18-005827 Deborah Fielding vs. Preservation Of Affordable Housing, Llc Status: Closed Recommended Order on Thursday, February 28, 2019.

Summary: Petitioner did not prove Respondent failed to provide a reasonable accommodation on the basis of her disability. Petitioner failed to provide adequate documentation regarding her special diet or participate in the interactive process.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DEBORAH FIELDING,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No. 18 - 5827

PRESERVATION OF AFFORDABLE

HOUSING, LLC,

Respondent.

_______________________________/

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Administrative Law Jud ge Hetal Desai of the Division of

Administrative Hearings held a final hearing in this matter in

Sebastian , Florida , on February 8, 2019 .

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Deborah Fielding , pro se

Apartment 302

615 East New Hav en Avenue

Melbourne, Florida 32901

For Respondent: Brian C. Costa, Esquire

Alvarez Feltman Da Silva

Suite 1100

2121 Ponce de Leon Boulevard

Coral Gables, Florida 33134

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE S

Whether Respondent discriminated and retaliated against

Petitioner because of her disability , in violation of the Florida

Fair Housing Act ; and, if so, the relief to which Petitioner is

entitled. More specifically, the issues rai sed in this case are :

(1) whether Respondent refused to accommodate PetitionerÓs

disability; and (2) whether Petitioner should be exempt from

mandatory meal plan payments as a reasonable accommodation for

her CrohnÓs disease.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

Petition er filed a Charge of Discrimination on October 26,

2017 (Charge) , with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

D evelopment alleging Preservation of Affordable Housing, LLC

(POA H ) had violated the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) .

Petitioner specifically al leged Respondent discriminated against

her because it failed to exempt her from a mandatory meal plan.

The C harge was forwarded to the Florida Commission on Human

Relations ( Commission ) , and treated as a complaint under the

Florida Fair Housing Act (Flori da FHA), pursuant to sections

760.20 to 760.37, Florida Statu t es (2018) . 1/

Petitioner received a ÐNotice of Determination of No CauseÑ

issued by the Commission on October 2, 2018, finding there was no

reasonable cause to believe Respondent had committed a

di scriminatory housing practice against her and that it attempted

to accommodate her by offering her a special diet of food s

Petitioner stated she could eat, but Petitioner refused.

On November 5 , 201 8 , Petitioner filed a Petition for Relief

with the Co mmission, which was transmitted to the Division of

Administrative Hearings (DOAH ) and assigned to an administrative

law judge to conduct a de novo hearing.

After one continuance, a pre - hearing teleconference was held

on February 4, 2019. During that hea ring the parties discussed

the sequence of presentations, the burdens of proof, evidentiary

issues, and other practical matters relating to the final

hearing. The parties were instructed they must exchange exhibits

prior to the hearing.

T he fin al hearing was held on February 8 , 201 9 . Petitioner

testified on her own behalf and presented the testimony of C.J.

Miles . P etitionerÓs Exhibits P 1 through P5 were admitted into

evidence. Respondent presented the testimony of three POAH

employees: Mona Wadsworth , Brenda Hernandez, and Lisa Walsh .

RespondentÓs Exhibits R1 through R13 were also admitted into

evidence. The undersigned took official recognition of Section

4350.1, Rev - 1, Chapter 31, Mandatory Meals, of the U.S. Housing

and Urban Development Handbook (1992) (HUD Handbook).

No transcript was prepared or ordered. T he parties were

advised of a ten - day timeframe following the hearing to file

post - hearing submittals. The undersigned considered RespondentÓs

p roposed recommended o rder (PRO) submitted on February 18, 2019 ,

in preparation of this Recommended Order; Petitio nerÓs PRO was

untimely, but because there was no objection filed, it has been

considered.

FINDING S OF FACT

1. Petitioner, Deborah Fielding, resides in Trinity Towers

South (TTS), located at 615 East New Haven Avenue in Melbourne,

Florida.

2 . Respondent, POAH, owns and operates low - income senior

housing programs authorized and regulated by the United States

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). POAH operates

these housing projects around the s tate, including TTS, Trinity

Towers East, and Trinity Towers West.

