14-001936 Department Of Financial Services, Division Of Funeral, Cemetery, And Consumer Services vs. Rose Hill Cemetery Company Status: Closed Recommended Order on Tuesday, September 9, 2014.

Summary: Respondent cemetery violated the Florida Funeral, Cemetery, and Consumer Services Act by failing to treat human remains at all times with human dignity and respect. The appropriate penalty is a $1,000 fine and a reprimand.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL

SERVICES, DIVISION OF FUNERAL,

CEMETERY, AND CONSUMER SERVICES,

Petitioner,

vs. Cas e No. 14 - 1936

ROSE HILL CEMETERY COMPANY,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

A final hearing was held in this matter before Robert S.

Cohen, Administrative Law Judge with the Division of

Administrative Hearings, on July 9, 2014 , by video

teleconferencing at sites located in Tampa and Tallahassee ,

Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Linje E. Rivers, Esquire

Department of Financial Services

200 East Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

For Respondent: George Saclarides , pro se

Rose Hill Cemetery Company

4406 East Chelsea Avenue

Tampa, Florida 33610

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue is whether Respondent violated section

497.152(1)(a) and (b), Florida Statutes (2013), and, if so, what

pena lty should be imposed.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The Department of Financial Services (ÐDepartmentÑ) filed an

administrative complaint against Respondent Rose Hill Cemetery

Company (ÐRose HillÑ or ÐRespondentÑ) on March 19, 2014, alleging

violations of chapter 497, Florida Statutes. Respondent

requested a formal hearing before the Division of Administrative

Hearings (ÐDOAHÑ) on April 8, 2014, based upon disputed issues of

material fact set forth in the Administrative C omplaint. The

Department referred the req uest to DOAH initiating the current

proceeding. The parties filed a Joint Pre - Hearing Stipulation on

June 30, 2014.

At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of

Jessica Helms Morse, Leonardo Rodriguez - Martinez, Christina

Wilder, and Raymond Colem an as witnesses and offered 1 4 exhibits ,

all but one ( Exhibit 9, the Affidavit of George Laing) of which

were admitted into evidence. Respondent offered the testimony of

its manager, George Saclarides , and offered one exhibit , which

w as admitted into evid ence.

A one - volume Transcript was filed on August 12, 2014 . After

the hearing, Petitioner filed its proposed findings of fact and

conclusions of law on August 22, 2014. Respondent did not make a

post - hearing submission .

References to statutes are to F lorida Statutes (201 3 ) unless

otherwise noted.

FINDING S OF FACT

Stipulated Facts

1. The Department and the Division of Funeral, Cemetery and

Consumer Services (ÐDivisionÑ) within the Department have

jurisdiction over cemetery license number F039451 .

2 . At all times relevant to this matter, Rose Hill was

licensed as a c emetery ( license number F039451 ) , pursuant to

chapter 497, Florida Statutes. Rose Hill operated at

4406 Chelsea Avenue, Tampa, F lorida 33610.

3 . In 2013, Petitioner received a complaint from

Mr. Leonardo Rodriguez - Martinez alleging that Rose Hill failed to

use due care in the installation of a casket and vault during a

grave - site funeral ceremony for his wife, Mrs. Maria Benitez

Lugo .

4 . In 2013, Mr. Rodriguez - Martinez contracted with Ro se

Hill for burial services for Mrs. Lugo along with the

installation of a vault and casket.

5 . On or about April 17, 2013, Rose Hill performed the

contracted burial services.

6 . After the services were completed, the casket was placed

in a cement vault. The body of the deceased was inside the

casket.

7 . In order to lower the vault and casket into the burial

plot, Rose Hill used a back hoe and attached a chain to the

cement vault with the casket inside.

8 . Raymond Coleman works for Rose Hill. He opera ted the

back hoe used to inter the vault and casket of Mrs. Lugo.

9 . While attempting to move the vault and casket, the chain

attached to the back hoe broke causing the vault to fall and

crack.

10 . The cement vault cracked in such a manner that it was

re ndered unusable for the interment of Mrs. LugoÓs casket.

