Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, is the regulatory agency charged with regulating the terminate and pest control industry in Florida. Respondent, Howard R. Kempton, is a certified operator licensed by the Petitioner. During times material, Respondent was a certified pest control operator for Pinellas Termite and Pest Control, Inc., in St. Petersburg. On July 24, 1991, Respondent was the certified operator in charge of fumigation of a residential structure at 3318 Shamrock in Tampa, Florida. In carrying out the fumigation, Respondent used the fumigant product VIKANE (sulfuryl fluoride). Respondent did not provide Petitioner a notice of the intended fumigation at 3318 Shamrock in Tampa within 24 hours in advance of the fumigation as is required by the Petitioner's rules and the labeling provisions for the product VIKANE. In addition, Petitioner's inspector, William Bargen, who has been employed by Petitioner in the office of entomology in excess of 28 years, visited the residence on the day of the fumigation and the tarpaulin that Respondent used was not air tight as practicable in that it contained numerous slits and tears that was not properly sealed at the ground level encompassing the structure. The safety warning signs fastened to the exterior of the tarpaulin were not printed in indelible ink or paint and the emergency phone numbers for the certified operator were not legible. As a result of the improper seals, the fumigant VIKANE was escaping from the tarpaulin while the gas was being pumped into the structure at 3318 Shamrock on July 24, 1991. Inspector Bargen took photos of the fumigation tent as it was in place at 3318 Shamrock on the day in question, July 24, 1991 and it depicts the condition of the tarpaulin and the improper signs that were utilized by Respondent on that jobsite. The owner of the property called Petitioner's office and Inspector Bargen visited the site on July 24, 1991. It is undisputed that Respondent alerted the homeowner to call Petitioner who in turn dispatched Inspector Bargen to the site based on instructions from Respondent that he alert the Department of the on-going problems that he was having with his employer, Pinellas Termite and Pest Control, Inc. Respondent admits that the manner in which the fumigation occurred on July 24, 1991 at 3318 Shamrock in Tampa was improperly performed. However, Respondent offers that he did as much as he could under the circumstances to comply with the Petitioner's rules and regulations and the labelling instructions for the fumigant VIKANE as set forth by the manufacturer. Respondent related numerous occurrences whereby he attempted to convey the importance of carrying out the proper instructions to his employer without success. As a result, Respondent sought other employment and is no longer employed as a certified operator with Pinellas Pest Control. Finally, while Respondent recognized that a certified operator is responsible for the overall operations of the fumigation projects that he is in charge of, he relates that instructions were given to office personnel at Pinellas Pest Control to advise the Petitioner of the 24 hour notice prior to the date of fumigation and he was under the impression that timely notice was forwarded to Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a final order imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $250.00 payable to Petitioner within 30 days of the entry of the Petitioner's final order.1/ DONE and ENTERED this 29 day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29 day of May, 1992.
The Issue Whether Respondent should be terminated from employment with Petitioner for failing a drug screen.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Diane O'Connor, is a fifty-one-year-old woman who was employed with the Escambia County School Board as a school bus driver. She has been a school bus driver for several years. As part of her employment in a safety-sensitive position, Respondent was generally aware of the Board's Drug Free Workplace Policy, Escambia County School Board Rule 6Gx17-2.33, and that she was subject to random drug testing. In fact, Respondent had been subjected to five or six random drug tests in the past. Respondent's past tests were negative since Respondent does not use marijuana or other illegal drugs. In 1999, Respondent began taking Hemp Seed Oil after she experienced chest pains at Baptist Hospital in Pensacola because she was concerned for her health. Mr. Kevin Kerish, a friend of Ms. O'Connor's recommended that she take Hemp Seed Oil for her general health. He said it made him feel better. Respondent purchased her first bottle of Hemp Seed Oil in Pensacola. However, all subsequent bottles were acquired from a distributor in California. Hemp Seed Oil is a food product. It is not a controlled substance. There was no evidence to show and it is highly doubtful, that Hemp Seed Oil has any psycho-active properties. On April 26, 2000, Respondent was subjected to a random drug test on her urine. The urine sample was split into two separate specimens. On May 3, 2000, she was informed by Dr. James Barnshaw, the Medical Review Officer, that the urine specimen she provided was reported as positive for marijuana. The sample contained a concentration for 9-THC (11-nor-delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol) of 35 ng/mL (nanograms per milliliter). 9-THC is the major metabolite of the active ingredient in marijuana. It is also a metabolite for legal hemp products. Hemp is one of a variety of plants that originates from Cannabis Sativa (commonly called Marijuana). In one form cannabis produces hemp fiber, an ancient source of rope. Currently, hemp fiber is a practical source of fabric from which many clothing accessories can be made. Additionally, various health food products derived from hemp are commercially available. In particular, Hemp Seed Oil, like the oil being taken by Respondent, has a very high content of polyunsaturated fats (essential amino acids and fatty acids). These fats are used to maintain a healthy lifestyle and are used in the treatment of a variety of diseases. Neither hemp fiber or Hemp Seed Oil contains significant amounts of any substance with psychoactive properties. During her phone interview with Dr. Barnshaw on May 3, 2000, Respondent denied using marijuana. Through the questioning of Dr. Barnshaw she revealed that she had been taking Hemp Seed Oil since August or September 1999. Dr. Barnshaw told Respondent that Hemp Seed Oil can cause a positive test result for THC and was possibly the cause of her positive test result. Dr. Barnshaw notified the Escambia County School District of Respondent's test result on May 4, 2000. The explanation offered by Respondent for the positive test result was not acceptable to the School Board. However, other than to maintain a strict policy on drugs, no explanation for the School Board's or Medical Review Officer's reasoning on rejecting Respondent's explanation was introduced into evidence. The bottle of Hemp Seed Oil produced by Respondent at the hearing contained a warning in very small print that ingestion of the Oil could cause a positive drug test. Respondent neither saw nor read that warning until after she tested positive. A friend actually pointed the label warning out to her. On May 9, 2000, Respondent requested that the split urine specimen be analyzed. On May 22, 2000, the original result was re-confirmed positive for marijuana with metabolite concentrations at 63 ng/mL9-THC. Respondent ceased consumption of the oil immediately upon notification of the positive test result and upon being informed that the oil may have been its cause. On May 10, 2000, Respondent was given a Notice of Disciplinary Action which specified the charges against her as violating the employer's Drug Free Workplace Policy (Rule 6Gx17-2.23) and committing misconduct involving the unlawful use of a controlled substance. It further notified her that she would be dismissed on May 17, 2000. At the May 16, 2000, School Board meeting, the Escambia County School Board terminated Respondent, effective May 17, 2000. Dr. Palm is a pharmacology professor at Florida A & M University. He is an expert in his field. Based on his expert opinion, the ingestion of 2-3 tablespoons of Hemp Seed Oil (30-45 mL) on a daily basis will cause a positive test result for THC in the amounts found in Respondent's urine samples. The Board has a non-mandatory policy that allows an employee to notify management of any prescription drugs or other medications an employee is taking that could inhibit their ability to drive. The policy does not cover substances which may impact a drug test. Respondent was aware of the Board's policy only with respect to prescription drugs. Respondent's consumption of Hemp Seed Oil never had any affect on her ability to drive. Respondent never thought the oil could affect a drug screen. Therefore, she never reported her use of Hemp Seed Oil to anyone. Since Hemp Seed Oil does not have any affect on a person's ability to drive, it is not a substance covered by the Board's reporting policy. Moreover, the Board's reporting policy is non-mandatory. Therefore, Respondent did not violate the Board's reporting policy. Respondent's positive drug test was based upon consumption of Hemp Seed Oil, not marijuana or any other controlled substance. The Board's rule prohibits use of controlled substances and substances which may affect a person's ability to drive. Except in cases of deliberate tampering, it does not prohibit use of substances which may affect a drug test. The driver's manual states that: Any employee testing positive for a controlled substance or found to have performed a safety-sensitive function with a BAC of 0.04 or greater will be terminated from employment with the School district. However, the manual is not a rule and was not shown to be part of Rule 6Gx17-2.33. Since Respondent did not violate Rule 6Gx 17-2.33, she should be reinstated with back-pay and benefits.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the charges against Respondent should be dismissed and she should be reinstated with full back-pay and employment benefits plus interest from the date of May 17, 2000. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of January, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of January, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph L. Hammons, Esquire Hammons & Whittaker, P.A. 17 West Cervantes Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Thomas W. Brooks, Esquire Meyer & Brooks 2544 Blairstone Pines Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael H. Olenick, General Counsel Department of Education The Capitol, Suite 1701 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Jim May, Superintendent Escambia County School Board 215 West Garden Street Pensacola, Florida 32501 Honorable Charlie Crist Commissioner of Education Department of Education The Capitol, Plaza Level 08 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400
The Issue The issues presented for decision herein are (a) whether or not Respondent, Charbet Chemical Company a pesticide producing establishment, unlawfully distributed, sold, or offered for sale or transported a pesticide which was not registered with Petitioner; (b) whether Respondent unlawfully distributed pesticides which were mix-branded and (c) whether Respondent unlawfully refused, after notice, to comply with lawful rules and orders of Petitioner applicable to pesticide producing establishments.
