The Issue Whether Respondent's renewal facilities licensure application for a group home contained a falsified fire inspection report, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint; and, if so, what is the appropriate penalty?
Findings Of Fact APD is the state agency charged with regulating the licensing and operation of foster care facilities, group home facilities, residential habitation centers, and comprehensive transitional education programs pursuant to sections 20.197 and 393.067, Florida Statutes. Rivero is an applicant for renewed licensure of a group home facility in Dania Beach, Florida. At all times material to the Administrative Complaint, Yitzhak Rivero was a corporate officer of Rivero. Mr. Rivero, was a psychiatrist in Cuba treating patients with mental and intellectual disabilities before he moved to the United States and became a citizen. He became a licensed mental health counselor, and for the past ten years has operated group homes in an effort to serve disabled persons, owning as many as seven group homes, employing 30 people at one time, and currently owning and operating three licensed group homes. On June 20, 2019, Sally Vazquez, then administrator for Rivero, submitted a license renewal application on behalf of Rivero’s Dania Beach group home to APD by hand delivering it to APD employee Patricia White, who was on the premises. On that same day, fire inspectors were also at the Dania Beach property to conduct an inspection. Prior to submitting the renewal application and supporting documents to APD on June 20, 2019, Ms. Vazquez prepared the application and compiled or prepared the supporting documents in the renewal application. The handwriting on pages 1 through 11 of the renewal application is that of Ms. Vazquez. Ms. Vazquez is listed as backup manager supervisor for Rivero on page 7 of the renewal application. After Ms. Vazquez prepared the renewal application and compiled the supporting documents, Mr. Rivero, as the group home owner, did a brief review of the application and supporting documents before he signed it. Before he signed it, Mr. Rivero identified nothing unusual in the application packet. When Mr. Rivero signed the attestation on the renewal application, which read, “Under penalty of perjury…all information contained in and submitted with application is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge,” he believed that the information in the application and supporting documents was true and correct. Unbeknownst to Mr. Rivero, the renewal application contained a document purporting to be a fire inspection report dated May 1, 2019, that was falsified. Mr. Rivero did not know the fire inspection was false when he reviewed the renewal application and signed it on June 7, 2019, or when Ms. Vazquez submitted it to APD on behalf of Rivero on June 20, 2019. In fact, the only email or communication Mr. Rivero received about the Dania Beach group home in regard to fire safety was a June 20, 2019, email sent by Fire Inspector Braun at 12:49 p.m., stating it was “From: Broward Sheriff’s Office Fire Rescue,” identified by the subject, “Inspection Report,” which contained an attachment related to the Dania Beach home from “Broward Sheriff’s Office Fire Rescue” bearing the agency’s logo that stated: “An annual fire inspection of your occupancy revealed no violations at the time of this inspection. Thank you for your commitment to maintaining a fire safe occupancy.” On August 21, 2019, when asked in an email from APD representative Kimberly Carty to provide the fire inspection report for Rivero, Mr. Rivero forwarded the email he had received from the Broward Sheriff’s Office Fire Rescue indicating no violations, the only fire inspection report for this home he had ever received, and the only fire inspection report regarding this property of which he was aware. On August 23, 2019, Ms. Carty sent Mr. Rivero a fire inspection report showing violations noted from the June 20, 2019, fire safety inspection of the Dania Beach group home. The report notes six, of what fire safety inspector Craig Braun described as less serious, non “critical-life” violations. Rivero was given 30 days to correct the violations.1 The day after he was sent the full fire inspection report for the Rivero Dania Beach group home, Mr. Rivero corrected the “easily corrected,” relatively minor violations in approximately three hours. Mr. Rivero then contacted the fire department to re-inspect the facility. When no fire inspector came to re-inspect for over a month, on September 30, 2019, Mr. Rivero sent an email to Mr. Zipoli, the fire inspector who had signed the inspection report showing the minor violations. Nevertheless, the fire department has never re-inspected the facility. Fire Prevention Officers Braun and Zipoli testified unequivocally and without contradiction that the document Mr. Rivero forwarded to APD’s Kimberly Carty on August 23, 2019 (the document indicating, “An annual fire inspection of your occupancy revealed no violations at the time of this inspection”), was a genuine and authentic document. Further, Officer Braun indicated that on June 20, 2019, he was Officer Zipoli’s supervisor, and that on that date Officer Braun and Zipoli “went together to inspect the Rivero Group Home.” “[U]sually…just [one] fire safety inspector goes,” and it was “not the norm” for two fire safety inspectors to go together. In this unusual situation, Fire Safety Inspector Zipoli wrote the report of the June 20, 2019, inspection, and Fire Safety Inspector Braun “wrote a report,” a separate report, indicating that he “assisted him [Zipoli] on another 1 These violations included: front and rear door of the group home (two doors) had a key lock instead of a “simple thumb turn or something that does not require special knowledge”; a fire alarm needed to be updated with its annual fire inspection from a private contractor; a fire extinguisher needed to be mounted on its mounting on the wall instead of placed on the ground beneath the mounting; the fire extinguisher needed to have its annual certification updated for 2019; the smoke detector located in the kitchen needed to be moved to a different location. form.” It was this other form that Officer Braun completed--this fire safety “Inspection Assist” for--that was emailed to Mr. Rivero on June 20, 2019. It was this form that stated, “[a]n annual fire inspection of your occupancy revealed no violations at the time of this inspection.” Officers Braun and Zipoli confirmed that the Broward Sheriff’s electronic streamline system “had a ‘glitch,’” “a default problem at that time,” the period including June 20, 2019, that caused the “template of an assist” ( i.e., an Inspection Assist form) to generate the statement indicating, “[a]n annual fire inspection of your occupancy revealed no violations at the time of this inspection,” and the system gave fire safety inspectors no option or ability to remove this statement. When APD’s Kimberly Carty requested that Mr. Rivero send the most recent fire inspection report for the Rivero Dania Beach group home, Mr. Rivero forwarded to Ms. Carty the document he received on June 20, 2019, from Broward Sheriff’s Office Fire Rescue without altering or changing the document in any way. The first time Mr. Rivero was notified that the fire inspection report submitted with the renewal application at issue here was false was when he received the Administrative Complaint in this case on October 23, 2019. In addition to the June 20, 2019, document Mr. Rivero received from Broward Sheriff’s Office Fire Rescue that indicated “no violations,” and the fire inspection report indicating six violations that was sent to Mr. Rivero by APD on August 23, 2019, this case involves a document dated May 1, 2019, purporting to be a Broward Sheriff’s Office Fire Rescue fire inspection that was fabricated (“the false fire inspection report”). The false fire inspection report was submitted to APD by Ms. Vazquez during APD’s June 20, 2019, inspection of the Rivero’s Dania Beach group home. At the time she submitted the application with the false fire inspection report, Ms. Vazquez had worked for Rivero for at least six years, and for at least two years as an administrator for between four and seven group homes. At the time she submitted the application at issue in this case to APD, Ms. Vazquez had prepared more than 20 APD renewal applications for Mr. Rivero’s group homes. In short, Ms. Vazquez was a “trusted employee,” whom Mr. Rivero relied on to accurately prepare applications and the documents submitted with the applications, and to handle the inspections conducted by APD. After Mr. Rivero learned, by receiving the Administrative Complaint in this case on October 23, 2019, that an altered or falsified document had been submitted as a fire inspection report with Rivero’s Dania Beach group home’s annual renewal application to APD, he conducted an investigation to determine how it had happened. When Mr. Rivero determined Ms. Vazquez was to blame for the false fire inspection report being submitted with the application, he fired her. The evidence presented indicates Ms. Vazquez created and submitted the falsified fire inspection report in violation of her job duties and professional obligations, and without the knowledge or consent of Mr. Rivero or Rivero.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Persons With Disabilities enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of April, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MARY LI CREASY 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 17th day of April, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Sean Michael Ellsworth, Esquire Ellsworth Law Firm, P.A. 1000 5th Street, Suite 223 Miami Beach, Florida 33139 (eServed) Trevor S. Suter, Esquire Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) Anthony Vitale, Esquire The Health Law Offices of Anthony C. Vitale, P.A. 2333 Brickell Avenue, Suite A-1 Miami, Florida 33129 (eServed) Daniel Ferrante, Esquire Health Law Offices Of Anthony C. Vitale, P.A. 2333 Brickell Avenue, Suite A-1 Miami, Florida 33129 (eServed) Danielle Thompson Senior Attorney/Agency Clerk Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 309 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) Francis Carbone, General Counsel Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed) Barbara Palmer, Director Agency for Persons with Disabilities 4030 Esplanade Way, Suite 380 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0950 (eServed)
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department of Financial Services, Division of State Fire Marshal can revoke Respondent's certification as a firefighter because Respondent failed to timely complete the requirements to maintain his Firefighter Certificate of Compliance prior to September 30, 2011, pursuant to section 633.352, Florida Statutes (2010).
