The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations set forth in the Administrative Complaints and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants (Division), is a state agency charged with the duty and responsibility of regulating the operation of hotel and restaurant establishments pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapter 509, Florida Statutes. Respondent is a rooming house located in Pensacola, Florida. At all times material to the allegations of the Administrative Complaint, Respondent held license numbers 2705932 for food service and 2705800 for operation of a rooming house issued by the Division. Russell Crowley is a Senior Sanitation and Safety Specialist employed by the Division. Mr. Phelan has a two- year degree in environmental technology. He has been employed by the Division for eight years. Prior to working for the Division, he was in the Air Force, Public Health Service, for 26 years. He also received training in laws and rules regarding public food service and lodging, and is a certified special fire inspector. Case Nos. 06-3292, and 06-3293 On February 28, 2006, Mr. Crowley conducted an inspection of Respondent's premises and issued a food service inspection report and a lodging service inspection report while on the premises. Harrison Anderson an employee of Respondent, signed for the inspection reports. During the February 28, 2006 inspection, Mr. Crowley observed six food service violations and four lodging violations and issued a warning that the violations must be corrected by March 28, 2006. Mr. Crowley conducted a call-back inspection on March 29, 2006, during which he observed that four of the violations noted on February 28, 2006 had not been corrected. At the time of the first inspection, Mr. Crowley observed that the fire extinguishers were out of date. During the call-back inspection, he again found the fire extinguishers to be out of date, in that they had last been inspected in April 2005. This is a critical violation because if a fire extinguisher is not inspected to be sure it is in proper working condition, it could malfunction causing a fire safety hazard. During the original inspection, Mr. Crowley also observed that the stove hood in the kitchen was not cleaned. This was listed as a violation because it is a vermin control issue. This is a critical violation because grease buildup in the stove hood system can cause a fire. This violation had not been corrected at the time of the call-back inspection. During the original inspection, Mr. Crowley observed that the hood suppression system in the kitchen was out of date. This had not been corrected at the time of the call- back inspection. Hood suppression systems should be inspected every six months. This is a critical violation because the hood suppression system is how grease fires are put out. Mr. Crowley also observed an accumulation of food debris on the kitchen floor and under the stove and refrigerator. This had not been corrected at the time of the call-back inspection. Another violation that Mr. Crowley found that had not been corrected is that the manager lacked proof of a food manager certification. This is a critical violation because a food manager who has received training in proper food handling procedures must be on the premises. Mr. Crowley gave Respondent a time extension of 60 days to correct this violation. Additionally, Mr. Crowley gave a 60-day time extension for a related violation, in that there was no proof of employee training in proper food handling procedures. A lodging violation that had not been corrected between inspections is that the central heat and air conditioning was inoperable. Mr. Crowley observed space heaters in some but not all rooms. The central air system was still inoperable on the call-back inspection and there were only four space heaters for 15 rooms. On June 6, 2006, Mr. Crowley made a call-back inspection of Respondent's facility and found that there still was no proof of anyone having received food manager training and no proof of employee training. Case No. 06-3294 During the March 29, 2006, call-back inspection of Respondent's facility, Mr. Crowley observed that no room rate schedule was filed with the Division and that no room rate was posted in each room or unit. He wrote an inspection report finding these two lodging violations, issuing a warning about these two violations, and notifying Respondent that the violations needed to be corrected by April 29, 2006. Mr. Crowley went back to Respondent's facility on May 5, 2006, and found that these violations had not been corrected at the time of the call-back inspection. His call- back re-inspection report noted that the owner stated that she sent the room rate schedule to the Division for filing, but that when he called to verify this, there was no record of Respondent's room rate schedule with the Division. In any event, the room rate schedule was not posted. Case Nos. 06-3698 and 06-3699 On April 11, 2006, Mr. Crowley again inspected Respondent's facility. As a result of this inspection, he wrote a lodging inspection report on which he noted nine violations. He noted on the inspection report a call-back date of April 12, 2006. On April 12, 2006, he returned to Respondent's facility to make a joint inspection with an inspector from another agency, the Agency for Health Care Administration. As a result of the April 12, 2006, inspection, he found two violations that had not been corrected: he observed an insufficient number of fire extinguishers and observed 10 live gnats in a resident's room. He also gave a 30-day time extension for the seven other violations found, indicating a call-back date of May 13, 2006. During the April 12, 2006 inspection, Mr. Crowley also observed an expired fire sprinkler inspection tag, indicating it had been last inspected on April 11, 2005. The inspection report again shows a call-back date of May 13, 2006. Mr. Crowley made a call-back inspection of Respondent's facility on June 6, 2006, and found two violations that had not been corrected from the April 2006 inspections: the smoke detector in the common area was not working and there was rotted wood in the restroom. The smoke detector not working is a critical violation; the rotted wood in the bathroom is not. Mr. Crowley did note in his report that the air conditioning/heating system was now working. On May 15, 2006, Mr. Crowley made a call back inspection and found that the fire sprinkler had still not been inspected since April 2005. This is a critical violation. Mitigation Ms. Finkley offered mitigating circumstances regarding some of the deficiencies noted by Mr. Crowley. Regarding the allegation that no food service manager had a certification, Ms. Finkley asserts that before the house was licensed to be a rooming house, it was an assisted living facility. She and others who had previously worked there had received training and were not aware they needed additional training when the facility became a rooming house. Further, Ms. Finkley took the training class on July 17, 2006. Regarding the allegation that the stove hood had a grease buildup, Ms. Finkley asserted that she did have the hood cleaned, and showed the inspector the receipt for the cleaning. Mr. Crowley disputes this and insists that had he been shown the receipt, he would have given her credit for having it. Mr. Crowley's testimony in this regard is more persuasive and accepted. Ms. Finkley explained that the house and floor are very old. Therefore, she feels that it was more the condition of the floor as opposed to uncleanliness. In any event, she has installed a new floor since Mr. Crowley's inspections. Regarding the room rates, Ms. Finkley insists that she mailed the room rates to the Division. It was returned to her from the Division within a couple of days after Mr. Crowley was there, and she then posted it. Her assertion in this regard is accepted as credible. Regarding the allegations about the fire extinguishers, Ms. Finkley asserted that she had taken two fire extinguishers to be inspected and tagged the day Mr. Crowley made his reinspection. According to Ms. Finkley, Mr. Crowley was still in the yard of the facility when she returned with the fire extinguishers and attempted to show them to Mr. Crowley. This apparently happened after he had written his report, as Mr. Crowley recalls passing her in the driveway as he was leaving. Her assertion in this regard is accepted as credible. Regarding the allegation about the smoke detector, Ms. Finkley asserts that it was brand new and had just been installed that day (the day of Mr. Crowley's inspection) by the maintenance man. She was not present during the inspection but retuned to the facility that day and found the smoke detector to be working. Her testimony in this regard is accepted as credible. Regarding the sprinkler system, the utility company was working on the road outside the facility and had cut the water line to the facility due to work being done on the day the inspector inspected the system. This is corroborated by Wesley Perdue's testimony and is accepted as credible. Again, this correction to the cited violation was made after the callback inspection. Wesley and Vicki Perdue lease the facility to Ms. Finkley and perform maintenance on the facility. Regarding the allegation about the rotten wood in the bathroom, they remodeled the entire bathroom including putting in new walls, a new commode, and a new vanity with a new sink. The Perdues also installed the new kitchen floor. According to Mr. Perdue, they repaired many things that were written up by Mr. Crowley after he had cited Ms. Finkley for the deficiencies, and he believes that the repairs were completed during the call-back time frame of Mr. Crowley's inspection reports. While Mr. Perdue believes this, the weight of the evidence is that repairs were not completed before Mr. Crowley's reinspection.