Findings Of Fact By its ten (10) count amended administrative complaint filed herein mailed February 19, 1986, Petitioner seeks to impose disciplinary sanctions against Respondent, based on alleged conduct, set forth hereinafter in detail, based on authority granted Petitioner pursuant to Sections 487.091(2) and 487.158(2)(e), Florida Statutes. Respondent, Charbet Chemical Company is a pesticide producing establishment situated at 1360 NW 54th Street in Miami, Florida. Fazal Haq is a pesticide enforcement specialist employed by Petitioner since 1980. His duties include the inspection of pesticide producing establishments, drawing samples of pesticide products to ensure that they are properly registered, labeled and chemically effective for the purposes which they are distributed or sold. In keeping with his duties, Enforcement Specialist Haq made a routine inspection of Respondent's establishment on June 5, 1984. On that date, Haq observed the pesticides "Guard," "Alpine Pine Disinfectant," "Kill-Germ," "Bac Zone," and "Pyro- Kil" at Respondent's establishment. All five products were offered for sale and were not registered as pesticides. During the June 5, 1984 inspection, Enforcement Specialist Haq also obtained samples of the above-referred products. Laboratory analysis revealed that the product "Kill- Germ," when tested by Petitioner using the AOAC /1 use dilution test, failed to kill staphylococcus aureus in fifty of fifty trials. The second product tested was "Pyro-Kil." Laboratory analysis revealed that the quantity of chemically active ingredients in the product "Pyro-Kil" was 66-82 percent deficient in technical piperonyl butoxide. Enforcement Specialist Haq's examination of the products "Bac Zone" and "Pyro-Kil" indicates that Respondent did not have the assigned EPA Accession Number affixed to the product labels. On June 5, 1985, Enforcement Specialist Haq collected samples of Respondent's products "Guard," "Alpine Pine Disinfectant," Kill-Germ," "Bac Zone," and "Pyro-Kil." As of June 5, 1985, Respondent had not registered the referenced products with Petitioner despite Petitioner's notice to Respondent of the registration provisions by letter dated February 16, 1982. Respondent has had the referenced products for sale through calendar years 1982 - 1985 and has refused, after notice, to comply with the registration provisions of Chapter 487, Florida Statutes, to wit Sections 487.158(1)(g), and Section 487.041(1), Florida Statutes. Steven John Rutz, Petitioner's environmental administrator since April, 1983, is in charge of oversight in field operations, case management and implementation of the grant agreements (federal) for Petitioner. Administrator Rutz examined Respondent's registration history for its pesticide products. Respondent's products "Guard," "Alpine Pine Disinfectant," "Kill- Germ," "Bac Zone" and "Pyro-Kil," were not registered when Enforcement Specialist Haq visited Respondent's facility on June 5, 1984. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 7).
Conclusions The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this action. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The parties were duly noticed pursuant to the notice provisions of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. Petitioner, Department of Agriculture and Consumer, Services is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating pesticide producing establishments and for imposing disciplinary action against such establishments when warranted pursuant to the authority of Chapter 487, Florida Statutes. Respondent Charbet Chemical Company is a pesticide producing establishment and, as such, is subject to the disciplinary guides of Chapter 487, Florida Statutes. Florida pesticide laws require that pesticides be annually registered and properly labeled. The requirements include displaying on the products container its EPA Accession Number and the content of active ingredients in the product. Respondent's products "Guard," "Alpine Pine Disinfectant," "Kill-Germ," "Bac Zone" and "Pyro-Kil" are pesticides within the meaning of Section 487.021(45), Florida Statutes. Respondent distributed, sold and offered for sale the above-referenced pesticides during times material and failed to annually register such products as required in violation of Section 487.041(1), Florida Statutes. Competent and substantial evidence was offered herein to establish that the Respondent failed to register its products "Guard," "Alpine Pine Disinfectant," "Kill-Germ," "Bac Zone," and "Pyro-Kil" as was required pursuant to Section 487.041(1), Florida Statutes, and thereby derivatively violated Section 487.031(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Respondent's product "Kill-Germ," based on a laboratory analysis by Petitioner, was ineffective in that it failed the AOAC use dilution test. Respondent thereby misbranded "Kill-Germ" in violation of Section 487.031(1)(f), Florida Statutes. Respondent's product "Pyro-Kil," when tested for the quantity of chemically active ingredients, was found to be deficient in the range from 66 to 82 percent in technical piperonyl butox. Based thereon the active ingredient concentration was found to be less than the quantity stated on the product label and as such was mix-branded in violation of Section 487.031(1)(f), Florida Statutes. Evidence reveals that when Haq inspected Respondent's facility on June 5, 1984, labels from Respondent's product "Bac Zone" and "Pyro Kil" failed to display their assigned EPA Accession Number. Based thereon, the labels did not include all required information and were therefore mix-branded in violation of Section 487.031(1)(f), Florida Statutes. Evidence adduced herein reveals that Respondent's products "Guard," "Alpine Pine Disinfectant," "Bac Zone, N Pyro- Kil," and "Contact" were not properly registered pursuant to Section 487.158(1)(g), Florida Statutes. Despite written notice to Respondent that the products were not properly registered, that refusal to register continued at least through the date of the hearing herein.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be fined $200 for each of the ten (10) violations found herein above and as is more particularly set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint filed herein for a total administrative fine of $2,000. It is further recommended that payment of the $2,000 fine be paid to Petitioner, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, within 30 days of the date of Petitioner's rendition of its Final Order. Recommended this 28th day of March, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of March, 1986.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations set forth in the Administrative Complaint, as amended, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the operation of the pest control industry pursuant to Section 482.032, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this case, Clifford Killingsworth was the owner and Certified Operator in Charge (COIC) of Killingsworth Environmental, Inc., d/b/a Environmental Security, a/k/a KEFL, Inc., a licensed pest control company in Cantonment, Florida. Counts 9 and 11 Counts 9 and 11 of the Administrative Complaint allege as follows: Count 9 During an inspection on July 11, 2003, the Department found that Killingsworth Environmental, Incorporated operated an unlicensed business location at 9100 Hamman Avenue, Pensacola, at which sales solicitations were made and remuneration received. This is a violation of Chapters 482.071(1) and (2), Florida Statutes. Count 11 During an inspection on July 11, 2003 the Department found that Killingsworth Environmental, Incorporated phone numbers terminated in an unlicensed location at 9100 Hamman Avenue. This is a violation of Chapter 5E-14.142(3)(b). Killingsworth Environmental, Inc., d/b/a Environmental Security, a/k/a KEFL (hereinafter KEFL), is physically located at 4141 Pine Forest Road in Cantonment, Florida, and is listed at this address on its application for business license filed with the Department. Cantonment is located in Escambia County near Pensacola, Florida. Two other pest control companies, Environmental Security of Okaloosa, Inc., and Atlas Termite and Pest Control of Cantonment, Inc., are located at the same address. On July 11, 2003, the Department conducted an inspection of a company called Home Services Marketing and Management, LLC (hereinafter Home Services), which is located at 9100 Hamman Avenue in Pensacola. Clifford Killingsworth and Clinton Killingsworth2/ are the managers of Home Services. On March 26, 2002, KEFL entered into a Management and Marketing Agreement with Home Services, executed by Clifford Killingsworth on behalf of KEFL and by Clinton Killingsworth on behalf of Home Services. Since that agreement was signed, the telephone number for KEFL listed in the local telephone directory terminated at Home Services. Home Services also answers calls for Environmental Security of Okaloosa and Atlas Termite and Pest Control of Cantonment, Inc. Through their computer system and caller ID, the Home Services employee knows which company is being called and answers accordingly. Home Services employees do not make "cold calls" to new customers. They receive calls from existing customers. They contact customers with active accounts to set up renewals. They also