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility for certifying firefighters in the State of Florida, pursuant to chapter 633, Florida Statutes. On June 30, 2006, Respondent also obtained certification as a fire Instructor III. On October 9, 2006, Pointu obtained his Firefighter II Certificate of Compliance ("certification"). On September 30, 2008, Respondent stopped volunteering with Lauderdale-By-The-Sea Volunteer Fire Department ("Lauderdale-By-The-Sea"). Prior to July 1, 2010, state certified fire instructors were able to maintain their firefighter certification as long as their fire instructor certification was current. On July 1, 2010, the statutory requirements for firefighters changed. Section 633.352 was amended to require a certified firefighter be a full-time fire instructor or a full- time fire inspector to maintain certification. The 2010 statutory change retained a three-year period for firefighters to complete the requirements to maintain certification. It is undisputed that between September 30, 2008, and September 30, 2011, Pointu did not perform any of the necessary requirements to maintain his certification in section 633.352, such as retake the Minimum Standards Examination; maintain employment as a firefighter or volunteer firefighter; or work full time as an instructor or firesafety inspector. On April 6, 2012, the Department distributed an informational bulletin titled "Firesafety Instructors & Maintenance of Firefighter Certification." The bulletin stated in bold "The 3-year period begins on July 1, 2010 for persons who held an active instructor certification and an active firefighter certification as of June 30th, 2010." Question 7 of the bulletin also provided: 7. Is the Division of the State Fire Marshal attempting to amend the State Statute to reflect the previous language that does not require "full-time employment as a fire instructor"? The Division has attempted to amend or reinstate this language, however, the Statute remains unchanged, and the Division may not be successful in amending the language to its previous form. Pointu received the 2012 bulletin and determined that since he held an active instructor certification and active firefighter certification as of June 30, 2010, his firefighter certification period started July 1, 2010, and expired July 1, 2013. On July 1, 2013, section 633.352 was revised amended and renumbered legislature as section 633.414. The statutory amendment also changed the three-year recertification cycle to a four-year cycle and removed the full-time instructor requirement. Respondent used the 2013 statutory change to calculate his certification validation date until 2018. In 2014, Pointu contacted the Department regarding his certification after being told by a county official that his certification was not valid. Thereafter, over an approximate two-year period, Respondent was informed various and conflicting information regarding his certification status and expiration dates. The Department does not have a statutory requirement to provide notice to certified individuals of requirements to maintain certification. The Fire College Department of Insurance Continuing Education ("FCDICE") database monitors and manages all firefighters' certifications. Department's interim chief, Michael Tucker ("Tucker"), made the final decision regarding Pointu's certification. Tucker reviewed FCDICE and did not find any records which demonstrated Pointu's renewal of certification prior to September 29, 2011. Tucker correctly determined that the 2010 version of the statute applied to Pointu's certification because Respondent left his employment at Lauderdale-By-The-Sea on September 30, 2008, which made his three-year period for renewal deadline September 30, 2011, pursuant to section 633.352. Tucker also established that Pointu did not fulfill the minimum requirements to renew his certification prior to September 30, 2011, because he did not become employed again, volunteer with a fire department, become a full-time fire inspector or a full-time instructor, or retake the practical portion of the examination. After evaluating Respondent's certification history, Tucker concluded Respondent failed to meet the minimum firefighter requirements and therefore Pointu's certification is not valid and should be revoked. At hearing, Tucker acknowledged that he was not familiar with the issuance of the April 6, 2012, bulletin, but, after reviewing it, he determined there were misstatements in the bulletin regarding requirements for certification because the Department did not have the authority to waive any statutes. On June 3, 2011, Petitioner issued an amended Notice that it intended to revoke Pointu's certification for failure to renew his certification within three years of employment termination from an organized fire department pursuant to section 633.352. Pointu contested the notice and requested a hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of State Fire Marshal, enter a final order finding that Respondent, Patrick Pointu, violated section 633.252, Florida Statutes. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent's Firefighter Certificate of Compliance be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of August, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY 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 31st day of August, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Melissa E. Dembicer, Esquire Department of Financial Services 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 (eServed) Merribeth Bohanan, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Patrick Pointu (Address of Record-eServed) Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 (eServed)
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaints, the Respondent, Freed Towers, Ltd., was a business association between June E. Freed and Audley L. Freed, husband and wife, who owned and operated it as an Adult Congregate Living Facility, located at 1029 7th Avenue East, Bradenton, Florida. The facility was licensed for 50 apartments, (100 beds). Petitioner, Department, was and is the state agency responsible for licensing the operation of ACLFs in Florida. On January 10, 1989, Tami J. Smith, a human services program analyst with the Department Office of Licensure and Certification in Tampa, along with a team consisting of a dietitian and a fire inspector, inspected the Respondent's facility located in Bradenton. During the course of the inspection, Ms. Smith noted that Respondent's records on six employees failed to include the statement that the employees were free from disease or other communicable illnesses. Ms. Smith also noted that a portion of the carpet in the dining room was dirty and displayed numerous coffee stains. During the same inspection, another member of the team, Mr. Scharnweber, the fire protection specialist, noted that the quarterly smoke detector inspections and tests had not been conducted or documented; the quarterly fire alarm pull station tests had not been conducted or documented; the automatic sprinkler system had not been inspected or documented quarterly; several portable fire extinguishers had not been inspected within the past year; and the fixed extinguishing system for the protection of cooking equipment in the kitchen did not display a current semiannual inspection tag. The team consisting of Ms. Smith and Mr. Scharnweber returned to the facility on a follow-up inspection on May 1, 1989. At that time Ms. Smith noted that of the six employee records which had previously failed to contain the required health certificate, four had been corrected but two had not. At the same time, she noted that on the May 1 visit, an effort had been made to clean the carpet but it was not done correctly. Because an effort had been made, however, she noted that on the inspection report and indicated that the deficiency was under correction. On July 12, 1989, Ms. Smith returned to the facility for a second follow-up inspection. At that time she noted that one of the previously noted employee files still did not have the required health certificate, and the carpet was still unsatisfactorily dirty. As a result, she wrote up both deficiencies. Mr. Scharnweber conducted a follow-up inspection in his area on April 28, 1989 and found at that time that no corrective action had been taken. A follow-up conducted at the same time as that done by Ms. Smith on July 12, 1989 indicated the required tag was still not on the cooking equipment, but the other discrepancies had been corrected. When the initial inspection was concluded on January 10, 1989, prior to leaving the facility the inspection team met with the facility operators and went over each of the noted discrepancies, identifying the problem and giving suggestions as to how each could be corrected. They also discussed with the operators an appropriate time for correction and entered into an agreement as to that matter. On January 23, 1989, the Department sent a copy of the inspection report, with proposed correction dates, to the operators and on January 30, 1989, Gary C. Freed, then the Administrator of the facility and the son of the Mr. and Mrs. Freed previously identified, signed and returned to the Department an acknowledgment of receipt of the list of discrepancies and the agreed upon correction dates. The testimony of Ms. Smith and Mr. Scharnweber, as included in the above Findings of Fact, clearly establish that the initially identified deficiencies were not corrected in full consistent with the time frame agreed upon by the parties. The Freeds opened the facility in May, 1988 with their son, Gary, as Administrator. Gary ran it until April, 1989. It was obvious to the Freeds at that time that he was not properly operating it and he was removed as Administrator in April, 1989. At that time, Mrs. Freed took over as Administrator and was certified in that position at the earliest possible time. When Mrs. Freed took over she found the business was unable to afford to hire a trained Administrator and was unable to expend the monies necessary for immediate and full correction of the deficiencies identified by the inspectors. In fact, she recognized there were many discrepancies which needed correction and claims it was overwhelming to anticipate doing all which had to be done in the time frame given. With regard to the medical certificates, Mrs. Freed claims that she made considerable effort to convince her employees to comply with the requirement for proper certification. She states that each employee had a doctor's certificate but those certificates did not contain the required statement that the employee was free of communicable disease. It was only when she threatened to fire any employee who did not provide the appropriate certificate that she was able to secure everyone's compliance. Unfortunately, she missed one. As for the carpet deficiency, she claims the carpet is constantly being cleaned and an effort made to insure it is within compliance. A cleaner is rented periodically, but she admits many of the employees and residents are careless and spill on the rug and that it is impossible to keep the rug in a pristine condition. This argument is not persuasive as justification for the failure to bring the carpet within standards. As licensees and operators, the Freeds are bound to insure that employees meet state requirements and that the facility meets state standards. Mr. Freed claims that when he first took over the facility, even though county fire authorities had inspected and found his fire protection system to be adequate, upon notification by the Department of the need for additional fire extinguishers, he immediately purchased five new ones. With regard to the kitchen equipment, Mr. Freed claims it was of the proper kind and properly installed, and that if any deficiency exists, it was solely in the failure to display the proper tag. This is all that is alleged.