The Issue The issue in this case is whether an application for a pest control employee-identification card filed by Respondent, Larry Kravitsky, with Petitioner, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, should be denied for the reasons stated in Administrative Complaint # A61227, BEPC Case # 09-0850.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Bureau of Entomology and Pest Control (hereinafter referred to as the “Department”), is charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the provisions of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, the “Structural Pest Control Act.” Among other duties, the Department is responsible for issuing pest control employee-identification cards. On or about February 13, 2007, the Department issued an Administrative Complaint and Settlement Agreement, Notice to Cease and Desist, BEPC Case Number 06-1951, Administrative Complaint Number A47018, against Larry Kravitsky (hereinafter referred to as the “Disciplinary Administrative Complaint”). It is alleged in Count 1 of the Disciplinary Administrative Complaint that Mr. Kravitsky committed a violation of Section 482.165(1), Florida Statutes (2006), by “practicing pest control in the State of Florida without a Pest Control Business License . . . .” In Count 2 it is alleged that Mr. Kravitsky violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 5E- 14.106(1) by “[a]pplying a pesticide in a manner inconsistent with its labeling ” On or about February 28, 2007, Mr. Kravitsky disputed the facts upon which the Disciplinary Administrative Complaint is based and requested a formal administrative hearing pursuant to Sections 120.569, and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. On December 4, 2007, the matter was filed by the Department with the Division of Administrative Hearings requesting that an administrative law judge be assigned to conduct the formal hearing requested by Mr. Kravitsky. The matter was designated DOAH Case No. 07-5600PL and was assigned to the undersigned. An evidentiary hearing was held in DOAH Case No. 07- 5600PL on December 18, 2008. On June 2, 2009, a Recommended Order was entered in DOAH Case No. 07-5600PL. The Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and recommendation in that case are hereby incorporated by reference into this Recommended Order. In the Recommended Order Mr. Kravitsky was found to have violated Section 482.165, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 5E- 14.106(6), as alleged in the Disciplinary Administrative Complaint. On July 14, 2009, a Final Order was entered by the Department in the disciplinary Administrative Complaint case. The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth in the Recommended Order were adopted “in their entirety” and Mr. Kravitsky was ordered to pay a fine of $4,000.00. On or about January 6, 2009, subsequent to the issuance of Disciplinary Administrative Complaint and prior to the entry of the Recommended Order in DOAH Case No. 07-5600PL, Mr. Kravitsky applied with the Department for a pest control employee-identification card. By Administrative Complaint # A61227, BEPC Case # 09- 0850, the Department notified Mr. Kravitsky that his January 6, 2009, application for a pest control employee-identification card was being denied based upon the following: A copy of an Administrative Complaint and Settlement Agreement against Larry Kravitsky dated February 13, 2007, Administrative Complaint Number A47018, BEPC Case Number 06-1951 is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The factual allegations against Mr. Kravitsky in Exhibit A are incorporated by reference herein. Based on the factual allegations in Exhibit A, Larry Kravitsky practiced pest control on or about June 5, 2006, in the State of Florida without a pest control business license and without an identification card in violation of Section 482.165(1), Florida Statutes. Based on the factual allegations in Exhibit A, Larry Kravitsky applied a pesticide on or about June 5, 2006, in a manner inconsistent with its labeling in violation of Section 5E-14.106(1), Florida Administrative Code. The Department is authorized by Florida Statutes, Section 482.161(1)(a) to deny the application for licensure of an identification cardholder for the violation of any provision of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes or of any rule adopted by the Department pursuant to Chapter 482, Florida Statutes. The alleged violations against Larry Kravitsky set forth in Exhibit A were tried in an administrative hearing on December 8, 2008, before Honorable Larry Sartin Administrative Law Judge in Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) Case Number 07-5600. A Recommended Order has not yet been issued in that case. Mr. Kravitsky disputed the foregoing allegations and requested a formal administrative hearing. His request was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings and designed DOAH Case No. 09-2300.
