94-005486 Department Of Agriculture And Consumer Services vs. David William Brown Status: Closed Recommended Order on Tuesday, May 23, 1995.

Summary: Respondent guilty of failure to perform proper termite inspection and of issuing a negligent report; fine.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND )

CONSUMER SERVICES, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 94-5486

)

DAVID W. BROWN, d/b/a )

A-QUALITY TERMINATORS, )

)

Respondent. )

_________________________________)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the above-styled matter was heard before the Division

of Administrative Hearings by its duly designated Hearing Officer, Daniel M.

Kilbride, on February 3, 1995 in Tallahassee, Florida, with the Petitioner and

its attorney also present in Tallahassee, and the Respondent, his attorney and

all witnesses present in Orlando, in a video conference. The following

appearances were entered:

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Robert G. Worley, Esquire

Richard Tritschler, Esquire

Department of Agriculture

& Consumer Services

Mayo Building, Room 515

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800

For Respondent: Robert W. Genzman, Esquire

Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A.

255 South Orange Avenue

Post Office Box 231

Orlando, Florida 32802-0231

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

Whether Respondent, doing business as A-Quality Terminators, violated

Chapter 482, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 5E-14, Florida Administrative Code,

as alleged in the Notice of Intent to Impose Fine for failing to report visible

and accessible evidence of and damage caused by wood destroying organisms

following an inspection of a residence in the Orlando area on April 20, 1994.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On August 22, 1994, Petitioner issued Notice of Intent to Impose Fine

directed to the Respondent. On September 16, 1995, Respondent denied the

allegations and filed a Petition for a Formal Hearing. This matter was referred

to the Division of Administrative Hearings on October 4, 1994 and this matter

was set for hearing.

At the hearing, which was conducted by videoconference, Petitioner called

three witnesses, including Respondent as an adverse witness and an expert. Six

exhibits were received in evidence without objection. Petitioner's exhibit no.

1, an edited video report prepared by Orlando TV station, WFTV Channel 9, was

reviewed for the sole purpose of use as a demonstrative aide in visualizing the

residence in question. All statements made by anyone on the tape have been

disregarded as hearsay and have not been relied upon to support a finding of

fact in this case. Respondent testified in his own behalf and offered one

exhibit in evidence. A transcript of the hearing was not prepared. On March 6,

1995, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss or to Reopen Hearing alleging he had

obtained newly discovered evidence. Petitioner filed a Response to Respondent's

Motion and a hearing on the motion was held on April 5, 1995. By Order, dated

April 5, 1995, Respondent's Motion to Dismiss was denied. Respondent's Motion

to Reopen was granted for the limited purpose of deposing one witness and

continue the cross-examination of the Petitioner's expert witness who testified

at the hearing. The deposition testimony of the two witnesses was filed on May

8, 1995. Petitioner filed its proposed recommended order on February 10, 1995

and a supplement to the proposal on May 4, 1995. Respondent filed his proposed

recommended order on February 15, 1995 and a revised proposal on May 15, 1995.

Each of the parties' proposed recommended orders has been given careful

consideration and adopted when supported by clear and convincing evidence.

My specific rulings on the Parties' proposed findings of fact are set forth

in the Appendix attached hereto.

Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are

determined:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent, David W. Brown, is the sole proprietor of an unincorporated

business known as A-Quality Terminators which operates in the Orlando area.

2. Respondent is licensed to operate a pest control business by the

Petitioner. Respondent is also the holder of an identification card issued by

the Petitioner which authorizes him to perform inspections of structures for

wood-destroying organisms. Results of a wood-destroying organism inspection are

required to be evidenced by completion of the Respondent's approved Form 1145,

Wood Destroying Organism Report.

3. Prior to April 20, 1984, Respondent was asked to perform a wood-

destroying organism inspection at a residence located at 2913 Risser Avenue,

Orlando, Florida.

4. The inspection was requested by the purported owner, a woman using the

name of "Laura Taylor," for the alleged purpose of enabling the owner to obtain

refinancing of the mortgage on the residence.