3 . TTS, Trinity Towers East , and Trinity Towers West

operate as separate housing projects. Each has a separate

manager, separate application process , and separate wa iting

lists.

4 . TTS is made up of 162 units. Each unit has a kitchen

with refrigerator and stove - top, but no oven. There is a common

dining hall where residents are served meals through a mandatory

meal plan. Trinity Towers East and Trinity Towers Wes t do not

have the mandatory meal plan.

5 . TTS has operated as a low - income housing community that

includes a mandatory meal plan since prior to 1987. 2 /

Participation in the meal plan is required by all TTS residents

in order to live and receive a housing subsidy at TTS.

6 . The M a ndatory M eal Program and payments are regulated by

HUD guidelines , and the meals prepared by TTS must comply with

state guidelines for food preparation and health standards.

7 . Prior to moving into TTS, Petitioner executed an

acknowledgment form that she understood the meal plan was

mandatory to live at TTS. That form states:

Mandatory Meal Program:

Trinity Tow er s South has a Mandatory Meal

Program. Lunch is served 7 days a week in

our dining room. Every day you receive sou p,

salad, choice of entrée, a starch, and a

choice of vegetable, choice of fruit or

dessert and drinks for $5.00 per day. This

is a mandatory program, participation is a

requirement to live and receive subsidy at

this community. Please take this into

con sideration before applying.

8 . On May 16, 2016, Petitioner signed a lease which

included an addendum titled ÐMeals Agreement.Ñ That agreement

states in relevant part:

A Resident may be exempt from the program for

reasons such as outside employment tha t

requires absence from the project during the

time period that the meals are served,

absence from the project for one or more

weeks for hospital care, temporary nursing

home care, or vacation. Resident is required

to provide advance notice of at least 7 days,

except for hospital emergencies.

Exemptions will be granted for a medical

conditions [sic] that requires a special

diet . If the Resident requires a special

diet, management will either provide a

special diet or grant an exemption upon

receipt of a written request from the

Resident , and verification from the physician

and the Resident requires a special diet for

medical reasons and description of the

special diet. The required forms for this

accommodation are available at the management

office. Any exemptions will be approved only

after review by the Regional Property

Supervisor of the community. (emphasis

added ) .

9 . POAH has not exempted any resident from the mandatory

meal plan, although they have credited residents who have missed

more than se ven days because of hospitalization.

10 . Approximately a year before she applied to live at TTS,

Petitioner was diagnosed with CrohnÓs disease, a digestive

disorder that causes abdominal pain, severe diarrhea, fatigue,

and weight loss .

11 . Prior to movi ng into TTS, Petitioner had been

hospitalized 22 times.

12 . T o control her CrohnÓs disease , Petitioner must keep a

food diary documenting everything she eats and must know exactly

what ingredients are in all the food she is eating. The longer

she has ha d the disease and kept track of her food intake, the

more aware she has become of what foods and food combinations

ÐtriggerÑ a CrohnÓs attack. She also has found that some foods

may cause symptoms on certain days, but not on others depending

on variations in brands or tim ing .

13 . Petitioner co nvincingly testi fied that eating food

prepared by TTS exacerbated her diagnosed condition and caused

her to be so ill she was hospitalized. In the two months after

moving into TTS and eating in the dining hall, Pet itioner was

hospitalized twice for symptoms related to her CrohnÓs disease.

14 . In September 2016, Petitioner asked to be exempt from

the mandatory meal program and to not be required to pay the $5 a

day fee. She submitted to TTS an undated note from h er treating

physician, Dr. John C. Turse, M.D. , which indicated she Ðneeds to

be on a special diet. Please exempt her from the food program at

your facility. Please call my office with any questions.Ñ The

doctor did not describe the special diet or prov ide a list of

foods Petitioner could eat.

15 . On September 19, 2016, the TTS Property Manager denied

PetitionerÓs request to be exempt from the meal plan, but offered

instead a willingness to work with Petitioner to provide her with

a special diet of food s that were acceptable to her.

