Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

FLORIDA ENGINEERS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION vs EMILIO R. PINERO, P.E., 02-000083PL (2002)

Court: Division of Administrative Hearings, Florida Number: 02-000083PL Visitors: 37
Petitioner: FLORIDA ENGINEERS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
Respondent: EMILIO R. PINERO, P.E.
Judges: CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON
Agency: Department of Business and Professional Regulation
Locations: Miami, Florida
Filed: Jan. 08, 2002
Status: Closed
Settled and/or Dismissed prior to entry of RO/FO on Friday, March 15, 2002.

Latest Update: Nov. 14, 2024
wl. efi ii : O2- V3 PL. f° Ff pss ge STATE OF FLORIDA i E 2 FLORIDA ENGINEERS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION 02 JAN -8 PH |: Ob ris iy FLORIDAEN NEERS A Mii MANAGEME > CORPORATION, HEARINGS Petitio: v. FEMC Case No. 00-0098 EMILIOR. PI RO, P.E., Respor at. / ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT COME OW the Florida Engineers Management Corporation, hereinafter referred to as “Petitioner,” a1 against Emilio Complaint is is concerning this support of this 1. Chapters 455 ai 2. ] engineer in the known address 3. ( calculations for iles this Administrative Complaint before the Board of Professional Engineers Pinero, P.E., hereinafter referred to as “Respondent”. This Administrative :d pursuant to Sections 120.60 and 471.038, Florida Statutes. Any proceeding »mplaint shall be conducted pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. In aplaint, Petitioner alleges the following: itioner is charged with regulating the practice of engineering pursuant to 471, Florida Statutes. pondent is and has been at all time material hereto a licensed professional te of Florida, having been issued license number PE 48352. Respondent’s last 1530 S.W. 29" Street, Miami, Florida 33165. July 3 and 5, 2000, Respondent signed and sealed ten pages of structural amp (a stage) to support 1000 pounds per square foot (psf). * PE TEE RM re ee cata vee e OR RET AR © TERRI I REIT rm IRE SS Re REE FI eli, fii wit bel 4. acceptable en, 5. fully set forth 6. requirements, 150 psf, instee for reviewing : Miami Grands an aluminum 2.44 psf — not ‘ bleacher plank Factors have b concrete or re calculations be. guardrail post I the moment arr calculated by R ae design approach used by the Respondent was not in compliance with the 2ering standards. COUNT ONE titioner realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through four (4) as if ‘ein this Count One. te structural calculations contain deficiencies and do not meet code wit: Respondent’s calculations variously list live load values of 40, 100 and f the South Florida Building Code requirement of a design live load of 100 psf ids and bleachers. The dead load of the 9.5” x 1.75” aluminum extrusion shown on the d detail has (based on the indicated cross-sectional area of 1.60855 sq. in. and sity of 0.10 Ibs per cubic inch) a dead load of 0.1 x 1.60855 x 12 x 12/9.5 = 3 psf as shown in the Respondent’s calculations. The formulae used by Respondent to calculate the bending capacity of the vere intended for use in the design of rectangular reinforced concrete beam. . included to reflect the strength concrete and reinforcing steel but there is no orcing steel in the aluminum extrusion in question. Consequently, these 10 rational relationship to the bleacher planks. The calculations to determine the moment imposed on the aluminum failed to recognize that that moment is simply equal to the force multiplied by Thus the correct value is 200 Ibs x35 = 700 ft Ibs — not 1225 foot pounds as ‘ondent. Ferree omer > SPT RR mer bok ke ook Bb Bs ilk ut ala alii: ik. ronan concrete in an logical justific 7. 471.033(1)(g), WHER to enter an or suspension of” administrative assessment of associated witt any other relie: SIGNE COUNSEL FOR Douglas D. Suns Prosecuting Attc Florida Engineer 1208 Hays Stree Tallahassee, Flo Florida Bar No. ! DDS/tb PCP: March 14, PCP Members: ° Respondent used formulae intended for use in the design of reinforced empt to determine the bending capacity of the aluminum guardrail post has no on. ised on the foregoing, Respondent is charged with violating Section orida Statutes, by engaging in negligence in the practice of engineering. ‘ORE, the Petitioner respectfully requests the Board of Professional Engineers ‘imposing one or more of the following penalties: permanent revocation or Respondent’s license, restriction of the Respondent's practice, imposition of an \e, issuance of a reprimand, placement of the Respondent on probation, the sts related to the investigation and prosecution of this case, other than costs 1. attorney’s time, as provided for in Section 455.227(3), Florida Statutes, and/or at the Board deems appropriat his AUS day of Merck. , 2001. IMC: ) — FELED lanagement Corporation Depertinent of brary eR 32301 p EL , bh, 7 - a me 3-20-2001, vane and Seckinger wer” opm ei ce ae a TE ENR ARO TER oR ©

Docket for Case No: 02-000083PL
Issue Date Proceedings
Jul. 03, 2002 Letter to A. Cole from D. Sunshine requesting to reopen the case (filed via facsimile).
Mar. 15, 2002 Order Closing File issued. CASE CLOSED.
Mar. 14, 2002 Motion to Hold in Abeyance (filed by Petitioner via facsimile).
Mar. 05, 2002 Joint Pre-hearing Stipulation (filed via facsimile).
Mar. 01, 2002 Amended Notice of Video Teleconference issued. (hearing scheduled for March 15, 2002; 9:00 a.m.; Miami and Tallahassee, FL, amended as to video, location, and time).
Jan. 24, 2002 Order of Pre-hearing Instructions issued.
Jan. 24, 2002 Notice of Hearing issued (hearing set for March 15, 2002; 9:30 a.m.; Miami, FL).
Jan. 16, 2002 Joint Response to Initial Order (filed via facsimile).
Jan. 09, 2002 Notice of Serving Petitioner`s First Set of Request for Admissions (filed via facsimile).
Jan. 09, 2002 Initial Order issued.
Jan. 08, 2002 Administrative Complaint filed.
Jan. 08, 2002 Amended Petition for Formal Hearing filed.
Jan. 08, 2002 Agency referral filed.
Source:  Florida - Division of Administrative Hearings

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer