The Issue Whether Respondent's license as a veterinarian in the State of Florida, should be suspended, revoked, or otherwise disciplined for alleged violation of Chapter 474, Florida Statutes, as set forth in the Administrative Complaint, to wit: Section 474.214(1)(f), Florida Statutes, by violating a lawful order of probation of the Board.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a licensed veterinarian in the State of Florida, license number VM 2404. Respondent's license is currently under suspension. On March 23, 1988, the Board of Veterinary Medicine filed a Final Order in settlement of ten (10) different cases involving the Respondent. The Final Order adopted a Stipulation of the parties. The Stipulation resulted in the suspension of Respondent's license to practice veterinary medicine and imposed an administrative fine. The stipulation also provided in pertinent part,: Prior to reinstatement of Respondent's license, he shall have the burden of demonstrating to the Board that he is able to practice veterinary medicine safely and in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida. This demonstration shall consist of the following: proof of continuing education as directed by the Board; a comprehensive psychological evaluation from a psychiatrist or psychologist, who is familiar with the charges against the Respondent, and has provided counseling to the Respondent; and a recommendation by that counselor that the Respondent is safe to practice veterinary medicine. A six thousand dollar ($6,000) fine, payable to the Executive Director of the Board, by certified funds, within sixty (60) days after the filing of a Final Order accepting this stipulation. The Final Order amended the stipulation as follows: Paragraph 2(b) of the proposed disposition shall be amended to specify that the psychiatrist or psychologist referred to in that provision shall be a person approved by the Board. For purposes of carrying out this provision, the Board delegates to the Chairman the authority to approve the individual psychiatrist or psychologist. The Board specified that the approved psychiatrist or psychologist must submit the first evaluation within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order and submit a second evaluation toward the end of the period of suspension, but prior to reinstatement. In addition, the Board specified that the approved psychiatrist or psychologist shall make a recommendation with regard to the frequency and duration of the counseling sessions for the Respondent and Respondent shall comply with that recommendation. Finally, the Board specified that the approved psychiatrist or psychologist must submit quarterly reports to the Board with regard to Respondent's progress in counseling and attendance at counseling sessions. It was undisputed that Respondent had not paid the six thousand dollar ($6,000) administrative fine within the sixty (60) days following the filing of the Final Order. No part of the fine was paid by the date of the final hearing in this matter and no attempts to pay or extend the time for payment were made by Respondent. There was no credible evidence presented which indicates that the Respondent's obligation to pay the Administrative Fine was in any way excused or discharged. The fact that Respondent was discharged in bankruptcy does not relieve him of his obligation to pay the administrative fine. Such fines are not dischargeable in bankruptcy. The evidence submitted by Respondent on the above point was not credible. The evidence did show that Respondent was employed at a salary which was sufficient for him to at least make an attempt at payment of the fine, especially since his other debts were discharged in bankruptcy. The order of discharge attached to Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order is the standard form order issued by a bankruptcy court. It was impossible to determine whether the attached creditor list was part of that order. The creditor list is not incorporated or referenced in the order. The list itself appears to be a copy of the mailing list required to be filed with the bankruptcy petition. There was no evidence presented that a petition or other request for reinstatement of the Respondent's license to practice veterinary medicine has been filed. Therefore, Respondent's failure to otherwise comply with the reinstatement requirements of the Final Order are not ripe for hearing before this Hearing Officer.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusion of law, it is: RECOMMENDED that the Florida Board of Veterinary Medicine enter a Final Order revoking the Respondent's license to practice veterinary medicine. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 9th day of October, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 88-5811 The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted, in substance, in so far as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, & 13 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted, in substance, in so far as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 9, 12 & 14 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact were not shown by the evidence. The facts contained in paragraph 10 are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraph 8 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact were subordinate except those continued in the last sentence which were not shown by the evidence. The facts continued in paragraph 11 of Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact were not shown by the evidence except those continued in the last sentence which are subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Laura P. Gaffney, Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Neil F. Garfield, Esquire Envirwood Executive Plaza Suite 200 5950 West Oakland Park Blvd. Lauderhill, Florida 33313 Lawrence A. Gonzalez Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Linda Biedermann Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Is Petitioner entitled to exemption from disqualification by law with regard to working in a position of special trust and responsibility related to children, disabled adults, and elderly persons?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is disqualified from working in a position of special trust because of: a 1991 conviction of grand theft auto; a 1980 conviction of battery; two counts in 1993 of uttering a forged instrument, one count of petty theft and one count of trespassing after warning. Respondent's testimony was direct, candid, and creditable. He previously engaged in a life-style that is no longer compatible with his present involvement with church and community. His testimony was well corroborated by the testimony of eight other witnesses and numerous exhibits. As established by clear and convincing evidence at the final hearing, Respondent is rehabilitated and unlikely again to engage in criminal conduct or present a threat to children, disabled adults, or elderly persons, if employed in a position of special trust. The various criminal offenses for which Petitioner has been convicted, were all committed more than three years prior to his disqualification notice from Respondent for which Petitioner now seeks exemption. Section 435.07, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered granting Petitioner's request for exemption from disqualification to work with children in positions of special trust. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of June, 1999, in Tallahassee, Florida. DON W. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of June, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Karlier Robinson 1018 Martin Street Blountstown, Florida 32424 John R. Perry, Esquire Department of Children and Family Services Suite 252-A 2639 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2949 Gregory D. Venz, Agency Clerk Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John S. Slye, General Counsel Department of Children and Family Services Building 2, Room 204 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue The issue is whether a Consent Order executed by Respondents on March 25, 2010, and by the Department of Environmental Protection (Department) and the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (Board) on April 1, 2010, is a reasonable exercise of the Department's enforcement authority.