Whether the Petitioner violated Section 489.129(1)(a), Florida Statutes, by obtaining licensure by fraud or misrepresentation.Misrepresentation of experience on application is sufficient to require license revocation.
At issue in this proceeding is whether respondent violated the provisions of Section 489.533(1)(n), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.Electrical contractor discipined for having been disciplined by a municipality for acts that constitute a violation of state statute
The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, Dominick A. Solitario, committed the offenses alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.Pool contractor failed to obtain final inspections and incompetently per- formed work on 2 separate jobs; reimburse to owners recommend along with fine
The issue presented is whether Respondent has violated various statutes regulating the practice of electrical contracting as alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed against him, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him, if any.Failure of proof that electrical contractor under emergency suspension order was guilty of any allegations in 20 count administrative complaint
Whether Respondent committed the offenses described in the administrative complaint? If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him?Qualifying agent guilty of inadequate supervision, gross negligence, willful violation of local laws in connection with roofing job; 1 year suspension/fine
The issue for determination at the formal hearing was whether Respondent: failed to perform work in a reasonable timely manner or abandoned such work; committed financial mismanagement or misconduct; failed to properly supervise work; and underbid a job; all in violation of Section 489.119, and Subsections 489.105(4), 489.129(1)(h), (k), and (m), Florida Statutes. 1/Contractor who failed to complete a pool should be fined $5000 and placed on probation.
The issue presented is whether Petitioner should be awarded credit for his response to question numbered 30 of Part III of the October, 1989, certified general contractor examination.Extra credit denied examinee where 3 of 4 answers to unambiguous question were correct and examinee chose the 4th answer, the only incorrect answer
The issue presented is whether Respondent committed the offenses alleged in the administrative complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the person in question was an employee or agent who could bind contractor. Complaint dismissed.
At issue is whether respondent's motion for summary recommended order should be granted.Prior issuance of letter of guidance precludes further disciplinary action on same charges
Whether Mr. Masiero is guilty of gross negligence in reroofing work he performed, and misconduct by failing to honor a guarantee given in connection with that work?Guaranteed roofing work leaked and destroyed bedroom ceiling because old roofing had not been removed. Guarantee not honored. $2250 fine imposed.