contact homeowners whose homes were treated during construction and whose initial accounts were with the builder of the home. If a new customer calls, a Home Services employee answers the call, gets the contact information from the potential new client, and then calls the appropriate technician who would then call or visit the potential customer. The appropriate technician is generally determined by the geographic location of the caller. While a Home Services employee might send a preprinted contract to the technician to take to the job site or mail a contract to a customer, Home Services does not enter into any contract to perform pest control services. No pest control trucks or chemicals are stored at Home Services. Home Services also has a payment processing component. Home Services sends bills to pest control customers which instruct customers to make out the check to the appropriate pest control company, not to Home Services. Payments from customers for pest control services are deposited into the account of the appropriate pest control company. No evidence was presented that 9100 Hamman Avenue is an advertised permanent location of KEFL from which business was solicited, accepted, or conducted. After the July 11, 2003, inspection of Home Services, Clinton Killingsworth, Clifford Killingsworth's brother, took steps to get Home Services licensed as a pest control company. Clifford Killingsworth did this because it was his understanding that the Department took the position that Home Services was in the business of practicing pest control services. He employed his brother, Daniel Killingsworth, to be the required licensed person in charge, and contacted several insurance companies to obtain the required insurance. He had difficulty in obtaining the required insurance since Home Services does not offer pest control services. Despite these difficulties, Home Services was issued a license in December 2003. Count 10 Count 10 of the Administrative Complaint, as amended, reads as follows: During an inspection on July 16, 2003, the Department found that Killingsworth Environmental, Incorporated stored pesticides at an unlicensed business location at 1830 Galvez Road, Gulf Breeze, Florida, which is a violation of Chapter 5E- 14.142(5)(f) and (g), Florida Administrative Code. That in addition, the Respondent, Killingsworth Environmental, Inc., regularly parked trucks containing pesticide at that location during nighttime hours, published in the 2002-2003 Bell South Telephone Directory under Pest Control Services in the yellow pages of the telephone directory, a listing for "Environmental Security", a name under which it did business, and its employees received by facsimile daily work assignments that were sent to them at that location. That the Respondent, Killingsworth Environmental, Inc operated an unlicensed business location at 1830 Galvez Road, Gulf Breeze, Florida, in violation of Section 482.071(2)(a), Florida Statutes.[3/] The property located at 1830 Galvez Drive is surrounded by a locked fence and contains a structure. The structure is not enclosed. Both KEFL and Environmental Security of Okaloosa park trucks there overnight. The Department conducted an inspection of 1830 Galvez Drive on July 16, 2003. When the inspectors arrived, the gate to the property was locked and the trucks were locked. They entered the property when pest control employees arrived. On the day of the inspection, the Department's inspectors found unmixed chemicals in the trucks. Clifford Killingsworth acknowledges that at the time of the inspection, company trucks parked at the Galvez Drive location overnight and pesticides were in the locked trucks. Company records or contracts are not stored at the Galvez Drive location. No customer contact takes place at or from the Galvez Drive location. The Pest Control Business License Application Form contains a space in which the licensee must respond to the following: "Designate location where pest control records and contracts will be kept and the exact location address for storage of chemicals if other than licensed business location." The applications for business license for KEFL d/b/a Environmental Security do not reference 1830 Galvez Road as a location where storage of chemicals occurs. KEFL does not have a license for operating a business at this location. The yellow pages for the Pensacola area contains a listing in red ink for "Environmental Security, Inc." It lists an address of 4141 Pine Forest Road with the telephone number 473-1060. There is another reference to "Environmental Security" in black ink in smaller type which lists the address 1830 Galvez Drive with the number 916-7731.4/ Clifford Killingsworth arranged to have a phone line for a fax machine to be located in a trailer at the Galvez Drive location. The purpose of installing a fax line at Galvez Drive was for employees to receive daily schedule assignments. The 916-7731 number listed in the yellow pages is the number of the fax machine. Clifford Killingsworth did not request a listing for the number of the fax machine. However, the telephone company listed it in the phone book. Clinton Killingsworth has requested the local telephone company remove the erroneous listing a number of times. Count 13 Count 13 of the Administrative Complaint reads as follows: During an inspection on July 11, 2003 the Department found that pesticide was kept at 4141 Pine Forest Road in a container other than application equipment and not accurately identified through the use of permanent, durable label or tag, showing the common or chemical name(s) of principal active ingredients(s), which is a violation of Chapter 5E-14.106(4), Florida Administrative Code. On July 11, 2003, the Department conducted an inspection of KEFL's business location, 4141 Pine Forest Road. One of the inspectors that day was Bruce Nicely, a regional supervisor of the Department's Bureau of Entomology and Pest Control. He was accompanied by Paul Matola of the Department, who did not testify at the hearing. During the inspection, Clifford Killingsworth opened a storage trailer for inspection. Mr. Killingsworth described the trailer as a jug disposal trailer, where empty jugs and drums were stored until they could be recycled or disposed of properly. At the back of the trailer, Mr. Nicely found a two- and-one-half gallon unmarked jug inside a five-gallon bucket. An unidentified substance was inside the jug. Mr. Nicely took a sample of the substance inside the jug, pouring it directly into an eight-ounce sample jar. He labeled the jar "PHY number 07110346060107" and placed the sample in a sealed sample collection bag which was put in a cooler of ice. When completing the pesticide collection report, he wrote "pesticide screen" in a blank after the words, "List active ingredient(s) and/or compounds to analyze for." Mr. Nicely then gave the sample to Steven Dwinnel, at 4:35 p.m. on July 11, 2003.5/ Mr. Dwinnel relinquished the sample to Mike Page at 8:03 p.m. on July 11, 2003. At the time, Mr. Page was the director of the Department's pesticide laboratory. Mr. Page has an undergraduate degree in chemistry and a graduate degree in toxicology and pharmacology with over 16 years of experience as an analytical chemist. When Mr. Page received the pesticide collection report, the word "Lindane" also appeared on the report along with the request for a pesticide screen. It is not clear who wrote the word "Lindane" on the collection report or when the word "Lindane" was written. According to Mr. Page, a pesticide screen includes testing for Lindane. He therefore concluded that whether or not the word "Lindane" was included in the request for analysis made no difference in the lab's testing. An analysis of the sample was performed revealing that the sample contained a concentration of 34.2 percent Lindane and 46 parts per million of Chlorophyrifos. Mr. Page described the amount of Chlorophyrifos compared to the Lindane as a minuscule amount. Both Lindane and Chlorophyrifos are pesticides. The undersigned is persuaded that the Department appropriately maintained the chain of custody of the sample regardless of whether or not the word "Lindane" appeared on the collection report. The fact that "Lindane" appeared on the collection report sometime after Mr. Nicely relinquished it and the sample is of no consequence as to the validity of the laboratory testing of the sample. Clifford Killingsworth is uncertain as to whether his company ever used Lindane but is certain that they have not used it in recent years as it has been "off the market" since approximately 1999. Two other pest control companies, Environmental Security of Okaloosa, Inc. and Atlas Termite and Pest Control of Cantonment, Inc., also use the trailer from which the sample was taken, to store empty pesticide containers. Clifford Killingsworth does not know if the jug from which the sample was taken belonged to his company. Although he was aware that his company stored empty pesticide jugs in the trailer, he was unaware that a jug in the trailer contained an unidentified substance. When asked under cross-examination what he would have done had he been aware of a jug containing an unidentified substance, he answered that he probably would have called the landfill to see when the next "roundup" would be as that is when the landfill takes "unidentifieds."
