Findings Of Fact Respondent is a certified general contractor holding license number CG C005645. His last known address was Raemel Construction & Engineering, Inc., 950 County Club Boulevard, Cape Coral, Florida 33904 (Prehearing Stipulation). I. Although respondent has engaged in contracting under the name of Raemel Construction & Engineering, Inc., since May 27, 1980, he did not qualify this company with the Construction Industry Licensing Board until December 4, 1980. (Prehearing Stipulation; Testimony of respondent.) This was not, however, an intentional violation of the Construction Industry Licensing Law. It wasn't until December, 1980--after consulting with his new attorney--that respondent discovered that his former attorney had not filed the necessary papers to qualify his newly renamed company with the Construction Industry Licensing Board. Upon discovering this omission, he promptly qualified the company with the Board. (Testimony of respondent.) II. In May, 1980, respondent entered an agreement with Bozidar and Rene Devic to build a commercial building to be known as Atrium Plaza on Lots 1-8, Block 359, Cape Coral, Florida. The construction price was $145,000. (R-1.) Thereafter, respondent, together with his on-site building superintendent, carried out the duties of a general contractor. He supervised the construction of the building, helped obtain the construction loan, received the construction loan proceeds, and, in turn, paid the subcontractors. He, together with Mr. Devic, selected the masonry, plumbing, roofing and electrical subcontractors. He pulled the building permit, checked with his on-site building superintendent daily, and inspected the project at least twice a week. He arranged for all building inspections. Indeed, there is no evidence that the respondent acted other than as a competent and responsible general contractor. (Testimony of respondent, Wunder, Cosser.) Herbert J. Werner, Director of the Building and Zoning Department of the City of Cape Coral, submitted a sworn statement on respondent's behalf, a statement which is singular in its praise of respondent's performance as a contractor: It has been my extreme pleasure to have known and dealt with Charles A. Wunder, Sr., during most of the above mentioned [6] years. He has always conducted himself in a most professional manner and I cannot recall a single complaint against him in all that time. Were I to have my choice of people to conduct business with, out of the 2200 contractors within our city, my first choice would be Mr. Charles A. Wunder, Sr. (R-4.)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That respondent receive a reprimand for violating Sections 489.129(1)(j) and 489.119(2), Florida Statutes (1981). DONE and RECOMMENDED this 21st day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, JR. 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 March, 1983.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Gerardo Quintero, committed the offenses alleged in an Administrative Complaint issued by Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, on December 6, 2006, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Prior to June 2005, Respondent received what appeared to be a valid Miami-Dade Building Business Certificate of Competency. Upon receipt, Respondent applied to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (hereinafter referred to as the “Department”) to obtain a registered contractor’s license using the Certificate of Competency. Based on the Certificate of Competency, the Department issued Respondent a registered contractor’s license bearing license number RF11067268. Respondent also applied for a certificate of authority for his business, Q Plumbing Services Corp. (hereinafter referred to as “QPSC”). Based on the Certificate of Competency and the registered contractor’s license being granted, the Department issued a certificate of authority to QPSC, QB 42825. Subsequent to the Department’s issuance of both the registered contractor’s license to Respondent and the certificate of authority for QPSC, Respondent and the Department learned that the Miami-Dade Building Business Certificate of Competency (hereinafter referred to as the “BCCO”) obtained by Respondent was not a valid certificate. Respondent’s actions were not as a result of any fraud or intentional action on the part of Respondent; however, it is acknowledged by all parties that the Miami-Dade Building Business Certificate of Competency obtained by Respondent was not valid. At no time during the application process or upon attesting to the qualified business license application did Respondent have knowledge that the Miami-Dade BCCO employees were engaged in a scheme to defraud the public. At no time during the application process or upon attesting to the qualified business license application did Respondent have knowledge that Respondent obtained the BCCO Competency Card in deviation of any state laws or rules, or local ordinances. At no time during the application process or upon attesting to the qualified business license application did Respondent have knowledge that the BCCO Competency Card was not a valid certificate. At no time during the application process or upon attesting to the qualified business license application did Respondent have knowledge that Respondent’s attestation on the application was inaccurate. At no time during the application process or upon attesting to the qualified business license application did Respondent have knowledge that the approved BCCO qualifying board did not approve the Competency Card. At no time did Respondent have knowledge that any documents Respondent submitted to the Department contained false, forged, or otherwise inaccurate information or material. At the time the Department issued the registered contractor’s license and subsequent certificate of authority on the sole basis of the Miami-Dade Building Business Certificate of Competency presented by Respondent, the Department properly issued the registered contractor’s license based on the information submitted to it. The parties stipulated that the Respondent was not entitled to the registered contractor’s license and certificate of authority because the Miami-Dade Building Business Certificate of Competency was not a valid certificate. At the time of application to the Department, Respondent was not qualified by any local jurisdiction or any other method necessary to receive a registered contractor’s license from the Department.