Findings Of Fact Petitioner has a degree in pest control technology. On June 18, 1981, Respondent renewed Petitioner's Pest Control operator's Certificate No. 2303 until June 1, 1982, in the categories of general household pests and rodent control, termite and other wood-destroying organism control, and lawn and ornamental pest control. On May 6, 1982, Petitioner filed his annual Application for Renewal of his certificate in the same categories. On that application, Petitioner answered "yes" to the question: "Have you been convicted by any court of a felony or of a crime involving moral turpitude within the past year?" and he answered "no" to the question: "[H]ave your civil rights been restored?" By letter dated June 15, 1982, Respondent denied Petitioner's Application for Renewal based upon Petitioner's answers to those questions, and Petitioner timely requested a formal hearing on that denial. On December 16, 1982, Respondent wrote to the Division of Administrative Hearings advising that a Hearing Officer had not yet been assigned to hear this matter and attaching only a copy of a July 6, 1982, letter from Respondent requesting the Division to conduct a formal hearing in this cause. Since the July 6 letter had never been received by the Division of Administrative Hearings, and since the December 16 letter failed to transmit Petitioner's request for hearing or any other pleadings or papers setting forth the substance of the cause, the Staff Assistant of the Division telephoned Mrs. Cheryl Ganley of Respondent's Clerk's Office on December 23, 1982, and requested the documents required to open a case before the Division of Administrative Hearings. That telephonic request was followed up with a letter to Mrs. Ganley on January 4, 1983. No response to either the telephonic or written inquiry was made by Respondent until March 24, 1983, when Respondent again wrote to the Division of Administrative Hearings asking why the matter was not scheduled for hearing and attaching only a copy of its December 16, 1982, letter. On March 31, 1983, the Director of the Division wrote Respondent outlining the chronology of the letters to and from Respondent and again advising Respondent that the case could not be heard until Respondent transmitted the pleadings required to open a case file. On April 11, 1983, Respondent finally did so. Petitioner relies upon his licensure by Respondent as a Certified Pest Control Operator for his livelihood and has no other training or means for earning a living. Other than Petitioner's testimony that his involvement in the incident was minimal, the only evidence introduced regarding the circumstances surrounding his arrest and conviction is a letter from Petitioner's Probation Officer, which letter constitutes uncorroborated hearsay and, therefore, cannot support a finding of fact. Petitioner's probation should be terminated in approximately six months, at which time he will be able to seek restoration of his civil rights. He anticipates no problem in having his civil rights restored. At the formal hearing in this cause, the parties stipulated that the only bar to renewal of Petitioner's licensure is his conviction of a felony or of a crime involving moral turpitude without his civil rights being restored.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered approving Petitioner's Application for Renewal of his Pest Control Operator's Certificate No. 2303 for the annual period commencing June 1, 1983. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 17th day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 17th day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold L. Braynon, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 201 West Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Mr. Christopher M. Hagerty 1141 South West Sixth Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33315 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues to be resolved are as follows: With regard to Count Four of the Amended Petition, whether the Petitioners have sufficiently alleged a rule challenge and more particularly whether sufficient facts have been alleged to identify the challenged rule, whether existing, proposed, or unpromulgated; and whether, through an unpromulgated rule, the Department (Respondent) has prohibited the installation of "pest control insulation" or borate containing insulation by anyone other than a card-carrying employee of a certified pest control operator or licensee. If so, it must be determined whether such action is outside the Respondent's rulemaking authority, whether it is contrary to statute, whether it disregards the exceptions proved in Section 482.211(9), Florida Statutes, and whether it violates Section 482.051, Florida Statutes. With regard to Count Five of the Amended Petition, whether the Petitioners have sufficiently alleged a rule challenge to a proposed or existing rule or have offered evidence legally sufficient to establish a rule, proposed, or existing, which the Petitioners are challenging relating to the Respondent allegedly having selectively investigated pest control operators performing 100 or more pre-construction termite treatments annually, and whether such action is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. With regard to Count Six of the Amended Petition, whether the Petitioners have sufficiently alleged a rule challenge to a proposed or existing rule or have offered evidence legally sufficient to establish a rule, proposed, existing, or unpromulgated, which the Petitioners are challenging relating to the Respondent's alleged enforced application of termiticide arbitrarily and capriciously by not requiring the best available technology and not regulating according to acceptable standards in the manner in which it conducts field investigations. With regard to Count Seven of the Amended Petition, whether the Petitioners have sufficiently alleged a rule challenge based on a proposed or existing rule or have offered legally sufficient evidence to establish a rule, proposed, existing, or unpromulgated, which the Petitioners are challenging relating to the Respondent's enforcement of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, as it relates to preventive soil treatments for new construction and its alleged failure to protect the public. With regard to Counts Two, Three, and Eight of the Amended Petition, whether the Petitioners have alleged any facts or presented any evidence to establish a proposed, existing, or unpromulgated rule substantially affecting the interests of the Petitioners. Whether either the Petitioners or the Respondent are entitled to recovery of attorney's fees and costs.