Findings Of Fact Respondent Charles T. Noegel has been in the pest control business for some sixteen years. In February of 1976, the petitioner Office of Entomology sent all licensees a license renewal application for a license to be effective on March 31, 1976. Petitioner received a check from respondent, but the proceeds thereof were applied to review respondent's pest control operator's certificates. A check sent by respondent during 1975 had been returned for insufficient funds. A pest control business license cannot be issued unless there is evidence of a current operator's certificate in existence. Petitioner did not receive respondent's application or a check for the license which was to be effective on March 31, 1976. In June of 1976, petitioner notified respondent that they needed his application and a check for the renewed license. They also sent him an application form. According to respondent, he did not receive the entire application form. Respondent testified that he telephoned the petitioner's office in Jacksonville on two or three occasions and told a secretary there that he did not have a complete application form. In March of 1977, Mr. Page from petitioner's office called respondent. Respondent was not available and Mr. Page left the message with respondent's answering service that respondent was operating illegally without a license and asked Mr. Noegel to call him. Mr. Page received no reply from this message. According to Mr. Noegel, he received the message but did not receive the name or telephone number of the person who left the message. In April of 1977, petitioner did receive from respondent an application for the renewal of his operator's certificate and a check. Respondent has been delinquent in the past in applying for his license, and various checks have been returned for insufficient funds. Had respondent timely applied and paid for the renewal of his March 31, 1976, license, petitioner would have issued the license to him. By certified letter dated August 10, 1978, petitioner notified respondent that his pest control operator's certificate number 519 was being revoked for failure to comply with Chapter 482 of the Florida Statutes and Chapter 10D-55 of the Florida Administrative Code. Generally, respondent was charged with conducting his pest control business, known as the Seminole-Gator Exterminator, without a license. While more specific charges are contained in the August 10, 1978, letter, petitioner offered no evidence at the administrative hearing to substantiate such specific allegations.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited above, it is recommended that petitioner find that respondent violated Section 482.071(1) by operating his business without a valid license. It is further recommended that respondent's operator's certificate number 519 be suspended for a period of sixty (60) days from August 10, 1978, and that upon the payment of all back license renewal fees, respondent's certificate be reinstated, and respondent be placed on probation for a period of eighteen months. The terms of probation should include the timely renewal and payment of all permits required by petitioner's laws and regulations. Respectfully submitted and entered this 6th day of October, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of October, 1978. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles T. Noegel Entomologist - Manager Seminole Gator Exterminator 1409 Pichard Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Donna Stinson, Esq. Department of HRS 2639 N Monroe Street Suite 200-A Tallahassee, Florida 32304 William J. Page, Jr., Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Andrew J. Rogers Director, Office of Entomology Department of HRS Post Office Box 210 Jacksonville, Florida 32231 =================================================================
The Issue Whether or not the Respondent, James D. Cooley, unlawfully operated a pest control business that is not licensed by the Petitioner, in violation of Section 482.071, F.S. Whether or not the Respondent, James D. Cooley, was in charge of the performance of pest control activities of a category by a licensee who was not properly certified, in violation of Section 482.111(4), F.S. Whether or not the Respondent, James D. Cooley, performed pest control without a current valid identification card, in violation of Section 482.091, F.S. Whether or not the Respondent, James D. Cooley, unlawfully solicited, practiced, performed or advertised for pest control in a fashion not provided by Chapter 482, F.S., in violation of Section 482.191, F.S. Whether or not the Respondent, James D. Cooley, was guilty of fraudulent or misleading advertising or advertising in an unauthorized category, in violation of Section 482.161(8), F.S.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, James D. Cooley, is the holder of pest control operator's certificate no. 2236 held with the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. This category of pest control operator's certificate qualifies the Respondent to perform treatment on termites and wood-infesting organisms. The thrust of this action by the Petitioner pertains to its stated intent to suspend the aforementioned pest control operator's certificate held by the Respondent for a period of six (6) months, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 482, F.S. It has as an aspect of the contention the failure of the Respondent to make a timely renewal of the pest control operator's certificate. The basis of the action by the Petitioner is premised upon a letter of August 8th, 1977, addressed to the Respondent, apprising him of the factual allegations and statutory references upon which its action is predicated. A copy of that letter is attached and made a part of the record herein. The facts reveal that the Respondent, James D. Cooley, entered into an agreement with the proprietors of the "Romp and Tromp Day Care Center" located at 143 State Road 13, St. Johns County, Florida, for purposes of spraying for roaches. At that time, James D. Cooley was operating under the name "Tropical Pest Control", located at 355 Monument Road, Jacksonville, Florida. He identified himself in the form of a business card, which is Petitioner's Exhibit 3 admitted into evidence, as a termite control and complete pest control service. Cooley did, in fact, spray the "Romp and Tromp Day Care Center" for the extermination of roaches. The sprayings took place in April and May, 1977. The substance being sprayed had a peculiar odor which the witnesses, Alice E. Stock and Ellen Perry Church indicated seemed like household