Judges: K. N. AYERS
Agency: Department of Business and Professional Regulation
Latest Update: Dec. 12, 1985
Summary: Petitioner failed to prove he was qualified for licensure by endorsement.
85-2217.PDFSTATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
JOSEPH C. WOODS, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 85-2217
) DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL ) REGULATION, BOARD OF LAND ) SURVEYORS, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, K. N. Ayers, held a public hearing in the above-styled case on November 18, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Richard S. Daniels, Jr., Esquire
Three Center Plaza
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
For Respondent: H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire
Department of Professional Regulation
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
By Petition dated June 3, 1985, Joseph C. Woods, Petitioner, contests the denial, by the Board of Land Surveyors, Respondent, of his application for licensure as a land surveyor in Florida, by endorsement: and of the failing grade he received on the Principles and Practices section of the examination he subsequently took in October 1984 for licensure in Florida.
As grounds therefor it is alleged that the examination Petitioner took, and passed, in Massachusetts in 1957 was more stringent than the Florida examination, the criteria for issuance of licensure in Florida and Massachusetts were
substantially identical and, therefore, he is entitled to licensure by endorsement. As grounds for his appeal of the failing grade he received on the Florida examination he was required to take, Petitioner alleges the failure of Respondent to retain and be able to produce at the review of his examination the examination workbook used by Petitioner during the examination rendered a meaningful challenge to the answers Petitioner placed on the entry sheet much more difficult and voided the failing grade.
At the hearing Petitioner testified in his own behalf and seven exhibits were admitted into evidence. There is no real dispute regarding the facts here involved.
A proposed recommended order has been submitted by Petitioner. However, this proposed recommended order has no separately stated findings of fact or conclusions of law. Some facts are contained in the section headed History of the Case and other findings are contained in the Discussion section.
Conclusions of law are commingled with facts in the Discussion section of the proposed recommended order. For purposes of ruling on each proposed finding, each paragraph of the proposed recommended order has been numbered consecutively starting in the section headed History of the Case. These rulings are contained in Appendix A, which is attached hereto and made a part hereof.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Petitioner is a civil engineer and registered land surveyor in Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania. He took and passed the examination for land surveyor in Massachusetts in 1957 and was subsequently licensed by endorsement in New York and Pennsylvania based on having passed the Massachusetts examination. He has been a practicing land surveyor for some 28 years and is an experienced and well-qualified practitioner.
Petitioner was unable to produce a copy of the 1957 examination he took in Massachusetts since no copy could be located in the files of the Massachusetts agency which licenses land surveyors. Similarly, no copy of the 1957 Florida examination is contained in the files of the Florida Board of Land Surveyors.
By reason of Petitioner's experience he was exempted from taking the Fundamentals portion of the Florida examination but was required to take the Principles and Practices section.
After recomputation Petitioner was awarded a final grade of 68 on this examination, two points below a passing grade of 70.
Petitioner acknowledged in his testimony that retention of the workbook he was issued at the examination would not have changed any of the wrong answers he put on the answer sheet. He also acknowledged that to a question asking for the size of the survey marker used in Florida surveying he guessed 2" instead of the correct answer of 3". Had Petitioner correctly answered two questions regarding size of survey markers, he would have passed the examination. He also acknowledged that the answer to several of the questions he missed would have been known by a Florida land surveyor and had he familiarized himself with Florida law regarding land surveying he would have passed the examination. He also acknowledged it was customary to take a refresher course before sitting for an examination.
Petitioner lost eight points on one question, the answer to which was premised on changing a filed plat plan as the question directed. In Massachusetts a filed plat plan may not be changed and, since Petitioner considered the question to require the examinee to perform an unlawful act, viz., change the filed plat plan, he declined to do so and received a zero grade on this eight-point question.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of, these proceedings.
Section 472.015, Florida Statutes (1983), provides in pertinent part:
(3) The board shall certify as qualified for licensure by endorsement an applicant who:
* * *
(b) Holds a valid license to practice land surveying issued by another state or territory of the United States if the criteria for issuance of such license were substantially identical to the licensure criteria which existed in Florida at the time the license was issued.
The criteria for licensure in Florida in 1957 were passing the Florida examination.
The burden is on Petitioner to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the examination he took and passed in Massachusetts in 1957 was substantially identical to the 1957 Florida examination. Balino v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 348 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Petitioner presented no evidence, other than his own self- serving testimony, that the 1957 Massachusetts and Florida examinations were substantially identical. Since Petitioner has never seen the 1957 Florida examination and was unable to produce a copy of the 1957 Massachusetts examination, his testimony, that the examinations were substantially identical, can be only pure speculation. Absent some reliable evidence that the two examinations were substantially identical, Petitioner has failed to sustain his burden of proof.
With respect to his failing the Florida Land Surveyors' examination taken by Petitioner, he acknowledged that the destruction of his workbook could have had no effect on the accuracy of the answers Petitioner placed on the answer sheet provided. He also acknowledged that had he studied the Florida Statutes respecting land surveying or taken a refresher course he would have passed the examination. In short, Petitioner has also failed to prove that the examination he was given was unfair or that he was unfairly graded on this examination.
From the foregoing it is concluded that Petitioner has failed to prove that the Massachusetts examination he took for licensure in 1957 was substantially identical to the 1957 Florida examination for licensure as a land surveyor, or that the examination he took in October 1984 was unfair or that his answers were inaccurately or unfairly graded. It is
RECOMMENDED that the petition of Joseph C. Woods for licensure by endorsement or for a revaluation of his examination grade to passing be dismissed.
ENTERED this 12th day of December, 1985, at Tallahassee, Florida.
K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building
2009 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904) 488-9675
FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of December, 1985.
APPENDIX
Paragraph
Included in Finding of Fact 1.
Included in Finding of Fact 1 except no evidence was submitted regarding letter dated May 21, 1984. A copy was not attached to the Petition received in the office of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
Included in Finding of Fact 3.
Conclusion of law.
Accepted.
Insofar as not included in Finding of Fact 1, is irrelevant.
Irrelevant.
Included in Finding of Fact 2.
Conclusion of law.
Conclusion of law.
Immaterial.
Included in Finding of Fact 3.
Irrelevant, see Finding of Fact 4, and 5.
Irrelevant, see Finding of Fact 4, and 5.
Conclusion of law.
Immaterial. No harm shown.
Immaterial. No harm shown.
Accepted.
Included in Finding of Fact 5.
Irrelevant.
Disapproved, as no harm to Petitioner was shown.
Irrelevant.
Disapproved insofar as it is appropriate to license Petitioner by endorsement when he has failed to prove the 1957 Massachusetts and Florida examinations were substantially identical.
COPIES FURNISHED:
H. Reynolds Sampson, Esq.
Department of Professional Regulation
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Richard S. Daniels, Jr., Esq. Three Center Plaza
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
Allen R. Smith, Jr., Executive Director Board of Land Surveyors
Department of Professional Regulation
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Fred M. Roche, Secretary
Department of Professional Regulation
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Salvatore A. Carpino, Esq. General Counsel
Department of Professional Regulation
130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Docket for Case No: 85-002217
Orders for Case No: 85-002217
| Issue Date |
Document |
Summary |
|
Dec. 12, 1985 |
Recommended Order
|
Petitioner failed to prove he was qualified for licensure by endorsement.
|
