STATE OF FLORIDA DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

KENNETH S. GORDON, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 89-5268

)

BOARD OF PSYCHOLOGICAL )

EXAMINERS, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice this cause came on for formal hearing before P. Michael Ruff duly designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings in Tallahassee, Florida. The appearances were as follows:

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Bruce Rogow, Esquire

2441 S.W. 28th Avenue

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312

Beverly A. Pohl, Esquire 2441 S.W. 28th Avenue

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312

For Respondent: Virginia Daire, Esquire

Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1603 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050

Dan Bosanko, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1603 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

This issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the doctoral program in psychology at the Fielding Institute, headquartered in Santa Barbara, California met the requirement of Rule 21U-11.006(1)(b)5., 7., 9., and 10B., Florida Administrative Code during the period 1981 through 1986 when the Petitioner was enrolled in and completed that program and consequently whether the Petitioner meets the standards for application for licensure by examination as a graduate of that program.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The Petitioner, Dr. Kenneth Gordon, applied for licensure in Florida as a psychologist on the basis of Section 490.005(1)(b)2, Florida Statutes, which allows graduates of schools not accredited by the American Psychological Association (APA) to sit for the licensure examination in Florida if the school from which they graduated "maintained a standard of training comparable to the standards of training of those programs accredited" by the APA. The application was denied by the Board of Psychological Examiners (Board) on the basis that Rule 21U-11.006, Florida Administrative Code provides standards for determining "comparability" to programs accredited by the APA, which the program through which he received his doctoral degree, from the Fielding Institute, allegedly did not meet. Thus, the cause came on for hearing in order to determine whether the program of the Fielding Institute during Dr. Gordon's enrollment as a student with that institution satisfied the above cited requirements of the rule.

The cause came on for hearing after being set for hearing a number of times and continued by the request of and stipulation of the parties. The Petitioner's evidence at hearing consisted of the testimony of Dr. Kjell Rudestam, the program director of the Fielding Institute. The Board presented expert witness testimony from Dr. Frank DePiano, the Dean of the Department of Psychology of the Nova University of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, an expert in the area of standards of practice for the training of psychologists.

Prior to the hearing the Respondent moved to dismiss the action, asserting that there was no issue of material fact to invoke the hearing officer's jurisdiction on the basis that the Fielding Institute did not have a "campus" and the existence of a campus is a prerequisite for meeting the residency requirement of the above-cited rule provision. The motion was denied on the basis that proof was required, which should be offered at hearing, and on the basis that it was not demonstrated that no material facts were in dispute. The motion was renewed at hearing and again denied subject to the taking of evidence. The Petitioner offered exhibit 1, which was admitted into evidence and the Respondent offered three exhibits, which were admitted into evidence.

The hearing concluded and the parties ordered a transcript of the proceedings, requesting an extended brief schedule, which was granted. Subsequent to the hearing the parties agreed to an extension of time for the filing of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law which was granted. Both parties timely filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in the form of proposed recommended orders. Those proposed findings of fact are considered and addressed in this Recommended Order and addressed again in the appendix attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Fielding Institute was organized in 1974 with administrative headquarters in Santa Barbara, California. Its mission is training psychologists through its doctoral degree program in psychology. The Petitioner, Dr. Kenneth Gordon, was enrolled in the Fielding Institute's doctoral degree program from 1981 through 1986 and successfully graduated from that program with a doctor's degree in psychology. The Fielding doctoral program (program) was designed for "adult learners" or "midlife career professionals" who have training and experience in psychology and related fields

   and who seek to further their higher education, but who are unable to re-locate to a traditional, geographical campus-based doctoral degree psychology program for the requisite three to five years required to complete such a program.