11 . Rose Hill staff proceeded to find a replacement vault.

12 . Soon thereafter, Rose Hill replaced the broken chain

and the broken vault and interred the casket without further

incident.

Findings o f Fact Not Stipulated to by the Parties

13 . George Saclarides was hired in 2008 as the cemetery

manager at Rose Hill.

14. As manager, Mr. Saclarides is responsible for

maintaining the cemetery, purchasing equipment, maintaining the

equipment and supplies needed to operate the cemetery, hiring the

staff to maintain the premises, and performing cemetery services.

He is the individual responsible for meeting with consumers and

entering into contracts for services at Rose Hill.

15. Mr. Saclarides hired Raym ond Coleman as the assistant

cemetery manager. Mr. Coleman is responsible for the daily

maintenance of the cemetery grounds. He cuts the grass,

maintains the premises, and performs general repairs.

16. Mr. Coleman also leads a team of workers during

cem etery services. These responsibilities include digging burial

plots, transporting cement vaults, and interring cement vaults

and caskets.

17. Mr. Saclarides met with Mrs. LugoÓs family after her

death. Mr. Rodriguez - Martinez, the complainant in this mat ter,

discussed the burial arrangements for his wife, Mrs. Lugo. An

interpreter was used during these discussions because

Mr. Rodriguez - Martinez speaks Spanish, not English, and

Mr. Saclarides does not speak Spanish.

18. During this meeting, Mr. Saclaride s discussed the

service with the family and informed Mr. Rodriguez - Martinez that

a remote set - up would be used for his wifeÓs burial service,

followed by the transport of his wifeÓs casket via John Deere

front end loader to her final resting place within t he cemetery.

19. Mr. Rodriguez - Martinez expressed concern with how his

wifeÓs casket would be transported to the burial plot and said he

preferred to have pallbearers lift and carry the casket to the

final burial location.

20. Mr. SaclaridesÓ reason for having the service at the

remote location within the cemetery , then transporting the casket

to the burial plot, was that the remote location was more

convenient for elderly and people unable to walk on uneven ground

to reach the site. Also, some people do not like to walk across

gravesites to reach the burial plot.

21. In retrospect, Mr. Saclarides was glad he suggested the

remote site for the service. The day of the funeral when the

burial plot was dug, the maintenance workers had a difficult time

shori ng up the sides of the plot. This was due to the high

content of Ðsugar sandÑ in the soil which causes the sides of the

plot to crumble or cave in. He does not believe the pallbearers

could have carried the casket all the way to the site because the

two sand piles from the site were blocking access to the site.

Also, he feared the sides of the site could crumble or even

collapse.

22. On April 19, 2013, the services started at the front of

the cemetery, in the remote location, and went smoothly. As the

family and Mr. Saclarides were walking the 65 - 70 feet from the

remote location to the burial site, Mr. Rodriguez - Martinez (and

others) heard a loud crash. When the back hoe was lifting the

vault with Mrs. LugoÓs casket inside, the chain attaching the

vaul t to the back hoe broke , and the vault and casket fell about

two to three feet to the ground.

23. Mr. Rodriguez - Martinez returned to the remote location

after hearing the crash and found the cement vault with his

wifeÓs casket lying on the ground. The va ult had broken in the

fall. The casket was undamaged.

24. Ms. Christina Wilder, a guest at the funeral , witnessed

the events as they unfolded. She saw the casket swinging as it

was lifted and heard the vault fall, stating it sounded Ðlike a

cannon shot. Ñ She was critical of Rose Hill for not having a

plan in place for emergencies or mishaps such as this.

25. Rose Hill did have a plan in place. Mr. Saclarides

sent his employees, including Mr. Coleman, to retrieve a new

vault from the rear portion of th e cemetery and place the casket

inside to be moved, with a new chain attaching it to the back

hoe, to the burial plot. This entire process caused a delay of

about 45 minutes.

26. Ms. Wilder was present with Mr. Rodriguez - Martinez and

served as his interp reter when he met with Ms. Jessica Helms, the

DivisionÓs examiner . Ms. Wilder helped Mr. Rodriguez - Martinez

file his complaint and provided pictures and a DVD of the funeral

service and the incident to Ms. Helms.