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Secretary issue a Final Order as to both consolidated files, assessing a total Administrative Fine of $500.00 against the Respondent. RECOMMENDED this 21 day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21 day of July, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward A. Haman, Esquire DHRS Office of Licensure and Certification 7827 North Dale Mabry Highway Tampa, Florida 33614 June E. Freed Audley L. Freed Freed Towers 1029 7th Avenue East Bradenton, Florida 34208 John Miller General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power Agency Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Blvd. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was employed as a fire inspector by the City of Clearwater with permanent status in the civil service system. Respondent has approximately nine years experience with the City of Clearwater as a fire inspector, and prior to this incident had never been the subject of disciplinary action. As a permanent civil service employee, Ordinance 1831 of the City of Clearwater, Guidelines of Disciplinary Action dated October 23, 1978, and Civil Service Rule 14 dealing with Suspensions, Demotions and Dismissals are applicable to the facts of this case and govern disciplinary action taken against Respondent. On September 17, 1985, Respondent was suspended for three (3) working days, without pay, and given forty (40) disciplinary points. In the Notice of Suspension the grounds for this action are stated as follows: Inspector Christopher Kingsley violated Rule 14, Section 1, Paragraph (k) of the Civil Service Rules and Regulations: "Has violated any lawful and reasonable official regulation or order or failed to obey any lawful and reasonable direction made and given to him by his superior officer when such violation or failure to obey amounts to insubordination or serious breach of discipline which may reasonably be expected to result in a lower morale in the department or to result in loss, inconvenience, or injury to the City or to the public. * * * On June 15, Captain Yaudes dispatched Inspector Kingsley to 1468 Belleair Road to observe and assist Inspector Mattheus with the fire investigation. When Inspector Kingsley arrived at the fire scene he more or less worked independently. He did not provide the assistance or opinion to Inspector Mattheus when requested. This is further violation of the Guidelines for Disciplinary Action, Level 4, #3 offense: "Insubordination by refusal to perform work assigned or by failure to comply with written or verbal instructions of the supervisory force." Based upon the testimony and documentary evidence presented, the following findings of fact are made about Respondent's actions relative to the fire at 1468 Belleair Road on June 15, 1985: Between approximately 7:30 a.m. and 7:40 a.m. on June 15, 1985 Respondent arrived at work, although his shift did not begin until 8:00 a.m. When Respondent arrived, Captain Gordan Yaudes was talking with Captain Coleman about a radio transmission they had just overheard indicating that Inspector Harry Mattheus had been dispatched to investigate the Belleair Road fire. Since neither Captain Yaudes or Captain Coleman knew Inspector Mattheus, Captain Yaudes called Respondent into the office to see if Respondent knew anything about Mattheus' qualifications or background. Although Respondent and Mattheus had been working out of the same office for two months at the time, Respondent had only a brief acquaintance with Mattheus. They had never been introduced after Mattheus had been hired, their shifts and assignments were different and Mattheus had not yet done a fire scene investigation in the City of Clearwater. Therefore, Respondent told Captain Yaudes he did not know about Mattheus' qualifications. Captain Yaudes ordered Respondent to go to the Belleair fire scene, find out what was going on, and assist Inspector Mattheus, if necessary. Captain Yaudes testified that he wanted Respondent to take command of the investigation if Respondent determined that Mattheus was not properly certified. He specifically denied that he ordered Respondent to do a joint investigation with Mattheus. This order was given prior to 8:00 a.m., and thus prior to either Respondent or Captain Yaudes being on duty. Captain Coleman, who was on duty at the time, concurred in the order. Mattheus had been on the scene for thirty minutes before Respondent arrived. When Respondent arrived he put on protective pants, boots and gloves and entered the premises, a small flower shop. The fire had already been extinguished. Fire damage was confined to a twelve foot by twelve foot area at the front of the store where the cash register had been. Mattheus was not wearing protective gear since he had not been issued any at the time, although he was wearing his own steel reinforced boots. Upon approaching Mattheus at the scene, Respondent asked why he was there and on whose authority. Mattheus indicated he had been placed on the "call list" the night before by Fire Marshal Nic Lewis, and he was responding to a call to investigate the scene he received that morning at home. In making this inquiry, Respondent was responsive to Captain Yaudes' order that he go to the scene, find out what was going on and assume command of the investigation if he determined Mattheus was not qualified. Inspector Mattheus had been employed as a life safety inspector approximately two months prior to this incident. He is a certified fire inspector and was therefore qualified to be on the "call list" and to investigate fires. This was his first investigation for the City of Clearwater. After determining what was going on at the scene and that Mattheus was qualified to do the investigation, Respondent proceeded to assist Mattheus in several ways, including: surveying and discussing the scene together examining electrical wire and sockets, as well as the floor at the scene for possible causes of the fire clearing the area where the cash register had been and suggesting initially that Mattheus keep an aerosol can that had been punctured by a nail as possible evidence. Later, when arson was ruled out, he concurred in Mattheus' decision to discard the can. Respondent also helped clean up the scene since he was wearing protective clothing and Mattheus was not, and discussed an early morning thunderstorm with Mattheus as a possible cause of the fire. In this manner Respondent was responsive to Captain Yaudes' order that he render assistance, if necessary. On several occasions during the approximately thirty minutes when Respondent was at the fire scene, Inspector Mattheus asked him his opinion on the cause of the fire. Respondent responded by saying he did not know, or by shrugging his shoulders. He told Mattheus to list the cause as "unknown" if Mattheus could not determine a cause. Respondent also said to Mattheus on several occasions, "This is your fire." When Mattheus asked if Respondent was going to write a report on this fire, Respondent replied in the negative since this was Mattheus' fire. It is standard operating procedure for the first inspector on the scene to be the primary investigator who writes the report, and for other inspectors to assist the primary investigator. Mattheus was the primary investigator in this fire, and was in charge of the investigation. The terminology, "It's your fire," is commonly understood among firefighters and inspectors to mean that "you are in charge and will write the report." Respondent's use of this phrase in responding to Mattheus was therefore accurate and in recognition of standard operating procedures, and does not indicate any lack of cooperation on his part. Respondent was not ordered to conduct a "joint investigation," according to Captain Yaudes. When the term "joint investigation" is used, it is understood by firefighters and inspectors to mean an investigation which involves another agency, such as the State Fire Marshal's Office or the Electrical Department, in which the other department assists the Fire Department in trying to determine the cause of a fire. On June 14, 1985, the day prior to the Belleair fire, Respondent had called Inspector Jeff Daniels and expressed concern that life safety inspectors would be used to investigate fires since he felt they were not qualified. He also expressed concern about Inspector Mattheus' qualifications. Despite this prior expression of concern, when Respondent was ordered to the fire scene the next day, he did determine that Mattheus was qualified and assisted him as ordered. The testimony of Lieutenant Frank Hill and Firefighters John Milano and Charles Daniels, who were all at the scene on June 15, 1985, specifically confirms that Respondent and Mattheus worked together on the investigation without discord.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the disciplinary charge against Respondent be dismissed, and that Respondent receive three days back-pay and the removal of all disciplinary points in his record arising from this charge. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of January, 1986, at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN, 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 27th day of January, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Miles Lance, Esquire Assistant City Attorney Post Office Box 4748 Clearwater, Florida 33518 Stuart M. Rosenblum, Esquire, 220 South Garden Avenue.C3 Clearwater, Florida 33516 APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 4(c) and rejected in part in Finding of Fact 4(g). Adopted in Finding of Fact 4(a). Adopted in Finding of Fact 4(f). 