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: History of the Proceeding A lengthy history precedes the execution of the Consent Order and can be summarized as follows. Shannon Sue, LLC (Shannon Sue) is a Florida limited liability company and the current owner of property located at 18261 Southeast Federal Highway, Tequesta, Florida, just north of the Martin County-Palm Beach County line. The property consists of 0.482 acres, is on the western bank of the Indian River Lagoon, and is adjacent to the Jensen Beach - Jupiter Inlet Aquatic Preserve, an Outstanding Florida Water. A commercial marina has been located on the upland property since at least the mid or late-1980s. The Department has the power and duty to administer and enforce Chapters 373, 376, and 403, Florida Statutes (2009),2 and the rules promulgated thereunder, including Chapter 62-780. The marina lies within the District Office's regulatory jurisdiction. MABE is a Florida limited liability corporation with its principal place of business in Martin County. It owns a small parcel of property located at 18245 Southeast Federal Highway, Tequesta, which is adjacent to, and immediately north of, the marina. Edmund Brennen is an officer and director of MABE and has resided at that site for twenty years. Besides his residence, Mr. Brennan has two boat slips for rent and two floors of commercial office space on the property, which is zoned commercial/residential. Over the last twenty years, MABE has had tenants who have historically used the dock and the aquatic preserve for fishing, boating, and other recreational activities. Although currently vacant, MABE plans to continue to lease its property to residential or commercial tenants. Shannon Sue currently leases the marina property to Jupiter Hills Lighthouse Marina, Inc. (JHLM), a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in Martin County. JHLM has operated the marina since at least the 1990s. The property was owned by John and Barbara Canonico (husband and wife), as Trustees of the Barbara Canonico Revocable Trust, from 1988 until November 21, 2002, when title was transferred to Shannon Sue. John Canonico is an officer, director, and registered agent of JHLM and Barbara Canonico is a manager and registered agent of Shannon Sue. The record reflects that a dock and slips were located on the property for a number of years. On July 29, 1992, JHLM applied for a wetland resource permit to expand the existing dock to provide for additional mooring and to substantially reconfigure the existing dock. On December 13, 1994, the Department issued an Intent to Issue Permit No. 432170499 (Permit) to JHLM allowing the expansion of the existing dock from 6 to 18 slips. See Petitioner's Exhibit 1.3 The Permit was eventually issued on July 1, 1996. See Petitioner's Exhibit 2. The Permit included a number of general and specific conditions, including Specific Conditions 8 and 12, which required the installation of a stormwater exfiltration system to provide treatment for the first inch of runoff, and prohibited any boat maintenance or repair activities except those that were "minor" or necessitated by "emergency conditions." There is no record of any objection to the issuance of the permit being filed by any person. Although authorized to do so, for unknown reasons, JHLM did not make the changes authorized by the Permit. In March 1998, it submitted a new application for a Standard General Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) seeking to expand the number of wet slips from six to twelve and to reconfigure the existing dock. See Petitioner's Exhibit 3. One-half of the slips would be used by powerboats while the other six would be for sailboat mooring only. Under the new permit, the applicant would be allowed to remove the existing docks and construct a new access dock and terminal platform and add six new finger piers. On August 16, 1999, the Department approved the application and issued Standard General ERP No. 43-0114838-001. See Petitioner's Exhibit 4. Like Specific Condition 8 in the 1996 permit, Specific Condition 14 was included in the new permit for the purpose of improving water quality and required the applicant to "install a stormwater exfiltration system" to "provide treatment for [the first inch of runoff from] all paved surfaces on the property." The system was to be constructed and certified as complete by a registered professional engineer before the permit became effective; it was to be cleaned monthly or after major rainfall events and inspected annually by a professional engineer; and annual reports were to be filed each year by that engineer. Also, Specific Condition 24 prohibited any boat repair work other than minor or emergency repairs. Acting on behalf of the Board, which has the responsibility for overseeing state owned lands, the Department also entered into a five-year lease with the Canonico Trustees (Trustees) to use sovereign submerged lands. See Petitioner's Exhibit 5. Among others, Condition 1 of the lease specifically prohibited the mooring of commercial vessels at the facility. Id. Again, the Permit was not opposed by any third party. In 2001, Chris Baker, identified as a "purchaser of the site" but more than likely a prospective purchaser, authorized a firm known as Environmental Matters to conduct a "Phase I and Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment" of the property. The consultant's Environmental Assessment Report (Report), dated June 2001, indicated, among other things, that there were concentrations of metals and petroleum hydrocarbons on the site; that some of the concentrations exceeded Department standards; that the soils were "contaminated throughout the Site"; an abandoned water well and septic tank system were on the site; and that a 1,000-gallon aboveground unleaded gasoline storage tank had been installed in 2001 without the required secondary containment, but no leaks were observed. See Petitioner's Exhibit 38. The report noted that during the assessment, Mr. Canonico acknowledged that all types of boat maintenance took place on the site, including scraping boat hulls, and that the waste was discharged (or allowed to run off) into the basin. On March 14, 2003, former counsel for MABE sent a three-page letter to the District Office advising that since JHLM received a permit in 1994, the marina had been operated in a manner that constituted violations of the permit conditions and lease. The letter described in detail what the author perceived to be violations of the law. In addition, a copy of the 2001 Report was enclosed with the letter. The letter asked that the Department initiate an enforcement action against the marina and that the unlawful practices be halted. A Department memorandum dated March 28, 2003, indicates that the letter and Report were reviewed by a District employee, who considered the Report to be incomplete in certain respects, and that "without appropriate measurement tools and additional information, it is not possible to state that the site is contaminated based upon the sludge analysis." See Petitioner's Exhibit 37. The memorandum conceded, however, that further investigation was needed and that the report "provides an indication of a petroleum related discharge." Id. The memorandum recommended that JHLM be given a copy of the Report and the District Office memorandum, that JHLM submit a Discharge Reporting Form pursuant to Rule 62-761.900(1), that the marina's stormwater drain be cleaned, and that JHLM contact the District Office to discuss the voluntary implementation of Best Management Practices for on-site operations. Id. Because the Report "[had] no laboratory reports and no method detection limits," the District Office decided not to conduct any follow- up inspections of the marina property at that time. In response to the Department's memorandum and Report, on June 3, 2003, Mr. Canonico filed a Discharge Report Form indicating that there was "no known discharge" on the property. He also enclosed a copy of a letter he signed on December 7, 1994, presumably in conjunction with his application for Permit No. 432170499, in which he described the maintenance schedule for the facility's stormwater exfiltration system and agreed to conform to that schedule, as generally required by Specific Condition 7 of the original permit. Also, on August 5, 2003, the facility's contractor advised the District Office by letter that "[t]he work authorized in Permit #43-0114834-001 has [been] commenced and completed in full, with the exception of the demolition of the finger pier, which we seek to remain." See Petitioner's Exhibit 6. This was probably in reference