The Issue Whether Rules 10D-6.072(3)(d), (e), and (f), Florida Administrative Code, are an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority on the ground that these three rules enlarge, modify, or contravene the specific provisions of law implemented, in violation of section 120.52(8)(c), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied for septic tank contractor registration in July 1996. On September 6, 1996, the Respondent issued its intent to deny his application on the grounds that he failed to meet the required qualifications listed in Rules 10D-6.072(3)(d), (e), and (f), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 10D-6.072(3)(d) provides that an applicant is not qualified to take the registration exam to become a licensed septic tank contractor if a previous registration issued by the Respondent has been revoked within the last 5 years. Rule 10D-6.072(3)(e) provides that an applicant is not qualified to take the registration exam to become a licensed septic tank contractor if he has a disciplinary case pending with the Respondent involving septic tank contracting. Rule 10D-6.072(3)(f) provides that an applicant is not qualified to take the registration exam to become a licensed septic tank contractor if he has been convicted of a crime in any jurisdiction which is directly related to the practice of contracting. Petitioner filed a request for a hearing, in which he alleged Rules 10D-6.072(3)(d), (e), and (f) constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority in that these rules enlarge, modify, or contravene the specific provisions of law implemented, in violation of section 120.52(8)(c), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996). Rules 10D-6.072(3)(d), (e), and (f) formally took effect on January 3, 1995. There is no material failure to comply with the procedural requirements of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, in the promulgation of these rules. 9. Sections 154.06, 381.0011, 381.006, 381.0065, 489.553, and 489.557, Florida Statutes, grant the Respondent specific authority to adopt rules implementing the statutes. Petitioner does not dispute the Respondent’s rulemaking authority. Rules 10D-6.072(3)(d), (e), and (f) implement sections 154.01, 381.001, 381.0011, 381.0012, 381.0025, 381.006, 381.0061, 381.0065, 381.00655, 381.0066, 381.0067, Part I of Chapter 386, and Part III of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. Part III of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1996), is the chapter governing septic tank contractor registration. Chapter 10D-6, Florida Administrative Code, are the rules pertaining to Standards for Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems, which include septic tank systems. A person who becomes a registered septic tank contractor has the authority to install, maintain, repair, and perform site evaluations for repairs of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems. There are an estimated 1.4 million septic systems in use in Florida. The onsite sewage treatment program impacts public health in that it prevents and corrects sanitary nuisances; prevents pollution to groundwater, which is the primary drinking water source in the state; prevents pollution to surface water; and eliminates risks to public health from exposure to improperly treated human waste. Untreated or improperly treated human waste contains many significant disease-causing organisms injurious to human health. A “sanitary nuisance” is the “commission of any act, . . . or the keeping, maintaining, propagation, existence, or permission of anything, . . . by which the health or life of an individual, or the health or lives of individuals, may be threatened or impaired, or by which or through which, directly or indirectly, disease may be caused.” Section 386.01, Florida Statutes (1995). “Improperly built or maintained septic tanks” and “untreated or improperly treated human waste” constitute “prima facie evidence of maintaining a nuisance injurious to health.” Section 386.041(1), Florida Statutes (1995). The training, regulation, and registration of septic tank contractors, who install and repair such systems, is directly related to public health. An improperly installed or repaired system may result in untreated human waste or raw sewage either surfacing on the ground, backing up in the owner’s house/business, contaminating groundwater, and contaminating nearby surface water. The Respondent regularly receives complaints from citizens detailing installation problems, including complaints regarding improper workmanship, the premature failure of their septic tank system resulting in sewage on the ground around their house, and the contractor’s failure to honor his/her warranty. The impetus behind regulating contractors came primarily from the industry itself (i.e., the Florida Septic Tank Association). The qualification outlined in Rule 10D-6.072(3)(d), which provides that an applicant is not qualified to become a registered septic tank contractor if the Respondent has revoked his prior septic