The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Subsections 482.121(1)(a) and 482.121(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2007),1 and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact PFSG, Inc., d/b/a US Lawns of Destin (US Lawns),2 submitted a Pest Control Business License Application to the Petitioner, listing Mr. Lewis as its certified operator in charge for lawn and ornamental pest control, effective August 9, 2007. Mr. Lewis’ certificate number is Jf 13685. US Lawns had been operating on an emergency certificate from June 6, 2007, until Mr. Lewis’ employment on August 8, 2007. In its application for a business license, US Lawns requested that its emergency certificate be canceled as of August 8, 2007. In order for a pest control company to operate, the company has to have a certified pest control operator in charge of the pest control activities at the licensed business location. If a company does not have a certified operator to serve as the certified operator in charge, an emergency certificate can be issued and renewed monthly up to a year, allowing an employee who did not have a certified operator’s certificate to serve as the certified operator in charge. As the certified operator in charge for US Lawns, Mr. Lewis applied to Petitioner for a pest control employee identification card, effective August 9, 2007. He listed the commencement of his employment with US Lawns as August 9, 2007. He also stated that his last employment with a pest control company had ended on June 11, 2007. A pest control employee identification card was issued to Mr. Lewis by Petitioner. Mr. Lewis’ wife died on July 4, 2007. Petitioner received a complaint that Mr. Lewis was not working full time for US Lawns and was allowing US Lawns to use his certificate to maintain its business license. Based on the complaint, Michael Walters, who is employed by Petitioner as an environmental specialist II, began an investigation. Mr. Walters went to US Lawns' office and made an inspection. On October 31, 2007, Mr. Walters went to see Mr. Lewis at Mr. Lewis’ home for the purpose of interviewing Mr. Lewis. Mr. Lewis gave Mr. Walters a signed affidavit, which stated: I work full time with U.S. Lawns of Santa Rosa Beach. I have been part time since the loss of my wife, but I do go to work at least once a week and check on things. I do all the training for card holders and such. As soon as I feel better I should be back fulltime. I have been there around 5 yrs., minus one year with another company. In his request for an administrative hearing, Mr. Lewis stated: “I was on vacation for 4 weeks, due to the death of my wife,” and I was not working part time ever. The evidence is clear that Mr. Lewis was not working full time for US Lawns from the time of his wife’s death until at least the date of his affidavit, October 31, 2007.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Mr. Lewis violated Subsection 482.121(1)(a) and 482.121(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and revoking his certified operator’s certificate. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of August, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 19th day of August, 2008.
The Issue The issues to be resolved are as follows: With regard to Count Four of the Amended Petition, whether the Petitioners have sufficiently alleged a rule challenge and more particularly whether sufficient facts have been alleged to identify the challenged rule, whether existing, proposed, or unpromulgated; and whether, through an unpromulgated rule, the Department (Respondent) has prohibited the installation of "pest control insulation" or borate containing insulation by anyone other than a card-carrying employee of a certified pest control operator or licensee. If so, it must be determined whether such action is outside the Respondent's rulemaking authority, whether it is contrary to statute, whether it disregards the exceptions proved in Section 482.211(9), Florida Statutes, and whether it violates Section 482.051, Florida Statutes. With regard to Count Five of the Amended Petition, whether the Petitioners have sufficiently alleged a rule challenge to a proposed or existing rule or have offered evidence legally sufficient to establish a rule, proposed, or existing, which the Petitioners are challenging relating to the Respondent allegedly having selectively investigated pest control operators performing 100 or more pre-construction termite treatments annually, and whether such action is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. With regard to Count Six of the Amended Petition, whether the Petitioners have sufficiently alleged a rule challenge to a proposed or existing rule or have offered evidence legally sufficient to establish a rule, proposed, existing, or unpromulgated, which the Petitioners are challenging relating to the Respondent's alleged enforced application of termiticide arbitrarily and capriciously by not requiring the best available technology and not regulating according to acceptable standards in the manner in which it conducts field investigations. With regard to Count Seven of the Amended Petition, whether the Petitioners have sufficiently alleged a rule challenge based on a proposed or existing rule or have offered legally sufficient evidence to establish a rule, proposed, existing, or unpromulgated, which the Petitioners are challenging relating to the Respondent's enforcement of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, as it relates to preventive soil treatments for new construction and its alleged failure to protect the public. With regard to Counts Two, Three, and Eight of the Amended Petition, whether the Petitioners have alleged any facts or presented any evidence to establish a proposed, existing, or unpromulgated rule substantially affecting the interests of the Petitioners. Whether either the Petitioners or the Respondent are entitled to recovery of attorney's fees and costs.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioners conceded at hearing that the Order on the Motion to Dismiss, prior to the hearing, concerning the mootness caused by the withdrawal of the above-referenced agency memos not only disposed of Count One of the Amended Petition, but had rendered moot Counts Two and Three, as well. No evidence was presented as to the those counts. Neither was any evidence or argument presented regarding Count Eight of the Amended Petition. Thus, Counts Two, Three, and Eight, as well as Count One, should be dismissed. The Petitioners, with regard to Count Four of the Amended Petition, did not allege the text of any statement or description of one which could be construed as an unpromulgated rule by the agency, which prohibited the installation of insulation containing borate by anyone other than a "card- carrying" employee of a certified pest control operator or licensee. There was no evidence to establish the existence of such an unpromulgated statement or rule of general application. Cliff Killingsworth testified that he was an officer and party representative of the Petitioners' companies in this case. "In-cide" is a cellulose fiber with borate or borate- containing materials for fire retardancy and fungal control. The manufacturer had increased the borate content in the material so that it could make claims with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the product's pest control value. Mr. Killingsworth acknowledged that it was a licensed and registered "pest control product." While Mr. Killingsworth agreed that claims to the public about the pest control value of the product should be done by a pest control operator, he felt that should not prevent him from subcontracting the installation of the insulation material to a professional insulation installer so that the material would be properly installed in a home or other building. Mr. Killingsworth met with Steve Dwinell and Joe Parker, representatives of the Respondent agency, in Jacksonville, Florida, in the summer of 1997. He provided them with a 30-to-40-page report regarding installation of the insulation with its pest control properties. He received no communication from the Respondent following this meeting and sought no written opinion from the Respondent about the use of the material before he began using it. Mr. Killingsworth invited George Owens, a field inspector for the Respondent in the Northwest Florida area, to observe the product being installed in a structure. Mr. Killingsworth testified that Mr. Owens, thereafter, sent him a letter stating that the Respondent was not going to regulate that material. Mr. Killingsworth, however, did not produce that letter or a copy of it. Mr. Owens testified that he had visited a site in Destin, Florida, at Mr. Killingsworth's invitation, where "Green Stone" insulation was being applied by being blown into a small section of a wall. He did not know that a subcontractor was making the application when he visited the site. He thought that an employee of Mr. Killingsworth was performing the installation of the material. Mr. Owens did not recall telling Mr. Killingsworth or any of his representatives that application of the product by an agent other than Mr. Killingsworth's own company would be prohibited. It was not Mr. Owens' belief that he had authority to make those decisions. He did not believe that he had authority to approve or disapprove the application of a pesticide. Mr. Killingsworth invited Mike McDaniels, another field investigator with the Respondent in the Gainesville, Florida, area to observe the installation of the product in the spring of 1998. Mr. McDaniels commented to Mr. Killingsworth that he was glad that they were doing it, but he made no report. After the Petitioners' companies had been operating for two or three months in the Gainesville area, sharing space with Green Stone Industries, the company producing the insulation, Mr. McDaniels returned. He informed Mr. Killingsworth that the Respondent agency had changed its position on the application of the product. Because it was a "labeled material," that is, labeled and promoted as a certified pest control product, for purposes of EPA regulations, it had to be installed and handled only by a pest control operator meeting the definition of an employee under Chapter 482, Florida Statutes. Mr. McDaniel was shown the insulation in question by Mr. Killingsworth and how it was installed at a job site. He never told Mr. Killingsworth whether he could use the product or not, but during a "non-adversarial inspection," he told him that he had to have "ID cardholders" (i.e., employees of a licensed pest control operator) install the insulation, since it had advertised pesticide qualities. Mr. McDaniel was shown a warehouse with two different types of insulation. One had borate advertised as a fire retardant. The other had a higher content of borate which was advertised to have pesticide qualities. Mr. McDaniel determined that employees applying the second type of product were conducting pest control by installing that product and should, therefore, have pest control operator identification cards. He explained that to Mr. Killingsworth and thought he may have written that opinion on an inspection form which he supplied to Mr. Killingsworth. He also believes he notified his supervisor, Phil Helseth. His normal practice, when a new material is reported to him or observed, is to inform his superior of the facts concerning that product. He never told Mr. Killingsworth or his representatives that they could not install the product in question. He informed them that since it was listed as a pesticide that they would have to be have employees of a licensed pest control operator to legally install the product. Mr. McDaniel did not consult with anyone at the Respondent agency about this, but rather relied on his own judgment as to agency policy and the interpretation of the statutes and rules enforced by the Respondent. He testified that he had no central direction from his superiors at the Department on the issue and was unaware what other districts or regions under the Department's regulation were doing to address this question. He simply determined that if the Petitioners' personnel were applying a product that was a registered pesticide insulation that, under his understanding of the broad statutory definition of pesticides as anything that "curbed, mitigated, destroyed, or repelled insects," then the installers would have to be employees of a registered pesticide operator. Mr. Dwinell testified as the bureau chief for the Bureau of Entomology and Pest Control. He met with Mr. Killingsworth along with Mr. Parker, another employee of the bureau. Mr. Killingsworth made a presentation regarding the product in dispute, the borate-impregnated cellulose insulation. He determined that the product was a pesticide because it was advertised as a registered pesticide and performed pesticide functions, in addition to its insulation function. He did not recall that the precise issue of subcontracting with a non- licensed pest control operator or insulation installer was a topic of their conversation. Following that meeting, he may have discussed the question with Mr. Helseth, in a general way, but does not recall discussing it with any other person. He recalls some discussion concerning the Gainesville office of the Killingsworth companies and whether Mr. Killingsworth, or that office of his company, was licensed as a certified operator. He believes he recalls that a cease and desist letter informing the Killingsworth companies of the need to have the application of the product performed by someone licensed to do pest control may have been sent, although he is not certain. Mr. Dwinell established that the Respondent agency had never published anything regarding pest control insulation. He noted that a pesticide was a pesticide under the statutory definition, whether a corn bait, insulation, or mixed in a jug. The same laws applied to it and under Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, a pesticide must be applied by a licensed applicator. Mr. Killingsworth insisted that the insulation product, though a registered pesticide, was exempt from the provisions of Section 482.211(9), Florida Statutes, because it was a derivative wood product. He agreed that the product in question was a wood by-product and not wood. If a product did not meet the statutory definition of being exempt, then it would be appropriate for the Respondent to issue a cease and desist directive until the Petitioners came into compliance with Chapter 482, Florida Statutes. Mr. Dwinell opined that the subject insulation product was not exempt under the provisions of Section 482.211(9), Florida Statutes. Unlike pre-treated lumber, which is exempt, the installation product at issue is a registered pesticide. Pre-treated lumber, though treated with pesticide in the manufacturing process, is not intended to be used as pesticide, nor is it a registered pesticide. The Petitioners have not stated a basis for a rule challenge pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes, as to Counts Five and Six of the Amended Petition. Although references were made to alleged "actions" by the Respondent agency, the Petitioners have not alleged with particularity, nor adduced any competent, substantial evidence of any rule provisions alleged to be invalid, nor have they shown, in an evidential way, any to be invalid. The evidence does not show that there is a rule, either proposed, existing, or as an unpromulgated agency statement of general applicability, which is actually being challenged by the Petitioners. There has not been a definitive showing by preponderant evidence that such exists concerning the product and operation at issue. The Petitioners in Count Seven of the Amended Petition have not stated any basis for a rule challenge in accordance with Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. There are numerous references to provisions of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, but it is not alleged with any particularity which rule provisions are purported to be invalid, nor has preponderant evidence been adduced to establish any rule provisions either proposed, existing, or as unpromulgated agency statements, which have imposed a substantial effect on the Petitioners. In this regard, the Petitioners' counsel argued at the hearing: Your Honor, what we have suggested is that the rule that's being challenged is the Department's statutory obligation under the statute as it relates to their promulgated Rule 5E-14.105, and as it relates to their treatment guarantees or warranties that are required by that regulation for a treatment that just doesn't work. The Department rule requires a certain warranty and requires a renewable warranty, placing that upon the pest control operator under the guise of protecting the consumer, but the fact of the matter is, it doesn't protect the consumer, and it just endangers the pest control operator. And so I guess the actual rule is the 5E-14.105. In addition to that we have the statutory obligations of the Department, which is to provide a protection to the public health and the economic benefit of the consumer and evaluate these chemicals that they are requiring warranties for. That's the basis of the rule challenge, and admittedly, this one is a little bit nebulous, but there is a regulatory, I guess, mandate of these preconstruction soil treatments as a method, as the preferred method, and to the extent that the operators, who are the regulated entity in this case are required to--is mandated to require a warranty for a method they know doesn't work . . . . Mr. Killingsworth acknowledged in his testimony that he was not contending that there should not be a warranty requirement for treatments of subterranean termites, as stated in the above-cited Rule 5E-14.105, Florida Administrative Code. He also acknowledged that he was not contending that the Respondent should require warranties from pest control companies for every kind of pest control performed. He thought there were a lot of factors not within a pest control operator's control affecting particular wood fungi, but what was in the pest operator's control was the opportunity to do a preventive treatment for more than just subterranean termites and they, in his view, should not be prevented from doing so. When asked what preventive treatment he had been prevented from doing by the Respondent, his reply was: The effect of memos and other actions prevented us from doing our choice of preventative treatment, the borate application, through the effects of raising questions in building officials' eyes, through the effects of increasing the economic impact to us to get it done. Builders will not pay enough to do both soil treatment and bait and borate. The memoranda referred to as preventing Mr. Killingsworth from doing his choice of preventive treatment were not actually identified in the record, however. Mr. Dwinell testified that the EPA guidelines require an efficacy standard for soil treatments which states: "Data derived from such testing should provide complete resistance to termite attack for a period of five years." The EPA also provides guidelines for preventive treatment/wood impregnation: "When acceptable data derived from testing for at least two years, or less than five years, shows complete resistance to termite attack, the product may be registered." The efficacy standard for borate, thus, was not five years, but two years. Mr. Dwinell had concerns about the type of data that had been relied upon by the EPA for registration and how that data related to the situation in Florida. That was the basis for the negotiated rulemaking process that the Respondent was engaged in at the time of the hearing in this case. The purpose of the negotiated rulemaking process was to comply with the statute that required a rule, but ultimately the purpose was to have a mechanism in the State of Florida where the product was registered for use under construction and a reliable set of data that could show whether the product would actually protect against termites when applied. The ultimate goal of the statute at issue is to protect the consumer, which is the Respondent's statutory duty. Borate pesticides are registered for use, with label directions for use during construction. They are one of three categories of materials for use in construction, including soil- applied pesticide materials, baiting products, and wood treatments, the last being the borates. There are no directives issued by the Respondent that specifically preclude the use of either borate as a stand-alone treatment or a baiting system as a stand-alone treatment. The Respondent does not require soil treatments only. Mr. Dwinell has never told any licensee that he could not use borate products if he were licensed.
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent violated regulatory requirements to maintain and to implement a written policy that prohibits the neglect of nursing home residents; whether Petitioner should have changed the status of Respondent's license from Standard to Conditional; and whether Petitioner should fine Respondent $2,500 and recover investigative costs.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating nursing homes in Florida pursuant to Subsection 400.23(7), Florida Statutes (2003). Respondent is licensed to operate a nursing home located at 710 North Sun Drive, Lake Mary, Florida 32746 (the facility). The facility admitted Resident 1 on November 20, 2000. Resident 1 was immobile and could not communicate verbally. She depended on a feeding tube for nourishment. On August 10, 2003, facility staff found ants in Resident 1's room. The ants had not bitten Resident 1. Staff sprayed the room with bug spray and then called the pest control company responsible for providing pest control at the facility (the pest control company). On August 12, 2003, the pest control company treated all of the rooms on the affected wing of the facility with ant bait gel and noted in the facility's pest control log that the problem in the affected area was "resolved." On the same day, another company treated the grounds outside the facility. During the early morning of August 20, 2003, facility staff found Resident 1 in her bed with ants and ant bites on her body. Staff immediately removed Resident 1 from her bed, showered her, called her doctor, and obtained orders for medications to treat the ant bites. Facility staff also treated the room and removed any ants that staff observed. Resident 1 went to the hospital briefly and then returned to the facility. Respondent notified Petitioner of the incident, and Petitioner sent two surveyors to the facility on August 22, 2003. Thereafter, Petitioner charged that the facility committed a Class II violation of 42 C.F.R. Section 483.13(c)(1). The relevant federal regulatory requirements are also set forth in what is identified in the record as Tag F224. Tag F224 requires the facility to maintain and to implement written policies and procedures that prohibit the neglect, abuse, and mistreatment of residents (an anti-neglect policy). Respondent does not dispute that the ant bites to Resident 1 on August 20, 2003, constituted harm sufficient to support a Class II violation, if Respondent violated the requirements to maintain and to implement an anti-neglect policy. The preponderance of evidence does not show that Respondent violated those requirements. Respondent maintained an anti-neglect policy that satisfied the requirements in Tag F224. In relevant part, the policy sets forth the standards and processes for identifying potential incidents of neglect of residents; investigating those incidents; and reporting them to appropriate agencies. Petitioner was unable to identify any component of Respondent's anti-neglect policy that violated the requirements of Tag F224. Petitioner also was unable to identify any other required policy that Respondent failed to maintain. Respondent implemented its anti-neglect policy. Facility staff identified the potential risk of harm, investigated the risk, implemented professional pest control treatments to all rooms on the same wing of the facility as the affected room, and treated the lawn outside the facility. The facility reported the incident to Petitioner. Petitioner was unable to identify any component of the anti-neglect policy, or that of any other policy, that Respondent did not implement to prevent the incident involving Resident 1. Irrespective of the anti-neglect policy that Respondent maintained and implemented, Petitioner sought to prove at the hearing that Respondent violated quality of care requirements. The Administrative Complaint does not allege that Respondent violated a quality of care requirement. If it were determined that the ALJ has authority to find Respondent guilty of violating a quality of care requirement not alleged in the Administrative Complaint, the preponderance of evidence does not show that the quality of care exercised by facility staff after they discovered ants on August 10, 2003, was deficient. Petitioner sought to prove that Respondent violated quality of care requirements by failing to provide adequate pest control service to the affected room. Petitioner did not identify any additional pest control procedures that applicable law required the facility to provide. Nor did Petitioner identify any pest control treatment or service that the facility could or should have provided to prevent the ant bites to Resident 1 on August 20, 2003. Petitioner also sought to prove that Respondent violated quality of care requirements by failing to increase monitoring of Resident 1. Petitioner failed to cite any legal standard that required facility staff to increase their monitoring of Resident 1 between August 10 and 20, 2003. The standard of practice in nursing homes is to monitor residents every two hours. No standard required a higher level of monitoring after August 10, 2003. There was no evidence that Respondent failed to monitor Resident 1 every two hours between August 10 and 20, 2003. Strict liability is not the appropriate standard for determining whether Respondent is responsible for the harm suffered by Resident 1 on August 20, 2003. The preponderance of evidence does not show that Respondent failed to provide any required goods or services to Resident 1. The ant bites on August 20, 2004, occurred despite the reasonable care undertaken by Respondent to prevent the ant bites.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order deleting the disputed deficiencies from the Survey Report for August 20, 2003; replacing the Conditional rating from August 22, 2003, until October 15, 2003, with a Standard rating; finding Respondent not guilty of the remaining allegations in the Administrative Complaint; and denying the proposed fine and recovery of investigative costs. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of June, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Gerald L. Pickett, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Sebring Building, Suite 330K 525 Mirror Lake Drive, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Donna Holshouser Stinson, Esquire Broad and Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1300 R. Davis Thomas, Jr. Broad and Cassel 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 400 Post Office Drawer 11300 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1300 Lealand McCharen, Agency Clerk Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive, Mail Station 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, Larry Kravitsky, as alleged in Petitioner’s Administrative Complaint issued by Petitioner, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, on February 13, 2007, provided pest control services in violation of Section 482.165(1), Florida Statutes (2006), whether he applied a pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its label in violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 5E- 14.106(1), and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Bureau of Entomology and Pest Control (hereinafter referred to as the “Bureau”), is charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the provisions of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, the “Structural Pest Control Act.” At the times relevant to this matter, Respondent Larry Kravitsky was not licensed to perform pest control services. While he had applied for an identification card with the Bureau, that application had been denied. At the times relevant to this matter, Cara Beth Walker resided at 6485-4 Bay Club Drive, Fort Lauderdale, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the “Property”). At the times relevant, Sears Pest Control Incorporated, d/b/a Ship Shape Pest Control (hereinafter referred to as “Ship Shape”), was a licensed pest control business in the State of Florida. Ship Shape, owned by Mr. Kravitsky’s brother, Alan J. Kravitsky, was qualified to conduct pest control at the times relevant through Lori Kelley. The evidence failed to prove that anyone at Ship Shape had authorized Mr. Kravitsky to perform pest control services in June 2006. On June 5, 2006, John McDonough, then in the employ of Ship Shape, arrived at the Property, where he had previously provided treatment for ants. Mr. McDonough, who applied for a Pest Control Employee-Identification Card on June 9, 2006, which was approved as of June 10, 2006, was not a certified operator in charge or even familiar with rodent control, came to the Property because of a problem Ms. Walker was having with what she believed were rodents. When Mr. McDonough arrived, he told Ms. Walker that he had to wait for Mr. Kravitsky and the equipment necessary to perform any treatment to arrive. Ms. Walker was unable to remain at the Property because of her employment, so she left before the treatment was completed. While Ms. Walker testified as to Mr. Kravitsky’s arrival and initial involvement in the treatment, that testimony has been rejected as unconvincing. There were simply too many inconsistencies in Ms. Walker’s testimony concerning what took place on June 5, 2006, and with the more convincing testimony of Carlos Rojas to be given any credence by this finder of fact. What the evidence did prove, however, is that at some time after Mr. McDonough arrived at the Property, Mr. Kravitsky and Mr. Rojas arrived in separate vehicles. Mr. Rojas was also employed by Ship Shape but did not have a Pest Control Employee- Identification Card or pest control license. Mr. Rojas had been directed by Mr. Kravitsky to go to the Property that morning. Mr. Kravitsky brought electrical cords, a drill, and an electric duster to the Property. The electric duster was filled with Ditrac, a powder used to eliminate rodents. Mr. Rojas was not aware of what the powder was and had no experience using an electric duster. Mr. Kravitsky did not try to explain what the electric duster was for or how to use it. Instead, Mr. Kravitsky instructed Mr. Rojas to follow Mr. McDonough’s instructions. Mr. Kravitsky then left the Property, leaving Mr. McDonough in charge. Mr. Rojas was told by Mr. McDonough to drill holes in the walls. Next, Mr. Rojas was told to plug the electric duster into an electric outlet and then place a nozzle from the electric duster in the holes that had been drilled. Mr. Rojas was told to turn the duster on and to leave it on from one to three minutes in each hole. Mr. Rojas followed these instructions. The operation took approximately an hour to complete, at which time Mr. Kravitsky returned. All three men then left the Property. The evidence failed to prove that anyone other than Mr. Kravitsky was involved in authorizing the treatment of the Property on June 5, 2006. Lori Kelly, the certified operator in charge of Ship Shape knew nothing about the job until after it was completed. At no time did Ms. Kelly direct or authorize the use of Ditrac at the Property. Ms. Kelly became aware of the treatment of the Property when Mr. Kravitsky told her that she would be contacted about the job. While she could not recall at hearing whether she had been asked by Kravitsky to say that she had been present during the treatment, she signed a statement on July 7, 2006, indicating that she had been. While she acknowledged that the statement was given when her memory was probably better, she did not testify that the statement refreshed her memory. Mr. Kravitsky’s and Mr. McDonough’s account at hearing of what transpired on June 5, 2006, at the Property is rejected as not credible. The Bureau in proposed findings of fact 11, 12, 14 and 15 of Petitioner’s Proposed Recommended Order explain in detail some of the reasons why Mr. Kravitsky’s testimony has been rejected. Information obtained from David Beswick by the Bureau, however, has not been relied upon in making this or any other finding in this Recommended Order because that information is hearsay. Mr. Kravitsky admitted to Ms. Walker on or about June 16, 2006, that the powder used on June 5, 2006, was Ditrac. He also admitted to her that three pounds of Ditrac had been used. Several weeks after the treatment at the Property, Mr. Kravitsky admitted to Mr. Rojas that the treatment had been a disaster and warned Mr. Rojas that someone from Petitioner would be contacting him about the job. Mr. Kravitsky told Mr. Rojas to decline to talk about the treatment because he would be represented by legal counsel provided by Mr. Kravitsky. The Bureau, following established procedures, took samples from different areas of the Property on June 16, 2006. Additional samples were taken on June 26, 2006, by Mary Cohen, who was accompanied by Richard Lucas. Again, established procedures, described in detail by Ms. Cohen, were followed. The samples taken at the Property were tested by Patty Lucas, Director of the Bureau’s Pesticide laboratory. Ms. Lucas utilized procedures accepted in the scientific community to determine where Diphacinone, the active ingredient in Ditrac was present. Two of the samples taken on June 16, 2006, and two of the samples taken on June 26, 2006, tested positive for Diphacinone. These tests results are consistent with Mr. Kravitsky’s admission to Ms. Walker that Ditrac had been used in the treatment of the Property. The Ditrac label, Petitioner’s exhibit 3, contains the following “PRECAUTIONARY STATEMENTS HAZARDS TO HUMANS AND DOMESTIC ANIMALS WARNING” concerning use of the chemical” May be fatal if swallowed or absorbed through the skin. Do not get in eyes, on skin or on clothing. Wear protective clothing and rubber gloves. Wash arms and face with soap and water after mixing or handling and before eating, drinking, or using tobacco. Remove contaminated clothing and wash before reuse. The label also warns that Ditrac is a “RESTRICTED USE PESTICIDE Due to Acute Oral Toxicity” and that it is “[f]or retail sale to, and use only by, Certified Applicators, or persons under their direct supervision and only for those uses covered by the Certified applicator’s Certification.” Finally, of importance in this case, the Ditrac label includes the following instruction concerning “APPLICATION DIRECTIONS: . . . Do not use power dusting devices ” Mr. Kravitsky, contrary to the warnings and directions for use of Ditrac, without authorization by anyone at Ship Shape, and without any license or other authorization from the Bureau, directed Mr. Rojas to use an electric duster filled with Ditrac in the Property. His actions constituted the practice of pest control and the use of a pesticide in a manner inconsistent with the pesticide’s label.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services finding that Larry Kravitsky violated Section 482.165, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 5E-14.106(6), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint and imposing a fine in the amout of $4,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of June, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: David W. Young, Esquire Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Suite 520 407 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Larry Kravitsky 3300 South Ocean Boulevard, Apartment 917 Highland Beach, Florida 33487 Richard D. Tritschler, General Counsel Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Mayo Building, Suite 520 407 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 Honorable Charles H. Bronson Commissioner of Agriculture Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810
The Issue The issue for consideration in this matter is whether the Department should issue a Warning Letter to the Respondent because of his application of a pesticide in a client's home on September 16, 1994.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department of Agriculture was responsible for the registration, licensing and regulation of pest control applicators in Florida. In September, 1994, Crystal S. Tipton contacted the Respondent, Michael A. Kaeler, as the representative for Terminix International, and requested that he come to her home, located at 6253 Old Trail in New Port Richey, to spray for bugs and fleas. Mrs. Tipton had a contract with Terminix, dated July 19, 1994, which called for periodic applications, and this was the second visit under the plan. On September 16, 1994, Respondent came to the home in response to the call, arriving about 9:00 AM. At that time, Mrs. Tipton advised him that she had had a bad reaction from the July spraying. On September 16, 1994, Mrs. Tipton was in the house alone. Respondent started treating the house shortly after he arrived. Mrs. Tipton had told him not to spray her daughter's bedroom because of the reaction the child had had from the prior treatment. Mrs. Tipton remained in the house, cleaning, while Respondent applied the substance. At no time, she asserts, did Respondent instruct her to leave the house or give her any instructions except to tell her to wear shoes when she walked on the carpet. He did not tell her to stay off the carpet until it dried. According to Mrs. Tipton, while Respondent was applying the pesticide, on occasion she was in the same room with him, and she could smell the spray. At no time did he advise her to leave the room while he sprayed. Respondent also got behind the baseboards to spray, and put pesticide on the ground outside the house. He then left. According to Mrs. Tipton, the smell was worse this time than after the first spraying. Though she opened all the windows, even while Respondent was spraying, the smell remained for hours, and at 11:30 PM, the carpet was still damp, she claims. As she recalls it, the smell stayed in the house until the following day. After Mrs. Tipton realized there was a problem, she contacted several experts to come out and see what could be done. Her husband contacted Mr. Bowen, the Department's local representative, and told him what had happened, but no other complaint was filed. Mrs. Tipton called Terminix the Monday after the spraying to tell them that all the people in the house were sick. They did not respond promptly, so she had the carpets cleaned and a maid service in to clean the house, but even after that the smell was still present. Mrs. Tipton does not know what chemical was applied in her home by Respondent either in July or in September. She recalls only that in July Mr. Kaeler also told her to wear shoes on the damp carpet. On that occasion, the carpet was damp for three to four hours after spraying, but she does not know how much chemical was applied. During the September application, Mrs. Tipton remained in the family room and the kitchen while Mr. Kaeler was applying the substance throughout the house, and even when he was applying in the kitchen, which is tiled. Though he used a broadcast spray in those areas which were carpeted, including the living room, the dining room, the family room, the master bedroom, the halls, and the entrances to the children's bedrooms, he used a pin spray in the kitchen. Whereas the broadcast spray gives a wide application, the pin spray is exact and puts the pesticide in a very limited area. She had told him not to spray in the children's rooms, and claims she asked him not to use the same spray he had used in the earlier visit. Mrs. Tipton claims Mr. Kaeler did not tell her he had used the same spray but in a diluted strength or in a lesser volume. She claims he said he would not use the same spray and would not spray the daughter's bedroom. It would appear he did not spray the children's rooms, but there is no indication he used a different spray in September than in July. Mrs. Tipton claims the carpet remained damp far longer than it did during the July spraying and she thought this was unusual. When Mr. Bowen, the Department's entomologist inspector, was contacted by Mr. Tipton, he gave Mr. Tipton some advice on how to deal with the problem. The children's doctor also called Bowen about what Bowen had told Mr. Tipton. When Mr. Tipton finally suggested that the pesticide had been applied improperly, Bowen opened his investigation. He took Mrs. Tipton's statement and got the doctor's comments. He also took a statement from Mr. Kaeler and his records for the July and September applications, as well as copies of the labels from the containers of the pesticide applied. The Department requires that all products be used consistent with the labeling instructions and the standards of the Department and the Environmental Protection Agency, (EPA). From his investigation, Mr. Bowen determined that the Respondent used Dursban L.O. Mr. Bowen is familiar with that product and determined that the Respondent applied the product at a concentrated rate in a broadcast pattern over the carpets. This was appropriate, but if it were done while people other than the applicator were in the structure, he contend this was specifically prohibited by the label. In his opinion, Mr. Kaeler's actions constitute a violation of the statute and the Department's rule. None of the information received by Mr. Bowen from the family doctor or the Health Department related to the propriety of Respondent's application of the product. These contacts related only to the health of the children. The only reference to possibly improper application is found in Mrs. Tipton's undated statement. The label on the Dursban L.O. product indicates, "Other than the applicator, treated areas should be vacated during application. Do not permit humans or pets to contact treated surfaces until the spray has dried." Mr. Bowen did not contact the manufacturer to see what "areas" being treated meant. He feels that the interpretation is up to his agency, and he agrees with the agency determination that the entire residence must be vacated. No direct evidence was presented to show the agency determination, however, and it appears the determination of propriety of application was left up to Mr. Bowen. A broadcast spray is used for large areas. A pin stream is used for cracks and crevices. A pin stream application does not, in Mr. Bowen's opinion, require vacation of the structure. The broadcast spray for flea control does, however, as he sees it. If the manufacturer were to hold that application did not require evacuation of the entire structure, but only the room being treated, then in that case, Mr. Bowen would conclude that the application by Mr. Kaeler was appropriate. As he recalls, Mr. Kaeler used one half gallon of 1/4 percent solution for an 1800 square foot application. This was a fairly light treatment. Mr. Bowen has, himself, applied Dursban L.O. at this rate. Mr. Kaeler has been employed by Terminix since November, 1993 as a service technician. He underwent 30 days of a training program in identification of insects and application techniques and requirements of pesticides, including Dursban, with the company. He is not licensed. Terminix holds the license under which he operates. Mr. Kaeler admits that when he treated the Tipton house on September 16, 1994, Mrs. Tipton complained of her daughter's head aches resulting from the prior application and asked him not to spray the child's bedroom, but she did not object to the use of this pesticide. He broadcast sprayed all the carpeted area up to the entry to the girls' bedrooms. In all the girls' rooms there were clothes, books and toys on the floor so he did not spray inside. In the kitchen, which, he claims, was the only location where Mrs. Tipton was present while he sprayed, he used the pin stream technique. The entire spraying took about 30 minutes. Mr. Kaeler also sprayed the windows and doors from the outside and the garage, using the pin stream spray in all those locations. The one half gallon of solution was used to do all the spraying at the Tipton's house that day, both inside and out. Mr. Kaeler believes that the solution he sprayed on the carpeted areas on September 16, 1994 should have dried in no more than an hour. He confirms that Mrs. Tipton opened the windows and turned on the fans while he was still spraying. He had told her to do this the first time. As Mr. Kaeler understands it, Terminix's policy is that occupants of property being broadcast sprayed for insects should stay off the carpet being sprayed but need not vacate the structure. Dr. Ellen Thoms, an entomologist working for the manufacturer of the chemical in issue, indicates that the label instructions on containers of Dursban L.O. were intended by the company to mean that the term "area" where the chemical is being applied by broadcast spray includes not the entire structure but the immediate area of the application because of the possibility of spraying the chemical on someone. The danger is in contact with the substance through the skin or through oral ingestion, not in the odor or the fumes. In Dr. Thoms' opinion, Mr. Kaeler's application was consistent with the terms of the label, which uses the term "should" rather than the term "must". The drying time for carpet sprayed with Dursban L.O. by broadcast spray is effected by the thickness of the carpet and the relative humidity in the sprayed area. Since a greater amount of applied substance dried more quickly in the high humidity of July, in Dr. Thoms' opinion it is unlikely a smaller amount applied in September would take more than 14 hours to dry. She does not know what the climate factors were that day, however. Dr. Mangold, a technical specialist for Terminix, and an entomologist certified in all four categories of pest control, reviewed all the material evidence in this case and heard the testimony given at hearing. He has concluded that what Mr. Kaeler did was conservatively to apply a very diluted spray, usually applied at a rate of one gallon per 1,600 square feet. His one half gallon application for an 1,800 square foot house, plus outside, is an appropriate maintenance application. In Dr. Mangold's opinion, Mr. Kaeler's application in September, 1994 was consistent with the label requirements in amount, concentration and percent, and with the requirement that all other persons be out of the area being treated. He does not believe, in light of what was shown, it could have taken in excess of fourteen hours for this application to dry. In his opinion, drying should have taken between twenty minutes and an hour, and he can see no possible explanation for it having taken as long as Mrs. Tipton claims. Dr. Mangold defines the term "area treated" as being the immediate area being treated - an eighteen inch swath and some adjacent area, to-wit: the area being contacted by the spray. Mr. Lemont, a fully certified entomologist-consultant reviewed the file on this case and heard the testimony given at hearing. In his opinion, the term, "area treated" includes the contact area, not the entire structure. He believes Mr. Kaeler performed consistently with the label instructions and there was no violation. The words, "should" and "may", are interpreted in the trade as permissive and non-enforceable. Stronger words, such as "shall" and "must", are directive and enforceable. Mr. Lemont agrees that the application by Mr. Kaeler was a light application. Drying depends on humidity, but often an application dries before the operator leaves. He cannot believe this application would have taken more than two to three hours, even under the most adverse atmospheric conditions. Certainly, it would not have taken more than fourteen hours. In Lemont's opinion, the issue of how close an applicator can come to others while applying Dursban L.O. by broadcast spray is a judgement call. The issue is contact. Mrs. Tipton was not positive on the issue of Mr. Kaeler's being in the room with her, other than the kitchen, while applying the substance.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED THAT a Warning Letter not be issued to either Michael A. Kaeler or Terminix International Co., LP., as a result of Mr. Kaeler's application of Dursban L.O. at the Tipton residence in New Port Richey, Florida on September 16, 1994. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of July, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of July, 1995. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert G. Worley, Esquire Department of Agriculture Room 515, Mayo Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800 James M. Nicholas, Esquire P.O. Box 814 Melbourne, Florida 32902 The Honorable Bob Crawford Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Harry Hooper General Counsel Department of Agriculture Room 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800
Findings Of Fact Respondents, during all times here involved, were licensed by Petitioner as alleged and operated three separate pest control offices in Jacksonville, New Smyrna Beach and Palatka. During the period between May 1976 and April 1977 no certified operator was registered with Petitioner at the Jacksonville or New Smyrna Beach offices. During this period numerous fumigation contracts were entered into by Respondents. When these contracts were carried out all fumigation was performed under the supervision of a currently registered certified operator who was attached to the Palatka office owned by Respondents. Between June 1976 and October 1977 24-hour advance written notice of fumigation was not provided by Respondents to the health authorities in Duval County on five occasions and to the health authorities of Volusia County on six occasions. However, the health inspectors of each county apparently received telephone notice because they inspected the fumigations for which the written notice was not provided a higher percentage of times than the average inspection for fumigation for which 24-hour written advance notice was provided. Several violations involved the certified operator notifying HRS by letter that he would be certified operator for a specific office commencing on a given date and thereafter failing to submit the proper forms to obtain a current pest control identification card for the office at which he worked. Proper registration of pest control salesmen and certified operators requires the issuance of a pest control identification card for a specific location. On some occasions the charges resulted from Respondent, United Pest Control, acquiring another pest control company and continuing operations under United Pest Control without having changed the pest control identification cards of these employees. Two charges involved agents of Respondent who entered into contracts with customers. One resulted from a complaint that the agent inaccurately advised the customer that there was termite infestation and one involved a complaint of improper treatment for subterranean termites. After the customers complained to governmental authorities Respondents refunded their money. When Respondent Powell attempted to inspect the premises to verify the complaint of these two customers he was denied access to the premises by the customers. The certified operator in the Palatka office was used to supervise a fumigation contract obtained in the Jacksonville office and the New Smyrna Beach office during the period here involved. He told Respondent several times that it was a violation of the regulation for him to perform the fumigation on contracts in these other offices, but only after he reported this to HRS was the practice stopped. At the time of the hearing the Jacksonville pest control operation had been sold by Respondent United Pest Control.
The Issue Whether the practices and procedures set forth in paragraphs 6.1., 6.2, and 6.3 of the Challenge to Agency Statements filed by the Petitioner on December 28, 2005, constitute agency statements defined as rules but not adopted as such, in violation of Section 120.54, Florida Statutes.
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 is the state agency responsible for enforcing the provisions of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, the "Structural Pest Control Act." The Director of the Division of Agricultural Environmental Services (Division) is appointed by the Commissioner of Agriculture and is given the responsibility by Section 570.45, Florida Statutes, to enforce the provisions of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes. The Bureau is created in the Division and is responsible for, among other duties, investigating violations of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes. The Bureau Chief makes the ultimate decision to file an administrative complaint against a certificate-holder or to preliminarily deny an application for certification as a pest control operator or for an identification card for a pest control employee.3 At one time, Mr. Kravitsky was certified by the Bureau as a pest control operator. When he applied for renewal of his certificate, the Bureau issued a notice in 2004 that it intended to deny the application because of alleged violations of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, committed by Mr. Kravitsky while he engaged in the business of a certified pest control operator. In 2005, the Bureau issued another notice that it intended to deny a second application for renewal of Mr. Kravitsky's pest control operator's certificate, based on the same allegations of wrong-doing. And, finally, the Bureau issued a notice in 2005 that it intended to deny Mr. Kravitsky's application for a pest control employee's identification card.4 Mr. Kravitsky is, therefore, substantially affected by the agency statements at issue herein. The Bureau Chief's decisions to file an administrative complaint against a certificate-holder for violations of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, or to deny preliminarily applications for a certificate, a renewal certificate, or an employee identification card are based on information gathered as part of an investigation of a licensee or an applicant. If the investigation is of a certificate- or card-holder, an investigation is initiated either as a routine enforcement action or as the result of a consumer complaint. A field inspector for the Bureau collects information, including statements, affidavits, photographs, videotapes, documents, and any information that pest control operators and employees are required to maintain. Once the information is gathered by the field inspector, the case file is sent to the inspector's supervisor, who reviews the case file for completeness. The supervisor requests additional information, if necessary. Once the supervisor considers the file complete, it is sent to the Bureau's office in Tallahassee, Florida, where the file is given a case number and assigned to a case reviewer who evaluates the evidence contained in the file to determine if there is a possible violation of the provisions of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes. If the case reviewer finds no violation, the case is closed. If it appears to the case reviewer that there is evidence of a violation, an administrative complaint is drafted, and the draft complaint and case file are sent to an enforcement administrator or to a case manager, who independently evaluates the evidence collected in the case. The enforcement administrator or case manager then makes a recommendation to the Bureau Chief regarding whether the draft administrative complaint should be filed. Anyone reviewing the case file can ask that additional information be gathered if he or she finds that the file is not complete. This investigation and review process is an internal process that is not applied outside the Department, it does not affect the private interests of any person, and it is not a procedure that is important to the public.
The Issue Whether or not the Petitioner, Kenneth F. Feathers, d/b/a Feathers Exterminating Company, is entitled to the renewal of an emergency pest control certificate in accordance with the terms and conditions of Subsection 482.111(10), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact This cause comes on for consideration based upon the Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services' refusal to renew the emergency pest control certificate of Kenneth F. Feathers, d/b/a Feathers Exterminating Company. On November 6, 1978, a representative of the Respondent wrote to the Petitioner and indicated the basis for denying the renewal request, after which the Petitioner requested a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. The testimony in the course of the hearing revealed that the Petitioner, Kenneth F. Feathers, d/b/a Feathers Exterminating Company, is involved with the structural pest control business. Kenneth F. Feathers, the licensee, is the holder of a special identification card under the authority of Section 482.151, Florida Statutes. He does not hold a pest control operator's certificate as described in Section 482.111, Florida Statutes. In the years 1977 and 1978 the Petitioner had listed at various times, the names of Wayne Neal Pearce and Michael D. Brennan as being the certified pest control operators in charge of all categories of pest control being carried out by Feathers Exterminating Company. In fact, Pearce and Brennan, though certified as pest control operators and listed by the Petitioner as being the certified operator in charge of the Feathers Exterminating Company, were in fact employed in Gainesville, Florida, in other primary occupations which they worked contemporaneously with the work day of the Feathers Exterminating Company. Under the arrangement they were merely on call and never actually performed supervisory duties for the Petitioner. Mr. Pearce was a police officer with the Gainesville, Florida, Police Department and subsequently opened up his own pest control business in Gainesville. Mr. Brennan was and is primarily employed by Clay Electric Company. When these discoveries were made by employees of the Respondent, the Petitioner was advised that neither Mr. Pearce nor Mr. Brennan could serve in the capacity as certified pest control operators for the Feathers Exterminating Company, in view of the fact that these individuals were not employed on a full-time basis by Feathers Exterminating Company, in the sense of being in charge of all categories of pest control. After these discoveries on the part of the Respondent, the Petitioner requested an emergency pest control certificate under authority of Subsection 482.111(10), Florida Statutes, and this emergency certificate was granted. That initial request occurred sometime in October, 1978. On October 28, 1978, the Petitioner requested a renewal of the emergency pest control certificate which brought about the denial which is the issue in this hearing. At present and during the time for which the original emergency certificate had been granted and a renewal requested, the Petitioner does not and did not have a certified pest control operator in charge of the categories of pest control conducted by Feathers Exterminating Company. Both Pearce and Brennan have terminated their involvement with the Feathers Exterminating Company, even in an advisory capacity, and the Petitioner's efforts at arranging for a replacement certified pest control operator have not been successful. This has been the outcome notwithstanding the long-term efforts on the part of the Respondent, beginning in 1975, to assist the Petitioner in complying with the requirements for having a certified pest control operator in charge of the Petitioner/licensee's business activities conducted under Chapter 482, Florida Statutes. In view of these facts, the Petitioner is not entitled to a renewal of the emergency pest control certificate. Subsection 482.111(3), Florida Statutes, states: "Each category of each licensee shall be in the charge of a certified operator who is certified for the particular category..." Under the current statement of the law found in Section 482.152, Florida Statutes (1978), whose effective date was October 1, 1978; for the business activity of the licensee to be in the charge of a certified operator, it is necessary for that certified pest control operator to fulfill the duties set forth in this section. Section 482.152, Florida Statutes (1978), contained the following language: "Duties of certified pest control operator in charge of pest control activities of licensee.--A certified operator in charge of pest control operations of a licensee shall be a Florida resident whose primary occupation is in the structural pest con trol business, who is employed on a full time basis by the licensee, and whose principal duty is the personal supervision of and participation in the pest control operations of the licensee as the same relate to the following: ..." It can be seen by the language set forth in this Section 482.152, Florida Statutes, that neither Pearce nor Brennan would qualify as certified pest control operators for the benefit of the Petitioner, because they either do not have their primary occupation in the structural pest control business, and/or are not employed on a full-time basis by the Petitioner and do not have their principal duties as one of personal supervision and participation in the pest control operations of the Petitioner, even if those individuals consented to continue their prior arrangement with Feathers. Nevertheless, the Petitioner might be entitled to an emergency certified pest control operator's certificate if provisions of Subsection 482.111(10), Florida Statutes, could be satisfied; however, the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he has any reasonable expectation of hiring a certified pest control operator who may fulfill the requirements of Section 482.152, Florida Statutes, in terms of the duties incumbent on a certified operator through whom the licensee intends to transact business in accordance with the requirements of Section 482.111, Florida Statutes. In addition, the testimony clearly demonstrated that the Petitioner at one time was using the certificates of Pearce and Brennan to secure or keep his license at a time when Pearce and Brennan were not in charge of the pest control activities, and the Petitioner was thereby in violation of Subsection 482.121(2), Florida Statutes, which violation in turn would constitute a sufficient ground for denying the renewal of the emergency pest control operator's certificate. This ground for denial is authorized by Subsection 482.161(1), Florida Statutes, which states that a license renewal may be denied on the basis that a Provision of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, has been violated. In summary, the renewal of the emergency certified pest control operator's certificate should be denied because the Petitioner has failed to give sufficient reasons for such renewal and because the Petitioner, by violating Subsection 482.121(2), Florida Statutes, has given the Respondent an affirmative ground for such a denial under provision Subsection 482.161(1), Florida Statutes. (At the conclusion of the hearing the Petitioner indicated his intention to stand for an examination under Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, which would allow him to obtain a pest control operator's certificate that would allow him to operate his business in those categories which he desired to be employed in. On March 22, 1979, the attorney for the Respondent informed the undersigned that Mr. Feathers had successfully passed those portions of the examination which would allow him to obtain a certificate to operate in the areas of lawn and ornamental pest control and general household pest control. On this occasion, Mr. Feathers was not successful in passing the portion of the examination involved in termite pest control. It would therefore appear that the Petitioner is entitled to a certificate to operate in the fields of lawn and ornamental pest control and general household pest control, after the payment of the appropriate fees. Under these circumstances, the Petitioner would not be entitled to operate in the area of termite pest control in the sense of being the holder of such a certificate and in keeping with the undersigned's impression of this case, the affect of this Recommended Order would be a recommendation that the Petitioner not be granted a renewal of his emergency pest control operator's certificate in the termite pest control specialty.)
Recommendation It is recommended that the Petitioner's request for the renewal of his emergency pest control operator's certificate be DENIED. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of March 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of March, 1979. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Kenneth F. Feathers Feathers Exterminating Company 1527 Northeast 8th Avenue Ocala, Florida 32670 Joseph E. Hodges, Esquire District III Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2002 Northwest 13th Street Gainesville, Florida 32601
Findings Of Fact Evidence adduced by the Petitioner in the form of the testimony of F. Robert DuChanois, an entomologist and supervisor in charge of commercial pest control, Office of Entomology, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, as well as Exhibit 2, established that on July 1, 1979, the Respondent made an inspection of an apartment house in Hallandale, Florida, to determine whether suspicions by the occupants of drywood termite infestations were well-founded. As delineated in Exhibit 2, the Respondent's report of his inspection, positive evidence was found in a number of places of termite infestation, which findings revealed that indeed the Respondent made a detailed professional investigation of the premises for such infestations. The evidence in the record also reveals (Exhibit 4) that the Respondent is not operating a pest control business, but is only performing consulting work for those property owners who request that he make inspections for termite and other wood-destroying pests. In any event, the Respondent, in the posthearing pleading he filed, has agreed to cease the activity objected to and which forms the basis of the Petitioner's charges. He has agreed to cease practicing consulting work in entomology henceforth.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and the evidence in the record, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Petition in this cause filed by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services against Dr. A.C. Banerjee be DISMISSED and Case No. 80-2160 be hereby closed. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of August, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 10th day of August, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold L. Braynon, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 201 West Broward Boulevard Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Dr. A. C. Banerjee 10891 N.W. 17th Manor Coral Springs Branch Pompano Beach, Florida 33065 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 80-2160 DR. A. C. BANERJEE, Respondent. /
