The Issue Whether the Respondent's decision to deny the Petitioner's application for a renewal license for a home health agency on the basis of Section 400.471(10), Florida Statutes (2009),1 constitutes an agency statement of general applicability that has not been adopted as a rule pursuant to Section 120.54, Florida Statutes, and, therefore, violates Section 120.54(1)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based on the entire record of this proceeding, the following facts are undisputed and found to be true: My Friend Home Care submitted its application to renew its home health license on or about November 7, 2009. On January 11, 2010, AHCA issued a Notice of Intent to Deny My Friend Home Care's application for a renewal license pursuant to Section 400.471(10)(d), Florida Statutes, which became effective on July 1, 2009. Section 400.471(10), Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part: The agency may not issue a renewal license for a home health agency in any county having at least one licensed home health agency and that has more than one home health agency per 5,000 persons, as indicated by the most recent population estimates published by the Legislature's Office of Economic and Demographic Research, if the applicant or any controlling interest has been administratively sanctioned by the agency during the 2 years prior to the submission of the licensure renewal application for one or more of the following acts: * * * (d) Failing to provide at least one service directly to a patient for a period of 60 days. On May 13, 2009, a Final Order was entered by AHCA finding that My Friend Home Care failed ensure that at least one service was directly provided to a patient in a 60-day period. An administrative fine of $1,000.00 was assessed against My Friend Home Care, which paid the fine. My Friend Home Care operates a home health agency in Miami, Florida, and is subject to the provisions of Section 400.471, Florida Statutes.
The Issue The issue is the consideration of the validity of proposed Rule 10-5.11(14), Florida Administrative Code.
The Issue The ultimate issue is whether the application of Home Care Associates for a Certificate of Need to establish a Medicare-certified home health agency in Okaloosa and Walton Counties should be granted. The principal factual issue is whether there is a need for an additional agency and the principal legal issue is what criteria for need should be applied. The statutory criteria for determining need is Section 381.705, Florida Statutes. In this proceeding, the Petitioner showed its entitlement to a CON using the statutory criteria set out in Section 381.705, Florida Statutes. GENERAL STATEMENT Proposed Findings of Fact were filed by the Petitioner and the Intervenors. The Respondent adopted and incorporated the Intervenor's Proposed Findings of Fact adding to the Intervenor's findings its own proposed findings numbered 1 through 20. Proposed findings submitted by the parties are addressed in an Appendix hereto.
Findings Of Fact All home health care agencies in the State of Florida must be licensed and those home health care agencies which want to participate in the Medicare program must also obtain a Certificate of Need (CON). Medicare is a federally funded health program for the elderly and certain disabled persons. Medicare provides reimbursement only for the following part-time and intermittent home care: skilled nursing, physical therapy, speech therapy, home health aide, and medical social services. Medicare does not reimburse for custodial care or 24-hour-a-day care (adult congregate living facilities or nursing homes) or acute care services (hospitals). In order for a provider of Medicare home services to be reimbursed, the provider must have a CON and serve Medicare-eligible persons who: (a) are referred by order of a physician, (b) are home bound, (c) require skilled care, and (d) require skilled services only on a part-time basis. The patient must have rehabilitative potential and need skilled home care for Medicare to reimburse for home care. The overall goal of Medicare home health services is to have the patient functioning at his/her optimum level using rehabilitative services and having registered nurses and other skilled professionals to instruct the family and patient in rendering patient care. Medicaid provides reimbursement to providers only for skilled nursing services and home health aide services to patients who meet strict income and asset limitations. No reimbursement is provided for any other services. Medicaid has maximums or caps on reimbursement for services rendered under the program, and will pay for the services rendered up to the amount of the caps which are based upon allowable patient care costs. Medicaid reimburses only a fixed amount established by HRS for a specific service. Respondent, HRS, is the state agency responsible for administering the State Health Planning Act pursuant to Sections 381.701 through 381.715, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner, Home Care Associates of Northwest Florida, Inc. (Home Care), is a Florida corporation owned by Marck Ehrman, M.D., Warren A. Phillips, Dennis L. Sauls, Ronald O. White, and Steven P. Espy. Dr. Ehrman is a practicing hematologist/oncologist in Ft. Walton Beach, Florida. Home Care filed a Letter of Intent on October 8, 1986 and on December 15, 1986, it actually filed a CON application for a Medicare-certified home health agency to be established in Okaloosa and Walton Counties in the State of Florida. These counties are in Subdistrict IB of HRS District I which is composed of four counties. This application was identified by HRS as CON Action No. 4911. Okaloosa and Walton Counties are an appropriate service area for Home Care. Home Care's application was placed in the December 15, 1986 batching cycle by HRS, which preliminarily denied the application. There were no other applications for a Medicare- certified home health agency in Okaloosa and Walton Counties filed in said batching cycle with which Home Care's application could be comparatively reviewed. HRS published notice of its denial in 13 FAW 1806 (May 8, 1987). Home Care timely requested an administrative hearing by petition filed with HRS on May 11, 1987. Choctaw filed a timely Petition to Intervene on August 14, 1987, and Northwest filed its Petition to Intervene on August 28, 1987. Both petitions were filed more than one month before the scheduled final hearing, and Choctaw was granted standing to intervene by Order of the Hearing Officer dated August 20, 1987, and Northwest was granted standing to intervene by Order of the Hearing Officer dated September 4, 1987. Both Intervenors were determined to be existing providers of Medicare home health services in the geographic area for which Petitioner had applied for a CON. The basis for the denial of the Petitioner' application for Certificate of Need was based upon the Respondent's determination that: There was no need demonstrated by Home Care Associates of Northwest Florida for an additional home health agency to serve the residents of Okaloosa and Walton Counties. Marta V. Hardy was the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Regulation and Health Facilities, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, from September 1984 through June 1987. Ms. Hardy was responsible for home health agency policy and was the ultimate decision maker with regard to the preliminary denial of the instant Certificate of Need. (Petitioner's PFF paragraph 19) 1/ In the Fall of 1984, Respondent attempted to promulgate a proposed rule on home health care facilities to replace a rule on need which had been invalidated in an earlier rule challenge proceeding. This proposed rule was invalidated in 1985 because it was based on a use rate methodology which contained arbitrary criteria. On May 15, 1986, in response to invalidation of the proposed rule, Bob Sharp, administrator of Comprehensive Health Plans for the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, published an interim policy by memorandum which was used to review applications for CON's for home health agencies. This interim policy utilized a variation of the previously invalidated rule but attempted to correct criticisms which had resulted in the invalidation of the proposed rule. The Sharp memorandum was a public document and interested persons were aware of this memorandum and the policies expressed therein. The interim policy promulgated by Sharp was applied to home health agency applications beginning with the first batching cycle in 1986. The interim policy used a use rate/population methodology which projected the number of Medicare enrollees using home health services. The projected number of users was multiplied by the average number of visits per Medicaid home health user. Under the interim policy the total number of visits was divided by 9,000 to determine the gross number of agencies needed. Nine thousand visits was deemed by agency planners to constitute a large enough use base to sustain a home health agency based on the agency's assessment of the economies of scale of home health operations. The total number of licensed and approved agencies was subtracted from the gross number of agencies needed to yield the number of new agencies which could be approved. The interim policy provided that new agencies would be phased in over a three year period and resulted in the approval of 23 Certificates of Need between May 15, 1986 and December 1986. This interim policy was defended by the Respondent before the First District Court of Appeal in December 1986. During the Summer 1986, representatives of the Florida Association of Home Health Agencies (FAHHA) complained to the Governor's Office about the interim policy, contending that the interim policy put too many home health agencies in the field. As a result of FAHHA's complaints, meetings were held between members of the Governor's staff and representatives of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services to include Marta V. Hardy. As a result of these meetings, the Department abandoned its interim policy. Ms. Hardy was instructed that additional applications for home health agencies would have to be approved by her superiors. Medical or financial factors did not change during this period, which would warrant a change in policy. The Department changed its policy but did not publish any document rescinding Sharp's Memorandum. No notice was given to the public that the change in policy had occurred until after the second batching cycle of 1986, the one which contained the Petitioner's CON. Similarly, the Department did not notify the public that there was a need for additional services or agencies. Marta Hardy had instructed her staff not to issue any more home health agency CON's until a new methodology had been developed. The applicants were informed that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services had changed its interim policy and there was no numerical need methodology. Applicants were asked for an unlimited extension of time within which the Department could render a decision on their applications. In the absence of a rule on need, the Department required the applicants who refused to agree to an extension of time to demonstrate an unmet need based upon the broad statutory criteria found in Chapter 381, Florida Statutes. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services characterizes the procedure above as a free form action utilizing the statutory criteria found in Section 381.705, Florida Statutes. Using the free form procedure, one home health agency CON was granted in a county in which no existing service was being provided. The three existing Medicare-certified home health agencies in Subdistrict IB are: Northwest, Choctaw, and Okaloosa County Health Department (OCHD). OCHD is the home health agency of last resort for chronically ill patients in Okaloosa County. It renders services to those patients who would not be treated otherwise. It conducts few Medicare visits: 363 in 1985-86 and 225 Medicare visits in 1986-87. OCHD's costs to provide a home visit are high and the number of visits per patient is low. While rendering all classes of home health care, its services are limited, slow, and not competitive with the private agency in the County. It lacks the ability to perform high tech home care. Its program, which is directed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, is placing its current emphasis on maternal-child health. When OCHD is eliminated as a competitive element, Northwest is the only provider of Medicare-certified home health services in Okaloosa County and Choctaw is the only provider of medicare-certified home health care in Walton County. The market share of Northwest in Okaloosa County is 92 percent. It has provided home health services in Okaloosa County for nine years. Choctaw currently has a 100 percent market share in Walton County and has been the sole provider of home health services for over ten years. There are no alternative home health care providers in Walton County. Choctaw and Northwest provide all basic home health care services in their respective service areas. Neither Choctaw nor Northwest had provided technically innovative home health care services until the last few months when they added certain basic types of high tech care, such as infusion pumps. To the extent there has been an increase in the availability of such services, it appears to be a competitive response to the pending application of the Petitioner. The skills and services currently available in Walton and Okaloosa Counties in the area of home health are not state-of-the-art home health services which Home Care states it will provide. Home health agencies first must develop the capacity to provide sophisticated patient evaluation and high tech services if physicians are going to depend on and use these services when planning out-patient care. Petitioner is a durable medical equipment ("DME") company. This company has brought new technology to the Ft. Walton Beach area to include oxygen services, pulmonary rehabilitation, home dialysis, parenteral nutrition and hydration. A related company provides private duty nursing care to non- Medicare and non-Medicaid patients currently. Dr. Ehrman is also involved in Home Care Professionals. Home Care Professionals, a non-Medicare provider