STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
MELODIE K. MOOREHEAD, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 84-3782
)
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL )
REGULATION, BOARD OF )
PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINERS, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, a final hearing was held on August 8, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida before William R. Cave, a duly designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings. The parties were represented as follows:
For Petitioner: Melissa Fletcher Allaman, Esquire
Ervin, Varn, Jacobs, Odom & Kitchens Post Office Box 1170
Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1170
For Respondent: Randall A. Holland, Esquire
Deborah Hart, Esquire Room 1601, The Capitol
Tallahassee, Florida 32301 BACKGROUND
Petitioner, Melodie K. Moorehead Ph.D., applied to the Board of Psychological Examiners ("Board") for certification to take the psychology licensure examination pursuant to Section 490.005, Florida Statutes (1983).
The Board refused to certify the Petitioner to take the examination on the grounds that Rule 21U-11.06(1)(b)1., Florida Administrative Code, requires accreditation of the institution granting Petitioner's degree.
Petitioner timely requested a Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1984) hearing following the Board's decision and filed a challenge to Rule 21U- 11.06(1)(b)1., Florida Administrative Code, under Section 120.56, Florida Statutes (1983). The two actions were consolidated by Order to the Hearing Officer dated March 20, 1985.
In an effort to settle the case, Petitioner appeared before the Board on June 23, 1985, own a reconsideration of its decision to deny Petitioner's certification to take the psychology licensure examination. Petitioner so informed the Hearing Officer in a Motion for Continuance filed on April 8, 1985, and the Hearing Officer granted the Motion for Continuance.
On June 23, 1985, the Board reconsidered the Petitioner's application for certification and denied certification based upon the grounds that the Union Graduate School's ("Union") doctoral psychology program did not meet the requirements of Rule 21U-11.06(1)(b)1. and 5. Florida Administrative Code. The Board's action on June 23, 1985 reaffirmed its previous action that Rule 21U- 11.06(1)(b)1.; Florida Administrative Coded barred Petitioner from taking the examination and raised the additional issue that Petitioner did not meet the requirements of Section 21U-11.06(1)(b)5.; Florida Administrative Code.
Petitioner then filed a Motion to Amend Petition To Convene Formal Hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes and a Motion to Amend Petition for Determination of the Invalidity of Rule 21U-11.06(1)(b)1. and 5. Florida Administrative Code which were granted on July 24, 1985.
At the final hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of Dr. William F. Benjamin, Dr. Donald E. Crawford, Dr. Ted Aidman (by deposition) and Petitioner. Petitioner's Exhibits 1-7, 7A, 9-12, 16-18 and Joint Exhibits 1 and 2 were received into evidence. The Board presented the testimony of Dr. Louis D. Cohen and Dr. Phillip C. Boswell. The Board's Exhibits 1 and 2 were received into evidence.
The parties submitted posthearing Proposed Findings of Fact. A ruling on each proposed finding of fact has been made as reflected in the Appendix to this Recommended Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Petitioner is a long-time Florida resident, having moved to the state when she was five, and thereafter was reared and educated in Dade County, Florida.
Petitioner received an AA degree from Dade County Junior College, a BA from Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton Florida, and a Masters Degree from Lone Mountain College in San Francisco, California via an external program based in the Miami/Dade area.
In pursuit of a Ph.D. in psychology, Petitioner applied to Union, was accepted and matriculated there from 1981 through 1983, and received her Ph.D. in psychology on June 29, 1983.
Upon receipt of her Ph.D. degree in psychology, Petitioner was required to fulfill a one-year post-doctoral supervision prior to applying for certification to take the psychology licensure examination. Section 490.005, Florida Statutes (1983). Petitioner satisfied this requirement from June 30, 1983 to June 30, 1984 by engaging in psychotherapy under the supervision of Dr. Ted Aidman. Petitioner then applied to the Board for certification to take the psychologist licensure examination.
Petitioner applied to take the examination under the provisions of Section 490.005(1); Florida Statutes (1983) and in pertinent part is quoted below:
Any person desiring to be licensed as a psychologist shall apply to the
department to take the licensure examination. The department shall license each applicant who the board certifies has:
* * *
(b) Submitted proof satisfactory to the Board that he has received a doctoral degree with a major in psychology from a
university or professional school that has a program approved by the American Psychological Association or that he has received a doctoral degree in psychology from a university or professional school maintaining a standard of training comparable to the standards of training
of those universities having programs approved by the American Psychological Association or the doctoral psychology
programs of the state universities. (Emphasis supplied)
The Board adopted Rule 21U-11.06, Florida Administrative Coded to implement Section 490.005, Florida Statutes (1983) and essentially codified the criteria for American Psychological Association (APA) approved programs for the first time in this rule. The rule took effect on April 5, 1984. The pertinent part of the rule is quoted below:
In order to be certified by the Board as eligible for examination pursuant to Section 490.005(1), Florida Statutes, an applicant must:
* * *
(b) Submit proof of the completion of a doctoral degree with a major in psychology from a university or professional school that has a program approved by the American Psychological Association or a doctoral degree in psychology from a university or professional school maintaining a standard of training comparable to those universities having programs approved by the American Psychological Association. For the purpose of determining whether an applicant's doctoral degree in psychology was received from a university or professional school maintaining a standard of training comparable to those universities having programs approved by the American Psychological Association the Board will apply the following criteria:
(emphasis supplied)
1. Education and training in psychology must have been received in an institution
of higher education accredited by one of the regional accrediting bodies recognized by the Counsel on PostSecondary Accreditation.
* * *
5. The doctoral program must be an organized, integrated sequence of study designed by the psychology faculty responsible for the program.
The American Psychological Association Accreditation Handbook, Criteria For Accreditation of Doctoral Training Program and Internship in Professional Psychology (Handbook), adopted in January 1979 and amended in January 1980, sets out criteria that the doctoral programs must meet to be eligible for accreditation by APA and in pertinent part are listed below:
A. Training in professional psychology is doctoral training offered in an institution of higher education accredited by one of the six regional accrediting bodies recognized by the Council of Postsecondary Accreditation (COPA).
* * *
The faculty of the program must have clear authority and primary responsibility for all aspects of the program (even if the program cuts across institutional administrative lines).
The program must include an integrated, organized plan of study and must ensure a breadth of exposure to the field of psychology.
In the Introduction of A Handbook of Accreditation (Petitioner's Exhibit 7, page 1) accreditation is defined as both a process and a result and in pertinent part is quoted below:
As a process, it is a form of peer review in which educational institutions establish a set of criteria and procedures by which they and their fellows are judged. As a results it is a form of certification by which the quality of an educational institution; as defined by the accrediting body's criteria; is affirmed.
The forms of Affiliations are discussed in A Handbook of Accreditation and in pertinent part quoted below:
Postsecondary educational institutions may be affiliated with the Commission on Institutions of Higher Education, and through it with the Association, in either two ways. One is membership, which is synonymous with accreditation; the other is candidacy, a preaccreditation status.