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners conceded at hearing that the Order on the Motion to Dismiss, prior to the hearing, concerning the mootness caused by the withdrawal of the above-referenced agency memos not only disposed of Count One of the Amended Petition, but had rendered moot Counts Two and Three, as well. No evidence was presented as to the those counts. Neither was any evidence or argument presented regarding Count Eight of the Amended Petition. Thus, Counts Two, Three, and Eight, as well as Count One, should be dismissed. The Petitioners, with regard to Count Four of the Amended Petition, did not allege the text of any statement or description of one which could be construed as an unpromulgated rule by the agency, which prohibited the installation of insulation containing borate by anyone other than a "card- carrying" employee of a certified pest control operator or licensee. There was no evidence to establish the existence of such an unpromulgated statement or rule of general application. Cliff Killingsworth testified that he was an officer and party representative of the Petitioners' companies in this case. "In-cide" is a cellulose fiber with borate or borate- containing materials for fire retardancy and fungal control. The manufacturer had increased the borate content in the material so that it could make claims with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the product's pest control value. Mr. Killingsworth acknowledged that it was a licensed and registered "pest control product." While Mr. Killingsworth agreed that claims to the public about the pest control value of the product should be done by a pest control operator, he felt that should not prevent him from subcontracting the installation of the insulation material to a professional insulation installer so that the material would be properly installed in a home or other building. Mr. Killingsworth met with Steve Dwinell and Joe Parker, representatives of the Respondent agency, in Jacksonville, Florida, in the summer of 1997. He provided them with a 30-to-40-page report regarding installation of the insulation with its pest control properties. He received no communication from the Respondent following this meeting and sought no written opinion from the Respondent about the use of the material before he began using it. Mr. Killingsworth invited George Owens, a field inspector for the Respondent in the Northwest Florida area, to observe the product being installed in a structure. Mr. Killingsworth testified that Mr. Owens, thereafter, sent him a letter stating that the Respondent was not going to regulate that material. Mr. Killingsworth, however, did not produce that letter or a copy of it. Mr. Owens testified that he had visited a site in Destin, Florida, at Mr. Killingsworth's invitation, where "Green Stone" insulation was being applied by being blown into a small section of a wall. He did not know that a subcontractor was making the application when he visited the site. He thought that an employee of Mr. Killingsworth was performing the installation of the material. Mr. Owens did not recall telling Mr. Killingsworth or any of his representatives that application of the product by an agent other than Mr. Killingsworth's own company would be prohibited. It was not Mr. Owens' belief that he had authority to make those decisions. He did not believe that he had authority to approve or disapprove the application of a pesticide. Mr. Killingsworth invited Mike McDaniels, another field investigator with the Respondent in the Gainesville, Florida, area to observe the installation of the product in the spring of 1998. Mr. McDaniels commented to Mr. Killingsworth that he was glad that they were doing it, but he made no report. After the Petitioners' companies had been operating for two or three months in the Gainesville area, sharing space with Green Stone Industries, the company producing the insulation, Mr. McDaniels returned. He informed Mr. Killingsworth that the Respondent agency had changed its position on the application of the product. Because it was a "labeled material," that is, labeled and promoted as a certified pest control product, for purposes of EPA regulations, it had to be installed and handled only by a pest control operator meeting the definition of an employee under Chapter 482, Florida Statutes. Mr. McDaniel was shown the insulation in question by Mr. Killingsworth and how it was installed at a job site. He never told Mr. Killingsworth whether he could use the product or not, but during a "non-adversarial inspection," he told him that he had to have "ID cardholders" (i.e., employees of a licensed pest control operator) install the insulation, since it had advertised pesticide qualities. Mr. McDaniel was shown a warehouse with two different types of insulation. One had borate advertised as a fire retardant. The other had a higher content of borate which was advertised to have pesticide qualities. Mr. McDaniel determined that employees applying the second type of product were conducting pest control by installing that product and should, therefore, have pest control operator identification cards. He explained that to Mr. Killingsworth and thought he may have written that opinion on an inspection form which he supplied to Mr. Killingsworth. He also believes he notified his supervisor, Phil Helseth. His normal practice, when a new material is reported to him or observed, is to inform his superior of the facts concerning that product. He never told Mr. Killingsworth or his representatives that they could not install the product in question. He informed them that since it was listed as a pesticide that they would have to be have employees of a licensed pest control operator to legally install the product. Mr. McDaniel did not consult with anyone at the Respondent agency about this, but rather relied on his own judgment as to agency policy and the interpretation of the statutes and rules enforced by the Respondent. He testified that he had no central direction from his superiors at the Department on the issue and was unaware what other districts or regions under the Department's regulation were doing to address this question. He simply determined that if the Petitioners' personnel were applying a product that was a registered pesticide insulation that, under his understanding of the broad statutory definition of pesticides as anything that "curbed, mitigated, destroyed, or repelled insects," then the installers would have to be employees of a registered pesticide operator. Mr. Dwinell testified as the bureau chief for the Bureau of Entomology and Pest Control. He met with Mr. Killingsworth along with Mr. Parker, another employee of the bureau. Mr. Killingsworth made a presentation regarding the product in dispute, the borate-impregnated cellulose insulation. He determined that the product was a pesticide because it was advertised as a registered pesticide and performed pesticide functions, in addition to its insulation function. He did not recall that the precise issue of subcontracting with a non- licensed pest control operator or insulation installer was a topic of their conversation. Following that meeting, he may have discussed the question with Mr. Helseth, in a general way, but does not recall discussing it with any other person. He recalls some discussion concerning the Gainesville office of the Killingsworth companies and whether Mr. Killingsworth, or that office of his company, was licensed as a certified operator. He believes he recalls that a cease and desist letter informing the Killingsworth companies of the need to have the application of the product performed by someone licensed to do pest control may have been sent, although he is not certain. Mr. Dwinell established that the Respondent agency had never published anything regarding pest control insulation. He noted that a pesticide was a