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered assessing a fine against Respondents in the amount of $2,600. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of May, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS 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 25th day of May, 2005.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Lan-Mac Pest Control-Englewood, Inc. and Lan-Mac Pest Control-Fort Myers, Inc. (Lan-Mac) are pest control operators conducting business in the general area of each individual respondent regarding whom they have requested a formal hearing. Larry McKinney owns these companies and has over 4,000 customers, nine pest control routes, six lawn care routes and a termite crew, all servicing the west coast from Collier County up through Sarasota County. Certified Operators of SW Florida, Inc. and Florida Pest Control Association, Inc. (FPCA) are trade associations with members who are pest control operators conducting business in the geographical area of each individual respondent regarding whom they have petitioned for a formal hearing. The members of these associations are substantially affected by the issues raised in this proceeding. As stipulated by the parties, the petitioners described above have standing to petition and participate as parties in this proceeding. (Prehearing Stipulation, page 12) Each of the individual respondents has submitted to the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DACS) an application for registration as an especially pesticide-sensitive person, together with the statutory fee and a purported physician's certificate. Each individual respondent's claim is addressed more specifically below. The DACS is the state agency responsible for administering and maintaining the pesticide-sensitive persons' registry as provided in section 482.2265(3), F.S. The Registry Upon payment of a fee and submittal of an appropriate physician's certificate, pesticide-sensitive persons are placed on a list of persons who are entitled to 24-hour advance notice when a pest control operator is going to make an exterior application on property adjacent or contiguous to the pesticide- sensitive person's primary residence. The certificate must be from a physician qualified in a category established by department rule. The department has adopted rule 5E-14.146, F.A.C. specifying the categories. The DACS may designate a person "especially pesticide-sensitive" if, in addition to the submittal described above, the person provides "clear and convincing proof" that he or she is so sensitive to pesticides that the standard notice is not enough, and notification of applications at greater distance is necessary to protect the person's health. The notification distance requirement may not exceed one-half mile from the boundaries of the property where the hypersensitive person resides. The required notice is limited to use of a pesticide or pesticide class to which sensitivity is documented or for which the department determines sensitivity is scientifically probable. The department may limit notice requirements in applications in excess of a stipulated quantity and may not require notice of applications at a distance beyond the minimum distance required to prevent endangerment of the health of the individual. Section 482.2265, F.S. requires the individual registrant (pesticide- sensitive person) to notify the department of the properties or residences falling within the notice parameters (either adjacent or extra distance) so that the department can supply this necessary information to the pest control operators. Without this information, the operators cannot know whether a specific application is subject to notice. Pest control operators who fail to provide the notice required by section 482.2265, F.S. are subject to administrative sanctions by DACS, including fines and license suspension or revocation. Violations of the Pest Control Act are third degree misdemeanors. John Mulrennan, Ph.D. is the Bureau Chief of DACS' Bureau of Entomology and Pest Control, which bureau administers the requirements of Chapter 482, F.S. Dr. Mulrennan has a Ph.D. in entomology from Oklahoma State University. Dr. Mulrennan has delegated the day-to-day administration of the registry to Philip Helseth, Administrator of the Pest Control Section; and to Cherie Decker, Philip Helseth's secretary. Mr. Helseth, and more often, Cherie Decker, review applications from persons seeking to be placed on the registry. They determine whether the application is complete, the fee is attached or waived, and the physician signing the certification is properly qualified under the rule. The department has no medical personnel on staff to review medical records and it relies entirely on the physician's certification for the determination of eligibility for the registry. Dr. Mulrennan considers that a physician who is licensed and board-certified should be able to make the necessary diagnosis and the department is in no position to question that diagnosis. There are several versions of the application form/physician's certification that have been used by the agency, DACS, and its predecessor agency, the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), but the current version is a one-page form with blanks to be completed on the front and printed guidelines on the back. The form elicits the person's name and primary residence address, with day and night telephone numbers. The form includes this "Physician's Certification:" I certify that the individual named above is a patient of mine and should be placed on the list of pesticide-sensitive persons. This individual has a documented sensitivity to a particular pesticide or class of pest- icides. The specific pesticide or class of pesticides to which registrant is sensitive: [blanks provided] The individual named above is currently under my care for a diagnosed condition or ailment for which I have proof that the normal appli- cation of a pesticide would aggravate the condition or ailment to such an extent that placement on the registry for prior notification is necessary to protect that person's health. Diagnosed condition or ailment: [blanks provided] (FPCA Exhibit #17) For persons registering as especially pesticide- sensitive, the form requests the special distance required: one block, two blocks, 1/4 mile, up to 1/2 mile limit. The certifying physician's signature, address, telephone number and the signature of a witness follows this statement: I further certify that I am a qualified physician, board certified and recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties in the specialty of toxicology, allergy or occupational medicine. I have diagnosed this patient's sensitivity based on the guidelines set forth by the department (see reverse side). Board certification will be verified by this Bureau. (FPCA Exhibit #17) The guidelines on the reverse of the form were developed with the assistance of the State Health Director, Dr. Mahan, and the Florida Medical Association. The guidelines are: GUIDELINES FOR DIAGNOSING PESTICIDE SENSITIVITY The department recommends the following basic steps be considered in diagnosing an individual as pesticide sensitive: good evidence of exposure history clinical manifestations from a particular exposure body testing related to an exposure, such as x-ray, blood test, urine test, etc., necessary to make a diagnosis environment [sic] examination of the site where the exposure occurs, such as a person's place of work, to determine the existence of exposure in the environment (FPCA Exhibit #17) According to FPCA expert, Dr. Ronald Gots, these guidelines, with minor modifications, are appropriate in determining whether or not someone has sustained a pesticide exposure and reaction and whether there is a causal relationship between a more distant application and endangerment to health. In Dr. Gots' view, the clinical manifestations ought to be the kind that have been specifically associated with the particular substance at issue. Dr. Gots also contends that specific laboratory evidence is not always required to determine pesticide toxicity. Guideline number four is particularly important in dealing with symptoms from remote applications. DACS does not require that the certifying physician use the guidelines provided on the form, as they are only intended as an aid. The agency only intends that the physicians make a diagnosis and reflect that fact in the certificates by their signature. DACS also does not require that the applicant provide actual addresses within the notification area. Instead, if there is a complaint that an operator made a pesticide application without the required notice, the agency will have to determine in that case whether the operator should be held accountable. Placement on the registry for extra distance notice is based solely on the physician's certificate, and whether the individual provides specific addresses or simply distances for the notice is immaterial, according to Dr. Mulrennan, until the agency is confronted with an enforcement issue. DACS checks the qualifications of the doctors who are making the certification. The secretary who checks the applications, Cherie Decker, has a phone number for the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) to call to check on physicians. Examples of qualifications that have been rejected include academic doctorates. The agency has specifically accepted certificates from osteopathic physicians who are certified by the American Osteopathic Association but are not certified by the ABMS. That acceptance was based, in part, on correspondence from the ABMS, American Osteopathic Association, and Albert F. Robbins, D.O. (Department's Exhibits #3-8). Nothing in that correspondence establishes that one board certification is considered equivalent to