of home health care services and durable medical equipment, was developed to meet the needs of home care patients whose needs were not being met by current providers. Dr. Ehrman is already using computers to assist in the transmission of data from the patient's location to the doctor's location and to transmit and receive the results of lab tests. He plans and has allocated money to computerize Home Care. This will cut down on delays in transmitting and receiving information. Lab results and other patient information will be computerized. Dr. Ehrman plans to rigorously select his staff and provide to them in-service training in new procedures and high tech home health care. Home Care's nurses will be better trained than current providers' nurses. Home Care will assign a patient to one nurse. The Petitioner, Home Care, will provide a new, competitive alternative to the existing agencies which will provide incentive for all the agencies to improve their services and the quality of their care. Choctaw and Northwest staff their cases geographically east and west. Choctaw refers patients in the south end of Walton County to Northwest, and Northwest refers patients in the northern part of Okaloosa County to Choctaw. This practice, which is a technical violation of their DHRS licensing by county, is dictated by the geography of the service area and the natural and man-made obstacles, including Choctawhatchee Bay, I-10, and Eglin Air Force Base, which create geographical divisions which span both counties east and west while the counties run north and south. The largest and most rapidly growing population areas are in the southern portions of both counties. This is where the major acute care hospitals are located. The remaining population in these counties tends to be along the I-10/U.S 90 corridor where smaller hospitals are located. Patients which cannot be treated in these smaller hospitals have been referred historically to facilities and physicians in Pensacola, although this is changing as more patients are being sent to facilities and physicians in Ft. Walton Beach. Approval of this application is consistent with the boundaries of the subdistrict, will enhance competition encouraging the other providers to upgrade their services, and will tend to orient care along a north-south axis. The Petitioner would be he only provider licensed to serve both Walton and Okaloosa Counties which would be advantageous because it could legally staff on an east- west axis and avoid the problems created by the geographic division of Subdistrict IB. In determining the need for home health agencies in Subdistrict IB, a two year planning horizon was used. A two year planning horizon is reasonable. Two years from the Petitioner's filing date would be December 1988. Data for the periods ending July 1988 and January 1989 were used because the official population projections from the Governor's Office focus on July and January of each year. The two projected dates bracket December 1988, two years from the filing date. The population of elderly (65 and over) for Subdistrict IB is projected to be 16,868 for January 1988 and 17,350 for January 1989. The Medicare use rate the number of Medicare home health visits per elderly person in Florida for 1984 was multiplied by the projected elderly population to arrive at a projected number of visits. The number of visits projected to occur in July 1988 was 31,976, and 32,889 visits were projected for January 1989. An average of the two projections was used to estimate the number of projected visits in December 1988. Dr. Kolb, an expert in health planning, researched the optimal size of an agency. She determined that once an agency's visits reach the range of 6,000 to 9,000, economies of scale are achieved in which the fixed costs are spread sufficiently among all visits to make operations viable, and that once this scale of operations is reached, costs per visit become relatively static or are affected more by other factors. Her findings in this regard are consistent with the conclusions reached by HRS in adopting virtually the same criteria in the Sharp policy which it used to evaluate need in the first half of 1986. See Paragraph 15 above. The optimum size for an agency is riot wholly dependent upon ratio of costs per visit, but it is that size which keeps costs low, fosters healthy competition, sustains the quality and availability of service, encourages innovation, and meets the other statutory objectives. To determine the number of agencies needed, the projected number of visits was divided by 9,000, the optimal number of visits per agency, which showed a need for 3.6 agencies. Rounding up, this calculation shows a total need for four (4) agencies in the subdistrict in December 1988. There are three licensed and approved home health care agencies in Subdistrict IB. Subtracted from the four agencies needed in December 1988, one additional agency could be added. The addition of Home Care to the home health market will not significantly affect existing providers. Home Care projects it will deliver 3,800 visits in its first year of operation and 7,000 visits in its second year. A large percentage of those visits are attributable to population growth alone. If the state home health use rate of 1.9 is applied to the 4,588 population growth expected by 1990, an additional 8,717 home health visits will be generated. That growth alone will meet the volume of visits projected by Home Care. Home Care will do new procedures and will educate existing providers and physicians to the availability and desirability of using new services provided by Home Care. This will cause an increase in the local use rate. Approval of Home Care's application will increase the overall market for home health services. Dr. Ehrman is a highly trained and experienced physician. Dr. Ehrman has been instrumental in improving the nature and delivery of health care in his medical specialty and community. He has improved the way blood smears are done at the hospital lab and improved the administration of blood bank at the local hospital. He has organized and taught nurses about chemotherapy and developed a tumor board. He helped get radiological procedures improved. Dr. Ehrman has developed new and innovative practices in his office and has assisted patients in obtaining appropriate Medicare reimbursement for services and drugs. Northwest adduced evidence that it operates very close to its Medicare cost caps; however, Northwest pays out much of its revenue to related organizations in the form of management, consulting, and computer fees. For example, in the 1986 cost reporting period, Northwest paid $17,783 to related organizations. In 1985-86, Northwest provided 2,818 home health aide visits at a cost of $19.29 pea visit. In 1986-87, Northwest paid $76,849 to related organizations with shared members of their boards. Northwest provided 3,406 home health aide visits in 1986-87 at a cost of $28.95 per visit. These related organizations are for-profit entities. Open-ended management and administrative contracts with related organizations allow management to add expenses in order to reach the cost caps each year. If management and administrative fees were backed out of Northwest's "costs," it would be well below its cost caps. As Northwest's visits have increased, administrative, general, and other expenses also have increased (1985-86: $91,708; 1986-87: $198,635). However, the direct costs associated with providing the nursing care for those visits have decreased (1985-86: $89,281; 1986-87: $81,71). Thus, the increase in visits did not result in any overall cost- efficiencies or savings, but in an increase in money paid out as administrative expenses. There is no relationship between number of visits and cost per visit once an agency is beyond the volume needed to cover its minimal operating costs. An increase in number of visits does not necessarily result in lower costs per visit. An analysis of hospital utilization by Medicare reveals that the rate of use in District I is higher than both the Florida and national average. Analysis of the local nursing home use rate reveals it is 68 percent higher than the statewide nursing home use rate. This is in spite of the fact that Walton and Okaloosa Counties have more nursing home beds than other areas of the State and the beds in these counties are at 95 percent occupancy. Analysis of the home health use rate for Walton and Okaloosa Counties reveals that it is approximately 40 percent lower than the statewide use rate. Many nursing home placements and hospital admissions could be avoided if appropriate home health care were available and utilized. For example, a home health service could start antibiotics in the nursing home for patients who had received the medication before, rather than admit the patient to the hospital to start the treatment as is currently done. The proposed agency will not decrease the number of visits by existing agencies because of (1) the increase in population, (2) the shifts to home health care from acute care facilities and nursing homes, and (3) the increase in the types of home health care available. The application contains Home Care's projection of income and expenses for the first two years of operation. See Figure 7, Page 22 of the application. Evaluation of costs for a two year period shows that they are reasonable. The assumptions about payor mix, utilization projections, gross charges per visit type, salaries, inflation, depreciation, marketing, advertising, administrative expenses, bad debts/charity, travel expenses, depreciation, costs of medical supplies, and gross revenues made in the feasibility study were reasonable. The projections of revenue from visits and from medical supplies are reasonable and their sum constitutes gross revenue. Deductions for contractual allowances and bad debt/charity are reasonable and when deducted from gross revenue they determine net revenue. Dr. Kolb, an expert in health planning, supervised the preparation of the financial feasibility projections contained in the application. The methodology used by Dr. Kolb was reasonable, appropriate, and supported by the facts. Dr. Kolb conservatively estimated reimbursement to arrive at contractual allowances. Subsequent to her preparation of the pro forma and the filing of the application, the Legislature increased by 100 percent the amount Medicaid reimburses for home health services. Medicare has also subsequently increased its cost services. This increases the range of reimbursement available to the Petitioner and makes Dr. Kolb's predictions of financial success more viable. The amount of $22,600 is reasonable for the cost of this project. Equipment costs of $7,600 include office equipment and the lease- purchase of a computer terminal. The computer will be used for billing and for tracking patient problems. The depreciation expense is derived from an assumption of five years' depreciation on $7,600 worth of office equipment, When deductions from revenue are subtracted from gross revenue, net revenue is approximately $284,700 in the second year. Home Care has the capital to fund this project. Individual expenses on the expense column on the pro forma include salaries, contract services, administrative expenses, transportation, marketing and advertising, medical supplies, and depreciation. Administrative salaries and benefits are based on the assumption that in the first year there will be three administrative full time equivalents ("FTE"): an administrator, a nurse supervisor, and a clerical person. In the second year, this will increase to three and a half FTE's. The salaries for these positions in year two are $28,350 for the administrator, $22,050 for the nurse supervisor, and $28,800 for one and a half clerical personnel. In addition, an 18 percent fringe benefit figure is computed. Salary assumptions are based on area wage levels. Both the salary assumptions and the number of FTE's and salaries are reasonable. A breakdown of total per visit costs is depicted on HCA X-26. The expenses for contract visits represent the cost per visit in each of the listed categories. The contract rates in year one are: home health aide - $8.25; speech pathologist - $30.00; medical/social worker - $25.00; occupational therapist - $30.00; skilled nurse - $13.75; and physical therapist - $30.00. Medical supplies are assumed to be $1.00 per visit in the rest year and are inflated by 5 percent in the second year. This assumption is reasonable. Although not required, Petitioner has allocated funds for advertising and marketing which are not allowable expenses in computing reimbursable expenses; however, this will help in informing the public and medical professionals about the availability of home health services. The transportation expense is based on $.21 per mile which is reimbursed to employees. This is a reasonable assumption. Administrative expenses include rent ($12,000), telephone ($4,800), insurance ($5,000), postage ($2,000), office supplies ($3,000), legal and accounting fees ($4,000), dues ($500) , and licenses ($500). Most expense items are inflated 5 percent for the second year. The expense and inflation assumptions are reasonable. In order to test the reasonableness of the assumptions contained in the pro forma, Dr. Kolb compared the projected costs in the second year to Medicare cost limitations. Home Care's projections are 28 percent below the Medicare cost limits for 1987. Home Care could have $78,000 more in expense and still be below its Medicare cost limits. In both his private office practice and in his DME company, Dr. Ehrman tries to ensure that underserved groups receive medical services. Although there is a large medically indigent population in the area Dr. Ehrman serves, he does no financial screening in his office. Dr. Ehrman is a participating provider in Medicare. This means that he has agreed in advance to accept Medicare assignment for his services. Dr. Ehrman is also a Medicaid provider. Three to five percent of his patients are Medicaid. The assumption that Home Care will have the same financial policies which are reflected in Dr. Ehrman's practice is reasonable. The assumption that Home Care will provide three percent Medicaid and three percent indigent home health visits is reasonable. Home Care's project is financially feasible on both an immediate and long term basis.