27. Ms. Helms investigated the complain t filed by

Mr. Rodriguez - Martinez. She is responsible for inspections,

financial examinations, and investigations into licensees of the

Division. She has completed over 100 complaint investigations

while employed with the Division.

28. Ms. Helms has com pleted approximately five inspections

of Rose Hill. She visited the cemetery to investigate

Mr. Rodriguez - MartinezÓs complaint. She was already familiar

with the set - up at Rose Hill. She had expressed her safety

concerns regard ing the remote set - up with Mr. Saclarides on

multiple occasions. Rose Hill continued to use the remote

set - up, despite Ms. Helms Ó concerns.

29. Ms. Helms inspects about 25 cemeteries a year , and the

Division regulates about 150 cemeteries throughout the state.

She has never see n the remote set - up at any cemetery , except Rose

Hill. Based upon her experience, she believes other cemeteries

do not use the remote set - up due to concerns with the risk of

keeping human remains secure during transport in a fashion such

as occurred in th is case.

30. Ms. Helms states that a cement vault is not made to be

used for transporting a casket containing human remains. A

cement vault is used to support the grave space so that soil,

dirt, and other elements will not cause the casket to collapse

once interred in the burial space.

31. Ms. Helms testified that National Concrete Burial Vault

Association (ÐNC BV AÑ) standards deal with the construction and

use of concrete burial vaults. She believes the standards

suggest that cement vaults not be used as transportation

containers. A review of the NCBVA standards provided at the

hearing does not support this opinion. The standards neither

provide requirements for how to transport a casket inside a

vault, nor prohibit such transport. The standards ins truct a

manufacturer of cement vaults on what materials to use and what

load and stress are required.

32. Ms. Helms did provide numerous reasons why she believed

the remote grave site is not appropriate and why it could lead to

an incident such as occurr ed here. A remote location was

unnecessary in her opinion when immediately following the service

the remains were to be interred.

33. Further, having the casket placed into the vault and

having the entire 2,000 - pound vault attached to a tractor and

lifte d with the family and guests of the deceased present is an

uncommon and inappropriate practice. She believes that allowing

this to occur in the presence of those assembled for the funeral

is Ðdisturbing.Ñ

34. Ms. Helms questions whether the use of the remote

location was for the convenience of the family and guests or for

the cemetery. The distance to the final burial site was only

65 - 70 feet beyond the remote location. Also, the deceasedÓs

spouse wanted the service at the final burial location or, a t

least , wanted the casket carried by pallbearers, not by tractor ,

to the fin al location.

35. Ms. Helms acknowledged that Mr. Saclarides maintains

all the required records for Rose Hill and that the cemetery has

shown Ðgreat improvementÑ since he took ove r as manager in 2008.

36. Mr. Coleman has used the same chain that failed in this

instance the entire time of his employment at Rose Hill, at least

six years. It has never failed in the past. The chain is heavy

grade and rated to handle at least 4,000 p ounds, more than enough

to carry the vault with the casket enclosed.

37. Mr. Saclarides showed remorse on the day of the funeral

after the incident with the vault being dropped from the tractor

when the chain failed. He used his best efforts to ensure th at a

new vault was quickly procured, and that the vault and casket

were properly interred within 45 minutes of the incident.

38. Mr. Saclarides showed remorse again in his response to

the complaint giving rise to this matter when he personally

apologized for the accident during the burial service. He noted

that Rose Hill had never had a chain break before the incident on

April 19, 2013.

39. Mr. Saclarides appeared sincere in his remorse for the

incident occurring at the funeral of Mrs. Lugo when he testi fied

at hearing.

C ONCLUSIONS OF LAW

40 . DOAH has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject

matter of these proceedings pursuant to sections 120.569 and

120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

41. The Board of Funeral, Cemetery, and Consumer Services

(ÐBoardÑ), created within the Division, and the Department have

jurisdiction over Rose HillÓs license as a cemetery.

