STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
PHILLIP R. DAVIS, )
)
)
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE No. 90-5808
)
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL ) REGULATION, BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ) GEOLOGISTS, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, Veronica E. Donnelly, held a formal hearing in this case on October 8, 1991, in Tampa, Florida.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: David M. Caldevilla, Esquire
de la PARTE & GILBERT
705 East Kennedy Boulevard Post Office Box 172537 Tampa, Florida 33672 0537
For Respondent: Arthur R. Wiedinger, Esquire
Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1602
Tallahassee, Florida 32399 1050 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES
Whether Petitioner's application for licensure as a professional geologist satisfies the educational requirements set forth in Section 492.105(1)(d)2., Florida Statutes.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
By application for licensure as a professional geologist dated September 29, 1988, Petitioner, Phillip R. Davis (Davis), seeks licensure pursuant to Section 492.105(2)(c), Florida Statutes. This section provides that applicants meeting the requirements of licensure by examination as prescribed in Section 492.105, Florida Statutes, may be licensed without written examination if application is made in proper form within one calendar year of October 1, 1987.
The Board of Professional Geologists (the Board) denied Petitioner's application on July 12, 1990. The basis for denial was the Application Committee's determination that he had not completed the requisite number of geological courses mandated by Section 492.105(1)(d)2., Florida Statutes.
Petitioner disputes the Committee's findings regarding his course of formal studies which were completed almost twenty years ago. A formal administrative hearing was timely requested and the case was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings.
During the hearing, which the parties agreed should be consolidated with a rule challenge proceeding, Petitioner Davis presented two witnesses and testified in his own behalf. Thirty exhibits were filed at hearing. It should be noted that the transcript does not coincide with the hearing officer's handwritten exhibit list created at hearing. Exhibit #26 and all other exhibits offered were admitted. In addition, leave was granted for Petitioner to file an additional exhibit posthearing. The Board called one witness. No additional evidence was offered during the Board's responsive case. An opportunity to present additional evidence posthearing in response to the textbooks and course notes submitted by Petitioner was granted. Upon review of these exhibits, the Board declined the opportunity to respond. Accordingly, the evidence closed on November 20, 1991, when Petitioner's last exhibit was moved into evidence and accepted without objection.
The transcript of the hearing was filed on November 5, 1991. The parties waived statutory and procedural time deadlines for the filing of the final and recommended order to gain additional time for the submission of proposed orders. Both parties submitted proposed orders addressing the Final Order and the Recommended Order. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact related to the Recommended Order are in the attached Appendix.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Petitioner Davis applied for licensure as a professional geologist pursuant to the "grandfathering provision" in Section 492.105(2)(c), Florida Statutes. This provision exempts qualifying applicants from taking and passing the examination required of other applicants.
The Board has stipulated that Petitioner Davis is in all respects qualified for licensure, except for the educational requirements contained in Section 492.105(1)(d)2., Florida Statutes.
Petitioner Davis received a B.S. degree in 1969 and a M.S. degree in 1972 from the Department of Soils, Water and Engineering at the University of Arizona. His major for both degrees was in the area of agricultural engineering. Generally, this discipline integrates engineering and the plant and soil sciences. It is directed towards the creation of the proper environment for the optimum production of plants and animals. Petitioner's individualized education in the area included the study of hydrology, the soils, the geological processes and their relationship to crop production, and the utilization of water resources.
Prior to hearing, the Board agreed that Petitioner's transcripts contain four courses of study which are clearly geological courses within the meaning of Section 492.105(1)(d)2., Florida Statutes. When the Board responded to the Requests for Admissions filed by Petitioner, they admitted all four courses were third or fourth year or graduate level courses in a university
curricula. These admissions are given greater weight than the transcript legend which describes Physical Geology as a lower lever course. The four courses which are not in dispute are:
Course Title Hours
Physical Geology 3 Semester Hours Geology of Ground Water 3 Semester Hours Aquifer Mechanics 3 Semester Hours Development of Ground 3 Semester Hours
Water Resources
In order to meet the minimum educational requirements which would enable Petitioner Davis to qualify for licensure without examination, he must demonstrate that he completed 18 additional semester hours of geological courses, 12 of which must be at the third or fourth year or graduate level.