pesticide under the statutory definition, whether a corn bait, insulation, or mixed in a jug. The same laws applied to it and under Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, a pesticide must be applied by a licensed applicator. Mr. Killingsworth insisted that the insulation product, though a registered pesticide, was exempt from the provisions of Section 482.211(9), Florida Statutes, because it was a derivative wood product. He agreed that the product in question was a wood by-product and not wood. If a product did not meet the statutory definition of being exempt, then it would be appropriate for the Respondent to issue a cease and desist directive until the Petitioners came into compliance with Chapter 482, Florida Statutes. Mr. Dwinell opined that the subject insulation product was not exempt under the provisions of Section 482.211(9), Florida Statutes. Unlike pre-treated lumber, which is exempt, the installation product at issue is a registered pesticide. Pre-treated lumber, though treated with pesticide in the manufacturing process, is not intended to be used as pesticide, nor is it a registered pesticide. The Petitioners have not stated a basis for a rule challenge pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, as to Counts Five and Six of the Amended Petition. Although references were made to alleged "actions" by the Respondent agency, the Petitioners have not alleged with particularity, nor adduced any competent, substantial evidence of any rule provisions alleged to be invalid, nor have they shown, in an evidential way, any to be invalid. The evidence does not show that there is a rule, either proposed, existing, or as an unpromulgated agency statement of general applicability, which is actually being challenged by the Petitioners. There has not been a definitive showing by preponderant evidence that such exists concerning the product and operation at issue. The Petitioners in Count Seven of the Amended Petition have not stated any basis for a rule challenge in accordance with Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. There are numerous references to provisions of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, but it is not alleged with any particularity which rule provisions are purported to be invalid, nor has preponderant evidence been adduced to establish any rule provisions either proposed, existing, or as unpromulgated agency statements, which have imposed a substantial effect on the Petitioners. In this regard, the Petitioners' counsel argued at the hearing: Your Honor, what we have suggested is that the rule that's being challenged is the Department's statutory obligation under the statute as it relates to their promulgated Rule 5E-14.105, and as it relates to their treatment guarantees or warranties that are required by that regulation for a treatment that just doesn't work. The Department rule requires a certain warranty and requires a renewable warranty, placing that upon the pest control operator under the guise of protecting the consumer, but the fact of the matter is, it doesn't protect the consumer, and it just endangers the pest control operator. And so I guess the actual rule is the 5E-14.105. In addition to that we have the statutory obligations of the Department, which is to provide a protection to the public health and the economic benefit of the consumer and evaluate these chemicals that they are requiring warranties for. That's the basis of the rule challenge, and admittedly, this one is a little bit nebulous, but there is a regulatory, I guess, mandate of these preconstruction soil treatments as a method, as the preferred method, and to the extent that the operators, who are the regulated entity in this case are required to--is mandated to require a warranty for a method they know doesn't work . . . . Mr. Killingsworth acknowledged in his testimony that he was not contending that there should not be a warranty requirement for treatments of subterranean termites, as stated in the above-cited Rule 5E-14.105, Florida Administrative Code. He also acknowledged that he was not contending that the Respondent should require warranties from pest control companies for every kind of pest control performed. He thought there were a lot of factors not within a pest control operator's control affecting particular wood fungi, but what was in the pest operator's control was the opportunity to do a preventive treatment for more than just subterranean termites and they, in his view, should not be prevented from doing so. When asked what preventive treatment he had been prevented from doing by the Respondent, his reply was: The effect of memos and other actions prevented us from doing our choice of preventative treatment, the borate application, through the effects of raising questions in building officials' eyes, through the effects of increasing the economic impact to us to get it done. Builders will not pay enough to do both soil treatment and bait and borate. The memoranda referred to as preventing Mr. Killingsworth from doing his choice of preventive treatment were not actually identified in the record, however. Mr. Dwinell testified that the EPA guidelines require an efficacy standard for soil treatments which states: "Data derived from such testing should provide complete resistance to termite attack for a period of five years." The EPA also provides guidelines for preventive treatment/wood impregnation: "When acceptable data derived from testing for at least two years, or less than five years, shows complete resistance to termite attack, the product may be registered." The efficacy standard for borate, thus, was not five years, but two years. Mr. Dwinell had concerns about the type of data that had been relied upon by the EPA for registration and how that data related to the situation in Florida. That was the basis for the negotiated rulemaking process that the Respondent was engaged in at the time of the hearing in this case. The purpose of the negotiated rulemaking process was to comply with the statute that required a rule, but ultimately the purpose was to have a mechanism in the State of Florida where the product was registered for use under construction and a reliable set of data that could show whether the product would actually protect against termites when applied. The ultimate goal of the statute at issue is to protect the consumer, which is the Respondent's statutory duty. Borate pesticides are registered for use, with label directions for use during construction. They are one of three categories of materials for use in construction, including soil- applied pesticide materials, baiting products, and wood treatments, the last being the borates. There are no directives issued by the Respondent that specifically preclude the use of either borate as a stand-alone treatment or a baiting system as a stand-alone treatment. The Respondent does not require soil treatments only. Mr. Dwinell has never told any licensee that he could not use borate products if he were licensed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner was, and is, a Florida certified pest control operator. Petitioner owns and operates Campbell's Pest Control, a firm licensed by the State of Florida for pest control purposes and doing business in Alachua, Florida. In