STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL )
REGULATION, BOARD OF )
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 82-960
)
SHYAMIAL B. VIRANI, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was held in the above case before the Division of Administrative Hearings by its duly designated Hearing Officer, DONALD R. ALEXANDER, on October 5, 6 and 12, 1982 in Melbourne, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Wings S. Benton, Esquire
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
For Respondent: Richard E. Stadler, Esquire
Post Office Box 669 Titusville, Florida 32780
BACKGROUND
In this proceeding, Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers, seeks to take disciplinary action against Respondent, Shyamial B. Virani, for allegedly violating certain provisions of Chapter 471, Florida Statutes, and a rule promulgated thereunder. In summary form it is alleged in Count I that Respondent, a licensed professional engineer, was retained in early 1973 to provide structural design calculations and sketches for a building project known as the Buccaneer Condominium in Satellite Beach, Florida; that "serious structural defects" were detected in the project in April, 1981; and that by reason of the foregoing Respondent was "guilty of negligence by failing to have due regard for acceptable standards of engineering principles and failing to use due care in performing in an engineering capacity." In Count II, it is alleged Respondent is guilty of misconduct by failing to affix an engineering seal to his plans. Count III alleges that Respondent "failed to sign or seal revised sheet number four" of the foundation plan, thereby constituting misconduct within the meaning of the law.
Respondent disputed the above allegations and requested a formal hearing pursuant to Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The matter was forwarded by Petitioner to the Division of Administrative Hearings on April 7, 1982 with a request that a Hearing Officer be assigned to conduct a hearing.
By notice of hearing dated May 21, 1982, the final hearing was scheduled for July 29 and 30, 1982 in Titusville, Florida. At the request of Petitioner, the matter was rescheduled to October 5 and 6, 1982, in Melbourne, Florida. An additional hearing was held on October 12, 1982.
By motion filed on September 17, 1982, Petitioner moved for leave to amend the administrative complaint by adding new Counts IV, V and VI. Count IV generally alleges that Respondent was guilty of negligence and misconduct for failing to make calculations for all design changes in the project after certain structural problems were brought to his attention and with making "inadequate" changes for those that were made. It also charged that Respondent failed to notify the City of these problems and the associated changes in the plans.
Count V alleges that by failing to assist the architect in the preparation of the structural drawings for the project on which his professional engineer (PE) number had been placed, Respondent had violated the law. The final count contends that Respondent affixed his signature and professional engineer number to plans depicting engineering in a subject matter over which he lacked competence because of inadequate training or experience. The motion to amend the complaint was granted at the outset of the hearing without objection by Respondent.
At the final hearing Petitioner called Benjamin M. Bowman, Howard E. Richards, David M. Putnam, Donald B. Boland, David A. Boland, Jimmy D. Shilling, Oscar E. Olson, and Respondent as its witnesses and offered Petitioner's Exhibits 1-31; all were received in evidence. Respondent testified on his own behalf and presented the testimony of Russell P. Lloyd, Hudson Haile and Ron Tulino. A prehearing stipulation entered into by the parties has been received as Hearing Officer Exhibit 1.
The transcript of hearing (five volumes) was filed on November 22, 1982. Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed by Respondent and Petitioner on December 20, 1982 and January 14, 1983, respectively, and have been considered by the undersigned in the preparation of this order. Findings of fact not included in this order were considered irrelevant to the issues, immaterial to the results reached, or were not supported by competent and substantial evidence.
The parties have waived the requirement that a recommended order be filed within thirty days after the filing of the transcript of hearing.
The issue herein is whether Respondent's license as a professional engineer should be disciplined for the alleged violations set forth in the amended administrative complaint.
Based upon all the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: FINDINGS OF FACT
INTRODUCTION
At all times relevant thereto, Respondent, Shyamial D. Virani, held professional engineer license number PE 0012989 issued by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers. His current address is 2900 Jasmine Street, Titusville, Florida.
