Pesticides+Patterson+Opinion+_Edited_

Pesticides Patterson - Filed CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PATTERSON FLYING

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Filed 3/27/08 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PATTERSON FLYING SERVICE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PESTICIDE REGULATION, Defendant and Respondent. F052102 (Super. Ct. No. 381269) OPINION APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. William A. Mayhew, Judge. Law Offices of William McPike and William McPike for Plaintiff and Appellant. Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Tom Greene, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary E. Hackenbracht, Assistant Attorney General, Russell B. Hildreth, Deputy Attorney General, for Defendant and Respondent. -ooOoo- Appellants appeal from the denial of their petition for writ of administrative mandamus. After a hearing by a hearing officer, the County Agricultural Commissioner imposed a fine on Patterson Flying Service for failing to follow the label directions when it made an aerial application of pesticides, in violation of Food and Agriculture Code section 12973. An appeal to the Director of the Department of Pesticide Regulation upheld the penalty. Appellants’ petition to the trial court for an administrative writ of mandamus was denied. Appellants appeal that denial, contending the administrative
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
proceedings failed to follow the proper procedures, and the commissioner’s findings were not supported by substantial evidence. We will affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The County Agricultural Commissioner (commissioner) issued a notice of proposed action, which notified Patterson Flying Service (Patterson) that the commissioner proposed to fine it $5,000 for violation of Food and Agriculture Code section 12973, which provides: “The use of any pesticide shall not conflict with labeling registered pursuant to this chapter which is delivered with the pesticide or with any additional limitations applicable to the conditions of any permit issued by the director or commissioner.” The notice asserted that, on September 2, 2005, Patterson, operating as a pest control business, made a pesticide application of Dimethoate, which drifted onto Elena Ruiz while on adjacent property. The notice asserted Patterson’s failure to prevent off site movement of the pesticide onto Ruiz’s property and person resulted in an actual health hazard, warranting a “Class A” penalty under California Code of Regulations, section 6130(a). The notice also asserted Patterson was liable to the individual harmed or the medical provider for the immediate costs of medical care for acute injuries or illnesses of the exposed individual. The notice stated Patterson was entitled to a hearing on request. At appellants’ request, a hearing was held before a hearing officer. The evidence indicated appellants applied both Dimethoate and a second pesticide, Warrior, to the field adjacent to Ruiz’s property. The hearing officer made findings of fact and concluded the label of the Dimethoate and Warrior pesticides stated: “Do not apply this product in a
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 02/18/2010 for the course ESP 161 taught by Professor Staff during the Spring '08 term at UC Davis.

Page1 / 15

Pesticides Patterson - Filed CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT PATTERSON FLYING

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online