to the facility's intent to file an application to modify its 1999 ERP. There is no indication that any further action was taken by the Department in response to the MABE complaint. In November 2003, JHLM filed an application with the District Office seeking to modify its 1999 ERP by allowing an existing 4-foot by 24-foot finger pier to remain in place (the 1999 ERP required that it be removed), and to install a retractable wheelchair ramp to allow vessel access for wheel- chair bound individuals. The application was unopposed. On January 22, 2004, the Department approved the application. See Petitioner's Exhibit 7. Except for the addition of three specific conditions (32, 33, and 34), all other terms and conditions remained the same. Id. The finger pier was intended to be used for passenger loading of rental vessels stored on the uplands. Even though ownership of the property had been transferred to Shannon Sue in 2002, on August 26, 2004, the Department, on behalf of the Board, renewed submerged land lease 43003006 with the Trustees for another ten years, or until August 16, 2014. See Petitioner's Exhibit 8. The renewed lease contains the same terms and conditions as the 1999 lease, including the condition that the facility be restricted to mooring recreational vessels. On July 3, 2008, MABE, through its former counsel, sent the Department a verified complaint against the marina under Section 403.412, Florida Statutes (2008). See Petitioner's Exhibit 25. The complaint sought to compel the Department to take action to address alleged violations of the ERP conditions and the submerged land lease. Under the statute, an agency has 30 days after receipt of a complaint in which "to take appropriate action" against the alleged violator, or the complaining party may then institute judicial proceedings. Following receipt of the complaint, on July 10, 2008, representatives of the District Office conducted an inspection of the marina property. The case manager was Donald H. Keirn, Jr., an Environmental Specialist III, who is responsible for, among other things, compliance enforcement in a large, heavily- populated multi-county area. Another inspection was conducted on July 22, 2008. During those visits, Mr. Keirn noted significant evidence of major boat repairs on the premises, freshly spilled oil, and hull scraping. In fact, Mr. Canonico admitted to Mr. Keirn that the facility had been performing major boat repairs since the original permit had been issued. Based on these inspections, on July 29, 2008, the District Office initiated an enforcement action by sending a Warning Letter to the Canonicos advising them that Specific Conditions 11, 14, 15, and 24 of the ERP had been violated, and that the lease of submerged lands must be transferred to the current owner. See Petitioner's Exhibit 9. Condition 11 required the placement of channel markers; Conditions 14 and 15 required an exfiltration system to be constructed, certified by a professional engineer as complete as indicated on the permit drawings, maintained for the life of the system, cleaned monthly, and inspected by a professional engineer annually with follow-up annual reports; and Condition 24 prohibited repairs to vessels other than minor or emergency repairs, so as to prevent the discharge of hazardous materials into the aquatic preserve. The record does not show what action, if any, Respondents took after receiving the Warning Letter. Frustrated by Respondents' inaction, and their repeated disregard of Permit and Lease conditions over the years, in the fall of 2008 MABE hired an outside consulting firm (E Sciences, Inc.) to collect and analyze samples of soil and water from both the MABE property as well as Shannon Sue's property. (Authorization to enter Shannon Sue's property was pursuant to a court order.) The report was completed on October 16, 2008, and concluded that since the 2001 assessment was performed, the concentrations of petroleum and metals had increased. It further concluded that the marina activities during those years had adversely impacted the soil and sediment at both the marina and MABE's adjacent property. See Petitioner's Exhibit 37. A copy of the report was provided to both the District Office and Shannon Sue. After receiving the report, on November 14, 2008, the District Office staff conducted another inspection to "identify any potential hazardous waste material discharge(s) or source(s) of contamination at the property." The staff found evidence of leaking containers, an engine "bone yard" along the fence line with the MABE property, unlabeled containers, and stains under the fuel tank. The inspection essentially confirmed the findings of E Science, Inc.; accordingly, the District Office concluded that a Site Assessment Report (SAR) under Chapter 62- 780 was necessary in order to determine the extent of contaminants on the property. A SAR assesses and describes the extent of contamination and makes recommendations as to how to address it. On February 24, 2009, the District Office sent a letter to the Canonicos, as registered agents for Shannon Sue and JHLM, advising them that "contaminants may have been released or discharged into the environment." The letter required Shannon Sue and JHLM to initiate a site assessment within 60 days, and to file a SAR that complied with the requirements of Chapter 62-780 no later than July 13, 2009. See Petitioner's Exhibit 26. The District Office subsequently extended the due date for the SAR to October 1, 2009. By letter dated April 24, 2009, the Department also advised the Canonicos that an "ongoing investigation," preliminary to agency action, revealed the possible mooring of commercial vessels at the dock on two occasions, which was prohibited under the submerged land lease. (Based upon visual sightings confirmed by photographs, MABE had earlier advised the District Office that this occurred on a frequent basis, but subsequent inspections by the District Office resulted in only two observations of commercial vessels at the dock.) The letter further reminded the Canonicos that, pursuant to Specific Condition 24, boat repairs with the potential to discharge pollutants or hazardous substances into the adjacent waters were prohibited under the ERP. See Petitioner's Exhibit 21. As noted above, during the July 2008 inspections, Mr. Canonico admitted to Mr. Keirn that there were "multiple violations" of that condition, including multiple discharges of oil and grease associated with engine repairs. Assuming that the matter could be resolved by consent order, on November 18, 2009, Mr. Keirn submitted for review by his supervisor a "Civil Penalty Authorization Southeast Florida District," which outlined the nature of the violations observed and proposed penalties for those violations. See Petitioner's Exhibit 12. By now, additional violations had been observed through more inspections, including, as noted above, the mooring of commercial vessels at the marina; a failure by JHLM to construct an "exfiltration trench" as required by the original 1996 permit, file annual reports for that system, and regularly maintain the system; a failure to notify staff of the commencement of construction; and a failure to maintain used oil storage containers within secondary containment structures and to legibly label them. The Department has issued an Administrative Directive entitled Settlement Guidelines for Civil and Administrative Penalties (Settlement Guidelines), effective July 17, 2007, which contains guidelines that "are intended to provide a rational, fair and consistent method for determining the appropriate amount of civil and administrative penalties the Department should seek from responsible parties in settling enforcement actions." See Department Exhibit 3. They are intended only "for internal staff guidance," and the District Office is authorized "to deviate from these guidelines . . . when doing so will result in better compliance and better capability for carrying out the mission of the agency." Id. at Relying in part upon that document, Mr. Keirn recommended a $27,500.00 civil penalty for violations of permit conditions, $2,500.00 for the lease violation, and $500.00 for investigative costs, or a total civil penalty of $30,500.00. The Penalty Rationale is found on page 3 of that exhibit. This recommendation was approved by the District Office Director on December 11, 2009, and was incorporated into a proposed consent order. As pointed out by Mr. Keirn, the purpose of the proposed settlement was not to