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 denying the application for a pest control employee-identification card filed by Larry Kravitsky due to his violation of Section 482.165, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 5E-14.106(6), as alleged in the Disciplinary Administrative Complaint and found in DOAH Case No. 07-5600PL. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of August, 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 10th day of August, 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
Findings Of Fact Respondent is and at all material times has been a certified pest control operator in the category of fumigation. He works for Thumb Pest Control, Inc. He was the supervisor present when the company performed the tent fumigation of a residential structure located at 11 West Muriel Street, Orlando, Florida, on May 29, 1987. On May 28, 1987, Respondent gave Petitioner and the Orlando Fire Department written notice of the details of the job, including his night telephone number. The night number was for Respondent's home telephone. Respondent lived in Tampa. His telephone number was in the "813" area code, not the "305" area code of Orlando. The notice did not disclose Respondent's area code. However, the form bore the address of Thumb Pest Control, Inc., which was in Tampa. It was Respondent's understanding-- uncontradicted by Petitioner-- that he was required by law to give this notice only to Respondent; he gave the notice to the Orlando Fire Department as an added precaution. Respondent and Tim Lightner, a certified operator and the Orlando branch manager of Thumb Pest Control Inc., testified that the tent did not have tears when they released the fumigant at around 3:00 p.m. on May 29, 1987. Their testimony is credible and unrebutted. The fumigant that they used was methyl bromide. The fumigant also included chloropicrin, which is a warning odorant accompanying the odorless methyl bromide. The commercial formulation of the fumigant in this case was Brom-O-Gas. This is a highly toxic gas which causes nausea, convulsions, and death to humans exposed to it. The manufacturer states in a booklet accompanying Brom-O-Gas that "two persons trained in the use of this product must be present at all times when worker exposure exceeds 5 PPM. . . ." Petitioner's Exhibit Number 4, page 1. In another document, entitled "Structural Fumigant: A guide for fumigating effectively with Bromo-O-Gas," the manufacturer emphasizes, as the title suggests, methods designed to increase the killing efficiency of the pesticide. The manufacturer suggests frequent monitoring during fumigation when persons are occupying an adjacent building sharing a common wall with the building being fumigated. Petitioner's Exhibit Number 5, page 2. By negative implication, the manufacturer does not suggest monitoring when persons occupy buildings that are nearby but not sharing a common wall. At around 8:30 p.m., the Orlando Fire Department received a telephone call from a neighbor living nearby the tented house. She reported that fumigant was escaping from the tent. Members of the Orlando Fire Department responded to the call and found that the tent had approximately ten tears in it with some as much as one foot long. It took six firemen about two hours to repair the tears with duct tape. Prior to making the repairs, the firemen contacted their dispatcher and directed him to try to reach a representative of Thumb Pest Control, Inc. There was no admissible evidence concerning precisely how the dispatcher or dispatchers, who did not testify, tried to reach Respondent or other representatives of Thumb Pest Control, Inc. In any event, the Orlando Fire Department was unable to reach anyone with Thumb Pest Control, Inc. that evening. Respondent testified that he, his wife, and one-year old child were home all evening on May 29, 1987, and that he received no calls. He also testified that he uses a telephone answering machine when away from home and, even though he was home all night, he had no messages from that evening. There does appear to have been some confusion concerning area codes. There also was no positive testimony that anyone tried to telephone the night number of Respondent, as shown on the fumigation notice that he had delivered the prior day, together with the "813" area code.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is licensed by the State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Service as a pest control service authorized to perform all functions for which such organizations may be licensed. Gilbert Bellino was certified operator for Respondent from prior to the earliest charge in the Administrative Complaint until mid-1977. He was certified in the four types of treatment authorized by pest control companies, viz. fumigation, general household pest control, including rodent control, termite or other wood infesting organisms control, and lawn and ornamental pest control. A certified operator is required to supervise and direct the activities of all employees engaged in pest control. Many of the complaining witnesses made their first contact with Respondent when answering an advertisement for a onetime household pest treatment and a free termite inspection. Lloyd Green responded to an ad in which Respondent offered a spray treatment of the yard and house for $15. Folsom and Jones appeared and after an inspection of his house advised Green that he had dry wood and subterranean termites and induced him to sign a contract to treat them at a price of $286. After reflection and before any work was done Green called and cancelled the contract. He had the house inspected by Mr. Chapman of Chapman Pest Control who found no evidence of active infestation. All evidence Chapman found of wood damage was done prior to the timber having been processed. The house was later inspected by David Jones, District V Entomologist and he too found no evidence of active infestation. A second inspection of Green's home was made by Jones in company with Casale, the President of Respondent. The only evidence found was one hole in a bed slat which had occurred before the lumber was processed. Turpentine beetles and pine sawyer beetles are wood borers that attack trees but not processed lumber. Once lumber is processed any further damage from these beetles is highly improbable if not impossible. Evidence of the damage they have caused will remain in the wood but is readily distinguishable from an active infestation by one with almost any training in pest control. Wood borers make round holes and any eliptical hole found in timber is indicative that the hole was made before the wood was processed. The oblique angle to the borer's tunnel cut by the saw when the lumber was processed causes an eliptical hole. Charles Casale visited Robert Rankin's house for a free termite inspection and identified himself as an employee of Respondent. He was accompanied by another man who inspected the crawl space under the house. Upon completion of the inspection Casale advised Rankin he had an infestation and needed treatment which would cost $300. After getting an opinion from another pest control company that he did not have termites Rankin called HRS and David Jones inspected the entire house. At this inspection Jones found no evidence of active infestation but a colony of fleas from Rankin's two dogs. At the time of Casale's inspection application for an identification card had not been submitted for Casale. Thelma P. Wray contracted with Respondent for fumigation of her house. No written instructions were given her by Respondent, nor was she advised to remove medicines. She was advised to remove only milk cartons, cheese and open food. The only warning sign placed on front and rear of house during fumigation (Exhibit 4) on November 10, 1974 did not show type of fumigant used and stated house is safe for reentry at 10:30 a.m. December 11, 1974. This sign appeared on the house the evening of December 10, 1974 and was placed only at the front and rear. No notice of this fumigation was provided to the County Industrial Hygienist who maintains records of notices of all fumigations. Neither Mr. nor Mrs. Chaney testified. No one having personal knowledge was called to identify Exhibit 6 and no evidence was offered that Larry A. Donald, Jr. was employed by Respondent and visited the Cheney home without a valid identification card. Mrs. Ruby Moser did not testify. No witness was produced to testify regarding Phillip Jones' visit to the Moser home on June 10, 1975 or identify Exhibit 7. Neither Mr. nor Mrs. Donald R. Seldes testified. No evidence was presented regarding the alleged visit of Bill Gillian, while an employee of Respondent, to the home of the Seldes. Judith Bashline was contacted by Respondent through telephone solicitation for special pest cleanout and termite inspection. One man sprayed for the pest cleanout and he was followed by Phillip Jones and Ken Ely, Jr. who, after inspecting the attic, advised her she had an infestation in the attic in a dormant state which needed immediate treatment. She entered into a contract for spot treatment for $190. After Jones and Ely left Mrs. Bashline began having misgivings and called another pest control company for information. She was referred to HRS and there contacted David Jones who inspected the property. Upon inspection Jones found no evidence of active infestation - only the preprocessed type damage found in the other homes. When Helen M. Hopper purchased her home at 1037 - 12th Street North, St. Petersburg, Florida she acquired a subterranean termite policy from Respondent. She then started monthly sprayings with Respondent. After the first spraying on September 16, 1975, Ken Ely, Jr., an employee of Respondent, went into Hopper's attic and told Mrs. Hopper she had borers in the roof and needed immediate treatment to save the roof. After he left she called another pest control company for verification. When that company inspected the attic they reported no problem with borers. She then called HRS and David Jones inspected the premises October 24, 1975 and in the attic he found only old damage which had occurred before the wood was processed. There was no infestation for which treatment was indicated. When Donald R. Bond II and his wife purchased a home his mother recommended they use Gulf Coast Pest Control. In January, 1977 Robert R. Plowman, an employee of Respondent, advised the Bonds that they had powder post beetles and dry wood termites and the attic needed to be treated. He came back that evening when Mr. Bond was home and a contract for the work was signed. The following day Mrs. Bond had two other pest control companies inspect the house. Whey they advised her there was no evidence of active infestation she cancelled her contract and called HRS. On February 10, 1977 David Jones inspected her property. He found no evidence of borer or termite infestation; however Jones did find evidence of rat infestation. On June 26, 1976 Robert R. Plowman, an employee of Respondent, inspected the home of Rita M. Spera at 9783 - 52nd Avenue North, St. Petersburg, Florida and reported to her that there was an infestation of wood borers in the attic and she needed to have fumigation. The previous year the Speras had replaced the shingles on the roof and had found the wood in good condition. Accordingly Mrs. Spera really didn't believe Plowman and called HRS for verification. When David Jones Inspected the house on July 2, 1976 he found only evidence of old damage that had occurred before the wood was processed. No evidence of active infestation was observed. Mrs. Ellen M. Hameroff received a telephone solicitation from Respondent for a cleanout and termite inspection. She accepted the offer and on September 2, 1976 Robert R. Plowman, an employee of Respondent, inspected her attic and reported that powder post beetles were present and treatment was needed which would cost $200 to $400. Plowman returned that evening to talk with Dr. Hameroff but they didn't sign a contract. The following day another pest control company was contacted for an inspection. They reported no infestation. She then called HRS and on November 22, 1976 David Jones inspected the property and found only evidence of old damage. On September 1, 1977 William C. Bargren, Scott Askins and F. R. DuChanois, Entomologists with HRS inspected the Hameroff property. They found evidence that pine sawyer beetles had been in the tree from which some sheathing boards in the attic had been processed. There was no evidence of infestation in the Hameroff home. In December, 1976 Robert L. Dill had a spray and free inspection by Respondent on his home at 1551 Citrus Street Clearwater, Florida. Following an inspection of the home, Robert R. Plocnan and John D. Lucas, employees of Respondent, advised Dill that he had powder post beetles in the attic, ceiling and floor under the house and needed treatment. Before agreeing to the treatment for the powder post beetles and preventive treatment for termites for which Respondent wanted $500, Dill had two other pest control companies inspect the property. Both of these companies advised Dill he had no infestation. Jimmy Robinson of Exterminator Terminix, International, a certified operator, inspected the Dill property on November 22, 1976 and found no evidence of powder post beetles or termites for which treatment was indicated. He noticed no damage to floor but did see some evidence of borers before the wood was processed. When Dill reported the incident to HRS, David Jones inspected the property on January 20 and 26, 1977, the second time in company with the Casales, Plowman and Donald. Damage to wood in the floor was done before the lumber was processed and no infestation was present for which treatment was indicated. Lawrence A. Donald, an employee of Respondent, holds a certified operator's license and he found evidence of "tremendous damage due to boring animals" under Dill's house. He opined that there were live larvae in the wood, however, his credibility and expertise left a great deal to be desired. During a monthly contract spraying Robert R. Plowman, an employee of Respondent, told Mrs. Shirley I. Bond that she had powder post wood borer beetles in the attic of her home at 6701 - 19th Street North, St. Petersburg, Florida and needed to have the attic power dusted. Mrs. Bond gave Plowman a check for $295 but after her daughter-in-law's experience, stopped the work. She called HRS and David Jones inspected her property on April 14, 1977. He found no evidence of infestation and in Jones' opinion the power spray of Dridie (a trade name for silica gel) would not be appropriate to treat dry wood termites or powder post beetles. Raymond L. Jackson employed Respondent for the advertised "clean-out" and free inspection. On January 6 and 7, 1977 Robert R. Plowman, an employee of Respondent, inspected Jackson's property at 6243 - 6th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, Florida and advised Jackson that he had active termites and powder post beetles and needed treatment. Jackson signed a contract and paid Plowman $300 for the work. About two weeks later two men power dusted Jackson's attic. After reading an article in the newspaper about powder post beetles Jackson called HRS and his property was inspected by Askins on July 26, 1977 and by Askins and Bargren on August 10, 1977. The only evidence of damage they found was that caused by turpentine beetles prior to the wood being processed. In their opinion no treatment was indicated before the power dusting was done. Mrs. Helen Stambaugh had a "clean-out" and free termite inspection in July, 1977 at her home at 2518 - 67th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, Florida by Respondent. Larry D. Brown, an employee of Respondent, to whom an application for identification card had not been submitted, told Mrs. Stambaugh that dry wood termites were infesting her garage and treatment was necessary. Spot treatment was offered for $130. She contacted another pest control company who, after inspection, advised that no treatment was indicated. She then called HRS and on July 20, 1977, Bargren and Askins inspected her property and found only evidence of old turpentine beetle damage in the garage which had occurred before the wood was processed. No infestation for which treatment was indicated was observed. In October, 1975 representatives from Gulf Coast Pest Control, Louis Casale, the company manager, Carmine Casale the owner and Gilbert Bellino, the certified operator, met with HRS representatives in Jacksonville to discuss the numerous complaints HRS had received about Respondent and to formulate remedial action. At this meeting the need for additional training of their salesman was discussed in connection with the complaints filed by Green, Rankin, Wray, and others with particular emphasis on the need to train their operators to distinguish old damage in the preprocessed tree from damage requiring correction. Respondent agreed to increase their training to improve the quality of their inspectors. Respondent has discharged all of the salesmen who made the misrepresentations noted above. Plowman was finally discharged because "he was too dumb" to learn to distinguish between old damage not requiring treatment and new damage which did require treatment. However, Plowman was continued as an employee even after criminal charges involving fraudulent misrepresentation had been filed against him.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, is the regulatory agency charged with regulating the terminate and pest control industry in Florida. Respondent, Howard R. Kempton, is a certified operator licensed by the Petitioner. During times material, Respondent was a certified pest control operator for Pinellas Termite and Pest Control, Inc., in St. Petersburg. On July 24, 1991, Respondent was the certified operator in charge of fumigation of a residential structure at 3318 Shamrock in Tampa, Florida. In carrying out the fumigation, Respondent used the fumigant product VIKANE (sulfuryl fluoride). Respondent did not provide Petitioner a notice of the intended fumigation at 3318 Shamrock in Tampa within 24 hours in advance of the fumigation as is required by the Petitioner's rules and the labeling provisions for the product VIKANE. In addition, Petitioner's inspector, William Bargen, who has been employed by Petitioner in the office of entomology in excess of 28 years, visited the residence on the day of the fumigation and the tarpaulin that Respondent used was not air tight as practicable in that it contained numerous slits and tears that was not properly sealed at the ground level encompassing the structure. The safety warning signs fastened to the exterior of the tarpaulin were not printed in indelible ink or paint and the emergency phone numbers for the certified operator were not legible. As a result of the improper seals, the fumigant VIKANE was escaping from the tarpaulin while the gas was being pumped into the structure at 3318 Shamrock on July 24, 1991. Inspector Bargen took photos of the fumigation tent as it was in place at 3318 Shamrock on the day in question, July 24, 1991 and it depicts the condition of the tarpaulin and the improper signs that were utilized by Respondent on that jobsite. The owner of the property called Petitioner's office and Inspector Bargen visited the site on July 24, 1991. It is undisputed that Respondent alerted the homeowner to call Petitioner who in turn dispatched Inspector Bargen to the site based on instructions from Respondent that he alert the Department of the on-going problems that he was having with his employer, Pinellas Termite and Pest Control, Inc. Respondent admits that the manner in which the fumigation occurred on July 24, 1991 at 3318 Shamrock in Tampa was improperly