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Division enter a final order that imposes an administrative penalty in the amount of $3,000, places Respondent under probation for a period of two months after issuance of the Final Order, and requires Respondent to attend a Hospitality Education Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ___________________________________ BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings 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 this 28th day of December, 2006 COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32388-1015 Fannie Finkley House of Love 5191 Zachary Boulevard Pensacola, Florida 32526 William Veach, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulations 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulations 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue Whether Respondent's renewal facilities licensure application for a group home contained a falsified fire inspection report, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty?
Findings Of Fact APD is the state agency charged with regulating the licensing and operation of foster care facilities, group home facilities, residential habitation centers, and comprehensive transitional education programs pursuant to sections 20.197 and 393.067, Florida Statutes. Rivero is an applicant for renewed licensure of a group home facility in Dania Beach, Florida. At all times material to the Administrative Complaint, Yitzhak Rivero was a corporate officer of Rivero. Mr. Rivero, was a psychiatrist in Cuba treating patients with mental and intellectual disabilities before he moved to the United States and became a citizen. He became a licensed mental health counselor, and for the past ten years has operated group homes in an effort to serve disabled persons, owning as many as seven group homes, employing 30 people at one time, and currently owning and operating three licensed group homes. On June 20, 2019, Sally Vazquez, then administrator for Rivero, submitted a license renewal application on behalf of Rivero’s Dania Beach group home to APD by hand delivering it to APD employee Patricia White, who was on the premises. On that same day, fire inspectors were also at the Dania Beach property to conduct an inspection. Prior to submitting the renewal application and supporting documents to APD on June 20, 2019, Ms. Vazquez prepared the application and compiled or prepared the supporting documents in the renewal application. The handwriting on pages 1 through 11 of the renewal application is that of Ms. Vazquez. Ms. Vazquez is listed as backup manager supervisor for Rivero on page 7 of the renewal application. After Ms. Vazquez prepared the renewal application and compiled the supporting documents, Mr. Rivero, as the group home owner, did a brief review of the application and supporting documents before he signed it. Before he signed it, Mr. Rivero identified nothing unusual in the application packet. When Mr. Rivero signed the attestation on the renewal application, which read, “Under penalty of perjury…all information contained in and submitted with application is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge,” he believed that the information in the application and supporting documents was true and correct. Unbeknownst to Mr. Rivero, the renewal application contained a document purporting to be a fire inspection report dated May 1, 2019, that was falsified. Mr. Rivero did not know the fire inspection was false when he reviewed the renewal application and signed it on June 7, 2019, or when Ms. Vazquez submitted it to APD on behalf of Rivero on June 20, 2019. In fact, the only email or communication Mr. Rivero received about the Dania Beach group home in regard to fire safety was a June 20, 2019, email sent by Fire Inspector Braun at 12:49 p.m., stating it was “From: Broward Sheriff’s Office Fire Rescue,” identified by the subject, “Inspection Report,” which contained an attachment related to the Dania Beach home from “Broward Sheriff’s Office Fire Rescue” bearing the agency’s logo that stated: “An annual fire inspection of your occupancy revealed no violations at the time of this inspection. Thank you for your commitment to maintaining a fire safe occupancy.” On August 21, 2019, when asked in an email from APD representative Kimberly Carty to provide the fire inspection report for Rivero, Mr. Rivero forwarded the email he had received from the Broward Sheriff’s Office Fire Rescue indicating no violations, the only fire inspection report for this home he had ever received, and the only fire inspection report regarding this property of which he was aware. On August 23, 2019, Ms. Carty sent Mr. Rivero a fire inspection report showing violations noted from the June 20, 2019, fire safety inspection of the Dania Beach group home. The report notes six, of what fire safety inspector Craig Braun described as less serious, non “critical-life” violations. Rivero was given 30 days to correct the violations.1 The day after he was sent the full fire inspection report for the Rivero Dania Beach group home, Mr. Rivero corrected the “easily corrected,” relatively minor violations in approximately three hours. Mr. Rivero then contacted the fire department to re-inspect the facility. When no fire inspector came to re-inspect for over a month, on September 30, 2019, Mr. Rivero sent an email to Mr. Zipoli, the fire inspector who had signed the inspection report showing the minor violations. Nevertheless, the fire department has never re-inspected the facility. Fire Prevention Officers Braun and Zipoli testified unequivocally and without contradiction that the document Mr. Rivero forwarded to APD’s Kimberly Carty on August 23, 2019 (the document indicating, “An annual fire inspection of your occupancy revealed no violations at the time of this inspection”), was a genuine and authentic document. Further, Officer Braun indicated that on June 20, 2019, he was Officer Zipoli’s supervisor, and that on that date Officer Braun and Zipoli “went together to inspect the Rivero Group Home.” “[U]sually…just [one] fire safety inspector goes,” and it was “not the norm” for two fire safety inspectors to go together. In this unusual situation, Fire Safety Inspector Zipoli wrote the report of the June 20, 2019, inspection, and Fire Safety Inspector Braun “wrote a report,” a separate report, indicating that he “assisted him [Zipoli] on another 1 These violations included: front and rear door of the group home (two doors) had a key lock instead of a “simple thumb turn or something that does not require special knowledge”; a fire alarm needed to be updated with its annual fire inspection from a private contractor; a fire extinguisher needed to be mounted on its mounting on the wall instead of placed on the ground beneath the mounting; the fire extinguisher needed to have its annual certification updated for 2019; the smoke detector located in the kitchen needed to be moved to a different location. form.” It was this other form that Officer Braun completed--this fire safety “Inspection Assist” for--that was emailed to Mr. Rivero on June 20, 2019. It was this form that stated, “[a]n annual fire inspection of your occupancy revealed no violations at the time of this inspection.” Officers Braun and Zipoli confirmed that the Broward Sheriff’s electronic streamline system “had a ‘glitch,’” “a default problem at that time,” the period including June 20, 2019, that caused the “template of an assist” ( i.e., an Inspection Assist form) to generate the statement indicating, “[a]n annual fire inspection of your occupancy revealed no violations at the time of this inspection,” and the system gave fire safety inspectors no option or ability to remove this statement. When APD’s Kimberly Carty requested that