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department finding that Gerardo Quintero violated the provisions of Sections 489.129(1)(a) and (m), and 455.227(1)(h), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Counts I, III, and IV of the Administrative Complaint; dismissing Count II of the Administrative Complaint; requiring that Respondent pay the costs incurred by the Department in investigating and prosecuting this matter; giving Respondent 30 days to voluntarily relinquish his license; and revoking Respondent’s license if he fails to voluntarily relinquish it within 30 days of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of December, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LARRY J. SARTIN 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 13th day of December, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Matthew D. Morton Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Timothy Atkinson, Esquire Oertel, Fernandez, Cole & Bryant Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Richard A. Alayon, Esquire Alayon & Associates, P.A. 4551 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Coral Gables, Florida 33146 G. W. Harrell, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue in this case is whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's contractor's license based upon the alleged violations of Sections 489.129(1)(h) and (m), Florida Statutes, set forth in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was licensed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board (the "Board") as a certified general contractor having been issued License No. CG C024612. Respondent has been a licensed contractor since 1983. On May 3, 1991, the Board filed a Final Order in Board Case Nos. 89-009986 and 89-013330 imposing a reprimand against Respondent. The Final Order was issued as part of the settlement of an amended administrative complaint filed against Respondent by Petitioner regarding certain unrelated transactions. Respondent was the qualifying agent for Willie William Construction Company, Inc. until October 1985. At that time, as a result of a corporate name change, Respondent became the qualified agent for Ashar Construction Company. On February 21, 1985, the Unsafe Structures Board of the Building and Zoning Department for Dade County advised Ruby Delancy that a hearing would be conducted on March 12, 1985 to determine whether a one story framed residence that Mrs. Delancy owned at 1005 NW 58th Street in Miami (the "House" or the "Property") should be demolished. The Notice indicated that the structure was "open, vacant, vandalized, filled with combustible materials; posing a serious fire hazard. Structure is a danger to human life and public welfare." The Notice estimated the present value of the building at $16,080 and the estimated cost of repairs at $51,120. The County's records indicate that a Notice of Violation regarding the Property had been issued to the owner on October 31, 1984. Facing imminent demolition of the House, Mrs. Delancy began to investigate possible ways to get the House repaired. She filed an application with the City of Miami for a low income, low interest loan that was funded through Federal HUD Community Development Funds. Her efforts to obtain funding to repair the House, delayed the proceedings that had been initiated to demolish the structure. In September of 1985, the City approved Mrs. Delancy for a grant of $10,000 and loan of $20,000 to repair the House. Mrs. Delancy has no other funds to pay for repairs to the Property other than the $30,000 she was obtaining through the City Program. Under the City's program, Mrs. Delancy was responsible for selecting a contractor. Mrs. Delancy contacted Respondent, who inspected the Property and prepared a construction estimate which was submitted to the City. Respondent entered into a contract (the "Contract") dated September 20, 1985 with Mrs. Delancy for home improvement work on the House. The total contract price was $29,870, which was to be paid in two installments: $10,835 on or before December 31, 1985 and a final payment of $19,035 on or before March 3, 1986. The evidence established that Respondent was initially reluctant to enter into the Contract and at least two other contractors refused to undertake the work given the limited funds available. However, Respondent agreed to take the job because of Mrs. Delancy's insistence and because of Respondent's sympathy for Mrs. Delancy's desperate situation in view of the imminent demolition of the House. The evidence also established that Mrs. Delancy requested Respondent to undertake additional work and/or services that were beyond the scope of the Contract. Among the extra items undertaken by Respondent was replacement of the floor in the family room. Additional expenses were also incurred because of unanticipated problems encountered during the renovation. For example one side of the house gave way during the renovation work. Upon investigation, it was discovered that there was no footing. Respondent was required to shore up that side of the House. In addition, the electrician was unable to get a meter because there was an outstanding electric bill for the Property. Respondent paid the old bill in order to get the meter connected. Similarly, she paid the gas company to get the stove hooked up. It does not appear Respondent received any additional compensation for the extra work. Except for $345 that Respondent paid for utilities on behalf of Mrs. Delancy, the evidence at the hearing was insufficient to place a dollar value on these extra services and expenses. The first installment under the Contract of $10,835 was paid to Respondent on or about December 31, 1985. In approximately January of 1986, Mrs. Delancy's son, Gerald Delancy, who had been living out of the state, returned to Miami and became involved in overseeing the construction on behalf of his mother. Gerald Delancy was not pleased with the quality of the construction and a great deal of tension developed between Gerald Delancy and Respondent. The final payment request form was submitted on February 20, 1986. Mrs. Delancy signed a document (the "Certificate of Completeness") indicating that the work was completed and the final payment was made to Respondent by the City on March 3, 1986. Gerald Delancy was present when his mother signed the Certificate of Completeness. She signed this Certificate against the advice of her son. At the time the document was signed, Respondent agreed in principal to complete any remaining work. The City Inspection Form which was posted on the project fails to indicate that a final inspection approval was obtained from the City. In addition, the evidence established that required roof inspections were not obtained prior to the final structural inspection. Gerald Delancy prepared a punch list of items which he felt were incomplete and submitted it to Respondent. It does not appear that this list was prepared until July of 1986. Because of the dispute between Respondent and Gerald Delancy as to what was required under the Contract, a copy of the punch list was also sent to the City. The punch list prepared by Gerald Delancy included a number of items which were beyond the scope of the Contract. For example, with respect to the plumbing, the complaints included the following: the water pressure was to low on the water line, the kitchen sink was too small, and the bathroom vanity was substandard. The Contract did not provide for a bathroom vanity. There were also complaints about ants and roaches and "missing shower rods and towel racks" even though these items were not specifically included within the Contract between Respondent and Mrs. Delancy. The City sent its estimator to the House to review the punch list items. The City's estimator felt that Respondent should provide another coat of paint and should complete some other minor repair work, but the estimator did not concur in many of Gerald Delancy's complaints. The City's rehabilitation