collect fines, but to restore and protect the environment. By email dated January 11, 2010, Mr. Keirn provided the Canonicos with a copy of the draft consent order. See Petitioner's Exhibit 13. He asked that they review it and be prepared to discuss the violations and penalties the following week. A series of emails between the parties ensued over the next month or so for the purpose of discussing the cited violations and related penalties. Mr. Keirn's email also advised them to "get [the SAR] in ASAP" by mail, hand-delivery, or email. The next day, January 12, 2010, the Canonicos submitted a SAR to the Department. On January 26 and February 1, 2010, the Canonicos sent emails to Mr. Keirn providing their explanation for each violation "in the hope of reducing the penalties outlined in the Consent Order." See Petitioner's Exhibits 14 and 15. One explanation for violating the prohibition against major repairs (Specific Condition 24) was a statement that the Canonicos believed that engine repairs, scraping of boat hulls, and the like were "minor" repair work. Mr. Keirn noted in an email to his supervisor that the Canonicos' proposed "amounts are seriously too low[,]" that "the statements are skewed to their position," and that "[the explanations] are not a logical reason for reduction." See Petitioner's Exhibit 15. By letter dated March 29, 2010, the Department advised the Canonicos that the SAR submitted on January 12, 2009, contained a number of deficiencies, that additional work must be undertaken, and that an Addendum to the SAR must be submitted within sixty days, or by the end of May 2010. See Petitioner's Exhibit 28. Around the same time that the Department requested an Addendum to the SAR, on March 25 and April 1, 2010, Respondents executed a Consent Order to resolve all outstanding violations. John and Barbara Canonico signed the Consent Order on behalf of the non-agency Respondents. In general terms, the Consent Order noted that Respondents collectively had failed to comply with the ERP conditions in the following respects: they failed to construct the stormwater system in accordance with the permit; they failed to maintain the stormwater system, have it inspected by an engineer on an annual basis, or have an engineer file annual reports; they repeatedly conducted non-minor repairs, maintenance, and painting of vessels resulting in unauthorized discharges of contaminants; they failed to install channel markers; they failed to notify the Department of the ownership transfer to Shannon Sue; they failed to submit written notice to the Department at least 48 hours prior to the commencement of construction of the project; they failed to limit the use of the marina to the mooring of recreational vessels; and they failed to properly contain or maintain the used oil disposal storage containers within a secondary storage structure. See Department Exhibit 2 at 3. In addition, the Consent Order noted that based upon the E Science, Inc. report, there were concentrations of total recoverable hydrocarbons in soils that would reasonably leach into groundwater; that a polluting condition had occurred; and that Respondents had failed to submit a SAR by the October 1, 2009 deadline. Id. at 4. Finally, the Consent Order noted that Shannon Sue had failed to obtain the required lease since acquiring ownership of the property in 2002. Id. Rather than imposing the $30,500.00 penalty originally recommended by Mr. Keirn, as a result of negotiations between the parties, the Department agreed to reduce the penalties in the Consent Order to $17,750.00 as settlement of the matter, including $500.00 in costs and expenses for investigating the matter. The penalties were to be paid in installments, with the first installment of $5,000.00 due immediately. This installment has been paid. The Consent Order required additional corrective action, the filing of a SAR, and the obtaining of a lease by Shannon Sue within certain timeframes. Because the Department's primary goals when resolving enforcement actions are remediation and avoiding protracted litigation rather than collecting fines, it is not unusual for a final consent order to have a lower civil penalty than that originally proposed. As explained by a Department witness, in this case its goals were (a) to avoid protracted litigation that would delay the implementation of corrective actions; (b) to require Respondents to quickly assess and begin the cleanup of contamination; (c) to restore and protect the environment as quickly as possible; and (d) to require Respondents to remove and contain all activities on the property that are prohibited by the Permit and Lease. All of these considerations were taken into account in arriving at the terms and conditions of the final Consent Order. Immediately after the Consent Order was executed, MABE timely filed its Petition challenging it on numerous grounds including a failure by the Department to address all violations in the Consent Order; a failure to recognize continuing violations; a failure to impose an adequate penalty; a failure to incorporate language into the Consent Order to ensure that all conditions will be met; and a failure to consider all relevant information at the time the Consent Order was executed. By letter dated June 29, 2010, the Department advised the Canonicos that no response to its March 29, 2010, letter had been received, and that the SAR Addendum had not yet been filed. The letter noted that even though the Consent Order had been challenged, which "placed the timeframes contained therein in a 'proposed' status," the SAR Addendum was overdue and that it must be submitted "immediately." See Petitioner's Exhibit 29. The Canonicos did not respond to this letter. At hearing, a Department employee interpreted the language in the June 29 letter to mean that until this proceeding has been concluded, the fine and corrective action are temporarily stayed. Apparently, the Canonicos have assumed the same thing and have not performed any remedial action or paid any further penalties while this action is pending. Rationale for the Consent Order The Consent Order addressed the violations described in Finding of Fact 26, supra, and required Respondents to pay a civil penalty of $2,000.00 for their failure to construct the stormwater system in accordance with the Permit. There was no negotiated reduction or increase in the $2,000.00 amount. This amount was based on a provision in the Environmental Litigation Reform Act (ELRA) codified in Section 403.121, Florida Statutes. That statute prescribes the penalties that must be imposed when the Department pursues administrative remedies for violations of Chapter 403. A Notice of Violation (NOV) must be issued to trigger the ELRA process. In this case, the ELRA process was not required since a NOV was never issued, but the Department elected to impose that penalty. The Consent Order requires Respondents to repair the stormwater system and submit to the Department an as-built certification form signed and sealed by a professional engineer that the system meets or exceeds the requirements of the permitted activity. In essence, Respondents are required to re-build the system and certify that it is built consistent with the Permit. No water quality data was introduced indicating any degradation of water quality at the marina from the exfiltration system not being built according to the Permit. To address Respondents' failure to maintain the stormwater system, inspect it, and submit reports to the Department, enforceable conditions were added to the Consent Order, including the filing of reports that the Permit did not previously contain, and a stipulated penalty of $100.00 per day for each day they fail to submit the required reports. The Consent Order requires Respondents to pay a civil penalty of $3,500.00 for their failure to maintain the stormwater system, inspect it, and submit reports to the Department. This amount was reduced in negotiations from an initial amount of $7,000.00. Exercising its discretion, the Department did not consider economic gain by Respondents in assessing the penalty. As noted earlier, the Department's primary goal in negotiating the Consent Order was to avoid a long and uncertain litigation process that would delay an enforceable order requiring Respondents to immediately implement a Chapter 62-780 waste assessment and cleanup. In order to address the finding that Respondents were conducting repairs and maintenance of vessels at the upland portion of the marina in