4-6 Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 8, but otherwise rejected as irrelevant, unnecessary and not based on competent substantial evidence. Rejected in Finding of Fact 4. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4(h) and 6. Rejected in Finding of Fact 4(g). 10,11 Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 4(h), but otherwise rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4(i). Rejected in Finding of Fact 4. Respondent did cooperate and assist as necessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 4(h) and 6, but otherwise rejected as erroneously stating Respondent failed to aid Inspector Mattheus. 15,16 Rejected as simply a summation of testimony rather than a proposed finding of fact. 17 Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 4(e), but otherwise rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 18,19 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 8 but otherwise rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rulings on Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact, as contained in Sections A and B of Respondent's Memorandum, Proposed Findings and Conclusions of Law: Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 4 but otherwise rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. 4,5 Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in part in Findings of Fact 1 and 2. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. 8-12 Adopted in Findings of Fact 4(a)-(e). Adopted in part in Finding of Fact 4(g), but otherwise rejected as unnecessary and cumulative. Adopted in Findings of Fact 4(h), (i). Adopted in Finding of Fact 6, but otherwise rejected as irrelevant. Adopted in Finding of Fact 3.
Findings Of Fact When the events herein occurred, respondent, Shalom Manor, Inc. d/b/a King David Manor Retirement Home (King David), was licensed by petitioner, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS), to operate an adult congregte living facility (ACLF) at 5800 N.W. 27th Court, Lauderhill, Florida. The corporate headquarters of Shalom Manor, Inc., were located at 901 South Federal Highway, Suite 200, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. On March 29, 1984 two HRS inspectors performed a routine annual survey of King David to determine whether King David was complying with all HRS requirements necessary for licensure. During the course of the survey, the inspectors noted that King David did not have an established fire and emergency plan. They accordingly charged respondent with having violated Section 3-8.a of HRS Manual 140-3. That manual is entitled "Fire Safety Standards for Adult Congregate Living Facilities." The manual is not a formal rule, but has been adopted and incorporated by reference in Rule 10A-5.23(15), Florida Administrative Code. The cited section (3-8.a) provides in relevant part that "a Fire and Emergency plan shall be established." It does not specifically require that the plan be in written form, or that it be posted in each resident's living area. According to the HRS inspectors, respondent was charged with a Class III statutory violation because it had no acceptable written plan, and the plan was not posted in each resident's room. When the survey was completed, the inspectors reviewed this deficiency with the facility's administrator, Graeme Burne, and advised him that the deficiency must be corrected within thirty days, or by April 29, 1984. They also described to him the type of plan necessary to comply with the HRS Manual, and told him it must be posted in each area where a resident resided. A thirty- day compliance period was used since the inspectors considered the deficiency to be a "paperwork" item that could be easily corrected within that time period. After returning to their office, the inspectors had a Form 1806 prepared. This form is entitled "ACLF Corrective Action Plan" and contains each deficiency noted during the survey, the class of violation, date for correction action, provider's plan of correction, when such correction is completed and the status of correction or follow-up. The form noted that the deficiency in question had to be corrected by April 29, 1984. The form was then signed by the HRS area supervisor and mailed to Burne on April 4, 1984. Burne received the form, inserted the comment "Being Prepared" in the column under the provider's plan of correction, signed it as respondent's administrator on April 27, 1984 and returned it to local HRS offices in Miami. On May 1, May 18, June 11, August 22 and October 31, 1984, the two inspectors made repeat surveys of King David's facility. They found no satisfactory fire and emergency plan had been established on any of those dates. On the August 22 visit Burne showed to the inspectors a diagram he had prepared, but was told it did not meet HRS requirements. On the March 29 visit, the inspectors also noted several other deficiencies besides the lack of a fire and emergency plan. All deficiencies, including the lack of a fire and emergency plan, were the subject of administrative complaints issued on July 12 and 26, 1984 in Case Nos. 85-0359 and 85-0360, respectively. 1/ By the issuance of these complaints, the corporate license received actual written notice of the surveys and cited deficiencies. Prior to that time, Burne had apparently neglected to tell the owners about the matter. On July 2, 1985, or approximately one year later, HRS issued the amended administrative complaint in this cause charging respondent with having failed to correct the deficiency by the August 22 visit. 2/ The complaint was served on Shalom Manor, Inc., at its Fort Lauderdale corporate address. After receiving the earlier complaints in July 1984 a representative of Shalom Manor contacted HRS offices in Miami and requested that all future correspondence regarding the matter be sent to the corporate owner's address in Fort Lauderdale. Respondent acknowledged that it had no fire and emergency plan posted on its premises. However, it established that the corporate licensee (Shalom Manor, Inc.) was never given any documentation regarding the alleged violation until the administrative complaints in Case Nos. 85-0359 and 85-0360 were filed. Moreover, neither the licensee or its administrator was given a document entitled "notice of deficiency" as required by Rule 10A-5.27, Florida Administrative Code. However, the corrective action plan sent to the administrator on April 4, 1984, contained all information referred to in the rule. Respondent also points out that after finally learning of the deficiency, it attempted to comply with HRS requirements, and through its administrator, presented a written plan to HRS inspectors on their August 22 visit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the amended administrative complaint filed on July 2, 1986, be DISMISSED, with prejudice. DONE and ORDERED this 19th day of August 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of August 1986.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent properly denied Petitioner's application for certification as a firesafety inspector.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an applicant for certification as a firesafety inspector. In order to be certified, Petitioner was required to successfully complete the Firesafety Inspector Training Course and pass a firesafety inspector certification examination. Petitioner successfully completed his required coursework at the Florida State Fire College and Daytona State College. To pass the written examination, an applicant must achieve a score of at least 70 percent. Petitioner took the exam the first time and did not receive a passing score. After a month or so, Petitioner took a "retest." He received a score of 68 on the retest, which is below the minimum passing score of 70. By letter dated October 11, 2011, Respondent notified Petitioner that he did not receive a passing grade on the retest. The notice also informed Petitioner that because he failed both the initial and retake examinations, it would be necessary for him to repeat the Inspection Training Program before any additional testing can be allowed. The notice further informed Petitioner that if he enrolled in another training program, he would have to submit a new application. Petitioner submitted a letter which was received by the Department on September 27, 2011, in which he raised concerns about the quality of instruction he received at Florida State Fire College. Petitioner asserted that in two classes he took, the instructors had not taught the class before. He also asserted that the books used for class were not always the books used for testing, and that he believed that some of the state inspector test questions were irrelevant to how or what he would need to know in performing an actual inspection. Attached to this letter were five questions which had been marked as being answered incorrectly on the examination. Petitioner's letter and attachments were treated as a request for administrative hearing, which was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings, which resulted in this proceeding. Marshall Shoop took classes with Petitioner at the Florida State Fire College. It was also Mr. Shoop's understanding that at least one instructor had never taught the class before. Karl Thompson is the Standard Supervisor for the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training. At hearing, Mr. Thompson reviewed each question offered by Petitioner and the answer Petitioner thought to be correct. Mr. Thompson concluded that Petitioner answered each of the five questions incorrectly. Mr. Thompson explained that the firesafety test is a secure document and, pursuant to a contract with a third party, persons who take the test and later review their incorrect answers are not allowed to write down the questions or copy anything from the test. The test must remain secure so that it is not compromised. The test questions and answers are not in evidence. Petitioner has been shadowing a part-time fire inspector for the City of Flagler Beach. Martin Roberts is the Fire Chief for the City of Flagler Beach. Chief Roberts would feel comfortable with Petitioner taking on the role of fire inspector despite Petitioner's grades on the fire safety inspector certification examination. While attending Daytona State College, Petitioner earned an "A" in a building construction course and a "B+" in a course in "construction codes and materials rating."