   
   

2. The American Psychological Association (APA) is an accrediting agency for graduate programs in psychology. It does not mandate a single model of training for doctoral psychology programs and students but rather recognizes various models of training. The Fielding doctoral psychology program was designed to encompass the traditional areas of training and psychology within a non-traditional, multi-locational system of training. Fielding psychology students and faculty are disbursed throughout the country, where they are fully engaged in the educational program of the institute, which is developed and supervised at the Fielding administrative headquarters in Santa Barbara, California. During the period 1981 to 1986, the relevant period in this proceeding, when the Petitioner was a student with the Fielding Institute, Fielding's geographically disbursed doctoral students attended periodic regional seminars and sessions with faculty and students at various locations around the country.

   
   

3. The doctoral program at Fielding is not accredited by the APA. It was not accredited by that agency during the time the Petitioner was enrolled in and graduated from the program.

   
   

4. The Petitioner applied to the Board for licensure by examination in Florida. The Board denied that application finding that the program at Fielding was not comparable to programs accredited by the APA because the program at Fielding failed to meet certain specified requirements of Rule 21U-11.006(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code. The Petitioner requested a formal hearing challenging that denial and the subject proceeding ensued.

   
   

   Student Enrollment and Core Curriculum

   
   

5. The students and the faculty enrolled in and conducting the Fielding degree program are dispersed throughout the country. The admission procedure for the school commences with a written application and a field interview with a geographically available faculty member. Selected applicants are then invited to come to the Santa Barbara headquarters of the institute for a mandatory week long dialogue with other faculty members concerning the specifics of the doctoral degree program and the expectations regarding the student's participation in it. Fielding admitted students into the doctoral degree program three times a year using this process. During 1981 through 1986 the Fielding program had an identifiable body of students who matriculated into the program for a doctoral degree, although the students were dispersed throughout the country, studying in their own communities.

   
   

6. All doctoral psychology students at Fielding during 1981 through 1986 were full time students, paying full tuition and pursuing their curriculum within established time limitations.

   
   

7. The focus of the program at Fielding is the "learning outcome", which is described by Fielding as an evaluation of the competency of students within the "various dimensions of knowledge and skill that are involved in training a psychologist." A student's "learning outcome" is first evaluated by the program when a student is accepted by the program, which credits its students for knowledge and experience gained in their professions prior to entry into the program. A student is invited by the administrators of the Fielding program to

   submit any information which a student believes will substantiate the student's readiness to engage in the study program the student seeks to choose, out of the curriculum offered by Fielding.

   
   

8. When a student is accepted by the program the student formulates a "blueprint" in which the student acknowledges previous expertise and discusses how he or she plans to use the Fielding program in meeting its requirements. This blueprint is called a "learning contract", entered into by the student with the student's faculty advisor and program director and approved by those persons. With the guidance of those faculty members, Fielding students, like the Petitioner, propose their own "learning contracts" to the Fielding administrators or faculty advisors, encompassing a curriculum for themselves which takes into account their own previous learning experiences and professional experience. In this process of arriving at a "learning contract", the student can take into account and allow for the student's personal concerns and professional goals but must still complete the Fielding-required curriculum in all the required study and knowledge areas in terms of academic, clinical and internship requirement parameters.

   
   

9. The Fielding faculty designed the psychology curriculum, administered it, wrote the student guides or bulletins and produced seminars for instructive development during the time the Petitioner was enrolled, but the program did not offer classes of instruction in the formal, scheduled sense during that time. The required Fielding psychology curriculum could be completed in a different sequence by each student based on the individual student's previous experience, learning and needs. The sequence could be designed by the student although the curriculum itself was designed by the Fielding faculty and administrators. The Fielding students then would enter into the learning contract with the Fielding faculty and administrators. The contract would individualize the sequence of their program, as chosen by them, but it still had to fall encompass the required core of study, taking into account their own professional experience and their own professional goals, post-degree award.

   
   

10. The learning contract reflected an agreement between the student and the Fielding faculty and administration that various required academic objectives, as defined by the faculty, would be satisfied by the student in a particular sequence and on a particular time table. Learning contracts are an accepted educational tool for designing a course of study both in psychology and in other disciplines.