violation of the Permit, the Department included language in the Consent Order that specifically defined a "major repair," which was not included in the existing Permit. This will make enforcement easier by clarifying any ambiguity regarding what activities are prohibited. It also required that any such activity must be conducted off-site, an additional requirement that was not included in the existing Permit. The Consent Order assessed a penalty of $5,000.00 for the finding that Respondents were conducting repairs and maintenance of vessels at the upland portion of the marina. This amount was obtained using the Settlement Guidelines. Under the Penalty Matrix in that document, which classifies violations at three levels of potential for harm (major, moderate, and minor), the violation was identified as major, resulting in an amount of $10,000.00. This amount was later reduced to $5,000.00 during negotiations. However, the Department achieved its goal of binding Respondents to an enforceable agreement that would require them to immediately implement a Chapter 62-780 assessment and cleanup. In order to address the violation that Respondents failed to install channel markers, the Consent Order contained a provision that required them to apply for the required permits and install the markers within 30 days of receipt of the permits. The Consent Order also contained a stipulated penalty paragraph where Respondents would pay $100.00 per day for each day of failing to comply with the marker requirements. The Department is not precluded by the stipulated penalties from pursuing any statutory remedies or other penalty options available to it. The Consent Order assessed a $750.00 penalty for Respondents' failure to install the channel markers, which was less than the original proposed fine of $2,000.00 based on ELRA guidelines. To avoid uncertain and costly litigation, however, and to get Respondents under an enforceable agreement to implement a Chapter 62-780 assessment and cleanup, the Department reduced the penalty. In order to address the finding that Respondents failed to notify the Department of its ownership transfer to Shannon Sue, the Consent Order required payment of $250.00. Although ELRA guidelines specified a $1,000.00 penalty, this amount was lowered during negotiations to avoid protracted litigation and to get Respondents under an enforceable agreement to implement Chapter 62-780. The Consent Order also requires submission of a $555.00 processing fee along with supporting documents for assignment of the lease to the proper party. In addition, a penalty of $500.00 was assessed for failure to obtain the required lease after ownership transfer, along with stipulated penalties of $100.00 per day for failure to do so. For Respondents' failure to notify the Department within 48 hours prior to commencing construction at the marina, there is no corrective action required. However, the Department assessed a $250.00 penalty, which was lowered during negotiations from the ELRA penalty of $1,000.00 for the reasons expressed above. For Respondents' unauthorized mooring of commercial vessels, the Consent Order requires a penalty of $2,500.00, which was based on a second violation under Rule 18-14.002(4). Although MABE submitted an affidavit, dated photographs, and testimony to establish multiple violations of the rule, the Department opted to rely only upon the two violations that its inspector observed. For Respondents' used oil violation, the Consent Order requires removal of all containers, material, or equipment at the marina that handle or contain petroleum or hazardous substances greater than one quart in quantity, unless they are maintained in their original container or an independent and secondary containment system which is designed to contain discharges to the environment and is secure from the weather. The assessed penalty of $2,000.00 was lowered from the ELRA penalty of $4,000.00 during negotiations for the reasons expressed above. To address the finding that a polluting condition had occurred at the marina and a SAR was not timely submitted, the Department negotiated an enforceable agreement that requires Respondents to commence and complete all tasks required under Chapter 62-780 within certain timelines. A penalty was not assessed because the Department desired to get Respondents under an enforceable agreement to immediately implement the assessment and cleanup corrective actions. In addition, by not imposing a fine, the violator has more resources to assess and remediate any contamination, which is often a very expensive undertaking. Under Rule 18-14.002, a person is subject to a fine of up to $10,000.00 for each offense constituting a knowing refusal to comply or a willful violation of the provisions of Chapter 253, Florida Statutes. The Department may impose fines not to exceed $2,500.00 for the first offense; otherwise, approval of the Board is required. Subsequent offenses carry a fine of $1,000.00 to $10,000.00. In this case, the Consent Order imposed a $2,500.00 fine for violation of the Lease and a $500.00 fine for violating Section 253.77, Florida Statutes. Neither fine was shown to be unreasonable under the circumstances. The penalty amounts, plus $500.00 for Department costs, were mistakenly summed as $17,750.00 in paragraph 25 of the Consent Order. The correct amount is $17,250.00. In summary, the Consent Order was issued to settle existing outstanding violations of law and requires Respondents to pay penalties, reimburse Department costs, and take corrective measures. It also establishes a framework for compliance. Taking into consideration all of the circumstances, the terms are a reasonable exercise of the Department's enforcement discretion. Having incurred substantial expenditures in legal fees and site assessment costs in attempting to bring its neighbor into compliance (which probably total much more than the civil penalties assessed against Respondents), and waiting years for the Department to take action, MABE is understandably dissatisfied with many of the terms and conditions of the Consent Order. One of MABE's concerns is that given Respondents' history of failing to comply with ERP and lease conditions for more than a decade, they will not comply with the assessment and remediation requirements of Chapter 62-780. However, the Consent Order is an enforceable agreement that compels immediate compliance with those rules. The Consent Order spells out in clear terms the ability of the Department to seek the judicial imposition of damages or civil penalties, or other appropriate relief, for any violations of the Consent Order. Because of Respondents' prior conduct, which amounted to a clear disregard of permit terms and conditions, it is presumed that the Department will respond quickly to reported violations, if any occur, and take appropriate action. MABE also questions the adequacy (and accuracy) of the penalties. As explained in the Conclusions of Law, this issue is a matter solely within the discretion of the agency. In the same vein, MABE contends that the District Office did not take into account all of the violations that have occurred over the years, made mistakes in calculating the penalties, and failed to consider the fact that Respondents have continued to violate certain Permit and Lease conditions since the enforcement action began. Although some violations were not addressed, some errors in calculating penalties were made, and in some instances multiple violations were counted as a single violation for purposes of calculating a penalty, the Consent Order requires that the violator undertake corrective actions that are designed to remediate all prior violations, strictly comply with new terms and conditions, and subject it to stern penalties should future violations occur.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order ratifying and approving Consent Order OGC No. 08-1823 as final agency action of the Department. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of November, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 4th day of November, 2010.