Recommendation Having determined, based upon the facts adduced at hearing, that there is a need for another home health care agency and that the applicant meets the statutory criteria, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services approve Certificate of Need Number 4911. DONE and ORDERED this 1st day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 1st day of July, 1988.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as the parties' stipulated facts, the following facts relevant to this rule-challenge proceeding are found: Upjohn operates a number of home health agencies throughout the State of Florida, as well as in other states. Prior to 1975, a patient served by a proprietary home health agency could not obtain reimbursement under the Medicare program. Such agencies were not able to obtain a Medicare "provider number" unless they were licensed under State law. In 1975, the Legislature enacted the Home Health Services Act, Chapter 400, Part III, Florida Statutes, providing for the licensure of proprietary home health agencies. On July 1, 1977, the "establishment of a new home health agency" became one of the projects subject to Certificate of Need review. HRS's rules pertaining to Certificate of Need review were amended in October of 1977, to include the "establishment of a new home health agency or a new subunit of an agency" as projects subject to review. During the rule adoption process, HRS specifically considered the suggestion that expansions of service areas by existing home health agencies without new facilities be subject to Certificate of Need review. This suggestion was rejected on the belief that such a requirement was not statutorily authorized. Prior to 1982, officials within the Office of Community Medical Facilities (OCMF), the office responsible for the Certificate of Need program, generally took the position that the mere geographical expansion of services by an existing certificated and licensed home health agency did not require further Certificate of Need review as long as additional physical facilities were not contemplated. The Office of Licensure and Certification (OLC) did, on occasion, require home health agencies to build new offices if it was found that an agency was geographically overextending itself in terms of appropriate supervision or quality of care concerns. In January of 1980, the Director of the OLC took the position that petitioner's licensed Marion County home health agency could not provide services to Citrus County residents without applying for and obtaining a Certificate of Need, and thereafter having its license extended to operate in Citrus County. In September of 1981, Upjohn was informed by the OCMF that a Certificate of Need was not required for the provision of home health services from its Jacksonville, Duval County, office to patients residing in Nassau, Baker or St. Johns Counties, as long as subunits or other physical facilities were not opened in those counties. The above four counties were all located within the same health service area. Thereafter, in October of 1981, Upjohn requested advice from the OLC as to whether it could provide services from its Broward County office to patients in Palm Beach County. Noting that it was the understanding of the OLC that a Certificate of Need would be required to authorize any expansion of home health services, the OLC referred Upjohn's request to the OCMF. The matter was thereafter referred to the HRS legal staff. James M. Barclay, an attorney with the Office of Health Planning and Development, issued Legal Opinion 82-2 on the issue of whether a Certificate of Need was required before a home health agency, licensed to operate in certain counties within a health service area, could provide services to additional counties within the same health service area. It was Mr. Barclay's opinion that a licensed home health agency could provide services to additional counties within the same health service area without an additional Certificate of Need. (See Attachment A) Based on this opinion, the OLC informed Upjohn that it could not expand its Broward County services to Palm Beach County without Certificate of Need review since the two counties were located in separate health service areas. The Deputy Assistant Secretary' for Health Planning and Development, Gary J. Clarke, disseminated the Barclay opinion to the directors of the Health Systems Agencies. In his cover letter, dated April 7, 1982, Mr. Clarke noted that "the memorandum clarifies existing law; namely, that a home health agency in one county may offer services in an adjoining county without obtaining a CON." It is further noted that ". . .this office and perhaps many HSAs have proceeded under the mistaken assumption that a CON was required in every case where an existing home health acency desired to provide services in a county it was not pre viously providing services in. . . It appears that the legal result of this question is due to inartful drafting in both the statutes and the rules. Nonetheless, this opinion -- while neither preferable nor what we had assumed to be correct -- appears to accurately state the applicable law.". . . (See Attachment B) Based upon the Barclay opinion and the Clarke cover letter, Upjohn informed its various Florida office managers that its existing home health agencies, though licensed only for a particular county, could deliver services in additional counties within the home health service area without the need for further Certificate of Need review. Subsequent to the Barclay opinion and the Clarke distribution letter, there were changes in the Certificate of Need law, as well as leadership changes within HRS. The former Health Systems Agencies were abolished and replaced with District Councils, local involvement with the Certificate of Need process was virtually eliminated and the "health service areas" were changed to "districts." some with different boundaries. These changes prompted the Director of the OLC, Jay Kassack, to request of the new Deputy Assistant Secretary a clarification of the policy regarding Certificate of Need review for expansion of home health agency service areas. In order to be consistent with regard to home health agencies and to make clearer to HRS officials, applicants and the public how HRS would be applying the statutes and rules, HRS developed a "home health agency review matrix." (See Attachment C). Basically, the review matrix limited geographical expansion of services (without Certificate of Need review) to those counties in which the applicant could demonstrate that the criteria for review had been applied by the appropriate reviewing bodies, either the OCMF or the former local Health Systems Agencies. The matrix was developed in February or March of 1983, and was distributed internally within HRS. Upjohn had several license applications for geographical expansion of services in early 1983. While advised in late March that a "revised ruling" was going into effect, Upjohn had no knowledge of the development of the review matrix. By letter dated April 8, 1983, Upjohn was advised that its license application to expand services from its Pinellas County office to the Counties of Hillsborough, Manatee and Pasco was denied for failure to obtain a Certificate of Need or exemption from review. By "OPLC Policy Letter No. 33-83" dated April 8, 1983, addressed to "All Home Health Agencies" and "Home Health Agency Association," the Director of the OLC, Jay Kassack, gave notice of the OLC position with regard to expansion of services in counties other than those noted on a home health agency license. The addressees were advised that "it is illegal to provide services in any area not covered under your current license." (See Attachment D). This policy letter was written in direct response to the review matrix. It was not until May, 1983, that Upjohn became aware of the existence of the review matrix. By letter dated May 5, 1983, the Medical Facilities Consultant Supervisor, Nathaniel ,Ward, advised counsel for Upjohn that, "we have a matrix which we must apply (Exhibit 1) when determining whether a Certificate of Need is required for expansion into the service area." In reliance upon the Barclay opinion and the Clarke memorandum, Upjohn extended the provision of home health services from its Marion County office into Citrus, Lake and Sumter Counties from and after August, 1982. Prior to August 1, 1983, Upjohn requested the OLC to add to its Marion County home health agency license the Counties of Citrus, Lake and Sumter. This request was denied by the OLC on the ground that Upjohn had failed to obtain a Certificate of Need or exemption from review for those counties. On August 30, 1983, HRS issued an Administrative Complaint seeking to revoke Upjohn's Marion County license, or impose other penalties, on the ground that the Marion County home health agency had been providing home health services in Citrus and/or Lake Counties without a license that lists those counties on its face.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, Herbert A. Licht, was a certified general contractor in the State of Florida under license Nos. CG C011504 and CG CA-175O4. Respondent qualified All Florida Builders, Inc. under license No. CO CO11504 from February, 1978 until September, 1980. He also qualified Perma-Vent Industries of Orlando, Inc. (PVO) and Perma-Vent Industries of Tampa, Inc. (PVT) from inception to the present and was sole qualifier of both. PVT, at all times pertinent hereto was licensed as a home improvement contractor under license H 0000969 having been licensed in March, 1980. Respondent was initially the president and vice president, and a director of PVT as well as owner of one-half the capital stock of the corporation. The business of PVT was to sell and install home improvement products and services in the Tampa area. Similar in operation to PVT was Perma-Vent Industries of Orlando, Inc. (PVO), licensed as a home improvement contractor in December, 1979 under license number AC 0000874. Again Respondent owned one-half the stock in this corporation and initially was the president, vice president, resident agent and a director. Elliott Greenberg was the owner of the other half interest in both PVT and PVO. Elliott Greenberg is not licensed as a contractor by the State of Florida. Perma-Vent Industries, Inc. (PVI) was initially incorporated in mid- 1980, but was not licensed by Respondent until February, 1983 when he secured license number HC 0001282. This company, of which Respondent was, again, president, vice president, registered agent, director and one-half owner, was not qualified by Respondent until after the incidents pertinent to this hearing. At all times pertinent here, Respondent had failed to qualify PVI. Another corporation established by Respondent was Statewide Funding Corporation (Statewide), set up in April, 1980, which operated as a collection agency for the financial paper generated by Respondent's other businesses as described above. Respondent had a relationship to this company identical with that of the others mentioned above. Respondent also operated All Florida Builders, Inc. (AFB) for 18 months from early 1978-1979/80, engaged in the business of selling and installing home improvements. AFB was the predecessor to PVO, but Greenberg had no proprietary interest in it. In addition to his ownership of one-half of the stock in the other corporations mentioned, however, Greenberg was also secretary/treasurer and a director of them all. In the operation of the various businesses by the Respondent and Mr. Greenberg, there was some difference between how PVT and PVO operated and how PVI did. In the former, while Respondent handled the office and financial end of the business Greenberg handled sales and operations. As to the latter, Greenberg had almost total control of all aspects of the business though Respondent's license was used for those activities of the operation which needed it, such as the pulling of permits for particular jobs. In both the PVO and PVT operations, Mr. Greenberg was the overall sales chief who oversaw the phone room canvassers and the street sales force, through managers who answered to him. Installation and construction was also within Greenberg's area of supervision through the "expediter", an individual who assigned the particular jobs and insured the proper materials were on hand. The "installers" or "mechanics", the individuals who actually did the hands-on work, were, in theory, independent contractors who were paid by the job. None of the instant companies maintained payrolls for these people, deducted withholding, or any other deduction called for. While the sales force of PVT was set up and operated exactly as that of PVO, the Tampa company had no expediter or installers. These services were performed for it by PVO's personnel even though the corporations were, theoretically, separate. As to PVI, this was a different situation entirely. PVI's salesmen were independent contractors who, primarily, took orders for work to be done with, normally, materials and labor furnished by PVI. They were free to set their own prices and, as compensation, received the difference between the contract price for the job and the actual cost of labor and materials as charged by PVI. In the event the salesman, as was sometimes done, procured his own installer's, he would pay that individual's salary from his own profit which was the difference of his contract price and the cost of materials. PVI performed collections services on these contracts. Turning to the operations of PVT and PVO, canvassers from the phone room, calling numbers in line from the local phone books, would try to set up appointments for salesmen to subsequently try to sell aluminum siding or home repair. The salesmen were trained using an "Eleven Point Sales Outline" adopted by Mr. Greenberg from a sales brochure used by another similar firm in another part of the country and brought by a former employee of this company. This sales program is typical of a high-pressure sales operation where the facts are often misrepresented or used loosely in order to convince a prospective buyer that he or she is getting special treatment. Once the salesman got the prospective customer/homeowner to sign a contract for some type of service, the contracts were brought to the home office where the Respondent himself, according to his repeated testimony, reviewed every contract entered into by PVT and many entered into by PVO. Once the contract was approved by Respondent a copy was forwarded to the operations section where the expediter, an employee of PVO, actually assigned the work to the workmen who would accomplish it, The expediter also determined how much raw material would be used on the job and insure that it was issued to the workmen and properly costed. Many of the workmen utilized by Respondent's corporations to apply siding or otherwise do home repair work were themselves not licensed, but operated under the Respondent's license as a general contractor. Ordinarily the expediter furnished the workmen with blank letters of authorization, signed by Respondent and on hand in the PVO office, for the purpose of applying for the required permits in appropriate cases. There was some indication that, initially, the workmen were not required to obtain permits for their particular jobs. In fact, one workman, Melvin Nichols, indicated that he was advised by a representative of the Respondent that he need not bother with getting a permit unless there was trouble. Ordinarily, however, the applicators were given signed letters of authorization. This is a perfectly legitimate practice within the construction industry trade in Florida. However, once the job was completed the installer was supposed to obtain from the homeowner a certificate of completion, which he thereafter would turn in to the expediter as one of the pre-conditions for receiving payment for his services. One of the other things the installer had to submit was a breakdown sheet indicating exactly what expenses were incurred by him, including permit fees, if any. Once this was done, someone from whichever of Respondent's companies actually contracted for the work, PVI, PVO, or PVT, would return to the homeowner's residence with typed copies of the already signed, handwritten, agreement and other documents. When he first started in business, Respondent would conform these subsequently typed and executed documents to the date on the original handwritten documents. However, when he determined that this practice was not appropriate he ceased doing it and the typewritten documents were dated as of the date of their signing. As a result, there were often multiple documents covering the same work signed by the parties on different dates, creating a morass of paperwork which to the average customer was often confusing, especially in the situations where the customer could neither read nor write. Initially, when the businesses were first started, the Respondent personally supervised the training of the salesmen and frequently went to the construction site to observe and insure that the work was being done properly. However, as his business expanded Respondent, by his own admission, had less and less time to do this and devoted more and more time to the financing and administrative aspects of the business which were done in the office. However, as will be seen below, Respondent still, on a period basis, personally involved himself in the actual procurement of signatures on mortgages and the other quasi-legal aspects of the operation. In the succeeding paragraphs several case studies will be analyzed individually. It will be possible to see a similar thread of activity, however, throughout the operations. While Respondent claims he was not aware of the day-to-day activities of these three companies, and tries to exculpate himself from any responsibility for the operations of PVI, it is clear this was not so. The evidence clearly shows that the operations of all three companies were tied in together, all operating out of or under the control of the home office, which was at the same location for all