[page 3]
. . . an institution continues its candidacy for accreditation for a fixed period of
time - usually no longer than six years - until it either fulfills the Criteria for Accreditation or has its affiliation with the Commission terminated. [page 3]
. . . Candidacy indicates that an institution meets the Criteria for Candidacy for Accreditation and is progressing toward accreditation; it does not, however, automatically assure eventual accreditation . . . [page 3, 4]
The North Central Association of Colleges and Schools' evaluative criteria for candidacy highlight that such standards differ from accreditation standards. A Handbook of Accreditation explains the second evaluation criteria as follows:
This criteria differs from the second evaluative criterion for accreditation in that it speaks of a candidate's accomplishing its immediate purposes. The difference is meant to acknowledge that a candidate is not yet fully developed to the point at which it has the ability to accomplish all of its purposes. [page 19]
The fourth criteria for candidacy status indicates that candidacy status is not equivalent to accreditation. The fourth evaluative criteria reads in pertinent part:
4. The institution has the potential to achieve accreditation within the candidacy period. In making this judgment, the candidate's present condition, its plans and its timetable for developing to the point where it meets the Criteria for Accreditation must be examined. Candidacy is of a limited durations and the Commission seeks to determine through this criterion that the candidates current plans are likely to allow it to achieve accreditation within this limited period. [page 20]
Union received formal accreditation on February 25, 1985 by the North Central Association for Colleges and Schools, Commission on Institution of Higher Education ("Commission"), a regional accrediting body recognized by the Counsel on Postsecondary Accreditation. During Petitioner's matriculation at Union, and at the time she graduated, Union was in a candidacy status or a preaccreditation status but was not accredited. Union was in candidacy status from 1979 to 1985, a period of six (6) years which is considered the maximum period without special Commission action for extension.
Union had to satisfy all thirteen (13) general institutional requirements and all four (4) evaluative criteria to be granted candidacy status. To achieve accreditation, Union had to sustain and maintain the same thirteen (13) institutional requirements and satisfy a similar, but different, group of four (4) evaluative criteria.
The same general institutional requirements and basically the same evaluative criteria are required for both candidacy status and accreditation but candidacy and accreditation are not the same. In candidacy status the institution is trying to assure the Commission of its ability, financial and otherwise, to maintain a viable program. In accreditation the certification has been affirmed.
No evidence was presented to show that APA, in its approval process, would substitute candidacy status for accreditation status. In fact, the evidence was conclusive that regional accreditation was an important standard and a reasonable criterion in the evaluation and approval of psychology programs by the APA.
The evidence is clear that the accreditation requirement of the rule in question is comparable to the requirement of regional accreditation by APA in its approval process.
To demonstrate that a program is able to produce qualified health professionals the APA requires that a program must articulate what the program is and what that program requires. A pertinent section in the Handbook under Training Models and Curricula, page 5, is quoted below:
C. The foundation of professional practice in psychology is the evolving body of knowledge in the discipline of psychology. While programs will vary in emphasis and in available resources, sound graduate education in general psychology is therefore essential
in any program. The curriculum shall encompass the equivalent of a minimum of three academic years of full-time resident graduate study.
Instruction in scientific and professional ethics and standards, research design and methodology, statistics, psychological measurement, and history and systems of psychology must be included in every doctoral program in professional psychology. . . (emphasis supplied)
The requirement of a sequenced course of study is an important and essential criteria of the APA in the training of a psychologist.
The evidence is clear that the requirements of Rule 21U-11.06(1)(b)5., Florida Administrative Code, are comparable to the standards for APA approval of a doctoral program with regard to the design of study by the faculty even though the language "sequence of study" does not appear in the APA standards.
Rule 21U-11.06, Florida Administrative Code and the standards for approval of programs by the APA contemplated that a program designed to produce qualified health care professionals must articulate a plan of study for those future health care professionals that would achieve the objectives of training that are specified by the program. A plan, designed by the faculty responsible for the program, by which you get from here to there, which involves the faculty providing the student with a sequence of experience such as that one builds on the other in an orderly way; an organized integrated sequence of study.
Petitioner failed to produce sufficient evidence to prove that Union's doctoral psychology program was an organized integrated sequence of study.
Union has a committee on Psychology that is chaired by Dr. Harold Gollishan and an identifiable psychology faculty with members located in different areas of the United States.
Union offers a single graduate degree -- the Doctor of Philosophy Degree. Union offers a self-directed program of studies for its students. There are no prescribed courses, although an individualized plan (Learning Agreement) may include the use of university courses (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4, Pages 4 and 18). The process for obtaining a doctoral degree at Union is
described in the Union Graduate School Learner Handbook (Learner Handbook) which applies to all doctoral degrees, not just psychology. The Learner Handbook does not state additional or specific requirements or what Union refers to as core requirement, for the Union doctoral psychology programs. The core requirement is not specifically addressed in USG Program Summary (Petitioner's Exhibit No.
6) which Petitioner presented as a prototype for a psychology program but was no more than a summation and documentation of one student's learning process at Union. Neither the Learner Handbook nor the Program Summary articulate an organized, integrated sequence of study designed by the psychology faculty of Union.
Once admitted to Union's doctoral program the general process is for the student to: (a) attend a 10-day entrance colloquium; (b) form a doctoral committee; (c) develop a learning agreement; (d) fulfill the terms of the learning agreement through independent learning; (e) complete a Program Demonstrating Excellence (PDE); and (f) prepare a program summary. Although the testimony of Drs. Crawford and Benjamin was that the core requirements for the doctoral psychology program were articulated at this colloquium, the weight of the evidence shows that there are no specific core requirements for the Union doctoral psychology program as such but that the core requirements are determined at the colloquium after the students present their program to other students and faculty. This process does not constitute an organized integrated sequence of study designed by the faculty responsible for the program.
The testimony at the hearing does not establish that the Union psychology program is memorialized in written documents. There is no formal written design of the Union psychology program. If there are any written documents of Union psychology program, they were not produced at the hearing.
The Union psychology program's integrated sequence of study was never described at the hearing. The Union psychology program was variously described as a set of precedents, as a set of expectations, and as an "understanding of the faculty." The vague "expectations" or "understandings", absent a formal written program, are insufficient to constitute an organized integrated sequence of study. A psychology program based on "expectations" and "understandings" is particularly insufficient at a school, such as Union, where the faculty and students are spread out across the country, and meet together sporadically. The testimony of Dr. Aidman, an adjunct professor and Petitioner's doctoral committee chairman, highlights how little interaction there is between faculty. The testimony of Dr. Benjamin further reflects that much of the faculty does not know who, when, where or how the psychology program was designed. In the absence of a formal written psychology program, and in the absence of a cohesive, centrally located faculty and student body; the lack of an organized, integrated sequence of study designed by the faculty becomes apparent.
A sequenced course of study is important in educating psychologists and is required by Rule 21U-11.06(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code. The psychology program at Union is not an organized, sequenced program.
There are no psychology departments at Union. The Union has five psychology programs", plus individualized "programs" in general psychology. The five "programs" are Adlerian psychotherapy, Gestalt and clinical psychology, humanistic and clinical psychology, marriage and family therapy, and psychoanalysis. Petitioner was not in one of the above- named "programs", but was in an individualized, general "program" in psychology. There is no evidence that there is an organized integrated sequence of study designed by the faculty for any of the five named psychology "programs", and even less evidence that there is any organized integrated sequence of study for the individualized, general "program" in psychology.
Petitioner's testimony at the hearing and before the Board on June 25, 1985 indicates that Petitioner was responsible for her doctoral psychology program at Union. Petitioner's Learning Agreement and Program Summary may have thrown some light on whether her individual program was an organized integrated sequence of study but neither was introduced into evidence. The record reflects that Petitioner wrote and designed her own program, which was then approved by her doctoral committee which she assembled.