Findings Of Fact On December 3, 1991, the Petitioner, Douglas Adams, filed a Petition to Determine the Invalidity of an Existing Rule. In the Petition, the Petitioner challenged Rule 33-22.012, Florida Administrative Code, pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner is an inmate in the custody of the Respondent, the Department of Corrections. The Petitioner is subject to the rules of the Respondent, including the Challenged Rule. Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that the Respondent, an agency of the State of Florida, adopt rules governing the administration of the correctional system in Florida. Among other things, Section 944.09, Florida Statutes, requires that rules be adopted by the Respondent governing all aspects of the operation of the prison system in Florida. Chapter 33-22, Florida Administrative Code, contains rules governing "inmate discipline." Those rules provide the general policy of the Respondent concerning inmate discipline (Rule 33-22.001), terminology and definitions (Rule 33-22.002), the procedures for taking disciplinary action against inmates (Rules 33-22.003-33-22.010), and the "Rules of Prohibited Conduct and Penalties for Infractions (the Challenged Rule). Rule 33-22.012, Florida Administrative Code, provides, in pertinent part, the following: 33-22.012 Rules of Prohibited Conduct and Penalties for Infractions. The following table shows established maximum penalties for the indicated offenses. As used in the table, "DC" means the maximum number of days of disciplinary confinement that may be imposed and "GT" means the maximum number of days of gain time that may be taken. Any portion of either penalty may be applied. "All GT" includes both earned and unearned gain time. In addition to the penalties listed below, inmates may be required to pay for damaged, destroyed or misappropriated property under the provisions of rule 33-22.008(2)(b)13. . . . . Rule 33-22.012, Florida Administrative Code, includes a table listing of various offenses for which disciplinary action may be taken and the maximum penalty for such offenses. The Petitioner has alleged, in part, that the Challenged Rule is invalid because it: provides maximum penalties for major violations, but fails to designate, or define minor infractions, or provide sufficient guidelines to guide the agency in exercise of its discretion to designate minor infractions as opposed to major infraction listed by the rule. More particularly, the rule provides in part that "any portion of either penalty may be applied." Applying either penalty listed in this rule, which provides for loss of gaintime or disciplinary confinement, is definitionally a major violation. . . . The Petition and the Amended Petition do not included any alleged facts supporting the Petitioner's assertion that the Challenged Rules are "arbitrary and capricious."
Findings Of Fact 6. The factual allegations in the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and the 2"4 Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, which are fully incorporated herein by reference, are hereby adopted as the Department’s Findings of Fact in this case.
Conclusions THIS PROCEEDING came on for final agency action and Alex Sink, Chief Financial Officer of the State of Florida, or her designee, having considered the record in this case, including the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment, the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment, and the 2°4 Amended Order of Penalty Assessment served in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 09-283-1A, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, hereby finds that: 1. On October 8, 2009, the Department of Financial Services, Division of Workers’ Compensation (hereinafter “Department”) issued a Stop- Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in Division of Workers’ Compensation Case No. 09-283-1A to CHARLES M. EIDENS, JAMES A. HABAN , RITA ZARNIK, AND RICHARD E. EIDENS, d/b/a PAINT BUSTERS OF THE EMERALD COAST, INC., A DISSOLVED FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND PAIN T BUSTERS OF THE EMERALD COAST, INC. (“PAINTBUSTERS”). The Stop- Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment is attached as “Exhibit 1” and fully incorporated by reference. The Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment was personally served on October 8, 2009, on PAINTBUSTERS. The Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment included a Notice of Rights wherein PAINTBUSTERS was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Stop-Work Order and Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. 2. On November 13, 2009, the Department served by certified mail an Amended Order of Penalty Assessment on PAINTBUSTERS. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit 2” and fully incorporated herein by reference. The penalty assessed on PAINTBUSTERS was $98,242.15. The Amended Order of Penalty Assessment included a i Notice of Rights wherein PAINTBUSTERS was advised that any request for an administrative proceeding to challenge or contest the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment must be filed within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of the Amended Order of Penalty Assessment in accordance with Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes. 3. On November 24, 2009, PAINTBUSTERS submitted a Request for F ormal Hearing (“Petition”). The Petition was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings (“DOAH”) and assigned DOAH case number 09-6634. 4. On January 8, 2010, the Administrative Law Judge granted the Department’s Motion to Amend Order of Penalty Assessment. The 2°4 Amended Order of Penalty Assessment superseded the original Amended Order of Penalty Assessment and increased the penalty to $98,336.87. A copy of the 2"! Amended Order of Penalty Assessment is attached hereto as “Exhibit 3” and fully incorporated by reference. 5. On March 25, 2010, the Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File in Case No. 09-6634 as a result of PAINTBUSTERS failing to comply with DOAH’s request for a Status Report. A copy of the Order Relinquishing Jurisdiction and Closing File is attached hereto as “Exhibit 4” and fully incorporated herein by reference.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a Class "D" Security Officer should be denied on the grounds set forth in the Department of State, Division of Licensing's (Department's) March 26, 1992, letter to Petitioner?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner is 56 years of age. He has had numerous brushes with the law, many of them alcohol-related, dating back to 1956, but he has never been convicted of a felony. In June of 1956, Petitioner attempted to purchase a beer in Sacramento, California. He was 19 years old at the time and, although in the military, under the legal drinking age. Petitioner was arrested and charged with a misdemeanor violation of California's alcoholic beverage control law. He received a ten-day suspended sentence. In November of 1956, when Petitioner was stationed on a military base in Amarillo, Texas, he and friend, without authorization, went into a room on the base where weapons were stored. They took possession of a .38 calibre firearm and started "playing with it." Petitioner was arrested and charged with the misdemeanor offenses of unlawful entry and wrongful appropriation. He received a bad conduct discharge, which was suspended. After attending a rehabilitation training program, he returned to active military service. In May of 1962, Petitioner was arrested for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol, a misdemeanor. He was subsequently convicted of the offense. His license was suspended for ten days and he was ordered to pay $25 in court costs. In the early part of 1964, Petitioner, along with several others, charged $700 worth of merchandise in a department store in Indianapolis, Indiana using credit card slips they had forged. Petitioner was arrested and charged with the felony offense of uttering a forged instrument. Adjudication of guilt on this charge was withheld and Petitioner was placed on three years probation. In October of 1968, while in Anderson Indiana, Petitioner was arrested and charged with theft by deception for having written checks in amounts that exceeded the balance of his checking account. The checks were actually written by Petitioner's estranged wife without his knowledge. The charge against Petitioner was dropped after restitution was made. In January of 1969, Petitioner was again arrested in Anderson, Indiana and charged with theft by deception for having written bad checks. These checks were written by Petitioner, but he did not realize at the time he wrote them that, because of his wife's check writing, he had insufficient funds in his account. Adjudication of guilt on this charge was withheld and Petitioner was placed on