bug spray. They also indicated that they noticed a resulting improvement with the roach problem after spraying. James D. Cooley, under the guise of "Tropical Pest Control", also sprayed the residence of Ellen Perry Church, which is at 1975 State Road 13, St. Johns County, Florida. He sprayed this premises for roaches and ants. Again the substance had an odor which was similar to retail bug spray. The ant and roach problem did not go away in her home. In both instances, when dealing with the proprietors of the "Romp and Tromp Day Care Center" and the residence of Ellen Perry Church, James D. Cooley had identified himself as the owner of "Tropical Pest Control" and a person qualified to perform complete pest control services. In fact, James D. Cooley was not qualified to perform general household pest control, which is the category of treatment he was performing in spraying for roaches and ants. By that, it is meant that James D. Cooley at the time he performed the functions for the proprietors of the "Romp and Tromp Day Care Center" and the residence of Ellen Perry church, was not the holder of a certified operator's certificate in the category of general household pest control, as contemplated by Chapter 482, F.S. Moreover, the company he was operating under, to wit "Tropical Pest Control", was not licensed with the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and no identification card was on file for James D. Cooley as an employee of "Tropical Pest Control". The only document on record pertaining to James D. Cooley was one pertaining to his certified operator's certificate for termites and other wood-infesting organisms, license no. 2236, which at the time of the investigation of Mr. Cooley's activities was due for renewal in accordance with the terms of Section 482.071, F.S. By his actions in dealing with the premises known as "Romp and Tromp Day Care Center" and the residence of Ellen Perry Church, the Respondent in performing these tasks as "Tropical Pest Control" was unlawfully operating a pest control business that was not licensed by the Petitioner, in violation of Section 482.071, F.S. Cooley was also in charge of the performance of pest control activities of a category in which he was not properly certified, namely general household pest control, thereby violating Section 482.111(4), F.S. In addition, James D. Cooley failed to have a valid pest control identification card as an employee of "Tropical Pest Control", because "Tropical Pest Control" was not licensed and no employee for that organization could have an identification card, thus caused a violation of Section 482.091, F.S. By his activities in dealing with the two permises, the Respondent was unlawfully soliciting, practicing, performing or advertising in pest control in a fashion that was not authorized by Chapter 482, F.S., in violation of Section 482.191(1), F.S. Finally, James D. Cooley, by holding himself out to be a certified operator in general household pest control, was guilty of fraudulent or misleading advertising or advertising in an unauthorized category, in violation of Section 482.161(8), F.S. For these violations, set forth above, sufficient grounds have been established for the Petitioner to suspend, revoke or stop the issuance or renewal of any certificate or identification card, under authority of Section 482.161, F.S. The Petitioner has taken action to bring about a suspension of certified pest control operator's license no. 2236, in keeping with the provisions of Section 482.171, F.S., and is warranted in suspending, revoking or stopping the issuance or renewal of any certificate or identification card.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED That the Respondent, James D. Cooley, have his pest control operator's certificate no. 2236, for performing pest control in the category of termite and wood-infesting organisms, suspended for a period of six months, after which time he shall be entitled to renew his certified operator's certificate in the stated category, upon the payment of fees contemplated by Section 482.111, F. S. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Robert M. Eisenberg, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 5920 Arlington Expressway Jacksonville, Florida Paul M. Harden, Esquire 2601 Gulf Life Tower Jacksonville, Florida 32207 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Respondent is licensed by the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Service as a pest control service authorized to perform all functions for which such organizations may be licensed. Gilbert Bellino was certified operator for Respondent from prior to the earliest charge in the Administrative Complaint until mid-1977. He was certified in the four types of treatment authorized by pest control companies, viz. fumigation, general household pest control, including rodent control, termite or other wood infesting organisms control, and lawn and ornamental pest control. A certified operator is required to supervise and direct the activities of all employees engaged in pest control. Many of the complaining witnesses made their first contact with Respondent when answering an advertisement for a onetime household pest treatment and a free termite inspection. Lloyd Green responded to an ad in which Respondent offered a spray treatment of the yard and house for $15. Folsom and Jones appeared and after an inspection of his house advised Green that he had dry wood and subterranean termites and induced him to sign a contract to treat them at a price of $286. After reflection and before any work was done Green called and cancelled the contract. He had the house inspected by Mr. Chapman of Chapman Pest Control who found no evidence of active infestation. All evidence Chapman found of wood damage was done prior to the timber having been processed. The house was later inspected by David Jones, District V Entomologist and he too found no evidence of active infestation. A second inspection of Green's home was made by Jones in company with Casale, the President of Respondent. The only evidence found was one hole in a bed slat which had occurred before the lumber was processed. Turpentine beetles and pine sawyer beetles are wood borers that attack trees but not processed lumber. Once lumber is processed any further damage from these beetles is highly improbable if not impossible. Evidence of the damage they have caused will remain in the wood but is readily distinguishable from an active infestation by one with almost any training in pest control. Wood borers make round holes and any eliptical hole found in timber is