    
    

11. The psychology program at Fielding during the 1981 to 1986 period, when the Petitioner was enrolled, was an organized, integrated course of study designed by the psychology faculty of that institution who were responsible for the program's administration. The students had substantial latitude in the sequence of study arrived at for completing that program based upon the individual student's previous learning and professional experience as well as professional goals for the future. The control that the Fielding faculty maintained over the students course of study and progress through the program consisted of the faculty designing the program curriculum and the faculty's required approval of the students learning contracts.

    
    

    Institutional Requirements

    
    

12. The Fielding doctoral program for 1981 to 1986 required the equivalent of a minimum of three academic years of full time graduate study in the Fielding program. Although its course bulletin, published in 1984, the one relevant to this proceeding, did not specifically contain a published minimum three academic

    year requirement, in practice the program had such a requirement. No student ever completed the doctoral psychology program at Fielding in less than three years, however, students were expected to complete the program within five years.

    
    

13. The Fielding doctoral program does not give academic transfer credit for course work completed at other institutions. Credit is only given for satisfactory completion of the knowledge areas defined by and evaluated by the Fielding psychology faculty.

    
    

    Organized, Integrated Sequence of Study Designed by the Psychology Faculty

    
    

14. The Fielding Institute employs the scholar-practitioner student training model for its doctoral students in psychology. That training model has three components: (a) the academic component, (b) the clinical training component, and (c) the research component.

    
    

15. The academic component of the program was divided into twelve required "knowledge areas", encompassing the broader areas of clinical psychology, neuropathology, and psychopathology.

    
    

16. The Fielding faculty provided a study guide for each knowledge area defining the parameters of that area, the resources to be applied in successfully completing that knowledge area, identifying the faculty who were experts in that area and the students' requirements for completing that area. During the 1981 to 1986 period each student was required to complete all required knowledge areas and to demonstrate competence through a comprehensive examination.

    
    

17. The clinical training component required a minimum of 600 hours of clinical training, in a modality or area of practice other than the one for which the student had received prior training or experience before enrolling at Fielding. Student competency in clinical psychology was evaluated after the clinical training program, through a clinical examination. Successful students then proceeded to a formal clinical internship.

    
    

18. During 1981 through 1986, the clinical internship in psychology consisted of a minimum of 1600 hours of supervised experience. After completion of the clinical training component, competency was evaluated through a "final clinical assessment."

    
    

19. The research component resulted in a formal dissertation by the student. Students were required to prepare a concept research paper, which was expanded into a research proposal and finally into a dissertation, presenting the research and its results. Each Fielding doctoral student, including Petitioner, was required to participate simultaneously in the three program components, academic, clinical and research, during his entire tenure with the Institute, during the years when the Petitioner was enrolled.

    
    

20. A program bulletin is a formal statement by an institution of the content and operation of its academic programs. The Fielding program bulletin for 1984 was the bulletin in effect when the Petitioner was enrolled in and graduated from the psychology doctoral program there.

21. The program bulletin seemed to imply that the sequence of study and curriculum was designed by the students, rather than by the faculty. In fact the greater weight of the evidence indicates that that is not precisely the case, rather it shows that the faculty designed the curriculum and program, although the students had considerable latitude in choosing the sequence in which they would embark upon and complete the various courses or areas of study required to be completed by the faculty-designed curriculum. The bulletin also seemed to imply that the student, rather than the faculty, designed the elements of their own course work. In fact the greater weight of the evidence shows that certain course work is required by the curriculum designed by the Institute's faculty, although the students had choices regarding when certain course work would be embarked upon and courses could be elected in a student's desired area of emphasis, so long as the overall requirements of the curriculum were accomplished in less than five years.

    
    

22. The program at the Fielding Institute however did not, and does not now, require its students to have "continuous access to faculty". Rather the program at Fielding offered study groups and periodic seminars and sessions during the time the Petitioner and other students were enrolled and graduated from that program but there was no showing how frequent those study groups, periodic seminars and sessions with faculty members and with other students were conducted or scheduled.