Mr. Rivero send the most recent fire inspection report for the Rivero Dania Beach group home, Mr. Rivero forwarded to Ms. Carty the document he received on June 20, 2019, from Broward Sheriff’s Office Fire Rescue without altering or changing the document in any way. The first time Mr. Rivero was notified that the fire inspection report submitted with the renewal application at issue here was false was when he received the Administrative Complaint in this case on October 23, 2019. In addition to the June 20, 2019, document Mr. Rivero received from Broward Sheriff’s Office Fire Rescue that indicated “no violations,” and the fire inspection report indicating six violations that was sent to Mr. Rivero by APD on August 23, 2019, this case involves a document dated May 1, 2019, purporting to be a Broward Sheriff’s Office Fire Rescue fire inspection that was fabricated (“the false fire inspection report”). The false fire inspection report was submitted to APD by Ms. Vazquez during APD’s June 20, 2019, inspection of the Rivero’s Dania Beach group home. At the time she submitted the application with the false fire inspection report, Ms. Vazquez had worked for Rivero for at least six years, and for at least two years as an administrator for between four and seven group homes. At the time she submitted the application at issue in this case to APD, Ms. Vazquez had prepared more than 20 APD renewal applications for Mr. Rivero’s group homes. In short, Ms. Vazquez was a “trusted employee,” whom Mr. Rivero relied on to accurately prepare applications and the documents submitted with the applications, and to handle the inspections conducted by APD. After Mr. Rivero learned, by receiving the Administrative Complaint in this case on October 23, 2019, that an altered or falsified document had been submitted as a fire inspection report with Rivero’s Dania Beach group home’s annual renewal application to APD, he conducted an investigation to determine how it had happened. When Mr. Rivero determined Ms. Vazquez was to blame for the false fire inspection report being submitted with the application, he fired her. The evidence presented indicates Ms. Vazquez created and submitted the falsified fire inspection report in violation of her job duties and professional obligations, and without the knowledge or consent of Mr. Rivero or Rivero.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Persons With Disabilities enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of April, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY 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 17th day of April, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Sean Michael Ellsworth, Esquire Ellsworth Law Firm, P.A. 1000 5th Street, Suite 223 Miami Beach, Florida 33139 (eServed) Trevor S. Suter, Esquire Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) Anthony Vitale, Esquire The Health Law Offices of Anthony C. Vitale, P.A. 2333 Brickell Avenue, Suite A-1 Miami, Florida 33129 (eServed) Daniel Ferrante, Esquire Health Law Offices Of Anthony C. Vitale, P.A. 2333 Brickell Avenue, Suite A-1 Miami, Florida 33129 (eServed) Danielle Thompson Senior Attorney/Agency Clerk Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 309 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) Francis Carbone, General Counsel Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) Barbara Palmer, Director Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed)
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether violations of Section 509.032, Florida Statutes, and Rule 61C-1.004(5), Florida Administrative Code, as well as Chapter 4A-3, Florida Administrative Code, had been committed by the Respondent in terms of two specific safety violations allegedly occurring at the Respondent's lodging establishment.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged, in pertinent part, with regulating the operation of hotel or lodging establishments in accordance with Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 509, Florida Statutes. The Respondent, at all times material hereto, has been licensed or otherwise subject to the Petitioner's jurisdiction. On September 28, 2001, and again on October 16, 2001, an inspector of the Division of Hotels and Restaurants (Division) inspected the Respondent's lodging premises. The Division inspector noted certain deficiencies at her first inspection and that those deficiencies where still outstanding and uncorrected at the end of her second inspection at that location. In light of the deficiencies noted at both inspections, the Division issued its Administrative Complaint on November 16, 2001, alleging that the fire extinguisher near Apartment Number One was in the "re-charge zone," meaning that it was inoperable on September 28, 2001, and was missing on October 16, 2001. The Complaint also charged that the balcony railing near Apartment Number Four was loose and, therefore, in an unsafe condition in violation of Rule 61C-1.004(5) and (6), Florida Administrative Code. In response, the Respondent testified that he does not live on the premises and that, although the fire extinguisher deficiency has occurred repeatedly, it is because children who are present on the premises keep discharging it. He testified that whenever it has been discharged he, or his maintenance man, immediately has it recharged by the Daytona Fire and Safety Company. Mr. Rampersad also testified that he did everything in his power to bring the railing up to proper code requirements by re-drilling holes and re-anchoring the railing in concrete. He contends that an "inspection supervisor" observed the railing and opined that it had been brought up to code, but there is no direct evidence of that observation. He established that, as of the time of the hearing, all necessary repairs to the railing had been made and that the fire extinguisher was charged and fully operable. He testified that at the time the fire extinguisher was missing upon the re-inspection date, found above, that it was at the service company being recharged.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, imposing a fine in the amount of $750.00; That the Respondent's license be suspended for six months, but with the suspension held in abeyance contingent upon timely payment of the administrative fine being received upon a schedule agreed to between the Respondent and the Director of the Division of Hotels and Restaurants. The failure to continue to make timely payments of the fine amount should result in imposition of the suspension of the Respondent's license; and That the Respondent be required to attend a Hospitality Education Program class under the auspices of the Petitioner within 60 days of the date of the final order herein and to provide satisfactory proof thereof to the Division of Hotels and Restaurants. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of January, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 8th day of January, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Milton Rampersad 1201 Kennedy Road, Apartment 19 Daytona Beach, Florida 32117 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Geoff Luebkemann, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
Findings Of Fact At all times, material to this case, Petitioner has been licensed by the Department to operate an adult congregate living facility (ACLF) which is located at 6200 West Fairfield Drive, Pensacola, Florida, and is known as the Warrington House. Francis Cooper is the sole shareholder and operator of the Warrington House. Prior to 1984, the Warrington House was known as the Heritage House and was owned by a Mr. Mitchell. Sometime in 1984, Mr. Mitchell was criminally charged with elderly abuse on his residents and the Heritage House went into receivership. Another branch of HRS who was represented by Esther Ward, asked Ms. Francis Cooper to take over the facility. HRS was apparently well satisfied with Ms. Cooper's qualifications in running an ACLF since she had another such facility. When Ms. Cooper took over the Heritage House the electrical power to the facility was about to be turned off. Only by Ms. Cooper's pleading with Gulf Power was that circumstance forestalled. There were only thirteen (13) patients at the facility out of the sixteen (16) that were supposed to have been there. Three (3) of the patients had been mysteriously removed during the night. The residents that were at the house could not identify themselves and very few resident records were at the facility. The building was infested with roaches, there was raw sewage in the yard and the sewage system was completely blocked to the extent that sewage came up through the showers when a toilet was flushed. There was urine in every carpet. None of the appliances in the house worked. There were no air conditioners, fans or plastic dishes. The floors