5. The advance arrangements made with "Ms. Taylor" were that the residence

would be unoccupied during the inspection to be made on April 20, 1994, that a

residence key would be left for Respondent under the door mat, that a check

would be left for Respondent on the table inside, and that Respondent would

leave a Form 1145 Wood-Destroying Organisms Inspection Report on the table

inside.

6. The person purporting to be the owner of the subject property was

actually Laura Douglas, an employee of a local television station. She was

using the fictitious name "Laura Taylor", as a part of the sting operation the

station was conducting. The real owner was Dawn Angert.

7. The contrivance to have Respondent inspect the subject property was

part of arrangements made by the TV station to have inspections conducted by

several pest control companies of the subject property. An investigative report

would then be produced and broadcast by the station.

8. Respondent had previously performed several wood-destroying organisms

inspections in the subdivision where the subject residence is located, and he

was familiar with the common types of construction throughout the subdivision

and the common types of wood-destroying organism problems throughout the

subdivision.

9. On April 20, 1994, Respondent arrived at the subject property and

remained for approximately eight minutes. He noticed termite damage inside the

front door. He also observed the drill holes, indicating prior termite

treatment, outside the front door, even though the drill holes had been

obstructed by the door mat and potted plants.

10. Respondent did not complete his inspection at that time. He did not

leave a Form 1145, nor did he leave a notice of inspection. However, he took

the check on the table inside, and left a note on his business card indicating

that there were problems requiring further inspection.

11. Portions of Respondent's activities at the subject property on April

20, 1994, were videotaped by three hidden cameras of the TV station.

12. A day or so after the subject inspection of April 20, 1994, the

purported owner of the subject property, "Laura Taylor," telephoned Respondent's

office to advise that she urgently needed a "clean" Form 1145 because interest

rates were going higher and she wanted to complete the purported refinancing

transaction. She insisted that the Form 1145 be taped on the door of

Respondent's office so that she could drive by and pick it up. Respondent's

secretary called him while he was in the field to obtain approvals for the

release of the report.

13. Respondent, acting without his field notes and without a clear

recollection of his inspection of the subject property, asked his office by

telephone whether any notes at the office reflected a problem at the subject

property. He was advised that no such notes were found. He then instructed his

office to provide "Ms. Taylor" a "clean" Form 1145 pursuant to her urgent

request.

14. The Form 1145 was completed showing no evidence of any damage by wood-

destroying organisms or any evidence of treatment of wood-destroying organisms.

The report was taped to the office door and picked up that afternoon.

15. Respondent did not follow his normal procedure of checking his field

notes before issuing a Form 1145 report. The following day, while reviewing his

notes, he discovered his error and attempted to communicate the mistake to "Ms.

Taylor."

16. Respondent did not intend to provide an erroneous Form 1145 following

the inspection of the subject property.

17. The incomplete inspection and erroneous wood-destroying organism

report prepared by Respondent fell below the standard of practice in the pest

control industry in the Orlando area and was negligent.

18. In mitigation, following the extensive media publicity generated by

this matter, Respondent lost a substantial volume of business, has substantially

reduced the number of his employees, has been forced to close his office and

work out of his home, and has suffered personal embarrassment and loss of

reputation.

19. In the weeks preceding the hearing in this case, Respondent was a

participant in an unrelated undercover operation which led, through his efforts,

to the detection and interdiction of a third party's scheme to distribute banned

pest control substances unlawfully. Respondent's efforts led to an

investigative report broadcast by another local televison station, and further

led to enforcement action against the third party by the Petitioner.

20. Respondent has never previously had any fines or warning letters

imposed against him in the course of several years of pest control work and

several thousand wood-destroying organisms inspections in Florida.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

21. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the

subject matter of this proceeding, and the parties thereto, pursuant to

subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

22. The Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services is the state

agency responsible for administering and enforcing the provisions of Chapter

482, Florida Statutes, pertaining to pest control

23. Section 482.161(1), Florida Statutes, (Supp. 1994) provides:

(1) The department may issue a written warning

to or impose a fine against, or deny the appli-

cation for licensure or licensure renewal of, a

licensee, certified operator, limited certificate

holder, identification cardholder, or special

identification cardholder or any other person,

or may suspend, revoke, or deny the issuance or

renewal of any license, certificate, limited

certificate, identification card, or special

identification card that is within the scope of

this chapter, in accordance with chapter 120,

upon any of the following grounds:

* * *

(f) Performing pest control in a negligent manner.

24. Section 482.226(1), Florida Statutes, (1993) provides:

(1) When an inspection for wood-destroying

organisms is made by a licensee for purposes

or a real estate transaction and either a fee

is charged for the inspection or a written

report is requested by the customer, a wood-

destroying organism inspection report shall

be provided by the licensee or its represent-

ative qualified under this chapter to perform

such inspections. The inspection shall be

made in accordance with good industry practice

and standards as established by rule and must

include inspection for all wood-destroying

organisms. The inspection findings shall be

reported to the person requesting the inspection.

The report must be made on a form prescribed by

the department and furnished by the licensee.

A copy of the inspection report shall be retained

by the licensee for a period of not less than 3

years.

(2)(a) The inspection report must include the

following information and statements:

1. The licensee's name.

2. The date of the inspection.

3. The address of the structure inspected.

4. Any visible accessible areas not inspected

and the reasons for not inspecting the.

5. The areas of the structure that were

inaccessible.

6. Any visible evidence of previous treatments

for, or infestations of, wood-destroying organisms.

7. The identity of any wood-destroying organisms

present and any visible damage caused.

8. A statement that a notice of the inspection

has been affixed to the property in accordance with

subsection (4) or subsection (5) and a statement

of the location of the notice.

25. Section 5E-14.142(2)(9)(C), Florida Administrative Code, provides:

(c) Termite or other wood-destroying organism

inspection report:

Pursuant to Chapter 482.226(1), (2), (4) and (5),

F.S., each licensee having a certified operator

certified in the category of termite or other

wood-destroying organism control and who makes

and reports the findings of a wood-destroying

organism inspection in writing shall provide the

party requesting the inspection with the inspection

findings on the Wood-Destroying Organisms Inspection

Report prescribed by the department and furnished

by the licensee, Form 1145 11-92, which is incorpor-

ated by reference. The licensee shall not place

any disclaimers or additional language on the Wood-

Destroying Organisms Inspection Report. The licensee

shall inspect for all wood-destroying organisms as

defined in Chapter 482.021(27), F.S., in accordance

with the following inspection standards:

(1) The inspection will include all areas acces-

sible by normal means but does not cover those areas

that are enclosed or inaccessible, areas concealed by

wall coverings, floor coverings, furniture, equipment,

stored articles, insulation, or any portion of the

structure in which inspection would necessitate

removing or defacing any part of the structure.

(2) The inspection will be visual but may include

probing and sounding of structural members as deemed

necessary by the inspector, based upon a preliminary

finding or visual evidence of infestation or damage.

26. Based on the foregoing findings of fact, Respondent has violated the

provisions of Section 482.226(1), Florida Statutes and Rule 5E-14.142(2)(e),

Florida Administrative Code by failing to perform a wood-destroying organism

inspection in accordance with good industry practice and standards established

by the Petitioner; and Section 482.161(1)(f), Florida Statutes by negligent pest

control. Even though Respondent detected the evidence of damage by termites and

prior treatment for the problem, he failed to complete the inspection and the

form 1145 and leave it at the house. This conduct is below the standard and is

also negligent regardless of whether Respondent's subjective intent was to come

back at a later time and inspect further before completing a report.

27. Subsequently, Respondent issued a clear report, when in fact there was

visible and accessible evidence of wood-destroying organisms in the residence.

Accepting Respondent's position that he authorized the release of the report

without first checking the field notes due to pressure from the client,

nevertheless, such conduct was negligent and fell below industry practice and

standards, in violation of Section 482.226(1) and 482.161(1)(f), Florida

Statutes.