another by the ABMS or is "recognized" by the ABMS. The Certifying Physicians The individuals at issue in this consolidated proceeding were all certified by one of the following: Albert F. Robbins, D.O.; Michael J. Waickman, M.D.; Neil Ahner, M.D.; Rory P. Doyle; S. J. Klemsawesch M.D.; Hana T. Chaim, D.O.; Paul F. Wubbena, Jr., M.D.; Linda A. Marraccini, M.D.; and Caren B. Singer, M.D. Dr. Robbins practices at the Robbins Environmental Medical Center, 400 South Dixie Highway, Boca Raton, Florida. He has a doctorate of Osteopathic Medicine from Chicago College of Osteopathic Medicine; he is board-certified by the American Osteopathic Board of Preventative Medicine, with a sub-specialty in Occupational and Environmental Medicine; he has a Master of Science in Public Health from the University of Miami. He is not board-certified by the ABMS but he strongly avers that his board certification is equivalent to the specific requirement of the DACS rule referenced in paragraph 7, above. Dr. Waickman practices in Akron, Ohio. A medical doctor, he is board- certified in pediatrics, in allergy and clinical immunology and in environmental medicine. He practices with his son, who is also a medical doctor and who is board-certified in internal medicine and in allergy and clinical immunology. Dr. Ahner is a medical doctor who practices in Jupiter, Florida. The only evidence of his qualifications is his certificate on a patient's application for registration as a pesticide-sensitive person. The certificate, dated February 16, 1993, has all of the language regarding board-certification crossed out. Rory P. Doyle is the name appearing on a certificate for Carol Arrighi's application for registration. Nothing on that certificate indicates whether R. Doyle is a physician. The signature appears beneath the printed statement described in paragraph 16, above. Dr. Klemsawesch is a medical doctor who is board-certified in internal medicine and in allergy and immunology. Dr. Chaim is an osteopathic physician practicing primarily in the areas of family practice and environmental medicine. She is board-certified under the ABMS in family practice. She is a member of several professional organizations, including the American Academy of Occupational and Environmental Medicine and the American Academy of Environmental Medicine. She is not board- certified in any areas other than family practice. Dr. Wubbena is a medical doctor practicing in Jacksonville, Florida. He is board-certified in pediatrics and in allergy and immunology and he practices primarily in the specialty of allergy. The only evidence of qualifications of Drs. Marraccini and Singer is what purports to be their signatures beneath the certificate statement on the DACS application form. Both indicate they are medical doctors. Dr. Singer's signature has the handwritten notation, "Board certified internal medicine only"; Dr. Marraccini's signature has the handwritten notation, "family practice 1989." (Department Exhibit #1) The Individual Applicants Cheryl Mansker's application for registration was certified by Dr. Robbins on March 24, 1993. According to the certificate, she is sensitive to the following: organophosphates, carbamates and pyrethrum. The certification states that notification of 1/2 mile radius is required. Ms. Mansker has been a patient of Dr. Robbins since 1987. He considers her one of the most highly allergic individuals he has seen in his practice. He attributes the onset of her sensitivity to an occasion when she was employed in a bank when, in the process of repairing an air conditioner, a worker ripped the lining of a fiberglass duct and sent fiberglass throughout the entire building. This occasion, according to Dr. Robbins, subjected the patient to mold, formaldehyde and fiberglass. He has no record of any incidents of pesticide exposure, but believes her extreme chemical sensitivity qualifies her as eligible for certification. Dr. Robbins concedes that the amount of dosage is a factor in deciding whether a person is going to react, and whether it is necessary to protect that person. Thomas Milo has been a patient of Dr. Robbins since at least 1986. The certification by Dr. Robbins states that this patient "becomes very ill when exposed to pesticides and other chemicals - Pt. has been advised to avoid exposure to any and all pesticides." (Department exhibit #1) Mr. Milo used to have a florist shop but had to let his son take over because he could not continue to be exposed to pesticides or the flowers in the shop. Although he is functioning better, he must avoid fragrance products, pesticides or automobile exhaust fumes. Generally, when Mr. Milo visited Dr. Robbins with a reaction, the patient gave an exposure history. Sometimes the physician surmised the reaction was to cumulative exposures. Dr. Robbins recalls only one outdoor exposure incident, when a lawn was sprayed, but has no notes to evidence the date or specifics, including distance. According to Dr. Robbins, Mr. Milo needs at least a quarter mile notice to protect his health. This distance is based on the history, apparently given to the doctor by Mr. Milo, that he had reactions to pesticides that affected his health within a quarter of a mile. Joyce Charney has been a patient of Dr. Robbins since approximately 1982. On his certification on her application he listed these classes of pesticides to which she is sensitive: "Organophosphates, chlorinated [sic] and pyrethrum." Someone else apparently added the words "pesticides" and "Dursban" to the certification form. Dr. Robbins has tested Ms. Charney extensively for her multiple severe allergies to pollen, dust and mold. He does not test for allergies to pesticides, but for this and other patients he relies on their history with regard to exposures. In his words: ...[G]enerally, when I fill out those forms I just - if a patient is very chemically sensitive and very allergic I put all classes. It is hard for me to determine which one of the -- If they have said they have had reactions when they go by lawns, or have been in someplace like a Home Depot and they get around the pesticide and they have reactions, or they were spraying with some- thing and have a reaction, it is hard to tell which ones. * * * So if they have had multiple exposures and multiple reactions I just put the full class. (Deposition of Albert Robbins, page 59-60) Dr. Robbins designated two blocks as the required notice distance for Ms. Charney based on her explanation to him that if she gets in the wind drift of a pesticide that has been sprayed, she gets a reaction. He also considered the fact that Ms. Charney and her husband own and live at a motel a few miles from the doctor's office. The motel is an "allergy-free" motel patronized by some of Dr. Robbins' patients who come from out of town and are very chemically sensitive and allergic. He feels that it is appropriate for these patients to have some protection against significant exposures to that motel. Carrietta Kelly was never a patient of Dr. Robbins and he never met her. He signed the certification on her application for registration as a pesticide-sensitive individual after she and her husband, a physician, called him. Her husband is a medical doctor in Naples, Florida, but not a physician qualified according to the DACS rules. Dr. and Mrs. Kelly sent Dr. Robbins a two-page letter describing her health history and describing the symptoms she experienced after her apartment was treated six years prior to the letter, and her condominium was sprayed with Cynoff and Orthane a year prior to the letter. Dr. Robbins classifies those products as fungicides. Based on the history he received from Dr. and Mrs. Kelly, Dr. Robbins identified on the certification form these groups to which she is sensitive: organophosphates, carbamates and pyrethrum; and he designated a 1/2 mile notification distance. Charlene McClure has been a patient of Dr. Robbins since July of 1993. Skin testing reveals that she is food sensitive, pollen sensitive, dust and mold sensitive; and she is sensitive to terpenes, which are the odors from flowering plants. When she comes to Dr. Robbins' office she is generally in a state of collapse. Because of the general sensitivities, Dr. Robbins certified on Ms. McClure's application that she is sensitive to three classes of pesticides: organophosphates, carbamates and pyrethrum. He further certified that she needs notification within a 1/2 mile radius. As part of the exposure history which Ms. McClure gave Dr. Robbins, she stated that in the summer of 1992 there was an aerial application of Decromal 14 mosquito spray over her house. She told him that as a result she suffered from severe headaches, exhaustion, nausea and stomach cramps. Dr. Robbins does not know whether droplets from the spray landed on his patient; he assumes that the Decromal is an organophosphate. The evidence does not establish that it is. Marilyn Friedman has been a patient of Dr. Robbins since 1989. He signed the certification on her application for registration and stated that she is sensitive to these specific pesticides or pesticide classes: organophosphates, carbamates and chlorinated pesticides. At his deposition he indicated that pyrethrums should also be on the list. As with his other patients, the list is based on her history of being severely allergic and chemically sensitive. Ms. Friedman's allergies include pollens, dust, mites, insects, molds, terpenes and foods. According to Dr. Robbins, she cannot tolerate someone coming in the office with a fabric softener on clothing. Dr. Robbins' determination that Ms. Friedman requires one block distance notification is based on his patient's request. His records, as he testified in deposition, do not document specific exposures and reactions but he believes that his certification probably resulted from