his capacity as owner and operator of that firm, Petitioner supervises two cardholder employees. In the latter part of 1982, Petitioner received two letters from Respondent, one dated August 13, 1982, and the other September 7, 1982. Both of these letters contained notification to Petitioner of Respondent's contention that he had failed to comply with the requirements of Section 482.152, Florida Statutes, which provides as follows: A certified operator in charge of pest control operations of a licensee shall be a Florida resident whose primary occupation is in the structural pest control business, who is employed on a full-time basis by the licensee, and whose principal duty is the personal supervision of and participation in the pest control operations of the licensee as the same relate to the following: The selection of proper and correct chemicals for the particular pest control work to be performed. The safe and proper use of these pesticides. The correct concentration and formulation of pesticides used in all pest control work performed. The training of personnel in the proper and acceptable methods of pest control. The control measures and procedures used. The notification of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services within 24 hours of any knowledge of accidental human poisoning or death connected with pest control work performed on jobs he is supervising. Two memoranda were enclosed with the letter from Respondent dated September 7, 1982. The first of these was a legal memorandum from Respondent's counsel concerning an interpretation of Section 482.152, Florida Statutes, quoted above. This memorandum provided in pertinent part that: It is clear from a careful reading of Chapter 482 that the requirement concerning a fully qualified certified operator exists as a condition precedent to licensure because of the many dangers inherent in pest control activities. The interpretation placed on the language above quoted from Section 482.152, F.S. is that the certified operator's primary job should be that of a certified operator. Because of the many functions which are required to be performed by the certified operator, he should be on the job on a full-time basis or a nearly full-time basis for the licensee. It is obvious that the legislature, by using the language above described, intended to preclude 'certificate selling'. . . The other memorandum was dated February 23, 1978, and furnished to all commercial pest control licensees and certified operators, and concerned the subject of "renting" of pest control certificates. This memorandum provided in part that: It has come to the attention of this office that some licensees and certified operators are not in compliance with the provisions of Chapter 482.121 and 482.152, Florida Statutes, concerning the status and activities of a certified operator in charge of pest control activities of a licensee. * * * The intent and purpose of the provisions of the Pest Control Act . . . are to prevent such practices as certificate 'renting' or 'selling' under the pretense that the certified operator is in the [sic] charge of pest control activities of the licensee, when in fact he or she is not. The Office of Entomology will enforce the referenced provisions of chapter 482 F.S. as interpreted by legal counsel [in the January 25, 1977 memorandum] with regard to certificate 'renting'. Licensees and certified operators should examine their present arrangements with regard to this matter to determine if they are in compliance with the law. Violations could be grounds for suspension or revocation of licenses or certificates. Any licensee adversely affected would be entitled to apply for an emergency certificate upon loss of certified operator. By Administrative Complaint dated October 13, 1982, Petitioner was charged with a violation of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes: . . . in that you are presently employed on a full-time basis by the City of Gainesville as a firefighter and at the same time registered with the Department as an employee--identification cardholder and as a certified operator in charge of the pest control operations of Campbell's Pest Control . . . This constitutes a violation of Section 482.152, F.S., which requires, in part, that the primary occupation of a certified operator in charge of the pest control operations of a licensee shall be in the pest control business and that such certified operator be employed on a full-time basis by the licensee with the principal duty of personal supervision of and participation in the licensee's pest control operations as these operations relate to selection and safe, and correct use of pesticides, control measures and procedures used, and training of personnel; and a violation of section 482.121(1), F.S., which provides that no certified pest control operator shall allow his certificate to be used by any licensee to secure or keep a license unless such certified operator is in charge of the 'pest control activities of the licensee in the category or categories covered by his certificate and is a full-time employee of the licensee.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether an application for a pest control employee-identification card filed by Respondent, Larry Kravitsky, with Petitioner, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, should be denied for the reasons stated in Administrative Complaint # A61227, BEPC Case # 09-0850.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Bureau of Entomology and Pest Control (hereinafter referred to as the “Department”), is charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the provisions of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, the “Structural Pest Control Act.” Among other duties, the Department is responsible for issuing pest control employee-identification cards. On or about February 13, 2007, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint and Settlement Agreement, Notice to Cease and Desist, BEPC Case Number 06-1951, Administrative Complaint Number A47018, against Larry Kravitsky (hereinafter referred to as the “Disciplinary Administrative Complaint”). It is alleged in Count 1 of the Disciplinary Administrative Complaint that Mr. Kravitsky committed a violation of Section 482.165(1), Florida Statutes (2006), by “practicing pest control in the State of Florida without a Pest Control Business License . . . .” In Count 2 it is alleged that Mr. Kravitsky violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 5E- 14.106(1) by “[a]pplying a pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its labeling ” On or about February 28, 2007, Mr. Kravitsky disputed the facts upon which the Disciplinary Administrative Complaint is based and requested a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Sections 120.569, and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. On December 4, 2007, the matter was filed by the Department with the Division of Administrative Hearings requesting that an administrative law judge be assigned to conduct the formal hearing requested by Mr. Kravitsky. The matter was designated DOAH Case No. 07-5600PL and was assigned to the undersigned. An evidentiary hearing was held in DOAH Case No. 07- 5600PL on December 18, 2008. On June 2, 2009, a Recommended Order was entered in DOAH Case No. 07-5600PL. The Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and recommendation in that case are hereby incorporated by reference into this Recommended Order. In the Recommended Order Mr. Kravitsky was found to have violated Section 482.165, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 5E- 14.106(6), as alleged in the Disciplinary Administrative Complaint. On July 14, 2009, a Final Order was entered by the Department in the disciplinary Administrative Complaint case. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth in the Recommended Order were adopted “in their entirety” and Mr. Kravitsky was ordered to pay a fine of $4,000.00. On or about January 6, 2009, subsequent to the issuance of Disciplinary Administrative Complaint and prior to the entry of the Recommended Order in DOAH Case No. 07-5600PL, Mr. Kravitsky applied with the Department for a pest control employee-identification card. By Administrative Complaint # A61227, BEPC Case # 09- 0850, the Department notified Mr. Kravitsky that his January 6, 2009, application for a pest control employee-identification card was being denied based upon the following: A copy of an Administrative Complaint and Settlement Agreement against Larry Kravitsky dated February 13, 2007, Administrative Complaint Number A47018, BEPC Case Number 06-1951 is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The factual allegations against Mr. Kravitsky in Exhibit A are incorporated by reference herein. Based on the factual allegations in Exhibit A, Larry Kravitsky practiced pest control on or about June 5, 2006, in the State of Florida without a pest control business license and without an identification card in violation of Section 482.165(1), Florida Statutes. Based on the factual allegations in Exhibit A, Larry Kravitsky applied a pesticide on or about June 5, 2006, in a manner inconsistent with its labeling in violation of Section 5E-14.106(1), Florida Administrative Code. The Department is authorized by Florida Statutes, Section 482.161(1)(a) to deny the application for licensure of an identification cardholder for the violation of any provision of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes or of any rule adopted by the Department pursuant to Chapter 482, Florida Statutes. The alleged violations against Larry Kravitsky set forth in Exhibit A were tried in an administrative hearing on December 8, 2008, before Honorable Larry Sartin Administrative Law Judge in Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) Case Number 07-5600. A Recommended Order has not yet been issued in that case. Mr. Kravitsky disputed the foregoing allegations and requested a formal administrative hearing. His request was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings and designed DOAH Case No. 09-2300.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services denying the application for a pest control employee-identification card filed by Larry Kravitsky due to his violation of Section 482.165, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 5E-14.106(6), as alleged in the Disciplinary Administrative Complaint and found in DOAH Case No. 07-5600PL. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of August, 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 10th day of August, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: David W. Young, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Suite 520 407 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Larry Kravitsky 3300 South Ocean Boulevard, Apartment 917 Highland Beach, Florida 33487 Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Suite 520 407 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Honorable Charles H. Bronson Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
The Issue Whether Respondents Lee Ann Kennedy ("Kennedy") and Kenco Industries, L.L.C. ("Kenco"), engaged in various activities constituting pest control under chapter 482 without having obtained the required licenses from Petitioner Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, in violation of sections 482.161(1)(j), 482.165(1), and 465.191(1), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is the state agency charged with administering the Structural Pest Control Act, chapter 482. Respondent Kennedy is a resident of Wellington, Florida. Respondent Kenco Industries, L.L.C., is a registered Florida Limited Liability Company. Kennedy is the manager and sole member of, and the registered agent for, Kenco. Pest Control Regulation under Chapter 482, Florida Statutes Chapter 482 authorizes Petitioner to regulate activities constituting "pest control" and to impose sanctions for violations of that chapter. "Pest control" is broadly defined in section 483.021(22) as: The use of any method or device or the application of any substance to prevent, destroy, repel, mitigate, curb, control, or eradicate any pest in, on, or under a structure, lawn, or ornamental; The identification of or inspection for infestations or infections in, on, or under a structure, lawn, or ornamental; The use of any pesticide, economic poison, or mechanical device for preventing, controlling, eradicating, identifying, inspecting for, mitigating, diminishing, or curtailing insects, vermin, rodents, pest birds, bats, or other pests in, on, or under a structure, lawn, or ornamental; All phases of fumigation, including: The treatment of products by vault fumigation; and The fumigation of boxcars, trucks, ships, airplanes, docks, warehouses, and common carriers; and The advertisement of, the solicitation of, or the acceptance of remuneration for any work described in this subsection, but does not include the solicitation of a bid from a licensee to be incorporated in an overall bid by an unlicensed primary contractor to supply services to another. Petitioner is authorized to issue licenses to qualified businesses to engage in the business of pest control in this state. § 482.165(1), Fla. Stat. It is unlawful for any person, partnership, firm, corporation, or other business entity to engage in the unlicensed practice of pest control as that term is defined in section 482.021(22). Id. Section 482.191(1) makes unlawful the advertisement of pest control services except as authorized under chapter 482. Absent limited circumstances not applicable here, persons or entities engaging in such advertisement must be licensed by Petitioner to practice pest control. Petitioner also is authorized to fine persons who impersonate an employee of Petitioner. § 482.161(1)(j), Fla. Stat. Respondents' Acts Alleged to Violate Chapter 482 Respondent Kennedy did not hold a pest control business license or other license to practice pest control at any time relevant to this proceeding.2/ Respondent Kenco also did not hold a pest control business license or other license to practice pest control at any time relevant to this proceeding. On or about April 1, 2011, Kennedy entered Saigon Oriental Market in Lake Park, Florida. According to its owner, Hung The Thach, Kennedy walked around the store inspecting it, then told him that she was employed by Petitioner, that some of his produce was infested by insects, and that he would have to have pest control services performed or she would return in a week