42. The Board and Division have jurisdiction over the

subject matter of this proceeding pursuant to the provisions of

section 20.121 and chapter 497, Florida Statutes, the Florida

Funeral, Cemetery, and Consumer Services Act (ÐActÑ).

Burden and Standard of Proof

43. Because administrative fines are penal in nature, the

Department has the burden of proving by clear and convincing

evidence the allegatio ns of the Administrative Complaint. Dep't

of Banking & Fin. v. Osborne Stern & Co. , 670 So. 2d 932, 933 - 34

(Fla. 1996); Ferris v. Turlington , 510 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1987).

4 4 . The Ðclear and convincingÑ standard requires:

[T]hat the evidence must be found to be

credible; the facts to which the witnesses

testify must be distinctly remembered; the

testimony must be precise and explicit and

the witnesses must be lacking in confusion as

to the facts in issue. The evidence must be

of such weight that it produce s in the mind

of the trier of fact a firm belief or

conviction, without hesitancy, as to the

truth of the allegations sought to be

established.

In re: Davey , 645 So. 2d 398, 404 (Fla. 1994) ( quoting Slomowitz

v. Walker , 429 So. 2d 797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1 983) ) .

45 . Statutes that authorize the imposition of penal

sanctions are strictly construed. Any ambiguity in the law is

construed in favor of Respondent. Elmariah v. DepÓt of ProfÓl

Reg. , 574 So. 2d 164, 165 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).

46. Although the Ðclea r and convincingÑ standard would seem

to preclude ambiguous evidence, this standard of proof can be met

when the evidence is merely in conflict. Westinghouse Elec .

Corp., Inc. v. Shuler Bros., Inc. , 590 So. 2d 986, 988 (Fla. 1 st

DCA 1991). In fact, a cas e cannot go to hearing under section

120.57(1)(i) and jurisdiction must be relinquished, unless some

factual evidence is in conflict.

47. In determining whether Petitioner has met its burden of

proof, it is necessary to evaluate its evidentiary presenta tion

in light of the specific allegations of wrongdoing made in the

charging document. Due process prohibits Petitioner from taking

disciplinary action against a licensee based on matters not

specifically alleged in the charging instrument unless those

ma tters have been tried by consent. See Shore Vill . Prop .

OwnersÓ Ass Ón , Inc. v. DepÓt of Envtl . Prot . , 824 So. 2d 208, 210

(Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Cottrill v. DepÓt of Ins . , 685 So. 2d 1371,

1372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); and Delk v. DepÓt of ProfÓl Reg . , 595

So. 2d 966, 967 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992).

The Charges

48. Count I of the Administrative C omplaint (the only

count) alleges that Ð[w]hile attempting to move the vault and

casket, the chain attached to the back hoe broke causing the

vault to fall and crack. It was determined that Rosehill [sic]

failed to install the vault and casket with due care when the

chain attached to the back hoe broke causing the vault to fall

and crack.Ñ

49. Count I of the Administrative Complaint alleges

violations of two provisions of the Act:

Section 497.152(1)(a), Florida Statutes,

which provides that it is a violation to fail

to comply with any provisions of this chapter

or any lawful order of the board or

department or of the statutory predecessors

of the board or department .

Section 497.152(1)(b), Florida Statutes,

which provides that it is a violation to

commit fraud, negligence, incompetency, or

misconduct in the practice of any of the

activities regulated under this chapter.

50 . In determining whether Rose Hill violated the statu tes

above, section 497.38 6 (4), Florida Statutes, applies: Ðall human

remains transported or stored must be completely covered and at

all times treated with dignity and respect.Ñ

51. In determining whether the required level of respect

and dignity has bee n breached, the use of an objective

reasonable - person standard is required. Cf . State v. Kees , 919

So. 2d 504, 507 - 508 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (explaining that using a

subjective standard, instead of the required objective

reasonable - person standard, in the c riminal statute under review

therein would result in unconstitutional arbitrary and capricious

prosecution). The Department concludes from this analysis that

since no one else in the cemetery industry in Florida implements

a remote service, it is reasonab le to conclude the required level

of respect and dignity was not shown for the remains of Mrs. Lugo

by using a tractor to transport her casket inside a cement vault.