The Petitioner did not present evidence of a set of standards for the psychology programs of state universities of Florida. The Petitioner did demonstrate that Union does have some similarities with psychology programs of the state universities. There is evidence that the psychology programs of the state universities are in regionally accredited institutions, and that they constitute organized, integrated sequences of study designed by the faculty. The Petitioner avoided comparison between Union and the state university programs in these areas.
The Petitioner did not graduate from a psychology program of the state universities.
Dr. Charles A. Brownfield graduated from Unions Antioch College, receiving his Ph.D. in psychology on October 1, 1971 and was licensed by the Florida State Board of Examiners in 1973 under a statute with language similar to that of Section 490.005(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1983).
The evidence is insufficient to show that APA was approving doctoral psychology programs in 1971 or, if it was, whether the standards used at that time were the same as those standards adopted by APA in 1979 and amended in 1980.
The statute under which Dr. Brownfield was licensed was repealed, effective July 1, 1979, by Chapter 77-457, Section 1, Laws of Florida and he was then licensed by exception under the new statute in 1982.
The evidence is insufficient to show that any person graduating from Union between 1979 when APA adopted its standards for approving doctoral psychology programs and the effective date of the rule on April 5, 1984 was permitted by the Board to take the examination for licensure.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of, this proceeding. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1983).
Petitioner did not graduate from a program regionally accredited by an agency recognized by the Council on Post Secondary Accreditation; therefore does not meet the requirement of Rule 21U-11.06(1)(b) 1, Florida Administrative Code and is not eligible for licensure.
Petitioner did not graduate from a program which was an organized, integrated sequence of study designed by the psychology faculty; therefore does not meet the requirement of Rule 21U-11.06(1)(b)5, Florida Administrative Code and is not eligible for licensure.
The Petitioner maintains that Section 490.005(1)(b), Florida Statutes should be interpreted so that an applicant graduating from a university or professional school maintaining a standard of training comparable to the doctoral psychology programs of the state universities would be eligible to take the examination for licensure provided the applicant is otherwise qualified.
The Board interprets Section 490.005(1)(b), Florida Statutes, to require that applicants who have not graduated from an APA approved program, must have received a doctoral degree from an APA comparable program or from a doctoral psychology program of the state universities of Florida. A reading of Section 490.005(1)(b), Florida Statutes, supports the interpretation of the Board.
Section 490.005(1)(b), Florida Statutes, requires that a person not graduating from a school approved by the American Psychological Association must submit proof satisfactory to the Board that:
he has received a doctoral degree in psychology from
a university or professional school maintaining a standard of training comparable to the standards of training of those universities having programs approved by the American Psychological Association:
or
the doctoral psychology programs of the state universities.
The best interpretation of Section 490.005 Florida Statutes, is that the legislature recognized the quality of the doctoral psychology programs of the state universities in Florida, and did not require such programs to be APA approved or to demonstrate that they had standards comparable to APA standards and not to place on the Board the additional burden of comparing non-APA programs with the doctoral psychology programs of the state universities of Florida when the legislature had already provided a model for comparison; the standards of training for the APA approved programs. It is a well settled principle that the construction of the statute by the administrative agency charged with its administration is entitled to great weight and persuasive force and should not be departed from unless clearly erroneous. Pizzeria v.
Department of Business Regulation, 472 So2d 1331 (3 DCA Fla. 1985); Bureau of
Crimes Compensation v. Reynolds, 433 So.2d 501 (3 DCA F1a. 1984).
The Petitioner did not graduate from a doctoral psychology program of the state universities, therefore is not eligible for licensure on that basis.
Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the board enter a final order DENYING Petitioner, Melodie K. Moorehead, certification to sit for the licensure examination in psychology.
Respectfully submitted and entered this 8th day of January 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
WILLIAM R. CAVE
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 8th day of January 1986.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 84-3782
The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings f Fact submitted by the parties to this case.
Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner
Adopted in Finding of Fact 1 with last sentence rejected as unnecessary.
Adopted in Finding of Fact 2 with last two (2) sentences rejected as unnecessary.
Adopted in Finding of Fact 3.
Adopted in Finding of Fact 4.
Adopted in Finding of Fact 5 with the quoted language of subsections 1(a)(c)(d) deleted as unnecessary and the last sentence rejected as a legal argument.
Adopted in Finding of Fact 6.
Rejected as not based upon competent substantial evidence. There was no evidence in the record that April 5, 1984 was the first time accreditation was an absolute prerequisite to taking the examination or that prior to that time applicants from schools in candidacy status were allowed to take examinations.
Adopted, but clarified in Finding of Fact 12.
Sentence 1-3 rejected as unnecessary and immaterial. Sentence 4 adopted in Finding of Fact 12. Sentence 5 rejected because the more competent evidence shows 6 years as maximum period of candidacy (Petitioner's Exhibit 7, page 22). Sentences 6-7 adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Sentences 8-10 adopted but clarified in Findings of fact 10 and 14. Sentence 11 rejected as unnecessary and immaterial.
Adopted in Findings of Fact 10 and 14 but clarified.
Rejected as cumulative, immaterial and unnecessary.
Sentence 1 adopted in Findings of Fact 9, 10 and 12 but clarified. Sentences 2 and 3 rejected as legal argument.
Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence.
The first paragraph rejected partly as hearsay and partly as not supported by substantially competent evidence. The second paragraph rejected partly as hearsay and partly as immaterial.
Adopted in Finding of Fact 6.
Adopted in Finding of Fact 7.
Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence.
Sentence 1 rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence. The evidence was insufficient to prove "established policy of the Board." Sentence 2 adopted in Finding of Fact 20 but clarified to show Brownfield's graduation from Union, Antioch College not as Union exists presently. Sentence 3 rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence. No evidence that Union, Antioch College was not accredited, only that Union, in its status before February 25, 1985, was not accredited.
Sentences 1 and 2 and the quoted statutory language not listed as a finding of fact but covered in the conclusion of law and mentioned as language similar to the present statute in Finding of Fact 20. Sentence 3 rejected as immaterial due to repeal of statute and changed facts.
Sentence 1 rejected as immaterial because of changed fact. Sentences
2 and 3 rejected as arguments. Graduates from schools other than Union may also be denied on same circumstances.
Covered in Background.
Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence.
Rejected as legal argument.
Rejected in part as legal argument and in part as not supported by substantial competent evidence.
Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4; 5 (except for first sentence which is adopted in Findings of Fact 22), 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 (except for first sentence which is adopted in Finding of Fact 23) and 12, (except first sentence which is adopted in Finding of Fact 23), are rejected as immaterial, cumulative and unnecessary. Paragraph 7 is rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence.
Paragraphs 1 and 2 rejected as immaterial. Paragraphs 3 and 4 adopted in part by Finding of Fact 24, otherwise rejected as immaterial.
Paragraph 1 and the first and last sentences of paragraph 2 rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence. The second sentence of paragraph 2 rejected as immaterial. The first part of paragraph 3 adopted in Finding of Fact 23 but otherwise rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence.
Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence.
Rejected as immaterial.
Rejected partly as a conclusion of law and partly as a legal argument.
Sentences 1 and 2 rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence. The last sentence rejected as a legal argument.
Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent
Covered in Background and in Findings of Fact 4 and 5.
Covered in Background.
Covered in Background.
Covered in Background.
Covered in Background.
Adopted in Finding of Fact 6.
Adopted in Finding of Fact 12.