to conduct another compliance inspection. Kennedy gave Mr. Thach the telephone number for Outside In, a pest control company, and the business card of its owner, Dennis O'Rourke. Concerned that Kennedy would shut down his store or fine him, Mr. Thach called Outside In; the following day, an employee of that company performed pest control services at the store. Outside In performed additional pest control services at the store on or around May 26, 2011. Mr. Thach paid Outside In for these services. In mid-May 2011, Kennedy inspected Fajita's Super Market in Lake Worth, Florida, and told its owner, Ali Jaber, that she was employed by Petitioner as an inspector, and that he had a fly problem in his store. She recommended that he contact Outside In to correct the problem. Mr. Jaber told her he used another pest control company, but thereafter, a representative from Outside In visited the store, left a business card with Mr. Jaber, and offered to provide pest control services for the store for $150.00 per month with no contract. Kennedy returned to the store approximately a week later and wanted to know why nothing had been done to correct the fly problem; she also asked an employee of Fajita's who was going to pay for her time to inspect the store; when she was referred to Mr. Jaber, she left the store and did not return. On or around May 24, 2011, Kennedy entered the Fortune Cookie oriental supermarket in West Palm Beach, Florida, and told its president, David Chang, that she was with an inspector with Petitioner. She inspected the store, told him that there was a fly problem, and stated she would return in two weeks. Mr. Chang testified that Kennedy did not provide him the name of any pest control businesses, but that approximately a week before Kennedy inspected the store, a representative of Outside In had come to the store and tried to sell him pest control services, but that he had declined to purchase the services at that time. Dennis O'Rourke, President of Outside In, testified that Kennedy was not on his company's payroll, but that she had solicited pest control business for his company for approximately four months prior to September 2011. She successfully solicited four accounts and he paid her 30% of the profits made on those accounts. At the time she solicited the accounts, she did not possess a valid identification card to perform pest control services on behalf of Outside In.3/ Mr. O'Rourke subsequently obtained a valid identification card for Kennedy so that she could perform pest control, including business solicitation, for his company. Petitioner initiated an investigation of Kennedy in June 2011, after being notified by several small food markets in Palm Beach County that she was holding herself out as a food inspector with Petitioner, inspecting the stores, notifying the store operators that there was a pest problem, and recommending that Outside In be contacted to correct the problem. In the course of the investigation, on September 7, 2011, John Berquist, an inspector with Petitioner's Bureau of Entomology and Pest Control, took photographs of Kennedy's motor vehicle4/ bearing magnetic signs on the front passenger and driver side doors labeled "Kenco Industries," which depicted a photograph of Kennedy and advertised the provision of pest control services. Berquist checked Petitioner's pest control licensing records and determined that Petitioner had not issued a pest control business license or other pest control license to Kennedy or to Kenco. At the hearing, Kennedy acknowledged that she conducted food store inspections, pointed out pest problems to store operators, and recommended that they contact Outside In for pest control service. However, she denied holding herself out as an employee of Petitioner. She testified that she is certified in food safety by the Department of Health and that if she observed a pest problem while shopping, she would show her food safety certification card to the store operator and point out the problem. She claimed she did this because she is Vietnamese, so often shops at Asian food markets and wants the stores where she purchases her family's food to be pest-free. She also claimed that she only wanted the stores "to get what they needed" in the way of pest control service and that it did not matter whether she was compensated for soliciting business for Outside In. However, she acknowledged that she had been compensated by Outside In for the pest control business she had successfully solicited on their behalf. Kennedy testified that she did not intend to do anything that was against the law, and was not aware that she was engaging in conduct that violated the law. The evidence established that neither Kennedy nor Kenco previously violated chapter 482 or Petitioner's rules. Ultimate Findings of Fact Regarding Alleged Violations Based on the foregoing, Petitioner established, by clear and convincing evidence, that Kennedy impersonated an employee of Petitioner, as alleged in Count 1 of the Amended Administrative Complaint, in violation of section 482.161(1)(j). Kennedy's testimony that she did not hold herself out as an employee of Petitioner was contradicted by all other witnesses and was not credible. Petitioner also established, by clear and convincing evidence, that Kennedy and Kenco advertised pest control services without obtaining a pest control business license in violation of sections 482.165(1) and 482.191(1). There was no dispute that Kennedy advertised the provision of pest control services by herself and by Kenco by placing signs on her vehicle depicting her image and Kenco's business name. Further, Kennedy is Kenco's manager, sole member, and agent, so her actions in advertising the provision of pest control services by Kenco are imputed to Kenco.5/ Petitioner also proved, by clear and convincing evidence, that Kennedy solicited pest control business for Outside In for compensation, in violation of sections 482.165(1) and 482.191(1). Kennedy's testimony that she was motivated by altruism and personal interest in food safety at markets where she shopped, rather than by being compensated for soliciting business for Outside In, was not credible. The undisputed evidence establishes that she was compensated by Outside In for soliciting pest control business on its behalf. However, Petitioner did not establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that Kenco solicited business on behalf of Outside In. The evidence does not show that Kennedy represented to the food store operators that she was acting on behalf of Kenco when she solicited business for Outside In. To the contrary, the evidence established that Kennedy represented that she was an inspector employed by Petitioner. Accordingly, it is determined that Kenco did not solicit pest control business for Outside In, in violation of sections 482.165(1) and 482.191(1). As further addressed below, Petitioner's Enforcement and Penalties rule, Florida Administrative Code Rule 5E-14.149, makes the deliberate commission of an act that constitutes a violation of chapter 482 an aggravating factor in determining the applicable fine. Here, the evidence shows that Kennedy intentionally misrepresented that she was employed by Petitioner specifically to solicit and induce food store operators to purchase pest control services for which she would be compensated. Accordingly, it is determined that Kennedy acted deliberately in impersonating an employee of Petitioner and in soliciting business on behalf of Outside In for compensation. Furthermore, the evidence shows that Kennedy——and by operation of the law of agency, Kenco——deliberately engaged in advertising the provision of pest control services without having obtained the required license.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services impose a fine of $2,600.00 on Respondent Lee Ann Kennedy, and impose a fine of $1,000.00 on Respondent Kenco Industries, L.L.C. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of June, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS 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 27th day of June, 2012.
