The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's registration as a septic tank contractor should be disciplined for the reasons set forth in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background In this disciplinary proceeding, Petitioner, Department of Health (Department), on behalf of the Polk County Health Department (Health Department), seeks to impose an administrative fine on, and revoke the septic tank contractor registration of, Respondent, Barbara Thompson, doing business under the name of A-1 Septic Services. Respondent currently operates a septic tank business in Lakeland, Florida, and has held her registration for approximately two and one-half years. Her most recent address is 1616 Ritter Road, Lakeland, Florida. As a registrant, she is under the regulatory authority of the Department. On November 28, 2000, the Department entered into a Settlement Agreement (Agreement) with Respondent for numerous violations of various provisions within Chapter 64E-6, Florida Administrative Code. The Agreement was approved by the Department in a Final Order dated March 5, 2001. As a condition of that Agreement, Respondent agreed that her husband, Larry Thompson, would not be employed in the management of the business; would not solicit, negotiate, contract, contact, or communicate with any customers of the business; or represent the business as agent or principal in any way. Larry Thompson's registration as a septic tank contractor had been previously revoked by a Final Order of the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services entered on January 23, 1995. Based on complaints received from three consumers, the Health Department began an investigation of Respondent in 2001. The investigation culminated in the issuance of an Administrative Complaint on June 29, 2001, which generally alleged that in February and June 2001, Respondent was fraudulent in her dealings with three customers by recommending unneeded work on septic tank systems that were in good working order; that she violated the terms of the Agreement by allowing her husband to participate in the business; that in 1998 and 2000, Respondent conspired with her husband to fraudulently purchase three vehicles under the name of her husband's brother (and without his consent) for use in her business; and that by using one of those vehicles in her business, she unlawfully obtained her registration through fraud, misrepresentation, and concealment of material facts, and she committed gross misconduct in her profession. Respondent denies the allegations and suggests that the complaint is the result of an on-going dispute between her and local Health Department officials, who want to put her out of business. Consumer complaints On February 27, 2001, William Mauer (Mauer), who lives at 5212 Messina Road, Lakeland, Florida, contacted Respondent's firm after experiencing a problem with his septic tank system "not draining right" and "sewage backing up." Two individuals, one of whom Mauer identified at the hearing as being Larry Thompson, arrived around 4 p.m. Larry Thompson began using a probing rod around the 900-gallon tank, popped the lid, and announced that the tank "was full." The two then pumped out the tank, for which Mauer was charged $150.00. At the same time, Larry Thompson recommended that Mauer install a new drainfield and quoted a price of "around $2,800.00." By allowing Larry Thompson to solicit business, contact and communicate with customers, and represent the business, Respondent violated the terms of the Agreement. That evening, Respondent came to Mauer's house and prepared a work order for a new drainfield. Because Mrs. Mauer wished to pay by credit card, Respondent advised her that she did not accept credit cards, but she could run the transaction through her brother's business for the normal credit card processing fee which was described by the witnesses as ranging from $165.00 to $300.00. In any event, the Mauers agreed and charged the work on their credit card. Within a day or two, but after Respondent had pulled a permit for the repair job, Mauer backed out of the deal since the problems went away after the tank had been pumped out. The charge on the credit card was cancelled, and Mauer paid only for the pumping of his tank ($150.00) and the cost of a repair permit. At hearing, Maurer indicated that he was not "mad at all" about the service, and he agreed that he was "not really out of anything," since the credit card charges were cancelled. Respondent contended that when the Mauers' tank was inspected, there was sewage seeping from the lid and flowing back into the tank from the drainfield line, thus indicating a need for drainfield repairs. A subsequent inspection of the system by a Health Department official a few days after Respondent's visit revealed nothing "to indicate a bad drainfield." The representative acknowledged, however, that it was "not easy" to determine if a system was bad, and that a lack of visible signs of a problem did not mean that the system was in good working order. Even so, the lack of any further problems (after the pump-out) is a clear indication that Respondent recommended that unnecessary work be performed on the Mauers' system. On February 27, 2001, Patsy Brown, who lives in a duplex at 1014 Old South Drive, Lakeland, contacted Respondent's firm for a service call after she experienced "slow draining" in the master bathroom toilet of the second unit in the duplex. Two "young men" came out that evening around 9 p.m. One was Ricky Thompson, Respondent's brother- in-law; the other was identified at hearing as being Larry Thompson. After locating the tank, one of the two workers placed a shovel in the grass and found clear water without an odor around the drainfield. The older of the two workers (Larry Thompson) recommended that Brown replace (repair) the drainfield and quoted a price in the range of $2,400.00 to $2,700.00. Larry Thompson also instructed Ricky Thompson to pump out the tank. By allowing Larry Thompson to solicit work on her behalf, and act as a representative of the firm, Respondent contravened the terms of the Agreement. Believing that a new drainfield was needed, Brown signed a work order for $2,785.00 and gave Larry Thompson a check in the amount of $1485.00 as partial payment. At the request of Larry Thompson, Brown made out the check to Barbara Thompson, rather than A-1 Septic Tank Service. A day or so later, and after Respondent had pulled a permit for the job, Brown had second thoughts about replacing her drainfield and contacted the Health Department. A representative visited her home on March 2, 2001, and found no visible signs of a system breakdown. The representative gave Brown the names of five other septic tank companies to contact for estimates. An unnamed registrant then replaced Brown's distribution box for $238.00, which resolved all problems. While the representative acknowledged that "a failed drainfield is not always apparent," and that "[i]t's not always easy just by looking at it or telling if that's a good drainfield or not," the fact that Brown's problems were unrelated to the drainfield supports a finding that Respondent recommended that Brown have unneeded work performed on her system. After the distribution box was replaced, Brown contacted Respondent and requested a refund of her money. Because the request was made more than 3 days after she had signed the contract, Respondent took the position that no refund was warranted. Brown then filed a consumer complaint with a Tampa television station. Respondent says she offered to refund the money if Brown would withdraw her complaint with the television station, but Brown refused to do so, and the complaint ended up being aired on "national television." To date, the money has never been refunded, although Brown has never made another formal request for a refund of her money, nor has she taken legal action against Respondent to recover the money. On June 5, 2001, David Fleming, who lives with his wife, Zora, at 3319 Mt. Tabor Road, Lakeland, experienced "problems with [the toilet] flushing." Zora telephoned Respondent's firm, and Ricky Thompson and Respondent arrived later that day. After Ricky popped the lid on the tank and found a full tank, Respondent recommended that the tank be pumped out for a charge of $150.00. When around one-half of the tank was pumped, Respondent advised Fleming that the price would be $200.00 because it was so full; otherwise, she would be forced to pump the contents of the truck back into the tank. Fleming then agreed to pay Respondent $200.00 for a full pump-out, and he obtained a receipt for the payment. This fee was not unreasonable, and thus Respondent did not violate any Department rule or statute by charging that amount. Respondent also advised Fleming that he needed a new drainfield which would cost "over $2,000.00." Fleming declined to sign a contract for that service since he could not afford one. He experienced no further problems with his system after the pump-out. Respondent denies having advised Fleming that he needed a new drainfield and acknowledged at hearing that "there was nothing wrong with it." She further contended that because the house did not even have an air-conditioner, she knew that the Flemings could not afford any further repairs. This testimony is not deemed to be credible. A subsequent inspection of the tank by a Health Department official on June 8, 2001, revealed that there were no "obvious signs of failure the day [he] was out there." The system continues to function normally to this day. Purchase of vehicles The record is somewhat confusing regarding the vehicles owned and used by Respondent and registered with the Department. Under Rule 64E-6.010(2)(a), Florida Administrative Code, a registrant must make application for a service permit with the Health Department each year and provide evidence that he or she "possesses adequate equipment . . . necessary to perform the work intended." At hearing, Respondent stated that she currently has three trucks, two of which (a Chevrolet and a Ford) are now registered with the Health Department, but only one of which (the Chevrolet Kodiac) is actually used in the business. As discussed in greater detail below, the Chevrolet Kodiac was purchased from Bartow Chevrolet Company, Inc. The second