performed. However, Respondent offers that he did as much as he could under the circumstances to comply with the Petitioner's rules and regulations and the labelling instructions for the fumigant VIKANE as set forth by the manufacturer. Respondent related numerous occurrences whereby he attempted to convey the importance of carrying out the proper instructions to his employer without success. As a result, Respondent sought other employment and is no longer employed as a certified operator with Pinellas Pest Control. Finally, while Respondent recognized that a certified operator is responsible for the overall operations of the fumigation projects that he is in charge of, he relates that instructions were given to office personnel at Pinellas Pest Control to advise the Petitioner of the 24 hour notice prior to the date of fumigation and he was under the impression that timely notice was forwarded to Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner enter a final order imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $250.00 payable to Petitioner within 30 days of the entry of the Petitioner's final order.1/ DONE and ENTERED this 29 day of May, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29 day of May, 1992.
The Issue Whether the practices or procedures set forth in Paragraphs 6a and 6b of Petitioner's 2nd Amended Challenge to Agency Statements constitute rules in violation of Subsection 120.54(4), Florida Statutes (2004).1
Findings Of Fact 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 to serve at his pleasure and is given the responsibility by Section 570.45, Florida Statutes, to enforce the provisions of Chapter 482, Florida Statutes. The Bureau of Entomology and Pest Control (Bureau), under the Division Director's supervision and the supervision of the Assistant Director of the Division, Steven Dwinell, investigates violations of Chapter 482. The Department filed two Administrative Complaints against Cirrincione, alleging that he violated Florida Administrative Code Rule 5E-14.016(1) by failing to wear necessary protective equipment as stated on the label for the pesticide he was applying and Florida Administrative Code Rule 5E-14.106(6) by applying a deficient concentration of pesticide for preconstruction soil treatments for prevention of subterranean termites. The evidence at final hearing did not establish that Cirrincione was a licensee, certified operator, or special identification cardholder as those terms are defined in Section 482.021, Florida Statutes. At the time of the alleged violations, Cirrincione was an employee of Diligent Environmental Services. As an employee of Diligent Environmental Services, Cirrincione applied pesticides during preconstruction pest control treatments and would be subject to disciplinary actions pursuant to Section 482.161, Florida Statutes. Cirrincione filed a challenge to certain practices and procedures of the Bureau relating to the investigative activities of the Bureau and its staff, alleging that the practices and procedures were unpromulgated rules. These practices and procedures are described in Paragraphs 6a and 6b of Petitioner's 2nd Amended Challenge to Agency Statements. Paragraph 6a provides: The practice of selectively advising pest control licensees in writing, that they are under investigation for possible violations of Florida Statute 482 and/or its associated administrative rules and requesting their licensees to respond to subject allegations with information, records, or documentation. This procedure is utilized when the Department either needs additional information in connection with their investigation or if they anticipate a substantial penalty, consisting of a $5,000.00 administrative fine, suspension, or revocation. Paragraph 6b of Petitioner's 2d Amended Challenge to Agency Statements provides: There is a regularly employed multiple step procedure pursuant to which the Department makes the determination of whether or not to take disciplinary action against its licensees based inter alia upon the field inspector's investigative report. This procedure includes a preliminary determination that there is a sufficient factual and legal basis for disciplinary action which is characterized by the Department as the showing of "sufficient documentation." This preliminary disciplinary decision is made by a case reviewer who is then charged with the responsibility of drafting an administrative complaint consistent with his or her findings. The case reviewer's findings are then reviewed by the Environmental Manager/Enforcement Coordinator who, subject to any corrections, forwards the administrative complaint and associated documentation to the Assistant Division Director and Chief Officer of the Office of Entomology for final review. Ultimately, the Chief will execute the administrative complaint. The administrative complaints also include an addendum with a description of administrative penalties sought by the Department based upon policy guidelines. The Pest Control Enforcement Advisory Council (Council) is created within the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services "to advise the Commissioner of Agriculture regarding the regulation of pest control practices." § 482.243(1), Fla. Stat. At its November 20, 2003, meeting, the Council adopted unanimously Enforcement Response Guidelines, which included the following policy: When the disciplinary action to be sought as a result of this process is a monetary fine in excess of $5,000, or the suspension or revocation of a license, the Department will send a certified letter to the address of record notifying the responsible party that the Department intends to issue an administrative complaint. The responsible party will be given 14 working days to contact the Department to provide facts and arguments to the Department to consider to either modify the proposed administrative complaint, mitigate the proposed enforcement action, or to conclude that the proposed action should not be taken. If the certified mail is refused, the Department may proceed with the proposed action without further delay. If the responsible party responds to the notification that an administrative action is being considered, the Department will evaluate the additional information provided and either conduct additional investigation as warranted, modify the complaint as needed, or proceed with the complaint. The guidelines adopted by the Council are advisory, and the Department is not required to follow the guidelines; however, the Department has followed the guidelines pertaining to providing those who are subject to disciplinary actions an opportunity to provide additional information when the Department is considering taking disciplinary action in the form of an administrative fine in excess of $5,000, revocation, or suspension. The Department has also used the procedure when the Department's investigation reveals that additional information is necessary. The procedure has been described as the "opportunity letter" procedure. The opportunity letter is not sent to all persons who are under investigation for possible statutory or rule violations. When asked if the guidelines were being followed strictly by the Department, Steven Dwinell described the Bureau's adherence to the guidelines as follows: Well, I don't know if it was strictly. I mean, we're attempting to follow it, you know, I'm not going to testify that something slipped through, but as far as I know, we're following it. The opportunity letter is part of the investigatory process and does not require the person or entity that is the subject of the disciplinary investigation to respond to the request for additional information or to provide arguments for the modification, mitigation, or dismissal of the proposed action. There is no penalty for failure to respond. The ultimate decision of whether to issue an administrative complaint is made by either the Division Director or the Assistant Division Director. Prior to the issuance of an administrative complaint, an investigation is made by a field inspector, who completes a report setting out his findings. Sometimes the report will include a video tape of the application of the pesticide treatment at the site of the treatment. The report may also include a sample of the pesticide applied at the site. The sample will be sent to the Department's laboratory for testing, including the concentration level. The field inspector's report is reviewed by the field inspector's supervisor, who checks the investigatory file to make sure that it is complete. The file is then submitted to a reviewer, who looks at the video tapes and reviews the file and laboratory results. The reviewer prepares the first draft of the administrative complaint and sends the draft administrative complaint and the complete file to an environmental manager, who is responsible for enforcement coordination and supervising the reviewers. The environmental manager reviews the draft administrative report as a quality control measure. After review by the environmental manager, the draft administrative complaint and file are sent to the Division for review and consideration by either the Division Director or the Assistant Division Director. The decision to issue an administrative complaint is made at the Division level. After the administrative complaint is approved, it and the file are returned to the environmental manager for any cosmetic changes that may be necessary. The final draft of the administrative complaint is sent to the Bureau Chief for execution. This process of reviewing the file and drafting the administrative complaint prior to the decision being made to issue the administrative complaint is an internal process. It has no application outside the Department, does not affect the private interests of a person, and is not a plan or procedure that is important to the public.
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