estimator met with Respondent and Gerald Delancy at the House on July 15, 1986. At that meeting, Respondent agreed to correct certain matters and asked for one month to complete the work. On August 1, 1986, the work was not completed and Respondent requested an additional 30 days. On August 13, 1986, Respondent stated that she did not have the money to complete the work. According to the City's estimator, the cost to repair the construction deficiencies he noted would be approximately $2,500 to $3,000 as of the date of the hearing. During this period in August, Respondent did send some workers back to the house to complete some additional work. A dispute arose between those workers and Gerald Delancy. The exact nature and reasons for this dispute are not clear. Ultimately, Gerald Delancy refused to allow the workers to perform any work because he did not feel he received adequate answers to his inquiries as to the nature of the work they intended to perform. After the City refused to concur in all of his complaints, Gerald Delancy hired a building inspection company. He paid that company $534 and it rendered a report dated August 4, 1986 which detailed many other deficiencies in the construction. It is not clear whether this report was ever presented to Respondent. On or about November 3, 1986, Mrs. Delancy, at the urging of her son, filed a lawsuit against Respondent. On or about August 8, 1989, Mrs. Delancy obtained a final default judgement against Respondent in the amount of $65,000 plus costs of $102.50. Respondent claims that she was unaware of the lawsuit and the default final judgement until Petitioner's investigator questioned her about it on September 25, 1990. As of the date of the hearing in this case, Respondent has not appealed the judgement nor has she attempted to have it set aside or vacated. In addition to alleged construction defects, the default judgement included claims against Respondent for allegedly mishandling certain household goods and other property owned by Mrs. Delancy. The evidence presented in this case was confusing and inconclusive as to the nature and justification for these claims by the Delancys for property which Respondent was allegedly storing for Mrs. Delancy. Apparently, Respondent agreed to assist Mrs. Delancy by moving some of the furniture out of the house and placing it in storage during construction. The contract did not require Respondent to provide any moving or storage services and there is no evidence that Respondent was paid for this work. Some or all of the property that was moved out of the house was lost, stolen or destroyed. There is a dispute between the parties as to circumstances surrounding the loss of this property. The evidence presented in this case was insufficient to establish what happened to the property, who was responsible for it and/or how much it was worth. It does appear that the default judgement against Respondent includes a very high assessment for the property involved. However, as noted above, that judgement has not been vacated or appealed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing Count I of the Administrative Complaint, finding the Respondent guilty of having violated Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Count II of the Administrative Complaint, and imposing the following disciplinary action against the Respondent: Imposition of an administrative fine of $1,000. Suspension of the Respondent's license for a period of one year, followed by two years probation under such terms as may be imposed by the Board. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 22nd day of August, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 93-6438 Only Petitioner submitted a proposed recommended order. The following rulings are made with respect to the proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 2. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 7 and 8. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 4, 11, and 12. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 3 through 9. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 10. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 14 through 18. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 18. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 16 through 18. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 17. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 20. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 20. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 20. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 20. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 21 and 22. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 21. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 22. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 21 and 22. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 21 and 22. Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 1. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Dept. of Bus. and Prof. Reg. 401 NW 2nd Ave., Ste N-607 Miami, FL 33128 Agnes Sangster 9925 NW 25th Ave. Miami, FL 33147 Jack McRay Acting General Counsel Dept. of Bus. and Prof. Reg. 1940 N. Monroe St. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Richard Hickok, Exec. Dir. Construction Industry Licensing 7960 Arlington Expressway, Ste 300 Jacksonville, FL 32211-7467
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto Respondent was a licensed dentist in Florida holding license number DN 0001025. Respondent graduated from Emory University Dental School in 1945, thereafter served two years apprenticeship with a practicing orthodontist before opening his own office in Coral Gables, Florida, where he practiced orthodontics for some 25 years before selling his practice and moving to the Tampa Bay area. Respondent is eligible for board certification. In November 1981 Respondent was working as an orthodontist at the Sheppard Dental Clinic in Seminole, Florida. On November 23, 1981, Valarie Rosenfeld went to Respondent to discuss orthodontic treatment to correct a deep overbite and severe overjet. At the time of this visit Miss Rosenfeld was 17 years old and had a severe Class II skeletal discrepancy with a 9.5 degree discrepancy between upper and lower jaws and an overjet of 12 mm. Respondent took some seven photographs of Miss Rosenfeld (Exhibit 2) showing generally the condition of her teeth and her facial profile. Be also took a cephalometric x-ray (Exhibit 3) and a panoramic x-ray (Exhibit 4) of Miss Rosenfeld. Respondent advised Miss Rosenfeld that it would be necessary to extract one tooth in her upper jaw and maybe a second tooth in order to improve her appearance. The purpose of this extraction was to make room in which to move the upper teeth to reduce the overjet. Respondent did not discuss surgery with Rosenfeld or fully explain to her the options available and the probable consequences of each of the options she may elect. Miss Rosenfeld has a thin maxillary bone which does not show up very well on the cephalometric x-ray taken due to a burnout in this x-ray at the location this fact could be determined. Absent adequate bone in which to move teeth it becomes very difficult to obtain much movement. In accordance with