Virani has been licensed as a professional engineer in the State of Florida since 1969. He also holds a license to practice engineering in Colorado. Because of a reciprocity agreement with the State of Colorado, Virani was required to only take an eight-hour Engineer in Training examination in Florida rather than the normal sixteen-hour examination for licensure.
Respondent received a diploma in civil engineering from a school in India, his native country, and then enrolled in the University of Missouri where he obtained a degree in civil engineering in 1959. He also received a masters degree in structural engineering in 1961 from the same institution.
Following graduation in 1961 Respondent's employment history in chronological sequence was as follows:
W. D. Riddle and Associates (1961-1962) where he performed surveying, acquisition of right-of ways, laying out sewer lines, and field inspection of construction on a sewerage works project,
Missouri-Pacific Railroad Company (1962- 1964) where he was involved primarily with survey work and layout work, and also designed a one- story steel structure,
Stearns-Roger (April 1964-June 1967) where he worked on steel structures and deep concrete foundations for the Air Force Titan III project,
Bendix Launch Support Division (June 1967- 1977) where Respondent was a systems engineer in charge of all changes and modifications to faci- lities at Kennedy Space Center including multistory concrete structures,
Boeing Services International (1977-1978) where he performed modifications vis a vis original design work to existing steel and concrete struc- tures,
Boeing Services International (September 1979-September 1980) where Virani supervised the
construction of modifications to steel and concrete structures, and
Rockwell International (September 1980 to present) where Respondent has been employed as
a thermal protection systems engineer and processes the installation of tiles.
In addition to the above employment, Virani formed a private engineering-construction firm in 1972 or 1973 called Vista Engineering and Construction, Inc. The firm engages primarily in construction work although it does perform some engineering work. Over the years Respondent has (a) designed beams, drive-in windows and columns for a bank, (b) performed the structural design for a three-story concrete apartment in 1971, (c) made the structural design on a five-story condominium, (d) performed the structural design work on two four or five-story concrete condominiums in 1971 or 1972, and (e) provided structural engineering services in the design phase of a condominium project known as the Buccaneer Condominium. The extent of other work, if any, performed by Respondent was not disclosed. In each of the above projects Respondent was not supervised by another engineer.
COUNT I
In early 1973 Respondent was retained under an oral contract with Donald B. Boland Development Corporation to provide structural engineering services in the design phase for a condominium project known as the Buccaneer Condominium located at 1175 North A1A Highway, Satellite Beach, Florida.
The Buccaneer consists of two nearly identical eight story buildings known as Buccaneer I and Buccaneer II. The first floor, or ground floor, of each building is the parking level. Above the ground floor parking level of each building are seven floors of apartments, with approximately five units per floor in Building I and six units per floor in Building II. The buildings are concrete wall bearing structures above the first living level, carried by a series of large concrete transfer girders or haunched beams which are supported by concrete columns.
Boland Development Corporation was the owner and developer of the project. Mr. Boland is a licensed general contractor in Florida and was the general contractor for the project. Boland's recollection was that he hired Virani to "design the building". He recalled paying Virani $600 for his services and an additional $300 to redesign the upturned beam between the second and third floors. Virani disputed this and claimed he was paid $1,500 in installments for his work. Because Boland destroyed his records in 1979 when he relocated his offices the actual compensation is not known.
The precise terms of the oral agreement between Boland and Virani was not disclosed. Boland was never asked to describe in detail their understanding, and Virani recalled his responsibility as being to design the "structural members which include(d) the beams, the columns, the foundation, pile caps, and the piles, mostly." He added that designing balcony slabs, bearing walls, girders and beams was also within the scope of his engagement.
David M. Putnam was the architect on the project, and the individual with whom Virani coordinated most of his activities. Harry Huber, now deceased, was the mechanical engineer while Boland's son, David A. Boland, served as assistant superintendent on a part-time basis on Building I and on a full-time basis on Building II. David Boland was a college student majoring in engineering when he assisted in the construction of Building I.