indicative that the hole was made before the wood was processed. The oblique angle to the borer's tunnel cut by the saw when the lumber was processed causes an eliptical hole. Charles Casale visited Robert Rankin's house for a free termite inspection and identified himself as an employee of Respondent. He was accompanied by another man who inspected the crawl space under the house. Upon completion of the inspection Casale advised Rankin he had an infestation and needed treatment which would cost $300. After getting an opinion from another pest control company that he did not have termites Rankin called HRS and David Jones inspected the entire house. At this inspection Jones found no evidence of active infestation but a colony of fleas from Rankin's two dogs. At the time of Casale's inspection application for an identification card had not been submitted for Casale. Thelma P. Wray contracted with Respondent for fumigation of her house. No written instructions were given her by Respondent, nor was she advised to remove medicines. She was advised to remove only milk cartons, cheese and open food. The only warning sign placed on front and rear of house during fumigation (Exhibit 4) on November 10, 1974 did not show type of fumigant used and stated house is safe for reentry at 10:30 a.m. December 11, 1974. This sign appeared on the house the evening of December 10, 1974 and was placed only at the front and rear. No notice of this fumigation was provided to the County Industrial Hygienist who maintains records of notices of all fumigations. Neither Mr. nor Mrs. Chaney testified. No one having personal knowledge was called to identify Exhibit 6 and no evidence was offered that Larry A. Donald, Jr. was employed by Respondent and visited the Cheney home without a valid identification card. Mrs. Ruby Moser did not testify. No witness was produced to testify regarding Phillip Jones' visit to the Moser home on June 10, 1975 or identify Exhibit 7. Neither Mr. nor Mrs. Donald R. Seldes testified. No evidence was presented regarding the alleged visit of Bill Gillian, while an employee of Respondent, to the home of the Seldes. Judith Bashline was contacted by Respondent through telephone solicitation for special pest cleanout and termite inspection. One man sprayed for the pest cleanout and he was followed by Phillip Jones and Ken Ely, Jr. who, after inspecting the attic, advised her she had an infestation in the attic in a dormant state which needed immediate treatment. She entered into a contract for spot treatment for $190. After Jones and Ely left Mrs. Bashline began having misgivings and called another pest control company for information. She was referred to HRS and there contacted David Jones who inspected the property. Upon inspection Jones found no evidence of active infestation - only the preprocessed type damage found in the other homes. When Helen M. Hopper purchased her home at 1037 - 12th Street North, St. Petersburg, Florida she acquired a subterranean termite policy from Respondent. She then started monthly sprayings with Respondent. After the first spraying on September 16, 1975, Ken Ely, Jr., an employee of Respondent, went into Hopper's attic and told Mrs. Hopper she had borers in the roof and needed immediate treatment to save the roof. After he left she called another pest control company for verification. When that company inspected the attic they reported no problem with borers. She then called HRS and David Jones inspected the premises October 24, 1975 and in the attic he found only old damage which had occurred before the wood was processed. There was no infestation for which treatment was indicated. When Donald R. Bond II and his wife purchased a home his mother recommended they use Gulf Coast Pest Control. In January, 1977 Robert R. Plowman, an employee of Respondent, advised the Bonds that they had powder post beetles and dry wood termites and the attic needed to be treated. He came back that evening when Mr. Bond was home and a contract for the work was signed. The following day Mrs. Bond had two other pest control companies inspect the house. Whey they advised her there was no evidence of active infestation she cancelled her contract and called HRS. On February 10, 1977 David Jones inspected her property. He found no evidence of borer or termite infestation; however Jones did find evidence of rat infestation. On June 26, 1976 Robert R. Plowman, an employee of Respondent, inspected the home of Rita M. Spera at 9783 - 52nd Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida and reported to her that there was an infestation of wood borers in the attic and she needed to have fumigation. The previous year the Speras had replaced the shingles on the roof and had found the wood in good condition. Accordingly Mrs. Spera really didn't believe Plowman and called HRS for verification. When David Jones Inspected the house on July 2, 1976 he found only evidence of old damage that had occurred before the wood was processed. No evidence of active infestation was observed. Mrs. Ellen M. Hameroff received a telephone solicitation from Respondent for a cleanout and termite inspection. She accepted the offer and on September 2, 1976 Robert R. Plowman, an employee of Respondent, inspected her attic and reported that powder post beetles were present and treatment was needed which would cost $200 to $400. Plowman returned that evening to talk with Dr. Hameroff but they didn't sign a contract. The following day another pest control company was contacted for an inspection. They reported no infestation. She then called HRS and on November 22, 1976 David Jones inspected the property and found only evidence of old damage. On September 1, 1977 William C. Bargren, Scott Askins and F. R. DuChanois, Entomologists with HRS inspected the Hameroff property. They found evidence that pine sawyer beetles had been in the tree from which some sheathing boards in the attic had been processed. There was no evidence of infestation in the Hameroff home. In December, 1976 Robert L. Dill had a spray and free inspection by Respondent on his home at 1551 Citrus Street Clearwater, Florida. Following an inspection of the home, Robert R. Plocnan and John D. Lucas, employees of Respondent, advised Dill that he had powder post beetles in the attic, ceiling and floor under the house and needed treatment. Before agreeing to the treatment for the powder post beetles and preventive treatment for termites for which Respondent wanted $500, Dill had two other pest control companies inspect the property. Both of these companies advised Dill he had no infestation. Jimmy Robinson of