orders issued by Respondent Miss Rosenfeld's tooth number 12 was extracted by another dentist at a subsequent visit to the clinic. Respondent next saw Rosenfeld on December 16, 1981, when he put separators between her teeth to make room for bonds. Respondent intended first to install light wire braces to better level the teeth before this was replaced by heavier wire which would be tightened from time to time to move the upper teeth back and the lower teeth forward. Although he testified he planned to reduce the malocclusion using intrusion mechanics Respondent did not discuss with Miss Rosenfeld the headgear which she would have to wear at night during this process or fully explain the procedure to her. Following her December 16 visit, Rosenfeld was seen by a Dr. Bryant, an orthodontist who was replacing Respondent at the Sheppard Dental Clinic. Bryant saw Rosenfeld on December 22, 1981, when he fitted and cemented bonds on the teeth and put in the flexwire to level the teeth. She was next seen at the clinic on January 23 when Bryant religated the flexwire. The next visit on February 15, 1981, Bryant again religated the braces. Rosenfeld was last seen by Respondent on March 20, 1982, when he religated upper arch and observed lower arch. Rosenfeld was seen on April 24, 1982, by Bryant who advised her that three additional extractions would be required to correct the malocclusion. Rosenfeld then decided to obtain a second opinion before losing anymore teeth and went to see another orthodontist, John Harrison. When Dr. Harrison examined Rosenfeld he explained the three options available to her to wit: (1) do nothing, (2) attempt some movement of the teeth to reduce the overjet and overbite and (3) surgery. Dr. Harrison took additional x-rays and attempted to obtain the dental records from Sheppard's Dental Clinic but without much success. By this time Respondent no longer worked at Sheppard's and Harrison became quite frustrated by the lack of cooperation he got in attempting to obtain Rosenfeld's records. He received only the panoramic x-ray. Harrison made models of Rosenfeld's mouth, took cephalometric x-rays, made intra and extra-oral photographs and did quite a number of tracings from the cephalometric x-rays to better ascertain the misalignment of the upper and lower jaws. He discussed the various options with Rosenfeld and, at her request, commenced the mechanical intrusion needed to move the upper teeth back and the lower teeth forward. Harrison would not have extracted tooth number 12 because there is insufficient maxillary bone to allow much movement of the upper teeth or to fill the void created by the extraction. Harrison further opined that the orthodontic problem faced by Rosenfeld is wholly in the lower jaw and this can be fully corrected only by risky and expensive surgery. Attempting to correct the problem by retracting the upper teeth is, in his opinion, the wrong approach. He considers the entire problem is in the lower arch and retracting the upper teeth, which are satisfactory, to obtain a better alignment between the upper and lower teeth, simply creates another problem, viz. changing the existing good profile of the upper lip. Furthermore the thin maxillary bone in which the upper teeth are being moved is not adequate to accomplish much movement of the teeth and when the bonds are removed the upper teeth will likely return to their original position or close thereto. The cephalometric x-ray taken by Respondent on November 23, 1981, was overexposed in the part of the x-ray which would best show Rosenfeld's maxillary bone and thereby alert Respondent to the problem of moving the upper teeth. Dr. Harrison formed his opinion that Respondent's diagnosis and treatment of Rosenfeld was below minimum acceptable standards on his initial assumption (from the records he obtained from Sheppard's Dental Clinic) that the diagnosis and course of treatment were made with panoramic x-rays only. When he learned the day before the hearing that Respondent also had the benefit of the cephalometric x-ray, Harrison hedged his opinion and ultimately concluded that Respondent's diagnosis and course of treatment did reach minimal acceptable standards. Petitioner also called Dr. DeDominico, an orthodontist, who, at the request of Petitioner, examined Rosenfeld and her dental records. DeDominico concurred with Harrison that extraction of tooth number 12 was not indicated and it is unlikely the space vacated by the removal of that tooth can be closed by the movement of the other teeth on the upper jaw. DeDominico further opined that and adequate diagnosis could not be made from the x-rays taken by Respondent due to the "burnout" in this critical area of the cephalometric x-ray which concealed the thinness of Rosenfeld's maxillary bone. Failure to retake this x-ray before embarking on a plan of treatment that required an adequate maxillary bone for success, and that included an unnecessary extraction was, in his opinion, below the minimal acceptable standards for the dental profession. Respondent testified that his more than 20 years experience in orthodontics qualified him to properly diagnose Rosenfeld's problem without doing tracings from the cephalometric x-ray, and that he considered the cephalometric x-ray adequate for the diagnosis that was made. Further, extraction of tooth number 12 was necessary to provide space into which the upper could be moved to accomplish the retraction of the upper teeth desired. He did not explain the available options to Rosenfeld and never considered surgery as a viable option for the orthodontic problem presented by Rosenfeld. He also failed to apprise her of the full implications of the treatment he planned, such as headgear, for the mechanical intrusion or of the limited success to be expected from this procedure. Respondent's expert witnesses, whose depositions were received into evidence as Exhibits 9 and 10, both opined that the diagnosis and treatment of Rosenfeld by Respondent met minimum acceptable standards of the dental profession. One of these witness' credibility is somewhat tarnished by his testimony that the mandible can be induced to grow in an adult. Not only was this testimony deemed incredible by other expert witnesses but also even a layman generally understands that the skeletal structure does not continue to grow after maturity.