Petitioner attended a two-part series of courses at the University of Arizona entitled "Physical Geography 3A" and "Physical Geography 3B", respectively. There were sequentially completed in the first and second semesters of the 1968-1969 school year.
Petitioner successfully completed the two companion courses for a total of six semester hours of lower level credit.
The textbook used in the two courses is entitled, "Introduction to Physical Geography." It was written by Arthur N. Strahler, a geologist who has training in geography. The Board did not give Petitioner Davis credit for these courses in its review of his transcripts because it was presumed that this particular course was more concerned with the economic and social implications of geography than physical geology. The Application Committee's familiarity with the author's textbook entitled "Physical Geography" tended to strongly support this presumption.
The university catalog description of the two courses, together with Petitioner's testimony regarding course content and a detailed review of the textbook utilized, establish that the two lower division courses are "geological courses" which satisfy the educational requirement in Section 492.105(1)(d)2., Florida Statutes. The textbook emphasizes that this course focuses on the study of the earth's planetary zone in which most human beings have lived. Contrary to the presumption of the Application Committee, these courses did not deal with the economic and social implications of geography. Those topics were covered in a different two-part series of courses at the University of Arizona entitled "Economic Geography."
During the first semester of 1968-1969 at the University of Arizona, Petitioner attended a course entitled "Structural Properties of Soil A CH 205", within the Department of Agricultural Chemistry and Soils. According to the university catalog, this course was identical to a course entitled "Hydrographic Properties of Soils HYDR 205", within the university's graduate programs in Hydrology and Water Resources Administration.
A review of the course notes for this class, the catalog description and Petitioner's testimony regarding the course content all demonstrate the course was an upper level geological course which meets the educational requirements set forth in Section 492.105(1)(d)2., Florida Statutes.
Petitioner successfully completed the course for three semester hours.
During the time period in which the Petitioner took the course designated as both "Structural Properties of Soil ACH 205" and "Hydrographic Properties of Soils HYDR 205", the university had developed a number of different hydrology programs. A Masters of Science Degree with a major in hydrology was available in any of the following department's during this time period: Agricultural Chemistry and Soils, Agricultural Economics, Agricultural Engineering, Civil Engineering, Geology, Meteorology, and Watershed Management. Many of these graduate degree programs were interrelated. For example, one of the committee members on the Committee on Hydrology and Water Resources was an associate professor in the Geology Department. Another associate professor in the Geology Department taught one of the hydrology courses. Undergraduate programs at the institutions were developed in a way that allowed students from one department to directly enter into hydrology programs sponsored by another department. There was duplication in the teaching of the fundamentals of the earth sciences in many of the departments. This was frequently noted in the course descriptions in the university catalog.
Petitioner successfully completed an upper level course in "Physical Climatology MEOR 221" in the second semester of the 1968-1969 school year for three semester hours of credit.
Petitioner's recollection of course content, along with the university catalog description, reveal that the following matters were studied: heat and water balance of the earth's atmosphere and its application to problems of physical geography, agrometeorology, and hydrology with particular reference to arid regions.
Although this physical climatology course was taught in a meteorology program, it is a geological course which meets the educational requirements of Section 492.105(1)(d)2., Florida Statutes.
Petitioner Davis successfully completed an upper level or graduate level course entitled "Hydrology CE 223" at the University of Arizona for three semester hours during his work on his Masters Degree in the first semester of the 1971-1972 school year.
The aforemantioned course was taught by a professor within the Department of Civil Engineering. The university, however, recognized the course was duplicated in a upper level or graduate course within an interdisciplinary hydrology program. The catalog noted that it was identical to "Hydrology I-HYDR 223."