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for certification as a Firesafety Inspector, and permitting Petitioner to repeat the required coursework before retaking the Firesafety Inspector certification examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of February, 2012, 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 16th day of February, 2012.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondents have violated various statutes and rules governing persons licensed to install and service fire extinguishers and fire suppression systems and, if so, what penalties Petitioner should impose.
Findings Of Fact General Respondents hold Class A and C licenses as fire extinguisher dealers, Class D licenses as pre-engineered systems dealers, Class 01 licenses as fire extinguisher permittees, and Class 04 licenses as pre-engineered systems permittees. Respondent Todd Jacobs (Jacobs) is the qualifier for Respondent National Fire and Safety Corporation (NFS). NFS has been in the fire-safety business for about 15 years. Jacobs received his first permit about ten years ago. Neither Respondent has been disciplined prior to the suspension of all of their licenses and permits effective May 15, 1997, for the incidents described below. The suspension has remained continuously in effect through the present. Pre-engineered systems are custom installations of fire-suppression systems. These pressurized systems, which are activated by heat-sensitive fusible links and small cylinders known as cartridges, feature large metal cylinders that supply the powder through pipes to specific hazard areas. Pre-engineered systems must be installed in accordance with pretested limitations and configurations. Petitioner has cited various violations of the standards of the National Fire Protection Association. As noted in the conclusions of law, violation of these standards, which are incorporated into the rules, provide the basis for discipline. The relevant standards of the National Fire Protection Association are divided into two sections: one governs persons dealing with fire extinguishers and the other governs persons dealing with pre-engineered systems. National Fire Protection Association 10 is titled, “Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers.” National Fire Protection Association 10, Standard 1-3 defines a “portable fire extinguisher” as a “portable device carried on wheels and operated by hand containing an extinguishing agent that can be expelled under pressure for the purpose of suppressing or extinguishing a fire.” National Fire Protection Association 10 applies to fire extinguishers, not pre-engineered systems. National Fire Protection Association 10, Chapter 4 governs the inspection, maintenance, and recharging of fire extinguishers. National Fire Protection Association 10, Standard 4-1.4 provides that “[m]aintenance, servicing, and recharging” of fire extinguishers shall be performed by trained persons “having available the appropriate servicing manual(s), the proper types of tools, recharge materials, lubricants, and manufacturer’s recommended replacement parts or parts specifically listed for use in the fire extinguisher.” National Fire Protection Association 10, Standard 4-5.1.2 requires that persons recharging a fire extinguisher shall follow the “recommendations of the manufacturer.” National Fire Protection Association 10, Standard 4-5.3.1 requires that persons recharging fire extinguishers use “[o]nly those agents specified on the nameplate or agents proven to have equal chemical composition, physical characteristics, and fire extinguishing capabilities ” National Fire Protection Association 10, Standard 4-5.3.2 prohibits persons recharging fire extinguishers from mixing “[m]ultipurpose dry chemicals” with “alkaline-based dry chemicals.” National Fire Protection Association 10, Chapter 5 governs the hydrostatic testing of fire extinguishers. Table 5-2 provides that the longest hydrostatic test interval for fire extinguishers is 12 years. National Fire Protection Association 10, Standard 5-1.2 provides that the hydrostatic testing of fire extinguishers shall be performed by trained persons “having available suitable testing equipment, facilities, and appropriate servicing manual(s).” National Fire Protection Association 10, Standard 5-5.1.1 requires that persons hydrostatically testing fire extinguishers first conduct an internal examination of the cylinder. National Fire Protection Association 10, Standard 5-5.1.2 requires that persons hydrostatically testing fire extinguishers do so in accordance with the “procedures specified in the pamphlet Methods for Hydrostatic Testing of Compressed Gas Cylinders (CGA C-1), published by the Compressed Gas Association.” National Fire Protection Association 10, Standard 5-5.2 provides that the testing procedures for low-pressure cylinders, shells, and hose assemblies are detailed in Appendix A. Appendix A contains detailed material, but, according to a prefatory statement, “[t]his Appendix is not part of the requirements of this National Fire Protection Association document but is included for informational purposes only.” National Fire Protection Association 17 is titled, “Standard for Dry Chemical Extinguishing Systems.” National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 1-4 defines “pre- engineered systems,” in part, as [t]hose having predetermined flow rates, nozzle pressures, and quantities of dry chemical [with] specific pipe size, maximum and minimum pipe lengths, flexible hose specifications, number of fittings and number and types of nozzles prescribed by a testing laboratory.” National Fire Protection Association 17 applies to pre- engineered systems, not fire extinguishers. National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 1-4 defines “inspection” as a “’quick’ check to give reasonable assurance that the extinguishing system is fully charged and operable.” The definition adds that this is done by “seeing that the system is in place, that it has not been activated or tampered with, and that there is no obvious physical damage or condition to prevent operation.” National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 3-8.3.1 requires that the dry chemical container and expellant gas assemblies of a pre-engineered system shall be located “so as not to be subjected to severe weather conditions or to mechanical, chemical, or other damage.” National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 3-9.1 provides that, for pre-engineered systems, the “pipings and fittings shall be installed in accordance with good commercial practices.” National Fire Protection Association 17, Chapter 9 governs the inspection, maintenance, and recharging of pre- engineered systems. National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 9-1.1 provides that, when dry chemical pressure containers are not attached to piping or hand hose lines, the discharge outlet shall have a protective diffusing safety cap to protect persons from recoil and high-flow discharge in case of accidental activation. The caps shall also be used on empty National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 9- 1.4 provides that “[a]ll dry chemical extinguishing systems shall be inspected in accordance with the owner’s manual and maintained and recharged in accordance with the manufacturer’s listed installation and maintenance manual and service bulletins.” National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 9-3.2 provides that “[f]ixed temperature-sensing elements of the fusible metal allow type shall be replaced at least annually from the date of installation. They shall be destroyed when removed.” National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 9-3.2.1 provides that the “year of manufacture and date of installation of the fixed temperature-sensing element shall be marked on the system inspection tag[,]” and the “tag shall be signed or initialed by the installer.” National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 9-4.2 provides that “[s]ystems shall be recharged in accordance with the manufacturer’s listed installation and maintenance manual.” National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 9-5 requires that trained persons hydrostatically testing pre- engineered systems have “available suitable testing equipment, facilities, and an appropriate service manual(s).” This standard requires hydrostatic testing at 12-year intervals for the dry chemical container, auxiliary pressure containers (unless less than two inches in outside diameter and two feet in length or unless they bear the DOT stamp, “3E”), and hose assemblies. National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 9-5.1 requires that persons hydrostatically testing pre- engineered systems subject the tested components of hydrostatic test pressure equal to the marked factory test pressure or the test pressure specified in the manufacturer’s listed installation and maintenance manual. This test prohibits any leakage, rupture, or movement of hose couplings and requires test procedures in accordance with the manufacturer’s detailed written hydrostatic test instructions.” National Fire Protection Association 17, Standard 9-5.2 requires that persons hydrostatically testing pre- engineered systems remove and discard the dry chemical agent from the containers prior to the test. Page Field (Counts I and II) In March 1997, Rick Clontz, a Lee County employee, asked Roland Taylor, an NFS employee, to service components of the fire-safety system at the Lee County Hazardous Materials Facility at Page Field in Fort Myers. This fire-safety system protects an area at which Lee County