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Luis Garcia, committed the offenses alleged in an Administrative Complaint issued by Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, on December 6, 2006, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Prior to June 2005, Respondent received what appeared to be a valid Miami-Dade Building Business Certificate of Competency. Upon receipt, Respondent applied to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (hereinafter referred to as the “Department”) to obtain a registered contractor’s license using the Certificate of Competency. Based on the Certificate of Competency, the Department issued Respondent a registered contractor’s license bearing license number RF11067267. Respondent also applied for a certificate of authority for his business, A.P.A. Plumbing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “APA”). Based on the Certificate of Competency and the registered contractor’s license being granted, the Department issued a certificate of authority to APA, QB 42763. Subsequent to the Department’s issuance of both the registered contractor’s license to Respondent and the certificate of authority for APA, Respondent and the Department learned that the Miami-Dade Building Business Certificate of Competency (hereinafter referred to as the “BCCO”) obtained by Respondent was not a valid certificate. Respondent’s actions were not as a result of any fraud or intentional action on the part of Respondent; however, it is acknowledged by all parties that the Miami-Dade Building Business Certificate of Competency obtained by Respondent was not valid. At no time during the application process or upon attesting to the qualified business license application did Respondent have knowledge that the Miami-Dade BCCO employees were engaged in a scheme to defraud the public. At no time during the application process or upon attesting to the qualified business license application did Respondent have knowledge that Respondent obtained the BCCO Competency Card in deviation of any state laws or rules, or local ordinances. At no time during the application process or upon attesting to the qualified business license application did Respondent have knowledge that the BCCO Competency Card was not a valid certificate. At no time during the application process or upon attesting to the qualified business license application did Respondent have knowledge that Respondent’s attestation on the application was inaccurate. At no time during the application process or upon attesting to the qualified business license application did Respondent have knowledge that the approved BCCO qualifying board did not approve the Competency Card. At no time did Respondent have knowledge that any documents Respondent submitted to the Department contained false, forged, or otherwise inaccurate information or material. At the time the Department issued the registered contractor’s license and subsequent certificate of authority on the sole basis of the Miami-Dade Building Business Certificate of Competency presented by Respondent, the Department properly issued the registered contractor’s license based on the information submitted to it. The parties stipulated that the Respondent was not entitled to the registered contractor’s license and certificate of authority because the Miami-Dade Building Business Certificate of Competency was not a valid certificate. At the time of application to the Department, Respondent was not qualified by any local jurisdiction or any other method necessary to receive a registered contractor’s license from the Department. Subsequent to Respondent’s initial application and receipt of registered contractor’s license RF11067267, Respondent has taken the competency test required to be properly licensed through the Department. Respondent asserts that he has passed the test. The Department will not dispute this if he is able to provide verification that he did receive a passing score.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department finding that Luis Garcia violated the provisions of Sections 489.129(1)(a) and (m), and 455.227(1)(h), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Counts I, III, and IV of the Administrative Complaint; dismissing Count II of the Administrative Complaint; requiring that Respondent pay the costs incurred by the Department in investigating and prosecuting this matter; giving Respondent 30 days to voluntarily relinquish his license; and revoking Respondent’s license if he fails to voluntarily relinquish it within 30 days of the final order. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of December, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LARRY J. SARTIN 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 13th day of December, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Matthew D. Morton Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Timothy Atkinson, Esquire Oertel, Fernandez, Cole & Bryant Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Richard A. Alayon, Esquire Alayon & Associates, P.A. 4551 Ponce de Leon Boulevard Coral Gables, Florida 33146 G. W. Harrell, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Daniel F. Acevedo, committed the offenses alleged in a four-count Administrative Complaint filed with Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, on July 11, 2008, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation (hereinafter referred to as the "Department"), is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility for, among other things, the licensure of individuals who wish to engage in contracting in the State of Florida; and the investigation and prosecution of complaints against individuals who have been so licensed. See Chs. 455 and 489, Fla. Stat. Respondent, Daniel F. Acevedo, is and has been at all times material hereto a certified general contractor in Florida, having been issued license number CGC 1506071. Mr. Acevedo is also a Certified Roofing Contractor, having been issued license number CCC 1326888. Both licenses were issued by the Construction Industry Licensing Board (hereinafter referred to as the “Board) and are in “current active” status. At all times material, Mr. Acevedo was the primary qualifying agent for All Design Systems, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “All Design”). All Design is a Florida corporation. Mr. Acevedo is an officer of the corporation. All Design’s certificate of authority, License Number QB 26737, was issued on September 4, 2003. The license expired on August 31, 2007, and was in delinquent status from September 1, 2007, to May 14, 2008. Mr. Acevedo remained the qualifying agent during the delinquent period. All Design employed three to four sales agents who “sold” construction projects to commercial and residential property owners on behalf of All Design. All Design utilized these individuals because it believed they had experience in the construction industry and that they held licenses or certifications which would allow them to perform estimates on construction projects and make appropriate bids. The sales agents were to find customers for All Design and enter into contracts with them on behalf and in the name of All Design. In August of 2005, Mr. Acevedo was approached by Eduardo Rodriguez. Mr. Rodriguez offered to locate potential home remodeling customers for All Design in exchange for a percentage commission. Mr. Acevedo agreed. At no time relevant to this matter was Mr. Rodriguez licensed in Florida to engage in contracting as a state certified or registered contractor. Nor was Mr. Rodriguez’s business entity, Eduardo’s Construction, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “Eduardo’s Construction”), licensed with a certificate of authority as a contractor qualified business. Mr. Rodriguez was the president and sole officer of Eduardo’s Construction. Eduardo’s Construction was not incorporated in Florida. Some time during 2005, Grace Esposito obtained a business card for Eduardo’s Construction. She obtained the card after discussing with a neighbor construction work that was being performed by Eduardo’s Construction on the