vehicle (either a Ford or another undisclosed make and model) is one she has "had for several years" that was purchased from an individual named Howard Nieft (the father- in-law of Ricky Thompson); however, the title still remains in Nieft's name. The third vehicle (an unknown make and model consisting of a cab and chassis only with a blown motor) is "one that [she is] putting together" that was purchased around a year ago in Zephyrhills from a person whose name she cannot recall. Like the second vehicle, Respondent says the "title work [on the third vehicle] has not been transferred yet," because she cannot "get hold of the owner" to sign an affidavit to transfer the title. However, Respondent also indicated that the third vehicle which she is "putting together" is titled in the name of her niece, Christina Wood. The conflicting testimony regarding the ownership of the third vehicle was never clarified by the parties. In August 1998, an individual who identified himself as Ray M. Thompson ("Ray"), approached Mark Pike (Pike), a commercial salesman with Bartow Chevrolet Company, Inc., for the purpose of purchasing a medium duty truck for his septic tank business. "Ray" gave a local address of 1400 Spivey Road, Lakeland, Florida. "Ray" eventually agreed to purchase (and finance through the dealership) a 1998 Chevrolet Kodiac truck on September 10, 1998, for approximately $35,000.00. In the course of the transaction, Pike requested a driver's license and insurance card from "Ray" to verify his identity. "Ray" gave Pike a North Carolina driver's license issued on August 18, 1997, to Ray M. Thompson. The Chevrolet Kodiac was later titled by the State to Ray M. Thompson. Ray M. Thompson is the brother of Larry Thompson, and the brother-in-law of Respondent. At the hearing, Pike identified Larry Thompson as the person who actually purchased the vehicle in September 1998 and used the name and identification of Ray M. Thompson. At hearing, the real Ray Thompson denied that he had purchased the vehicle, and after learning about the transaction, he filed paperwork with the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV) cancelling his name on the registration of the vehicle. The same vehicle is now being used by Respondent in her business. Although a "blond-haired lady" was with "Ray" when he signed the paperwork to purchase the truck, and Respondent has that color of hair, Pike could not identify Respondent as being that person. Therefore, it is found that there is less than clear and convincing evidence that Respondent participated in the transaction or conspired with her husband to deceive the dealership or her brother-in-law. On September 27, 2000, an individual who identified himself as Ray M. Thompson ("Ray") visited Bartow Ford Company and spoke with Gregory Wade, a salesman, about the purchase of a new Ford F350 pickup truck for his septic tank business. "Ray" was accompanied by an unidentified female and gave an address of 1616 Ritter Road, Lakeland, Florida, the address of the mother of Ray and Larry Thompson, as well as Respondent and her husband. The same day, "Ray" traded in a 1999 Dodge Durango on a new 2001 F350 Ford pickup truck for approximately $41,000.00, less the net value of the trade-in. During the course of the transaction, "Ray" produced an out-of-state driver's license identifying himself as Ray M. Thompson, and an insurance identification card bearing the same name. At the hearing, although both Respondent and her husband were in the hearing room, Wade was unable to identify either one as the individuals who participated in the transaction on September 27, 2000. The vehicle was later titled by the State to Ray M. Thompson. After learning about the transaction, the real Ray M. Thompson filed paperwork with the DHSMV to cancel the registration. Given these circumstances, there is less than clear and convincing evidence that Respondent conspired with her husband to fraudulently purchase the vehicle under the name of her husband's brother, as alleged in Count VI of the complaint. Count V of the complaint also alleges that "sometime during 1998" Respondent conspired with her husband to "fraudulently purchase a pick-up truck, a Dodge Durango, from Bartow Chevrolet [Company, Inc.] under the name of Ray Thompson and without his permission." Except for the evidence which shows that a Dodge Durango was traded in on the Ford F350 truck in September 2000, as noted in Finding of Fact 21, there is no other evidence to support this allegation. Violation of Agreement At hearing, Larry Thompson maintained that after the Agreement was executed in November 2000, he has limited his participation with his wife's business to merely gassing up vehicles and performing maintenance work on the firm's vehicles, when necessary. He denies being employed by his wife or having any contact with customers. In addition, Ricky Thompson, Larry's brother, also denied that Larry Thompson ever accompanied him on service calls. However, the more credible evidence, as detailed in Findings of Fact 4 and 8, is that Larry Thompson performed work for his wife on two occasions in violation of the Agreement. Obtaining Registration by Fraudulent Means Count IV of the complaint alleges that by continuing to use the 1998 Kodiac truck in her business without the permission of the real Ray Thompson, Respondent "falsely indicated and represented to the Department that [she] had means, ability and equipment necessary for the operation of [her] business," that she obtained her registration through fraud or misrepresentation, concealment of material facts, and she committed gross misconduct in the pursuit of her profession. In this regard, Respondent's application for registration, date of licensure, and annual application for a service permit are not of record. While Respondent admitted that she is using the Kodiac in her business, there is less than clear and convincing evidence in the record to support this allegation. This is especially true since there was no evidence that a registrant must own (or have titled in his or her name) every vehicle used in the contracting business, or that Respondent did not have the financial means, ability, or equipment to engage in the business.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order imposing a $500.00 fine and revoking Respondent's registration as a septic tank contractor. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of February, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (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 5th day of February, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore M. Henderson, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Roland Reis, Esquire Polk County Health Department Department of Health 1290 Golfview Avenue, Fourth Floor Bartow, Florida 33830-6740 Jack T. Edmund, Esquire 1125 East Main Street Bartow, Florida 33830-5004
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent should deny the request for an increase in licensed capacity, from 12 to 65 children, because Petitioner's septic system is inadequate for the increased capacity.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a child care facility licensed for 12 children in accordance with relevant provisions in Chapter 402, Florida Statutes.1 Petitioner seeks to increase its licensed capacity from 12 to 65 children. Respondent is the state agency responsible for licensing child care facilities. Respondent stipulates that Petitioner satisfies all relevant licensing requirements except those pertaining to the capacity of the septic system at the facility. The child care facility is on the same property and is part of the O'Neal Memorial Baptist Church. The church has 25 members and shares the same septic system. Respondent is statutorily required to enforce minimum standards for licensing child care facilities, including standards for the health, sanitation, and safety of the children. Respondent did not delegate its statutory authority to a local governmental agency. The local governmental agency did not exercise licensing authority over Petitioner. Respondent properly relied on the Nassau County Health Department (the "Health Department") to determine whether the existing septic system is adequate for 65 children. Since 1990, the Health Department has performed local inspections for Respondent pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 10D-6,2 Chapter 386, and valid inter-agency agreements.3 The Health Department properly determined that the current septic system is adequate for only 12 children. The Health Department correctly applied the formula prescribed in Rule 10D-6, including Rules 10D-6.048 and 10D-6.049. The capacity of a septic system is determined by flow rates prescribed by rule, the size and design of the septic tank, the type and size of the drainfield, and soil conditions. The current system consists of a 1200 gallon tank, a mound drainfield of 287 square feet, and adverse soil conditions.4 Flow rates are not limited to toilet flushes. Flow rates include toilet flushes, kitchen use, hand washing, and any other demand on the septic system. The flow rates prescribed by rule are 3 gallons for each member of the church, 10 gallons for each child, and 15 gallons for each worker in the child care facility. The current facility has three workers for 12 children. The facility serves food to the children. The flow rate prescribe for children must be increased by four gallons whenever food is served. The total flow for the existing capacity of the facility is 363 gallons. Church members produce a total flow of 150 gallons. Children and workers, respectively, produce a total flow of 168 and 45 gallons. The existing septic system is more than adequate for an a total flow of 363 gallons. A 900 gallon tank is the smallest tank allowed by rule for a total flow of 0-300 gallons. A 1050 gallon tank is the smallest tank allowed for a total flow of 301- 400 gallons. The existing 1200 gallon tank is more than adequate for 12 children and 50 church members. The evidence did not establish whether the existing 1200 gallon tank is a single compartment tank. A 1200 gallon single compartment tank, by rule, will accommodate 401 to 500 gallons of total flow. If the existing tank is a single compartment tank, it is more than adequate for 12 children. Petitioner