tank registration within the last 5 years, protects the public from sanitary nuisances caused by the improper installation and repair of septic tank systems. This qualification is, moreover, an indicator of an applicant’s “good moral character.” The qualification outlined in Rule 10D-6.072(3)(e), which provides that an applicant is not qualified to become a registered septic tank contractor if the applicant has a disciplinary case pending with the Respondent involving septic tank contracting, fits into what the septic tank contracting program under chapter 489 and Chapter 10D-6 is designed to accomplish. This qualification protects the public by denying licenses to those persons who have demonstrated they are not complying with the rules or statutes. The qualification outlined in Rule 10D-6.072(3)(f), which provides that an applicant is not qualified to become a registered septic tank contractor if he has been convicted of a crime in any jurisdiction which is directly related to the practice of contracting, fits into what the septic tank contracting program under Chapter 489 and Chapter 10D-6 is designed to accomplish. This qualification protects the public by denying licenses to those persons who are not law abiding and do not follow the standards. “Good moral character” is not defined in Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. Each of the three qualifications established by Rules 10D-6.072(3)(d), (e), and (f) make specific or interpret an individual’s good moral character. The Department’s statutory authority for Rule 10D- 6.072(3)(d), Rule 10D-6.072(3)(e), and Rule 10D-6.072(3)(f) comes from: (a) section 489.553(2), which requires the Department to “provide qualifications for applicants;” (b) section 489.553(4)(a), which says the applicant “must be of good moral character’” (c) section 489.558(2), which says the Department may deny registration if it determines the applicant “has violated any provision of this part [Part III of Chapter 489];” and (d) section 489.556, which authorizes the Department to suspend and revoke licenses. The Joint Administrative Procedures Committee (JAPC) has neither filed an objection nor voted on an objection to the three rules at issue in this case. Although a staff member of JAPC, in response to Petitioner’s complaint, recently made a preliminary inquiry into the validity of these rules, the committee did not adopt the staff member’s recommendation.
The Issue Whether the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services should revoke Respondent's certificate of registration as a septic tank contractor.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Noda is the sister of B.E. James, a former septic tank contractor who surrendered his registration to the Department in September 1990 to avoid revocation proceedings related to defective drain field repair at a mobile home park. In September 1990, B.E. James asked the Respondent if she would like to buy his business equIpment from him. She and her husband had previously invested in the business in 1980. Before selling their share of the business back to B.E. James in 1983, Respondent drove the pump truck part-time and learned how to pump out septic tanks. Knowing that her brother would not receive much money for a pump truck that is twenty years old elsewhere, Respondent decided to buy the equipment and to keep the septic pump out service accounts. These accounts dealt with only one of the services previously provided by her brother when he was a septic tank contractor. Respondent believed she could continue to handle the established accounts requiring pump out service in addition to generating new business. It was agreed that if she could get a certificate of registration from the Department as a septic tank contractor, she would buy the equipment. On November 7, 1990, Respondent Noda made application to the Department for registration as a septic tank contractor, pursuant to Section 489.553, Florida Statutes. The application expressly stated Respondent would provide only a septage pump out service. Respondent was determined eligible for registration on January 28, 1991. On that date, she received Registration #91-1007 from the Department. Once the Respondent was registered as a contractor, she applied to the Department for a certificate of authorization to provide her service to the public under the fictitious name A&M James Septic Service. Her application dated February 5, 1991, states she is the only person in the business who can act as a septic tank contractor. Respondent chose the name A&M James Septic Service for the following reasons: a) Her maiden name is M. James; b) When she worked in the business during the time period she and her husband were investors, her maiden name was included in the business name. During those years, the business was called B & M James Septic Tank Service; c) She placed the initial "A" in front of her name so that she could be listed first in the telephone directory's classified advertisements for pump out services; and d) She is a realtor by profession. She