Findings Of Fact Respondents, during all times here involved, were licensed by Petitioner as alleged and operated three separate pest control offices in Jacksonville, New Smyrna Beach and Palatka. During the period between May 1976 and April 1977 no certified operator was registered with Petitioner at the Jacksonville or New Smyrna Beach offices. During this period numerous fumigation contracts were entered into by Respondents. When these contracts were carried out all fumigation was performed under the supervision of a currently registered certified operator who was attached to the Palatka office owned by Respondents. Between June 1976 and October 1977 24-hour advance written notice of fumigation was not provided by Respondents to the health authorities in Duval County on five occasions and to the health authorities of Volusia County on six occasions. However, the health inspectors of each county apparently received telephone notice because they inspected the fumigations for which the written notice was not provided a higher percentage of times than the average inspection for fumigation for which 24-hour written advance notice was provided. Several violations involved the certified operator notifying HRS by letter that he would be certified operator for a specific office commencing on a given date and thereafter failing to submit the proper forms to obtain a current pest control identification card for the office at which he worked. Proper registration of pest control salesmen and certified operators requires the issuance of a pest control identification card for a specific location. On some occasions the charges resulted from Respondent, United Pest Control, acquiring another pest control company and continuing operations under United Pest Control without having changed the pest control identification cards of these employees. Two charges involved agents of Respondent who entered into contracts with customers. One resulted from a complaint that the agent inaccurately advised the customer that there was termite infestation and one involved a complaint of improper treatment for subterranean termites. After the customers complained to governmental authorities Respondents refunded their money. When Respondent Powell attempted to inspect the premises to verify the complaint of these two customers he was denied access to the premises by the customers. The certified operator in the Palatka office was used to supervise a fumigation contract obtained in the Jacksonville office and the New Smyrna Beach office during the period here involved. He told Respondent several times that it was a violation of the regulation for him to perform the fumigation on contracts in these other offices, but only after he reported this to HRS was the practice stopped. At the time of the hearing the Jacksonville pest control operation had been sold by Respondent United Pest Control.
Findings Of Fact James Dale Cooley, Respondent herein, is a certified pest control operator doing business as Tropical Pest Control and Closing Inspection Services Company. On December 6, 1990, Respondent inspected a residential property located at 1222 Stimson Street, Jacksonville, Florida, and issued a Wood- Destroying Organisms Inspection Report, HRS Form 1145. That report indicated that wood fungi was present in the subfloor and was caused by a moisture condition in the crawl space. The block under "Report of Findings" on that report for "visible evidence of wood-destroying organisms observed" was marked, "Yes." Under "comments," Respondent stated "Mature home; minor deterioration bottom of siding and trim of detached utility." Subsequently, Respondent issued a second Wood-Destroying Organisms Inspection Report for the same residence, bearing an inspection date of December 7, 1990. The second report indicated that no visible evidence of wood destroying organisms was observed. The "comments" portion was modified to read, "mature home has moisture condition in crawl space, common problem may be considered minor." The issuance of the second report clearly contradicted the first report as to existence of damage from wood-destroying organisms. The property was subsequently purchased based on the report of findings dated December 7, 1990. Mrs. Robinson, the realtor who commissioned the Respondent's inspection and report, testified that this second report was seen by the buyers and co-signer, and probably by the mortgagor, but that the earlier one was not. Eleven months later and after an above-average period of rainfall, on November 25, 1991, an HRS inspector visited the subject property and determined that evidence of damage caused by wood decay fungi was present in the substructure area. The primary cause of wood-destroying fungus growth is moisture. During this on-site investigation, Respondent was cooperative with the HRS inspector and provided him with a copy of his December 6, 1990 report. Receipt of a copy of the earlier report signalled to the department that there had been possible fraud in the sale of the house. Departmental personnel reached that conclusion because the first report had stated that there were wood-decaying organisms present, one day later the second report indicated that there were not such organisms present, and eleven months later wood- decaying organisms were found to be present. According to Respondent, when he made his inspection on December 6, 1990, he had observed only mold, mildew, and moisture stains, but no wood destroying organisms. Respondent's explanation for issuing two reports totally contrary to each other was that he intentionally made out a "very objectionable report" on December 6, 1990 showing that "wood fungi" and "wood destroying organisms" were present because he wanted the buyers to be fully informed about what was really wrong with the house and because he felt the "very objectinable report" would induce the buyers or the realtor to phone him, personally. His explanation for why he wrote in "wood fungi" on the first inspection report was that he was trying to signify only "wood fungi" but not "wood destroying fungi" or "wood destroying organisms." Respondent's testimony on this score is contradicted by the first inspection report itself whereon he had checked the box indicating that he had observed "wood destroying organisms." Respondent also had no plausible explanation for why he did not simply make a full and accurate explanation in the "comments" section of the first