her request to him and her desire to be protected. The application for Sally B. Platner, dated October 2, 1992, includes a certificate by Michael Waickman, M.D., the son and partner of Francis Waickman, M.D. The certificate includes this description of the pesticides or class of pesticides to which Ms. Platner is sensitive: Fungicides including "Twosome" Chem-lawn Fertilizer application liquid. (Department exhibit #1) There is some further notation, but the evidence fails to establish who made those notes. Dr. Francis Waickman treated Ms. Platner, and his son saw her in his absence. She had previously been treated and tested by Dr. Bill Rea in Texas and she was determined to have many allergies and sensitivities. Sometime in 1982, she was living in an apartment complex in Ohio and reported that she was exposed to some pesticide application by a company called Chem-lawn. Dr. Francis Waickman surmised she had both dermal and respiratory absorption since she developed a skin rash within two hours of the exposure. He is not certain what chemical was implicated, but he is confident that it was a pesticide because he has personally observed that company's practices in the area. Dr. Francis Waickman's regimen of treatment for Ms. Platner included one thousand milligrams of vitamin C hourly, until she improved or got a loose stool from too much vitamin C. The record does not establish whether this treatment was successful for Ms. Platner. The certification in 1992 was based on Ms. Platner's phone call to the Ohio doctors' office and her description of the exposure. Dr. Waickman believes she was exposed to the fungicide, "Twosome," when it was sprayed on a golf course across the street from her residence in Florida. He surmised that since she had angina and other problems with other chemical exposures, she was also sensitive to "Twosome" as a related chemical and through what he described as a "spreading phenomena." Jesse Naglich has been a patient of Dr. Klemsawesch since 1992. She is allergic to a multitude of medicines, has allergic rhinitis and asthma. Dr. Klemsawesch certified her application for registration on November 16, 1993, stating that she is sensitive to Diazinon and organophosphates. She requires two blocks' notice of any application of those substances. Dr. Klemsawesch's assessment of Ms. Naglich's condition and requirements is based on her history. She reported to the doctor that she had adverse reactions after exposure to various chemicals. Sandra Metzger is also a patient of Dr. Klemsawesch. He has treated this "very complex patient" since 1986. On his most recent certification on Ms. Metzger's application for registration, he notes that she is sensitive to "organophosphates, pyrethrins and petrochemical-based compounds." Her diagnosed condition for purposes of the registration is "respiratory allergies and chemical sensitivity," and she requires a two-block notice, according to her physician. Dr. Klemsawesch prefers the term "sensitivity" instead of "allergy" with regard to his patients' reactions, because there is no specific test to determine an allergy to pesticides. Ms. Metzger had to leave her employment because of her reactions to insecticides sprayed in her workplace. She was exposed in 1991 at the same time that her office was being painted. In order to have an adverse reaction, in Dr. Klemsawesch's view, the patient must actually receive a dermal or respiratory exposure, or contact with the mucus membranes of the mouth or eyes. Mere olfactory detection (smell) might be an unpleasant event, but an olfaction reaction is not an allergic or toxic reaction unless the substance is being absorbed into the mucus membranes. Dr. Paul Wubbena has treated Pia Valentine since 1987. She is currently ten years old and suffers from asthma and allergic rhinitis; and, according to Dr. Wubbena's certification dated December 29, 1993, she is sensitive to pyrethrums, Diazinon and Dursban. She had recurring problems when riding her bicycle to the grocery store with her mother, and when pesticides were being sprayed she would start wheezing and coughing and getting sick. Also, based on her history given to the physician, she reacted to pyrethrums in flying insect spray. Dr. Wubbena based his conclusions regarding the specific chemicals on the history given to him by his patient and her mother and on his knowledge that Dursban and Diazinon are commonly used for lawn spraying. Miss Valentine has been tested for reactions to pollens and molds and is allergic to things of that type. Her allergic reactions are similar to her reactions in the presence of the specific pesticides listed by Dr. Wubbena. Jeanne Pellegrino has been treated by Dr. Hana Chaim for multiple chemical sensitivity and pesticide sensitivity since July of 1992. Dr. Chaim signed the certificate on Ms. Pellegrino's application for registration on June 2, 1993, indicating that she is sensitive to "organophosphates, pyrethrums, cypermethrin, especially Dursban" and that she needs 1/2 mile distance notification of application of those pesticides. The determination of what chemicals to put on the certificate was based on discussion with the patient, whom Dr. Chaim understood had established the specific pesticides she had been exposed to in the past. The distance determination was based on Dr. Chaim's understanding that sprays can go from a 900 to 1500-mile radius and the 1/2 mile notice is the maximum required by law. Although she suspected organophosphates were involved in Ms. Pellegrino's first exposure between April and June of 1993, this was not confirmed. Within the files of DACS for Kathryn Kaeding are two physician's certifications, dated February 16, 1993 and June 12, 1992, by Dr. Ahner. On the forms it is noted that she is sensitive to "Hydrocarbons, all pesticides, chlorinated compounds." Her diagnosed condition is "allergy - hypersensitivity - immune dysfunction." There is no other evidence in the record, from the individual or her physician, regarding Ms. Kaeding's condition or eligibility for registration. Nor is there any evidence, other than her application, regarding the eligibility of Carol Arrighi. From the form in the record it is impossible to determine whether the individual or her physician completed the application, or whether the signature on the certification is that of a physician. The certification for Kayleigh Marie Nunez is signed by Dr. Chaim. It states that she is sensitive to "organophosphates, all pesticides and herbicides, one-half mile limit requested." The certification for Estelle Greene, dated July 2, 1993, is signed by Linda Marraccini, M.D. The class of pesticides to which the individual is sensitive is noted as "All." Dr. Robbins appears to have signed certifications for Betty Jane Napier and for Susan and Donald Maxwell (both Maxwells are included on a single application form). The notation typed on Ms. Napier's form states: "Known to react to ethylene oxide." The pesticides or class of pesticides listed on Mr. and Mrs. Maxwell's form are "organophosphates, organochlorines, pyrethroids." The certification by Dr. Chaim on Barbara Rauker's application states that she is sensitive to "all classes of pesticides." The certification by Caren B. Singer, M.D. on Judith Lessne's application states that she is sensitive to "Pesticides in general, Petroleum based products." Pesticide Industry Practice A reliable pest control operator will determine the nature and extent of a problem before attempting a treatment. The operator must consider the surroundings of the area to be treated and the environmental factors such as rain, wind and sun. Treatment is tailored to reduce drift, which not only can cause harm but also causes needless expense due to waste. Good industry practice includes training technicians and carefully following the manufacturer's instructions regarding the most safe and effective use of the product. While careful use can control drift, unexpected wind gusts can disperse the product beyond its target, and even Petitioners' expert concedes that a post-application vapor of pesticide could drift for a half mile. Pesticide Sensitivity According to the Department's expert, Dr. Teaf, pesticide sensitivity by definition relates only to the substance that was the subject of an initial exposure and subsequent exposure that causes a reaction in an individual. The medical and toxicological link for pesticide sensitivity is much tighter than for the condition referred to as "multiple chemical sensitivities" or "MCS". There is no generally accepted definition in the scientific community of what constitutes pesticide sensitivity and there is no simple blood test to establish pesticide sensitivity. While there is commonly a psychological or psychogenic factor in pesticide sensitivity just as there is with other health conditions like heart problems, pesticide sensitivity is not solely a psychogenic or psychological condition. Pesticide sensitivity can be reasonably determined, even through the mechanism by which an individual acquires that condition is not clearly understood. A reaction to a specific chemical or pesticide class can be documented and quantified by a physical change in the body. Exposure histories are significant so long as the pesticide or pesticide class is identified. However, exposure histories alone are insufficient unless other causes are reasonably ruled out. Specifically, many individuals in the cases here were determined to be sensitive to many different agents: molds and pollens, food, animals, petroleum products and perfumes. It is impossible to deduce that an individual's symptoms are caused by exposure to one, rather than another agent, unless there is some process of elimination or isolation of the suspect agent. Summary of Findings Evidence of the process for diagnosis for the individual respondents