The text used for the course, along with Petitioner's recollection of the course, demonstrate that the course was primarily concerned with the elementary treatment and basic application of geophysics to major topics in hydrology, including rainfall, evaporation, groundwater and runoff.
This hydrology course meets the educational requirement as an upper level geological course for the purpose of Section 492.105(1)(d)2., Florida Statutes.
During the same first semester of 1971-1972, Petitioner completed a course identified as "Special Problems AEN 299." This was an independent study course which allowed the Petitioner to complete a research paper in an area of personal interest during his graduate studies. Petitioner studied the difference in sediment yields between brush-covered watersheds and grass-covered
watersheds on semi-arid rangelands. Unit-source watersheds were selected to assure that the geological influences to be studied were representive of these rangelands in the area.
Petitioner's testimony of the course content, coupled with the research paper he completed for credit in this course, demonstrate that the course was a geological course which meets the educational requirements of the statute. Petitioner received three semester hours of credit for the course in his graduate program.
Although all of the other courses presented by Petitioner did have some geological content, they did not meet the statutory definition of a geological course. They were not predominantly geological in nature and content, according to the evidence presented.
During the time Petitioner attended the University of Arizona, various Departments at the institution taught courses with identical content. This occurred even though these efforts were duplicative. In addition, various Departments interacted and developed interdisciplinary programs in the earth sciences. As a result, Petitioner's transcripts did not fully or accurately reveal that many of his courses were actually geological course.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction in this proceeding pursuant to Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.
Phillip R. Davis, Petitioner, has the burden of proving that he is entitled to licensure as a geologist. Balino v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 348 So.2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).
Section 492.102(3), Florida Statutes defines "geology" as:
...the science which includes the treatment of the earth and its origin and history, in general; the investigation of the earth's crust and interior and the solids and fluids, including all surface and underground waters, and gases which compose the earth; the study of the natural agents, forces, and processes which cause changes in the earth; and the utilization of this knowledge of the earth and its solids, fluids, and gases, and their collective properties and processes, for the benefit of mankind.
A "geologist", as defined in Section 492.102(4), Florida Statutes, is:
...an individual who, by reason of his knowledge of geology, solids, mathematics, and the physical and life sciences, acquired by education and practical
experience, is capable of practicing the science of geology.
Subsection 492.105(2)(c), Florida Statutes, permits applicants who otherwise meet the requirements of licensure to be licensed without a written examination, if application is made in proper form within 1 calendar year of October 1, 1987.
Among other requirements in Section 492.105(1), Florida Statutes is this relevant educational requirement:
(d) Fulfills the following educational requirements at a college or university the geological curricula of which meet the criteria established by an accrediting agency recognized by the United States Department of Education:
Graduation from such college or university with a major in geology or other related science acceptable to the department; and
Satisfactory completion of at least 30 semester hours of geological courses, 24 of which must be at the third or fourth year or graduate level. (Emphasis added.)
Prior to the enactment of Rule 21DD-5.002, Florida Administrative Code, the Board adopted policies concerning what types of courses would be considered as "geological courses" for purposes of fulling the educational requirements for licensure under the "grandfathering" provisions of the licensure law. Those policies refined and limited the definition of a "geological course" beyond the statutory definition of "geology" in Section 492.102(3), Florida Statutes. The refinements, which require applicants to demonstrate they received a core program in geology during their education, was a rational and common sense approach to the Board's review of educational credentials for certification purposes.
During this proceeding, the Board relied on its published rule which was being challenged simultaneously at hearing. When the rule was found to be invalid in situations involving applicants for licensure without examination, neither the former policy nor the current rule could be applied to Petitioner's application. As a result, the more expansive statutory definition of a "geological course" was used to review the application. Under the statutory definition of "geology", Petitioner proved he successfully fulfilled the educational requirement for licensure without examination.
Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED:
The application of Phillip R. Davis for licensure as a professional geologist without examination under the grandfathering provisions of Section 492.105(2)(c), Florida Statutes, be granted.
DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.
VERONICA E. DONNELLY
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
(904)488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative
Hearings this 2nd day of March, 1992.
APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 90-5808
Petitioner's proposed findings of fact related to the formal administrative hearing are found in paragraphs 1-10 and 27-111. These findings of fact are address as follows:
1.-5. Accepted.
Rejected. Irrelevant.
Accepted. See Conclusions of Law.
Accepted.
Accepted.
Accepted.
Accepted. See HO #3.
Accepted. See HO #2.
Accepted. See HO #2.
Rejected. Irrelevant.
Accepted. See HO #2.
Accepted.
Rejected. Irrelevant.
Accepted.
Rejected. Irrelevant.
Rejected. Irrelevant.
Rejected. Irrelevant.
Rejected. Irrelevant.
Rejected. Irrelevant.
Rejected. Irrelevant.
Rejected. Irrelevant.
Accepted. See HO #1 and #2.
Accepted.
Accepted.
Accepted.
Accepted. See Findings of Fact in 90-4085R.
Accepted.
Rejected. Irrelevant.
Rejected. Irrelevant.
Accepted. See preliminary statement.
Rejected. See HO #2 and Statement of the Issue.
Accepted. See HO #4.
Accepted. See HO #4.
Accepted. See HO #4.
Accepted. See HO #4.
Accepted.
Rejected. Irrelevant.
Accepted.
Accepted. See HO #7.
Accepted. See HO #9.
Accepted.
Accepted.
Accepted. See HO#6-#9.
Accepted. See HO #17.
Accepted. See HO #19-#20.
Accepted. Accepted.
Accepted. See HO #19.
Accepted. See HO #20.
Accepted.
Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #23.
Rejected. Irrelevant. Burden on applicant not met. No rebuttal needed.
Rejected. Contrary to fact.
Accepted. See HO #10 and #12.
Accepted. See HO #10.
Accepted.
Accepted. See HO #11.
Accepted.
Accepted. See HO #11.
Accepted. See HO #14-#15.
Accepted. See HO #15.
Accepted.
Accepted.
Accepted.
Accepted. See HO #16.
Accepted. See HO # 21.
Accepted. See HO #21-#22.
Accepted. See HO #22.
Accepted.
Accepted.
Accepted.
Rejected. Contraty to fact. See HO # 23.
Rejected. Irrelevant. Burden on applicant not met. No rebuttal needed.
Accepted.
Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #23.
Accepted.
Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #23.
Rejected. Irrelevant. Burden on applicant not met. No rebuttal needed.
Accepted.
Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #23.
Accepted.
Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #23.
Rejected. Irrelevant. Burden on applicant not met. No rebuttal needed.
Accepted.
Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #23.
Accepted. See HO #24.
Accepted.
Rejected. Contrary to fact. He has education in both.
Rejected. Irrelevant to issue in dispute. See HO #2.
Rejected. Irrelevant to issues. See HO #2.
Rejected. Weight and sufficiency issue as opposed to credibility issue.
Rejected. Weight and sufficiency issue as opposed to credibility issue.
Rejected. Weight and sufficiency issue as opposed to credibility issue.
Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows:
Accepted. See HO #3.
Rejected. Contrary to fact. :Survey Soil and Water Eng AGE" is a lower level course that could not be used. Otherwise accepted.
Rejected. Redundant.
Accepted.
Rejected. In this case the Board used the rule, so the pre-rule policy is irrelevant.
Accepted.
Accepted.
Rejected. Contrary to fact. Petitioner has an education in both.
Rejected. Contrary to fact. Applies to licensure with examination.
Rejected. Contrary to fact. Rule invalidated for licensure without examination.
Accepted. See HO #23.
Accepted.
Rejected. Contrary to fact.