report. Also, according to Respondent, he filled out the new report not on December 7, 1990 but sometime thereafter around December 10 after receiving assurances from Mrs. Robinson that the buyers had been informed by somebody else of the true condition of the house. Respondent testified that he made out the second inspection report to reflect the truth of what he had seen on December 6th, not to defraud anyone by substituting a "good" report for the previous "bad" report. Nonetheless, Respondent charged $55.00 for the inspection and what he called a false report on December 6 and $25.00 for the "update" which he called a true report bearing the December 7 date. He admittedly did not re-inspect the premises. According Respondent every benefit of the doubt, it is clear from his own testimony that he intentionally falsified one report which ultimately resulted in an unnecessary fee of $25.00 which someone had to bear when the sale of the property was closed. Competent expert and lay testimony are in accord that mildew and mold are not fungi; neither organism is a wood decay fungus; neither organism metamorphoses into a wood decay fungus when exposed to prolonged moisture, and neither organism is an algae. Mr. Phillip Helseth testified competently and credibility that it is commonly understood that if one cites "wood fungi" as the Respondent did on the first wood-destroying organisms report it is commonly understood within the inspection industry to mean "wood decaying fungi." Mr. Helseth's testimony is also credible to the effect that there would be no reason to report "wood fungi" which is not decaying/destroying on such a report. Moreover, the HRS form utilized for both reports explicitly defines "wood-destroying organism" as, "arthropod or plant life which damages a structure, namely termites, powder-post beetles, wood-boring beetles, wood-boring wasps, carpenter bees and wood- decaying fungi." Mr. Helspeth also testified competently and credibly that "wood decaying fungi" constitutes a "wood destroying organism" and that to call mildew and mold "wood fungi" is inaccurate and falls below the standards of the profession. The competent credible evidence as a whole supports a finding that Respondent issued a false report which was not in accordance with good industry practice and standards. Having made that finding of fact, the undersigned may consider his prior disciplinary record (three cases) and has done so for purposes of penalty, only.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of the statutory violations charged in the administrative complaint, and suspending Respondent's Pest Control Certificate No. 2236 in the category of "Termite and Other Wood-Destroying Organism Control" for a period of three months. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 11th day of September, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The De Soto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of September, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 92-1055 The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to S120.59 (2), F.S., upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF) Petitioner's PFOF: 1-8 Accepted 9-10 Accepted as modified to reflect the greater weight of the admissible evidence. Penalty matters are relegated to the conclusions of law. Respondent's PFOF: 1 Rejected as a conclusion of law. 2, 4-12 Accepted except as to unnecessary, subordinate, and cumulative material. 3 Rejected as not suppported by the record. 13-15 Rejected as mere legal argument and not dispositive of the material issues in the case. COPIES FURNISHED: Sam Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Slye, General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Scott D. Leemis Assistant District Legal Counsel P. O. Box 2417 Jacksonville, Florida 32231-0083 Griffin Helwig, Esquire 3030 Harley Road #190 Jacksonville, Florida 32257
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, Clinton Killingsworth was the owner and Certified Operator in Charge (COIC) of Environmental Security of Okaloosa, Inc., a licensed pest control company in Cantonment, Florida. Counts 4 and 6 2. Counts 4 and 6 of the Administrative Complaint allege as follows: Count 4 During an inspection on July 11, 2003, the Department found that Environmental Security of Okaloosa 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 6 During an inspection on July 11, 2003 the Department found that Environmental Security of Okaloosa phone numbers terminated in an unlicensed location as 9100 Hamman Avenue. This is a violation of Chapter 5E-14.142(3)(b). Environmental Security of Okaloosa, Inc., d/b/a Environmental Security, 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, Killingsworth Environmental, 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, entered into a Management and Marketing Agreement with Home Services, executed by Clinton Killingsworth on behalf of Environmental Security of Okaloosa and by Clifford Killingsworth on behalf of Home Services. Since that agreement was signed, the telephone number for Environmental Security of Okaloosa listed in the local telephone directory terminated at Home Services. Home Services also answers calls for Killingsworth Environmental, Inc. and Atlas Exterminating. 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 Environmental Security of Okaloosa from which business was solicited, accepted, or conducted. After the July 11, 2003, inspection of Home Services, Clinton Killingsworth took steps to get Home Services licensed as a pest control company. Mr. 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 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 5 Count 5 of the Administrative Complaint, as amended, reads as follows: During an inspection on July 16, 2003, the Department found that Environmental Security of Okaloosa, 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, Environmental Security of Okaloosa, 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, Environmental Security of Okaloosa, 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 fence and contains a structure. The structure is not enclosed. Both Environmental Security of Okaloosa and Killingsworth Environmental park trucks there overnight. They entered the property when the pest control employees arrived. The Department conducted an inspection of 1830 Galvez Drive on July 16, 2003. The gate to the property was locked and the trucks were locked. On the day of the inspection, the Department's inspectors found unmixed chemicals in the trucks. Clinton 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 licenses business location." The applications for business license for Environmental Security of Okaloosa do not reference 1830 Galvez Road as a location where storage of chemicals occurs. Environmental Security of Okaloosa 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/ Clinton Killingsworth brother, 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. Clinton 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 to remove the erroneous listing a number of times.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered assessing a fine against Respondent Environmental Security of Okaloosa, Inc., in the amount of $2,600.00. 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.