probation for a year. In February of 1970, Petitioner stayed in a Naples, Florida hotel for approximately three or four days. When he checked out, he did not have enough money to pay his bill. Petitioner was arrested and charged with the misdemeanor offense of defrauding an innkeeper. Less than a week later, Petitioner made restitution and the charge against him was dropped. The following month, while in Miami Beach, Florida, Petitioner was again unable to pay a hotel bill and, as a result, arrested and charged with defrauding an innkeeper. This charge was also dropped after Petitioner made restitution. In May of 1970, Petitioner was arrested and charged with breaking and entering a Naples, Florida restaurant with intent to commit grand larceny. The charge was unfounded and it was subsequently dropped. In January of 1971, Petitioner was driving a motor vehicle in Fort Myers, Florida that had an expired inspection sticker affixed to it. He was stopped by the police and a firearm belonging to a passenger was discovered in the vehicle. Petitioner was arrested and charged with unlawful possession of a firearm and driving a vehicle with an expired inspection sticker. The former charge was dropped. With respect to the latter charge, Petitioner was fined $30 or $35. In October of 1971, Petitioner was arrested in Naples, Florida and charged with writing a worthless check. The check was in the amount of $20 or $25. At the time he wrote the check, Petitioner was unaware that he did not have enough money in his account to cover the check. Petitioner subsequently made restitution and the charge was dropped. In February of 1976, in Lauderhill, Florida, Petitioner was arrested and again charged with writing a worthless check. The amount of this check was less than $50. Petitioner pled guilty to this misdemeanor offense and was fined $10. In addition to paying the fine, Petitioner made restitution. That same month, Petitioner was arrested in Sunrise, Florida and charged with battery on his wife. The charge was unfounded and it was subsequently dropped. In July of 1976, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Petitioner was arrested and charged with aggravated assault, assault and battery and petty larceny. All of these charges were unfounded; however, as a matter of convenience and pursuant to a plea agreement, Petitioner pled no contest to the assault and battery charge. Adjudication of guilt on this charge was withheld. Petitioner received a 90-day suspended sentence and a $352 fine, which was also suspended. The remaining charges against Petitioner were dropped. In December of 1977, Petitioner was again arrested in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. On this occasion, he was charged with two counts of writing worthless checks under $50. Petitioner subsequently made restitution and the charges were dropped. In February of 1980, in Jasper, Florida, Petitioner was arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated, speeding, driving without a valid drivers license and refusing to sign a summons. The latter charge was dropped. Petitioner pled guilty to the remaining charges and was adjudicated guilty on these charges by the trial court. For speeding and driving without a valid drivers license, he was fined. For driving while intoxicated, he was also fined and, in addition, his drivers license was suspended and he was ordered to attend DWI school. In May of 1985, in West Palm Beach, Florida, Petitioner was arrested on a Dade County, Florida warrant that had been issued in 1980, when he had been charged with two felony counts of writing worthless checks. The checks had actually been written by Petitioner's daughter. After his arrest, Petitioner made restitution and the charges against him were dropped. In November of 1985, Petitioner was arrested in West Palm Beach, Florida and charged with driving while intoxicated. He pled guilty to this misdemeanor charge. The trial court adjudicated Petitioner guilty and suspended his license for six months and ordered him to attend DWI school. Petitioner has not been in trouble with the law since. He is now a law-abiding citizen, who is better able to control is intake of alcohol. In filling out Section 5 of his application for licensure, which addressed the subject of criminal history, Petitioner did not intentionally make any misrepresentations or omit any required information. It was his understanding that he was required to disclose information relating only to felony convictions in this section of the application.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order finding that Petitioner should not be denied licensure as a Class "D" Security Officer on the grounds cited in the Department's March 26, 1992, denial letter. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 18th day of August, 1992. STUART M. LERNER 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 18th day of August, 1992.
The Issue Whether Petitioner, M.B. Doral, is entitled to attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to section 120.595(4), Florida Statutes (2019); and, if so, the amount.
Findings Of Fact On December 21, 2018, Petitioner MB Doral filed a Petition Challenging Validity of Existing Rule 61A-4.020 and Determination Regarding Unadopted Rule, in DOAH Case Number 18-6768RX. On January 25, 2019, the undersigned entered an Order Granting Respondent’s Motion to Bifurcate and Stay Proceedings, which stayed MB Doral’s unadopted rule challenge pending the proposed rulemaking that would promulgate ABT Form 6017. On October 16, 2019, amendments to rule 61A-4.020 became effective, which promulgated ABT Form 6017. On November 6, 2019, the undersigned entered an Order Dismissing Unadopted Rule Challenge and Retaining Jurisdiction, which dismissed MB Doral’s remaining unadopted rule challenge and retained jurisdiction to consider a request for attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to section 120.595(4)(b). On December 3, 2019, MB Doral filed a Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs (Motion), seeking an award of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in the unadopted rule challenge pursuant to section 120.595(4)(b). The Motion alleges that MB Doral advised the Department, in writing on at least seven occasions prior to filing the rule challenge petition, and beginning on May 19, 2015, that the Department’s failure to adopt ABT Form 6017 constituted an unadopted rule. The Motion also alleges that the Department did not file a notice of rulemaking until January 28, 2019. The Motion further alleges that the Department has never alleged that the federal government required ABT Form 6017 to implement or retain a delegated or approved program or to meet a condition to receipt of federal funds. On December 10, 2019, the Department filed its Response in Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion for an Order Awarding Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. On February 11, 2020, the Department filed a Notice of Filing Joint Stipulation for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs, which included the Joint Stipulation for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. The Joint Stipulation states that the Department agrees to the entry of a final order assessing the sum of $7,500.00 for attorneys’ fees and costs in the unadopted rule challenge, which the undersigned bifurcated from the existing rule challenge in DOAH Case No. 18-6768RX, which is currently pending before the First District Court of Appeal in Case Number 1D19-0820. The Joint Stipulation further states that the parties agree that this Final Order should direct the Department to seek immediate approval for payment within 30 days of this Final Order, and that the undersigned retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Final Order.