COPIES FURNISHED:
DAVID M CALDEVILLA ESQ de la PARTE & GILBERT 705 E KENNEDY BLVD
PO BOX 172537
TAMPA FL 33672 0357
ARTHUR R WIEDINGER ESQ ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL DEPT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS SUITE 1603 - THE CAPITOL TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 1050
ANGEL GONZALEZ - EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL GEOLOGISTS NORTHWOOD CENTRE - SUITE 60
1940 N MONROE ST TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 0794
JACK McRAY ESQ - GENERAL COUNSEL DEPT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION NORTHWOOD CENTRE - SUITE 60
1940 N MONROE ST 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. Some agencies allow a larger period within 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.
=================================================================
AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
PHILLIP R. DAVIS,
Petitioner,
vs. CASE NO. 90-5808
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL GEOLOGISTS,
Respondent.
/
FINAL ORDER OF THE BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL GEOLOGISTS
This cause came on before the Florida Board of Professional Geologists at a regularly scheduled meeting on July, 1992 in Orlando, Florida pursuant to a Recommended Order of Hearing Officer Veronica Donnelly dated March 2, 1992. The Board, noting that no exceptions have been filed and after reviewing the complete record, including all exhibits and the argument of counsel for Petitioner, hereby enters this Final Order of the Board of Professional Geologists.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The Board accepts the Preliminary Statement in the Recommended Order with the following addition:
In the companion rule challenge case, the Hearing Officer found the challenged rule which defined the terms "geological courses" to be valid but inapplicable to Petitioner. The Board has appealed that Final Order to the First District Court of Appeal. On July 13, the day before the Board's meeting where it considered the Recommended Order, the Hearing Officer dissolved the automatic stay which the Board obtained pursuant to the Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Board could not appeal that Order prior to the meeting but has the time to filing a Petition for Review for that Order has not expired and Respondent intends to seek such review.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Board, after a complete review of the record and at the hearing in this case, hereby accepts the Proposed Findings of Fact of the Hearing Officer as set forth in the Recommended Order of March 2, 1992 with the following exceptions:
Paragraph 9 states that the university Catalog and description, along with Petitioner's testimony regarding course content and a detailed review at the text book, establish that the two lower division courses, Physical Geography 3A and Physical Geography 3B are "Geological courses." Neither the course description nor the textbook demonstrate that Physical Geography 3A is a geological course but only demonstrate that it is a geography course.
Petitioner's conclusory opinion alone cannot provide substantial, competent evidence since Petitioner was not qualified as an expert.
Paragraph 11 states that the course notes, catalog description and Petitioner's testimony demonstrate that Structural Properties of Soil, ACH 205, was a geological course. Neither the course notes nor the catalog description support the conclusion that this is a geology course. Petitioner's conclusory opinion alone cannot provide substantial, competent evidence since Petitioner was not qualified as an expert witness. Paragraph 16 finds that Physical Climatology MEOR 221 is a geological course. The course catalog describes this course as a meteorology course and does not fit within the statutory definition of geology. There is no substantial, competent evidence to support the conclusion that this is a geology course.
Paragraph 20 concludes that Hydrology CE 223 is a geology course. The textbook used in this course does not demonstrate that this a geology course but, rather that it is a hydrology course. Petitioner's opinion alone does not supply competent substantial, evidence since he was not qualified as an expert.
Paragraph 22 finds that special Problems AEN 299, an independent study course, was a geology course based on Petitioner's testimony and his research paper. The research paper does not demonstrate that this is a geology course but rather that it is an agricultural engineering course. Petitioner's opinion alone cannot provide substantial competent evidence since he was not accepted as an expert.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Conclusions of Law of the Hearing Officer in her Recommended Order are accepted with the following exception:
The last sentence states that Petitioner proved he successfully fulfilled the educational requirements for licensure without examination under the statutory definition of geology. To the extent this is a conclusion of fact, it is stricken as unsupported by substantial competent evidence. To the extent it is a conclusion of law it is stricken as inconsistent with the law.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, Petitioner is found ineligible for licensure as a professional geologist without examination under the grandfathering provisions of Section 492.l05(2)(c), Florida Statutes.