Adopted in Finding of Fact 8 and 9.
Adopted in Finding of Fact 10 and 11.
Adopted in Finding of Fact 7.
Adopted in Finding of Fact 12 and 15.
Adopted in Finding of Fact 6.
Adopted in Finding of Fact 20.
Adopted in Finding of Fact 21.
Adopted in Findings of Fact 23.
Adopted in Finding of Fact 24.
Adopted in Finding of Fact 25.
Adopted in Finding of Fact 26.
Adopted in Finding of Fact 27.
Adopted in Finding of Fact 28.
Adopted in Finding of Fact 29 but clarified.
Adopted in Finding of Fact 23.
Adopted in Finding of Fact 30.
Adopted in Finding of Fact 31.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Linda Biedermann, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Board of Psychological Examiners
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Fred Roche, Secretary
Department of Professional Regulation
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Salvatore A. Carpino, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Randall A. Holland, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Suite 1601, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Melissa Fletcher Allaman, Esquire Post Office Box 1170 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1170
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
MELODIE K. MOOREHEAD, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 84-3782
) DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, ) BOARD OF PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINERS, )
)
Respondent. )
) JOAN M. DIGERGORIO, PH.D., )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 87-5152
) DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, ) BOARD OF PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINERS, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, an administrative hearing was held before William R. Cave, Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings, on February 18-19, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. The issue for determination is whether Petitioners graduated from a school maintaining a standard of training comparable to the doctoral psychology program of Florida's state universities.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioners: Melissa Fletcher Allaman and
Hillary C. Ervin
Ervin, Varn, Jacobs, Odom & Kitchen
305 South Gadsden Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302
For Respondents: Allen R. Grossman
Assistant Attorney General Room 1601, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
BACKGROUND
Petitioner Melodie K. Moorehead applied for licensure as a psychologist in the State of Florida. Her application was denied by the Board of Psychological examiners (Board). A formal hearing was held to determine her eligibility for licensure. The Hearing Officer issued a Recommended Order denying licensure which was adopted by the Board and a Final Order of denial was issued.
Petitioner Moorehead filed an appeal in the District Court of Appeal for the
First District of Florida. The District Court of Appeal affirmed in part and remanded to the Board on the sole issues of "whether Dr. Moorehead graduated from a school maintaining a standard of training comparable to the doctoral psychology programs of Florida's state universities." Upon remand the Board again denied Dr. Moorehead's application. Petitioner Moorehead filed a request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes and the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the assignment of a hearing officer.
Petitioner Joan M. DiGregorio applied for licensure as a psychologist in the State of Florida. Her application was denied by the Board and she filed a request for a formal hearing pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the assignment of a hearing officer.
Upon the Petition of Petitioners Moorehead and Joan DiGregorio (hereafter Petitioners) and without objection by the Board the cases were consolidated for formal hearing. Both parties stipulated to the existence of only the one issue set out by the District Court of Appeal and that the factual circumstances would be the same for each Petitioner.
At the formal hearing, Petitioners testified in their own behalf and offered the testimony of Robert T. Conley, Ph.D., Frank Biasco, Ed.D. and Clark Moustakas, Ph.D. Petitioners exhibits A-D and F were received into evidence.
Respondent presented the testimony of Linda Biederman and Joseph H. Grosslight, Ph.D. Respondent's exhibits A-I and K were received into evidence. All exhibits received in the prior hearing in Case No. 84-3782 will be considered as evidence in this proceeding, if relevant to the issue.
Although the parties agreed to file their respective Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law within ten days of receipt of the transcript, there were several posthearing motions which resulted in extending the time for filing the Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and this Recommended Order. The parties filed posthearing Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. A ruling on each of the proposed findings of fact has been made as reflected in the Appendix to this Recommended Order.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the formal hearing on February 18-19, 1988, the following relevant facts are found:
Petitioner Moorehead graduated from the Union Graduate School (Union) with a doctoral degree in psychology on June 29, 1983.
Petitioner DiGregorio graduated from the Union with a doctoral degree in psychology on July 16, 1983.
Petitioners applied to be licensed by examination as psychologists in the State of Florida.
At its meeting of July 27, 1987, the Board considered the application of Petitioner Moorehead and voted to deny.
At its meeting of September 10-11, 1987, the Board considered the application of Petitioner DiGregorio and voted to deny.
Petitioners challenge the denials of their applications in so far as the Board found that they graduated from a school that did not maintain standards of training comparable to the doctoral psychology programs of Florida's state universities.
At the times that Petitioners enrolled and graduated from Union, the school was not accredited by any regional accrediting body recognized by the Council on Postsecondary Accreditation.
During Petitioners' matriculation at Union, and at the time they both graduated, Union was in candidacy status or a pre-accreditation status.
Union received formal accreditation on February 25, 1985 by the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools (NCACS), Commission on Institutions of Higher Education, a regional body recognized by the Council on Postsecondary Accreditation.
The evidence is clear that the standards of training in the doctoral program at Union during 1981-83 were the same standards of training at Union when accreditation was certified on February 25, 1985, and basically remained the same during the period of 1981-1985. The lack of formal accreditation of the doctoral program at Union during the period of 1981-1983 had no effect on the standards of training in the doctoral psychology program at Union.
There are nineteen different doctoral psychology programs offered by Florida's state universities:
Experimental Psychology at Florida Atlantic University.
Life Span Developmental Psychology at Florida International University.
Clinical Psychology at Florida State University
Experimental/Psychobiology at Florida State University
School Psychology at Florida State University
Social Psychology at Florida State University
Educational Psychology at Florida State University
Counseling Psychology and Human Services at Florida State University
Cognition-Perception at the University of Florida
Developmental Psychology at the University of Florida
Experimental Analysis at the University of Florida
Psychobiology at the University of Florida
Social/Personality Psychology at the University of Florida
Counseling Psychology at the University of Florida
Clinical Psychology at the University of Florida
Clinical Psychology at University of South Florida
Experimental Psychology at University of South Florida
Industrial/Organizational Psychology at University of South Florida
School Psychology at University of South Florida.
Union has been authorized by the State of Ohio to award doctoral degrees since 1971. During 1981-83 there was no psychology department at Union; the psychology program being in the doctoral program. Also during this period Union did not have what is commonly known as a campus.
Although there is evidence which indicates that the doctoral program at Union may fall within the definition of an external degree program, the more convincing evidence is that the doctoral program at Union is an alternative degree program.
The standards of training of the Union doctoral program during 1981-83 were not affected by the nature of the degree program.
All core faculty members in doctoral psychology programs within Florida's state universities are "full-time" in residence at the universities.
Composition of the faculty (full-time versus part-time or in-residence versus dispersed) could have an effect on the standards of training in the doctoral psychology program.
The ratio of faculty to students is a matter which reflects directly on standards of training. And, although the evaluation team of NCACS in its report of its May 9-11, 1983 site visit to Union expressed concern about the large percentage of doctoral psychology students in the doctoral program at Union, overall the committee was impressed and spoke highly of the faculty and their credentials, but did not express any concern over the ratio of faculty to students. However, there was some concern over what Union considered "full- time" faculty during the period 1981-83. Some of Union's "full-time" faculty during the period 1981-83 were also "full-time" at other institutions. Also, not all core faculty are "full-time". Union made extensive use of adjunct faculty members who are "dispersed throughout the country" in the educational process for doctoral students in the doctoral program at Union.
Oversight and curriculum control by the faculty effect the standard of training in doctoral psychology programs.