    
    

23. Although the Petitioner maintains, in essence, that a residency-on- campus requirement such as is contained in the subject rule, is designed to achieve nothing more than the assurance of a minimum number of contact hours between students and faculty and students with other students, in fact a residency requirement is equally designed to ensure that there is administrative control by the faculty and administrators of the institution over the maintenance of quality of the program. The Fielding program did not develop a residency requirement until after the Petitioner had graduated from it.

    
    

24. The Fielding Institute purports to have had an informal residency requirement during the time the Petitioner was enrolled prior to 1986. That requirement, which is not in the program bulletin, purported to require students to have as many hours of contact with the faculty that students would have had at programs accredited by the APA. There was no evidence presented however to establish the number of hours that students in APA programs have access to faculty members. Nor was there any evidence of the number of hours that Fielding students were informally required to have access to Fielding faculty nor to other students. There was nothing of record to support the contention that the number of hours Fielding required its students to have contact with faculty or other students was comparable to the number of hours students in APA approved programs had access to faculty members or other students. There is simply no evidence to show the number of hours required for such faculty and student contact, if indeed it was required, nor the number of study groups, periodic seminars and sessions between students and faculty which were scheduled and conducted whereby the students and faculty, who admittedly are dispersed across the nation, could have accomplished such faculty-student contact hours. Thus the program at Fielding, both as published in the bulletin, and as put into practice has not been shown to have required its students to have one year in residence ". . . at the institution full time."

    
    

25. The subject rule provides that the residency requirement is met when it is shown that the program provides "continuous access" to the faculty and to other students with a period of continuous enrollment of not less than two out of three successive semesters "on the campus" of the institution from which the

    doctoral degree was granted. The Petitioner did not prove that Fielding actually has a campus. Although the rule contains no definition of the word, "campus" is a word with a plain and ordinary meaning. The meaning given by the Petitioner's witness to the word "campus" is not the plain and ordinary meaning of the word. The plain and ordinary meaning of the word "campus" encompasses, but is greater than the Petitioner's concept of a "locality that students and faculty meet for educational purposes." The Petitioner failed to establish when, where and how often the periodic seminars meetings and sessions were scheduled and conducted for faculty and students to meet for educational purposes, as well as for students meeting with other students. Consequently, even under the concept of the meaning of the word "campus" espoused by the Petitioner, it has not been established that Fielding Institute effectively required a period of continuous enrollment of not less than two out of three successive semesters on a campus of that institution from which the doctoral degree was granted.

    
    

26. After 1986 Fielding responded to residency accreditation requirements of the APA by requiring documentation of the 1981 through 1986 methods of "regional professional socialization and association between faculty and students," formalizing the documentation of those "contact hours" as a graduation requirement. The Petitioner maintains that prior to 1986 the students were required to achieve their contact hours with other students and with faculty as a graduation requirement, that the nature of student-faculty and student-student contact hours did not change for the psychology students of Fielding after 1986 and that only the documentation requirement was added. The Petitioner maintains that Fielding students currently document the face to face contact hours between themselves, faculty and other students (not telephone contacts) in order to approximate the types of contacts available at a traditional single-site university campus program. The Petitioner, however, did not prove that the Petitioner and other Fielding students engaged in the program from 1981 to 1986 actually achieved a level of contact hours with faculty and other students for educational purposes which were comparable to those which could be achieved by students in such a doctoral program in full time residence at a traditional, university-based program. Although students were said by the Petitioner to have access to the faculty twelve months out of the year, because the evidence also shows that faculty and students are dispersed all over the country, it has not been demonstrated that the Petitioner or any other student could have ready access with any or all faculty members guiding the student, including the Petitioner's particular program, continuously through twelve months of the year or on any other frequently occurring basis.

    
    

    Cognitive-Affective Basis of Behavior

    
    

27. The 1984 Fielding catalogue or bulletin did not include a discreet knowledge area or course of study published therein entitled "Cognitive- Affective Basis of Behavior." In practice however, the 1981 through 1986 Fielding doctoral program, which the Petitioner completed, did provide required academic course work in the area of cognitive-affective basis of behavior. This subject matter, "learning, memory, motivation, thinking, cognition theory" was incorporated into the other defined knowledge areas operated and required by the institution.