argues that the actual membership of the church is only 25 and not 50. Even if the actual membership is 50, the existing septic system is adequate. The existing septic system is not adequate for 65 children with a total flow of 910 gallons. Assuming the number of workers would increase to 5 and that there are only 25 church members, the total flow for workers and members, respectively, would be 150 gallons. Total flow would be 1060 gallons. A 2200 gallon tank is the smallest tank allowed by rule for a total flow of 1060 gallons. The current 1200 gallon tank does not comply with applicable rules and is inadequate for a total flow of 1060 gallons. Even if the existing tank were designed as a single compartment tank, it would not be adequate for 65 children. A 1200 gallon single compartment tank is adequate for a total flow of only 401 to 500 gallons. Petitioner argues that the church members use the septic system on the weekends when the child care facility is not in operation. Petitioner argues that the flow rates for church members should be excluded from total flow when determining capacity of the existing system. Petitioner's argument is not dispositive even if it were correct. Even if 50 church members were excluded, total flow is 910 gallons. The maximum flow prescribed by rule for a 1200 gallon single compartment tank is 401-500 gallons. The inadequacy of the current septic system is exacerbated by the paucity of the existing drainfield. The smallest tank allowed by rule for the projected total flow of 1060 gallons is a 2200 gallon tank. However, a 2200 gallon tank is allowed only if it is used with a drainfield of 1,746 square feet. Petitioner's drainfield is only 287 square feet. Petitioner's drainfield is a mound. A mound has less capacity than an in-ground drainfield due to differences in loading rates. Moreover, soil conditions surrounding the drainfield further reduce its capacity. Petitioner can obtain the desired licensing capacity if it increases the capacity of the current septic system. Petitioner would need to obtain a repair permit to redesign the drainfield, increase its area, increase the size of the septic tank, or to perform all of the foregoing repairs.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order and thereinDENY Petitioner's application for a license for 65 children. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of April, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY 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 28th day of April, 1997.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department should grant and approve Petitioner’s application as a septic tank contractor.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Health is the agency responsible for the registration of septic tank contractors and the authorization of septic tank companies. The Department of Health enforces the statutes and rules pertaining to the registration and authorization of septic tank contractors and septic tank companies pursuant to Chapters 381 and 489, Part 3, Florida Statutes, and Rule 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code. The Petitioner, Gerald D. Thompson, applied to the Department of Health to be a registered septic tank contractor. The Department received his application on July 3, 1996. The Petitioner’s application indicates that he had been convicted of a crime related to septic tank contracting and had had an enforcement action taken against him. The attachment to the application reflected that both events had occurred to the Petitioner. The Petitioner had been adjudged guilty, in Flagler County Circuit Court, on January 18, 1997, of the attempted felony littering by disposing of domestic sewage on private property in an area not permitted for such use. Petitioner’s previous septic tank contracting registration had been revoked for two (2) years in a settlement agreement between the Petitioner and the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. The revocation was effective June 1, 1994. The Settlement Agreement stipulated that the Petitioner could reapply for registration as a septic tank contractor upon the expiration of the two (2) years stipulated in the agreement under the rules in effect at the time of the new application. The Settlement Agreement was signed by Petitioner and by Petitioner’s counsel. On September 6, 1996, the Petitioner issued its denial of the Petitioner’s instant application on the grounds that he failed to meet the qualifications listed in Rule 10D- 6.072(3)(d)(e)(f), Florida Administrative Code. It is uncontroverted that the Petitioner had his prior registration as a septic tank contractor revoked and that he was adjusted guilty of attempted felony littering in a case-related septic tank contracting.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner’s application for registration as a septic tank contractor be denied because he was convicted of a crime involving contracting and his license had been revoked within five (5) years prior to his application. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of November, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Jerry D. Thompson 500 Walker Street Holly Hill, Florida 32117 Charlene Petersen, Esquire Chief Legal Counsel Department of Health 420 Fentress Boulevard Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6 STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 17th day of November, 1997. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Dr. James Howell, Secretary Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6, Room 306 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Pete Peterson, Esquire Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6, Room 102E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Respondent, Virgil Cardin, d/b/a Virgil Cardin Septic Tank Service (Respondent or Cardin), committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint for Imposition of Administrative Fines and Revocation of Septic Tank Contractor License and Business Authorization, dated December 28, 2012, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of administering the Standards for Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems (SOSTDS). The installation, repair, and/or alteration of any septic tank system fall within the purview of Petitioner's authority. Public health concerns mandate that all septic tank systems be operated according to governing laws and rules. Respondent is a resident of the State of Florida and is registered by Petitioner to provide septic tank contracting services within the state. Respondent's registration number is SR0890865. Respondent owns and operates Virgil Cardin Septic Tank Service located in Lakeland, Florida, and the company is authorized to provide septic tank contracting services. The company's authorization number is SE093690. Septic tank contracting services are governed by SOSTDS. The Controversy It is undisputed that a permit must be obtained prior to performing repairs to a septic tank system. In Polk County (where all actions complained of occurred), a septic tank service company is required to apply for a permit before work is performed, obtain an inspection by appropriate authorities before beginning work, and complete all work in accordance with designated standards. A septic tank pump-out does not require a permit. Any work that would involve the exposure of the drain fields and/or the refitting of portions of the septic system would require a permit. The controversy in this case stems from Respondent's failure to obtain a permit before beginning repairs to a septic tank system located at 4931 Rolling Meadows Drive, Lakeland, Florida. It is undisputed that Respondent did not, in advance of starting work at the home, obtain a permit. The Arguments The Digans own a home located at 4931 Rolling Meadows Drive, Lakeland, Florida. For several years, the Digans have experienced problems with their septic tank system to the point that waste from the septic system has backed up into their home. Previously, Respondent addressed the Digans' septic tank system problems by pumping the waste from the tank, thereby eliminating pressure on the overwrought system. On or about August 24, 2012, Respondent went to the Digans' home and pumped out the septic tank. A permit for the work done that date was not required. Given the history of the problems with the Digans' system, it became apparent to the owners and Respondent that comprehensive repairs to the system were necessary. As there was no way to predict when another pump-out might be required, it was not surprising that approximately one week later Respondent returned to the Digans' property for additional work. On that date, September 1, 2012, Respondent could not pump out the Digans' tank, because his truck was already full. Instead, Respondent took a backhoe to the Digans' property and began to dig trenches for the drain field. Respondent's employee began to construct a septic drain line header pipe with drain field chamber end plates attached. Respondent exposed the Digans' septic system as if he were going to make repairs to the system. When confronted by two environmental supervisors who observed Respondent's actions, Respondent readily admitted he did not have a permit for the work. At first, Respondent stated that the homeowners could not afford permits. Later, Respondent maintained that the work he performed on September 1, 2012, did not require a permit. Petitioner maintains that Respondent went to the Digans' home on September 1, 2012, to make repairs to the septic tank system without prior inspection or a required permit. The Analysis Prior to September 1, 2012, Respondent knew or should have known that the Digans' septic tank system needed extensive repairs. Respondent had pumped out the tank several times and should have known that the system was not functioning as intended. Prior to September 1, 2012, Respondent knew or should have known that repairs to any septic tank system require an inspection and permit. On September 4, 2012, after being caught the prior Saturday on the Digans' property, Respondent applied for a permit for the repairs to the Digans' septic tank system. On September 5, 2012, a repair permit was issued for the Digans' property. On September 7, 2012, the repairs to the Digans' system