did not want to pump out septic tanks under the same professional name as the one used in her other business. On February 15, 1991, Septic Tank Contracting Certificate #0569-93 was issued to A&M James Septic Service. The equipment and the brother's former business were located on property owned by Respondent and her husband. She continued to do business at that location. In addition to the purchase of her brother's equipment, Respondent purchased the telephone number previously used by him in the business known as James Septic Service. This telephone number was not placed by Respondent on either her application for a septic tank contractor registration or her application for a septic tank contracting certificate of authorization. The deadline for listing telephone numbers and placing advertisements in the telephone directory for New Port Richey closes in February of each year. The directory is published in May. In February 1991, Respondent paid for an advertisement in the telephone directory and made sure her business was listed in the white pages Respondent's business is listed in the white pages as James Septic Service. One advertisement in the yellow pages shows the name of the business as A&M James Septic Service. Contrary to the application for septic tank contractor registration and the application for septic tank contracting certificate of authorization, an advertisement in the yellow pages of the telephone directory offered an additional type of septic tank contracting service. It stated the business would also do drain field repair. B. E. James resides at the address where Respondent's business is located. Respondeint hired him to drive her truck and to answer the telephone. When B.E. James was a registered septic tank contractor at this telephone number and location, he answered the telephone and drove the truck in addition to his contracting duties. After B.E. James became an employee of A&M James Septic Service, he continued to answer the telephone as James Septic Service. The manner in which the telephone belonging to Respondent's business is answered by the former contractor, the use of the same telephone number and address, the similar business name, the same driver, the use of the same equipment, the advertisement offering additional septic tank contractor services beyond those applied fdr by Respondent but previously offered by B.E. James, collectively demonstrate that Respondent sought to preserve any good will previously acquired by her brother without the legal responsibility for his prior professional mistakes. Respondent's attempt to salvage any benefits from her brother's former business misled the public and the Department. For all practical purposes, it appeared B.E. James was still in the septic tank conttacting business. If the Department had known the same telephone number was going to be used and that B.E. James would be handling the telephone calls and answering the telephone as James Septic Service, the septic tank contracting certificate of authorization to Respondent would not have issued. On March 4, 1991 a Pasco County Occupational License for septic tank cleaning, installation and repair was issued to A&M James Septic Service which incorrectly listed the number of employees as one, and named B. E. James as the owner. Two days later, Respondent noticed the county's mistake and had the license corrected to reflect that she was the owner and that the business had two employees. The full extent of B.E. James' role in the business and Respondent's intent to use his former business telephone number were material facts concealed from the Department during the registration and certification process.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the authorization to do business as A&M James Septic Service be revoked as the name intentionally misleads the public into believing James Septic Service is still in operation. That Respondent's registration as a septic tank contractor be revoked for the concealment of material facts in her application for authorization to do business as A&M JamesSeptic Service. DONE and ENTERED this 3 day of April, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. D0NNELLY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3 day of April, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 91-8312 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #3. Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #2. Accepted. See HO #9. Accept all but fourth sentence. Contrary to fact. Accepted. See HO #? and #9. Accepted. See HO #5. Accepted. See HO #7. Accepted. See HO #11. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #18 and #19. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #14. Rejected. Contrary to fact. Not established at hearing as only hearsay was provided on this matter. COPIES FURNISHED: GEORGE W BUTLER JR ESQ HRS DISTRICT V LEGAL OFFICE 701 - 94TH AVENUE N ST PETERSBURG FL 33702 MARY H NODA 7831 BRIDLE PATH ROW HUDSON FL 34667 RICHARD S POWER AGENCY CLERK DEPT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES 1323 WINEWOOD BLVD TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 0700 JOHN SLYE ESQ/GENERAL COUNSEL DEPT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES 1323 WINEWOOD BLVD TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 0700