    
    

28. It has been demonstrated that Rule 21-11.0006(1)(b)5., 7., 9., and 10B., Florida Administrative Code sets out standards of training that are comparable to standards of training of programs accredited by the APA.

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

29. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the subject matter of and the parties to this proceeding. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

    
    

30. Section 490.005(1), Florida Statutes provides that an applicant for licensure as a psychologist must submit proof satisfactory to the Board that the applicant has either "(a) received a doctoral degree with a major in psychology from a program which was accredited by the APA or (b) received a doctoral degree with a major in psychology from a program which ". . . maintained a standard of training comparable to the standards of training of those programs accredited by the [APA]." Since the program at Fielding was not accredited, Dr. Gordon's application must be considered under the provisions of Section 490.005(1)(b).

    
    

31. Rule 21U-11.006, Florida Administrative Code, is a rule promulgated by the Board. It implements the above statute. The rule sets out the criteria by which the Board determines whether a doctoral psychology program maintains a standard of training comparable to that for programs accredited by the APA.

    
    

32. This rule has previously been found to be valid as being "within the range" of permissible interpretations of Section 490.005, Florida Statutes Morehead v. Department of Professional Regulation Board of Psychological Examiners, 503 So.2d 1318, 1320 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), citing Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medical Examiners v. Durrani, 455 So.2d 515 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). The rule stands as valid and this is not a proceeding designed to challenge that rule.

    
    

33. Thus the program offered by the Fielding Institute engaged in and completed by the Petitioner must meet the requirements of the above-cited provisions of the rule during the time the Petitioner was enrolled in and graduated from that program. In relevant part, Rule 21U-11.006(1)(b)5., 7., 9., and 10B., states that:

    
    

    "For the purpose of determining whether an applicant's doctoral degree in psychology was received from a program maintaining a standard of training comparable to those programs accredited by the [APA], the Board will apply the following criteria:

    * * *

    5. The doctoral program must be an organized, integrated sequence of study designed by the psychology faculty responsible for the program.

    * * *

    7. The program must have an identifiable body of students who were matriculated in that program for a doctoral degree. Each student in the particular program must complete a core of academic study, the elements of which are selected from a group of core courses designed and offered by the program faculty.

    * * *

    1. The doctoral program shall require the equivalent of a minimum of three academic years of full time graduate study . . . and one year . . . in full time residence at the

       institution, from which the doctoral degree is granted. Residence shall provide students

       continuous access to a core psychology faculty whose primary time and employment responsibilities are to the educational institution, as well as access to other students matriculated in that program. Full time study in residence also requires a period of continuous enrollment of not less than two out of three successive semesters on the campus of the institution from which the degree is granted.

       * * *

    2. . . . the doctoral program shall require each student to demonstrate knowledge, or while enrolled in the program the applicant shall have successfully completed a graduate level course in each of the following areas of psychology:

    * * *

    (b) Cognitive-affective bases of behavior (e.g. learning, memory, cognition, thinking, motivation, emotion) . . ."

    
    

34. The program itself then must provide a standard of training comparable to the standards of training of programs accredited by the APA regardless of what individual students may or may not have accomplished in the program. The program itself must meet the requirements of the above rule and its standards.

    
    

35. In some respects the Fielding program bulletin and the program as actually carried out, failed to demonstrate that the standard of training for doctoral psychology students was comparable to the standard of training of programs accredited by the APA as required by the above quoted rule.

    
    

36. The above quoted rule at paragraph (1)(b)5. requires that, in order to be comparable to an APA accredited program, the non-accredited program must be "an organized, integrated sequence of study designed by the psychology faculty responsible for the program." Likewise the rule at paragraph (1)(b)7. requires that, in order to be comparable to the accredited program a non-accredited program must require each student to " . . . complete a core of academic study, the elements of which are selected from a group of core courses designed . . . by the program faculty." These requirements were met in that the Petitioner demonstrated that students were required by Fielding's program to complete a core of academic study the elements of which are selected from a group of core courses designed by the faculty. It was also demonstrated that the organized, integrated sequence of study offered by Fielding was designed and administered by its faculty even though students were allowed a great deal of freedom of choice in selecting the timing or sequence in which they took individual courses, based upon their prior experience and expertise. Freedom of choice was allowed in selecting courses from the group of core courses based upon their individual educational goals. Consequently the greater weight of the evidence shows that the requirements of the rule as to paragraphs (1)(b)5 and (1)(b)7 were met by the Petitioner.