28. In mitigation, Respondent demonstrated that he has not been subject to

prior discipline by the Petitioner; that due to extensive media coverage, his

business has suffered economically; and he has cooperated with Petitioner on an

unrelated undercover operation which resulted in the detection and interdiction

of banned pest control substances.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is

RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered which finds the Respondent guilty

of violating the provisions of Section 482.226(1) and 482.161(1)(f), Florida

Statutes, and Rule 5E-14.142(2)(c), Florida Administrative Code.

It is further,

Recommended that the Respondent be issued a letter of reprimand and be

assessed an administrative fine of $500.00. However, should the Petitioner

determine that Respondent cooperated and played a significant role in the

unrelated sting operation, said administrative fine should be suspended.

DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of May, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida.

___________________________________

DANIEL M. KILBRIDE

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550

[phone]

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 23rd day of May, 1995.

APPENDIX

The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section

120.59, Florida Statutes, on proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties.

Proposed findings of fact submitted by Petitioner.

Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1 (in part), 2, 3 (in part), 5 (in part).

Rejected as a conclusion of law: paragraph 1 (in part).

Rejected as subsumed or a comment on the evidence: paragraph 3 (in part),

4 (in part), 5 (in part), 6, 7; Supplement paragraphs 1, and 2.

Revised proposed findings of fact by Respondent.

Accepted in substance: paragraph 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 (in part), 8, 9 (in

part), 10, 11 (in part), 12 (in part), 13 (in part), 14 (in part), 21 (in part),

22 (in part), 23.

Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial: paragraph 6, 7 (in part), 9 (in

part), 13 (in part), 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20.

Rejected as a comment on the evidence or subsumed: paragraph 7 (in part),

11 (in part), 12 (in part), 14 (in part), 21 (in part), 22 (in part).

COPIES FURNISHED:

Robert G. Worley, Esquire

Richard Tritschler, Esquire

Department of Agriculture

& Consumer Services

Mayo Building, Room 515

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800

Robert W. Genzman, Esquire

Akerman, Sneterfitt & Eidson, P.A.

255 South Orange Avenue

Post Office Box 231

Orlando, Florida 32802-0231

Honorable Bob Crawford

Commissioner of Agriculture

The Capitol, PL-10

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810

Richard Tritschler

General Counsel

The Capitol, PL-10

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0810

Brenda Hyatt, Chief

Bureau of Licensing & Bond

Department of Agriculture

508 Mayo Building

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to the Recommended

Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit

written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit

written exceptions. You should consult with the agency that will issue the

final order in this case concerning their rules on the deadline for filing

exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order

should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.

=================================================================

AGENCY FINAL ORDER

=================================================================

STATE OF FLORIDA

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND

CONSUMER SERVICES,

Petitioner,

DOAH CASE NO.: 94-5486

vs. FDACS CASE NO. 94-0518

DAVID W. BROWN, d/b/a

A-QUALITY TERMINATORS,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

FINAL ORDER

THIS MATTER, arising under the Structural Pest Control Act, Fla. Stat.

Sections 482.011- 482.242, is before the Commissioner of Agriculture as agency

head of the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (hereinafter

referred to as the "Department") for final agency action.

BACKGROUND

On August 22, 1994, Petitioner Department issued a Notice of Intent to

Impose Fine in which the Department alleged Respondent David W. Brown, doing

business as A-Quality Terminators, had failed to report visible and accessible

evidence of, and damage caused by, wood-destroying organisms on Form 1145,

entitled "Wood-Destroying Organisms Inspection Report" in accordance with Fla.

Stat. Section 482.226(1) and Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r. 5E- 14. 142(2)(c)

resulting from an inspection by Respondent for wood-destroying organisms at a

residence in Orlando, Florida. The Department further alleged that failure to

report such evidence of and/or damage caused by wood-destroying organisms is a

violation of Fla. Stat. Section 482. 161(1)(f). By letter dated September 16,

1994, Respondent disputed the factual allegations contained in the Notice of

Intent to Impose Fine. By letter dated October 3, 1994, the Department referred

Petitioner's request for formal hearing to the Division of Administrative

Hearings for the assignment of a Hearing Officer and conduct of a hearing.

A formal hearing was conducted on February 3, 1995, by video conference

with the Hearing Officer and the Department's counsel appearing in Tallahassee,

Florida and Respondent, Respondent's counsel, and all witnesses appearing in

Orlando, Florida.

At formal hearing, Petitioner Department called three witnesses including

Respondent as an adverse witness and Charles Gordon Witherington who testified

as an expert in the field of entomology. Petitioner proffered six exhibits,

including an edited video report prepared by Orlando television station WFTV

channel 9. All of Petitioner's exhibits were received into evidence without

objection. Respondent testified in his own behalf and offered into evidence one

exhibit. Petitioner filed its Proposed Recommended Order on February 10, 1995

and Respondent filed his Proposed Recommended Order on February 15,1995.

On March 6, 1995 Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss or to Reopen Hearing

and the Petitioner responded by filing on or about March 16, 1995, Department's

Response to Respondent's Motion to Dismiss or to Re-Open Hearing. Hearing was

held on Respondent's motion and Petitioner's response on April 5, 1995. By

Order dated April 5, 1995, Respondent's Motion to Dismiss was denied, however,

Respondent's Motion to Reopen was granted for the limited purpose of deposing

one witness and continue the cross-examination of Petitioner's expert witness

who testified at hearing. Petitioner filed a Supplement to Proposed Recommended

Order on May 4,1995, and Respondent filed a revised Proposed Recommended Order

on May 15,1995.

The Hearing Officer in this matter issued a Recommended Order on May 23,

1995 which recommended the Commissioner issue a final order finding Respondent

guilty of violating Fla. Stat. Sections 482. 161(1)(f) and 482.226(1) along

with Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r. 5E-14. 142(2)(c). The Hearing Officer further

recommended that Petitioner be issued a letter of reprimand and assessed an

administrative fine of $500, however, the Hearing Officer recommended that

should the Petitioner determine that Respondent cooperated and played a

significant role in the unrelated sting operation, said administrative fine

should be suspended. Petitioner filed timely Exceptions to Recommended Order.

RULING ON EXCEPTIONS

Petitioner lists four (I-IV) exceptions to the Recommended Order

challenging the Hearing Officer's Conclusions of Law and Findings of Fact.

Under Florida law: "Factual issues susceptible of ordinary methods of

proof that are not infused with policy considerations are the prerogative of the

hearing officer as the finder of fact. . .It is for the hearing officer to

consider all the evidence presented, resolve conflicts, judge the credibility of

witnesses, draw permissible inferences from the evidence, and reach ultimate

findings of fact based on competent substantial evidence," Martuccio v. Dept. of

Pro. Regulation, 622 So.2d 607, 609 (Fla.App. 1 Dist. 1993)(Citations

omitted) and "The agency may not reject or modify the finding of facts...unless

the agency.. [determines].. .the findings of fact were not based upon

competent substantial evidence...". Fla. Stat. Section 120.57(1)(b)(10), Dept.

of Business & Pro. Reg. v. McCarthy, 638 So.2d. 574, 575 (Fla.App. 1 Dist.

1993).

1. Respondent's Exception no. I. Respondent, through his Exception I

challenges the Hearing Officer's Conclusion of Law found at paragraph 26 of the

Recommended Order. Respondent bases his exception upon the last two sentences

from paragraph 26. Paragraph 26, in its entirety, is as follows:

Based on the foregoing findings of fact, Respondent has

violated the provisions of Section 482.226(1), Florida

Statutes and Rule 5E-14. 142(2)(e), Florida Administrative

Code by failing to perform a wood-destroying organism

inspection in accordance with good industry practice and

standards established by the Petitioner; and Section 482.

161(1)(D, Florida Statutes by negligent pest control. Even

though Respondent detected the evidence of damage by

termites and prior treatment for the problem, he failed to

complete the inspection and form 1145 and leave it at the

house. This conduct is below the standard and is also

negligent regardless of whether Respondent's subjective

intent was to come back at a later time and inspect further

before completing a report.