were inspected and approved. There was no emergency on September 1, 2012, that necessitated repairs to the Digans' septic tank system on that date. Pumping out the Digans' tank on that date would have addressed any immediate concern. On-site inspections before septic tank systems are repaired are critical to public health because they assure that groundwater contamination is avoided, that the existing tank is sound and will function as intended, and that setbacks to other properties, wells, or systems are adequate. Respondent knew or should have known that performing any work before an inspection negates the safeguards to public health concerns. Respondent knew or should have known that the materials needed to adequately repair the Digans' septic tank system exceeded the chambers he took to the site on September 1, 2012. Digging up the Digans' system on September 1, 2012, created a sanitary nuisance. Respondent's History In the event a violation is found in this case, Respondent's disciplinary history would be relevant in considering what penalty, if any, should be imposed. To that end the following findings are made: Respondent has previously been found in violation of failing to call for a required inspection; and Respondent has previously been found in violation of practicing fraud or deceit, making misleading or untrue misrepresentations, or misconduct that causes no monetary harm to a customer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent's authorizations to perform septic tank services be suspended for a period not less than 90 days. Additionally, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be required to pay an administrative fine in an amount not less than $2,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of May, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. D. PARRISH 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 6th day of May, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: John H. Armstrong, M.D., F.A.C.S. State Surgeon General Department of Health Bin A00 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Jennifer A. Tschetter, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Althea Gaines, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 4052 Bald Cypress Way Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Tony C. Dodds, Esquire Law Office of Tony C. Dodds 904 South Missouri Avenue Lakeland, Florida 33803-1034 Roland Reis, Esquire Polk County Health Department 1290 Golfview Avenue, Fourth Floor Bartow, Florida 33830-6740
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should have his license suspended and an administrative fine imposed for allegedly committing fraud and deceit in the practice of contracting, providing septic tank contracting services without an operating permit, and submitting a fabricated building permit number to obtain a final inspection approval of a job.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Generally When the events herein occurred, Respondent, Willie A. Harmon, operated a septic tank business in Santa Rosa County, Florida, under the name of Willie Harmon's Septic Tank Service. That profession is regulated by Petitioner, Department of Health (Department). In this proceeding, the Department alleges that Respondent violated its rules law on three separate occasions in 1995, 1996, and 1997. Each alleged violation is discussed below. The Iris Lane Citation In April 1997, William M. Newell, who manages various rental properties in Santa Rosa County (County), hired Respondent to pump out a backed up septic tank system located at 1824 Iris Lane, Navarre, Florida. The system was an older one with a sand bottom, a type sometimes found in the southern part of the County. The job was performed by Respondent on April 21, 1997, and it called for Respondent to pump the tank dry. Respondent received payment from Newell for these services. On the evening of April 22, 1997, Newell returned to the premises and found the lid back on the system. Assuming that the job was completed, he telephoned the Santa Rosa County Health Department to request an inspection of the tank, as required by law. Larry Thomas, an environmental supervisor, inspected the tank on April 23, 1997, and found approximately five inches of solids still remaining in the tank and the remainder of the tank full of water. A properly pumped out tank would be dry. Newell immediately contacted Superior Septic Tank Service in Crestview, Florida, to repump the tank. Earl Raybon, an employee of that firm, inspected the tank and assumed it had not been pumped out since it was full of water and had a layer of sludge at the bottom. Raybon observed that the walls and lid of the system were "in good shape," but it needed a replacement liner. Raybon then repumped the tank until the system was dry. When Respondent was later asked by Newell and Thomas why the tank had sludge and water, Respondent advised them that water and solids must have bled (leached) back into the tank through the sand bottom. Although it is not uncommon for groundwater to seep back into a tank through a sand bottom, it is highly unlikely that the tank would completely refill with water within two days, unless the area experienced heavy rains. There was no evidence that this occurred. Further, it is not possible for solids to seep back into the tank under any circumstances. Respondent's explanation that this accounted for the solids in the tank is not deemed to be credible. Respondent also explained that in order to prevent the ingestion of sand into his equipment, he had to leave some sludge at the bottom of the tank. Raybon established, however, that under current industry standards, it is the responsibility of the contractor to pump a tank dry, even if one gets sand in his equipment. Consistent with that practice, Raybon pumped the tank dry. Respondent finally contended that if he had pumped the tank dry, the sides of the system might have collapsed. This occurs, however, only when there is water pressure on both sides of the system. Because the second contractor pumped the system dry without incident, it is found that a collapsing system was not a valid concern. By failing to pump the tank dry, as required by industry standards, Respondent committed fraud and deceit on the customer. In addition, this misconduct caused the customer to incur monetary harm in that the customer had to pay a second contractor to finish the job. The Deer Lane Citation In early December 1995, Respondent installed a new septic tank system on a mobile home lot at 9050 Deer Lane, Navarre, Florida. Before the final written inspection approval for a new septic tank system can be given by the Department, the building permit must be attached to the application. It is the responsibility of the owner, and not the septic tank contractor, to obtain the building permit. Alternatively, if the lot is still undeveloped, as it was here, approval of the system may be obtained without a building permit by simply securing a yellow- green temporary sticker from the Department. On December 5, 1995, Respondent submitted paperwork to the Santa Rosa County Health Department reflecting that building permit number 95-608 had been issued to the owner. He contended that this number was obtained over the telephone from the owner, and this claim was not contradicted. However, a building permit was not issued to the owner until December 7, 1995, and it carried permit number 95-4144. The local department immediately discovered the difference in the two numbers and charged Respondent with fraud and deceit. There was no intent on the part of Respondent to commit fraud or deceit on the Department. Indeed, he could have obtained an inspection and final approval without a building permit being issued since the lot was still undeveloped. Moreover, he had no financial incentive to fabricate the permit number. Therefore, it is found that he did not commit fraud or deceit in the practice of contracting. The Webster Street Citation In order to perform septic tank services, a contractor must be registered with a county health department. By having an operating permit from one county health department, a contractor may perform services in other counties as well. Therefore, an operating permit in Okaloosa County would enable Respondent to perform services in Santa Rosa County. On June 27, 1996, Respondent partially pumped a tank at 7843 Webster Street, Navarre, Florida. At that time, he held no active registrations to perform the work. He eventually obtained an operating permit from the Okaloosa County Health Department on July 29, 1996. According to a representative of the Okaloosa County Health Department, it allows contractors who have previously had permits issued by that Department to work without a valid registration while their applications are being processed. This process usually, but not always, takes no more than two or three weeks. Whether Respondent had previously been issued a registration by the Okaloosa County Health Department is not of record. It is also unknown when Respondent filed his application with that Department, although he says that he had an application pending when the questioned job was performed. Because of these record deficiencies, it is found that, even though Respondent had no valid operating permit on June 27, 1996, he rightly assumed that such work was permissible under then existing policy of the Okaloosa County Health Department.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Rules 64E-6.022(1)(k) and (l)2., Florida Administrative Code, and that Respondent be assessed a $500.00 administrative fine. The charges in the two citations should be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of January, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of January, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Building 6, Room 102 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Rodney M. Johnson, Esquire 1295 West Fairfield Drive Pensacola, Florida 32501 Willie A. Harmon Post Office Box 733 Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32548 Pete Peterson, Esquire Department of Health Building 6, Room 102 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue Whether Petitioner should take disciplinary action against Respondents for the reasons alleged in the Administrative Complaint?