were in bad shape. In fact, Ms. Cooper fell through two of the bathroom floors. When Ms. Cooper questioned HRS representatives about the appalling conditions of the facility, she received no responsive answer. After Ms. Cooper had taken over the facility, she discovered that Mr. Mitchell had absconded with three months advance rent from the residents. Ms. Cooper, therefore, had to operate the premises for three months without income from the residents that were there. She used her own money. Ms. Cooper started with the air conditioning, flooring and carpeting. All these items were replaced. The bathrooms were tiled and additional bathrooms were added. She put in a $6,000.00 sewage system, a lift station and paid $1,000.00 to hook the building onto city sewage. She also brought in an exterminator to get rid of the bugs. All of this took place over a period of two years wherein Ms. Cooper worked diligently to bring the building up to "snuff." In fact, in the time since she has had the facility she has accomplished wonders in improving conditions at the house. These conditions clearly did not appear overnight, but over several years and were apparently overlooked by Respondent until the crisis with Mr. Mitchell had occurred. Ms. Cooper went into the house with the understanding that the corporation would eventually build another facility and close what had become the Warrington House. The reason for the new construction was that the current building, regardless of the amount of repair, was still an old building not worth maintaining and which was allowed to deteriorate badly prior to her stewardship. However, due to a falling out with her brother, who was then a co- shareholder of the corporation, Ms. Cooper was unable to complete her plans for moving the residents of the Warrington House to a new facility. She continues to attempt to obtain financing to build a new facility. At least once a year, HRS does a full survey on a ACLF like the Warrington House. A full survey is simply an inspection of the property in order to determine the degree of compliance with HRS rules and regulations. Upon completing the inspection, the inspector goes through an exit briefing with the ACLF's management. During the exit briefing, the inspector will go over any deficiencies he or she has discovered and attempt to establish mutually agreeable correction dates. The inspector also explains that these time periods are the best estimates that they can come up with at that point to allow a reasonable amount of time for the required corrections to be made. If any problems should arise, the inspector requests that the manager communicate with his or her office and ask for an extension. Extensions are not always forthcoming. After the full survey inspection is done, a follow-up visit is normally scheduled to determine whether the earlier cited deficiencies have been corrected. If, after the follow-up survey there are items that are still not corrected, the inspector will explain to the person in charge that they are subject to administrative action and that he or she will report he facility's noncompliance to his or her office. Whether or not administrative action is taken is determined at a level above the inspector. However, it appears that the customary practice of the office is to pursue an administrative fine for any noncompliance after the correction date has been passed. After the first follow-up survey has been made it depends on the particular factual situation whether or not further follow-up surveys are made until compliance is achieved. If there are efforts being made to correct the problems further follow-up surveys will be made. If not, further follow-up surveys may not be made. In this case, James Temkin, an HRS Fire Protection Specialist, performed a full survey fire safety inspection on the Warrington House on September 24, 1986. During that survey, he cited 11 deficiencies. Various compliance dates were established for the deficiencies. A follow-up survey was conducted by Mr. Temkin on January 14, 1987. During that survey, he noted that 6 of the previously cited deficiencies had not been corrected. He recommended administrative action on all the uncorrected deficiencies. The six remaining uncorrected deficiencies were as follows: No up to date fire plan and the July 7th fire drills were not documented; No fire alarm test since July 1986 and fire alarm zones were not shown on the actuator panel; Smoke detectors not working in four (4) rooms; Exit sign lights burned out at the front and center exits, emergency lights not working at the front, rear and upstairs exit halls; Sleeping rooms had hollow core doors; and There was no documentation of fire safety on the wood paneling and tile ceilings on the first and second floors. All other deficiencies cited during the September 24, 1986 full survey were corrected. As to the alleged deficiencies contained in the latter half of (b) and (c)-(f) above, none appear at any point in HRS' rules governing ACLF's. Supposedly, these deficiencies are cited in the NFPA life safety code, which is incorporated by reference in the Fire Marshal's rule on ACLF's, Rule 4A-40, Florida Administrative Code. The 1984 version of Rule 4A-40, Florida Administrative Code is incorporated by reference in HRS' rule, Rule 10A-5, Florida Administrative Code. Both HRS' rule and the Fire Marshal's rule are contained in the Florida Administrative Code. However, the 1984 version of NFPA is nowhere to be found in the Administrative Code. The current Fire Marshal's rule adopts portions of the 1985 NFPA life safety code. However, the HRS' rule adopts the 1984 version of the Fire Marshal's rule. No showing was made by Respondent as to what the 1984 version of the NFPA code contained. The HRS inspector's testimony regarding a particular deficiency's inclusion in the NFPA cannot be relied on since both inspectors apparently used the 1985 version of the NFPA which is not the 1984 version included in HRS's rule. Without proof of the contents of the NFPA, HRS has failed to prove any deficiencies for which it may take administrative actions. As to the other deficiencies, attempts to comply were in fact made by the Warrington House. The facility's personnel in fact thought they had complied with HRS' desires based upon previous inspections. However, for one reason or another, these attempts were rejected by the HRS inspector and the deficiency was cited again, but because of another reason. The lack of an up- to-date fire plan (cited in (a) above) was met by the Warrington House when they obtained a fire plan prior to the established correction date from another arm of HRS responsible for devising such plans. However, upon the January 14th follow-up inspection, the plan obtained from HRS by Petitioner was considered insufficient in that it did not outline staff responsibilities during a fire. The same thing occurred with the lack of fire alarm tests, cited in the latter part of (a) and the first part of (b) above. The Warrington House obtained the testing document and test from another branch of HRS responsible for such testing. However, the inspector at the follow up survey did not deem his own agency's testing documents sufficient since it did not show a different type sending unit was being tested at least once a year. 1/ These are simply not repeat deficiencies since in each instance the earlier grievance had been met and it was another grievance which cropped up. On July 9, 1987, a second follow-up survey to the Temkin September 24, 1986, full survey was performed by O.B. Walton, an HRS fire safety inspector. The evidence was not clear as to any remaining uncorrected deficiencies, if any, he found. Therefore, Respondent failed to establish any repetitive deficiencies as a result of the July 9 follow-up survey. Apparently, however, Mr. Walton, did perform another full survey on July 9, 1987. Several additional deficiencies were cited by him. A follow-up visit was conducted by Mr. Walton on October 23, 1987. Four alleged deficiencies remained uncorrected as follows: Ceiling not repaired in hot water heater closet, i.e. not taped; Kitchen fire door latch was jammed open so it would not latch, but it would stay closed; Plug by hot water heater had no cover; No documentation that drapes were fire retardant. Again, none of the above alleged deficiencies appear in HRS' rules or in the fire marshal's rule and a reasonable person could not glean from any of the other provisions contained in HRS' rules that the above conditions might be included in these provisions. The lack of clarity or uniformity in interpretation of HRS' rules is especially born out in this case since two different inspectors while inspecting the same building cited different deficiencies under their respective interpretation of the rules. When the experts differ it is difficult to see how