In the doctoral psychology programs within Florida's state universities, the faculty has both oversight and curriculum control for the program, the faculty defined and sets the requirements for the curriculum.
The faculty of the Union exercises control over the academic program.
The core faculty at the Union oversees the curriculum, in its construction and in its assessment.
The Union core faculty oversees control of the core curriculum.
The Union Administration also oversees control of the core curriculum.
The core faculty at the Union develop and control the standards for obtaining the doctoral degrees.
Union student input into the nature of their studies does not mean that the standards of training are not being carefully controlled by the faculty. The Learning Agreement must be approved unanimously by the doctoral committee, after which it is also reviewed by the Dean and the Associate Dean of the graduate school.
One of the ways the Union core faculty exercises control over the curriculum and the quality of the standard of training of the students is through the Academic Review and Process Committee, which meets regularly to review Learning Agreements, independently of the Dean, the Associate Dean, and the doctoral committee, to ascertain that the Union criteria are being met.
The second core reader is a faculty member on the doctoral committee of a doctoral psychology learner at the Union.
The second core reader was added to the doctoral committees of Union doctoral psychology learners in 1981.
The purpose of adding the second core reader was to promote uniformity and ensure quality control over doctoral psychology students' dissertation.
As stated by the NCACS, the Union had established a regularized process "to ensure relatively uniform standards in an otherwise highly individualized program."
The full-time core faculty of the psychology program at the Union establish the curriculum requirements for the psychology program.
The Union faculty set the core requirements.
"The scientist-practitioner model provides the foundation for the curriculum, encouraging a systematic and rational investigation of relevant topics that both improve the quality of services provided by the individual professional and enhances the knowledge base of the field."
The doctoral psychology program offered by the Union follows the "scientist-practitioner model".
The Counseling Psychology Program at Florida State University emphasizes the scientist-practitioner model.
The University of Florida Counseling Psychology Program "adheres to the scientist/practitioner model of training."
The clinical psychology program at the University of South Florida is based on the "scientist/practitioner training model."
The school psychology doctoral program at the University of South Florida adheres to the scientist-practitioner model.
The Florida State University doctoral counseling psychology program "stresses application of the scientist practitioner model."
At the University of Florida doctoral counseling psychology program, "[t]he student's doctoral committee has major advisory responsibility for his or her training thus allowing for individualization of training goals."
In the clinical psychology program at the University of South Florida, "[s]tudents work closely with one faculty member, typically their major advisor, in an apprenticeship training model. Such pairings are based largely on student preference and may change as student interests change."
In the psychology doctoral program at University of South Florida, students may select their courses to fit their background on an individual basis, "and equivalent work is acceptable".
"Students [in the Florida State University doctoral counseling psychology program] have a further responsibility, in consultation with their doctoral supervisory committee, to develop a program of studies and training experiences that represent the essence of a doctoral degree in counseling psychology with areas of specialized professional interest. Programs of studies are expected to be filed and approved by the department head..."
"Courses of study are planned on an individual basis" in the Florida State University doctoral counseling psychology program.
In the counseling doctoral psychology program at Florida State University, "it is understood that competencies for both the [preliminary] exam and [future professional] roles cannot be achieved solely through course work; independent study and reflection are also necessary."
Before sitting for the qualifying exam, doctoral students in the Florida State University counseling psychology program meet with their supervisory committee, and the committee reviews the program developed by the student and a statement prepared by the student of their professional goals, along with a research summary and a written response to a question provided by the major professor.
The level of student involvement in preparing a course of study and the adequacy of the description of the student participation reflect on the standard of training in a doctoral program.
At Florida State University "all graduate students, regardless of previous graduate work, take a core program consisting of psychology courses from a designated group. A number of options and exemption examinations are provided within the core requirements to increase freedom of course selection and to allow accelerated entering students to take advanced work."
At the University of Florida doctoral developmental psychology program there is "a small student-faculty ratio to allow individually tailored graduate programs..."
The doctoral program in Experimental Analysis of Behavior at the University of Florida "is a varied and flexible one, which permits considerable freedom in planning a personalized course of study. Departmental core requirements include survey courses in Cognition and Perception, Comparative and Physiological Psychology, Developmental Psychology, Experimental Analysis of Behavior, History and Systems, Personality, Social Psychology and Statistics. Students may exempt any of these requirements via preliminary examination.
"The area foundation courses and advanced seminars are organized into individualized programs of study that lead to the Ph.D. qualifying examination."
In counseling psychology at the University of Florida, "[d]octoral student programs are tailored as much as possible to fit the needs and plans of individual students."
In the experimental psychology doctoral program at the University of South Florida, "under the guidance of an advisory committee [students] are encouraged to pursue a flexible program tailored to their specific interests".
In the Social-Personality Psychology Doctoral Program at the University of Florida, "the program varies for different students as they acquire research grants or make other commitments. Some students may enter the program with masters degrees, or highly developed programs, and finish before those who are as yet undecided upon entry to the program as to their specific area of interest".
"There are several general policies which can serve to orient social- personality [doctoral] students [at the University of Florida] in their graduate careers. These policies are to be viewed as flexible guidelines that provide the road map but do not mandate the specific paths to be chosen by any particular individual in the program".
In the educational psychology program at Florida State University, doctoral students complete their core requirements in the first year of the combined masters/doctorate degree program. "After completing these core requirements, the student prepares his/her qualifying paper which is an original experimental study, planned, conducted, and formally reported by the student, and defended before a three-person faculty committee. When qualified, the student and his/her major professor arrange an individualized program of studies which will assure training in the student's expressed areas of concentration.
In lieu of written comprehensive examinations, the doctoral candidate specifies his/her area of research expertise, reviews and synthesized existing theory and empirical results and produces a scholarly, publishable, state of the art review paper which is examined by a five person supervisory committee. A successful review paper is followed by a prospectus relating the student's dissertation to that area of research. . . exemption by examination is permitted for all core courses; a Faculty Executive Committee will review each student's record in order to recommend exemption from courses and, in certain cases, the qualifying paper."
At Florida International University doctoral psychology students "are expected to master a series of core course requirements designed to facilitate a thorough grounding in theory, methodology, and content in both applied and basic research in developmental psychology. . . . Students are also encouraged to pursue areas of interest through independent study with individual faculty members and through apprenticeship with a primary advisor.
In the Cognition and Perception Ph.D. psychology program at the University of Florida, "[e]ach student works most closely with a single faculty member designated as his/her major advisory. Together they are most directly responsible for planning and conducting graduate training.
During the years 1981-83, and in the years since, the Union has had core requirements for each student matriculating in the psychology doctoral program.
While Union doctoral psychology learners work with the faculty to
`develop' their program, every doctoral psychology learner at the Union is required to satisfy certain generic requirements in specified areas of learning.
The nine core areas for Union doctoral psychology learners are:
biological basis of behavior
cognitive affective basis of behavior
social basis of behavior
psychology of individual differences
statistics
professional ethics
research methodology and theory
internship
dissertation
Doctoral psychology students in the state universities of Florida also satisfy the core requirements by demonstrating competence in specified areas of learning. For example, at Florida International University there are specified courses from which the student may choose in satisfying the statistics requirement and the developmental core. The student is further required to take nine semester hours of core area proseminars outside the developmental area, from a choice of four listed areas.