neighbor’s residence. The neighbor informed her that Mr. Rodriguez was the contractor performing the work. The business card incorrectly represented that Mr. Rodriguez was licensed and insured. Ms. Esposito called the number listed for Eduardo’s Construction and spoke with a man who identified himself as Eduardo Rodriguez. In August 2005, Mr. Rodriguez met with Ms. Esposito at her condominium residence, located at 20301 West Country Club Drive, Aventura, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the “Subject Property”). Ms. Esposito discussed with Mr. Rodriguez the work which she desired. Based upon representations from Mr. Rodriguez, Ms. Esposito believed that he was licensed to perform the work being discussed. The evidence failed to prove, as suggested by Mr. Acevedo, that Mr. Rodriguez “bid on the Esposito job, [and] orally agreed to essential terms with Esposito on behalf of All Design Systems, Inc., Respondent’s Firm.” Mr. Acevedo’s testimony in this regard was uncorroborated hearsay and was contradicted by the credible testimony of Ms. Esposito. On September 5, 2005, Ms. Esposito entered into a written contract with Mr. Rodriguez, doing business as Eduardo’s Construction, for the remodeling of the Subject Property (hereinafter referred to as the “Contract”). Ms. Esposito agreed in the Contract to pay $24,000.00 for the remodeling. Upon execution of the Contract, Ms. Esposito paid Eduardo’s Construction with three checks totaling $12,000.00 for the remodeling. Mr. Rodriguez informed Mr. Acevedo of the project in September 2005. At that time, without reviewing the Contract, Mr. Acevedo executed a building permit application which Mr. Rodriguez provided him for the project. The permit application had not been signed by Ms. Esposito. In October 2005, Mr. Rodriguez presented the building permit application to Ms. Esposito for her signature. The permit application was then submitted to the building department. The building permit was subsequently approved and issued under Mr. Acevedo’s license and in the name of All Design. Ms. Esposito had been told that part of the work would be completed in October. When this representation proved untrue, she began contacting Mr. Rodriguez. Mr. Rodriguez told her that it was taking time to get the permit due to delays at the building department. Eventually, when she was no longer able to contact Mr. Rodriguez, Ms. Esposito went directly to the building department where she learned that All Design was the contactor of record and not Eduardo’s Construction. On or about October 31, 2005, Ms. Esposito telephoned All Design and spoke with Mr. Acevedo. She informed Mr. Acevedo about the Contract. Mr. Acevedo agreed to meet with her. On November 1, 2005, Mr. Acevedo visited Ms. Esposito at the Subject Property. She showed him the work that had been performed and explained the details of the Contract and what had transpired with Mr. Rodriguez. Mr. Acevedo told Ms. Esposito that his relationship with Mr. Rodriguez was that he merely allowed Mr. Rodriguez to use his license to pull permits in exchange for $150.00. Mr. Acevedo told Ms. Esposito that he would attempt to get Mr. Rodriguez to complete the job. This meeting was memorialized in a letter to Mr. Acevedo written by Ms. Esposito. At some time in November, work recommenced on the project. Within approximately three days, however, work stopped. Ms. Esposito sent four emails to Mr. Acevedo describing the work performed and the cessation of the project. Ms. Esposito made a final request that the project be completed. Mr. Acevedo did not respond to the emails. On or about November 17, 2005, Ms. Esposito sent a letter to Mr. Acevedo outlining the events, requesting termination of the Contract, and the removal of Mr. Acevedo from the building permit. Mr. Acevedo did not respond to this letter. The building permit was cancelled by Mr. Acevedo in December 2005. The total investigation costs incurred by the Department, excluding those costs associated with any attorney’s time, was $381.83. Mr. Acevedo has not previously been disciplined by the Board.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Daniel F. Acevedo violated the provisions of Section 489.129(1)(d), (i), and (m), Florida Statutes, as alleged in Counts I, II, III, and IV of the Administrative Complaint; imposing fines of $250.00 for Count I, $1,000.00 for Count II, and $2,000.00 for Count III; requiring that Mr. Acevedo pay the costs incurred by the Department in investigating and prosecuting this matter; placing Mr. Acevedo’s licenses on probation for a period of two years, conditioned upon his payment of the fines, payment of the costs incurred by the Department; and any other conditions determined to be necessary by the Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of March, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 11th day of March, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Brian P. Coats, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2022 Daniel Acevedo All Designs Systems, Inc. 2813 Executive Drive Weston, Florida 32388 Kenneth Stein, Esquire 8436 West Oakland Park Boulevard Sunrise, Florida 33351 G. W. Harrell, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent’s license to practice pharmacy should be revoked or otherwise disciplined based on conduct that resulted in criminal convictions and his failure to report the convictions to the Board of Pharmacy (Board), as required.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent has been a licensed pharmacist in Florida and held Florida license PS 36908 at all pertinent times, until it expired on September 30, 2013. On December 14, 2010, the Respondent was indicted in federal court in the Middle District of Florida, Case No. 8:10- CR-530-T-33AEP. On September 5, 2012, the Respondent pled guilty to one count of conspiring to violate 21 U.S.C. sections 841(a)(1), 843(a)(2), 843(a)(3), and 856(a)(1), all of which also constituted violations of 21 U.S.C. section 846, and to two counts of knowingly engaging in monetary transactions, in and affecting interstate and foreign commerce, in property of a value of greater than $10,000, which was derived from a felonious criminal conspiracy to traffick in controlled substances, in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 1957. The plea also admitted to the factual basis of the charges--namely, that the Respondent conspired to allow the pharmacy he owned and operated in Tampa, Florida, to be used by the criminal conspiracy to fill and dispense forged, and otherwise illegal, prescriptions for over a million doses of Schedule II controlled substances, mostly oxycodone. The cash proceeds of the illegal sales were treated as income of the pharmacy, and the Respondent and others participated in monetary transactions whereby the illegally- obtained cash was used to purchase cashier’s checks and other assets and to conceal the illegal source of the money. Based on his guilty pleas, the Respondent was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to 108 months in prison. The special conditions of supervision in the Judgment require the Respondent to “refrain from engaging in any employment related to dispensing prescriptions drugs either in a pharmacy, pain clinic, or other