three (four if AFB is considered separately) and were established and financed by or through the arrangement of the Respondent, Licht. BROWN Some time during 1979 an individual holding himself out to be a representative of AFB came to the New Smyrna Beach, Florida, home of John H. Brown and his wife, Lilly Mae. This individual suggested that the Brown's should have their home with aluminum siding and also have aluminum soffit and facia installed. During this initial meeting, the AFB representative showed Mr. Brown some photographs of homes on which, he said, his company had applied this same product, and discussed how, if Mr. Brown were to agree, the improvements would be paid for. They discussed the monthly payments for the work and Mr. Brown was convinced to sign some papers relating to the job. He was not specifically told what the papers were, but he was assured his payment would be cheaper than those of other people for whom the same type of work was done. Neither Mr. Brown nor his wife can read or write and he advised the salesman of this fact. He is currently retired after 30 years of work with the Florida East Coast Railroad as a laborer and his sole source of income is his railroad retirement check. The Browns are, however, somewhat familiar with credit and credit financing, since they purchased their home utilizing a mortgage calling for monthly payments, and furnished the home through credit payments with Montgomery Ward. Subsequent to the first meeting, on or about December 27, 1979, Mr. and Mrs. Brown (Mrs. Brown is senile with only sporadic periods of lucidity) signed a retail installment contract with All Florida Builders which provided for that company to install aluminum siding on all four walls of the Browns' home. The price was $4,000.00 which was to be financed over 60 monthly payments of $103.49, each, for a total of $6,209.40. The annual percentage rate on the financing was 18.8 percent and the payments were to be secured by an interest in the Browns' home. Mr. Brown contends he did not know he was signing a contract at that time, and thought he was merely signing an authorization for the work to be done. This contract was not fully filled out at the time it was signed in that the salesman's license number was not contained thereon, nor was the amount financed listed. This contract was never signed by the contractor and the Browns were not furnished a notice of their right to rescind the contract at the time they signed it. The contract also contained a slight overcharge on the financing of the contract; this overcharging was not disclosed as is required by the statute. At no time during the preparation and execution of these documents were the Browns advised of the nature or content of the documents they were signing. In that connection, the salesman in question here was Ron Greenberg, who is, coincidently, the brother of Elliott Greenberg, mentioned previously. The following day, December 28, 1979, Mr. Brown was convinced to sign a second retail installment contract for the same aluminum siding with the addition of soffit and facia. This time the work was to cost $6,500.00 payable in 60 payments of $167.93 each for a total of $10,089.60. The payments due under this contract were to be secured by a mortgage on the Browns' home. This contract, also, was not complete at the time that it was presented to the Browns' for signature. Again, the salesman's name and license number were not noted on the contract, nor were the charges itemized and again, the company failed to execute the contract. This time, however, Brown was furnished with a notice of right to rescind, but he was not advised of the nature of these or any of the documents he signed on this date. Nonetheless, pursuant to that contract, AFB began to install siding on the Browns' home. However, the job was not completed, nor was any of the soffit and facia installed as called for in the contract. What little work was done was done without proper permit as required by the City of New Smyrna Beach. Even though the work was not completed, in early 1980 representatives of AFB prevailed upon Mr. Brown to sign a certificate of completion without advising Mr. Brown of the fact that he was indicating thereon that the work called for in the contract was complete. After AFB ceased work on the Brown property without completing the job called for, Brown was convinced to sign another contract calling for a cash price of $4,000.00 for the installation of aluminum siding on the Brown home. Sixty payments of $100.00 each would bring the total payments to $6,000.00 On the day this third contract was signed, Mr. Brown was also asked to sign, and did sign, a mortgage on his property in the amount of $4,000.00 dated December 27, 1979. Mr. Brown did not know he was signing a mortgage nor was he advised of the contents of the documents before he signed them. Thereafter, however, Respondent notarized the mortgage bearing date of December 27, 1979, indicating that he witnessed the signature of both Browns on that date. In fact, he did not witness the signatures on that date or any other date. In addition, subsequent to Brown signing the mortgage, Respondent altered the terms of the mortgage reflecting a $6,000.00 rather than $4,000.00 security interest. Respondent initialed the change and subsequently caused the mortgage to be filed in public records. None of the documents which Mr. Brown signed were given to him at the time of signing by the salesman. In fact, all copies which he received were sent to him by mail at a much later date. Respondent justified the alteration of the amount of the mortgage on the basis that he was conforming it to the intent of parties and the contract. However, Brown did not know what he had signed. Approximately two years later, in early 1982, two salesmen from PVO advised Mr. Brown at his home that they were going to complete the work called for under the previous contract at a cheaper price. They advised him that in the future all payments were to be made to PVO and, as a result, Mr. Brown discontinued the payments which he had been making under the earlier contract with AFB regularly since 1979, even though the work had not been done. Pursuant to these oral representations, on February 2, 1982, Mr. Brown signed another installment contract and note which provided that PVO would install aluminum soffit and facia around the entire house, install aluminum window and door trim, and cover the rear porch ceiling with an aluminum ceiling material. The cash price for this work was listed on the contract as $3,440.00 payable over 54 monthly installments of $98.214 at 12 percent per year add-on interest. The contract also provided for payment to be secured by a mortgage on the Brown's home. Again, Mr. Brown was not aware of the fact that he was signing a contract, nor was he verbally advised of the nature of the documents he was signing at or prior to doing so. The contract in question failed to contain the salesman's license number and the agreement itself was not signed by a representative of PVO. Mr. Brown was also not given either written or oral notice of his right to rescind the contract. On February 24, 1982, Mr. Brown was convinced to sign yet another retail installment contract secured by a mortgage on his home. This contract called for PVO to install aluminum ceilings on both the upstairs and downstairs porches. Again, Mr. Brown was not made aware of the fact that he was signing a contract at the time he signed this document, which called for a cash price of $1,800.00 financed over three years at monthly payments of $68.10 each. The salesman's license number was again not listed on the contract, nor was Mr. Brown furnished either a written or verbal notice of his right to rescind the contract. The work called for in the February 2 and 24, 1982 contract was performed as called for. However, no permit was ever obtained for the work though Section 10-65, New Smyrna Beach Ordinances requires it. Once the work was completed, the Browns signed a certificate of completion. And at some time subsequent to February 24, also they signed a series of typewritten contract, notes, and other documentation including a mortgage on their property, all of which were dated February 2, 1982. All of these documents also contained the signature element for Leroy Jackson, an individual who had become a co-owner of the Browns' home subsequent to December 27, 1979, but prior to February 2, 1982. Mr. Jackson was a resident of Detroit, Michigan, and consequently the documents were sent there for his signature. The mortgage, bearing Jackson's signature and dated February 2, 1982, reflects that all signatures were affixed and the document notarized in Volusia County, Florida, on February 2, 1982. The notary jurat executed by an individual named French, indicates that this notary witnessed all signatures in Volusia County, Florida. However, as was stated before, no one signed the document prior to February 24, 1982, and Mr. Jackson's signature was affixed in Detroit, Michigan. The typewritten contract executed on February 24, combined the terms of the handwritten February 2 and February 24 contracts increasing the monthly payment, the total amount of the payment, and the percentage rate. This document, however, and all other documents, bore the date of February 2, 1982, though they were not presented or signed until on or after February 24. Further, the completion certificate which the Browns' signed, purportedly on February 19, 1982, referred to work that was not to be performed until after March 1, 1982 under the terms of the contract dated February 24, 1982. It is clear from all of the above that the documentation prepared by individuals in the employ of the Respondent is totally unreliable and false in most particulars, all to the detriment of the customer, Mr. and Mrs. Brown. Payment amounts were raised, the total amount was raised, interest rates were excessive without disclosure, and the documents themselves were insufficient in form. As a result of Mr. Brown's ceasing payments on the 1979 contract when he signed the new ones in 1982, Mr. Brown was required to secure the services of an attorney who was able to negotiate a partial settlement of the matter with Respondent's company. Pursuant to the settlement, Mr. Brown continued to make payments of $100.00 per month on the December 27, 1979, contract and will do so until such time as the $1,000.00 balance is paid. At the request of the Browns' attorney, in May 1984 an architect inspected the work performed on the Browns' home and determined that it was, for the most part acceptably done. However, in October 1982, a representative of another aluminum company had previously inspected the work done on the Brown house, at the request of Brown's attorney. His estimate of $5,000.00 for the work, which included labor, materials, and a 30 percent profit and overhead margin, was substantially lower than that charged by Respondent's company for the same work. NEWMAN Some time in mid-1979, Floyd Newman was visited by a salesman for AFB. Mr. Newman repeatedly told the salesman he did not want any work done, however, the salesman convinced Newman to allow him to display his material. During the course of the sales presentation, the salesman measured the Newmans' open carport. He then attempted to convince Mr. Newman to install an aluminum carport over the open area at a cost of $3,200.00. Mr. Newman immediately advised the salesman that he did not want the carport and could not pay for a carport out of his sole income of $212.00 per month from pension and food stamps. In response to this the salesman advised Mr. Newman that the company would finance the construction and asked if the Newmans would be willing to mortgage their home. Mr. Newman indicated absolutely not, nonetheless, the salesman convinced Mr. Newman to sign a piece of paper which he represented was merely for the company file. In reality it was a preprinted form retail installment contract. The only thing on the form at the time Mr. Newman signed it was the amount of $3,200.00. The space for the description of the work to be done, and that for the computation of payments was blank, except for the total sum. Mr. Newman was given neither explanation of the contract nor a copy at the time he signed. This blank contract, however, was, subsequently filled in out of the presence of Mr. Newman. It called for the installation of a carport as well as the delivery of eight cans of paint for $3,200.00. The document, which was dated August 18, 1979, reflected the salesman as David Cavetta. However, numerous other spaces were still left blank. For example, the commencement and completion dates were not given, the finance charge information was not given, and the agreement was not signed by a representative of the company. Several weeks after Mr. Newman signed the blank contract, two men came out to begin work on Mr. Newman's home. On their arrival, Mr. Newman asked them to leave but they went ahead nonetheless and completed the work. One of the installers, Charles Barefoot, was an independent, unlicensed contractor. He was compensated on a square foot basis. Barefoot and the other installer, Mr. Seibert, completed the installation of the carport without obtaining any permit required for the project. About two weeks after the carport was completed the Respondent came to the Newmans' property with certain pre-printed blank forms that he wanted signed. At this point, Respondent told the Newmans' that the papers merely showed that the work had been done, and in response to his request Newman signed four or five of the documents. One of the documents signed on this occasion was a mortgage deed, and others included a home improvement sales contract, a certificate of completion, a credit application, and a notice of right of rescission. The Newmans', whose ability to read and write is limited, did not know what it was they had signed and Respondent did not explain the documents to them. Mr. and Mrs. Newman completed the fifth grade of school. Neither has any experience with credit. The only purchase they made on time was their home, and on that occasion the paperwork was completed by the seller and the Newman's signed what they were asked to sign. The contract brought by Respondent was dated August 18, 1979 but was not signed until approximately four weeks after that date. This typewritten contract provided for the same work as on the handwritten one. The cash price was $3,200.00, but when credit, life insurance, official fees, and a finance charge of $2,465.77 were added, the deferred payment price, with interest at 16.65 percent over 84 monthly installments came to $5,989.20. The interest rate on the contract exceeded the legal limit. The mortgage deed, also dated August 18, 1979, which was signed in blank at the same time as the contract, at the request of Respondent, was filled in at a later date. Respondent notarized the Newmans' signatures on the instrument. The mortgage deed referred to property located on Huggins Street, in Lake County, Florida, property which the Newmans' had not owned for several years at the time the mortgage was executed. Consequently, there were two falsifications on the mortgage. The first was the improper property serving as security, and the second was the erroneous date, both items placed there by the Respondent after the Newmans signed. The Newmans denied giving Respondent the property description for the Huggins Street property. Respondent, at first contending that the Newmans were the ones who gave it to him, subsequently admitted that he may have secured the property description from county records subsequent to the date the Newmans signed the mortgage deed in blank. It is clear, and so found, that Respondent procured the Newmans' signature on a blank mortgage deed, filled it in with date and property description thereafter, and falsely notarized the exhibit. None of the documents were, according to Mr. Newman, explained to him at the time they were signed, nor was he given a copy of them at the time of signing. Instead he received copies through the mail several weeks after Mr. Licht had come to their home. Approximately two months after the initial contact in August, Mr. Newman received a letter asking for the first month's installment payment for the carport. Thereafter, between November 2, 1979 and November 2, 1980, Mr. Newman made payments to AFB in a total amount of $775.00. It was not until approximately nine months after he began making payments that Mr. Newman found out what documents he had signed. When he did, he immediately stopped making payments. While Mr. Newman was making the payments, however, a salesman from PVO, a successor to AFB, came back to the Newmans' property, ostensibly to see how the previous work had been accomplished, but in reality to sell additional home improvement services. On that visit Newman again signed a retail installment contract and a notice of rescission of rights, which provided for PVO to install aluminum soffit and facia around the Newman home for $1,375.00. At this point the contract was not completely filled in as to the terms of the financing, but the instrument did provide that the original contract of August 18, 1979 was to be incorporated in the latter contract dated July 22, 1980. This work was performed by Larry Willbanks, an independent contractor acting as an applicator for the Respondent. Willbanks was not licensed as a contractor in the state of Florida and neither he nor anyone else obtained the required building permits to accomplish the work in question. Once the work was done, the Newmans signed additional typewritten documents which conformed to the original handwritten documents signed previously. The typewritten contract which the Newmans signed after the work was completed was dated July 22 1980, though the actual signing took place several weeks later. It provided for payment of $4,683.05, which included the total price of the new work done and the unpaid balance on the carport, as well as additional administrative expenses. After the finance charge was added in, the total deferred payment price was $8,615.88 to be