a reasonable lay person could even begin to know or understand the contents of HRS or the Fire Marshal's rules. This lack is especially true since the relevant contents of the 1984 NFPA life safety code are not contained in the Florida Administrative Code and were not demonstrated by HRS. HRS, therefore, failed to prove any repeat deficiencies from the October 23, 1987 follow-up survey. A third fire safety follow-up visit was conducted by Pat Reid, a human services program analyst, on January 21, 1988. She has no expertise or license to perform fire safety inspections. She found all of the earlier cited uncorrected deficiencies corrected except for the documentation on the drapes. That alleged deficiency was partially corrected since Petitioner was replacing the drapery with metal blinds. However, as indicated earlier the lack of documentation for fire retardant drapes was not proven to be a violation by Respondent. Ms. Reid had previously conducted a full survey of Petitioner on August 17 and 18, 1987 in her area of expertise operation and general maintenance of an ACLF. Several deficiencies were cited and correction dates were established. Ms. Reid conducted a follow-up survey to the August 17 and 18 full survey on October 23, 1987. The following alleged deficiencies had not been corrected: Facility staff do not have documentation of being free of communicable diseases; The physical examination (Health Assessment) of resident identified as M. B. does not indicate that the resident is free from communicable disease; Broken or cracked window panes in windows of second floor exit door, both first floor bathrooms nearest kitchen, and resident rooms identified as C. W., W. S., and W. L.; Shower tile missing in second floor bathroom nearest exit door; Linoleum of first floor bathroom is loose as well as badly stained with cigarette burns; Hole in wall next to sink and toilet of second floor bathroom nearest exit door and square hole in wall of second floor blue bathroom; Faucet of first floor bathroom is loose; Carpeting in first floor resident room (#7) is badly stained; Three vinyl chairs in dining room have tears, exposing foam padding; Second floor bathroom faucet nearest exit does not clearly distinguish between hot and cold water taps. As to the alleged deficiency contained in (a) above, the regulations do not contain a requirement that any documentation be kept regarding staff members being free of communicable disease. The regulations only require that the facility administrator assure that staff is free of communicable disease. The evidence showed that Petitioner had in fact assured that the staff was free of communicable disease. Therefore, no violation occurred. The alleged deficiency cited in (b) above does constitute a violation of Rules 10-5.081(1)(b), (2)(a)4.d., and (2)(b), Florida Administrative Code. However, in this instance, there are several mitigating circumstances. Foremost is the fact that Petitioner attempted on several occasions to obtain this information from another arm of HRS who had M. B. under its care prior to his admission to Petitioner's facility and had actually failed to complete M. B.'s Health Assessment form properly. Petitioner received many assurances from HRS that it would obtain and forward the information. HRS failed to do so. Moreover, after several years of M. B. living at the Warrington House and after several years of HRS care prior to his admission, common sense would dictate that M. B. is free of communicable diseases. Petitioner has in fact received confirmation of that fact from an examining physician who certified M. B. free of communicable diseases. 2/ As to (c) above, the evidence showed that the windows were only cracked and not broken. No evidence was presented as to the severity of the cracks. Cracked windows are not included in Rule 10A-5.022(a), Florida Administrative Code, which only addresses broken window panes. Moreover, cracked windows without proof of the severity of the cracks is not sufficient evidence of the lack of good repair or other hazardous conditions similar to those listed in Rule 10A-5.022(a), Florida Administrative Code. The Rule requires proof of the hazardous nature of such a condition. Cracked windows are not hazardous in and of themselves and no showing was made that these cracked panes constituted a hazard. Nor do cracked window panes standing alone constitute a violation of Rule 10A-5.022(d). The rule requires evidence that such cracked panes are unreasonably unattractive and no showing was made that the cracks were unreasonably unattractive. Likewise, the missing shower tile in (d) above fails to constitute a violation of Rule 10A-5.022(a) since the deficiency is not listed, and no showing was made that the missing tile constituted a hazardous condition. Similarly, the missing tile, by itself, does not constitute a violation under Rule 10A-5.022(d) since no showing was made that the missing tile was unreasonably unattractive. The same failure of proof occurs with the alleged deficiencies listed in (e), (f), (g), (h) and (i). See Rules 10A-5.022(c), (e) and (i). The alleged deficiency cited in (j) above does constitute a violation of 10A-5.023(9)(e). However, the violation was not repeated after October 1, 1987, the effective date of Section 400.414(2)(d), Florida Statutes. Ms. Reid conducted a second follow-up survey to the August 17 and 18 full survey when she performed the fire safety follow-up on January 21, 1988. All previously cited deficiencies had been corrected except for: Facility staff do not have documentation of being free of communicable diseases. The physical examination (Health Assessment) of resident identified as M. B. does not indicate that the resident is free from communicable diseases. The following maintenance problems exist: broken or cracked window panes in windows of second floor exit door, both first floor bathrooms and resident room identified as W. S. A third follow-up was conducted by Ms. Reid on April 15, 1988. All the previously cited deficiencies had been corrected except for: The physical examination (Health Assessment) of resident identified as M. B. does not indicate that the resident is free from communicable disease. Broken or cracked window panes in windows of second floor exit door, both first floor bathrooms nearest kitchen, and resident rooms identified as C. W., W. S., and W. L.; Shower tile missing in second floor bathroom nearest exit door; Linoleum of first floor bathroom is loose as well as badly stained with cigarette burns; Hole in wall next to sink and toilet of second floor bathroom nearest exit door and square hole in wall of second floor blue bathroom. All of the alleged deficiencies cited in the January 21, 1988 follow- up and the April 15, 1988 follow-up survey were carried forward from the alleged deficiencies discussed above, cited in the October 23, 1987 follow-up survey. The same findings are made as to the alleged deficiencies which were carried forward. Only the physical health assessment of M. B. was cited by Respondent and shown to be a repeated deficiency since the information was not obtained by the established correction dates occurring after October 1, 1987. By the date of the hearing all the above alleged deficiencies had been corrected. Respondent notified Petitioner that it proposed to deny renewal of Petitioner's license to operate the Warrington House on December 23, 1987. The basis for the denial was Section 400.414(1) and (2)(d) which states: 400.414 Denial, revocation, or suspension of license; imposition of administrative fine; grounds. The department may deny, revoke or suspend a license or impose an administrative fine in the manner provided in chapter 120. Any of the following actions by a facility or its employee shall be grounds for action by the department against a licensee: * * * (d) Multiple and repeated violations of this part or of minimum standards or rules adopted pursuant to this part. The language of Subsection (d) was added to Section 400.414 F.S. on October 1, 1987. Prior to that date Respondent had no authority to take punitive action against the license of an ACLF licensee for multiple and repeated violations of Respondent's statutes and rules. The only action Respondent could take against a facility for such violations was in the form of a civil fine the amount of which could be raised if the violation was repetitive. Section 400.426, Florida Statutes. No multiple violations were shown by the evidence through the April 15, 1988 follow-up survey. More importantly, however, no multiple violations were shown by Respondent after October 1, 1987, the effective date of the statutory language at issue in this case. No showing was made by Respondent as to any legislative intent that the statute operate retrospectively. The statute operates only prospectively. Therefore, any alleged deficiencies cited prior to October 1, 1987 are irrelevant for purposes of imposing the punishment contemplated under Section 400.414, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services renew Petitioner's license. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 9th day of November, 1988.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Galilee was licensed by the Department. Galilee's last known address is 4685 Haverhill Road, West Palm Beach, Florida. Galilee is a lodging establishment, consisting of rental apartments. It was originally constructed in 1995 as an assisted living facility but, as a business decision, the owner subsequently converted it to rental apartments. The Department's inspector inspected the outside of Galilee on December 18, 2002, and again on January 17, 2003. The inspector found deficiencies at the first inspection, and at the second inspection three deficiencies remained uncorrected. The uncorrected deficiencies were (1) the current report of the annual inspection for the fire sprinkler system was not available; (2) fire extinguishers failed to have state certification tags affixed; and (3) no backflow prevention device on the exterior hose connection to the apartment building. The failure to have available the current report of the annual inspection for the fire sprinkler system was a critical violation. The deficiency was classified as a critical violation because the annual report is the only way that an inspector can ascertain that the fire sprinkler system is operational. The inspector requested the current annual report at the first visit but it was not available. The failure of the fire extinguishers to have state certification tags affixed was a critical violation. The deficiency was classified as a critical violation because the state certified tag verifies that an extinguisher is in proper working order and is being properly maintained. The failure to have a backflow prevention device on the exterior hose connection to the apartment building was not a critical violation. The backflow prevention device stops negative water pressure. At the first inspection, the inspector explained the violations to the owner and gave him a 30-day warning to have the violations corrected, advising the owner that she would return on January 17, 2003, for a follow-up inspection. The violations were not corrected at the follow-up inspection 30 days later. The evidence shows that all the violations were corrected within a month to a month and a half after the second inspection. Galilee provided mitigating circumstances for the violations not being corrected at the time of the second inspection. As to the deficiency regarding availability of the current report of the annual inspection for the fire sprinkler system, Galilee has a current report dated February 27, 2003. Also, Galilee suggests that the inspector did not request the report. The undersigned finds the inspector's testimony credible that she requested the report. Further, the evidence shows that Galilee confused the requested report with the report of the fire department's inspection. The inspector testified, and her testimony is found credible, that the report of the annual inspection for the fire sprinkler system is generated by a private company, not the fire department, because the fire department does not perform the inspection required for the requested report. As to the deficiency regarding tagging of the fire extinguishers, Galilee's owner purchased fire extinguishers from Home Depot and was not aware that the extinguishers were required to be tagged at the time of the first inspection. Subsequent to the second inspection, the fire extinguishers were tagged by the AAC United Fire and Safety Department, with which Galilee has a contract to inspect the fire extinguishers. As to the deficiency regarding backflow prevention device, it too was corrected subsequent to the second inspection. Furthermore, even though the deficiencies were corrected subsequent to the second inspection, Galilee began the process to correct the deficiencies after the first inspection. Galilee was not ignoring the deficiencies. The deficiencies were not timely corrected because Galilee's owner was attempting to obtain, whom he considered, the proper people to perform the tasks involved and have the tasks performed at a reasonable expense. No evidence of prior disciplinary action being taken against Galilee by the Department was presented.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants enter a final order: Finding that Galilee violated NFPA Life Safety Code 25, 1-8.2 and Food Code Rule 5-204.12. Dismissing the violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C-1.004(5). Imposing an administrative fine of $1,500.00, payable under terms and conditions deemed appropriate. S DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ____ ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 2003.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether the application for an initial license to operate an Adult Family Care Home ("AFCH") should be denied because the applicant submitted fraudulent or inaccurate information in the application.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is owned by Ms. Marvell Lawton, R.N. (the "applicant"). On June 3, 1996, the applicant applied for a license to operate an AFCH at 550 East Division Street, Deland, Florida (the "facility"). Respondent is the state agency responsible for licensing AFCHs. Respondent requires several documents to be submitted with the application including: a Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("HRS") Community Residential Homes Sponsor Certification Form (the "HRS Form"); a statement by the local zoning office that the facility is properly zoned (the "zoning approval"); and a fire inspection report. The applicant altered the HRS Form, the zoning approval, and the fire inspection report to indicate that the facility was approved for a maximum capacity of five residents. Respondent initially denied the license application solely on the basis of the fire inspection report. However, the basis of denial was amended to include the HRS Form and the zoning approval pursuant to an order entered by Judge Stephen F. Dean on October 16, 1996. By letter dated July 11, 1996, Respondent notified the applicant that her application was denied. The letter stated, in relevant part, that the specific basis for denial was: . . . Submission of fraudulent or inaccurate information to the agency. The fire safety inspection report submitted with the application package was altered to indicate approval for five residents when the fire marshal's office had only approved three residents. The local fire marshal's office has verified that the original approval was for three residents because Ms. Lawton did not want to install a manual alarm system which is required for four or five residents. Submission of fraudulent or inaccurate information to the agency is grounds for denial of the AFCH application, s. 400.619(11)(e),F.S. On April 2, 1996, the applicant obtained a fire inspection report from the City of Deland Fire Department (the "Fire Department"). The fire inspection report limited the maximum capacity of the facility to three residents because the applicant did not have the manual alarm system required for four or five residents and did not wish to install such a system. The applicant altered the fire inspection report that she submitted with her application. She changed the number "3" to a "5" so that the fire inspection report appeared to approve the facility for a maximum capacity of five residents. As part of its review of the application, Respondent attempted to verify the fire inspection report included in the application by calling the Fire Department. When the Fire Department did not verify that the maximum capacity was five residents, Respondent obtained a copy of the original fire inspection report from the Fire Department. On March 22, 1996, the applicant obtained a zoning approval from the City of DeLand stating that the maximum capacity of the facility is three residents. The applicant added the phrase "to 5" after the number "3" in the zoning approval so that the zoning approval authorized a maximum capacity of "3 to 5" residents. On June 3, 1996, the applicant submitted the HRS Form to Respondent. The applicant amended the portion of the HRS Form requiring a designation of capacity for facilities with six or fewer residents as well as that for facilities with 7-14 residents. The latter category does not apply to Petitioner. The applicant did not submit fraudulent information to Respondent. The applicant did not intend to defraud Respondent. She misunderstood the application process. The facility has space for only three residents. It is physically impossible to house more than three residents in the facility. The applicant would have gained nothing from an authorized capacity of more than three residents. The applicant's refusal to add the manual alarm system required for four or five residents is consistent with the facility's limit of three residents. The applicant assumed that Respondent's minimum license category is for a license of 1-5 residents. The applicant altered the HRS Form, the zoning approval, and the fire inspection report under the mistaken belief that the capacity designation in each document should conform to the maximum capacity in Respondent's license category. In the HRS Form, the applicant even altered the licensed capacity for facilities with 7-14 residents. The applicant mistakenly submitted inaccurate information to Respondent within the meaning of Section 400.619(11)(e), Florida Statutes.1 The maximum licensed capacity of the facility must be consistent with fire safety requirements for the welfare of the residents. The licensed capacity of the facility must also conform to applicable zoning laws.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order and thereinGRANT a license to operate an AFCH for three residents. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of February, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 February, 1997.