Exterminator Terminix, International, a certified operator, inspected the Dill property on November 22, 1976 and found no evidence of powder post beetles or termites for which treatment was indicated. He noticed no damage to floor but did see some evidence of borers before the wood was processed. When Dill reported the incident to HRS, David Jones inspected the property on January 20 and 26, 1977, the second time in company with the Casales, Plowman and Donald. Damage to wood in the floor was done before the lumber was processed and no infestation was present for which treatment was indicated. Lawrence A. Donald, an employee of Respondent, holds a certified operator's license and he found evidence of "tremendous damage due to boring animals" under Dill's house. He opined that there were live larvae in the wood, however, his credibility and expertise left a great deal to be desired. During a monthly contract spraying Robert R. Plowman, an employee of Respondent, told Mrs. Shirley I. Bond that she had powder post wood borer beetles in the attic of her home at 6701 - 19th Street North, St. Petersburg, Florida and needed to have the attic power dusted. Mrs. Bond gave Plowman a check for $295 but after her daughter-in-law's experience, stopped the work. She called HRS and David Jones inspected her property on April 14, 1977. He found no evidence of infestation and in Jones' opinion the power spray of Dridie (a trade name for silica gel) would not be appropriate to treat dry wood termites or powder post beetles. Raymond L. Jackson employed Respondent for the advertised "clean-out" and free inspection. On January 6 and 7, 1977 Robert R. Plowman, an employee of Respondent, inspected Jackson's property at 6243 - 6th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, Florida and advised Jackson that he had active termites and powder post beetles and needed treatment. Jackson signed a contract and paid Plowman $300 for the work. About two weeks later two men power dusted Jackson's attic. After reading an article in the newspaper about powder post beetles Jackson called HRS and his property was inspected by Askins on July 26, 1977 and by Askins and Bargren on August 10, 1977. The only evidence of damage they found was that caused by turpentine beetles prior to the wood being processed. In their opinion no treatment was indicated before the power dusting was done. Mrs. Helen Stambaugh had a "clean-out" and free termite inspection in July, 1977 at her home at 2518 - 67th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, Florida by Respondent. Larry D. Brown, an employee of Respondent, to whom an application for identification card had not been submitted, told Mrs. Stambaugh that dry wood termites were infesting her garage and treatment was necessary. Spot treatment was offered for $130. She contacted another pest control company who, after inspection, advised that no treatment was indicated. She then called HRS and on July 20, 1977, Bargren and Askins inspected her property and found only evidence of old turpentine beetle damage in the garage which had occurred before the wood was processed. No infestation for which treatment was indicated was observed. In October, 1975 representatives from Gulf Coast Pest Control, Louis Casale, the company manager, Carmine Casale the owner and Gilbert Bellino, the certified operator, met with HRS representatives in Jacksonville to discuss the numerous complaints HRS had received about Respondent and to formulate remedial action. At this meeting the need for additional training of their salesman was discussed in connection with the complaints filed by Green, Rankin, Wray, and others with particular emphasis on the need to train their operators to distinguish old damage in the preprocessed tree from damage requiring correction. Respondent agreed to increase their training to improve the quality of their inspectors. Respondent has discharged all of the salesmen who made the misrepresentations noted above. Plowman was finally discharged because "he was too dumb" to learn to distinguish between old damage not requiring treatment and new damage which did require treatment. However, Plowman was continued as an employee even after criminal charges involving fraudulent misrepresentation had been filed against him.
Findings Of Fact On September 25, 1989, Fredrick Hassut, Jr., an entomologist-inspector in the Department's Winter Park office, received a telephone call from Mary Ellen Jenkins complaining about fumigation services which had been rendered by Petitioner. In response to that telephone call, Hassut forwarded to her the Department's official form for complaints against pest control companies. Hassut received Jenkins' completed form, together with her five-page handwritten letter of complaint, on October 6, 1989. On October 9, 1989, Hassut sent to Petitioner the Department's official form for pest control companies to use in responding to consumer complaints made against them. Hassut received Petitioner's completed form on October 16, 1989. Between September 27, 1989, and November 13, 1989, when Hassut completed his investigation, he had numerous telephone conversations with Petitioner concerning Jenkins' allegations, had visited the Jenkins' residence, and had reviewed the contract entered into between Mike and Susan Gillen and Petitioner for tent fumigation of the subject residence. By the conclusion of his investigation, Hassut knew the following facts. Petitioner had been contacted by a real estate brokerage company to do an inspection for termites and wood destroying organisms at a residence, attendant to a contract for the purchase and sale of that residence. The residence was owned by Mike and Susan Gillen. Petitioner's employee performed the inspection, located drywood termites, and recommended tent fumigation for eradication. On June 9, 1989, a contract was entered into between Petitioner and Mike and Susan Gillen for fumigation services, and the contract established July 7, 1989, as the date on which such services would be performed. Although the contract called for cash upon completion of service, subsequent arrangements had been made, and Petitioner had agreed that he would be paid for the fumigation services from monies to be escrowed at the closing, a routine business arrangement in the industry. A fumigation crew went to the residence on July 7 as agreed by contract, but the services were postponed to Friday, September 8, 1989. On Saturday, September 9, the residence was tented, and a certified operator employed by Petitioner injected Vikane, the fumigant specified in the contract. On Sunday, the tarps