16 . Subsequently, TTS staff met with Petitioner and

eventually Petitioner submitted a list of foods she could eat.

Based on this list the TTS Executive Chef created a menu for the

week of September 26 through October 2, 2016 , consisting of items

that were on that list of acceptable food s that Petitioner had

submitted.

17 . There was no evidence Petitioner g o t sick from eating

the sp ecial diet TTS had prepared. Nonetheless, Petitioner found

the meals inedible, unappealing , and unappetizing . Although she

tried the special meals for two days , she did not eat the

specially prepared meals for the rest of the week. Since then ,

she has not eaten in the TTS dining hal l and has prepared her own

meals.

1 8 . Petitioner has not been hospitalized for a CrohnÓs

attack for the past two years since she stopped eating in the TTS

dining hall.

19 . E ventually , Petitioner stopped paying her monthly meal

plan payments. Petitioner has not paid because it is a financial

hardship for her to pay the monthly meal plan amounts and pay for

her groceries.

20 . Not all residents of TTS utilize the mandatory meal

plan every day. Those who do skip a meal , however, are not

exempt from paying the $5 a day meal plan fee.

21 . Petitioner appealed TTSÓ s denial of her request for an

exemption from the meal plan to POAH. As a result, POAH set up a

meeting with Petitioner in March 2017. After that meeting TTS

requested that Petitioner meet with their newly hired Executive

Chef , Lisa Walsh.

22 . Petitioner testified that she did not want to meet with

Ms. Walsh because she had already met with Ms. Walsh , who told

her she would not have time to make special meals for her.

Ms. WalshÓs testimony was that she did not recall ever talking to

Petitioner, but that she had discussed with TTS management that

they could offer Petitioner an ingredient list of all prepared

meals, and work with Petitioner to en sure PetitionerÓs meals only

contained the items that Petitioner has listed as acceptable.

23 . Ms. Walsh expla ined the dining hall and meal plan

offering s had changed since Petitioner originally moved to TTS.

After being hired, Ms. Walsh changed the dining hall from a

cafeteria style to a sit - down , restaurant - type dining experience,

where the residents pay with me al tickets. The dining experience

was also changed so that residents were given a number of options

that varied every day, and regular items that were available

every day.

24 . Ms. Walsh Ós unrefuted testimony was that she prepares

special diets for othe r residents based on their dietary needs.

For example, her staff makes separate coleslaw for one of the

residents that cannot or will not eat a certain seasoning found

in the regular batch of coleslaw.

25 . Ms. Walsh testified TTS has been willing and is still

willing to meet with Petitioner on a regular basis to come up

with food items she can eat.

26 . Based on the demeanor of the witnesses and the

documentation provided, the undersigned finds that Ms. Walsh and

POAH staff did offer to work with Petit ioner to create a special

diet based on the information provided by Petitioner at the time .

27 . Subsequent to meeting with Respondent and the

Commission investigators regarding her appeal , Dr. Turse provided

Petitioner two notes, which she never provided to POAH or TTS. 3/

In those notes, Dr. Turse reiterated that Petitioner requires a

strict diet and added for the first time more detail.

Petitioner has followed that diet strictly

for the last 2 years and that has kept her

from having flares, which ha s ke pt her out of

the hospital. . . . I t is in my medical

opinion that she should prepare her own meals

as she knows the exact ingredients that are

used to cook her food and will not end up

eating any food or foods that may contain any

ingredients t hat will c ause her to have a

C r o h nÓs flare.

This is consistent with the unrefuted testimony provided by

Petitioner regarding her hospitalization history, the detailed

journaling of her food intake, and preparation of her own meals.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

28 . The Div ision of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this

proceeding pursuant to sections 120.569, 120.57(1), and

760.35(3)(b) , Florida Statutes.

29 . The Division of Administrative Hearings does not stand

in an appe llate capacity to review the Commission Ó s determination

of no cause, Ðbut rather conducts a de novo proceeding and

recommends final agency action to the Commission.Ñ Wergeles v.

Tregate East Condo AssÓ n, Inc. , Case No. 09 - 2404 2010 Fla. Div.