Findings Of Fact On behalf of his brother, Mr. Howell Parish, who lives in Orange Park, Florida, Mr. James A. Parish contracted with Respondents to restore efficient of operation the septic tank system at 5469 Soundside Drive in Santa Rosa County, premises owned by Howell Parish. Respondents agreed to make the restoration by providing a fiberglass approved tank with a fiberglass lid, install a new drain field and haul in dirt to build up a low area of the existing drain field. Respondents undertook repair activities but without a permit. Respondents did not obtain an inspection of their work after they had finished. On June 10, 1992, after the repairs were supposed to have been done, James Parish paid Respondent Harmon for the job with a personal check in the amount of $1,498.48. On the same date, Respondent Harmon signed a receipt for payment. The receipt shows as work performed, "Demucking and Installing one 1050 Gal Tank & 200 Sq.' Drain Field." Ms. Jo Ann Parish, spouse of Howell Parish, reimbursed James Parish for the work done on Soundside Drive. Shortly thereafter, the septic tank "caved in and the waste was boiling to the surface." (Tr. 16.) Howell Parish met with Larry W. Thomas, Environmental Health Supervisor for the Santa Rosa County Health Department, to discuss the situation. Following the meeting, Mr. Parish called Respondent Harmon and told that him that the problem needed to be straightened out and that he should contact Mr. Thomas promptly because his license could be in danger. Respondent promised to correct the problem and to reimburse Mr. Parish for the job but he did neither. He did not contact Mr. Thomas either. Mr. Thomas, on behalf of the County, investigated the site of the septic tank repair. He found that Respondents had installed a broken fiber glass tank when fiberglass tanks are not allowed at all in Santa Rosa County because of their structural inadequacy. In addition to the tank being cracked, it had a cracked lid. Another hole in the tank that should have been covered with a lid was covered with a piece of plywood. The plywood was kept in place by dirt fill. The drain field did not meet the minimum standards required by the County. Most significantly, it was installed beneath the water table. There was a laundry discharge pipe which was not connected to the tank as required. The site of the septic tank repair by Respondents was a sanitary nuisance. The broken condition of the tank allowed raw sewage to overflow. The drain field was emptying raw sewage directly into ground water. The laundry discharge was discharging into the ground rather than being hooked up to the septic tank. Mr. Parish was forced to hire another septic tank service to restore the system to good working order. The work, performed by Bettis Septic Tank Service, was billed to Mr. Parish at a cost of $6400.00.
Recommendation It is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED, that Respondents' certificates of registration be revoked and that the Department impose on Respondents a fine of $2000.00. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of October, 1994 in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank C. Bozeman, III Asst. District Legal Counsel D H R S 160 Governmental Center Pensacola, FL 32501 Kenneth P. Walsh Attorney at Law P. O. Box 1208 Shalimar, FL 32505-0420 Robert L. Powell, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 Kim Tucker General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Building One, Room 407 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700 DAVID M. MALONEY 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 28th day of October, 1994.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner failed to obtain a permit for abandoning an on-site sewage treatment and disposal system septic tank, and failed to notify Respondent so that Respondent could inspect the system prior to abandonment, in violation of Section 386.0065, Florida Statutes (1997), and, if so, whether Petitioner should pay a $500 fine. (All Chapter and Section references are to Florida Statutes (1997) unless otherwise stated.)
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the state agency responsible for issuing citations under Chapter 386 and is the licensing authority for Petitioner. The Osceola County Health Department (the "Department") is an agency of Respondent. All Pro Services ("All Pro") practices septic tank contracting in Osceola, Orange, and Seminole counties. All Pro is a Florida corporation wholly-owned by Mr. Wayne H. Crotty. Mr. Crotty is licensed in the state as a septic contractor pursuant to Chapter 386. Mr. Crotty has been in the septic tank business for over 25 years. He has extensive experience in septic tank repair and contracting. Mr. Crotty also has had experience in the rule-making process conducted by Respondent pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Chapter 10D-6. He has participated in various committees and held offices in the Florida Septic Tank Association. (Unless otherwise stated, all references to rules are to rules promulgated in the Florida Administrative Code in effect on the date of this Recommended Order.) In the summer of 1996, Petitioner submitted an application to the Department for a repair permit. Petitioner sought to install a standard drainfield utilizing gravity fall from the existing septic tank of a mobile home owner who used the mobile home facility as a day-care center. The existing drainfield was antiquated, clogged, and had ceased disposing effluent properly. Petitioner made arrangements for the day-care center to refrain from using water or sewage for a period of hours so that the drainfield could be repaired. The application came to the attention of Mr. Thomas Franklin Wolf, Director of the Department's Environmental Health Section. Mr. Wolf did not accept the site evaluation in the application. He chose to perform his own evaluation of the repair site. When Mr. Wolf performed a site evaluation, he placed the seasonal high water table two inches higher than the high water table stated by Petitioner in the application for a repair permit. As a result, Mr. Wolf issued the permit at an elevation that would have required either the use of a pump system or elevated plumbing lines in the existing septic tank to meet the higher elevation deemed necessary by Mr. Wolf. The higher elevation established in the permit could be accommodated in either of two ways. The plumbing underneath the mobile home, along with the septic tank, could be raised. Alternatively, a new pump, and other equipment meeting the requirements of Chapter 10D-6, could be installed. The repair permit issued by Mr. Wolf contemplated the use of a new pump chamber complete with alarm. Pumps fail, are problematic, and are expensive. A conventional gravity-fed drainfield line is preferable, whenever feasible, to the use of a pump chamber system and is less expensive. Petitioner determined that the plumbing and septic tank could be elevated to meet the higher elevation requirements thereby avoiding the need for a pump system and its increased cost. This lower-cost alternative satisfied the requirements of Chapter 10D-6 for a septic tank drainfield. Based on past experience, Mr. Crotty believed he could obtain the Department's approval of this alternative to the pump chamber requirements of the permit. The Department had no objection to an alternative that achieved the higher elevation requirement with a gravity-fed system. One risk associated with Petitioner's alternative was that the existing septic tank might not withstand the rigors of being excavated and raised and could break during the repair process. After conferring with the homeowner about the matter, Petitioner proceeded to elevate the existing plumbing lines and septic tank. Petitioner began excavation and removed the lid from the existing septic tank. Petitioner then determined that it would not be feasible to lift the tank up and reinstall it at the higher elevation due to the age and style of the tank. Petitioner determined that the best way to proceed was to abandon the old tank and to install a new tank at the higher elevation. Petitioner replaced the existing septic tank without obtaining a separate abandonment permit. Petitioner did not need a separate abandonment permit. The repair permit was inclusive of the abandonment of the existing tank. In a previous repair effort for another customer, Petitioner broke the existing septic tank while attempting to elevate the tank to a higher location. The prior incident led to a disagreement between Petitioner and the Department over whether a separate abandonment permit was required for replacing a tank in the course of a repair. Petitioner wrote a certified letter to the Department and Department's counsel memorializing an understanding reached during discussions with Department representatives. Any requirement for a separate abandonment permit in the course of a repair was tabled pending further review by the state health office in Tallahassee. The letter further stated Petitioner's understanding that under Chapter 10D-65, the replacement of an existing tank was provided for through a repair permit, and that no separate abandonment permit is necessary for an abandonment which occurs in conjunction with a repair effort. The letter was received by Mr. Wolf on behalf of the Department. In response, the Department specifically informed Petitioner that the replacement of an existing tank is provided for through the repair