stores corrosive, flammable, and poisonous materials. Initially, Mr. Taylor removed three ten-pound ABC fire extinguishers. These are small portable cylinders, whose “ABC” designation refers to their ability to suppress a broad range of fires. According to the National Fire Protection Association standards, Class A fires involve “ordinary combustible materials, such as wood, cloth, paper, rubber, and many plastics.” Class B fires involve “flammable liquids, oils greases, tars, oil-based paints, lacquers, and flammable gases.” Class C fires involve “energized electrical equipment . . . .” On April 1, 1997, Mr. Taylor returned the three 10- pound ABC fire extinguishers. Later inspection revealed that Mr. Taylor had properly removed and discarded the ABC powder from each cylinder, but he had refilled only one of the three cylinders entirely with ABC powder. He erroneously filled the other two cylinders with mixtures of 75 percent and 50 percent BC powder. The improper filling of two of the fire extinguishers at the Page Field Hazardous Materials Facility threatened the public health, safety, and welfare. Meeting Mr. Taylor at the Page Field facility when Mr. Taylor returned the three small cylinders, Mr. Clontz asked him to remove the 50-pound Ansul SPA 50 cylinder and hydrostatically test it. Mr. Taylor noted that the cylinder was not yet due for this test, but quoted a price to which Mr. Clontz agreed, and Mr. Taylor disconnected the cylinder from the pre-engineered system and transported it from the site. Hydrostatic testing is a hydraulic interior pressurization test that measures ductility, which is the ability of cylinder walls to expand and contract. The purpose of hydrostatic testing is to determine the suitability of a cylinder for continued service. Hydrostatic testing requires the tester to release the pressure and empty the contents of a cylinder. Using specialized equipment, the tester then fills the cylinder with water, pressurizing it to twice the service pressure or, for the systems cylinders involved in this case, 1000 pounds per square inch. Cylinder failure from the loss of structural integrity can result in a dangerous rupture, possibly causing an improperly bracketed cylinder to launch like an unguided missile. A cylinder that passes its hydrostatic test does not have to be retested for 12 years. Three days later, Mr. Taylor returned the Ansul cylinder with a tag stamped to show the date on which NFS had hydrostatically tested the cylinder. Mr. Taylor reconnected it to the pre-engineered system, changing the three fusible links. However, Mr. Taylor did not tighten the actuation piping wrench-tight, as required by the manufacturer’s specification. Instead, Mr. Taylor left the actuation piping sufficiently loose that it might cause a failure of the pre- engineered system to activate. As Respondents conceded, the loose actuation piping threatened the public health, safety, and welfare. Finished with his work, Mr. Taylor gave Mr. Clontz a receipt, but no diagram or report, as Mr. Clontz usually received after such service. Consistent with the work requested by Lee County, the receipt stated that NFS had hydrostatically tested and recharged the three ten-pound and one 50-pound cylinders. However, NFS had not hydrostatically tested the 50- pound Ansul SPA 50 cylinder. NFS had not even changed the powder in the cylinder. Jacobs was personally aware of these facts and personally authorized the deceitful stamping of the tag to show a hydrostatic testing. The fraudulent misrepresentation concerning the hydrostatic testing of the Ansul SPA 50 cylinder threatened the public health, safety, and welfare. Additionally, NFS had replaced the three fusible links with three other fusible links. Petitioner failed to prove that there are material differences between the two types of links so as to justify discipline. There are two differences between the links. First, NFS used Globe links rather than Ansul links. However, Ansul links are manufactured by Globe. The Ansul expert testified that Ansul subjects the links to an additional inspection. However, the record does not reveal whether Globe does not also subject its brand-name links to another inspection that it does not perform for the links that it manufactures for Ansul. The Ansul expert did not testify as to the defect rate resulting from the Ansul inspection or any difference between the performance of the “two” links. On this record, then, there is no demonstrated difference in the two brand-named fusible links. The second difference is that NFS installed an ML link rather than the newer K link currently in use. Ansul approved the ML link in the Ansul SPA 50 pre-engineered system until five years ago. At that time, Ansul authorized use of the older ML link until dealer inventories were depleted. Even assuming that the K link represents a safety advance, compared to the ML link, Ansul’s gradual introduction of the new link precludes a finding that the difference was material, unless one were to assume that Ansul disregarded public safety when authorizing the gradual introduction of the new link. Respondents conceded that they did not have a copy of the Ansul SPA 50 manual when they serviced the Ansul SPA 50 system. They have since obtained the manual. Petitioner failed to show that the failure to have the manual threatened the public health, safety, or welfare. Respondents conceded that they did not produce the inspection form for the system. They had provided such a form previously. Petitioner failed to show that the failure to produce an inspection form threatened the public health, safety, or welfare. At the hearing, Petitioner agreed not to pursue the claim against Respondents regarding the LT10R cartridge. Petitioner effectively conceded that Respondents were not required to hydrostatically test the cartridge because it is exempt from such testing. Petitioner evidently elected not to pursue the recharging issue for other reasons. Mobile Service Units (Counts III-V The service truck operated by Mark Thackeray did not have a conductivity tester, certified scales, or proper manuals. The conductivity tester ensures that the braiding is intact on carbon dioxide hoses. The certified scales ensures that the cylinder is filled with the proper amount of dry chemical. The manuals ensure that the person servicing a pre- engineered system understands all of its components and how it works. Additionally, one cylinder in the truck had a drill bit instead of a safety pin installed in the head of the bottle. Petitioner also proved that the fire extinguisher and pre-engineered system tags bore the Naples and Fort Myers addresses for NFS. As noted below, the Fort Myers location was inactive, used only for storage and drop-offs and not for shop work or retail sales activity. For several years, Petitioner’s representatives knew that the tags bore both addresses and knew that the Fort Myers location was inactive, but never objected to Respondents’ practice. The only violation involving Mr. Thackeray’s truck that threatened the public health, safety, or welfare was the failure to have certified scales. The service truck operated by Ward Read lacked an operational inspection light, six-inch vise, and proper manuals. Additionally, Mr. Read’s truck had tags with the Fort Myers and Naples addresses for NFS. However, none of these violations involving Mr. Read’s truck threatened the public health, safety, or welfare. Petitioner failed to prove that Mr. Read’s truck lacked leak testing equipment. The truck had a bottle of Leak Tech with which to detect leaks in fire extinguishers. The truck also had a cable-crimping tool. The truck lacked a Kidde tool, but Petitioner failed to prove that Mr. Read installed Kidde systems off this truck or that the crimping tool present on the truck could not service adequately Kidde installations. The service truck operated by Donald Zelmanski lacked an inspection light, a six-inch vise, certified scales, leak-testing equipment, and proper manuals. Mr. Zelmanski’s truck contained tags with the Fort Myers and Naples addresses. The only violation that threatened the public health, safety, or welfare was the failure to have certified scales. Naples and Fort Myers Facilities (Counts VI-VII) The NFS Naples facility lacked operational hydrostatic test equipment on April 9, 1997. Respondents claim that they were having the equipment upgraded and calibrated at the time of the inspection. Ordinarily, this defense might be creditable, but not in this case. While the hydrostatic test equipment was out of service, NFS accepted the Page Field cylinder for hydrostatic testing and returned it to service, fraudulently representing that the cylinder had been hydrotested. This is precisely the practice against which the requirement of operational testing equipment is designed to protect. The Naples facility also lacked certified gauges for low-pressure testing. Respondents claim that the equipment upgrade described in the preceding paragraph would allow them to test high- and low-pressure cylinders on the same machine. However, due to Respondents’ fraudulent handling of the Page Field cylinder during the equipment downtime, this defense is unavailing. The Naples facility lacked an adapter to allow Respondents to recharge an Ansul SPA 50 cylinder. Jacobs drove the Page Field cylinder to St. Petersburg to have the cylinder recharged by a competitor that had such an adapter. However, the requirement that a facility have an adapter reduces the risk that a licensee will ignore its professional responsibilities and simply return a cylinder to service without first discharging it and performing a visual internal