"All psychology graduate students [in the Cognition and Perception program at the University of Florida] are expected to take a basic set of literature courses in the various substantive areas of psychology, and a sequence of courses from the statistics department. . . . Aside from these course, there is no fixed curriculum for students in Cognition and Perception. Each student enrolls in graduate courses and seminars according to his/her needs and interests." The students develop their schedules in consultation with their advisor.
"The objectives of the training program for all students in Cognition and Perception include:
(a) knowledge of the basic literature in the various areas of psychology (e.g. physiological, developmental, social. . .)."
At the University of South Florida, doctoral psychology students must complete a core in specified areas of content and a wide variety of elective advanced seminars."
Students in the University of South Florida Industrial-Organizational doctoral psychology program satisfy their requirements by completing a curriculum balanced in certain core areas, a wide variety of elective advanced seminars, as well as a minor area, statistics and methodology courses, computer proficiency, teaching and an internship.
In the social personality doctoral psychology program at the University of Florida, "students are required to demonstrate satisfactory knowledge in a variety of areas such as psychobiology, cognition and perception, developmental, or experimental analysis of behavior. Proficiency can be demonstrated by completing proseminar courses with satisfactory grades or by passing a written exemption exam".
In the social personality doctoral psychology program at the University of Florida, the advanced seminars "are all variable topic courses which address specific areas of interest within each of the title headings. Many of these courses may be taken repeatedly, with varying topics during different semesters of one's graduate training".
At Florida State University, the counseling psychology doctoral program includes components of the psychology, counseling psychology, research and statistics and an areas of specialization.
At Florida Atlantic University, doctoral psychology students must complete two statistics courses, five courses in their major area, one course in each of the other three areas of concentration and five elective courses.
Up to thirty credits can be transferred from other institutions.
In the University of South Florida's Industrial Organizational psychology graduate program, "appropriate credit will be given for previous training in psychology at either the undergraduate or graduate level. A student with graduate course credits earned at another institution, for example, will often receive full credit for that work by having some of the required courses in this program waived."
In traditional universities, including the state universities of Florida, there are core requirements, but all students do not all take all the same courses all the time.
There are core requirements for all doctoral psychology students at the Union, though they do not all take all the same courses.
In summary, at the Union and in the state universities of Florida, the core knowledge portion of the standards of training is satisfied by demonstrated competence in specified substantive areas, and competence can be demonstrated by means other than taking the same courses as everyone else.
In the years 1981-83 and since, the specific requirements applicable to doctoral psychology learners at the Union have been, and are, published and provided to all such students.
In its 1983 site visit, the North Central Regional Accrediting Association found that Union graduate students "follow a clearly stated academic process which is appropriate for the degree level," and further that, "the Union makes freely available to all . . . accurate facts and substantially complete descriptions of its programs, activities, and procedures."
Documents other than the generic Union handbook were supplied to doctoral psychology learners at the Union in the years 1981-83.
A dissertation is required of all learners obtaining a Ph.D. in Psychology at Union. A traditional dissertation is the required Project Demonstrating Excellence for doctoral psychology learners at the Union, and the general handbook description of Project Demonstrating Excellence is not applicable.
All Union leaders are required to complete an internship of a minimum duration of three months, regardless of their field of study.
Doctoral psychology students at the Union in 1981-83, and since, were and are required to complete an internship of one or two years duration, in a health care setting, which is integrated with the learner's areas of concentration and which is supervised by a licensed psychologist.
At Union the internship must satisfy the requirements of an internship in psychology in the state in which the learner plans to apply for licensure. But generally it is either a one-year internship on a full-time basis or a two- year internship on a half-time basis.
Generally, Florida's state universities doctoral programs in psychology require a one-year internship.
The majority of Union graduate students already possess at least a Masters Degree in their field of study upon matriculation.
Internship requirement effects the standard of training and the Union's requirement is clearly comparable to that of the doctoral psychology programs within Florida's state university.
It is possible for students to enter a doctoral psychology program in the state university system in Florida already possessing a Masters Degree.
"Applications [to the Cognition and Perception doctoral psychology program at the University of Florida] from students with Masters Degree in C & P or related areas are welcome."
"Students may enter the [social-personality doctoral psychology] program [at the University of Florida] with masters degrees."
The School Psychology doctoral program at the University of South Florida can be completed in two years by students who have already completed the two year "master's/specialist program."
"Normally a candidate enters the [Florida State University doctoral counseling psychology] program with a master's degree in Counseling, Counseling psychology, or related discipline. Approval of previous graduate work for degree credit rests with the student's supervisory committee, the department head, and the College of Education Student Services Office."
In the years 1981-83, the average length of time it took to complete the doctoral program at the Union Graduate School was three years.
The minimum time in which the Union will grant a doctoral degree is two years, if the learner began the program already in possession of a Masters Degree.
The Cognition and Perception graduate degree program at the University of Florida is expected to take four years, in which the student obtains both a Masters and Doctorate. It is possible to complete the entire program in three years.
The clinical psychology graduate degree program at the University of Florida takes five years: The first two years are devoted to obtaining a Masters, and the entire fifth year is spent in a clinical internship. Actual doctoral studies occupy the third and fourth years.
The minimum length of a program is essential to standards of training. Both Union and the doctoral psychology programs within Florida's state universities have a minimum length which are comparable.
Admission requirements can have an impact upon the standards of training at an institution of higher learning.
The admission procedures at the Union, as found by the North Central Regional Accrediting Association in its 1983 site visit, are appropriate for the educational programs the Union offers.
The Union admission requirements are a completed application, three letters of recommendation, and a three-part narrative as well as an interview. The admissions decision is based on a competitive assessment of the educational development of the student, based upon prior education, transcripts and materials, work history, etc.
The general rule in the years 1981-83 at the Union was that an admission candidate for the doctoral psychology program would be required to have a masters in the area they were to study.
The Union does not require a Graduate Record Examination (GRE) or a grade point average for admission to its doctoral program.
The admission requirement of the GRE may be waived for some doctoral psychology programs in the Florida state university system, for example, the counseling psychology program at Florida State University.
A statement of goals and purpose is among the materials required for applications for admission to the University of Florida doctoral social- personality psychology program.
Admission requirements to the University of South Florida school psychology doctoral program include competitive evaluation of past academic work, GRE scores, pertinent experience, letters of recommendation and a statement of professional goals.
No particular undergraduate major is required for admission to the University of South Florida doctoral school psychology program.
The only undergraduate prerequisites to admission to the University of South Florida doctoral school psychology program are one course in each of the following areas: statistics, experimental psychology and psychological measurement.
The admissions requirements for the counseling psychology doctoral program at Florida State University are: three letters of recommendation, an autobiographical statement including professional goals and objectives, and a resume.
The dissertation requirement at Union is work of publishable quality in an area of research likely to lead to original knowledge based upon a consistent research design and methodology and accepted methods of analysis.
The doctoral psychology dissertation at the Union must be a scholarly work resulting from development of a research proposal, approved methodology, faculty clearance on the ethical and professional issues, and the presenting of the study results.
In Florida International University's doctoral psychology program, the student participates in the formation of his doctoral dissertation
committee. "The dissertation shall constitute a contribution to knowledge. The dissertation must show technical mastery of a special field, capacity for independent research, and scholarly ability. The topic for the dissertation must be approved by the Student's Dissertation Committee.
In the University of Florida clinical doctoral psychology program, "[t]he dissertation is an independent and original research project which is conducted by the student with the approval and ongoing consultation of the doctoral committee. The dissertation must make an original contribution to exiting psychological knowledge... The department strongly encourages students to submit their masters and dissertation research for publication.