Putnam prepared a preliminary layout of the project with Donald Boland in which the building configuration and typical unit was established. These plans were then given to Virani who was to calculate the beam sizes and structural members. This included a determination as to size and design of the supporting beams and columns, the foundation itself, and any other load bearing members needed to make the project "work". Putnam claimed he could not recall if he collaborated with Virani during this phase of the project. In any event, Virani returned a separate set of calculations and sketches for each building to Putnam who then placed them onto the permit plans.
While Putnam was incorporating Virani's calculations and sketches onto the final set of plans, Putnam and Virani had an undisclosed number of ongoing discussions concerning the plans. Putnam construed the matter to be a joint effort between the two. When they were completed, Virani made a final review of the plans but he admitted he may not have had a sufficient time to review them because of a desire by the developer to obtain a city permit as quickly as possible. Putnam signed off on the plans on February 24, 1973 by placing his initials on the face of the plans.
Donald Boland took the final set of plans to the City of Satellite Beach Building Department where he applied for a single building permit for both buildings. After reviewing the plans the City issued permit number 3328 to Donald Boland of Donald Boland Construction Company on March 13, 1973. Prior to the issuance of the permit, the city engineer was suppose to review the plans. Further, the permit represented a certification that the plans complied with the City building code as the building official interpreted the code at that time.
The permit set of plans consisted of approximately thirty-five sheets. Respondent affixed his signature and "P.E. Number 12929" to fourteen sheets, including sheet numbers 4 through 8, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 23, and AC-1. A portion of the sheets relate to Building I, some to Building II, and some relate to both. Respondent did not affix his seal to any plans.
In September, 1973, Donald Boland noticed numerous cracks in three of the haunched girders supporting the frame in Building I. The cracks were not deep, were as wide as a fingernail is thick, and were characterized by the city building inspector as sidewalk cracks. Donald Boland brought the cracks to the attention of Virani who inspected the girders. Boland also conducted a prism test on the structure and furnished some of the results to Virani by telephone.
Virani advised Boland that the potential for a long-term problem existed and provided Boland with certain modifications designed to provide a temporary cure. However, Boland did not accept Virani's suggestion to make further calculations to determine whether more modifications and supports were required.
The modifications proposed by Virani and accepted by Boland were the addition of temporary supports, referred to as sister columns. These were added to the existing columns in the parking level between the floor and the haunched girders.
On April 8, 1981 Jimmy D. Shilling, a licensed professional structural engineer, was retained by the Buccaneer Condominium Association to investigate cracks that appeared in Buccaneer I. His preliminary inspection revealed "severe" combination shear-flexural cracks in each of the four main girders in the parking level. There were also cracks in some of the columns. After filing a complaint with the Department Shilling was retained by the Department to make an indepth analysis of the project.
Roof live and dead loads were substantially in error. The dead load was listed as 10 pounds per square foot (PSF). However, based upon the city building code, the minimum dead load for Buccaneer's design should be 20 PSF. Respondent attempted to justify this error by stating that his calculations were based upon the information that was given to him in 1973. In hindsight, he now acknowledges that the contractor gave him insufficient information, and that he should have made further inquiry to properly complete his computations.
Inadequate steel joist sizes to satisfy proper load requirements. Steel joist sizes indicated in the drawings were inadequate to satisfy proper load requirements. Further, there were no calculations for the roof structures, including the steel joists. Respondent contended he was not involved with the design of the roof joists, and that the architect or contractor probably picked the size or design of the steel joints. He based his roof loads on the joist sizes given to him when he began the design. However, he never reevaluated the
building loads to determine if they were in conformity with the plans to which he had affixed his signature.
Wall stresses were not checked. The calculations and drawings on the permit set of plans produced a significant amount of overstressing of the walls. Overstressing typically manifests itself in advance with cracks such as those present in the haunched girders. It can result in the walls exploding without notice years after a building is constructed.
Concrete transfer girders inadequately reinforced. The haunched girders on the ground level floor were inadequately reinforced in that the reinforcing steel bars in the bottom of the girders were not properly anchored at the reentrant angles of the haunches. Further, the reinforcing steel bars in the top of the girders were not properly anchored into the columns to resist design shear loads.
COUNT II
Respondent did not affix an engineering seal to the set of permit plans filed with the Building Department of the City of Satellite Beach. However, he did sign the plans and affix his professional engineer number thereto. The seal and number provided the same information as would be provided by the engineer impression seal.
The plans were filed by Donald Boland without the engineering seal. They were accepted in this form by the City and a permit was issued. The plans were also sealed by the project architect.
COUNT III
On February 24, 1973, sheet number 4 of the permit plans for Buccaneer I was revised to reduce the number of auger piles and alter the size of the pile caps. The evidence is conflicting as to whether Respondent redesigned the foundation plan which resulted in the revision of sheet number 4. The architect actually drew the revised sheet on his printed linen. Although Donald Boland claimed that Virani designed the change, it is found that Respondent made no calculations or sketches to support such a change. This is consistent with Boland's testimony that he did not compensate Virani for any additional services of this character.
COUNT IV
As noted earlier, potential structural problems in the form of hairline cracks were brought to Respondent's attention by Donald Boland in September, 1973. The general consensus at that time was that the cracks were surface or temperature cracks and could apparently be repaired with certain minor modifications.
The City building inspector, the consulting engineers for the City, the developer and Respondent were all aware of such cracks. Although Virani and the other principals did not formally notify the City of these problems, the City was cognizant of the problem, and observed and inspected the project on a number of occasions after the cracks were discovered. At the same time, Boland advised Virani for the first time that a change to the floor system had been made which apparently caused the added stress. However, he would not rehire Virani to perform additional calculations on the building loads and was unwilling to pay for any additional services. Despite this, Virani voluntarily
designed some temporary support columns until Boland could determine whether a serious structural problem existed.
COUNT V
David Putnam, the project's architect, considered his and Virani's work to be a "joint effort" on the part of the two individuals. Although Putnam could not recall the specific occasions when they collaborated, it is found that Virani assisted Putnam in the preparation of the structural drawings, and delivered them to Putnam who incorporated the same into his plans.
COUNT VI
Respondent erroneously affixed his signature and PE number to a sheet that involved the air conditioning plan of the structures. Although the act was unintentional, it was beyond the scope of his competence in the field of engineering.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative hearings has jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties thereto pursuant to Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
Because the proceeding herein is penal in nature, and involves an attempt by Petitioner to revoke the license of Respondent, "an elevated standard of competent substantial evidence" is required to substantiate the charges. Smith v. School Board of Leon County, 405 So.2d 183, 186 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Bowling v. Department of Insurance, 394 So.2d 165 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
Moreover, each of the statutes which underpin the charges must be strictly construed in favor of Respondent. Lester v. Department of Professional Regulation, 348 So.2d 923 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). With these standards in mind, the evidence will be examined to determine the validity of the charges.
Initially, it is noted that one of the obvious difficulties herein is the fact that the events in question occurred almost ten years ago. Records have been lost or destroyed, memories are imprecise, potential witnesses have died or moved away, and many of the principals are now defendants in major lawsuits which may make them reluctant to fully disclose all facts, or to be inclined to cast blame on someone else.
Count I - This count alleges that Virani is guilty of negligence in the practice of engineering in violation of Subsection 471.26(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1973), now codified as Subsection 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes (1981) Negligence is defined in Rule 21H-19.01(3), Florida Administrative Code, as "the failure by a professional engineer to utilize due care in performing in an engineering capacity or fail (sic) to have due regard for acceptable standards of engineering principles". The evidence clearly establishes that Respondent was negligent in providing structural engineering design work on the project, and it is concluded that a violation of the law has occurred. 1/
Count II - Respondent concedes that he is technically guilty of misconduct in failing to affix his engineering seal to the plans which he signed. Accordingly, it is concluded that a violation of Subsections 471.30(1) and 471.26(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1973), now codified as Subsections 471.025(1) and 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes (1981) has occurred.
Count III - It is charged herein that Virani's guilty, of misconduct for failing to affix his engineering seal to Revised Foundation Sheet No. 4. In its proposed recommended order, Petitioner acknowledges there is insufficient evidence to substantiate the charge, and that Count III should be dismissed. Therefore, it is concluded that this count should fail.