While reliance on this case interpreting a criminal statute may

be tenuous , standing alon e, the testimony offered by several

witnesses at hearing significantly strengthens this position.

52. Mr. Rodriguez - Martinez, the husband of the deceased,

Mrs. Lugo; Ms. Wilder, a guest and family member of the deceased;

and Ms. Helms, the DivisionÓs exam iner , each testified they found

Rose HillÓs treatment of Mrs. LugoÓs body to be undignified and

disrespectful. Further, while specific standards and methods of

vault transport are not mentioned in the Act , the statute

specifically requires that human rema ins be treated with dignity

and respect at all times. The evidence is demonstrable and

substantial that Mrs. LugoÓs body was not treated with dignity

and respect at all times pursuant to section 497.386(4).

53. The finding that Mrs. LugoÓs remains were n ot treated

with dignity and respect at all times is not a finding that

Mr. Saclarides and the employees of Rose Hill intended to treat

the deceased with less than the full amount of dignity and

respect , which she and her family deserved. Mr. Saclarides ga ve

numerous explanations for why Rose Hill, as a matter of common

practice, hold funerals in the remote location, then move the

vault containing the casket and the remains to the burial site.

The reasons given, as a general proposition, are not wholly

un r easonable: many people would prefer a shorter walk to the

site of the service for health and other personal reasons; some

people prefer not to walk across ground hallowed by those who are

buried beneath it; the issue of gravesites collapsing or settling

a re common in parts of Florida with sandy (or Ðsugar sandÑ)

ground and pallbearers could have a difficult time traversing the

ground to the grave site. He also notes that there is no

statutory provision prohibiting his use of the remote site for a

burial s ervice, followed by transport of the casket within the

concrete vault to the final burial site. Mr. Saclarides is

correct in his reading of the Act with respect to remote services

and transport to a burial site not being prohibited .

54. While the reasons offered by Mr. Saclarides for holding

the remote service followed by transport to the final burial site

have some merit, they are not valid in this case. From the first

meeting at Rose Hill, Mr. Rodriguez - Martinez seemed uncertain and

disturbed by the th ought of his wifeÓs remains being transported

by tractor or other heavy equipment to the burial site. He

preferred to have pallbearers bear the casket from the remote

site to the burial site. His worst fears were confirmed when the

unfortunate accident o ccurred just after the conclusion of the

ceremony. His pre - funeral concerns alone should have served as a

warning to Mr. Saclarides that the family might be upset by

seeing the vault carried by tractor to the burial site. The

accident, while impossible t o imagine or predict by

Mr. Saclarides or his employees , resulted in an emotional

nightmare for the family and friends of the deceased.

Fortunately, the casket and the remains were not damaged or

revealed in the mishap.

The Penalty

55. Florida Administra tive Code Rule 69K - 11.001 contains

the disciplinary guidelines applicable to specific violations of

chapter 497 by cemeteries. It provides as follows:

Listed below is a range of disciplinary

guidelines from which disciplinary penalties

will be imposed upo n licensees guilty of

violating Chapter 497, F.S. The disciplinary

guidelines are based upon a single - act

violation of each provision listed.

56. Rule 69K - 11.001(2)(d) provides a maximum penalty of

revocation for violation of section 497.152(1)(a).

Ru le 69K - 11.001(2)(k) also provides a maximum penalty of

revocation for violation of section 497.152(1)(b).

57. The Board may deviate from the disciplinary guidelines

that list the minimum or maximum penalties listed in

subsection (2) of r ule 69K - 11.001, in the presence of aggravating

or mitigating circumstances that are supported by clear and

convincing evidence:

Aggravating or mitigating circumstances may

include, but are not limited to, the

following:

1. The severity of the violation.

2. The degree of harm to the consumer or

public.

3. The number of times the violations

previously have been committed by the

licensee.

4. The disciplinary history of the licensee.

5. The status of the licensee at the time

the violation was committed.

Rule 69K - 11.001(3 ).