inspection. Respondents’ failure to discharge their other professional responsibilities underscores the materiality of the requirement that they keep an adapter for the Ansul SPA 50 that they elected to accept for service. Respondents kept tags at the Naples facility with tags containing addresses of the Naples and Fort Myers facilities. At the time of the inspection, Respondents also lacked documentation for two of eight scales, including a scale in 1/4-pound increments. Jacobs’ claim that they sent the two uncertified scales for servicing immediately after the inspection does not obviate the fact that, at the time of the inspection, they were available for use and in disrepair. Respondents failed to include serial numbers of serviced fire extinguishers on the relevant invoices. Respondents also failed to include the necessary permit number on inspection forms. Respondent falsely represented that they had hydrotested the Page Field Ansul SPA 50 cylinder at the Naples facility when they had not done so. Respondents stored cylinder bottles without safety caps in place. Petitioner failed to prove that Respondents did not post DOT certification near the hydrostatic testing equipment or that they stocked nitrogen cylinders without an acceptable blow-out disk in place. The blow-out disks were not Ansul brand, but Petitioner failed to prove that the disks were not UL listed or the substantial equivalent of Ansul disks. Respondents concede that the Fort Myers location lacked the items alleged by Petitioner. However, the Fort Myers location is inactive and serves merely as a drop-off or storage facility. All shop work and retail sales activities occur at the Naples location. At the time of the April 1997 inspection, Respondents surrendered the license for the inactive Fort Myers location. Other Jobs (Counts VIII-XI) Respondents installed a pre-engineered system at the SunTrust Bank in Naples. The cylinder is in the bank vault, which it is designed to protect. Petitioner charged that Respondents improperly located the cylinder in the hazard area, but Petitioner did not discuss the fact that the cylinder at Page Field was in the hazard area. Obviously, the corrosive effect of the hazardous materials at Page Field represents a greater risk to the cylinder than the corrosive effect of money and other valuables in the vault at the SunTrust. Additionally, some language in the Ansul manual cautions not to locate the cylinder in the hazard area, but only if the hazard is corrosive. Respondents replaced the fusible links at SunTrust annually. However, they failed to record the year of manufacture of the fusible links on the system tag when last servicing the system in October 1996. There is no evidence as to whether Respondents had suitable Ansul manuals and adapters when it serviced the system at that time. Respondents installed a pre-engineered system at the VFW Post in Naples. In doing so, their employee, who also misfilled the three fire extinguishers at Page Field, left the end-pipe-to-nozzle loose, so as to risk a loss of pressure in case of fire. This condition threatened the public health, safety, and welfare. Although Respondents fired this employee shortly after discovering his poor performance, this action does not eliminate the safety violations for which he, and they, are responsible. Petitioner also proved that Respondents located the 260 nozzle over the griddle in the wrong location. This condition threatened the public health, safety, and welfare because the system might not extinguish a fire on the griddle. Petitioner failed to prove that Respondents located the 230 nozzle in the wrong location. The Ansul manual allows this nozzle to be located anywhere along or within the perimeter of the fryer, if aimed to the center of the fryer. The 230 nozzle was so located and aimed. Respondents installed two pre-engineered systems at Mozzarella’s Café in Naples. In the course of this job, Respondents committed several violations governing documentation. Respondents improperly combined two pre- engineered systems on one inspection report, failed to include in the inspection report references to the manufacturer’s drawings and page numbers, failed to list in the inspection report a second gas valve on the front hood of one system, and failed to include in the inspection report Respondents’ permit number. However, Petitioner failed to prove that Respondents failed to list in the inspection report the type of fusible links in each hood. Respondents serviced a pre-engineered system at Kwan’s Express in Fort Myers in December 1996. Respondents failed to list in the inspection report the degree and types of fusible links installed and a reference to the drawing and page number in the manufacturer’s manual. However, Respondents listed in the inspection report the model number of the system. Red Lobster (Count XII) Several months after Petitioner had suspended Respondents’ licenses and permits, counsel for both parties negotiated a settlement agreement. Under the agreement, Petitioner would immediately lift the suspension. Jacobs and his general manager, Judson Schroyer, learned that Respondents’ counsel had received an unsigned, final draft settlement agreement on Monday, August 18, 1997. The settlement conditions were acceptable to Respondents, and Jacobs knew that Respondents’ counsel had signed the agreement and faxed it back to Petitioner’s counsel for execution by Petitioner’s representative. On August 18, the general manager of the Red Lobster in Naples called NFS and spoke with Jacobs. The general manager described a job involving the installation of a new oven, which would necessitate the relocation of other kitchen equipment a few feet. Thinking that the settlement agreement would be fully executed by then, Jacobs agreed to visit the general manager at the site the following morning. The next morning, Jacobs and Mr. Schroyer met the general manager at the Red Lobster. Giving the general manager NFS business cards with their names, Jacobs and Mr. Schroyer briefly examined the pre-engineered system in the kitchen, as the three men walked through the kitchen, and assured the general manager that there would be no problem doing the work in the short timeframe that the customer required. The purpose of the visit was much more for marketing than it was for preparation for the relatively simple job that the general manager envisioned. Shortly after leaving the Red Lobster, Mr. Schroyer realized that Respondents might not have their licenses and permits reinstated in time to do the job. He conveyed this concern to his supervisor, Jacobs, who spoke with Respondents’ counsel on the evening of August 19 and learned that they could not do the job. Jacobs instructed Mr. Schroyer to call another company in Fort Myers, FireMaster, to which Respondents had referred work during their suspension. Mr. Schroyer called a representative of FireMaster, and he agreed to perform the work. FireMaster assigned the job to Ward Read, who, as is authorized by Petitioner, held a dual permit, which means that he was permitted to work for two licensed dealers. One was NFS, and the other was FireMaster. Mr. Read reported to the Red Lobster in the predawn hours of August 21, as requested by the general manager of Red Lobster. Because his FireMaster truck had insufficient supplies, Mr. Read used an NFS truck, the equipment tags, inspection report, and invoice all bore the name of FireMaster.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the State Fire Marshal enter a final order suspending the licenses and permits of both Respondents for two years, commencing from the effective date of the earlier emergency order of suspension. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of December, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Attorney Mechele R. McBride Attorney Richard Grumberg Department of Insurance and Treasurer 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Mark H. Muller Quarles & Brady, P.A. 4501 North Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34103 Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
Findings Of Fact Petitioner James T. Steffens is currently employed as Chief of the Oneco-Tallevast Fire Control District located in Manatee County and has been so employed since June 1, 1982. The fire control district covers approximately 26 square miles southeast of Bradenton, and includes residential and commercial developments and some rural areas. The district employs six firefighters who, along with Petitioner, work a normal 3:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday, work week. There are 28 volunteer firemen in the district who provide most of the firefighting services for the district. The career personnel are hired primarily to supplement the volunteer group during the ordinary work week. However, they and the Petitioner are also volunteer firefighters. During the period of his employment, Petitioner has taken charge of firefighting on six or seven instances, one of which occurred during his normal hours of employment. (Testimony of Steffens) Petitioner was hired as a result of a screening and interview process by the Board of Commissioners of the Oneco- Tallevast Fire Control District. They were interested in a person who could unify factions within the district and modernize district procedures. The Board of Commissioners was more interested in Petitioner's administrative skills rather than his qualifications as a firefighter. However, it was aware from prior communications with Respondent's personnel that either a certified firefighter should be hired, or if not, that the individual hired would have to be certified in Florida. Petitioner