    
    

37. Although the institute's bulletin itself did not contain a requirement that the program mandated at least three academic years of full-time study as required by paragraph (1)(b)9 of the above quoted rule, in practice the program

    required a minimum of three full-time academic years of study and indeed many students took four to five years to complete it, with five years being the maximum time allowed by the program. The Petitioner however, for the reasons delineated in the above findings of fact, did not meet his burden of proof to show that the doctoral program from which he received his doctoral degree in psychology indeed required one year in full time residence at the institution from which the degree was granted.

    
    

38. In order to show that the institution from which he earned that degree required one year in full-time residence, the Petitioner was required to prove that the residence requirement provided students with continuous access to a core psychology faculty, other students, and that the institution from which he earned his doctoral degree required a period of continuous enrollment of not less than two out of three successive semesters on the campus of the institution from which the degree was granted.

    
    

39. The Petitioner's witness, Dr. Rudestam, attempted to demonstrate that an "informal residence" requirement existed prior to 1986 wherein the number of hours of contact between students and faculty were comparable to the number of hours of contact between faculty and students at APA accredited programs. There was no evidence presented however to establish the number of hours that students in APA programs had access to faculty or to other students. There was no evidence presented to show the number of hours that Fielding students were informally required to have access to Fielding faculty or to other students nor of the actual hours of contact experienced by Fielding students during the period 1981 to 1986, including the Petitioner. Consequently there is no evidence of record to support the contention by the Petitioner that the number of hours Fielding required its students to have contact with faculty was comparable to the number of hours students in APA programs had access to faculty or to other students, if it could be concluded that such comparability amounted to the achievement of a residence requirement as delineated in the above-quoted rule provision.

    
    

40. In fact it has not been demonstrated that a number of "contact hours" between faculty and students or between students and students equates to meeting the residency requirement set forth in the above rule. The rule does not refer to meeting a residence requirement in this fashion rather, although residency is not specifically defined, the rule does provide that the residency requirement is met when the program at issue provides "continuous access" to faculty and at least two out of three successive semesters on the campus of the institution. For the reasons delineated in the above findings of fact the requirement of continuous access to faculty and to other students has not been demonstrated by the Petitioner.

    
    

41. The Petitioner has the burden of establishing that the program at Fielding required a period of continuous enrollment of not less that two out of three successive semesters "on the campus" of the institution from which the degree was granted. For the reasons set forth in the above findings of fact, the Petitioner has not met its burden of proof to demonstrate that Fielding had a campus. Even if the concept "campus" means something more than merely "the grounds of a school, college or university" contained in the dictionary definition proposed as acceptable by the Respondent, the plain and ordinary meaning of the word "campus" still encompasses more than the concept espoused by the Petitioner as being a "locality that students and faculty meet for educational purposes."

42. The rule does not contain a definition of the word campus and the word can thus be accorded its plain and ordinary meaning. Indeed under accepted principles of statutory construction it should be, where the Board has not defined campus in its rule. Because the Board did not so define it it cannot be implied that in the enactment of the rule the Board intended to accord that word any meaning other than its plain and ordinary meaning. The meaning espoused by the Petitioner for the word "campus" contained in the rules requirement concerning residency and full-time residency is not the plain and ordinary meaning of that word.

    
    

43. In any event, as delineated in the above findings of fact, even if the word "campus" could be defined to mean simply a locality where students and faculty meet for educational purposes, the Petitioner did not offer definitive proof other than a bare conclusory statement, which would show when, where, how often and for what purposes students and faculty and other students met in the conduct of its doctoral degree program, including the Petitioner and his faculty members and fellow students. Consequently the Petitioner failed to meet his burden to show that Fielding had a campus within either the plain and ordinary meaning of the word or the definition the Petitioner itself espoused.