The Issue This is a license discipline proceeding in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the licenses of two public lodging establishments and against an individual alleged to have operated a public lodging establishment without a license, on the basis of allegations set forth in three separate Administrative Complaints.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the Respondent Fountain View Hotel (Fountain View) was a public lodging establishment, license number 60-00163-H, located at 5617 44th Street, West Palm Beach, Florida. Lawrence Joseph Vavala (Inspector Vavala) was at all material times employed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, as a Sanitation and Safety Specialist (Inspector). Catherine Driscoll (Supervisor Driscoll) was at all material times employed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants, as a Sanitation and Safety Supervisor. On April 17, 2000, Inspector Vavala inspected the Fountain View and found numerous violations of public lodging service rules, all of which he marked on his lodging service inspection report of April 17, 2000. On April 17, 2000, when Inspector Vavala performed an inspection on Fountain View, he observed that the smoke detectors were inoperable in Apartments 3 and 4 in the front building. This violation is a critical violation because it endangers the life and safety of individuals living in the public lodging establishment. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection of the premises, Inspector Vavala observed that there were no portable fire extinguishers installed in the back building on either landing on either floor. Further, there was no fire extinguisher on the first floor, bottom landing, in the front building. In public lodging establishments, fire extinguishers are required to be within 75 feet of potential fire hazards. There was a fire extinguisher in the hallway on the second floor, but it had not been inspected since September 1994. Fire extinguishers are required to be inspected annually. These violations are critical in that they endanger the lives and safety of individuals residing in the public lodging establishment. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection of the premises, Inspector Vavala observed evidence of rodent droppings in the water heater room on the south side of the building and cockroaches in the kitchen cabinets of Apartment 4. These are critical violations in that disease is spread in this manner which endangers the health and safety of individuals residing in the public lodging establishment. During his inspection of the premises, Inspector Vavala observed electrical wiring in disrepair in Apartments 3 and 4. Wires were hung through a window out to the back porch, simply hanging by cord and socket. These are critical violations in that someone could be injured by the wiring. Further, in being exposed to the outside elements, it could cause shortage and fire. These are critical violations in that they endanger the safety and lives of individuals residing in the public lodging establishment. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection of the premises, Inspector Vavala observed that the cooking stove was inoperable in Apartment 4 and the air conditioning units were inoperable in Apartments 3 and 4. This is a critical violation because tenants may bring in propane or charcoal stoves to prepare food which would be a fire hazard and could endanger the safety and lives of individuals residing in the public lodging establishment. Inspector Vavala also observed that the air conditioning units were inoperable in Apartments 3 and 4. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection of the premises, Inspector Vavala observed the locks were inoperable on the kitchen door to the outside stairway in Apartment 3. This is a critical violation in that if the door could not be locked, an intruder could enter the premises and take property or physically harm an individual inside the apartment. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection of the premises, Inspector Vavala observed a broken window at the front door of the front apartment; the ceiling on top of the stairwell in the front of the building had a hole through the roof; a hole was in the stucco on the west side of the front building; a window was in disrepair on the west side of the front building; windows were boarded up on the west side of the building; stucco was missing on the south side of the front building; a window was broken on the lower floor of the front building on the south side; a window was in disrepair, and one window was broken on the lower floor of the front building on the east side; stucco was cracked on the north side of the exterior wall of the back building; the door frame was rotting at Apartment 6 in the back building; a window was broken on the north side of the back building at Apartment 6; there were holes in the wall and ceiling of the water heater room on the south side of the back building; a window was broken on the south side of the back building on the second floor; and the cross face on the west side of the front building and on the east side of the front building was not enclosed. Further, he observed excessive debris outside apartments around the building, a broken soda machine on the north side of the back building was falling over, and the refrigeration units in it could contaminate the ground water; he observed a rusting LP gas tank from a barbecue which, when left outside, will rust through the tank and release the gas in the air, which would endanger the health and welfare of persons in the area; there were cars lying around and the oil from those could contaminate the ground water. On April 17, 2000, in Apartment 4, Inspector Vavala observed kitchen cabinets in disrepair; tile was chipped, broken, and missing on the kitchen floor; there was a hole in the wall of the living area; the window operating assembly was in disrepair allowing the windows to either remain in a stuck open or stuck closed position; the clamps no longer worked on the window; the wood framing around a window air conditioner was rotting and had a hole below it; the plaster was cracked and chipping in the bathroom; there was a hole in the wall above the tub in the shower stall; a hole was in the wall behind the toilet in the bathroom; and the carpet was stained and unclean in the living area. The poor condition of the kitchen cabinets, the holes in the wall of the living room and bathroom, and the broken, chipped and missing tile could harbor rodents and bugs and nesting vermin. The rotting frame and hole in the wall underneath could allow the air conditioner, which was located on the second floor, to fall and endanger lives of persons beneath the window. Further, the hole in the wall allowed pests and vermin to enter the apartment. The window operating assembly which would not allow the windows to open was dangerous should there be a fire or other disaster blocking other exits to the apartment. The window operating assembly, which would not allow the windows to close, allows the outside elements to enter the apartment during inclement weather causing further deterioration to the apartments and personal belongings of tenants. The cracked and chipped plaster in the bathroom would not allow adequate cleaning which contributes to poor sanitation. The dirty carpet in the living area could be harboring insects, mold and mildew. The violations observed in Apartment 4 affect the health and safety of its tenants. On April 