DONE and ORDERED this 22 day of July, 1992 by the Florida Board of Professional Geologists.
ANGEL GONZALE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed by U. S. Mail to Veronica Donnelly, Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings, 1230 Apalachee Parkway, The DeSoto Building, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550; and to David M. Caldevilla, Esquire, de 1a Parte & Gilbert, 705 E. Kennedy Boulevard, Post Office Box 172537, Tampa, Florida 33672 0537 on this 28 day of July, 1992.
Eloise Rice
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| Jul. 30, 1992 | Final Order of the Board of Professional Geologists filed. |
| Mar. 20, 1992 | (Petitioner) Notice of Address Change filed. |
| Mar. 02, 1992 | Recommended Order sent out. CASE CLOSED. Hearing held 10/08/91. |
| Mar. 02, 1992 | Case No/s:91-4085 & 90-5808 unconsolidated. |
| Dec. 12, 1991 | Order Accepting All of the Textbooks Placed in Evidence and the Recommended and Proposed Orders Filed After the Suggested Filing Dates sentout. |
| Nov. 25, 1991 | Order Granting Extension of Time for the Proposed Recommended Order and Recommended Order sent out. |
| Nov. 25, 1991 | (Respondent) Proposed Recommended Order w/(unsigned) Recommendation filed. |
| Nov. 22, 1991 | CC Letter to Arthur R. Wiedinger, Jr. from David M. Caldevilla (re: Motion for Extension For Filing PFF) filed. |
| Nov. 20, 1991 | (Respondent) Motion For Further Extension to Serve Proposed Order filed. |
| Nov. 20, 1991 | Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact; Petitioner's Closing Argument, Memorandum of Law, and Proposed Conclusions of Law; Petitioner's Verified Motion to Place Text Book Into Evidence filed. |
| Nov. 13, 1991 | Joint Motion for Extension of Time filed. |
| Nov. 05, 1991 | Transcript (Vols 1A&B) w/Petitioner's Final Exhibit List filed. |
| Oct. 31, 1991 | (One Box) Exhbiits filed. |
| Oct. 18, 1991 | Petitioner's Notice of Service filed. |
| Oct. 04, 1991 | Notice of Telphone Conference Hearing filed. (From Edward P. de la Parte, Jr.) |
| Oct. 03, 1991 | Respondent's Notice of Serving Answers to Petitioner's Second Set of Interrogatories filed. |
| Oct. 03, 1991 | Petitioner's Initial Request for Admissions; Respondent,Board of Professional Geologists: Answers to Petitioner's Interrogatories; Petitioner's Notice of Serving Second Request for Admissions; Petitioner's Notice of S erving Second Set of Int |
| Oct. 03, 1991 | Letter to Bernadette from David M. Caldevilla (re: Notice of Hearing)filed. |
| Oct. 02, 1991 | Respondent's Response to Second Request for Admissions filed. (From Arthur R. Wiedinger,Jr.) |
| Oct. 02, 1991 | (Petitioner) Memorandum of Law in Support of Petitioner's Motion For Partial Summary Order; Petitioner's Notice of Filing filed. |
| Sep. 27, 1991 | (Respondent) Response to Motion For Partial Summary Final Order filed. |
| Sep. 27, 1991 | Letter to VED from D. Caldevilla (Re: Filing of Motions); PetitionersMotion for Official Recognition; Petitioners Motion to Compel (Exhibit A-B) filed. |
| Sep. 23, 1991 | (Petitioner) Notice of Telephone Conference Hearing filed. |
| Sep. 23, 1991 | (Petitioner) Notice of Telephonic Conference Hearing filed. (From Edward P. de la Parte, Jr.) |
| Sep. 16, 1991 | Request for Oral Argument; Petitioners Motion for Partial Summary Final Order filed. |