Adm. Hear. LEX IS 1128, at *7 (FCHR June 24, 2010).

30 . The Florida FHA makes it unlawful to discriminate

against any disabled or handicapped person in connection with

housing r ental . See § 760.23(1 ), Fla. Stat. (Ð It is unlawful to

refuse to sell or rent . . . or othe rwise to make unavailable or

deny a dwelling to any person because of . . . handicap. Ñ).

31 . To prevail on a failure - to - accommodate claim, Petitioner

must establish : (1) she is a person with a disabilit y within the

meaning of the Florida FHA; (2) she req uested a reasonable

a ccommodation for the disability; (3) the requested accommodation

was necessary to afford her an opportunit y to use and enjoy the

dwelling; and (4) the defendant refused to make the accommodation.

See Hunt v. Aimco Props., L.P. , 814 F. 3d 1213, 1225 (11th Cir.

2016) ; Bone v. Vill. Club, Inc. , 223 F. Supp. 3d 1203, 1210 - 11

(M.D. Fla. 2016) . 4 /

32 . Here, the parties stipulated to the first element -- that

Petitioner had a disability. Regarding the second element, there

was sufficient eviden ce to find Petitioner requested an

accommodation from POAH .

33 . There was also evidence that it was necessary for

Petitioner to be accommodated with a special diet. It is unclear,

however, as POAH argued at the hearing, whether being exempt from

the mand atory meal plan is necessary for Petitioner to use and

enjoy living at TTS . Both the FHA and the Florida FHA reasonable

accommodation provision s require Ðonly those accommodations that

may be necessary . . . to afford equal opportunity to use and

enjoy a dwelling.Ñ Schaw v. Habitat for Human. of Citrus Cty.,

Inc. , 272 F. Supp. 3d 1319, 1325 (M.D. Fla. 2017 )( quoting Schwarz

v. City of Treasure Island , 544 F.3d 1201, 1226 (11th Cir.

2008) ) .

34 . In Schaw , the plaintiff was a quadriplegic who applied

to rece ive a home from a Habitat for Humanity housing program.

He sued under the FHA and Florida FHA after being denied housing

because he did not m eet the financial requirements f or receiving

special housing under this program. The court addressed a

similar re quest that an accommodation was necessary because of

the residentÓs financial condition. In finding an exemption from

the financial requirements was not a reasonable accommodation for

his disability the court noted :

This is a novel issue to which the Elev enth

Circuit has not spoken. But persuasive

authority from other circuits supports each

party Ó s position. Compare Salute v.

Stratford Greens Garden Apartments , 136 F.3d

293 (2d Cir. 1998); and Schanz v. Vill.

Apartments , 998 F. Supp. 784 (E.D. Mich.

1998 ) (Ð[I]t is plaintiffÓ s financial

situation which impedes him from renting an

apartment at The Village, and it is

plaintiff Ó s financial situation which he is

requesting that defendants accommodate. The

[Act] does not require that this be done.Ñ );

with Gie beler v. M & B Assocs. , 343 F.3d 1143

(9th Cir. 2003) (reversing summary judgment

in favor of an apartmen t complex because the

plaintiffÓ s disability prevented him from

being able to earn an income that allowed him

to meet the minimum income requirement); and

Fair Hous. Rights Ctr. in Se. Pennsylvania v.

Morgan Properties Mgmt. Co., LLC , No. CV 16 -

4677, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55249, 2017 WL

1326240 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 11, 2017) (holding

that a landlord violated the FHA by not

allowing an SSDI recipient to pay ren t late,

and explaining, ÐAn SSDI recipient may need

to be afforded preferential treatment in

order to provide them with an equal

opportunity to obtain housing.Ñ).

This Court is most persuaded with the

reasoning of the Second Circuit in Salute ,

which paral lels the holdings of the Eleventh

Circuit in other FHA failure to accommodate

cases. The Salute court reasoned that the

FHA does not require accommodations for

economic discrimination that is practiced

without regard to disability. 136 F.3d at

301 - 02. T his is similar to the Eleventh

Circuit Ó s reasoning in Schwarz that , ÐIf

accommodations go beyond addressing these

needs and start addressing problems not

caused by a personÓ s handicap, then the

handicapped person would receive not an

Òequal,Ó but rather a better opportunity to

use and enjoy a dwelling, a preference that

the plain language of this statute cannot

support.Ñ

* * *

Taken together, the Court concludes the law

of this Circuit does not require

accommodations for a disabled person Ó s

finan cial condition when those accommodations

would not have been made for a non - disabled

person.

Schaw , 272 F. Supp. 3d at 1326 - 27.

35 . Here, unlike in Schaw , it is unclear from the evidence

at the hearing whether a tenant who does not pay for the

mandatory meal plan would still be eligible to receive the

housing subsidy and placement at TTS. E xemptions to the meal

plan , however, are required by the HUD H andbook and the M eals

Agreement in limited circumstances , including the need for a

special diet ; exemptio ns are discretionary under other

circumstances such as financial hardship.

31 - 6. MANDATORY EXEMPTIONS

An owner must grant an exemption if a tenant

meets one of the following criteria. Any

exemption granted to a tenant will remain

valid as long as the tenant meets the

condition(s) for which the exemption was

originally granted.

* * *

Exemptions must be granted to tenants for the

following reasons:

a. A medical condition that requires a

special diet. The owner must either provide

the special diet or grant the tenant a

medical exemption within ten working days

upon the tenant Ó s request and receipt

of physicianÓ s documentation (if owner

requests such documentation). The owner may

require a physician to document the following

before granting an exemption:

o A tenant requires a special diet for

medical reasons, and

o A description of the special diet.

NOTE: If the owner decides to provide the

special diet, it must be provided at no

increased cost to the tenant.

* * *

31 - 7. DISCRETIONA RY EXEMPTIONS.

An owner may grant a discretionary exemption

to a tenant for the following reasons:

dietary practices (e.g., religious - based

dietary practice), financial hardship, or

other good cause determined by the owner.

NOTE: An owner who does not provide an

exemption for a religious - based dietary

practice must offer an alternative menu that

does not conflict with the tenant's religious

dietary practice.

36 . Because the M andatory M eal P rogram and Meals Agreement

provisions contemplate exemptions , Petitioner has established the

third element that an exemption is a reasonable accommodation to

allow her to live at TTS.

37 . Finally, there is no evidence as to the last element:

that POAH refused to accommodate Petitioner. Under the federal

and state housing laws, a resident is not entitled to the

accommodation of his or her choice, but is only entitled to a

reasonable accommodation depending on specific circumstances. See

Floyd v. City of Sanibel , 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158242 at *16 - 17

( citing Weiss v. 2100 Condo. Ass'n, Inc. , 941 F. Supp. 2d 1337,

1343 (S.D. Fla. 2013) ) . Whether a requested accommodation is

reasonable is Ð highly fact - specific, requiring a case - by - case

determin ation.Ñ Loren v. Sasser , 309 F.3d 1296, 1302 (11th Cir.

2002) (quotation marks omitted).

38 . Under the facts of this case, POAH attempted to

accommodate Petitioner based on the limited medical and other

information regarding what she could eat that she provided to

POAH . Although she may have been justified in not wanting to r isk

trying out various meals , it did not help the process that

Petitioner refused to meet with Ms. Walsh and did not provide

documentation from her doctor that justified a need for the self -

prepared diet from her physician until the final hearing.

Regardl ess, although there is now documentation that a special

diet by TTS will not accommodate PetitionerÓs CrohnÓs disease but

her own preparation of her meals will, POAH cannot be said to

have violated the Florida FHA based on the information it had at

the tim e it made the decision to deny her request .

39 . Nonetheless, as of the date of the final hearing, POAH

now has documentation from PetitionerÓs physician that she

requires a special diet consisting of meals made by Petitioner.

In Chahil v. Episcopal Churc h Home Friendship, Inc. , Case No.

10 - cv - 418 (RLW), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126891, at *4 (D.D.C. Sept.

