The issue is whether Respondent engaged in negligence in the practice of engineering, in violation of Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes.Reprimand for engineer who negligently failed to specify the number, weight, and location of nails to attach a strap to a rafter.

Whether the license of Respondent, Mark Craig Fetherman, P.E., should be disciplined for negligence in the practice of engineering, in violation of Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, as more specifically alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed in this case on May 27, 2000.Respondent charged with negligently practicing engineering found not guilty of negligence, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint.

Whether Respondent Harold R. Tussler, P.E., should be disciplined for negligence in the practice of engineering and for improper delegation of engineering responsibility as alleged specifically in the Administrative Complaint against him dated May 26, 2000.Evidence failed to prove that engineer should be disciplined either for negligence in the practice of engineering or for improper delegation of engineering responsibility, as charged in Administrative Complaint.

The issue is whether Respondent engaged in the negligent practice of engineering, in violation of Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes.Not negligence where: inclusion of wrong roof truss where engineer could not be misled; omission of: supplemental framing in drawings to reflect studs where common field practice gives necessary information; roof, floor diaphragms due to common practice.

In re: Case No. 94-0083 Whether disciplinary action should be taken against the Respondent's license to practice psychology, by violating of Section 490.009(2)(s), Florida Statutes, by undertaking activities for which the licensee is not qualified by training, experience, or licensure. As to DOAH Case No. 96-00819 Whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's license to practice psychology by violating Section 490.009(2)(s), Florida Statutes, by having failed to meet the minimum standards of performance in professional activities when measured against generally prevailing peer performance, including the undertaking of activities for which the licensee is not qualified by training or experience (2 counts). Whether Respondent violated Section 490.009(2)(q), Florida Statutes, by violating provisions of Chapter 490, Chapter 455, or any rules adopted pursuant thereto. Whether Respondent violated Section 490.009(2)(v), by failing to maintain in confidence a communication made by a patient or client in the context of such services, except by written permission or in the face of a clear and immediate probability of bodily harm to the patient or client or to others. Whether Respondent violated Section 490.009(2)(m), Florida Statutes, by soliciting patients or clients personally, or through an agent, through the use of fraud, intimidation, undue influence, or a form of overreaching or vexatious conduct.Respondent was guilty of undertaking activities not qualified for, of failure to release records, of breach of confidence, and of improper solicitation. Respondent was found not guilty on two counts.

The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent's license as a dentist in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.Record evidence supports charge of treatment below standard but Respondent successfully rebuts presumption of misconduct on nolo contendere plea in court.

Whether Respondent, Lawrie B. Glickman, D.D.S., violated Section 466.028(1)(q), Florida Statutes, by prescribing for himself, once, Promethazine/Phenyleph/Cod, and twice, Testosterone 200 mg/mcl 10 cc?Dentist prescribed to himself promethazine cough syrup and testosterone for office, not personal use. However, these are technical violations of dental practice act.

This is a license discipline case in which the Petitioner seeks to take disciplinary action against the Respondent on the basis of alleged violations of paragraphs (i), (m), (n), (r), and of Section 460.413(1), Florida Statutes, as set forth in a five-count Administrative Complaint.Evidence was insufficient to prove allegations of misconduct by chiropractic physician.

The issue for determination in this case is whether Respondent's license to practice nursing home administration should be revoked or otherwise disciplined for violations of Chapter 468, Part 11, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint.Evidence supported suspension of license of nursing home administrator for resident abuse and for conditions of nursing home.

Whether Respondent, a registered nurse licensed by the Petitioner, committed the offenses set forth in the Amended Administrative Complaint and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.Nurse unable to safely practice due to alcoholism and mental illness. Revoke with provision for reinstatement recommended.