paid over 84 monthly installments. The contract also, by bearing interest at 19.5 percent, overcharged the Newmans finance charges in the amount of $614.00. Though the Newmans signed the documents dated July 22,they claimed they did not know they had signed an additional contract and note because they thought the work was included in the earlier contract. They have not received copies of these July, 1980 documents, however. After observing both Mr. and Mrs. Newman in their sworn testimony at the hearing, it is obvious that the Newmans may feel that they have an opportunity to take advantage of the situation and have themselves excused from any further payments. Nonetheless, clearly they are inordinately unsophisticated and there is little chance that they understood just what it was they were signing. When this is considered along with the obvious fact that Respondent personally secured an unlawful mortgage on property formerly owned by the them, it is clear that they were the victims and not the Respondent. In any event, several months after signing the documents, the Newmans stopped making payments on the basis that they felt they had been tricked into signing the earlier 1979 one. SUTTON Aleen Sutton, a nearly illiterate 72 year old laundress, resides in Sanford, Florida. At the time pertinent to this complaint, in 1980; her home was in very poor condition. There was a hole in the porch floor and in the kitchen; the dining room floor was sagging; and the windows were supported by rotten, cracked, and unstable wood. Just about this time Mrs. Sutton was advised that a government sponsored home improvement project was under way in the area which would help low-income homeowners improve their property. In order to determine if she was eligible for the program, Mrs. Sutton went to the agency's office where she was told that a representative from the agency would come out to see her home and determine whether or not she could qualify. Shortly thereafter Mrs. Sutton received a telephone call from a solicitor for PVO whom she mistook to be a representative of the agency. She was asked if someone could come out to talk to her about home improvements and, because of her misconception, she agreed. A PVO salesman, Gary French, came out several days later and when he arrived, Mrs. Sutton, thinking he was with the agency, showed him all of the problems she was having with her home. French advised her that he would fix her home up and showed her pictures of a house which, he represented, would be what hers would look like when it was finished. At this point Mrs. Sutton still thought she was dealing with someone from the agency. During the initial meeting French got Mrs. Sutton to sign three documents; a contract, a credit application, and a notice of rescission. According to Mrs. Sutton, she did not know what she had signed. Though she signed the right of rescission she was not advised that she had three days in which to decide to do so. Though she gave Mr. French information about her income and her previous credit history, she did not know she was agreeing to finance improvements to her home. The contract she signed at that time provided for applying aluminum soffit and facia completely around the house; for capping all windows with aluminum stock; for replacing all rotten wood; and for caulking and sealing all cracks. No mention was made in the contract about the hole in the front porch or kitchen floor or the sagging dining room floor. Though the contract outlined the financing provisions of the transaction, and called for the price to be secured by a mortgage on the house, there was no disclosure statement nor was the salesman's license number filled in. In addition, the contract was not signed by any representative of the Respondent. The actual work on the Sutton property was done by Mr. Edward Ferguson, an independent contractor working for the Respondent on a per foot basis. At the time he worked on the Sutton property he did not have any type of a license for contracting issued by the State. At no time did he procure any of the required building permits for the work done. Ferguson put aluminum around the windows and replaced some of the wood. He also installed some of the soffit and facia called for by the contract. However, he did not complete the installation, and the aluminum around the windows was improperly installed. Before the work was completed, Respondent and some associates went to Sutton's house to get her to sign typewritten copies of the documents she had signed previously. At first Mrs. Sutton refused to sign, indicating that the work had not been completed, and that some damage had been done to her screens. When Respondent paid a cash settlement of $37.00 for the damage to the screens and the clean-up of the debris left by the workmen Mrs. Sutton signed the papers presented to her. The evidence conflicts on whether these documents were signed voluntarily or under coercion. On one hand there is evidence to indicate she was told that she had to sign the paper "or else" on the other hand, there is evidence that once Mrs. Sutton was paid the $37.00 she was completely satisfied and willing to sign as requested. It is likely that Mrs. Sutton, thinking the government was going to pay for the work signed without being coerced once she was paid for the damage and clean-up and it is so found. This does not affect the nature of the transaction. In any event, the documents were signed and the typewritten contract in the amount of $2,600.00 (cash price) and $4,032.96 (deferred payment price) provided that Mrs. Sutton was to give a security interest to secure the payment. Mr. Sutton contends she did not know what she was signing and had she known the effect of these documents she would not have signed them. She also did not know that she signed a notice of rescission or a certificate of completion, and that since the work was not done she would not have signed it had she known what it was. Respondent notarized Mrs. Sutton's signature on the mortgage as of May 29, 1980. This document is in error in that it bears an improper date. This is consistent with Respondent's demonstrated practice of violating the rules regarding notarization. Mrs. Sutton was not furnished with copies of any of the documentation at the time she signed them, but received them somewhat later through the mail. Once the documents were signed, no one from PVO ever returned to the Sutton premises and the work called for in the contract was not complete. Mrs. Sutton made several payments according to the terms of the contract after they were explained to her by her daughter. However, she fell behind in payments and this precipitated a conference Mrs. Sutton, Respondent, and officials of the Barnett Bank, to whom the mortgage had been sold by Respondent. As a result Mrs. Sutton filed a suit against PVO as a result of which, in addition to an award to her of compensatory and punitive damages, the mortgage on her property was cancelled. FRANCIS In December 1981, Bryce Francis, in response to a brochure he received in the mail from PVO, expressed an interest in the company's services. As a result, one of PVO's salesmen, Jim Heidish, came out to Mr. Francis' DeLand, Florida, home and convinced Mr. Francis to sign a contract for PVO to spray the Francis' home. This initial contract was signed on December 12, 1981, and the contract price was $2,925.00. Somewhat later, on December 31, 1981, Mr. Francis signed a second contract with PVO calling for the company to install aluminum soffit and facia around the overhang of the home, to cover the front porch ceiling, and to replace rotten wood where necessary. This second contract had a price of $2,225.00. Work was begun on the Francis' home without PVO or any of its employees procuring the required building permits from the City of DeLand or from Volusia County. Mr. Francis refused to allow any work to continue after the first day because of his dissatisfaction with the quality of the work performed. When he checked under some of the aluminum which was installed, which was sagging in some areas, he found that it had merely been installed over the rotten wood which had not been replaced. OSGOOD John and Nancy Osgood, older residents of Orlando, Florida, were visited at their home in December, 1981, by Gary French, a salesman for PVO. French asked Mr. Osgood if he would like siding put on his home. When Mr. Osgood told French that he could not pay for it because of his retired status and limited income, and would not mortgage his home to secure the work, French told Osgood that PVO did not need a mortgage. PVO would put up siding on the Osgood home as a demonstration of their product and workmanship for half the normal price, a total of approximately $600.00. Osgood said he would not object to paying a little bit to have his home improved, but that he could not afford any large sums. Mr. French reassured the Osgoods that they would pay only $25 or $50 a month and that they would not have to mortgage their home. Mrs. Osgood also repeatedly told French she did not want the work done, but French kept coming back and after several days of pressure salesmanship the Osgoods finally decided to go ahead with the work, providing the siding could be obtained at cost. On or about December 12, 1981, after the repeated visits by French, the Osgoods signed a retail installment con tract and note which called for PVO to install aluminum siding on the exterior walls of the home and trim on all windows and doors. Cash price was $7,000.00 which when financed over 108 monthly payments resulted in a deferred term payment price of $14,581.08 which included $7,570.00 in finance charges. The contract also provided that a security in the form of a mortgage on the Osgoods' home would be provided. Neither Osgood can read or write with any proficiency. Though they have, in the past, purchased items on credit and have a mortgage on their home, they have never had any credit cards. Those cases where they did purchase on credit, the seller completed the paperwork and the Osgoods', accepting the seller's representation as true, signed what was put before them. The Osgoods were never told that the contract price for the siding was $7,000.00 which would eventually increase to $14,570.00. This amount far exceeds the $600.00 which Mr. French initially advised the Osgoods the work would cost. They also were never told that they would be signing a mortgage on their property to secure payment of the contract price. It is obvious that the Osgoods did not know what they were signing and signed trusting in Mr. French, who they had previously advised that they were unable to read and write. This contract, as in the case of many others, did not contain the salesman's license number, nor was it signed by the company. On December 18, 1981, the Osgoods signed another contract containing many of the same provisions as the previous one, as well as a notice of right of rescission. Here again, they were not advised before they signed as to the nature of the documents they were signing, what the documents pertained to and what their rights were under the contract. This contract, as well, was not signed by a representative of the company. Several weeks later, on December 30, 1981, the Osgoods were prevailed upon to sign another contract with PVO for the installation of an aluminum awning over the front porch. This contract had a price of $1,665.00 and also called for the execution of a mortgage on the Osgoods' home as security. It also contained blank spaces when it was signed by the Osgoods which related to finance charges, total deferred payment, and the added annual percentage rate, as well as the number of payments to be made for the amount of monthly payments. The contract was not signed by any representative of the company. Approximately two weeks later the Osgoods were induced to sign a fourth contract which, this time, provided for PVO to install eleven aluminum window awnings around the exterior of the home on each window. This contract, as in the case of the others signed by the Osgoods, contained blank spaces at the time it was presented to the Osgoods for signature. For example, the salesman's license number was not furnished and the contract was not signed by a representative of PVO. Although this contract also required the Osgoods to mortgage their home as security for the contract, they were not advised of this information prior to signing, nor were they advised of the total amount they would have to pay under the contract, or the amount of their monthly payments. The `aluminum work called for in the several contracts signed by the Osgoods was performed by an independent contractor working for PVO who accomplished what work he did without any type of license and without first obtaining any of the required permits. While this work was being accomplished, Mr. Osgood received copies of all the documents which he had previously signed, but which had not been furnished to him at the time of signing. After the work was stopped before completion, French presented the Osgoods with a typewritten contract bearing the date December 18, 1981, and typewritten copies of all the other documents, such as the right of rescission, completion certificate, and mortgage, which had been signed by the Osgoods when in handwritten form prior to that time. The typewritten contract incorporated all the provisions of the prior handwritten contracts and reflected a cash price for all the work of $12,565.00 to be paid over 108 monthly payments of $242.33 each. It was at this time that Mr. Osgood first learned that his monthly payments would be in that sum. Even at this point, however, the Osgoods were not advised verbally that they would be required, under the terms of the contract, to execute a mortgage on their property as security for their payment. This mortgage, which was signed by the Osgoods before the work was satisfactorily completed, reflected the deferred payment price, of $26,171.64. The mortgage was notarized by Gary French, the salesman, who certified that the Osgoods had appeared before him and signed it on December 19, 1982. This was blatantly false. The Osgoods contend, however, that even at this point they were not aware that the document they had signed was a mortgage and they continued to rely on French's representation to them that a mortgage would not be necessary for the work to be performed. When Mr. Osgood subsequently discovered that he had signed a mortgage on his house and that his monthly payments were far in excess of that which he had anticipated he would be required to pay, he nonetheless attempted to make the payments. He paid a portion of the first payment, but thereafter defaulted. Foreclosure action was brought against him by PVO, but was subsequently dismissed upon arrangements being made that the Osgoods would pay $25 a month until the entire debt is paid. Though the Osgoods were convinced to sign a certificate of completion dated January 28, 1982, the project was incomplete at the time and remains incomplete. Not even half of the window awnings have been installed, and inspection of the property made in April of 1983 reflected that the aluminum siding was not properly grounded and that electrical wires are hanging dangerously close to one of the awnings. This latter feature may not be the responsibility of Respondent. An independent estimate of work identical to that provided for in the PVO contracts with the Osgoods reveals that a total cash price, including a 20 percent profit and overhead margin, and a 20 percent allowance for commission would be under $4,000.00, a sum substantially less than that listed as the cash price on the PVO contract. GADSON Some time during the spring of 1982, Mr. R. B. Polk, a salesman for PVO, came to the Ocala, Florida, home of Pearl B. Gadson, a 74 year sight- deficient widow who lives with her grandson on $274.00 a month which she receives from Social Security, and $300.00 which he receives from the same agency. Mr. Polk told Mr. Gadson that the government was fixing up homes for the elderly, which included the installation of aluminum, soffit and facia. Mrs. Gadson indicated that she didn't need the aluminum but did require boards replaced on the eaves and on the porch of her home. Mr. Polk specifically advised Mrs. Gadson that the government would pay or help pay for this work to be done, and since Mrs. Gadson had heard of a project in Lakeland, Florida, where the government was paying for the repair of private homes, Mrs. Gadson assumed that Polk was involved in the same type of project. Mrs. Gadson advised Mr. Polk that before she made any commitment she wanted to talk with her son in Connecticut. When Polk came back the second time he told her he had already talked with her son about the work to be done on her home. On this second visit, Mrs. Gadson was prevailed upon to sign some papers which, she was told, she would have to sign in order for the government to assume the cost of her home repair. One of the documents that Mrs. Gadson signed on that occasion was a retail installment contract on a pre-printed form, which at the time she signed it contained blank spaces where the description of the improvements, as well as the terms of the contract should be inserted. The only information on the form at the time she signed it was her name and address and the salesman's name and license number. She also signed a notice of right of rescission and credit application on this same second visit. This contract, which was subsequently dated May 10, 1982, was filled in as to the missing particulars by someone for PVO after Mr. Polk left the Gadson residence. When finally filled in, it provided for PVO to install aluminum siding on all exterior walls, new screens on the front of the home, and steps at the front door. Cash price was $7,000.00, to be financed over 84 payments of $153.56 per month, for a total deferred payment price of $12,899.04. The documents which Mrs. Gadson signed were not given to her at the time of signing, but were delivered by Mr. Polk on May 19, 1982, some ten days after signing. When the installer, Melvin Nichols, applied for and obtained