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 Whether Respondent’s license as a septic tank contractor should be disciplined.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is registered with Petitioner as a septic tank contractor and authorized to provide septic tank contracting services, holding Registration No. SR0890264 and Authorization No. SA0900453. David B. Grimes is employed by Bay County Health Department as an inspector responsible for the inspection of on- site sewage systems. On August 22, 2007, Mr. Grimes inspected an on-site sewage treatment disposal system (OSTDS) being constructed by Respondent at 5431 John Pitts Road, Panama City, Florida. The OSTDS failed to meet the minimum rule requirements due to a defective tank and improperly installed drainfield. The tank was defective because its dimensions were smaller than the dimensions required to enable the tank to have sufficient liquid capacity for the system being installed. Mr. Grimes told Respondent that he could not approve the system. Upon learning that the system would not be approved, Respondent, who is a large man and larger than the inspector, threatened to do bodily harm to Mr. Grimes and stated, “I am going to whip your ass”. He also used other profanity in a threatening and serious voice. The inspector began to put his tools into the tool container on the back of his truck. When the inspector attempted to close the container’s lid and leave, Respondent blocked the path of the inspector and would not let him close the truck-bed lid. Respondent insisted the system be inspected and approved so he could finish the job. Other than blocking his path, Respondent did not take any other physical action towards harming Mr. Grimes. Other than with his hands, the evidence did not show that Respondent had the means to cause serious harm to Mr. Grimes. However, Mr. Grimes felt some fear for his safety and was very uncomfortable. He refused to approve the system and left the premises. He called his supervisor to report the incident and request a second inspection by his supervisor. Later that day, Mr. Grimes and his supervisor inspected the OSTDS. Respondent was not present. The inspector concurred with Mr. Grimes’ findings and the system was not approved. On August 23, 2007, Mr. Grimes made a second visit to the property to continue the inspection of the OSTDS. The drainfield was corrected and a new and larger tank was installed. The dimensions of the tank were again smaller than required to meet the liquid capacity of the tank. Additionally, the tank had a gap in the seal around the intake feed line. It was, therefore, defective and could not be approved. Mr. Grimes told Respondent that he could not approve the system. Respondent again grew angry when he was told the new tank was also defective and would not be approved. Respondent stated that Mr. Grimes was the worst inspector in the area and made other derogatory remarks towards him. Respondent also threatened to make trouble with the inspector’s employment and/or “get him fired” unless the system was passed. The evidence did not show that Respondent made any physical moves toward Respondent or otherwise impeded his inspection. The inspector was again fearful for his personal safety although the evidence did not demonstrate a reasonable basis for such fear. The OSTDS was not approved and Mr. Grimes left the work site. There was no evidence that Respondent followed through with interfering with Mr. Grimes’ employment. At best, the evidence showed that Respondent’s threat to interfere with the inspector’s employment was mere hyperbole. Such comments are common. While silly and rude, the mere threat of an employment action does not rise to the level of being unlawful and does not demonstrate misconduct sufficient to impose discipline on Respondent’s license. On the other hand, the actions of Respondent towards the inspector when he threatened to do bodily harm to the inspector, and blocking his attempts to leave unless he approved the system, did constitute gross misconduct on the part of Respondent. Even though Respondent’s actions were unsuccessful, Respondent’s words coupled with his conduct go beyond mere hyperbole and constitute an unlawful threat towards a public official to influence the official’s actions. Respondent’s actions did not cause physical or monetary harm to any person. In the past, Respondent was disciplined by letter of warning in Case Number SC0478 in 2000, for covering a new installation in violation of the system construction standards and by citation in Case Number SC0591 in 2001, for creation of a sanitary nuisance, negligence, misconduct, and falsification of inspection report. The instant violation is a second violation for misconduct and a repeat violation of the rules of the Department.