were removed, and Petitioner "cleared" the residence, using an Interscan to test for the presence of Vikane. One of the complaints made by Jenkins and by her husband who works in the pest control industry and had done so for the previous six years was that Petitioner had failed to furnish them with a printed list of items to be removed from the structure, prior to fumigation. Mrs. Jenkins told Hassut that she was the new owner of the residence which she had purchased from Mike and Susan Gillen, that the closing on the sale had taken place on July 5, and that the Jenkins had moved into the structure prior to the structure being treated for termites. Mrs. Jenkins never represented to Hassut that she had advised Petitioner, prior to fumigation, that the ownership of the property had changed. Petitioner advised Hassut that he had never heard of Mrs. Jenkins or her husband until the day after the fumigation services were completed when Mr. Jenkins called to complain about the services. Petitioner advised Hassut that he did not know that a closing had in fact taken place and that a new owner was occupying the structure when the fumigation services were performed. Petitioner believed at all times through the completion of the fumigation work that he was dealing with the Gillens. Petitioner advised Hassut that Mike Gillen had been given a Customer Duty List, which included the written list of items to be removed from the structure, on June 9, 1989, when Mike Gillen signed the contract with Petitioner for fumigation services, and that Gillen had signed a copy of that list to show that it had been provided to him. Petitioner had assumed the closing had been postponed because the fumigation services were postponed, and termite treatment is normally a condition precedent to a closing. Had Petitioner known that there was a new owner of the structure, he would have obtained a contract from the new owner prior to the rendering of services rather than performing services for someone with whom he did not have a contract. At the time, Hassut believed that a pest control operator is under no legal duty to verify that the owner of a structure for which there is a contract for fumigation services is still the owner at the time that the services are performed. Hassut further believed that if Petitioner did not know that the Gillens had completed the sale of their home to Mrs. Jenkins and if Petitioner had given the required printed list of items to be removed to the Gillens, then Petitioner would have complied with the regulations requiring provision of that printed list. Hassut made no attempt to contact either Mike or Susan Gillen to ascertain if they had advised Petitioner that the ownership of the house had changed or to ascertain if they had been provided the required printed list, as Petitioner contended. Further, he made no attempt to contact the real estate agent or the title company involved in the closing to ascertain if they had advised Petitioner that ownership of the property had changed. Hassut specifically determined that Petitioner was not negligent in the performance of fumigation services at the Jenkins residence. When Hassut completed his consumer investigation, he prepared his Notice of Recommended Enforcement Action containing his conclusions as to violations he found during his investigation. He forwarded that document to the Department's Jacksonville office, specifically to James Bond, the enforcement coordinator, for final decision as to whether Petitioner would be charged with violating any of the statutes and rules regulating the pest control business. Hassut recommended that Petitioner be charged with two violations only. Section 482.226(6), Florida Statutes, requires that a Notice of Treatment be posted at premises where fumigation services have been performed and that the location of that Notice be notated on the service contract. Since Hassut was unable to locate the Notice of Treatment, he recommended that Petitioner be charged with violating Section 482.226(6). He also recommended that Petitioner be charged with violating Section 10D-55.110(3), Florida Administrative Code, for failing to furnish to the property owner or agent a printed list of items to be removed prior to fumigation. James Bond reviewed Hassut's investigative report and recommendations, and then forwarded that report together with Bond's own recommendation to Philip R. Helseth, Jr., pest control administrator, who made the decision that an administrative complaint should be filed against Petitioner. Part of the reason that Helseth determined to take action against Petitioner was the fact that on one occasion during Petitioner's ten and one-half years in business, Petitioner had received a warning letter from the Department. Before the Administrative Complaint was prepared and served on Petitioner, no one referred the investigation back to Hassut with instructions that he further investigate by interviewing the Gillens. Further, no one in the Jacksonville office consulted Hassut regarding the numerous violations which were included in the Administrative Complaint to determine if Hassut agreed that his investigation had revealed facts supporting the expanded list of violations. The Administrative Complaint prepared by the Department and served on Petitioner charged Petitioner with violating three statutory provisions and four of the Department's regulations. Interestingly, the one statutory violation which appeared in Hassut's recommendation--failure to post a Notice of Treatment and notate its location on the contract--was not one of the charges included in the Administrative Complaint. The Administrative Complaint charged Petitioner with having violated Sections 482.161(1)(a), 482.161(1)(e), and 482.161(1)(f), Florida Statutes, and Sections 10D-55.105(2), 10D-55.106(1), 10D-55.108(3)(c), and 10D-55.110(3), Florida Administrative Code. After service of the Administrative Complaint on him, Petitioner timely requested a formal hearing regarding the allegations contained within that Administrative Complaint. The matter was subsequently transferred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the conduct of that formal proceeding and was assigned DOAH Case No. 90-0944. The final hearing was conducted on September 27, 1990, in Stuart, Florida. At the commencement of the final hearing, the Department dismissed several of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against Petitioner. The Department announced on the record that the only statutes and rules Petitioner was still alleged to have violated were Sections 482.161(1)(a) (violating the Department's