| Sep. 09, 1991 | Petitioner's Notice of Serving Second Rquest for Production; Petitioner's Second Request for Production; Petitioner's Notice of Serving Second Set of Interrogatories; Petitioner's Second Set of Interrogatoriesw/Interrrogatories re c'd. (From Edward de la |
| Sep. 03, 1991 | Petitioner's Motion To Compel sent out. |
| Sep. 03, 1991 | Petitioner's Notice of Serving Second Request for Admissions; Petitioner's Second Request for Admissions filed. |
| Aug. 05, 1991 | Amended Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for Oct. 8, 1991; 10:00am; Tampa). |
| Aug. 05, 1991 | Amended Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for Oct. 8, 1991; 10:00am; Tampa). |
| Jul. 31, 1991 | Joint Stipulation and Requet to Reschedule Hearing filed. |
| Jul. 23, 1991 | Order Consolidating Cases and Rescheduling Final Hearing to Comply With the Time Requirements of Section 120.56, Florida Statutes. (90-5808& 91-4085R consolidated). (Hearing set for Aug. 9, 1991; 9:30am; Tampa). |
| Jul. 08, 1991 | Order Granting Continuance Until the Pending Rule Challenge Prooceeding can be Consolidated sent out. (hearing rescheduled for Oct. 8, 1991; 10:00am; Tampa). |
| Jul. 02, 1991 | Petitioner's Third Unopposed Motion for Continuance; Notice of Related Case; Petitioner's Motion to Consolidate; & cover letter from D. Caldevilla filed. |
| Mar. 19, 1991 | Order Granting Motion For Continuance sent out. (hearing rescheduledfor7/16/91; at 10:00am; in Tampa) |
| Mar. 08, 1991 | Petitioners Second Unopposed Motion for Continuance filed. |
| Dec. 19, 1990 | Amended Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for March 20, 1991: 10:00 am: Tampa) |
| Dec. 12, 1990 | Petitioner's Unopposed Motion for Continuance filed. (From E. P. de la Parte, Jr.) |
| Dec. 05, 1990 | Petitioner's Notice of Serving Answers to Respodnent's First Set of Interrogatories filed. (From E. P. de la Parte, Jr.) |
| Nov. 15, 1990 | Respondent's Notice of Service Response to Request For Admissions filed. (From Arthur r. Wiedinger, Jr.) |
| Nov. 15, 1990 | Petitioner's Notice of Filing Initial Request For Admissions w/exhibit-1 filed. (From Edward P. de la Parte, Jr.) |
| Nov. 06, 1990 | Respondent's Notice of Serving First Set of Interrogatories; Petitioner's First Set Of Interrogatories filed. (From Arthur R. Wiedinger, Jr.) |
| Oct. 25, 1990 | Notice of Hearing sent out. (hearing set for 12/27&28/90; in Tampa; at 10:00am) |
| Oct. 12, 1990 | Petitioner's Notice of Serving Initial Request For Admissions filed. (From Edward P. de la Parte, Jr.) |
| Oct. 09, 1990 | Petitioner's Notice of Serving Initial Request For Production; Petitioner's Notice of Serving First Set of Interrogatories filed. (From Edward P. de la Parte, Jr.) |
| Oct. 05, 1990 | (Petitioner) Notice of Appearance filed. (From Edward P. de la Parte,Jr.) |
| Oct. 01, 1990 | Joint Response to Initial Order filed. (From Edward P. de la Parte, Jr. & Arthur R. Wiedinger, Jr.) |
| Sep. 21, 1990 | Initial Order issued. |
| Sep. 13, 1990 | Referral Letter; Inter-Office Worksheet; Election of Rights; Notice of Denial filed. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Jul. 28, 1992 | Agency Final Order | |
| Mar. 02, 1992 | Recommended Order | Review of college catologs and texts from 1969-1972 demonstrate applicant successfully completed statutory reguirements for licensure. |