permit. Mr. Wolf never retracted this position in his dealings with Petitioner. At about the same time, the state health office, through its acting Health Officer for Environmental Health, issued an interoffice memorandum advising every district administrator in the state that a separate abandonment permit is not required when an existing tank is abandoned during repair. The interoffice memorandum stated, in relevant part: This addresses permitting procedures when a septic tank is abandoned in conjunction with a system repair. Since the repair and tank abandonment inspections can be conducted at the same time, a separate permit and fee is not required if a tank is abandoned in conjunction with a repair permit. The repair permit should specify the abandonment requirements from s. 10D-6.053, F.A.C., and the requirements to have the abandonment inspected. If an additional inspection visit is required for either the repair or abandonment, the unit should charge the $25.00 re-inspection fee. Respondent's memorandum served as the Department's official interpretation of its rules relating to abandonment procedures. The memorandum made a separate abandonment permit unnecessary because the repair permit "is inclusive of the abandonment if the abandonment is necessary." The repair permit in this case suffices as an abandonment permit. Petitioner relied upon the representations of Mr. Wolf personally as well as the Department memorandum of February 18, 1996. Based upon Department policy, Petitioner was not required to amend its permit application to seek specific approval for abandonment of the existing tank, because the tank was being abandoned in conjunction with a repair permit. Petitioner pumped out, ruptured, and demolished the old septic tank with the exception of the inlet end wall and the sidewall closest to the tank. Petitioner left intact the latter portions of the old septic tank for inspection purposes and for stabilization. Petitioner placed the lids and the broken pieces of concrete from the tank alongside the new septic tank that was installed. Mr. Crotty requested an inspection by the Department. Inspector Garner arrived on the scene with a standard probe. The probe is a tool useful for inspecting on-site sewage disposal systems. Mr. Crotty informed Mr. Garner that Petitioner had abandoned the old tank and replaced it with a new one. Mr. Crotty took Mr. Garner over to the site and specifically pointed out the remaining sidewall of the old tank and the lids piled up on-site and remaining from the old tank. Mr. Garner inspected the repairs and satisfied himself that Petitioner had installed a new septic tank in the place of the old tank and had done it in a way that would allow gravity feeding to the new drainfield. The repairs dispensed with the need for a pump and were accomplished at a lower cost to the customer. After the inspection on August 13, 1998, and a subsequent review on August 14, Inspector Garner approved the installation by Petitioner. The approval specifically approved the use of a gravity-fed line rather than the use of the pump contemplated in the permit. The approval constituted the "construction final" approval for the septic system that was repaired. Rule 10D-6 does not specify when the inspection for an abandonment of a septic tank in conjunction with a repair is to occur. Nor does it say anything about requesting an inspection before the tank is filled with sand or other suitable material and covered. It was Inspector Garner's practice, and the unwritten policy of the Department, to conduct inspections of damaged septic tanks at the same time the Department inspected repair constructions. The practice of the Department in such an inspection was to inspect the abandoned tank after it had been pumped and the bottom ruptured, but before a new tank was installed. According to Department practice, the inspection of an abandonment in conjunction with a repair must determine that the tank had been pumped and that the bottom of the tank had been opened or ruptured or collapsed to prevent the tank from retaining water. The inspection can only occur after the tank has been pumped out, opened, ruptured or collapsed. Inspector Garner arrived for the inspection after abandonment of the old tank. Mr. Garner does not dispute that Petitioner abandoned the old tank, but maintains that the abandonment was accomplished without proper notification to the Department. Mr. Garner approved the construction, but recorded x- marks on the approval form adjacent to a box for abandonments and next to "tank pumped" and "tank flushed and filled." Mr. Garner also recorded on the form under "explanation of violations" a notation that the old septic tank "was abandoned without any inspection of [sic] verification." The promulgated rules of the Department and Respondent do not require an inspection before an abandoned tank is filled with sand, or other suitable material, and covered. It was the Department's unwritten policy, evidenced by its practice, to insist that inspection of the abandoned septic tank occurred before the tank is actually crushed. The promulgated rules of Seminole and Orange counties do not require inspection prior to abandonment of an existing tank. The unwritten policies of Seminole and Orange counties deviate from those of the Department. The Seminole County Health Department ("Seminole") also received the Department's interpretive memorandum regarding abandonment of septic tanks in conjunction with repairs. Seminole concluded that abandonment inspections should be conducted simultaneously with the final inspection for repairs. At that point, the old septic tank is already ruptured and filled with sand. Seminole adopted the practice of inspecting abandoned septic systems with a probe to verify the pump-out and the rupturing of the old tank. It is the same type probe used by Mr. Garner and the Department. The probe allows a department employee to verify all of the requirements of Rule 10D-6.053 for abandonment. The Orange County Health Department ("Orange County") also received the interpretive memorandum concerning abandonment of septic tanks in the course of repair procedures. By the time the memo was received, however, it was already the practice of Orange County not to require a separate abandonment permit for an abandonment as part of a repair. In Orange County, inspectors permitted abandonment inspections to occur at the point where the tank was already collapsed and covered with sand. The inspection was accomplished with the use of a probe.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order finding Petitioner not guilty of the allegations against it and dismissing the citations. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of November, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Marya Reynolds Latson Marion County Health Department Post Office Box 2408 Ocala, Florida 34478-2408 Stephen D. Milbrath, Esquire Allen, Dyer, Doppelt, Milbrath and Gilchrist, P.A. Post Office Box 3791 Orlando, Florida 32802-3791 Dr. James Howell, Secretary Department of Health 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6, Room 306 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Pete Peterson Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703
The Issue The issues in this case are whether the allegations set forth in the Administrative Complaint are correct, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent was a registered septic tank contractor, registration number SR0041456. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was authorized to provide septic tank contracting services through the corporation "Anytime Septic Enterprise, Inc.," authorization number SA0091662. The Respondent has advertised his services to the public as a septic tank contractor and has engaged in the business of providing septic tank services since at least September 2010. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was permitted to provide septage disposal services via permit number 36-QA-28986 issued by the Lee County Health Department. On or about September 13, 2010, the Respondent was hired to pump a septic system located at 2710 Northwest 5th Street, Cape Coral, Lee County, Florida, by another septic tank contractor. The employing contractor had been hired to service and repair the septic system, but did not have the ability to pump the tanks. On September 13, 2010, the Respondent pumped out the septic tank. The Respondent did not pump out the "dosing tank," a part of the septic system connected to the septic tank. After pumping out the septic tank, the Respondent completed a "DH Form 4015," signed and dated on September 13, 2010. The form collected information on the evaluation and repair of the septic system, including identification of system components and tank capacities. The contractor servicing the system is required to complete the form and identify the services provided. The Respondent identified the components of the referenced septic system and the capacities of both the septic and dosing tanks. The Respondent signed and dated the certification statement. As completed by the Respondent, the certification statement stated as follows: I certify that the listed tanks were pumped on 9/13/10 by Anytime Septic, have the volumes specified as determined by legend are free of observable defects or leaks, and have a [solids deflection device/outlet filter device] installed. Although the Respondent certified that he pumped the dosing tank on September 13, 2010, he did not pump the