in this proceeding is meager. Not one individual applicant testified, and only eleven applicants were addressed through the deposition testimony of their certifying physicians. Not one of the certifying physicians could testify that he or she actually followed the guidelines provided by the department, which guidelines, although non-binding, are accepted by experts for both sides of the dispute as important to good diagnosis. Dr. Klemsawesch, a very credible and competent witness and specialist in allergy and immunology, conceded that in order to respond to questions regarding the connection between exposures to pesticides and subsequent reactions, from a scientific point of view, you would need to test people by exposures in a controlled fashion and determine their physiological response. For Dr. Klemsawesch's patients, Ms. Naglich and Ms. Metzger, the specific events reported to him stood out beyond the background of their other common allergies to lead him to his conclusion that the chemicals he listed on their certificates were having an effect. That conclusion falls short of the finding required by law for the extra distance notice. Dr. Klemsawesch's conclusion, like that of the other certifying physicians, was based primarily on the individual's history. While that is an appropriate and accepted method of diagnosis, the histories described in the record of this proceeding are wholly lacking in the detail necessary for the determination required by law. No individual in the multiple cases consolidated presented adequate proof of the need for notification at greater distance than that specified for pesticide-sensitive persons.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the agency enter its final order denying the petition in Case #94-3237 (Carol Ann Rodriguez) as moot (see preliminary statement); and granting the remaining petitions by denying the applications for designation as "especially pesticide-sensitive." RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 31st day of May, 1995. MARY W. CLARK, 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 31st day of May, 1995. APPENDIX A INDIVIDUAL CERTIFYING DOAH CASE# RESPONDENT PHYSICIAN 94-2801 Cheryl Mansker Robbins 94-2802 Sally Platner Waickman 94-2803 Thomas Milo Robbins 94-2805 Kathryn Kaeding Ahner 94-2852 Carol Arrighi Doyle 94-2853 Jessie Naglich Klemsawesch 94-2855 Joyce Charney Robbins 94-2858 Carietta Kelly Robbins 94-2859 Kayleigh Nunez Chaim 94-2862 Pia Valentine Wubbena 94-2864 Sandra Metzger Klemsawesch 94-2865 Charlene McClure Robbins 94-2866 Estelle Greene Marraccini 94-2867 Jeanne Pellegrino Chaim 94-2869 Marilyn Friedman Robbins 94-2871 Betty Jane Napier Robbins 94-2872 Susan Maxwell Robbins 94-3235 Carietta Kelly (see 94-2858) 94-3236 Susan Maxwell (see 94-2872) 94-3237 Carol Ann Rodriguez (moot) 94-4243 Barbara Rauker Chaim 94-6376 Judith Lessne Singer APPENDIX B The following constitute specific rulings on the findings of fact proposed by the parties. Florida Pest Control Association, Inc. Adopted, or adopted in substance or in summary form: #1-7, 11-18, 22-28, 38, 41, 48-49, 62-82, 88-90, 93-105, 107-109, 115-121, 124-126, 129-133, 137, 140-147, 158. Accepted, but not incorporated, as unnecessary or immaterial: #8-10, 19- 21, 29-37, 39-40, 42-47, 50-61, 83-87, 91, 106, 110-114, 122-123, 127-128, 134- 136, 138-139, 148-157. Rejected, as inconsistent with or unsupported by the weight of evidence: #92. Certified Operators of Southwest Florida, Inc., Lan-Mac Pest Control-Englewood,Inc. Lan-Mac Pest Control-Ft. Myers, Inc. Adopted, or adopted in substance or in summary form: #1-5, 8-11, 13-15, 18-22, 24-25. Rejected, as inconsistent with, or unsupported by the weight of evidence: #27. (The remaining numbered paragraphs are designated as conclusions of law.) The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Adopted, or adopted in substance or in summary form: #1-4, first sentence of #5, 6, 8-10. Accepted, but not incorporated, as unnecessary or immaterial: #7. Rejected, as inconsistent with or unsupported by the weight of evidence: Second sentence of #5. Individual Respondents Adopted, or adopted in substance or in summary form: #2-7, 10, 12-14, 22, 24-33, 40, 42, 47-56, 58-63, 66, 69-71, 80, 82-86, 90-95, 101, 106-109, 111-113. Accepted, but not incorporated, as unnecessary or immaterial: #8-9, 11, 15-21, 23, 34-38 [the issue is not the patient's sensitivity, but the extra distance notice requirement], 43, 46, 67 (not the required Board), 68, 72, 74- 77, 81, 88, 98, 99, 100, 115. Rejected, as inconsistent with or unsupported by the weight of evidence: #1, 39, 41, 44-45, 57, 64, 65, 73, 78-79, 87, 89, 96-97, 102-105, 110, 114, 116- 117. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Richard Tritschler General Counsel The Capitol, PL-10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810 Robert G. Worley, Esquire Dept. of Agriculture & Consumer Services 515 Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Jonathan A. Glogau, Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol, PL-01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Lance McKinney, Esquire O. Box 88 Cape Coral, Florida 33910-0088 Howard J. Hochman, Esquire 1320 S. Dixie Highway Suite 1180 Coral Gables, Florida 33146
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offense set forth in the Administrative Action and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, Coy Yulas Hopkins, held license number 60-09279T, Series RTPDP, authorizing the sale of tobacco products on the premises known as Canal Point Bait & Tackle (the "premises"), located at 310 U.S. Highway 441 North, Canal Point, Florida. Respondent was the sole proprietor of the business. On October 25, 1997, Andrew Panzer, a special agent with the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, accompanied by Desirae Potter (Desirae) an investigative aid, visited the licensed premises for a compliance check, as mandated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). At the time, Desirae, date of birth March 19, 1982, was 15 years of age. Upon entry to the premises, Desirae approached the counter and requested a box of Newport cigarettes. Respondent told Desirae he did not have Newports in the box, but did have the soft pack. Desirae acknowledged the soft pack would be acceptable, paid Respondent the requested sum, and received a soft pack of Newport cigarettes (a tobacco product) in exchange. At no time during the course of the transaction did Respondent inquire of Desirae's age or request identification.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the charge set forth in the Administrative Complaint, and imposing a civil penalty of $500 for such violation, subject to Respondent's option to substitute a period of suspension in lieu of all or a portion of the civil penalty. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of March, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of March, 1998.
Findings Of Fact On August 25, 1982, Petitioner received an application for pest control business license and identification cards, Petitioner's Exhibit 1, signed by Perry Commander, requesting licensure for Donald and Bales Exterminating Company, Inc., at 615 East Chestnut Avenue in Crestview, Florida. In the blank for "owners [or] corporation officers" appeared the name R. N. Bales, Jr. Among those on whose behalf identification cards were sought were listed Ronnie James McLean and Byron Bales. Byron Bales was listed as "MGR Salesman," while Perry Commander was listed as "Certificate Holder." Perry Commander was also listed as the certified operator. Petitioner granted this application on September 22, 1982, issuing license No. 343. Since approximately 1974, there have been applications for licenses at this location. Based on an application not in evidence signed by Byron Bales sometime before August 17, 1983, Petitioner issued an emergency certificate. On August 17, 1983, Petitioner received an application form signed by Byron Bales, which Petitioner returned to Mr. Bales for more information, and received a second time on August 29, 1983. Petitioner's Exhibit 2. The form gave Donald & Bales Exterminating Co., Inc., as the applicant's firm name and 615 East Chestnut Avenue in Crestview as the firm's address. Byron Bales and "R. [B]ales" were listed as "owners [or] corporation officers." Byron Bales, Colonel (Matthew) Bales and Ronnie James McLean were listed among those on whose behalf identification cards were sought. Byron Bales was listed as "Manager Salesman." Perry Commander's name was crossed out, as was his designation as "Certificate Holder." Nobody else was designated certificate holder, and nobody was listed as a certified operator. This application, which was made on a multipurpose form, has not been acted on. Boxes were printed next to various categories including "Initial (New) License," "Change-of-Business Ownership License" and "Renewal License." No box was checked, however. On February 4, 1976, Aggie B. Nelson of Chipley, Florida, contracted with Donald and Bales Exterminating Company, Inc. (Donald & Bales), for treatment of the foundation of her two-bedroom frame house for termites and agreed to pay $30 a year thereafter for annual inspections and preventive sprayings. Petitioner's Exhibit 3. The contract gave a Crestview address for Donald & Bales. On March 24, 1982, Ronnie James McLean arrived at the Nelson home in a truck emblazoned with the Donald & Bales logo and sprayed underneath Ms. Nelson's house. He emerged with five or six bugs in his hand that he told Ms. Nelson were beetles. He said the house needed to be sprayed for beetles and offered to do it while he was there for $230. Ms. Nelson allowed as how that would sure put her in a bind, but agreed to have him spray. Mr. McLean and Ms. Nelson each signed a Donald & Bales form contract