7, 2012), the court denied dismissal of a reasonable accommodation

claim similar to that of Petitioner in this case. There , the

plaintiff was a blind dia betic resident of a group home that had a

mandatory meal plan. After the plaintiff tried to participate in

the group home meal plan , his doctor provided documentation

rejecting the preparation of a special diet as inappropr iate for

Chahil's diet, noting Ð Unfortunately, in [Chahil's] eating

arrangement at [ the home ] it has been almost impossible for him to

adhere to this diet, which is a concern for me. Ñ Id. at *18.

40 . In notes never previ ously provided to POAH or TTS,

Dr. Turse has now stated , like t he doctor in Chahil , that

Petitioner has not needed hospitalization since she stopped eating

at the TTS dining hall, and her special diet is one where she

should prepare her own meals. Respondent provided no evidence

contradicting Dr. TurseÓs opinion or h is recommendation. As such,

now that Petitioner has provided the specific verification

outlined in the HUD Handbook and in the Meals Agreement , if

Petitioner were to resubmit her request to be exempt from the meal

plan , POAH should grant her request as a reasonable accommodation

for her CrohnÓs disease.

41 . The undersigned makes no finding as to whether

Petitioner would still qualify for the HUD, federal , or other

subsidie s that allow her to live at TTS if she does not pay for

the mandatory meal plan, o nly that exemption s are contemplated by

HUD regulations and lease documents.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human

Relations issue a final order finding that Re spondent ,

Preservation of Affordable Housing, LLC , did not commit a

discriminatory housing practice against Petitioner , Deborah

Fielding . If Petitioner has resubmitted or resubmits her request

with the physician verification she now has, it should be

gran ted.

DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of February , 2019 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

HETAL DESAI

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahass ee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 28th day of February , 2019 .

ENDNOTE S

1/ Unless otherwise stated, all statutory and administrativ e rule

references are to the 2018 versions.

2/ The funding for low - income housing projects , which include

mandatory meal plans pursuant to 24 C.F.R. Part 278 ( Mandatory

Meals Program in Multifamily Rental or Cooperative Projects for

the Elderly or Handi capped ) , was phased out in approximately

1989. HUD has not approved any HUD - assisted housing projects for

the elderly with mandatory meal plans since April 1, 1987. See

generally 14 C.F.R. § 200.1301 (Expiring Programs Î Savings

Clause). POAH offered te stimony that TTS is the only such

program that remains in Florida.

3/ Respondent did not object to the authenticity or admission of

Exhibits P1 (note dated November 31, 2018) and P5 (undated note).

It is unclear if these notes were provided by Petition er to the

Commission.

4 / Generally, the Florida FHA is patterned after the federal FHA

found in 42 U.S.C. § 3601, et seq. See Floyd v. City of Sanibel ,

Case No: 2:15 - cv - 795 - FtM - 38CM , 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 158242, at

*15 n.6 (M.D. Fla. Sep. 26, 2017) ( noting it was proper to cite

ÐFHA authority for [defendantÓs] argument that the proposed

accommodation was reasonable under the FHA, ADA, Rehabilitation

Act, and [ F lorida] FHA. In this context, that is proper because

analysis of a reasonable accommodation claim is generally treated

the same under the Acts .Ñ); Bhogaita v. Altamonte Heights Condo.

Ass Ó n , 765 F.3d 1277, 1285 (11th Cir. 2014)(ÐThe [Federal Fair

Housing Act] and the Florida Fair Housing Act are substantively

identical, and therefore the same le ga l analysis applies to

each.Ñ).

COPIES FURNISHED:

Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk

Florida Commission on Human Relations

Room 110

4075 Esplanade Way

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 7020

(eServed)

Brian C. Costa, Esquire

Alvarez Feltman Da Silva

Suite 1100

212 1 Ponce de Leon Boulevard

Coral Gables, Florida 33134

(eServed)

Deborah Fielding

Apartment 302

615 East New Haven Avenue

Melbourne, Florida 32901

(eServed)

Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel

Florida Commission on Human Relations

Room 110

4075 Espla nade Way

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 7020

( eServed)

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

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

to this Recommended Order should be fi led with the agency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.