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that Respondent's license be disciplined for violations of the Florida Administrative Code Rule 64E-6.022 and that his Septic Tank Contractor License No. SR0890264 and Authorization No. SA0900453 be fined in the amount of $500.00 and suspended for 90 days. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of May, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 5th day of May, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Rodney M. Johnson, Esquire Department of Health Northwest Law Office 1295 West Fairfield Drive Pensacola, Florida 32501 G. D. Yon, Jr. Yon Septic Tank Co. 2988 Hwy 71 Marianna, Florida 32446 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Dr. Ana M. Viamonte-Ros, Secretary Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Josefina M. Tamayó, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A-02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
The Issue Whether Respondent should be disciplined for violating Sections 489.129(1)(h) and (m), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant, Respondent was licensed as a certified building contractor in the State of Florida, holding license number CB C033338, and doing business under the name of Mark V. Ansley Building Contractors. On April 17, 1987, Respondent entered into a Construction Agreement with Mr. Kersey. The Agreement called for Respondent to build a house containing two bedrooms, one and one- half baths and a one-car garage in exchange for $31,860. Under the Agreement, construction was to begin on April 21, 1988. However, due to a problem with the lot on which the house was going to be built, there were delays. Mr. Kersey then decided to build the house on a lot across the street from the original lot. The lot was cleared on May 1, 1987, by Mr. Morris Snell. The septic tank permit was issued on June 17, 1987. The construction permit was issued on June 22, 1987. Construction of the residence began a week later and the slab was poured the second week of July, 1987. After the slab was poured, Mr. Kersey determined that the foundation was approximately 890 square feet instead of the 944 contracted for. After some negotiations between Mr. Kersey and Respondent, they agreed that Respondent would add a Florida room to make up the difference in square footage. The foundation for the Florida room was built four inches lower than the main house. There were problems with the roof trusses and with the framing which were corrected by Respondent. The company which manufactured the roof trusses sent the wrong trusses to the house. Mr. Kersey, who was present at the house when the trusses were being installed, noticed they were the wrong ones and stopped work on the house. After Respondent was informed, he notified the truss company and the correct trusses were delivered approximately ten days later and installed. The initial framing of the house was deficient and did not pass inspection. Respondent fired the persons who had done the framing, fixed the problems, and the framing passed inspection. Also, the persons framing the house left out a closet in one room of the house, but upon being informed, this was corrected. By this time, Mr. Kersey had made two payments to Respondent pursuant to their agreement. The first payment was for $3,100 and the second for $4,000. After the house was framed, Respondent expected to be out of town for two to three weeks. Respondent told Mr. Kersey that he was having problems collecting money from other jobs and that he would be unable to meet the construction schedule unless he had the money to pay for the necessary supplies right on the spot rather than waiting until Mr. Kersey returned. Mr. Kersey gave Respondent $15,000 in advance to allow Respondent to continue working on the house while he was gone. At this same time, July 18, 1987, Respondent and Mr. Kersey agreed that the house should be completed by September 15, 1988. Mr. Kersey returned from his trip in about 10 days and noticed that nothing had been done on the house. Mr. Kersey was unable to contact Respondent for two weeks, even though he wrote Respondent a letter and left messages with Respondent's secretary and on a telephone answering machine. During this period of time, Mr. Kersey hired an attorney. On August 1, 1987, Mr. Kersey finally spoke with Respondent about the lack of progress on the house. The Respondent told Mr. Kersey that it had rained almost constantly for 10 days and needed materials could not be delivered to the house. Respondent continued to do work on the house. Respondent contracted with a company to deliver and install windows. The window company in turn hired a subcontractor to install the windows. The subcontractor installed the windows improperly and eight of the sixteen windows had to be replaced by someone other than Respondent. Mr. Kersey agreed with Respondent that he would pay $1300, in addition to the contract price of the house, for the installation of a septic tank and drain field at the original location for the house. Respondent obtained the septic tank permit