on which Mr. McLean checked the box beside the word "Prevention," but not the box beside the word "Infested." The contract showed a Crestview address for Donald & Bales. Petitioner's Exhibit 4. Ms. Nelson wrote a check for $230 to Ronnie J. McLean personally. Later, she began to inquire and eventually arranged for William E. Page, an entomologist in Petitioner's employ, to inspect her house. At the hearing, Mr. Page was qualified as an expert in pest control and testified without contradiction that there was no sign of there having been a beetle infestation at Ms. Nelson's home at any time. Mardra Stewart was at home in her three-bedroom log house down below Orange Hill from Chipley when Ronnie J. McLean stopped by on April 19, 1982. "He sent some of the men he had with him under the house, and they c[a]me out with a handful of the sills," wood that appeared to have been eaten into by termites. Mr. McLean told Ms. Stewart she should have her house sprayed because insects "had eat it up under there." (T. 89) She agreed to the spraying and paid McLean $225 for spraying. Mr. McLean and Ms. Stewart each signed a Donald & Bales form contract on which Mr. McLean checked the box beside the word "Prevention," but not the box beside the word "Infested." The contract showed a Crestview address for Donald & Bales. Petitioner'S Exhibit 8. The next day, Ms. Stewart called the sheriff and eventually telephoned Petitioner's Jacksonville offices. Mr. Page inspected her house and found no evidence of an active or recent infestation of insects of any kind, although he did discover evidence of old powder-post beetle damage. In his opinion, the Stewart house probably needed treatment. Emma Martin Denham of Altha, whose husband died in 1976, has lived in the same house for 35 years; and the Denhams have dealt with Donald & Bales for about half that time. On August 5, 1977, Mrs. Denham paid Marvin A. House $448 to spray for beetles, termites and "wood bores." Mr. House, or somebody else who worked for Donald & Bales at the time, told her, in August of 1977, that there was a new infestation of beetles. She also agreed to pay $25 a year for annual sprayings and inspections. Petitioner's Exhibit 5. On August 13, 1981, John A. McKinnon took $224 from Mrs. Denham on behalf of Donald & Bales in exchange for a commitment to spray for subterranean termites and powder-post beetles. Petitioner's Exhibit 7. The written agreement, a Donald & Bales form signed by Mr. McKinnon and Mrs. Denham, provided: "DONALD and BALES agrees. . .to guarantee [the August 13] treatment for a period of one (1) year. . .such guarantee being to protect the owner from the return of [subterranean termites and powder-post beetles]. . .DONALD and BALES agreeing to re-treat such property in the event of reinfestation. . ." Petitioner's Exhibit 7. On June 15, 1982, someone falsely claiming to be Byron Bales told Mrs. Denham that she had an infestation of ambrosia beetles and that her home needed spraying. He showed her two pieces of wood crawling with bugs that he claimed to have found underneath the house and charged her $403 to spray. Mrs. Denham and her visitor each signed a Donald & Bales form contract, the exterminator signing as Byron Bales. Petitioner's Exhibit 6. After he left, Mrs. Denham looked for the wood and the bugs, but could not find them. She wrote Donald & Bales, asking for a refund. When she got no reply, she contacted the authorities. Mr. Page came to her house to inspect, as a result. He found no evidence of ambrosia beetles, which was to be expected since ambrosia beetles only infest living trees. He found no evidence of active pests of any kind and no evidence of drilling or trenching for termites. He found some old powder-post beetle damage, but no other evidence of insects. Donald & Bales eventually refunded $403 to Mrs. Denham. On September 15, 1982, Mrs. J. C. Phillips telephoned her daughter, Margaret Powell, and asked her to come to the Phillips' house on Bayshore Drive in Niceville "to write the check for the exterminator." (T. 94) By the time Ms. Powell arrived, the spraying had been done. Ms. Powell asked Ronnie James McLean and his companion(s) to show her some beetles. When they were unable to do so, she declined pay, even after Mr. McLean referred her to Byron Bales, who was at work next door. Mr. McLean and Ms. Phillips each signed a Donald & Bales form contract on which Mr. McLean checked the box beside the word "Prevention," but not the box beside the word "Infested." Petitioner's Exhibit 9. The contract indicated prophylactic treatment of the foundation for powder-post beetles for $150 and called for annual inspections and resprayings for $45 per year. Petitioner's Exhibit 9. On September 22, 1982, when Mr. Page inspected the Phillips' house, he found no sign of any infestation, new or old, by beetles (or termites). When tenting is not resorted to, the treatment for beetles is applying Lindane with a power sprayer in such a concentration that the odor lasts about a month. This odor was not present when Mr. Page inspected, one week after Mr. McLean's visit. In November of 1982, Barbara K. Baker Glass was at the home of George Baker, her father, in Flomaton, when Matthew Bales and a companion came by to inspect the floor which he had a month or two earlier sprayed for powder-post beetles. [T]he one guy turned to the other one and said, "Did you check the attic?" And he said, "No." And he said, "Well, we'll have to check the attic to see if there's any up there." And they did, and he came back down with a piece of wood that he said was from our house. And he said that it needed spraying, and it would cost two hundred and seventy-five more dollars. Q. Do you remember this man's name? A. Matthew Bales. Q. All right. How is it that you remember him? A. I wrote the check gut to him for my dad, and I wrote it to Donald and Bales, and he had me tear that one up and write it to him. Q. Now, what did he say, this person who said he was Matthew Bales? What did he say about the attic? A. He said that we had a real bad case of powder post beetles. [T. 154-155] When Mr. Page inspected Mr. Baker's attic, he found no sign of powder-post beetles. It is possible for powder-post beetles to Infest attics, but it is ordinarily too hot for them. Except for Petitioner's Exhibit 7, all the Donald & Bales form contracts state, "Please make check to representative." Having customers write checks in favor of the individual exterminator is "company policy." (T. 169) The corporate structure of Donald and Bales Exterminating Company, Inc., and lines of authority over its west Florida operations are somewhat confused. Robert M. Bales, Jr., of Wellborn in Suwannee County, who owns all the corporation's stock, has not worked in the Panhandle for ten years or more. On June 15, 1982, he signed some agreement which was not offered into evidence. By this instrument, he intended to convey to Byron Bales, his 47-year-old son, all the rights Donald and Bales Exterminating Company, Inc., had in termite control contracts relating to structures west of Leon County, along with "the name of the business. (T. 137) Robert M. Bales, Jr., was unaware at the time of any requirement to notify Petitioner of this change and did not do so. Donald and Bales Exterminating Company, Inc., holds at least one other license at a location other than Crestview, which is not at issue here. Byron Bales fired Ronnie James McLean because "he stole money from me." (T. 165) He accomplished this theft by selling contracts and cashing checks. (T. 167) Mr. Bales did not discharge Mr. McLean when he first learned that money had been diverted, "not on the first one. . ." (T. 167) The Hearing Officer has had the benefit of Petitioner's proposed recommended order in preparation of the foregoing Findings of Fact. Proposed findings have been adopted, in substance, for the most part. To the extent they have been rejected, they have been deemed unsupported by the weight of the evidence, immaterial, cumulative, or subordinate.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the motion of Robert M. Bales, Jr., for dismissal as to him individually be granted. That Petitioner revoke License No. 343, issued to Donald and Bales Exterminating Company, Inc., at Crestview. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of December, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of December, 1983.
Findings Of Fact Dr. David B. Walrath is and was at the time of the events at issue a licensed veterinarian holding license number 001374 issued by the Board. DMSO is the common name for Diamethylsulfoxide. Dr. David B. Walrath caused various advertisements to be placed in the South Dade News Leader, a newspaper, to include one which was the subject of the Administrative Complaint which read: DMSO 16 ounce-$38.00 248-6536 The telephone number listed in the advertisement was that of English Plaza Animal Hospital, the professional address of the Respondent. DMSO was available for sale at English Plaza Animal Hospital at the price advertised. The data in the advertisement was true. No evidence was presented on the nature of DMSO, its uses, or whether it was approved for medical use on humans. Dr. Walrath did state the manufacturer represented DMSO to be a cure for animals but did not indicate what ailments it cured.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint against Dr. David B. Walrath be DISMISSED. DONE and ,ORDERED this 21st day of September, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of September, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Samuel R. Shornstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles A. Hayes, Esquire 922 North Krome Avenue Homestead, Florida 33030 Jane Raker, Executive Director Board of Veterinary Medicine 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