the building permit to do this work from the City of Ocala, he utilized a notarized letter of authorization signed by the Respondent. Eight days after the date on the contract, Mr. Nichols installed the siding as called for in the contract and put the screen on the front porch. He also attempted to repair the porch roof overhang but failed to do so satisfactorily and also failed to install the front steps. At some later time Mrs. Gadson was also requested to sign typewritten copies of the documents previously signed, as well as a certificate of completion, both long and short form, and a mortgage. All of the documents, with the exception of the certificate of completion, were back-dated to the date of the original handwritten contract of May 10, 1982. At no time was Mrs. Gadson advised that she was signing a mortgage on her property, or for that matter, even a contract which would cost her some $7,000.00 if she paid cash for it. She believed that she was signing "government papers" and had she known that she was encumbering her property she would not have signed these documents. Once she was informed that she had to pay, she began making payments to the best of her ability. However, she began to fall behind and is still not current or up-to-date on her payments. At no time pertinent to this complaint was Mr. Polk licensed by the State of Florida as a home improvement salesman. SZUCS Michael Brandt, a salesman for PVT first approached Thomas Szucs in August or September, 1982 in St. Petersburg, Florida. Mr. Szucs, a 44-year old unmarried man, who lives alone, while having been determined to be mentally and physically competent is, nonetheless mentally retarded. Mr. Szucs receives a monthly income from Social Security because of his disability and is the beneficiary of a trust set up by his grandparents who also left him the house in which he resides in St. Petersburg. The initial contact with Szucs took place in the home of Szucs' neighbor where Brandt was attempting to make a sale for PVT, and he asked Szucs if he was interested in having home improvement done. Apparently, Szucs indicated he was because somewhat later another salesman, Woody Ayers, came to Mr. Szucs' home on several occasions and as a result of their discussions, on September 4, 1982, Mr. Szucs signed a contract with PVT providing for the company to install aluminum soffit, facia, gutters and windows on his home. This contract was a cash sales contract in the amount of $8,640.00. Szucs was not given a copy of the contract at the time of signature but did receive a copy in the mail at a later date. Mr. Szucs contends that he was advised by Mr. Ayers that the work proposed by PVT would increase the value of the home by between eight and nine thousand dollars, but he was not advised of his right to rescind the contract within three days. The work on the Szucs' house was performed by Melvin Nichols, an independent contractor working with PVT. Mr. Nichols has never been licensed as any type of contractor in the state of Florida. He began doing the work called for in the contract without first obtaining any permits from either local or county government and continued to do so until he was advised by the St. Petersburg police that he had to either get a building permit or stop work. Thereafter, on September 9, 1982, Mr. Nichols obtained a permit from the City of St. Petersburg using a letter of authorization signed by the Respondent. Approximately ten days after Nichols started work on the Szucs' project, Mr. Szucs informed Mr. Ayers that he could not or would not pay cash for the work as was called for in the initial contract. As a result, a second contract, this time providing for the same work for the same cash price, but calling for 120 payments of $158.62 each, was signed. This contract provided that the amount due was to be secured by a mortgage on the Szucs' home and bore a date of September 4, 1982, several days prior to the actual date of signing. Mr. Szucs was not notified of his right to rescind this contract nor was he advised that he would be required to sign a mortgage on his property to secure the payments due under the contract. However, when the work was completed Mr. Szucs was asked to sign a third contract, this time the typewritten copy of that installment contract signed previously. In addition, however, he was asked to sign a typed notice of rescission, certificate of completion and a mortgage, all of which, according to Szucs, were pre-printed forms and had not been filled in at the time they were presented to him for signature. This typewritten contract and the notices of rescission all were dated September 4, though they were signed somewhat later. The mortgage, in the amount of $19,034.40, giving a security interest in the Szucs' home in favor of PVT appears to have been filled in as to its particulars after signature by Mr. Szucs. Mr. Szucs received copies of the documents he had signed , in the mail, between two and four weeks after he signed them. When Mr. Szucs' attorney, who had not been previously contacted regarding the work being done by PVT on the Szucs' residence, found out about it, he had an inspection of the work done by a state-certified contractor, who estimated that, including a 12 percent profit margin, the value of the work done was approximately $2,700.00. Thereafter, the attorney negotiated with Respondent for satisfaction of the mortgage on the Szucs' home and paid Respondent $3,000.00 for it. There was substantial difference in the testimony regarding the value of the materials provided by PVT in this work on the Szucs' residence. Respondent attempted to show that the expert who testified regarding the value of the work done was motivated by some inappropriate consideration to give a low estimate. It is found however, that even if this estimate was low and allowing for some increase, the amount charged by Respondent was exorbitant. LOREK In April, 1983, Chester and Evelyn Lorek, entered into a contract with PVT to install shingles on the roof, drip edging around the roof, and aluminum soffit and facia on all existing overhang of their home in Tampa, Florida. The cash price on the contract was $7,631.55 to be paid over 120 payments of $139.89 a month, for a total of $16,786.80. After signing that contract however, the Loreks decided to pay cash instead of financing and thereafter, on May 9, 1983, entered into a second contract with PVT to perform the same work except for the drip edge for a cash price of $5,000.00. According to normal practice, the contracts were forwarded by PVT to the expediter for that company located with PVO in Orlando, who attempted to locate a roofer to complete the project. PVO had been using Johnson's Roofing Company in Tampa for most of their work in that area. However, at this particular time, Johnson's was unavailable and attempts to locate another roofing contractor to do the job were unsuccessful. Since the work had to be performed on the roof before the aluminum work could be done, PVT entered into a contract with Gary Cook, who installed the aluminum soffits and facia, to obtain a local roofer to perform the necessary roofing work on the Lorek home. Cook, however, either could not or would not locate a licensed roofing contractor and instead did the work himself, along with his helpers. Cook is not a licensed roofer. Apparently the Loreks had some question about the work being done because on May 9, 1983, they called the building department in Tampa and requested an inspection. According to the inspector who did the actual review, Archie Arthur, Cook had failed to secure any permit for doing the work. In addition, the work that was done was in violation of the building code in that the wrong size staple was used to affix the shingles to the roof, and neither the lead boots on the roof ends nor the flashing was replaced as required. As a result, a notice of violation was issued which ceased work on the property. Because the roof work was not done, Cook was unable to complete the aluminum work as well. After the work was stopped however, the Loreks contacted another roofing contractor who was properly licensed, who obtained the necessary permit, and who completed the roofing work as necessary for an additional sum of $1,960.00. During all this time Cook was not licensed as a contractor in any capacity in Tampa or by the State, which fact either was known or should have been known to the Respondent. In any case, Respondent at no time visited the Lorek project while it was being accomplished. HUDSON In April or May, 1983, Flossie Hudson, a widow, was contacted by Bruce Coblitz about having some work done to her home in Orlando. Coblitz was an independent contractor who worked with PVI. At the time he dealt with Ms. Hudson he was licensed by the state of Florida as a home improvement salesman and he employed canvassers who obtained leads for him. Mrs. Hudson had a carport which had previously been enclosed with blocks and a tar and gravel roof, but the interior had not been completed. On their first meeting, Coblitz told Mrs. Hudson that PVI could finish off the carport, making a room out of it, including drywall, ceiling, paneling, carpet and insulation for $1,600.00 and during their discussion Mrs. Hudson got the impression that she could have the work done for payments of from $50.00 to $100.00. During that conversation on May 11, 1983, Mrs. Hudson signed a piece of paper prepared by Coblitz which turned out to be a home improvement sales contract and promissory note. The terms of the agreement provided for PVI to finish the room remodeling by installing drywall, paneling, wall-to-wall carpeting and two inside doors for a cash price of $6,000,00 instead of the $1,600.00 which Coblitz had verbally represented to Mrs. Hudson. The $6,000.00 was to be financed over 120 payments at $110.00 per month. At the time she signed the contract Mrs. Hudson also signed a notice of rescission and a credit application. Mrs. Hudson contends that Mr. Coblitz did not tell her she was signing a contract nor did she know what any of the documents she signed were. As far as she was concerned she thought they were documents authorizing a credit check. Her eyesight, she contends, is not very good and she has never been able to ready very well, even though she went through the eighth grade in school. The documents themselves had blank spaces on them which were not filled in prior to Mrs. Hudson's signature and Mrs. Hudson was not given copies of the documents at the time she signed them. Several days later, on May 16, 1983, Mr. Coblitz again visited Mrs. Hudson and had her sign a second sales contract which called for PVI to do the same work as outlined in the May 11th contract in addition to work to be done on an archway entrance and adjoining wall. The cash price was increased to $7,000.00 and the monthly payments to $128.52. Again, Mr. Coblitz did not advise Mrs. Hudson that she was signing a contract and again, she contends, she did not know that the document she had signed was a contract. According to her she was still waiting for Coblitz to bring out a contract for her to sign and, again, she was not given a copy of the May 16 contract at the time she signed it. Neither the May 11 nor the May 16 contract was signed by a representative of PVI nor was Mrs. Hudson ever informed of her right to rescind either contract within three days. Coblitz told her that the work performed by PVI would be guaranteed, but the contracts with PVI which were signed by Mrs. Hudson specifically stated that no warranties of any type were being given. The work on Mrs. Hudson's property was begun by a PVI subcontractor, Steve Kolozsvary, an unlicensed contractor. Mr. Kolozsvary failed to pull any of the required permits for this work and he testified that when he was supposed to obtain a permit Mr. Valentine, an employee of PVI would give him a letter of authorization for that particular project. None was given him for this job. As of the time the work was begun, on May 19, 1983, Mrs. Hudson had still not received a copy of the contract. The following day she mentioned it to her daughter, Teresa, who decided that no work should proceed until her mother received the contract. On May 21, 1983, when the workmen came, she refused to let the work continue and sent them away. She claimed that she did this because her mother had no contract and also because the materials which the workmen had brought to the site appeared to her to be of inferior quality. Once the work was stopped both Coblitz and Valentine, at different times, came out to Mrs. Hudson's home to find out what the problem was. When they found out that Mrs. Hudson was refusing to allow the work to proceed because she did not have a copy of the contract, Valentine proposed that a new contract be drawn up. This new contract, dated May 25, 1983, provided for the same work to be completed as was called for in the earlier contract but with a reduction in cash price to $4,006.00 to be financed over 72 months at $95.69 each. Teresa Hudson advised her mother to sign this contract because some of the work had already been accomplished and she believed they had no choice. Based upon the advice of her daughter Mrs. Hudson signed this contract unaware that she had signed any previous contracts. She was given a copy of the May 25 contract when it was signed and the following day she exercised her right to rescind that contract. This rescission was based on what was perceived as irregularities in the name of the salesman listed on the contract. Kolozsvary applied for a building permit to do the Hudson work on May 26, 1983 after the contract had been rescinded but no further work was done on the contract. At the time of rescission 60 percent of the work called for had been completed. Representatives of the City of Orlando, Building Inspection Department, inspected the property on June 1, 1983, and discovered several deficiencies. There was no fire-blocking material in the vertical and horizontal openings in the wall and the wires which held up the suspended ceiling were not properly spaced. At no time when Mr. Valentine was negotiating with Mrs. Hudson for amendments to the contract on behalf of PVI was he licensed by the state of Florida as a home-improvement salesman. An independent evaluation of the work listed in the contract that PVI proposed to do resulted in a total estimated price for the work of $3,444.40. This amount included profit and salesman's commission. It is not so far off that price of $4,006.00 contained in the May 25, 1983 contract. JOHNSON Sometime in the late spring of 1983, a canvasser employed by Bruce Coblitz, came to the Orlando, Florida home of Mabel Johnson. He advised her that PVI was starting a new business and he was inquiring of residents in her neighborhood to see if anyone desired to have an extension or addition added to their home. Apparently Mrs. Johnson indicated some interest because approximately a week later Rick Midden came to Mrs. Johnson's home and was told by her that she wanted a cement-block addition. Midden talked her out of that indicating it would be too costly and suggested that the screened-in patio in back of her home could be modified by PVI with aluminum that would be considerably less expensive than the $25,000.00 estimated cost of concrete- block. In fact, Midden told Johnson that an aluminum addition would cost her approximately $10,000.00 with monthly payments available. Midden, at the time, was not licensed as a home improvement salesman in the state of Florida, a fact which was known to Respondent's associate, Mr. Greenberg. On a second visit, Midden along with another salesman, Rick Woods, took Mrs. Johnson to visit another home in the area where PVI had constructed an addition similar to that which they were proposing for her. Mrs. Johnson was still not satisfied and wanted some more time to consider. Midden agreed to come back a fourth time. On this fourth visit, Mrs. Johnson signed what she understood was a "temporary contract", a credit application and a notice of right of rescission. She was advised at that time by Mr. Midden that when the work was completed she would have to sign another set of papers. This first contract, however, which provided for PVI to remove the existing roof over the patio, enlarge the slab, in stall a glass and screen enclosure, install paneling with insulation, wall-to-wall carpeting, and a server from the kitchen of the home, showed a price of $10,000.00 financed over 120 payments of $183.60. Total deferred price was $22,032. This contract however was subsequently voided prior to work beginning and a second contract, along with the ancillary papers, was executed on June 1, 1983, and provided for PVI to do all that was included in the original contract plus adding three electrical outlets. The financing terms were identical with that in the previous contract and Mrs. Johnson was given a copy of both contracts and the notice of rescission at the time they were signed. Thereafter on June 8, 1983, Mr. Midden applied for and obtained a building permit from the City of Orlando to do the addition to the Johnson home. Steven Kolozsvary was the individual who performed the work according to a subcontract with PVI and the addition was completed sometime that month. Once the work was completed Mrs. Johnson was requested to sign a typewritten contract, a completion certificate, a notice of right of rescission, and a mortgage dated June 20, 1983. The terms of the contract were identical to the earlier non-voided handwritten contract. Mrs. Johnson was not given copies of the typed contract at the time of signature but received them approximately a week and a half later through the mail. The work performed was not done correctly. Water seeped in around the baseboards and notwithstanding the fact that Mrs. Johnson kept calling PVI to speak with Mr. Midden, nothing was done to correct the problem. She ultimately spoke with Elliott Greenberg's son in July, 1983 and after several calls, someone finally came out to attempt repair but the problem was not corrected. After continued effort to have the problem rectified, Mrs. Johnson finally filed a complaint