dosing tank on that date. The Respondent certified the dosing tank to be free of observable defects or leaks; however, the failure to pump the dosing tank prevented proper observation of the dosing tank, and it is highly unlikely that an accurate evaluation of the condition of the dosing tank was possible under the circumstances. Under the applicable rule, a pumper may perform an incomplete pumpout under certain circumstances, but the rule requires that the pumper must provide written documentation to the system owner identifying the reason for the incomplete pumpout, the gallonage pumped from the system, and the material left in the tank. The Respondent failed to provide such documentation to the system owner. An inspection by an employee of the Petitioner on September 16, 2010, revealed that the dosing tank had not been pumped and that the tank lids had not been sealed after the service. The Respondent was notified on September 20, 2010, that the dosing tank should have been pumped at the same time as the septic tank. On that same date, the Respondent returned to the site, pumped the dosing tank, and then completed, signed and dated a second "DH Form 4015" certifying that the dosing tank had been pumped. The Respondent recorded additional information on the form to indicate that the remaining work would be performed by the septic tank contractor who had employed the Respondent. At the hearing, the Respondent asserted that upon the initial inspection of the property, the Respondent observed that the septic tank conditions were non-standard, that he communicated such information to the contractor who had hired him, and that the Respondent's services, including certification of the tanks, were provided in accordance with the requests of the contractor.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order imposing a $1,500 fine against the Respondent for falsely certifying the work performed on September 13, 2010, and the condition of the dosing tank; for failing to fully pump the system without providing appropriate documentation; and for failing to properly seal the tank lids. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of February, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 24th day of February, 2011. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Duque, Esquire Southwest Alliance of County Health Departments 2295 Victoria Avenue, Room 206 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 Stephen M. Maher, Esquire Stephen M. Maher, Attorney at Law, P.A. 2077 First Street, Suite 206 Fort Myers, Florida 33901 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1701 E. Renee Alsobrook, Acting General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Secretary, State Surgeon General Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Connie H. Sanders ("Mrs. Sanders") violated provisions of Florida Administrative Code Chapter 64E-6, and, if so, whether revocation of her septic tank contractor's certification is warranted.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the State agency responsible for, inter alia, enforcing the provisions of chapter 381 and chapter 489, Part III, Florida Statutes, and the rules contained in chapter 64E-6, as those statutes and rules relate to septic tank contractor registrations. Mrs. Sanders has been a registered septic tank contractor since 1993. She has been in the septic tank business since 1982. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Mrs. Sanders operated under the name Lehigh Septic, Inc. She has since begun operating under the name AAA Lehigh Septic Tank Service. Mrs. Sanders' husband is also a registered septic tank contractor. When Mrs. Sanders began operating her new business, Mr. Sanders took over Lehigh Septic, Inc. Both Mrs. Sanders' business and Mr. Sanders' business operate from the same office and share administrative staff. Mrs. Sanders generally remains in the office to handle the business aspects of the two entities. Mr. Sanders goes into the field and conducts the hands-on, practical aspects of the businesses. The charges against Mrs. Sanders arose from the provision of services to a group home or assisted living facility (the testimony at final hearing referenced it both ways) located at 413 Richmond Avenue, Lehigh Acres, Florida, and referred to herein as the "Property." On January 18, 2011, George Harris called Mrs. Sanders' office seeking septic services at the Property. He said he had a problem with "smells" at the Property, which he attributed to the septic system. Mrs. Sanders, or her secretary, took the message and gave it to Mr. Sanders for follow-up. Harris called back the following day as well. On that day, a note was made on the phone log that someone was to do the work "today." A price of $350.00 was written in the margin of the note. Mr. Sanders went to the Property on or around the period including January 18 through 21, 2011, and pumped out a 900-gallon septic tank. Mr. Sanders had actually done septic tank work at the Property in 2008, but he has done work on thousands of tanks and does not have a specific memory as to what he did at the Property three years earlier. On January 24, 2011, Mrs. Sanders' telephone log indicated receipt of another call from Harris. This time, Harris said there was a problem with the septic tank "we [pumped out] last week." Harris said there was a defective drain field associated with the septic tank and wanted to know the "next step" and how much it would cost to repair it. On the following day, there was a note in the telephone log concerning the Property. The note indicated the call was about a "tank cert[ification]" and that someone needed to call the County Health Department regarding the size of the tank at the Property. On or about January 31, 2011, a DH Form 4015, entitled Department of Health Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal System Existing System and System Repair Evaluation, was completed, in part, by Mr. Sanders. Specifically, the certification section of the form was filled out by Mr. Sanders. He listed the following existing tank information: 1350 gallons septic tank, made of concrete and baffled; and An approximately 350 gallons dosing tank, made of concrete. Mr. Sanders also certified that "[t]he listed tanks were pumped on 1/24/11 by Lehigh Septic, Inc., have the volumes specified as determined by [method of determination left unchecked], are free of observable defects or leaks, and have a [type of filter not checked] installed." The certification was then signed as Connie H. Sanders, Lehigh Septic, Inc., but Mr. Sanders actually wrote the signature. Under the signature were the words, "[i]nstalled in series,"2/ and then the form is dated January 31, 2011. This form will be referred to herein as the "January 31 Certification." Mr. Sanders was authorized by Mrs. Sanders to sign documents on her behalf, so the January 31 Certification is essentially Mrs. Sanders' certified statement. Mr. Sanders delivered the January 31 Certification to Harris, assuming the certification was needed as part of Harris' licensure application for his assisted living facility or group home. Mr. Sanders believed he had provided such a certification for the Property in the past, and he often provided certifications to other group home type facilities. Mr. Sanders avers that he was not hired to do any additional work on the septic system at the property. Harris then apparently had some repair work done on his septic system by another company, Southwest Environmental, LLC. A permit application was filed at the Department on or about February 4, 2011, by Trinity Property, Inc. (apparently the entity which owns the Property), which sought approval to replace the drain field at the Property. Attached to the application was the January 31 Certification completed by Mr. Sanders. Neither Mr. Sanders, nor Mrs. Sanders, had knowledge the permit application was going to be filed at the Department as part of a repair permit application. Upon receipt of the permit application by the Department, it was quickly ascertained that the January 31 Certification was in error concerning the septic tank information. The 1350-gallon septic tank identified by Mr. Sanders did not exist. In fact, the Property had a 900-gallon septic tank, a 450-gallon septic tank, and a 400-gallon dosing tank. On February 10, 2011, Sabins contacted Mr. Sanders to let him know about the discrepancies on his DH Form 4015 related to the Property. Mr. Sanders indicated he would go out and pump the other two tanks, then submit a corrected certification form.3/ Mr. Sanders pumped the remaining tanks the very next day. Mr. Sanders also called the Department and spoke to Whelan. It was at that time that Mr. Sanders was advised that he could use the tank certifications he had done in 2008, because the certifications are good for up to three years. Mr. Sanders then submitted two more certifications to the Department. He submitted the certification from his 2008 visit (the "2008 Certification") and a revised certification dated February 11, 2011 (the "February 11 Certification"). The 2008 Certification identifies the two septic tanks and one dosing tank that existed on the Property. Mr. Sanders had pumped out at least one of those tanks on October 6, 2008. Invoices for that work indicated that Mr. Sanders had pumped the 900-gallon tank, but had not pumped the other two tanks. He went back on October 8, 2008, and pumped the remaining tanks. The invoice for the additional work says, "Pump dosing tank & cleaned sludge [no charge] per David/Driver. Didn't know other tanks were there." Under the quantity column on the invoice, however, 500 gallons is listed for the October 8, 2010, visit, even though there was a 450-gallon septic tank and a 400-gallon dosing tank that were allegedly pumped. The 2008 Certification is then signed and dated as of February 11, 2011, the same day as the other corrected certification. The February 11 Certification indicated that the Property had a 900-gallon septic tank, a 450-gallon septic tank, and a 400-gallon dosing tank. The certification said that all three tanks were pumped on February 11, 2011; however, Mr. Sanders actually pumped out the 900-gallon tank earlier (in the January 18 through 21, 2011, time period) and pumped the other two tanks on February 11, 2011. Neither the February 11 Certification, nor the 2008 Certification, is completely accurate in all respects, but they are sufficiently accurate to provide the Department the information it required. The purpose of a septic tank certification is to ensure that the tank is free from observable defects or leaks. As of October 6 through 8, 2008, Mr. Sanders believed the three tanks at the Property were in good condition. He did not have any knowledge whether they were in good condition as of the date he provided the January 31 Certification to the owner of the Property. However, Mr. Sanders could have relied upon his 2008 Certification at that time, thus, no further inspection was absolutely necessary. There is no evidence that Mrs. Sanders was personally aware of the errors made by Mr. Sanders concerning the activities at the Property; nor is there evidence that Mrs. Sanders had any knowledge that Mr. Sanders had prepared a certification (or three of them) containing her signature. However, Mrs. Sanders authorized Mr. Sanders to act on her behalf and must be held accountable for his actions in that regard. There were three prior disciplinary actions taken against Mrs. Sanders by the Department: In July 2003, the Department entered a Final Order imposing a fine of $1,000.00 for failing to properly abandon a septic tank and creating a sanitary nuisance; in May 2009, a Final Order was entered fining Mrs. Sanders $1,000.00 for failing to remove the entire contents of an onsite septic sewage treatment and disposal system and for doing business under an unauthorized name; and in June 2007, a Final Order imposed a fine of $1.000.00 for failing to remove the entire contents of an onsite septic treatment and disposal system. There is no evidence in this case that consideration of the three prior offenses would be necessary in order to prove a material fact in the present action. Mrs. Sanders became a septic tank contractor after marrying her husband. It has become her life's work and is the only thing she is qualified to do in order to make a living. She is responsible for operations of both her and her husband's businesses, and if she is not certified, both businesses could fail. Her husband is not in good health, and Mrs. Sanders is concerned that loss of her certification would be financially devastating for her and Mr. Sanders.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Petitioner, Department of Health, imposing a fine against Respondent, Connie H. Sanders, in the amount of $500.00 and that a letter of warning be issued stating the potential penalty for any repeat violation. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of September, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 8th day of September, 2011.
The Issue Whether Respondent is guilty of creating, keeping, or maintaining a nuisance injurious to health in violation of Section 386.041(1)(b), Florida Statutes, as set forth in the Citation for Violation, dated August 19, 1996.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Health, the successor agency to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, is the state agency charged with the responsibility of investigating and correcting sanitary nuisances in this state. The Respondent, Hyacinth D. Wynter, now known as Hyacinth D. Wallace, has owned a private residence and kennels located at 2323 Tuscawilla Road, Winter Springs, Florida, from 1996 to the present. On or about June 19, 1996, the Seminole County Public Health Unit received a complaint of a possible sanitary nuisance existing on the Respondent’s property. On June 21, 1996, an inspection of Respondent’s property revealed that the property contained a large home with a septic tank and drain field in the front yard and another in the back yard. A kennel for small animals and an apartment was also located in the rear of the property. The septic tank and drain field in the rear of the property was located in a low spot which was subject to the accumulation of surface water runoff from the kennel and during periods of above-average rainfall. Observation revealed standing water in the back yard. The water showed discoloration and had a pungent odor. However, no solid waste was visible. Subsequent tests for sewage contamination was inconclusive. This observation indicated the drain field had failed. Respondent was given a Sanitary Nuisance form letter which recommended that the septic tank be pumped, the ground disinfected and the drainfield be repaired within ten days. Respondent contacted two septic tank companies in late June and received estimates on pumping the septic tank and on the repair and improvement of the septic system. Respondent retained one of the companies to pump the septic tank. The septic tank company was unable to complete the job prior to Petitioner’s reinspection on July 2, 1997, because of above normal rainfall and the inability to get its truck into the Respondent’s back yard. Petitioner reinspected Respondent’s property on July 2, 1997 and observed the same conditions as was observed on June 21, 1997. A three day extension was granted to Respondent, in order for the tank to be pumped. On July 3, 1997, Orlando Septic Tank Service, Inc. pumped the septic tank and disinfected the area. It also advised Respondent that the drainfield had failed and would need to be replaced. On July 8, 1997, Respondent inspected the area again and observed the same conditions as on the prior inspections. An Official Notice to Abate a Sanitary Nuisance and a Notice of Intended Action was issued by Respondent on July 11, 1997. It was served on Respondent, by posting and by certified mail, on July 12, 1997. Respondent was directed to abate the nuisance within 7 days of the notice or an administrative fine would be imposed. Respondent began to disinfect the area with lime on a daily basis, until the drainfield was repaired. The low area with the standing water was bordered off with visible construction type ribbon and visitors coming to the premises were advised to stay clear of the area. Respondent authorized Orlando Septic Tank Service to submit a permit application to replace the drainfield in accordance with the specifications approved by the Petitioner. The application was submitted on July 17, 1996. The permit was issued on July 24, 1996. On July 25, 1997, Respondent received a proposal from Orlando Septic Service to install an elevated drainfield on the site for the sum of $4,288.50. Respondent was not able to financially afford to authorize this work without obtaining financing for the project. When financing was obtained, Respondent accepted the proposal and then authorized the work on August 8, 1996. Due to other obligations, Orlando Septic was not able to give a proposed starting date for the project until August 26, 1996. On August 13, 1996, Petitioner inspected the Respondent’s property again and observed the same conditions as on previous inspections. Petitioner was informed of the projected starting date for repair of the drainfield, however, a Citation for Violation was issued on August 16, 1996 calling for corrective actions to abate the condition by 4:00 p.m. August 19, 1996. On August 27, 1996, the septic tank was pumped again. Orlando Septic Service was scheduled to begin work on the repair of the drainfield on August 26, 1996. On that same date, the company called Respondent and informed her that they were delayed on another job and could not begin repair of Respondent’s drainfield until sometime in September. Respondent immediately called another company and gave them the contract. The repair was completed on September 10, 1996. The evidence was insufficient to establish that a sanitary nuisance existed on Respondent’s property on August 16, 1996.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED as follows: The Respondent, Hyacinth D. Wynter, be found not guilty of violations Sections 386.041(b), Florida Statutes. The Notice of Intended Action be revoked. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of May, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 30th day of May, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Sonia Nieves Burton, Esquire Department of Health 400 West Robinson Street Orlando, Florida 32801 Michael D. Jones, Esquire Atrium II Building 301 West State Road 434, Suite 317 Winter Springs, Florida 32708 Catherine H. Berry Legal Office Duval County Health Department 515 West 6th Street Jacksonville, Florida 32206-4397 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children & Families Building 2 Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Pete Peterson, Esquire 1317 Winewood Boulevard Building 6 Room 102-E Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