Florida Atlantic University's experimental psychology program has no published standards for the doctoral psychology dissertation; the dissertation must simply be approved by four of the five members of a committee.
The minimum residency requirement for the Union doctoral psychology program in the years 1981-83, and since, was and is two years. Students at the Union are considered in residence if they are enrolled full-time.
To fulfill requirements for a doctoral degree at Union during the years 1981-83 doctoral students were only required to attend three five-day seminars, ten days of meetings with peers and a ten-day "Entrance Colloqirium" for a total of thirty-five days of required attendance during the entirety of the doctoral program.
Care was taken in devising the doctoral psychology program as it existed at the Union in 1981-83 to ensure contact among students and between students and other professional people.
The residency requirement for the school psychology doctoral program at the University of South Florida is two consecutive academic years of full- time study.
The residence requirement for the Florida State University doctoral counseling psychology program is "continuous, full-time enrollment of not less than two out of three successive semesters on the Florida State University campus."
At Florida International University there is a one year residency requirement for Ph.D. students.
The composition of doctoral committees affects the standard of training.
The Florida International University dissertation committee is composed of five members, one of whom must be from outside the psychology department and two of whom, in addition to the chairperson, must hold regular faculty appointments at Florida International University. "Committee members who are not regular faculty members must hold courtesy appointments. . ."
In 1981, at the Union, doctoral committees had seven members: the student learner, one core psychology faculty member, two faculty adjuncts or practitioner adjuncts, and two peers, plus the second core reader who reviews the learner's work for quality control on behalf of the Dean. The student is also on the committee; the student convenes the meetings and in that sense is called the Chairperson.
Doctoral psychology students in the state universities of Florida have input into the nature of their studies and the compositions of their doctoral committees which is comparable to that of Union learners; for example, at Florida International University when a student is admitted to the doctoral psychology program "the student will be assigned to a first year advisor....
During the second year of study, the student in consultation with the first year advisor will be responsible for forming an advisory committee.... The advisory committee will be responsible for insuring the fulfillment of the requirements for admission to candidacy; for making up and administering the student's qualifying examination; and for supervising the student's master's thesis."
At Florida International University, after a student is admitted as a psychology Ph.D. candidate, a dissertation committee is "formed by the Dissertation Committee Chairperson in consultation with the student."
It is the responsibility of the doctoral student in the Florida State University counseling psychology program "to initiate through the major professor all of the procedures, actions and forms required of the supervisory committee."
During 1981-83 Union issued three different types of transcripts, but there was a standardized definition for how credits were determined in the transcript. Although transcripts provided by a school may impact on the standard of training, there was no evidence that the transcripts used by Union had a negative effect on its standard of training.
Based upon the testimony and evidence presented in these cases as reflected in the foregoing Findings of Fact, it is clear that in numerous and significant ways the standard training at Union's doctoral program is comparable to that of the doctoral psychology programs of Florida's state universities.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of, this proceeding pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
The burden of proof in this case rests with the Petitioners, who have the affirmative of the issue of whether they "graduated from a school maintaining a standard of training comparable to the doctoral psychology programs of Florida's state universities" and thereby eligible for licensure by examination. Balino v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 348 So.2d 347 (1 DCA Fla. 1977). In making a comparison between Union's doctoral program as it existed during the period 1981- 1983 and the doctoral psychology programs of Florida's state universities, it is necessary to show similarity or equivalence (See, Webster's Third New International Dictionary Unabridged, 461 (1981) to any of the doctoral psychology programs within Florida's state universities. In this case, the Petitioners have shown the doctoral program at Union to be comparable to a number of the doctoral psychology programs within Florida's state universities. The Petitioners have met their burden.
RECOMMENDATION
Upon consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore,
RECOMMENDED that the Board of Psychological Examiners enter a Final Order certifying the Petitioners eligible for licensure by examination.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED and ENTERED this 9th day of September, 1988, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
WILLIAM R. CAVE
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building
2009 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of September, 1988.
APPENDIX TO THE RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 84-3782/87-5152
The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case.
Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Petitioner
1.-2. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1 and 2, respectively.
3. Covered in introductory portion.
4.-5. Rejected as immaterial an irrelevant.
6.-7. Adopted in Findings of Fact 11 and 12, respectively. 8.-88. Subordinate.
89. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9.
90.-95. Adopted in Finding of Fact 10, but clarified. 96.-97. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13, but clarified.
Adopted in Finding of Fact 14, but clarified.
Subordinate.
100.-101. Adopted in Finding of Fact 17, but clarified. 102.-121. Adopted in Findings of Fact 20-39, respectively.
122.-123. | Rejected as being a statement of Dr. Grosslight's |
opinion and not a finding of fact. | |
124.-130. | Adopted in Findings of Fact 40-46, respectively. |
131. | Adopted in Finding of Fact 47. |
132. | Subordinate. |
133. | Rejected as being Dr. Grosslight's statement and not |
a finding of fact. | |
134.-135. | Subordinate. |
136.-147. | Adopted in Findings of Fact 48-58, respectively. |
148. | Adopted in Finding of Fact 71. |
149.-151. | Adopted in Findings of Fact 59-61, respectively. |
152.-153. | Adopted in Finding of Fact 62. |
154.-158. | Adopted in Findings of Fact 63-67, respectively. |
159.-160. | Adopted in Finding of Fact 68. |
161.-164. | Adopted in Findings of Fact 69-72, respectively. |
165. | Subordinate. |
166.-168. | Adopted in Findings of Fact 73-75, respectively. |
169.-170 | Adopted in Finding of Fact 76. |
171.-174. | Adopted in Findings of Fact 77-80, respectively. |
176. | Subordinate. |
177. | Adopted in Finding of Fact 82. |
178.-181. | Adopted in Finding of Fact 83. |
182.-187. | Adopted in Findings of Fact 84-90, respectively. |
188. | Subordinate. |
189.-193. | Adopted in Findings of Fact 91-95, respectively. |
194. | Subordinate. |
195.-204. | Adopted in Findings of Fact 96-105, respectively. |
205. | Subordinate. |
207.-218. | Adopted in Findings of Fact 106-117, respectively. |
219. | Subordinate. |
220. | Adopted in Finding of Fact 118. |
221.-223. | Subordinate |
Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by Respondent
1.-6. Adopted in Findings of Fact 1-7.
7 -13. Subordinate.
14.-15. Adopted in Findings of Fact 9 and 15, respectively but clarified.
16. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record.
17.-18. Adopted in Finding of Fact 15 but clarified.
19. Adopted in Findings of Fact 108-110.
20.-21. Adopted in Findings of Fact 12-71, respectively.
Adopted in Findings of Fact 55, 56 and 68, but clarified.
Adopted in Findings of Fact 73-75, but clarified.
Adopted in Findings of Fact 85-86.
Adopted in Findings of Fact 72,97 and 98, but clarified.
Subordinate.
27.-28. Adopted in Findings of Fact 86 and 90, respectively.
Adopted in Finding of Fact 118.
Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record.
Adopted in Findings of Fact 72, 97 and 98, but clarified.
32.-33. Adopted in Findings of Fact 107 and 12, respectively. 34.-37. Subordinate.
Adopted in Findings of Fact 109 -110, otherwise subordinate.
Adopted in Findings of Fact 15-16, otherwise subordinate.