primarily performs administrative functions, such as personnel and budget matters, training and scheduling of personnel, procurement of supplies, and scheduling of fire inspection and prevention programs. Actual fire inspections are conducted by the district fire marshal. (Testimony of Petitioner, Skinner) Respondent's form FST-1 "Qualification of New Employee," was filed on behalf of Petitioner in June 1982 by Raymond F. Skinner, Jr., Secretary- Treasurer, Board of Commissioners, Oneco-Tallevast Fire Control District. The form reflected that Petitioner had completed the equivalency examination at the State Fire College, Ocala, Florida, on July 11, 1977, and the Report of Physical Examination that accompanied the form showed that he had no physical abnormalities. Upon inquiry by Respondent as to a discrepancy on the physical examination report that reflected Petitioner had adequate visual acuity, as compared to a prior medical report received by the Department showing that his uncorrected vision in the right eye was 20/200 and in the left eye, 20/400, the examining physician advised the Respondent that the earlier eye examination should be deemed correct. (Respondent's Exhibits 1-2) By letter of October 5, 1982, Mr. Skinner was advised by the Office of the State Fire Marshal that Petitioner could not be certified because he did not meet the requirements of pertinent law and regulations as to visual acuity, and also due to the fact that he had a "noticeable limp." Specifically, he was advised that Section 633.34(5), Florida Statutes, required that "Any person initially employed as a firefighter must be in good physical condition as determined by a medical examination as prescribed by the division," and that Rule 4A-37.37, Florida Administrative Code, implementing the statutory provision, provided in subsection (3) for adoption of the standards of NFPA 1001 (1974). The letter further stated that NFPA 1001, Chapter 2-2.7.2(b), provided that standard visual acuity, without correction, of less than 20/40 in one eye, and 20/100 in the other eye, was cause for rejection for appointment, and that Chapter 2-2.6.2.4(d) provided that shortening of a lower extremity resulting in any limp of noticeable degree was also cause for rejection. Subsequent to receipt of the letter from Respondent, Petitioner requested an administrative hearing. (Respondent's Exhibit 1) Petitioner does not meet the visual acuity standards set forth in the above-cited law and regulations in that his uncorrected eyesight is 20/200 in his right eye and 20/400 in his left eye. (Respondent's Exhibit 1-2, Stipulation) Respondent's ground for rejection of certification because Petitioner has a "noticeable limp" was based solely on observation of Petitioner by Mr. Raymond Schaffner, Program Coordinator for Fire Standards, Office of the State Fire Marshal. However, Mr. Schaffner has no knowledge of Petitioner having a shortening of either leg, nor is there any medical evidence in that regard. Although he is of the opinion that a person with a limp would have difficulty as a firefighter carrying heavy weights on stairs, or maintaining control on a ladder with his legs to free his hands, he is unaware of any actual limitations that Petitioner might have in this regard. (Testimony of Schaffner) Petitioner concedes that he has a slight limp, but can offer no medical explanation for it. He purchases trousers which have the same inseam for both legs. The problem becomes more pronounced if he becomes overweight. It has never hampered his sports activities in the past, or his prior activities as a volunteer firefighter since 1956. In 1977, he successfully completed the equivalency examination at the State Fire College in Ocala, which required that he perform field "evolutions" or practical exercises in firefighting. Although they do not necessarily test an individual's endurance, Petitioner participated in advancing heavy hoses and carried a man down from a ladder during his equivalency examination. He has performed "leg locks" on ladders "hundreds of times" in the past. (Testimony of Schaffner, Petitioner) Volunteer firefighters are not required to be certified by the state. However, Respondent's interpretation of applicable statutes is that the employed chief of a fire control district must be certified if he meets the definition of "firefighters" set forth in Section 633.31, Florida Statutes. (Testimony of Schaffner, Stark)
Recommendation That Petitioner James T. Steffens be determined unqualified for employment and certification as a firefighter pursuant to Chapter 633, Florida Statutes. DONE and ENTERED this 3 day of 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM 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 3rd day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Richard W. Gross, Esquire Post Office Box 1302 Hialeah, Florida 33011 Susan E. Koch and Dennis Silverman, Esquires Department of Insurance 413-B Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable William Gunter State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Galilee was licensed by the Department. Galilee's last known address is 4685 Haverhill Road, West Palm Beach, Florida. Galilee is a lodging establishment, consisting of rental apartments. It was originally constructed in 1995 as an assisted living facility but, as a business decision, the owner subsequently converted it to rental apartments. The Department's inspector inspected the outside of Galilee on December 18, 2002, and again on January 17, 2003. The inspector found deficiencies at the first inspection, and at the second inspection three deficiencies remained uncorrected. The uncorrected deficiencies were (1) the current report of the annual inspection for the fire sprinkler system was not available; (2) fire extinguishers failed to have state certification tags affixed; and (3) no backflow prevention device on the exterior hose connection to the apartment building. The failure to have available the current report of the annual inspection for the fire sprinkler system was a critical violation. The deficiency was classified as a critical violation because the annual report is the only way that an inspector can ascertain that the fire sprinkler system is operational. The inspector requested the current annual report at the first visit but it was not available. The failure of the fire extinguishers to have state certification tags affixed was a critical violation. The deficiency was classified as a critical violation because the state certified tag verifies that an extinguisher is in proper working order and is being properly maintained. The failure to have a backflow prevention device on the exterior hose connection to the apartment building was not a critical violation. The backflow prevention device stops negative water pressure. At the first inspection, the inspector explained the violations to the owner and gave him a 30-day warning to have the violations corrected, advising the owner that she would return on January 17, 2003, for a follow-up inspection. The violations were not corrected at the follow-up inspection 30 days later. The evidence shows that all the violations were corrected within a month to a month and a half after the second inspection. Galilee provided mitigating circumstances for the violations not being corrected at the time of the second inspection. As to the deficiency regarding availability of the current report of the annual inspection for the fire sprinkler system, Galilee has a current report dated February 27, 2003. Also, Galilee suggests that the inspector did not request the report. The undersigned finds the inspector's testimony credible that she requested the report. Further, the evidence shows that Galilee confused the requested report with the report of the fire department's inspection. The inspector testified, and her testimony is found credible, that the report of the annual inspection for the fire sprinkler system is generated by a private company, not the fire department, because the fire department does not perform the inspection required for the requested report. As to the deficiency regarding tagging of the fire extinguishers, Galilee's owner purchased fire extinguishers from Home Depot and was not aware that the extinguishers were required to be tagged at the time of the first inspection. Subsequent to the second inspection, the fire extinguishers were tagged by the AAC United Fire and Safety Department, with which Galilee has a contract to inspect the fire extinguishers. As to the deficiency regarding backflow prevention device, it too was corrected subsequent to the second inspection. Furthermore, even though the deficiencies were corrected subsequent to the second inspection, Galilee began the process to correct the deficiencies after the first inspection. Galilee was not ignoring the deficiencies. The deficiencies were not timely corrected because Galilee's owner was attempting to obtain, whom he considered, the proper people to perform the tasks involved and have the tasks performed at a reasonable expense. No evidence of prior disciplinary action being taken against Galilee by the Department was presented.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants enter a final order: Finding that Galilee violated NFPA Life Safety Code 25, 1-8.2 and Food Code Rule 5-204.12. Dismissing the violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61C-1.004(5). Imposing an administrative fine of $1,500.00, payable under terms and conditions deemed appropriate. S DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ____ ERROL H. POWELL 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 31st day of October, 2003.