58. The Department failed to prove, by clear and convincing

evidence , that the methods used by Rose Hill were a danger to the

consumers and public. The accident that occurred on April 19,

2013, at Rose Hill resulting in the dropping of the vault with

the casket and remains of Mrs. Lugo were unfortunate and clearly

disturbing to the family and those who attended the funeral.

They were disturbing to the cemetery manager and his employees ,

as well. However, they do not rise to the level where the

action s of the cemetery personnel that day exhibited Ðfraud,

deceit, negligence, incompetency, or misconduct in the practice

of any of the activ ities regulated by this chapter Ñ pursuant to

section 497.152(1)(b). While the practice of holding a remote

service th en moving the vault and casket in the manner described

here was both unusual and unique in Florida, the evidence does

not support a finding that Rose Hill Ós staff could have foresee n

what occurred on the day in question. The chain had never broken

previou sly, and no individualÓs casket had ever been dropped

while in a vault being transported. The staff at Rose Hill did

everything in their power to bring a new vault to the site and

complete the interment within a reasonable amount of time.

59. This is not to conclude that Rose Hill is without blame

in this matter. The Department presented clear and convincing

evidence that Rose Hill violated a provision of chapter 497,

specifically, section 497.386(4), which requires that Ðall human

remains transported or stored must be completely covered and at

all times treated with human dignity and respect.Ñ Handling the

casket and vault in such a public manner as done by Rose Hill

and, apparently, only by Rose Hill, is not dignified to the same

extent as discreetly r emoving the casket after a funeral service

and driving it by hearse, wheeling it with attendants, or

carrying it with the help of pallbearers to the final burial

site. The unusual practice that occurred at Rose Hill was

disturbing to the deceasedÓs family when they learned about the

practice prior to the funeral, to those who attended the funeral,

and to the D epartmentÓs examiner , who has considerable experience

in the inspection of cemeteries and funeral homes.

60. Rose Hill mitigated the penalty to be i mposed for its

violation of section 497.152(1)(a) in several ways, pursuant to

rule 69K - 11.001(1). The violation was not severe because Rose

Hill had performed such tasks innumerable times in the past

without a mishap such as occurred here. The degree of harm to

the consumer or public was moderate. While the family was

greatly upset when the vault dropped and cracked, the staff

immediately remedied the problem as best they could by retrieving

a new vault and transporting it along with the casket inside t o

the burial site within 45 minutes. This was fast work on the

part of the cemetery staff. While it may be argued that this

practice of transport was engaged on many times in the past, Rose

Hill was never cited for it, despite the examiner being aware of

the practice and frowning upon it. Therefore, Respondent was not

on notice that it was violating a provision of the Act until this

matter arose. Rose Hill appears to have a good disciplinary

record, at least since 2008 when Mr. Saclarides became manager .

No evidence was produced of any prior disciplinary action taken

against Respondent. Additionally, no evidence was produced that

the licensee was in a questionable status with the Department at

the time of this violation , which would constitute an aggra vating

factor.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a f inal o rder

finding th at Respondent Rose Hill violated section s 497.152(1)(a)

and 497.386(4) of the Act , as alleged in t he Administrative

Complaint, and imposing discipline as follows: a $ 1 ,000

administrative fine and a reprimand. Further, to the extent the

Board has authority, it is recommended that the Board order Rose

Hill to cease and desist from its practice of remot e burials with

transport of the vault containing the casket and initiate

rulemaking or seek a legislative change, if desired , to make the

practice of remote burials specifically prohibited .

DONE AND ENTERED this 9 th day of September , 2014 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

ROBERT S. COHEN

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

ww w.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 9 th day of September , 2014 .

COPIES FURNISHED:

Linje E. Rivers, Esquire

Department of Financial Services

200 East Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

(eServed )

George Saclarides

Rose Hill Cemetery Company

4406 East Chelsea Avenue

Tampa, Florida 33610

Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk

Division of Legal Services

Department of Financial Services

200 East Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0390

(eServed)

Doug Shropshire, Director

Division of Funeral, Cemetery,

and Consumer Services

Department of Financial Services

200 East Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0361

(eServed)

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to sub mit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.