statutes or rules), 482.161(1)(f) (performing pest control in a negligent manner), Section 10D-55.108(3)(c) (using an improper fumigant and/or using a proper fumigant improperly), and Section 10D-55.110(3) (failing to furnish the property owner or agent a printed list of items to be removed from the structure prior to fumigation). The Recommended Order entered after the conclusion of the final hearing found that the Department offered no evidence that Petitioner used an improper fumigant or used the fumigant improperly; that the evidence was uncontroverted that Petitioner supplied Gillen, the property owner, with a Customer Duty List, the accepted common name of the fumigant to be used, notification of which materials may be contaminated or damaged by the fumigant, as well as other precautions to be taken by the property holder; that the Department offered no evidence that Petitioner was guilty of performing pest control in a negligent manner; and that Petitioner had not violated any of the Department's statutes or rules with which he was charged. That Recommended Order, entered on January 7, 1991, recommended that a final order be entered finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint and dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against him. On February 15, 1991, the Department entered its Final Order adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Recommended Order, finding Petitioner not guilty of the violations with which he was charged, and dismissing the Administrative Complaint. The Department had no reasonable basis in law and fact at the time that it issued its Administrative Complaint against Petitioner. Petitioner expended the sum of $6,923.50 in attorney's fees and $698.30 in costs, for a total of $7,621.80, in successfully defending himself and his company in the administrative action resulting from the Department's Administrative Complaint.
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.
The Issue Issues for consideration in this case were those promoted through an administrative complaint brought by the Petitioner against the Respondent. Under the authority of Chapter 487, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 5E, Florida Administrative Code, the Petitioner seeks to impose an administrative fine against the Respondent for the use or application of certain restricted use pesticides without the benefit of an applicator's license.
Findings Of Fact Chapter 487, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 5E, Florida Administrative Code, empower the State of Florida, Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Petitioner) to regulate a category of pesticide known as "restricted- use pesticide." More particularly, as it is related to this dispute, the statute requires that those persons purchasing or using a restricted-use pesticide must be licensed by the Petitioner. The license is known as an applicator's license. Bobby Yon (Respondent) had held an applicator's license through October 31, 1983. On that date the applicator's license expired. Yon did not renew the license within sixty days of the expiration date. Consequently, it was incumbent upon Respondent to obtain a new applicator's license, in contrast to renewing the license as described in this paragraph before purchasing or using restricted-use pesticides in the future. Having failed to renew the license which expired on October 31, 1983, on that date or within the grace period which lasted for sixty days beyond that date, Respondent, without the benefit of a license, made the aerial application of a restricted-use pesticide known as "Nudrin 1.8," EPA Reg. No. 201-347. This application was made by Respondent in his capacity as an agricultural pilot. The application dates were April 25, May 6 and June 2, 1985, on an acreage of gladiolus at a business known as Scott's Gladiolus. On April 25, 1955, Respondent made aerial application of Nudrin to watermelons belonging to Steve Basford. The Nudrin which Respondent applied in the instances mentioned before was obtained by the Respondent from Altha Farmers Coop. That Nudrin was delivered to the airstrip where Respondent has his business and from there loaded on his plane. In a statement prepared by the Respondent upon a form provided by Petitioner through its employee Hal A. Davis, Respondent gave written acknowledgment of his use of Nudrin in the instances spoken to in the course of this recommended order. A copy of that affidavit may be found as Petitioner's composite Exhibit 1 admitted into evidence. In the statement he describes the acreage which was sprayed in the four instances mentioned and indicates that his son mixed and loaded the treatment into the plane while wearing rubber boots. It is further indicated that no other safety equipment was utilized. The Nudrin applications at issue are described as being made at the rate of two to four and a half gallons per acre total solution, depending on other things that may have been in the mixture. Respondent described how the Nudrin containers were rinsed in mixing tanks and later burned on site. Respondent points out the records of these applications were photographed by Davis; however, these records or copies of the records were not produced at the final hearing. Finally, in describing the experience with the substance Nudrin, Respondent states in his affidavit that he is aware that a restricted-use pesticide license was necessary to legally apply the restricted-use pesticide Nudrin. On June 30, 1984, without the benefit of an applicator's license, Respondent aerially applied the restricted-use pesticide known as "Red Panther 8 lb Toxaphene," EPA Reg. No. 42761-9. This was applied to a pea crop on the property of James Edenfield. One gallon of Toxaphene was mixed into twenty or twenty-five gallons of water. This substance was delivered to Respondent by the Farmers Coop, in a five gallon can. The balance of this substance is still at the airstrip location at his property and is seen by the Respondent as being part of the Coops inventory. In the affidavit made by the Respondent, he acknowledges that the documents related to this application were made available to Davis and were photographed by Davis. Nonetheless, as with the situation pertaining to Nudrin, copies of the documentation were not presented at hearing. Respondent acknowledges in the affidavit that he was aware at the time that he treated the land with the Toxaphene that a restricted-use pesticide license was needed to make that application. The Toxaphene which was applied to the Edenfield acreage had been purchased by Edenfield from the Farmers