with Petitioner herein and also called the City of Orlando, determining that a final inspection had not been performed. It was also discovered that no electrical permit had been pulled prior to the work and in September, 1983 an inspector with the Orlando Building Department found that the aluminum siding installed was not properly grounded. Another inspection by the Orlando Building Department, dealing with electrical code violations, indicated there was no light at the back door, there were no outside receptacles and there were insufficient receptacles within the structure. As for the outside receptacles, Mrs. Johnson indicated she did not want them installed because of the potential that other people would use her electricity. Efforts by the building department to determine who had done the electrical work on the project, through calls by the building department to PVI, resulted in PVI advising that they did not know who had done the work. It was not until Mrs. Johnson filed her complaint with the Department of Professional Regulation and the City of Orlando that Respondent first came out to the Johnson residence. He determined that the water was seeping in because the slab for the addition had been poured too low and directed that the slab be repoured. This was done by Mr. Kolozsvary and the repairs were successful, approximately four months after the project was turned over as being completed under the contract. THOMAS Lizzie and Elijah Thomas are an elderly couple who live on a total of $304.00 per month Social Security payments. Any time payments they have made in the past have been based on paperwork completed by the seller. They own their house in Orlando, Florida, which they share with their grandchildren Annette and Johnnie Odums. Though Annette has completed the eleventh grade she can barely read or write and Johnnie Mae Odums, who went to school through the tenth grade, can read and write only a little. In May, 1983, Bart Mauldin, an employee of Bruce Coblitz, contacted the Thomases asking them if they were interested in having any improvements done to their home. Apparently he felt that some potential was there because some time later Coblitz himself came to the Thomas home and advised them that PVI would install a new floor, cabinets and countertops in the kitchen; a bathtub, commode, soapdish, toilet paper holder and towel rack in the bathroom; and repair the bathroom sink and replace the bathroom tile. According to Coblitz all this work would cost five or six hundred dollars and on this visit the Thomases signed some papers pursuant to Coblitz' request. It turns out that these papers constituted a home improvement sales contract, promissory note contract, and security agreement and disclosure statement dated June 1, 1983. Lizzie Thomas actually signed the documents but Elijah signed with an "X". This contract provided for PVI to do substantially the work referred to above for a cash price of $6,000.00 financed over 120 payments of $110.16 each. The payments were to be secured by a mortgage on the Thomas' home. This contract contained several blank spaces at the time it was signed by the Thomases, including the dates for the commencement and completion of the work, and the contract was not signed by a representative of PVI. Neither one of the Thomases were advised by anyone from PVI that the contract price was $6,000.00 instead of the $600.00 originally quoted. The Thomases were not given a copy of the contract at the time of signing. On the date of signing they were also requested to sign a notice of right of rescission but they were not informed as to what that document was nor were they informed verbally of the right to rescind the contract. The Thomases also signed an application for an installment loan at the same time but they were not advised of the effect of the document they were signing. About a week after the signing work was begun by Gary Householder, a subcontractor working for Bruce Coblitz. Householder and his crew worked on the home periodically for two days. On the second day, one of the workmen requested Mrs. Thomas sign a piece of paper. Because of arthritis in her hand she was unable to do so at the time. As a result she asked her granddaughter, Johnnie Mae to sign the paper which turned out to be a certificate of completion dated June 10, 1983. Neither Mrs. Thomas nor Johnnie Mae Odums knew what that document, signed on June 10, was. Neither was given an opportunity to read it even if they could, but they were told the workmen would be back the following day. The work that was performed pursuant to the June 1, 1983 contract was performed without the required building permit being pulled. On June 11, 1983, Mrs. Thomas was asked to sign more documents which included typewritten copies of the previously signed contract and ancillary papers. The typewritten contract terms were essentially the same as those contained in the hand written contract and while Mrs. Thomas signed her name, Annette Odum signed Elijah Thomas' name to the typewritten agreement. Again, the cash price stated in the contract was $6,000.00 but neither Thomas was advised of this fact nor were they advised that they would be required to sign a mortgage on their home to secure the payments. The right of rescission agreement was, again, signed without explanation, as was the long form certificate of completion. In that regard, the work covered by the contract had not been completed at the time the Odums were requested to sign that certificate. The mortgage dated June 11, 1983, provided for 120 payments of $110.16 each for a total of 13,219.00. Mrs. Thomas signed the agreement without knowing what it was and, again, Annette Odum signed her grandfather's name and witnessed her grandmother's signature. The second witness to Elijah Thomas' signature was William Valentine, the expediter, who in his capacity as notary, falsely notarized that Elijah Thomas signed the mortgage. Neither the Thomases nor Ms. Odums were advised that they had signed a mortgage on June 11, 1983. Had Mrs. Thomas been aware of the fact that she was mortgaging her home she would not have signed the document. None of the typewritten copies were provided to the Thomases at the time of signing but were forwarded through the mail several weeks later. The Respondent signed the contract and all of the required papers including the dealer certification note on the certificate of completion for PVI. Later in the month of June, 1983, Mrs. Thomas requested that her nephew, Nathanial Boldes, read some of the documents which she had received regarding the contract in question which she still felt was for $600.00. When Boldes read them he found that the cost was $6,000.00 not $600.00 and also discovered that his grandmother had already signed the mortgage on the property. He also observed the work on the project was not completed even though the certificate of completion form reflected that it was. Mr. Boldes immediately called Mr. Coblitz and requested the work be completed. Coblitz responded that the work would be completed within three days. In fact, some additional work was done but the project was not completed as requested. Therefore, Mr. Boldes again contacted PVI and in response to this call, Mr. Valentine came out and went through the house with Mrs. Thomas making a list of the things that needed to be done. He procured Mrs. Thomas' signature on this list which turned out to be a completion certificate for these items. Notwithstanding this signature and the fact that the work was not completed, in mid-July, 1983, a representative of PVI persuaded Johnnie Mae Odums to sign the Thomas name to yet another certificate of completion without advising of the nature of this document. However, when they received copies through the mail, Mr. Boldes discovered that the completion certificates had been signed even though the work had not been completed. As a result the Thomases made no payments under the contract and the matter is currently in litigation. An independent inspection of the work performed on the Thomas' home and that called for by the contract with PVI was conducted. The resulting estimate indicates that the cash price for the total project should be in the area of $4,392.00 including 20 percent sales commission and 20 percent profit. WILLIAMS Laura Mae Williams, a retired widow with limited reading and writing skills lives on a $238.00 monthly pension in a home located in Orlando, Florida. In June, 1983, Gary French and Duane Beard, came to the Williams' home to see if they could sell her some home improvements. They offered to fix the roof and put siding on her home and advised her that the company they were with, PVI, had a good deal for older people. At this point, French was sales manager with PVI and Beard was a salesman working with the company as an independent contractor. Beard and French advised Mrs. Williams that the improvements they proposed would cost approximately $4,000.00 and could be financed with payments of $80.00 per month. Mrs. Williams told them that she could not do anything without talking with her daughter about it first. Nonetheless, they convinced her to sign some papers so that after she talked with her children, everything could be taken care of. In reality, on that visit, Mrs. Williams signed a home improvement sales contract, a promissory note, a security agreement, a disclosure agreement, credit application and a notice of rescission rights. None of these were explained to her. All she was told was that the documents were necessary so that the bank would finance her purchase. This contract, dated June 16, 1983, provided for PVI to remove and replace the roof on the property for a cash price of $4,488.00 payable in 120 monthly payments of $81.69 each. The contract also provided for PVI to have a security interest in the property. None of the documents were explained to her truthfully and though they were given to her at the time she signed, she did not look at them because she had told French and Beard not to come until she had had a chance to talk with her children. She was assured that nothing would be done pursuant to anything they had discussed until she had done so and had gotten back to them. The contract which Mrs. Williams signed failed to reflect the license number of either salesman and the contract was not signed for the contractor. On June 21, five days after Mrs. Williams unwittingly signed the contract, workmen showed up at her home and began to work on the roof. The work was accomplished by Joseph Panasuk doing business as Joseph Roofing, who accomplished the work without first obtaining the required building permit. It took approximately four hours to complete the work and when the work was completed, Mr. Panasuk had Mrs. Williams sign a certificate of completion. Mrs. Williams did not ask Mr. Panasuk to leave, even though she had not called Beard and French back and agreed to have the work done, primarily because she did not know she could do so. The evening the work was completed French and Beard came out to Mrs. Williams' house with another paper for her to sign. Again, they did not explain what the document was, but merely said that it was necessary for the bank to finance the project. At this time, however, Mrs. Williams' daughter, Sylvia, was at home and urged her mother not to sign the document. Mrs. Williams did so, however, because she felt she had to. The following day, representatives of PVI came out with more papers to sign. At this point, Sylvia Williams reviewed them and noticed that the contract called for a deferred purchase price of about $10,000.00 and again urged her mother not to sign the papers. Notwithstanding this advice, Mrs. Williams, nonetheless, signed. This contract, a typewritten copy, called for the same work to be done at approximately the same price as called for in the original handwritten copy. When Sylvia Williams called the building department the following day, she found out that no permit had ever been pulled to do this work. She thereafter called PVI to check on whether a permit should be pulled and was told that it had been. When she told the woman with whom she spoke that the building department had told her no permit had been issued, she was referred to Bill Valentine, to whom she also told the results of her inquiry. Somewhat later Gary French called her back and said that because they had not read the contract to her mother, they were going to reduce the price to $2,600.00 plus interest, and would bring out a new contract for Mrs. Williams to sign. Consistent with that, on June 214, 1983, Mrs. Williams was asked to and did sign a third contract which called for the same work to be performed but which reduced the cash price to $2,603.90, plus the finance charge of $1,249.06 for a total of $3,852.90. On this same date Mrs. Williams also signed a Notice of Rescission and a mortgage in favor of PVI. That same date Mrs. Williams and her daughter took the contract to an attorney and had it rescinded. Thereafter, PVI filed a foreclosure action against Laura Mae Williams and this matter is currently in litigation. Also on June 214, 1983, three days after the work was completed, the contractor obtained a permit to reroof Mrs. Williams' home from the Orange County Building Department, the City of Orlando Building Department, even though Mrs. Williams' residence is inside the city limits. An independent evaluation of the contract and the work performed thereunder resulted in a total cost estimate for the project of $2,504.00, including commission and profit, and this figure is approximately $100.00 less than that called for in the final contract. The ultimate contract price here was not exorbitant.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent Herbert A. Licht's certificate be suspended for a period of three years and that he pay an administrative fine of $10,000,00. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of November, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of November, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephanie A. Daniel, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joseph C. Jacobs, Esquire Melissa Fletcher Allaman, Esquire Post Office Box 1170 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1170 Paul B. Steinberg, Esquire 300 71st Street, Suite 301 Miami Beach, Florida 331141 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Linnan Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Section 24(2)(d), (h), (j), (k), (m) and (n), Chapter 75-489, Laws of Florida, as amended, and, if so, what is an appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto James Forholt was licensed as an aluminum contractor by the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board, having been issued license #C-2984. He was the qualifying contractor for City Wide Mobile Home Services, Inc. On June 28, 1989 Respondent contracted with customer #1 to install an aluminum roofover on the customer's mobile home (Exhibit 4). This work was completed and Respondent was paid in full. In July 1989 the work was inspected by a city building inspector and accepted. Later some leaks were experienced; Respondent was called and a repairman was sent to the job site. These leaks ceased but after heavy rains in 1990-91 additional leaks appeared and were not corrected. Customer #1 contracted with another aluminum contractor who removed the roofover installed by Respondent and replaced it with a new roofover at a cost to customer #1 of $3,356.00. Customer #3 contracted with City Wide Mobile Services, Inc. on December 30, 1986 to install a Royal roofover on customer's mobile home. This work was paid for by customer on December 30, 1986 and the work was completed approximately January 13, 1987. Customer #3 spent the winters in this mobile home and the summers elsewhere. Upon returning to the mobile home in October 1990 some water stains were observed inside the mobile home's ceiling, indicating the roof was leaking. City Wide was called and a repairman was sent out. He sprayed Kilz on the water spots and did some caulking on the roof. In the fall of 1991 upon returning to the mobile home customer #3 observed additional water stains on the ceiling and called City Wide. Two repairmen arrived, replaced vents and departed. The following day customer #3 turned on the heat and a terrible odor filled the mobile home. Respondent was called, he came over and advised customer #3 that the roof was five years old and he was no longer responsible for the roof. Respondent contracted with customer #2 to install vinyl siding on his mobile home. The work was satisfactorily completed but Respondent did not obtain a final inspection. After this administrative complaint was filed Respondent obtained a satisfactory final inspection on that job on January 14, 1992. The permit for the job for customer #2 was pulled June 13, 1992 by Respondent. Although the building official for the City of Largo, where the permit was issued, testified the permit was good for only three months, the face of the permit (Exhibit 11) states, "PERMITS ARE NULL AND VOID IF THE PROJECT IS ABANDONED FOR A PERIOD OF THREE (3) MONTHS OR MORE..." Respondent testified without contradiction that the contract form he used with the complaining parties only guarantees that the roofovers would be properly installed and the warranty on the roof was the manufacturer's warranty which he supplied to these customers. Respondent further testified that the caulking around the screws which secured the roofovers to the mobile homes would last only about two years in the Florida sunshine. He offered a continuous maintenance contract which the complaining parties declined to take. There was some evidence, but inconclusive, that hurricane Elena struck the area after the roofover was installed for customer #3. However, no evidence was submitted that the roof was damaged by this hurricane. Both of these roofovers were inspected by the City of Largo building inspectors and were signed off as satisfactory. No evidence was presented that these roofovers were improperly installed by Respondent or the workmanship used in these installations was defective.