The Issue Whether the petitioner is entitled to an award under section 57.111, Florida Statutes, of attorney’s fees and costs incurred in the appellate matter Witmer v. Department of Business and Professional Regulation, 631 So. 2d 338 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), and, if so, the amount of such award.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, is the state agency responsible for issuing occupational licenses to veterinarians with access to the backside of a racetrack and for regulating such licensees. Sections 550.10(1)(b) and .105(2)(d)2, Florida Statutes. Dr. Witmer has been licensed to practice veterinary medicine in Florida since January 1, 1993, and, as of October 19, 1993, he was authorized to practice veterinary medicine at Florida racetracks by virtue of a pari-mutuel wagering occupational license (“license”) issued by the Department. He has been domiciled in Florida at all times material to this matter. On October 19, 1993, Dr. Witmer was a partner in a professional practice in veterinary medicine with its principal office at 1450 Southwest Third Street, Pompano Park, Broward County, Florida. His professional practice had three full-time employees and a net worth, including both personal and business investments, of less than $2 million. In the Administrative Complaint and Emergency Order of Suspension dated October 19, 1993, the Department took two actions with respect to Dr. Witmer’s license.1 First, in the administrative complaint, it put Dr. Witmer on notice that the Department had initiated a disciplinary action against him, charging him with violations of a statute and a rule governing his license which, if proven, would justify the imposition of penalties, including revocation or suspension of his license. Secondly, in the emergency order of suspension, it summarily suspended Dr. Witmer’s license. Dr. Witmer requested a formal administrative hearing pursuant to section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, to challenge the truth of the allegations contained in the administrative complaint. The request was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings and assigned DOAH Case Number 93-6638. That action was pending at the time Dr. Witmer filed the application for attorney’s fees and costs at issue in this proceeding. Underlying proceeding On the basis of the allegations contained in the administrative complaint and its determination that Dr. Witmer’s interest in his license was “far outweighed by the immediate danger to the public health and safety and to the integrity of harness racing in the State of Florida,” the Department suspended Dr. Witmer’s pari-mutuel wagering occupational license as of October 19, 1993, ordered him to cease and desist from all activities authorized by the license, and barred him from entering any pari-mutuel establishment as a patron for the duration of the emergency suspension. Dr. Witmer chose to seek immediate judicial review of the emergency order pursuant to sections 120.60(8) and 120.54(9)(a)3, Florida Statutes (1993). It is this appellate proceeding which is the proceeding underlying Dr. Witmer’s application for attorney’s fees and costs at issue herein. State agencies are authorized by section 120.60(8), Florida Statutes (1995) to immediately suspend a license under the following circumstances and subject to the following conditions: If the agency finds that immediate serious danger to the public health, safety, or welfare requires emergency suspension, restriction, or limitation of a license, it shall show compliance in its order with the requirements imposed by s. 120.54(9) on agencies making emergency rules. Summary suspension, restriction, or limitation may be ordered, but a formal suspension or revocation proceeding under this section shall also be promptly instituted and acted upon. Section 120.54(9)(a), Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part: If an agency finds that an immediate danger to the public health, safety, or welfare requires emergency action, the agency may adopt any rule necessitated by the immediate danger by any procedure which is fair under the circumstances and necessary to protect the public interest, provided that: * * * 3. The agency publishes in writing at the time of, or prior to, its action the specific facts and reasons for finding an immediate danger to the public health, safety, or welfare and its reasons for concluding that the procedure used is fair under the circumstances. . . . The agency’s findings of immediate danger, necessity, and procedural fairness shall be judicially reviewable. On February 2, 1994, the District Court of Appeal for the Fourth District of Florida issued its opinion in Witmer v. Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, Case Number 93-3232, reported at 631 So. 2d 338. The court quashed the Emergency Order of Suspension, concluding that the order was “facially inadequate,” and ruling that “the Department’s findings of immediate danger to the public welfare are not supported by specific facts and reasons as required by 120.54(9)(a)3, Florida Statutes.” Id. at 340, 343. The district court in Witmer observed that its review was limited to a determination of whether the order complied with the requirements of section 120.54(9)(a)3 and based its analysis upon the following rules of law: If the facts alleged in the complaint and [emergency] order are sufficient to demonstrate immediacy, necessity and fairness, no hearing is required prior to the emergency suspension. . . . The factual allegations contained in the emergency order must sufficiently identify particularized facts which demonstrate an immediate danger to the public. (Citation omitted.) Where, as here, no hearing was held prior to the entry of the emergency order, every element necessary to its validity must appear on the face of the order. (Citation omitted.) The order must be “factually explicit and persuasive concerning the existence of a genuine emergency.” (Citation omitted.) Witmer, 631 So. 2d at 341. In reaching its conclusion that the emergency order was facially inadequate, the court in Witmer held that the Department failed to allege facts in the complaint and order to establish the essential elements of the violations upon which the emergency suspension was based. Firstly, the court found that the charge in the emergency order that Dr. Witmer had failed to report gratuities was not supported by any allegations of fact in the complaint and order. Id. at 341. Secondly, the court found that the Department failed to allege that Dr. Witmer’s actions related to horse racing or to race horses, an essential element of a violation of section 550.235(2), Florida Statutes, and of rule 61D-1.002(10), Florida Administrative Code. Id. at 342. Thirdly, the court found that the Department failed to allege that Dr. Witmer reached an agreement with a second person to commit the violation, an essential element of any conspiracy, including one to violate section 550.235(2) and rule 61D-1.002(10). Id. Finally, the court concluded that the public harm alleged by the Department in the order was too attenuated to support the emergency suspension of Dr. Witmer’s license. Id. at 343. The district court issued its mandate to the Department on February 18, 1994, directing it to act in accordance with the opinion quashing the Emergency Order of Suspension. The Department did not seek review of the decision of the district court in the Florida Supreme Court. Consequently, the decision of the district court had the effect of nullifying the emergency suspension of Dr. Witmer’s license. Summary Dr. Witmer was a small business party, as that term is defined for purposes of section 57.111, at the time the Department entered the emergency order.2 The evidence is sufficient to establish that the Department initiated an action against Dr. Witmer when it entered an Emergency Order of Suspension. This order was issued under the authority granted state agencies in section 120.60(8), Florida Statutes. The order had the effect of immediately and summarily suspending Dr. Witmer’s pari-mutuel wagering occupational license. Dr. Witmer had the right to seek immediate judicial review of the emergency order pursuant to section 120.54(9)(a)3. The appellate court quashed the emergency order because it was legally insufficient to support the suspension of Dr. Witmer’s license under the standards of section 120.54(9)(a)3. The Department did not appeal or seek further review of the appellate court’s decision. Dr. Witmer, therefore, prevailed in the administrative proceeding initiated by the Department. The Department presented no evidence to establish that its action in ordering the emergency suspension of Dr. Witmer’s license had a reasonable basis in law and fact or that any special circumstances exist which would make an award of attorney’s fees and costs in this case unjust.3 The monetary value of the attorney’s fees rendered in connection with the appellate proceeding culminating in the decision quashing the Emergency Order of Suspension is $9,715.00, and the costs incurred total $250. These fees and costs are reasonable and were necessary to prosecute the appellate proceeding.4