medical environment.” The Respondent’s convictions clearly were related to his practice of pharmacy. The Respondent now maintains that he should not have pled guilty and would not have done so but for the incompetence of his attorney, who advised him to enter into the plea agreement. Based on this ground and others, he has been seeking to have his convictions vacated or his sentence reduced. There is no evidence that he has been successful in altering his convictions or sentence in any way, and the evidence does not suggest that it is likely that he will succeed in accomplishing either objective. The Respondent did not report his guilty pleas to the Board in writing within 30 days. The Respondent contends that his incarceration since his arrest made it impossible for him to do so. However, the greater weight of the evidence was to the contrary. More likely, compliance with the technical requirement to report to the Board in writing was not in the forefront of his mind. The Respondent has been licensed since July 31, 2002. This is the first time action has been taken by DOH and the Board to discipline his license. The Respondent’s actions had the potential to expose numerous people to harm from the misuse and abuse of oxycodone and other controlled substances. This violated the trust placed in him by the State of Florida when he became licensed as a pharmacist. His violation of the public trust demonstrated unsound judgment and a lack of integrity. As a result, the Respondent’s professional standing among his peers was lowered. (The only direct evidence of this was the testimony of DOH’s expert witness, but this fact can be inferred from the nature of his convictions and sentence, as well as the comments of the sentencing federal judge, who viewed the Respondent’s actions as an abuse of the public trust and undeserving of a second chance to be a pharmacist.) The Respondent also contends that he should be treated leniently in this case because alcohol abuse and long-standing emotional and psychological problems were primary reasons for his actions. His contention belies the criminal convictions, which were for intentional crimes and based on voluntary guilty pleas. To the extent that these problems were contributory factors, it is commendable that the Respondent is taking them seriously, and he will benefit in the long run from continuing to seek treatment and counseling to address them. Neither the problems, in themselves, nor the start of treatment and counseling warrants lenient license discipline. The Board has guidelines for the imposition of penalties for license violations. DOH submitted Petitioner’s Exhibit 4 as evidence of the guidelines in effect at the time of the Respondent’s guilty pleas and convictions. However, the exhibit actually purports to certify the guidelines in effect at various times from January 1, 2011, until December 31, 2013. It appears from the exhibit that as of the time of the Respondent’s guilty pleas and convictions, the range of penalties for a first violation of section 456.072(1)(c), Florida Statutes (2012), for a felony conviction or guilty plea was from a year probation and a $3,000 fine to a year suspension to revocation and a $5,000 fine. Fla. Admin. Code R. 64B16-30.001(o)3. (revised Nov. 29, 2006). The range of penalties for a first violation of section 456.072(1)(x), Florida Statutes (2012), is from a $1,000 fine to a $2,500 fine and a year probation. Fla. Admin. Code R. 64B16-30.001(o)(18) (revised Nov. 29, 2006). The guidelines in effect at that time also included aggravating circumstances that would justify deviating above the guidelines and mitigating circumstances that would justify deviating below the guidelines. The aggravating circumstances included: a history of previous violations; in the case of negligent acts, the magnitude and scope of the damage or potential damage inflicted on a patient or the general public; and violations of professional practice acts in other jurisdictions. The mitigating circumstances included: in the case of negligent acts, the minor nature of the damage or potential damage to the patient’s or the general public’s health, safety, and welfare; the lack of previous discipline; restitution of monetary damage suffered by the patient; the licensee’s professional standing among his peers; the steps taken by the licensee to ensure the non-occurrence of similar violations in the future, including continuing education; and the degree of financial hardship incurred by the licensee. In this case, there are no aggravating circumstances justifying a deviation above the guidelines. As for mitigating circumstances: the minor nature of the damage or potential damage to the patient’s or the general public’s health, safety, and welfare from his failure to report his convictions and guilty pleas to the Board might justify a deviation below the guidelines for that violation, but not for the convictions and pleas, themselves; the Respondent’s lack of previous discipline is a mitigating circumstance; restitution of monetary damage to the patient is not relevant; the Respondent’s professional standing among his peers has suffered and does not justify a deviation below the guidelines in this case; the Respondent forfeited all ill-gotten gains to the federal government and has incurred financial hardship as a result of the forfeitures and his incarceration, but that does not justify a deviation below the guidelines in this case; the Respondent has taken several continuing education courses since he has been incarcerated, but that does not justify a deviation below the guidelines in this case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Pharmacy enter a final order finding the Respondent guilty as charged and revoking his license to practice pharmacy. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of June, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of June, 2014. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark Whitten, Executive Director Board of Pharmacy Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-04 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3254 Jennifer A. Tschetter, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Yolanda Y. Green, Esquire Lucas L. May, Esquire Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C-65 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3265 Christopher S. Switlyk Register No. 53913-018 Federal Satellite Camp Post Office Box 779800 Miami, Florida 33177-9800