and arranged to have Mr. Carver of Carver's Septic Tank install the septic tank at the new location. Mr. Carver's estimate for the job was $1,810 and he agreed to do the job on the assurance by Mr. Kersey that he would pay for the job. Mr. Carver placed the septic tank and drain field at a location different from that which had been requested by Mr. Kersey and different from that shown on the survey map on file with the permit application at the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services. In preparing the ground for the septic tank, Mr. Carver dug up the roots of an existing oak tree to a depth of from three to six feet around three-fourths of the tree's circumference. Also, the septic tank was located in close proximity to a three- inch free-flowing artesian well. The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services initially gave its approval for the septic tank to be covered up. But after Mr. Kersey met with the Department's staff, the department disapproved the septic tank because it was located too close to the well. Mr. Carver did not finish work on the septic tank because he was not paid for the work he had done. In order to obtain approval for the septic tank, Mr. Kersey had to "abandon" the artesian well. This was accomplished by pouring 12 sacks of concrete into the well and pipe to seal it off. This job cost Mr. Kersey $840.00. Mr. Kersey also hired another company to complete the septic tank and drain field, and had to pay $700 to move the drain field. Sometime in August and September, Mr. Kersey began receiving information that some of the suppliers and subcontractors for the house had not been paid by Respondent and that liens would be placed on the property if they were not paid. Eventually, three companies filed claims of lien against the property. Sometime in September or October, Mr. Kersey posted signs on the house which stated that no further work was to be done on the house. When Respondent contacted Mr. Kersey, he was referred to Mr. Kersey's attorney. Respondent indicated to the attorney that he wanted to complete the job, and he was allowed to continue working on the job. During the next two weeks Respondent had the drywall and cabinets installed, put in the driveway, and painted. However, at a subsequent meeting with Mr. Kersey and his attorney, Mr. Kersey was not satisfied with the way the house was being built and stated he did not want Respondent on the job any more. Respondent did no more work on the house. On November 13, 1987, Mr. Kersey and Respondent met for the purpose of determining which subcontractors and suppliers had not been paid. At that time Respondent indicated that five subcontractors and suppliers had not been paid and that they were owed a total of $12,199. However, there were other subcontractors who had not been paid. In May, 1988, Mr. Kersey hired another contractor to complete the house. Mr. Kersey initially agreed to pay $9,400 for the work of this contractor, but ended up paying $14,000 because the contractor had to do work which was not included in the initial contract. Part of the work done by this contractor consisted of fixing or replacing a six-foot sliding glass door, three interior doors, and one exterior door which had been installed under Respondent's supervision. As mentioned in Findings of Fact 26, supra, three liens were placed on the property by materials suppliers. The three liens were perfected by Davis Windows, the company with which Respondent contracted for the purchase and installation of the windows for $1,888.22; Holmes Lumber Company, a company which provided building materials and supplies, for $4,032.08; and Gator Door for $1,152.93. Mr. Kersey is contesting the lien placed by Davis Windows. He has paid the amount due Holmes Lumber. He has not paid Gator Door. In addition to the companies which filed liens, the company that installed the cabinets was not paid at the time the cabinets were installed. Respondent paid for the cabinets on April 6, 1988. Also, Respondent paid Davis Windows $1,000, in March, 1988 and paid Gator Door $500 sometime in 1988. Finally, Respondent sent $1,500 to Holmes Lumber, ostensibly for Mr. Kersey's account, but the $1,500 was credited to another of Respondent's accounts which was in arrears. Respondent has entered into an agreement with Mr. Kersey to repay the amounts he may be owed due to Respondent's actions.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order imposing a $1,750 fine on Respondent. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of December, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOSE A. DIEZ-ARGUELLES 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 6th day of December, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2746 The Petitioner submitted proposed findings of fact which are addressed below. Paragraph numbers in the Recommended Order are referred to as "RO ." Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding of Fact Number Ruling and RO Paragraph 1. True, but not a finding of fact. 2., 3. Accepted generally. RO1. The evidence is unclear as to whether Mr. Ansley's business is incorporated. 