17, 2000, in Apartment 3, Inspector Vavala observed the ceiling stained in the back bedroom, reflecting leaking water damage; the ceiling plaster cracked in the back bedroom; broken and missing tiles in the kitchen, exposing plywood; kitchen cabinets that were in disrepair; an inoperative assembly in a shower stall window; all the window operating assemblies in the middle bedroom in disrepair; a closet door in disrepair in the middle bedroom; a sink was falling off the wall in the bathroom; there was a hole in the wall under the toilet in the bathroom; and backflow prevention was not provided on exterior hose bins. The violations observed in Apartment 4 endangered the health and safety of its tenants. On April 17, 2000, Inspector Vavala observed that the establishment was operating without a new license in 1998, 1999, and 2000. On May 2, 2000, an Administrative Complaint was issued against the Respondent Fountain View Hotel which was docketed as Case No. 2-00-185 before the Division of Hotels and Restaurants, and as Case No. 00-2949 before the Division of Administrative Hearings. On April 8, 1999, one year prior to the violations enumerated in paragraphs 5 through 15 above, Supervisor Driscoll and Inspector Paul Landmann, inspected the same Fountain View Hotel described above. Numerous violations observed during the April 8, 1999, inspection were still not corrected on April 17, 2000. On February 23, 2000, Supervisor Driscoll made a follow-up inspection of the same Fountain View and found numerous violations of public lodging service rules, all of which she marked on the lodging service inspection report of February 23, 2000. On April 8, 1999, the Petitioner issued an Administrative Complaint against Respondent Joseph Sansalone d/b/a Fountain View Hotel (Sansalone) which was docketed as Case No. 2-99-79 before the Division of Hotels and Restaurants, and as Case No. 00-3040 before the Division of Administrative Hearings. At all times material hereto, Respondent Lamplighter Hotel & Apartments (Lamplighter) was a public lodging establishment, license number 60-00167-H, located at 433 40th Street, West Palm Beach, Florida. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection of the Lamplighter, Inspector Vavala, observed that there were no fire extinguishers located anywhere on the premises. This violation is a critical violation because it endangers the life and safety of individuals living in the public lodging establishment. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection of the Lamplighter, Inspector Vavala observed rodent droppings in an upstairs apartment in the back building and in the storage shed adjacent to the back building. This is a critical violation in that disease is spread in this manner which endangers the health and safety of individuals residing in the public lodging establishment. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection of the Lamplighter, Inspector Vavala observed that there was no cover on the wall socket at the top of the stairs in the front building, and that cover plates were missing on the electrical sockets on the outside receptacle on the outside of the front area. This violation is critical because the health and safety of children are endangered because children could stick their fingers in the outlets and be electrocuted. Further Inspector Vavala observed a soda machine plugged into an outlet on the outside which was exposed to the elements, which could also be a potential danger to the health and welfare of persons in the vicinity. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection of the Lamplighter, Inspector Vavala observed that the stairway in the rear of the building and the back building on the east side was in disrepair. These are critical violations because it would not be safe to evacuate the rear building from the stairwells, in case of fire or other emergency. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection of the Lamplighter, Inspector Vavala observed windows broken on the first and second floors of the front building on the south side; broken windows on the first and second floor of the front building on the east side; a broken window on the lower floor of the front building on the north side; a broken window on the door to the downstairs apartment in the back building; and a broken window on the east side of the back building on the second floor. These are violations because there is sharp glass exposed and no protection from the outside against vermin or the elements. He also observed stucco falling off the exterior wall of the front building on the north side; doors falling off the storage shed at the back of the building, adjacent to the living establishment, which harbored vermin; and a hole in the roof of the storage shed attached to the back of the building. The crawl space under the front building on the south side and under the front building on the north side was not enclosed; screens were ripped on the north side of the front building on the first floor and on the west side of the front building, which would allow insects to enter the establishment. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection, Inspector Vavala observed a second floor hurricane shutter broken in the down position. This broken shutter would not allow evacuation through the window in case of fire or other emergency. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection, Inspector Vavala observed a door missing at the upstairs apartment on the back building, and the ceiling was falling in the kitchen and family room in an upstairs back apartment. The apartment appeared to be unoccupied; however, it would endanger the health and welfare of the tenants if it was occupied. Further, the missing door would allow children playing in the area to enter the apartment where the ceiling is falling, which could result in serious injury to a child. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection, Inspector Vavala observed an excessive amount of debris in and around the premises, including a refrigerator in an unused condition that still had the door attached which could be a hazard to children that lived in the establishment. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection, Inspector Vavala observed inoperable kitchen appliances located in the upstairs back building. These are critical violations because individuals may bring in propane or charcoal stoves to prepare food which would be a fire hazard and could endanger the safety and lives of individuals residing in the public lodging establishment. On April 17, 2000, during his inspection, Inspector Vavala observed that lighting was not provided in the hallway staircase in the front building. This is a critical violation because the unlighted area endangers the health and safety of tenants of the establishment. On April 17, 2000, Inspector Vavala also observed that the establishment was operating without a new license in 1998, 1999, and 2000. On May 2, 2000, the Division issued an Administrative Complaint against Respondent, Lamplighter Hotel & Apartments, which was docketed as Case No. 2-00-186 before the Division of Hotels and Restaurants, and as Case No. 00-2950 before the Division of Administrative Hearings. The Lamplighter Hotel & Apartments, located at 433 40th Street, West Palm Beach, Florida, and the Fountain View Hotel, located at 516 44th Street, West Palm Beach, Florida, are owned by Americorp Mortgage Co., Inc., whose president is Joseph D. Sansalone.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Division of Hotels and Restaurants issue a final order to the following effect: Concluding that the Respondent Fountain View Hotel is guilty of the violations observed during the inspection of its premises on April 17, 2000, as described in the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and imposing a penalty on the Respondent Fountain View Hotel consisting of an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000.00 and the revocation of its license. Concluding that the Respondent Lamplighter Hotel & Apartments is guilty of the violations observed during the inspection of its premises on April 17, 2000, as described in the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and imposing a penalty on the Respondent Lamplighter Hotel & Apartments consisting of an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000.00 and the revocation of its license. Concluding that the Respondent Joseph Sansalone is guilty of operating a public lodging establishment at the premises of the Fountain View Hotel during April of 1999 without a then-current license for that establishment, and imposing a penalty on the Respondent Joseph Sansalone consisting of an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of January, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of January, 2001.