Count IV - This count alleges that Respondent is guilty of misconduct and negligence by failing to make appropriate and adequate calculations and design changes to correct the structural problems that arose in September, 1973, and by failing to report his changes and the structural problems to the City of Satellite Beach.
Respondent contends he was under no contractual obligation to render a judgment at that time, and was never hired to perform any further work on the project. He points out that any additional work done was gratuitous in nature, and that he should not be penalized because he volunteered his services.
When Respondent elected to voluntarily design temporary supports to cure the apparent problem, his obligation to conform with good engineering practices came into play. Although the developer refused to acknowledge that a potential serious problem existed, and opted instead for a "quick, cheap fix", Respondent was under an obligation to fully investigate the problem, and to advise his former employer of the potential ramifications. This he failed to do. Under Respondent's rationale, an engineer could ignore a hazardous situation merely because his professional judgment was overruled, or because his employer wanted a temporary stopgap measure utilized in an effort to hurriedly complete a project. Such action by an engineer could imperil the lives of innocent citizens, and effectively relieve him of any obligation to cure a structural problem, or at a minimum, to forewarn the builder and governmental authorities of the consequences of the builder's actions. Accordingly, it is concluded that Respondent was negligent in failing to make appropriate and adequate calculations and design changes to correct the structural problems that arose in September, 1973. Subsection 471.26(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1973), now codified as Subsection 471.033(g), Florida Statutes (1981).
While it is true that the City was at least superficially aware of the foregoing problems, it apparently was not apprised as to the seriousness of the situation. Respondent was not excused from reporting the potential danger merely because he thought the City was aware of the problem. Palm Bay Towers Corporation v. Crain & Crouse, Inc., 303 So.2d 380 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1974). Therefore, it is concluded that Respondent is guilty of misconduct in the practice of engineering within the meaning of the law.
Count V - There is insufficient evidence to show that Respondent failed to assist the architect in the preparation of the structural drawings on which Respondent placed his PE number. Smith, Bowling, supra. Accordingly, Count V should be dismissed.
Count VI - The final count contends that Virani is guilty of misconduct In the practice of engineering in that he affixed his signature and PE number to plans depicting engineering in a subject matter over which he lacks competence because of inadequate training or experience.
Respondent concedes that he is guilty of misconduct in inadvertently signing one sheet of air conditioning plans. However, Petitioner contends that far more than one sheet of the plans is involved, for Virani had inadequate experience and training to design an eight story reinforced concrete
condominium. In support of this contention Petitioner relies upon two considerations: (a) the lack of training and experience in the field of structural engineering in Respondent's employment history, and (b) the numerous structural errors in the plans and calculations of Buccaneer I.
While Respondent's employment history reflects minimal training and experience in the field of structural engineering, it cannot be concluded that it is so insufficient as to render him incompetent when he signed the plans in question. Next, the evidence supports a conclusion that the structural errors in the plans were the result of a lack of due care by Respondent rather than insufficient training and experience. Moreover, a part of the errors were clearly attributable to a lack of information supplied by the developer, or changes in the plans that were made without Virani's knowledge. Finally, Respondent's calculations and plans for Buccaneer II, an identical structure, were not deficient, and other projects by Virani were similarly not criticized. Therefore, it is concluded that Respondent be found guilty of inadvertently signing one sheet of the air conditioning plans; the remaining portion of Count VI should be dismissed.
In considering an appropriate penalty, it is noted that Respondent suggests a public reprimand while Petitioner seeks revocation of Respondent's license and the imposition of a $5,000 administrative fine.