Coop. The affidavit that has been alluded to in the course of this recommended order had been prepared by Respondent upon the occasion of an inspection of his business premises in Altha, Florida, conducted by Hal A. Davis on June 5, 1985. As a part of the affidavit, Petitioner's composite Exhibit 1, Respondent makes mention of liability insurance held with Air South Insurance of Dothan, Alabama. On the other hand, Respondent acknowledges that although Florida law requires proof of liability insurance for the use of the subject chemicals or the posting of a bond, his insurance policy did not provide chemical liability. This requirement in law pertains to a necessary prerequisite to obtaining a license for purchase and use of restricted-use pesticides in Florida, as contemplated by Chapter 487, Florida Statutes. In addition to not having the necessary insurance coverage, Respondent had failed to post bond with the Department. Therefore, he could not have been licensed on the date of the inspection. By Respondent's remarks in the course of the final hearing, it is evident that Respondent recognized the necessity of being appropriately licensed before applying the restricted- use pesticides mentioned in this factual rendition, and that he was unable to obtain the necessary license, given the fact that he was without requisite liability insurance and had failed to post a bond in lieu of that insurance. His protestation that he had not renewed his license to apply restricted-use pesticides beyond the expiration date of October 31, 1983, based upon some misunderstanding with officials within the petitioning agency concerning forms for obtaining his new license is without credence. The more likely explanation is the fact that the Respondent, as he alluded to in his testimony, did not feel that he could afford the insurance coverage or bond amount and simply did not renew his license. In any event, it was incumbent upon the Respondent to seek and obtain timely renewal of his existing applicator's license or in the failure to do that, to obtain a new license as an applicator before setting out to apply restricted-use pesticides. Respondent failed to do this and during the hiatus between licenses which existed between October 31, 1983, and June 19, 1985, when he obtained a new applicator's license, Respondent applied restricted-use pesticides without the benefit of a license. In his testimony Respondent makes some reference to a license which he held in the period at question which pertains to dealers who sell restricted-use pesticides, this license being number 002027. This license did not allow him to purchase or use restricted-use pesticides. It only would allow selling to others who had the necessary license or authorization to purchase or use restricted-use pesticides, which, unlike the others, Respondent did not have.
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 or not James D. Cooley, d/b/a Murder, Inc., is entitled to a business license to engage in pest control in Florida, in the category of general household pest control. Whether or not James D. Cooley is entitled to the issuance of an identification card under the licensee James D. Cooley, d/b/a Murder, Inc., and in direction and control of James D. Cooley, certified pest control operator. Whether or not James D. Cooley is entitled to the issuance of a certified pest control operator's license in the general household category.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, James D. Cooley, is the holder of pest control operator's certificate no. 2236 held with the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. This category of pest control operator's certificate qualifies the Petitioner to perform treatment on termites and wood-infesting organisms. By separate action, the Respondent has moved to suspend the aforementioned pest control operator's certificate held by the Petitioner for a period of six (6) months, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 482, F.S. It has as an aspect of the contention the failure of the Petitioner to make a timely renewal of the pest control operator's certificate. The basis of this separate action by the Respondent is premised upon a letter of August 8th, 1977, addressed to the Petitioner, apprising him of the factual allegations and statutory references upon which its action is predicated. A copy of that letter is attached and made a part of the record herein. The facts reveal that the Petitioner, James D. Cooley, entered into an agreement with the proprietors of the "Romp and Tromp Day Care Center" located at 143 State Road 13, St. Johns County, Florida, for purposes of spraying for roaches. At that time, James D. Cooley was operating under the name "Tropical Pest Control", located at 355 Monument Road, Jacksonville, Florida. He identified himself in the form of a business card, (which is Petitioner's Exhibit 3 admitted into evidence in the Division of Administrative Hearings' Case Number 77-1564), as a termite control and complete pest control service. Cooley did, in fact, spray the "Romp and Troop Day Care Center: for the extermination of roaches. The sprayings took place in April and May, 1977. The substance being sprayed had a peculiar odor which the witnesses, Alice E. Stock and Ellen Perry Church indicated seemed like household bug spray. They also indicated that they noticed a resulting improvement with the roach problem after spraying. James D. Cooley, under the guise of "Tropical Pest Control", also sprayed the residence of Ellen Perry Church, which is at 1975 State Road 13, St. Johns County, Florida. He sprayed this premises for roaches and ants. Again the substance had an odor which was similar to retail bug spray. The ant and roach problem did not go away in her home. In both instances, when dealing with the proprietors of the "Romp and Troop Day Care Center" and the residence of Ellen Perry Church, James D. Cooley had identified himself as the owner of "Tropical Pest Control" and a person qualified to perform complete pest control services. In fact, James D. Cooley was not qualified to perform general household pest control, which is the category of treatment he was performing in spraying for roaches and ants. By that, it is meant that James D. Cooley at the time he performed the functions for the proprietors of the "Romp and Troop Day Care Center" and the residence of Ellen Perry Church, was not the holder of a certified operator's license in the category of general household pest control, as contemplated by Chapter 482, F.S. Moreover, the company he was operating under, to wit "Tropical Pest Control", was not