Recommendation It is recommended that the charges against James Forholt contained in Administrative Complaint dated December 31, 1992 be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of May, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of May, 1993. APPENDIX Proposed findings submitted by Petitioner are accepted except as noted below: 3. Accepted generally as the testimony of Palios; however, subsections thereof listed below are rejected as not supported by credible evidence. a. Rejected. See HO #10. c. Rejected. Several months transpired between the installation of the roofover and observance of water stains. Respondent did some caulking on the roof after complaint was made; however, the roof subsequently leaked. Rejected. The reasons given by this witness for wanting the roofover installed was to remove the need for her husband to recaulk or repair the roof each year. 5. Accepted generally as the testimony of Hensley; however, subsections thereof listed below are rejected as not supported by credible evidence. a. Rejected. See HO #10. Rejected that the leaks resulted solely from Respondent's installation of the roofover. Rejected. 7.c. Rejected. See HO #9. COPIES FURNISHED: David Sadowsky, Esquire Assistant County Attorney 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 34616 James Forholt 9370 83rd Street North Seminole, Florida 34647 William J. Owens/Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 11701 Belcher Road - Suite 102 Largo, Florida 34643 5116
Findings Of Fact Respondent Gulf Coast Home Health Services, Inc. is a corporation providing home health care services in several Florida counties. It has an office in Hernando County and also serves clients in Citrus County. It presently has no license to serve Citrus County and has no Subunit in Hernando County. Petitioner Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services notified Respondent on January 17, 1980 that it intended to enter a final order requiring Respondent to terminate its operations in the two counties, aid Respondent requested an administrative hearing. Respondent's home office is located in St. Petersburg, Pinellas County, Florida. It was licensed to serve an area including Pinellas, Pasco, Hillsborough and Hernando Counties until licensure in 1980-81, when Hernando County was omitted. It was then stipulated that Respondent could continue operations in Hernando County until the final order in this case. Respondent was licensed to serve said counties without obtaining a certificate of need inasmuch as Petitioner had determined that Section 400.504, Florida Statutes, was inapplicable to those counties in which there was service to the area previous to the effective date of the statute. Respondent first served Hernando County from its Pinellas County office, but after opening an office in Pasco County in April of 1979, it notified Petitioner that it was serving Hernando County from its Pasco County office. Petitioner wrote a letter to Respondent on April 28, 1978 stating that in view of the increased expansion of Gulf Coast Home Health Services, Inc. into Hernando County, a sufficient client population base in Hernando County, and because of the time and distance factors from Pinellas County to Hernando County, a "Subunit" must be established in Hernando County (Petitioner's Exhibit 2, page 17). Respondent replied to the April correspondence by letter dated October 20, 1978 that servicing of Hernando County bad been moved from Pinellas County to Pasco County and stated that Respondent, too, saw a need to establish an office in Hernando County (Petitioner's Exhibit 2, page 14). Thereafter, an office was opened in Brooksville, Hernando County, Florida, by Respondent, but no application for a Subunit was filed. By correspondence dated June 14, 1979 Petitioner notified Respondent that a certificate of need had been deemed not necessary but an application for a Subunit was necessary and should be filed by July 6, 1979, and that a survey would then be scheduled. No application was filed, and a Notice to Show Cause why the Respondent's license should not be modified was issued on August 23, 1979. Respondent took no action. The office that was established in Brooksville, Florida in April of 1979 is under the overall general supervision of an Associate Director of Nursing. The Associate is the supervisor of the staff in the office both as to patient care and the clerical processing of all office records. The Associate's duties include supervision of a variety of skilled professional nurses, physical therapists, speech therapists, occupational therapists, social workers, home health aides and homemakers as well as the supervision of clerical personnel. The field supervisor in St. Petersburg coordinates the care of patients from the hospital to the home and relays information regarding patient care from the patient's physician to the nursing supervisor in the Brooksville office, who in turn relays the information to the appropriate staff who visit the patient. Patient medical records and plans for treatment are kept in the Brooksville office except for the annual survey, when they are moved to the home office in St. Petersburg. Some billing and typing of progress notes for the Brooksville office is provided by the Respondent's office in New Port Richey before such records are sent to the home office in St. Petersburg, Florida. The distance from Brooksville in Hernando County to St. Petersburg in Pinellas County is approximately 63 miles. Pasco County, where Respondent has another office, is between Pinellas County arid Hernando County. The distance between the office site in New Port Richey and that of Brooksville is about 37 miles. The area is rapidly growing, and the traffic is often congested on the few highways. II. On August 26, 1976 the Program Coordinator for Home Health Services of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services stated in a letter to the president of Gulf Coast Home Health Services, Inc. that Respondent had agreed to assume care on an interim basis of the former patients of Alaris Home Health Care Agency, which had ceased operations in Citrus County, Florida. The letter further stated that if the staff of that agency were employed by Respondent they should be supervised from the central office of Gulf Coast Home Health Service, Inc. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, pages 15-16). Respondent accepted the patients of Alaris in August of 1976 as well as other patients from Citrus County. It continued to serve patients from Citrus County but did not apply for a license to serve Citrus County and did not include that county on its applications for licensure for the other counties it served until 1980. In late 1978 or early 1979 the Director of the office of Licensure and Certification, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, received a complaint from Central Florida Home Health Agency, Inc. that Respondent was operating in Citrus County. The Director notified Respondent's Director that Gulf Coast Home Health Service, Inc. was not licensed to serve Citrus County and requested some action. On January 15, 1979 Respondent sent a memorandum to the Brooksville office in Hernando County instructing the staff to cease serving Citrus County and forwarded a copy of said memorandum to Petitioner. However, before the memorandum was effected Respondent's Director verbally rescinded his directive, without notifying Petitioner, and continued to serve patients in Citrus County (Petitioner's Exhibit 3; Transcript, pages 139-144) Central Florida Home Health Agency, Inc. has been issued a license to service Citrus County, and at present both that agency and Respondent are serving patients in Citrus County, Florida. Central Florida Home Health Agency, Inc. has requested the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services to enjoin Respondent from its activities in Citrus County. Both parties submitted proposed findings of fact, memoranda of law and proposed recommended orders. These instruments were considered in the writing of this order. To the extent the proposed findings of fact have not been adopted in or are inconsistent with factual findings in this order, they have been specifically rejected as being irrelevant or not having been supported by the evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law the Hearing Officer recommends that Respondent be required to cease its operations in Hernando County until and unless it is licensed as a Subunit. It is also recommended that Respondent terminate its operation in Citrus County until and unless it is licensed to serve said county. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of September, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DELPHENE C. STRICKLAND Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Robert P. Daniti, Esquire Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Howard P. Ross, Esquire 980 Tyrone Boulevard Post Office Box 41100 St. Petersburg, Florida 33743
The Issue Did the Department of Children and Family Services (Department) properly terminate Home-Delivered Meals to Petitioner under the Community Care for Disabled Adults Program?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Department is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility of administering the Community Care for Disabled Adults Act (CCDA). See Sections 410.601- 410.606, Florida Statutes. In accordance with Section 410.604(1), Florida Statutes, the Department contracted with Gulf Coast Jewish Family Services, Inc. d/b/a Gulf Coast Community Care (Gulf Coast Community Care) to administer the CCDA in the following Florida Counties: Pasco, Pinellas, and Hillsborough. The services to be administered under the contract with Gulf Coast Community Care are Case Management, Personal Care, Homemaker, Emergency Alert Response, and Home-Delivered Meals. In December 1998, the Department determined that Petitioner met the eligibility requirements for services under the CCDA Program as set out in Sections 410.603(2) and 410.604(2), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 2, Client Eligibility, HRS Manual 140-8, Aging and Adult Services, Community Care For Disabled Adults. At this time, Petitioner was eligible to receive Case Management and Homemaker services. In September 1999, Petitioner became eligible for Home- Delivered Meals, which consisted of three frozen meals being delivered to Petitioner's home once a week. On November 19, 2001, Petitioner's Caseworker, Odette Powell, visited Petitioner's home for the purpose of completing a Homemaker Service Plan (Plan). The Plan listed the different Homemaker services which Petitioner was to receive. Meal Planning/Preparation/Food Storage was not included in the services listed in the Plan because Petitioner advised her caseworker that she did not need that service. On November 19, 2001, the Homemaker was spending two hours per week at Petitioner's home helping with the different Homemaker Services. Petitioner's neighbor helps Petitioner prepare meals on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Additionally, Petitioner's children, a son and a daughter, come approximately twice a month to assist Petitioner with whatever needs to be done. Petitioner also obtains food through charities and buys food with her social security income and the social security income of a second daughter who lives with Petitioner. On May 20, 2002, the caseworker completed another Plan which added the services of meal planning/preparation/food storage as needed and another hour of homemaker services, which totaled three hours per week of Homemaker services for Petitioner. Petitioner is capable of preparing her own food. Particularly with the help of her neighbor, relatives, and Homemaker services. Petitioner has sufficient income with which she could purchase Home-Delivered Meals if she so desired. Therefore, Petitioner is no longer in need of the Home-Delivered Meal service.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a final order terminating Home-Delivered Meals to Petitioner under the CCDA Program. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of July, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 12th day of July, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Raymond R. Deckert, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services 9393 North Florida Avenue, Room 902 Tampa, Florida 33612 Delores Morris Post Office Box 2373 Dade City, Florida 33525 Paul F. Flounlacker, Jr., Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204B Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Josie Tomayo, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 2, Room 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