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent violated section 489.129(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2010), by being convicted or found guilty of, or entering a plea of nolo contendere to, regardless of adjudication, a crime directly related to the practice or the ability to practice contracting. If so, it must also be determined what penalty should be imposed for the violation.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of contractors pursuant to section 20.165 and chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. Respondent holds an active license as a certified general contractor, having been issued license number CGC 1515398 on April 30, 2008. He is also the qualifier for Pro Group Construction, Inc. Respondent's license expires August 31, 2014. On or about October 15, 2009, Respondent was charged by the United States Government in a one-count Information with conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. On April 5, 2011, Respondent pled guilty to Count I of the Information, and was adjudicated guilty. On March 20, 2012, Respondent was sentenced to incarceration for one year and one day, supervised release for a period of three years upon completion of his prison sentence, and payment of restitution in the amount of $182,294.83 to Wells Fargo Bank. Included in the terms of supervision, are the following: The Defendant shall provide the probation officer access to any requested financial information. The defendant shall be prohibited from incurring new credit charges, opening additional lines of credit, acquisitions or obligating himself for any major purchases without approval of the probation officer. The defendant shall be prohibited from engaging in any employment related to the buying and selling of real estate. The scheme to which Respondent pled guilty involved fraudulent statements to a lending institution, i.e., Wells Fargo Bank, to induce the lender to believe that buyers had the funds to make down payments on foreclosed properties in order to qualify for loans when in fact the buyers did not have those funds. The conduct from which the criminal charges arose occurred prior to Respondent's licensure as a certified general contractor. The guilty plea and the judgment and sentencing all occurred while Respondent held his contractor's license. Respondent admitted at hearing that his actions, which resulted in the criminal proceedings, were wrong, and he takes responsibility for his wrongdoing. He asserts, however, that because he was not licensed at the time of the conduct, it has nothing to do with his license as a certified general contractor. He was, instead, licensed as a mortgage broker. However, contractors routinely interact with customers, deal with contracts for the building of or improvement of buildings, handle money and checks, and have direct involvement with lending institutions. Respondent admitted that, if he had an employee with a conviction for a crime such as the crime for which he pleaded guilty, that employee would not be permitted to handle money on behalf of his company.
Findings Of Fact During times material hereto, Respondent, Bobby D. Patton, was a certified general contractor, qualifying Bellavia Construction, Inc. (sometimes referred to as Bellavia) and has been issued license number CGC011543. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). During times material hereto, John Bellavia (Bellavia) was not licensed by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, as a contractor. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). During times material hereto, Allstate Interiors, Inc., was not qualified with the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). On October 12, 1982, Bellavia Construction contracted with Mrs. Mei Lin Eisen to construct a fast food restaurant within the confines of Aventura Mall for a cost of $37,000.00. Bellavia executed the contract on behalf of Bellavia Construction as it's president. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). On October 15, 1982, Mrs. Eisen gave to Bellavia Construction a down payment of $7,400.00. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). Bellavia Construction was to complete the construction within four weeks after the issuance of the building permit. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). Mrs. Eisen emphasized to Bellavia that the construction phase of the restaurant had to be completed within the stated period in order that her business could be operating at the time of the Mall's grand opening. Mrs. Eisen also advised Bellavia that if she did not have her business operational at the time of the grand opening, she would be assessed a daily penalty by the Mall's owner for every day she was not in business beyond the grand opening. (TR 21, 35). On October 15, 1982, a building permit was issued to Respondent for the construction improvement work by Bellavia Construction on the Eisen job. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4; TR43). For the three week period following the issuance of the building permit (October 15, 1982), there was virtually no progress on the job with the exception of the drilling of three holes for plumbing and the placement of metal studs; which holes were incorrectly drilled and had to be relocated because they did not comport with the schematic drawings as depicted in the plans. During the three week period following the issuance of the permit, Bellavia was observed performing construction at another business in the mall. During that time, Mrs. Eisen inquired of Bellavia as to the lack of progress on her job and was told that there was no money to be made on the project. At the conclusion of the three week period subsequent to October 15, 1982, Bellavia quit Mrs. Eisen's project and did not return the deposit monies. Mrs. Eisen therefore had to obtain the services of another contractor to complete the job. As a result of this delay, her business was not open at the time of the mall's grand opening. (TR 22, 36). Mrs. Eisen was assessed a civil penalty of $16,800.00, payable over a seven year period at $200.00 a month. (TR 23) Neither during the negotiation of the contract nor during the performance of the contract did Mrs. Eisen or her architect have any knowledge of Respondent. Their entire contractual dealings were with Bellavia. (TR 23, 24, 38 and 39). Bellavia was also the president of Allstate Interiors, Inc., which attained corporate status on May 2, 1983. On May 4, 1983, a building permit for construction work by Bellavia Construction for Aventura Travel was issued to Respondent. (Petitioner's Exhibit 6). On May 11, 1983, a building permit for construction work by Bellavia Construction for Dentaland was issued to Respondent. (Petitioner's Exhibit 5). During February, 1983, Respondent moved from his address of record with the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, which was 8698 S.W. 50th Street, Cooper City, Florida. In July, 1983, the Department became aware of Respondent's move from the above location during the investigation of the instant case. (TR 50, 53/54, 56/58). Respondent, during the license renewal process period for 1985/1987, notified the Department of his address change to 1005 N.E. 143rd Street, North Miami, Florida, which became his address of record. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1). As stated in the background, Respondent did not appear at the hearing except through counsel.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent, Bobby D. Patton, license number CGC 011543, be suspended for a period of one (1 year. Further, it is RECOMMENDED that an administrative fine of $500.00 be imposed upon Respondent. DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of October, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 August, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Erroll Powell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steven M. Rosen, Esquire 5601 Building 5601 Biscayne Blvd. Miami, Florida 33137