licensed with the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and no identification card was on file for James D. Cooley as an employee of "Tropical Pest Control". The only document on record pertaining to James D. Cooley was one pertaining to his certified operator's license for termites and other wood-infesting organisms, license no. 2236, which at the time of the investigation of Mr. Cooley's activities was due for renewal in accordance with the terms of Section 482.071, F.S. By his actions in dealing with the premises known as "Romp and Troop Day Care Center" and the residence of Ellen Perry Church, the Respondent, in performing these tasks as "Tropical Pest Control", was unlawfully operating a pest control business that was not licensed by the Respondent, in violation of Section 482.071, F.S. Cooley was also in charge of the performance of pest control activities of a category in which he was not properly certified, namely general household pest control, thereby violating Section 482.111(4), F.S. In addition, James D. Cooley failed to have a valid pest control identification card as am employee of "Tropical Pest Control", because "Tropical Pest Control" was not licensed and no employee for that organization could have an identification card, thus causing a violation of Section 482.091, F.S. By his activities in dealing with the two premises, the Respondent was unlawfully soliciting, practicing, performing or advertising in pest control in a fashion that was not authorized by Chapter 482, F.S., in violation of Section 482.191(1), F.S. Finally, James D. Cooley, by holding himself out to be a certified operator in general household pest control, was guilty of fraudulent or misleading advertising or advertising in an unauthorized category, in violation of Section 482.161(8), F.S. For these violations, set forth above, sufficient grounds have been established for the Respondent to suspend, revoke or stop the issuance or renewal of any certificate or identification card, under authority of Section 482.161, F.S. The Respondent has taken action to bring about a suspension of certified pest control operator's license no. 2236, in keeping with the provisions of Section 482.171, F.S., and is warranted in suspending, revoking or stopping the issuance or renewal of any certificate or identification card. In consideration of the violations established in the Petitioner's dealings with the "Romp and Troop Day Care Center" and Ellen Church, the Respondent has refused to issue a business license to James Cooley, d/b/a Murder, Inc., which intends to do business in the general household pest control category. If James D. Cooley is not granted his certified operator's license in the category of general household pest control, then he may not serve as a certified operator in that category, in behalf of the proposed licensee James D. Cooley, d/b/a Murder, Inc. If James D. Cooley is unable to serve in the capacity of certified pest control operator, general household category, them the business known as James D. Cooley, d/b/a Murder, Inc., must employ am alternate certified operator in the general household category, before the Respondent shall issue a license to the business to operate in the general household category. That operator must be a resident of the State of Florida. This is in keeping with the license requirements of Section 482.071, F.S. James D. Cooley does not qualify for certification in the category of general household pest control, because through the violations established in his dealings with the "Romp and Tromp Day Care Center" and Ellen Perry Church, he has shown himself not to be of good character and good reputation for fair dealings, as required by Section 482.132, F.S., prior to the issuance of any certificate. Therefore, the only possibility that James D. Cooley, d/b/a Murder, Inc., would have for operating under the general household pest control category and for receiving a license would be to have another duly qualified certified operator in general household pest control to be hired by the licensee. No identification card can be issued to James D. Cooley or any other person who might be employed by James D. Cooley, d/b/a Murder, Inc., to operate in the general household pest control business, unless it will be under the supervision of a certified pest control operator in the specialty of general household pest control, other than James D. Cooley. The results of the examination which James D. Cooley completed in the general household pest control specialty, should stand until he is otherwise qualified or the requirements for certification have changed prior to his obtaining further qualification in the terms of his good character and good reputation for fair dealings. This conclusion is reached upon a reading of Rule 10D-55.177 (5 FAC) which only prohibits those persons from being examined who have been suspended, revoked or on probation. James D. Cooley was not in one of those categories prior to taking the examination which he passed and was notified of the passing grade in September, 1977.
Recommendation Pursuant to the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That a business license for James D. Cooley, d/b/a Murder, Inc., only be issued if some person other than James D. Cooley will be serving in the capacity of a certified pest control operator in the category of general household pest control, which is the desired license specialty. That no identification card be issued to James D. Cooley as an employee of James D. Cooley, d/b/a Murder, Inc., in view of the fact that the license is not being issued to that organization and no employee shall receive an identification card without being employed by a licensed pest control business and under the authority of a certified operator. This position of the recommendation shall be in effect until and unless a separate certified operator is employed, which would allow the license to be given to James D. Cooley, d/b/a Murder, Inc. That James D. Cooley's application to be a certified operator in the category of general household pest control be denied, because he has been shown to' be lacking in good character and good reputation for fair dealings. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of December, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 COPIES FURNISHED: Robert M. Eisenberg, Esquire Department of HRS 5920 Arlington Expressway Jacksonville, Florida Paul M. Harden, Esquire 2601 Gulf Life Tower Jacksonville, Florida 32207 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER =================================================================