4. Accepted. RO2. However, when the 120 days began to run cannot be determined. The original contract had to be amended from the beginning, since no construction took place on the original lot. 5. Subordinate to facts found. See RO3. 6. Accepted. RO 5., 6. 7. Rejected as irrelevant. Also, the evidence presented does not establish that Respondent is responsible for Mr. Kersey paying $1,220 to Mr. Snell. 8. Rejected as not supported by competent evidence. The evidence is contradictory as to when construction would begin. The septic tank and construction permits were not issued until June. 9. Rejected as irrelevant. 10. Rejected as irrelevant. 11. Accepted generally. RO2. 12. Accepted. RO8. Accepted. RO14-l5. Accepted. RO16-18. 15, 16. Accepted. RO20. 17, 18. Accepted as modified in RO 21-25. Second and third sentences of 17 are rejected as not supported by competent evidence. See also discussion of this issue in Conclusions of Law section of this RO. 19. Accepted. RO 27-28. 20., 21., 22. Accepted. RO 26., 30., 33. 23. Accepted generally. RO 29, 31. 24., 25., 27., 28., 29. Rejected as not findings of fact. Also, the opinions of Mr. Adams were based, in part, on evidence which was not presented at the hearing. Additionally, it is unclear that Respondent was charged with some of the violations alleged by Mr. Adams. 26., 30-34. Rejected as irrelevant and a recitation of testimony. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Mark V. Ansley 7004 Luke Street Jacksonville, Florida 32210 Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Seely Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Rule 64E-6.003, Florida Administrative Code, by repairing a septic tank and/or drainfield without a permit and, if so, what penalty should be imposed on him.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department of Health (Department), is the state agency charged with administering and enforcing laws and rules relating to sanitation. Section 381.0011(4), Florida Statutes. Respondent failed to appear at the duly-appointed time and place for the administrative hearing in this matter. On April 22, 1999, Gregory Crumpton, Environmental Specialist with the Pasco County Health Department, responded to a sanitary nuisance complaint regarding Respondent's property located at 7111 Lofty Drive, Port Richey, Florida. Based on that complaint, on April 22, 1999, Mr. Crumpton inspected Respondent's property. His inspection revealed the presence of untreated or improperly treated human waste from an improperly maintained septic tank. Based on his April 22, 1999, inspection of Respondent's property and his determination that the condition existing on Respondent's property constituted a sanitary nuisance, Mr. Crumpton issued an Official Notice to Abate a Sanitary Nuisance. The notice was left on Respondent's property. Moreover, on April 22, 1999, a copy of the notice was mailed to Respondent by certified mail. Respondent signed the return receipt acknowledging that he had received the notice. On April 26, 1999, Mr. Crumpton received a second complaint from a neighbor of Respondent who reported that Respondent's septic tank was being repaired without a permit. Upon inspecting Respondent's property on April 27, 1999, Mr. Crumpton observed that repair work was being performed on Respondent's septic tank without a permit. On April 27, 1999, Mr. Crumpton met with Respondent regarding the inspection and issued to Respondent a second Official Notice to Abate a Sanitary Nuisance, which was sent by certified mail. This notice was issued to Respondent because of the installation and/or repair to septic tank and/or drainfield without a permit. The April 27, 1999, notice advised Respondent that his failure to secure a septic tank repair permit could result in his being fined up to $500.00 per day until he obtained the required permit. Although Respondent was advised that he could be fined up to $500.00 per day for failing to secure a permit to repair his septic tank, as of May 18, 1999, Respondent had not secured the permit. On May 18, 1999, Mr. Crumpton issued a citation alleging that Respondent had installed and/or repaired a septic tank and/or drainfield without a permit. As of the date of the final hearing in this matter, October 19, 1999, Respondent had failed to secure a septic tank repair permit.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Respondent be ordered to pay a fine in the amount of $500.00, obtain a septic tank repair permit, and effect repairs. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 2nd day of December, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Barbara A. McPherson, Esquire Department of Health 300 31st Street North Suite 338 St. Petersburg, Florida 33713 Shane Whitfield 7111 Lofty Drive Port Richey, Florida 34668 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Dr. Robert G. Brooks, Secretary Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
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.