Adopted in Findings of Fact 54-68, otherwise subordinate.
Adopted in Findings of Fact 18-19, otherwise subordinate.
Adopted in Findings of Fact 73,76 and 78, but clarified, otherwise rejected as not being supported
by substantial competent evidence in the record.
Adopted in Findings of Fact 79,83,84 and 85, but clarified, otherwise rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record.
Adopted in Findings of Fact 18-19, otherwise subordinate.
The first sentence is subordinate. The second sentence is rejected as not being supported by substantial competent evidence in the record.
Subordinate.
Adopted in Findings of Fact 86-96, but clarified.
Adopted in Findings of Fact 102-107, but clarified. 49.-50. Subordinate.
51. Rejected as not supported by substantial competent evidence in the record.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Melissa Fletcher Allaman, Esquire and
Hillary C. Ervin, Esquire Post Office Drawer 1170
Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1170
Allen R. Grossman, Esquire Asst. Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol - Suite 1603
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
Linda Bidermann, Executive Director Division of Psychological Examiners Department of Professional Regulation
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
=================================================================
AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION BOARD OF PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINERS
MELODIE K. MOOREHEAD
Petitioner,
vs. CASE NO. 84-3782
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINERS,
Respondent.
/ JOAN M. DIGREGORIO, PH.D.,
Petitioner,
vs. CASE NO. 87-5152
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINERS,
Respondent.
/
FINAL ORDER
THESE MATTERS having been consolidated by the Hearing Officer (See attached Order of Consolidation marked as Appendix A) came before the Board of Psychological Examiners (hereinafter Board) for final action pursuant to subsection 120.57(1)(b)9, Florida Statutes, at a public meeting held on October 23, 1988, in Tampa, Florida, for consideration of the Recommended Order of the Hearing Officer and the exceptions filed by the Respondent. (attached as Appendix A).
A transcript of the proceeding may be obtained from Gail Bransfield, Verbatim Reporters, 26779 McLaughlin Boulevard, Bonita Springs, Florida 33923.
As preliminary matters, the Board considered the Motion For Leave To Withdraw (attached and marked as Appendix B) filed by the law firm of Ervin, Varn, Jacobs, Odom and Kitchen. The Board hereby GRANTS the request to withdraw as Petitioner's counsel of record. The Board also acknowledges the Notice of Appearance, filed by Bruce Rogow as counsel for Petitioners.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Board having reviewed the entire record and having heard the arguments of counsel for the parties, hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the Findings of Fact of the Hearing Officer as the Board's Findings of Fact in this matter, (See attached recommended Order marked as Appendix C)
Neither party filed exceptions to the Findings of Fact contained in the Recommended Order of the Hearing Officer.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Board having reviewed the record, considered the arguments of counsel for the parties and the exceptions filed by counsel for Respondent, and being otherwise fully apprised in the premises hereby rejects the Conclusions Of Law recommended by the Hearing Officer, and hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the Conclusions Of Law set forth in Respondent's exceptions. (See attached Respondent's Exceptions To The Hearing Officer's Recommended Order marked as Appendix E)
DISPOSITION
It is the position of the Board that the term "comparable" as used in Chapter 490, Florida Statutes, is construed as equivalent rather than similar. That interpretation is reflected in the Conclusions of Law adopted above. The record and the Findings of Fact support the Boards' determination that the Petitioners' school did not maintain a standard of training comparable to the doctoral psychology programs of Florida's State Universities. Therefore, the Board is compelled by the record, by law and by logic to deny the applications for licensure of the Petitioners.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the applications for licensure of Melodie K. Moorehead and Joan M. DiGregorio are DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of November, 1988.
BOARD OF PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINERS
Patsey Powers Acting Chairman
Pursuant to Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, the parties are hereby notified that they may appeal this Final Order by filing one copy of a notice of appeal with the Clerk of the agency and by filing the filing fee and one copy of a Notice of Appeal with the District Court Of Appeal within thirty days of the date this Final Order is filed.
This Final Order shall become effective upon filing with the Clerk of the Department of Professional Regulation.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and Correct copy of the foregoing Final Order has been sent by Certified Mail to Bruce Rogow at 2097 S.W. 27th Terrace, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312, on or before 5:00 p.m., this 28th day of November, 1988.
================================================================= DISTRICT COURT OPINION
=================================================================
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
MELODIE K. MOOREHEAD and NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO JOAN M. DiGREGARIO, FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED.
Appellants,
CASE NO. 88-3233
vs. DOAH CASE NO. 84-3782
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINERS,
Appellee.
/ Opinion filed October 13, 1989.
An appeal from an order of the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Psychological Examiners.
Bruce Rogow of Bruce Rogo, P.A., Ft. Lauderdale for appellants.
Allen R. Grossman, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for appellees.
THOMPSON, Judge.
Appellants, the petitioners below, appeal a final order of appellee Board of Psychological Examiners (Board) which rejected the hearing officers conclusion and found that the doctoral psychology program of then unaccredited Union Graduate School in Ohio under which appellants each obtained a Ph.D. in psychology was not "comparable to" the programs of Florida's state universities pursuant to 490.005(1), Fla. Stat. (1983). See Moorehead v. Department of Professional Regulation, 503 So.2d 1318 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). Based upon this finding the Board denied appellants' application to sit for the Florida
licensure exam. We agree with appellants' assertion that the Board erred in its interpretation of the statutory term "comparable to." The hearing officer determined as a finding of fact that the Union program was comparable to" the programs of Florida's state universities, and the Board accepted this finding but concluded as a matter of law that "comparable to" as used in the statute means equivalent" rather than "similar."
It is a fundamental tenet of statutory construction that words of common usage are accorded their plain and ordinary meaning. Southeastern Fisheries Association, Inc. v. Department of Natural Resources, 453 So.2d 1351 (Fla.
1984). The term "comparable to" is not a technical term requiring the Board's expertise to interpret it. Instead, the term must be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning. Webster's Third New International Dictionary, unabridged, defines "comparable" as "1: capable of being compared: a: having enough like characteristics or qualities to make comparison appropriate...b: permitting or inviting comparison often in one or two salient points...2: suitable for matching, coordinating, or contrasting: EQUIVALENT, SIMILAR." There is no basis for the Board's determination that comparable" only means equivalent or the same. The Board accepted the finding of Fact that the programs were comparable. Therefore, the Board erred in rejecting the hearing officer's conclusion of law that appellants had shown the Union doctoral program to be comparable to the doctoral psychology programs within Florida's state universities. The final order of the Board is reversed with directions that appellants be permitted to pursue licensure.
SMITH and MINER, JJ., CONCUR.
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Jan. 08, 1986 | Recommended Order (hearing held , 2013). CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Nov. 28, 1988 | Agency Final Order | |
| Jan. 08, 1986 | Recommended Order | Petitioner has graduated from a school with doctoral program comparable to Florida's state universities and therefore entitled to licensure by exam. |
JAMES R. SULLIMAN vs. BOARD OF PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINERS, 84-003782 (1984)
HENRY S. TUGENDER vs. BOARD OF PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINERS, 84-003782 (1984)
MARVIN SHAPIRO vs. BOARD OF PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINERS, 84-003782 (1984)
JOSEPH J. WHITE vs. BOARD OF PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINERS, 84-003782 (1984)
ANN O`ROARK vs. BOARD OF PSYCHOLOGICAL EXAMINERS, 84-003782 (1984)