Recommended Order at 9-10.

The issue in this matter is whether or not Respondent violated Chapter 482,

Florida Statutes and Chapter 5E-14, Florida Administrative Code, by failing to

properly report visible and accessible evidence of and/or damage caused by wood

destroying organisms, not the activities of some other pest control entity or

news organization. Upon review of the entire file in this matter, it is the

determination of the Commissioner of Agriculture that the Hearing Officer's

paragraph 26 Conclusion of Law is supported by competent substantial evidence,

therefore, Respondent's Exception I is denied.

2. Respondent's Exception no. II. Again, the issue in this matter is

whether or not Petitioner failed to report visible and accessible evidence of,

and/or damage caused by, wood destroying organisms on form 1145 which would make

such conduct fall below industry practice and standards in violation of Fla.

Stat. Sections 482. 161(1)(f) and 482.226(1). It is for the hearing officer to

consider all the evidence and draw permissible inferences. (Martuccio)

Consequently, Respondent's Exception no. II is denied.

3. Respondent's Exception no. III. An agency may not reject or modify a

hearing officer's finding of fact if such finding is based upon competent

substantial evidence. Fla. Stat. Section 120.57(1)(b)(10). Upon review of the

entire file in this matter, the hearing officer's determination that the conduct

of the Respondent fell below the standard of practice within the pest control

industry cannot be said to be lacking competent substantial evidence to base

such a finding. Therefore, Respondents Exception III is denied.

4. Respondent's Exception no IV. Respondent's Exception number IV merely

restates his position that any mistakes he made were de minimis and that no

sanctions should flow therefrom. Upon review of the entire file in this matter,

the conclusions of law found at Paragraph 28 of the Recommended Order are

supported by competent substantial evidence, therefore, Respondent's Exception

IV is denied.

For the above reasons, Respondent's Written Exceptions are denied.

WHEREFORE it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

1. Respondent's written exceptions are DENIED;

2. The Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact are adopted in toto as the

Department's findings of fact;

3. The Hearing Officer's Conclusions of Law are adopted in toto as the

Department's conclusions of law; and

4. The Hearing Officer's Recommendation--that the Commissioner of

Agriculture enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Fla.

Stat. Sections 482. 161(1)(f) and 482.226(1) and Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r.

5E-14.142(2)(c); issue a letter of reprimand; and order Petitioner to pay an

administrative fine of $500--is APPROVED WITH MODIFICATION.

5. It is ORDERED that the Bureau of Entomology & Pest Control issue a

letter of reprimand against Respondent and that such notice of reprimand be

published in its quarterly list of disciplinary actions. The Commissioner

further finds that due to Respondent's participation and cooperation with the

Department in unrelated undercover operations, no administrative fine shall

issue.

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

Any party to these proceedings adversely affected by this Final Order is

entitled to seek judicial review thereof pursuant to Fla. Stat. Section 120.68

and Rule 9. 110, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Review proceedings must

be initiated by filing a petition or notice of appeal with the Agency Clerk,

Room 515, Mayo Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0800, and a copy of the

same with the appropriate District Court of Appeal within thirty (30) days of

the date this ORDER is final.

DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of ,1995.

_________________________________

BOB CRAWFORD

Commissioner of Agriculture

Assistant Commissioner

Florida Department of Agriculture

and Consumer Services

FILED with the Agency Clerk this () day of ,1995.

_________________________________

Agency Clerk

Copies to:

Robert W. Genzman, Esquire Richard Ditschler, Esquire

Akerman, Senterfit & Edison, P.A. General Counsel

255 South Orange Avenue Department of Agriculture and

Post Office Box 231 Consumer Services

Orlando, Florida 32802-0231 The Capitol, PL-10

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-

0810

Daniel M. Kilbride Robert G. Worley, Esquire

Hearing Officer Room 515, Mayo Building

Division of Administrative Tallahassee, Florida 32399-

Hearings 0800

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550