firefighter is expected to demonstrate while fighting a fire, and the candidate is awarded a score for his or her performance. To pass each part of the practical examination, including the SCBA and the Fireground Skills sections, a candidate must achieve a score of 70 points and must not miss a fatal item. The SCBA section of the practical examination requires the candidate to properly don certain protective gear in 1 minute and 45 seconds. The failure to complete the exercise in the allotted time is a fatal item. In addition, the candidate must activate and check a personal alarm system as part of the exercise. The failure of the candidate to properly wear and activate the alarm system is also a fatal item. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that Petitioner's performance on the SCBA section of the practical examination was appropriately and fairly graded. Petitioner failed to timely complete the exercise, which is a fatal item. Petitioner failed to properly activate the personal alarm system, which is also a fatal item. Petitioner was awarded no points for 5 of 10 items for which points could be awarded (each item was worth 10 points). Even if he had passed the fatal items noted above, Petitioner would have failed the SCBA section because he failed to achieve a passing score of 70 on that section of the examination. Petitioner failed to establish that he was entitled to additional credit for the SCBA section of the practical examination. Petitioner received a failing score on the Firegrounds Skills section of the practical examination administered May 22, 2002. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that Petitioner's performance on the Firegrounds Skills section of the practical examination administered May 22, 2002, was appropriately and fairly graded. Of the 100 points available for this section of the examination, Respondent established that Petitioner deserved no credit for the following: 20 points on the forcible entry part of the section; 12 points on the ladders and fire service tools part of the section; and 4 points on the hazardous materials part of the section. Consequently, Respondent established that Petitioner was entitled to a total of 64 points on the Firegrounds Skills section of the practical examination administered May 22 2002, which is a failing grade. Petitioner failed to establish that he was entitled to additional credit for the Firegrounds Skills section of the practical examination administered May 22, 2002. Respondent established that the administration and grading of the subject exams were consistent with the provisions of Chapter 4A-37, Florida Administrative Code, which set forth by rule applicable guidelines for the practical examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order adopting the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law set forth herein. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order deny Petitioner's application for re-certification as a firefighter. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of January, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 14th day of January, 2003.
Findings Of Fact The Respondents, Douglas S. Melvin and Janice Melvin, operate a motel under the name The Islander at 4300 Ocean Beach Boulevard, Cocoa Beach, Florida. This motel is licensed by the Florida Division of Hotels and Restaurants under license number 15-182H. In answer to the complaint of a guest, Wesley A. Blom went to The Islander motel to inspect it on September 10, 1981. The complaining guest was not present, but the complaint related in part to the lack of cleanliness of room 217. Wesley A. Blom is a state qualified and certified sanitarian and inspector of fire extinguisher devices. He has had nine years experience in such work with the State of Florida. When Wesley A. Blom inspected The Islander on September 10, 1981, its owners, Douglas S. Melvin and Janice Melvin, were not present. During this inspection Wesley A. Blom was shown room 217 by motel personnel, and he inspected the motel generally for compliance with all applicable Florida Statutes and rules relating to safety, sanitation, and maintenance of public lodgings. During the September 10, 1981, inspection of The Islander motel, Wesley Blom observed the following conditions: The fire extinguishers available to the public and occupants of The Islander were of the soda-acid type, requiring periodic service checks and recharging to remain in safe, reliable, and useable condition. These fire extinguishers did not have un- expired service tags, as required, but the service tags affixed showed that these fire extinguishers had been last inspected and recharged more than one year previously. Paint was peeling on the walls of the bathroom in room 217. The bed cover on the bed in room number 217 was torn and stained in several places with tar residue. The floor In room 217 was dirty, and trash was scattered about the floor of this room. At the time when the dirt and trash was discovered on the floor in room 217, the bed had been made up, indicating that the room had been serviced by the motel staff. No room rate notice of any kind was posted in room 217. On September 30, 1981, Wesley A. Blom returned to The Islander motel to determine whether the conditions observed there on September 10, 1981, had changed or been corrected. He did not reinspect room 217 at this time because it was occupied, but the fire extinguishers available at The Islander motel had not been serviced or recharged since February of 1979, as evidenced by their expired State Fire Marshal service tags. On February 22, 1982, Wesley A. Blom again returned to The Islander motel to determine if the conditions discovered on September 10, 1981, had been corrected or changed. He was not able to inspect room number 217 because it was occupied, but he did observe that previously available soda-acid fire extinguishers were no longer present. The only fire extinguishers available at The Islander motel on this occasion were different models of an undetermined type which were located in the lobby of the motel. This lobby is more than 100 feet from many of the rooms of the motel. The Respondents contend in their own behalf that room 217 had not been made up, and was not ready for occupancy when it was inspected; that the bed cover with the tar on it was being cleaned by the maid, and was not finished when inspected; that the carpet was not dirty, but simply had not been vacuumed when it was inspected; that rate sheets are usually posted, but the one in room 217 had been missing and was found in another room; and that a maintenance man responsible for painting the rooms was fired for using inferior paint which might have peeled off. However, both the Respondents were in Michigan on September 10, 1981, when the first inspection took place; thus, without testimony from motel personnel who were present at the time, the testimony of the Respondents is not of sufficient quality to support a finding of fact. The expired date on the fire extinguishers is admitted.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a Final Order finding the Respondents guilty of violating Section 509.221(2) and (6), and 509.201, Florida Statutes, and Sections 7C-1.04(1), 1.03(1), 3.01 and 3.02, Florida Administrative Code. And it is further RECOMMENDED that the Final Order of the Petitioner suspend license number 15-182H held by Douglas S. Melvin and Janice Melvin, authorizing them to operate The Islander motel, for a period of one year from the date of the Final Order, and that The Islander motel be closed pursuant to this suspension for one year. And it is further RECOMMENDED that the Final Order of the Petitioner provide that the suspension period of one year may be lifted upon a satisfactory demonstration to the Petitioner that approved fire extinguishers are maintained on the premises of The Islander motel in accordance with all applicable laws. And it is further RECOMMENDED that, in addition to the foregoing, the Final Order of the Petitioner assess an administrative fine of $200 for each of the four violations not relating to fire extinguishers, as enumerated above, for a total fine of $800 payable no later than 30 days after the date of the Final Order. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this the 24th day of March, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Department of Administration Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of March, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel J. Bosanko, Esquire 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Douglas S. Melvin and Janice Melvin 4300 Ocean Beach Boulevard Cocoa Beach, Florida 32931