    
    

44. The failure of the Fielding program to have a campus, within the plain and ordinary meaning of that word or even within its own purported definition, is fatal to the Petitioner's cause because of the existence of the campus is a necessary prerequisite to establishing that the program required a one year residency so as to meet the above-quoted requirements of the relevant rule.

    
    

45. Having failed to meet the burden of proof to show that the doctoral program from which he earned his degree required of the Petitioner one year of full-time residence, the Petitioner can not meet his burden to show that the program met a criterion established by the Board in the rule for the purpose of determining whether the program maintained a standard of training which was comparable to the standard of training of programs accredited by the APA.

    
    

46. It has however been proven by the Petitioner that the program at Fielding required him to demonstrate competence in the knowledge area of cognitive-affective bases of behavior.

    
    

47. In summary, the standard of training of the program of the Fielding Institute during the time the Petitioner was enrolled and graduated from that program has not been shown to be comparable to the standard of training of a program accredited by the APA, as "comparability" is determined by the Board in Rule 21U-11.006(1)(b)9., Florida Administrative Code. Consequently the Petitioner has not met its burden of proof and cannot prevail.

RECOMMENDATION

Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is therefore

RECOMMENDED:

That the Petitioner's application for licensure by examination as a psychologist should be denied.

DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida.

P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of August, 1992.

APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER

Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact

31. - 33. Accepted but irrelevant.

1. Accepted.

   
   

2. Accepted, but not itself materially dispositive and subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter.

   
   

3. Accepted, but not itself materially dispositive and subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter.

   
   

4. Accepted but not itself materially dispositive and subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and rejected in the sense that it has not been proven that the types of contacts available to students with faculty and with other students approximates the types of contacts available at a traditional single site university.

   
   

5. Accepted, but not itself materially dispositive and subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and

   rejected in the sense that it has not been proven that the types of contacts available to students with faculty and with other students approximates the types of contacts available at a traditional single site university.

6. Rejected, as not in accordance with the greater weight of the substantial competent evidence and subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter.

   
   

7. Accepted, but irrelevant.

   
   

8. Accepted, but immaterial.

   
   

9. Rejected as not in accordance with the greater weight of the substantial competent evidence and subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter.

   
   

10. Accepted but not itself materially dispositive and subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter.

    
    

11. - 45. Accepted.

Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact

1. - 9. Accepted, however, the opinions of Dr. DePiano derive from his one day site visit are not in their entirety accepted in the above findings of fact and conclusions of law.

44. Accepted as to the first sentence of the proposed finding of fact, the last sentence is rejected as subordinate to the hearing officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as not

entirely supported by the greater weight of the evidence.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Bruce Rogow, Esquire 2441 S.W. 28th Avenue

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33312

Beverly A. Pohl, Esquire

350 S.E. Second Street Suite 200

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

Virginia Daire, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1603 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050

Dan Bosanko, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1603 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050

Linda Biederman, Executive Director Board of Psychological Examiners 1940 N. Monroe Street

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792

Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional

Regulation

1940 N. Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

ALL PARTIES HAVE THE RIGHT TO SUBMIT WRITTEN EXCEPTIONS TO THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER. ALL AGENCIES ALLOW EACH PARTY AT LEAST 10 DAYS IN WHICH TO SUBMIT WRITTEN EXCEPTIONS. YOU SHOULD CONTACT THE AGENCY THAT WILL ISSUE THE FINAL ORDER IN THIS CASE CONCERNING AGENCY RULES ON THE DEADLINE FOR FILING EXCEPTIONS TO THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER. ANY EXCEPTIONS TO THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER SHOULD BE FILED WITH THE AGENCY THAT WILL ISSUE THE FINAL ORDER IN THIS CASE.

Docket for Case No: 89-005268

Orders for Case No: 89-005268