While the negligence of Respondent cannot be condoned, revocation of his engineering license is too severe a penalty. Rather, a $2,500 administrative fine and a six month suspension of his license is more appropriate. Upon the completion of the suspension period, Respondent should be placed on probation by the Board for a period of one year. In making this recommendation, it is noted that Respondent is apparently highly qualified and competent in his chosen area of engineering, and his ability to practice in that area should not be foreclosed. However, in order to insure that Virani does not engage in projects outside the field of his expertise, he should be required to refrain from practicing structural engineering or any other discipline of engineering except that now engaged in. See DPR, Board of Professional Engineers v. John Brooks Watson, DOAH Case Nos. 82-905, 82-2412 and 32-2575, Final Order entered 12/16/82 (imposing a similar penalty upon a professional engineer)
Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty as charged in Counts I, II and
IV of the amended administrative complaint, and guilty of misconduct by affixing
his signature and number to air-conditioning plans in Count VI. All other charges should be dismissed. It is further
RECOMMENDED that Respondent be given the penalty set forth in paragraph 45 of this recommended order.
DONE and ENTERED this 3rd day of February, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida.
DONALD R. ALEXANDER
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building
2009 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of February, 1983.
ENDNOTE
1/ Compare Fla. Power Corporation v. Fla. Public Service Commission,
So.2d (Fla. 1982) op. filed 12/17/82 (holding that the use of evidence of subsequent repairs and design modifications for the purpose of showing that the original design was faulty was erroneous)
COPIES FURNISHED:
Wings S. Benton, Esquire
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Richard E. Stadler, Esquire
P.O. Box 669
Titusville, Florida 32780
Frederick M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS,
Petitioner,
vs. CASE NO. 82-960
SHYAMIAL B. VIRANI,
Respondent.
/
FINAL ORDER
THIS CAUSE came on to be heard before the Florida Board of Professional Engineers at a regularly scheduled meeting on March 18, 1983, held in Key Largo, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Carol Gregg, Staff Attorney
Department of Professional Regulation
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
For Respondent: No appearance
The Board of Professional Engineers after reviewing the entire record hereby accepts the Findings of Fact contained in the Recommended Order of the Hearing Officer dated February 3, 1983. The Florida Board of Professional Engineers hereby rejects the Conclusions of Law found on page 16 of the third paragraph under the reference to Count VI and hereby substitutes the following language:
"A review of Respondent's education, experience
and training in the field of structural engineering conclusively shows that said experience and training is insufficient to permit him to practice structural engineering with regard to the type of structures
at issue in the instant cause. Further, Respondent also sealed and signed one sheet of the air condi- tioning plans which are totally outside his area of expertise. As a result therefore, it is determined by the Florida Board of Professional Engineers that the allegations found in Count VI are supported by the facts."
The Florida Board of professional Engineers determined that paragraph five (3) of the Conclusions of Law is more properly a part of the recommended penalty and as such was considered as part of the Hearing Officer's recommendation. Finally the Conclusions of Law are accepted by the Florida Board of Professional Engineers with the proviso that Count VI is deemed to have been proven in its entirety.
In determining a penalty the Board, as noted above has reviewed the entire record including the documents entitled Motion To Increase Penalty Recommended In Recommended Order filed by Petitioner and the document entitled Objections To Recommended Order And Input To The Board and hereby determines that except as set forth below, the statements are not accepted by the Florida Board of Professional Engineers.
THEREFORE, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED chat Respondent be and the same is found in violation of the allegations found in Counts I, II, IV, VI of the Amended Administrative Complaint and is hereby FINED four thousand dollars ($4,000.00). Further, his license to practice professional engineering in the State of Florida is hereby SUSPENDED for a period of two (2) years at the end of which time Respondent should be placed on probation for a period of one (1) year at the close of which time he shall appear before the Florida Board of Professional Engineers.
Further, as a condition of probation, the Respondent shall not practice structural engineering until he has satisfactorily completed the examination in structural engineering as defined in Rule 210-21.02(3)(i), Florida Administrative Code.
DONE AND ORDERED this 31st day of March, 1983.
EUGENE N. BECHAMPS, Chairman
COPIES FURNISHED:
Carol Greta
Richard E. Stadler, Esquire
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Apr. 21, 1983 | Final Order filed. |
| Feb. 03, 1983 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Mar. 31, 1983 | Agency Final Order | |
| Feb. 03, 1983 | Recommended Order | Professional engineer negligent in work performed on a condominium. |
