STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

BOARD OF ARCHITECTURE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 77-1384

)

LEWIS C. MEDLIN, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice a hearing was held before Charles C. Adams, a Hearing Officer with the Division of Administrative Hearings at the Conference Room, Suite 205, Building "B", Arlington Expressway, Jacksonville, Florida, at 10:00 a.m., March 30, 1978.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Selig I. Goldin, Esquire

Post Office Box 1251 Gainesville, Florida 32602

For Respondent: Frederick F. Tygart, Esquire

609 Barnett Regency Tower Regency Square Jacksonville, Florida 32211

ISSUE

Whether or not the Respondent, Lewis C. Medlin, is guilty of a violation of Section 467.14(1)(c), Florida Statutes, and Rule 21B-5.02(5), Florida Administrative code, for affixing his name and seal as an architect to the plans, drawings and/or specifications for a Taco Bell Restaurant, in Orange Park, Florida; when said plans, drawings and/or specifications were not prepared by him or under his responsible supervising control; said act taking place on or about March 7, 1977.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Lewis C. Medlin, Respondent, is the holder of Certificate of Registration no. 2603, as a architect, held with the State of Florida, Division of Professions, Department of Professional and Occupational Regulations, Florida State Board of Architecture.

   
   

2. While practicing as an architect in the State of Florida the Respondent was employed by Taco Bell. Taco Bell had hired the Respondent to assist them in gaining the approval of the State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants on the question of certain plans necessary to complete one of the restaurants of Taco Bell to be built at Orange Park, Florida. It was also necessary for the Taco Bell chain to acquire the approval

   of the local building officials in Orange Park, Florida. In pursuit of this employment the Respondent was involved with a set of plans, specifically, blue line prints which were identified and admitted into evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit 2. It is this Petitioner's Exhibit 2 which is addressed by the administrative complaint of the Petitioner. The Petitioner is claiming through the administrative complaint that Lewis C. Medlin affixed his name and seal as an architect to the plans, drawings and/or specifications for Taco Bell Restaurant, Orange Park, Florida, when said plans, drawings and/or specifications were not prepared by him or under his responsible supervising control, the plans being Petitioner's Exhibit 2. This action, according to Petitioner, constituted violations of Section 467.14(1)(c), Florida Statutes, and Rule 21B-5.02(5), Florida Administrative Code.

   
   

3. The facts in the case show that Petitioner's Exhibit 2 is a modification of Petitioner's Exhibit 1. Petitioner's Exhibit 1, admitted into evidence is a set of plans which were prepared by Sheryl Crandall, an employee of Taco Bell. In the early part of 1977, to include the time in which Medlin was employed by Taco Bell, Crandall held the position of project designer. She had received a B.A. Degree in Commercial Art from Northern Illinois University and had certain drafting experience. The Petitioner's Exhibit 1 had been examined by and upgraded by Carl W. Carlson, an individual, licensed as an architect in Florida at the time of his involvement with the Petitioner's Exhibit 1. This Petitioner's Exhibit 1 was modified by Crandall and used as a basis of Petitioner's Exhibit 2, the subject of this hearing.

   
   

4. Carlson had given Taco Bell the permission to use his work product as it pertains to Petitioner's Exhibit 1 and any modifications which might come out of that basic set of plans. In addition, he well expected Taco Bell to hire local architects in the various states within the United States where Taco Bell was doing business. Carlson further expected that the architects hired by Taco Bell would make such use of the plans he was involved with, to the extent necessary to achieve the ends of his client Taco Bell.

   
   

5. Lewis C. Medlin, sometime in early March, 1977, took the basic plans which are Petitioner's Exhibit 2, that had been submitted to him by Sheryl Crandall under the terms of his employment with Taco Bell, and made certain red line changes to the blue line prints. Medlin did not redraft those prints, nor did he supervise the work done by Crandall or the precursor to the Petitioner's Exhibit 2, which is Petitioner's Exhibit 1. After making the red line changes to the Petitioner's Exhibit 2 and completely reviewing that document, Lewis C. Medlin affixed his name and seal as architect. The question then becomes one of whether the act of affixing his name and seal as architect under those circumstances, constitutes a violation of Section 467.14(1)(c), Florida Statutes, and Rule 21B-5.02(5), Florida Administrative Code.

   
   

6. The pertinent part of the statute in question reads as follows:

   
   

   1. Revocation of registration certifi- cate; reinstatement procedure, process, attorneys and counsel. -

      1. Any architect's certificate of regi- stration issued in accordance with the provisions of this chapter shall remain in full force until revoked for cause as pro- vided in this chapter. Any architect's registration certificate and current renewal may be suspended for a period not exceeding

         12 months, or may be revoked by the unanimous vote of the members of the board setting, with a minimum of four members, in any hearing for:

         * * *

      2. Affixing or permitting to be affixed

   his seal or his name to any plan, specification, drawing, or other related document which was

   not prepared by him or under his responsible supervising control;

   
   

   (The citation of Rule 21B-5.02(5), Florida Administrative Code is not germane to the substance of the violation and merely deals with the procedural requirements on the part of the Petitioner. Therefore, further reference to that provision is not necessary.)

   
   

7. The key to the resolution of the issue in this cause lies in the analysis of the terms "prepared" and "responsible supervising control". This terminology has been addressed in the case of Markel v. Florida State Board of Architecture, 268 So.2d 377, (Fla. 1972). This case involved the disciplining of an architect in the State of Florida for allowing his name and seal to be affixed to certain documents which had been prepared by non-architects operating outside his control and supervision. In that particular case the initial contact with the client and the bulk of the drafting was done by the non- architect. Markel's involvement was to the extent of reviewing those plans drawn by the nonprofessionals and affixing his name and seal.

   
   

8. The court in Markel, in addressing the question of whether this review constituted supervision, stated that it would be a "close" question. However, after considering the matter the court held that the after-the-fact ratification of a nonprofessional's drafting, would constitute approval of the prior unsupervised work product of a non professional and was felt to he alien to the standards of the architectural profession. Therefore the action taken by Markel was felt to be in violation of Section 467.14(1)(c) Florida Statutes.

   
   

9. It is evident that the drawing in question in the case at bar was not prepared by Medlin, in the sense of a line by line production or reproduction by his hand. Nor was the drawing prepared in his office where he could make periodic checks of the work product of Ms. Crandall. Nonetheless, his review of the questioned document and the changes which he made constitute sufficient compliance with the law in terms of calling for his preparation and responsible supervising control. Medlin did in fact "prepare" the documents to which his name and seal were affixed as an architect and responsibly supervised and controlled that document, when perceived in the sense of making the document ready for use by his client and by the various governmental officials who would need to approve the plans.

   
   

10. The case at bar is distinguished from that in Markel, supra, because of Medlin's direct contact with his client; the involvement of professionals in the preparation of the base document; and the fact that this close question inures to the benefit of the Respondent and not the agency. Moreover, any other result would seem to defeat the purpose of this form of regulation of the acts of the members of a profession; in that it would create unreasonable expense and hardship for the clients of this profession, without promoting any form of reasonable protection of the public against the bad acts and motives of the members of the profession or those persons with whom they may be in league.

11. Consequently, there has been no violation of Section 467.14(1)(c), Florida Statutes.

    
    

12. The undersigned has received and reviewed the Proposed Recommended Orders of the parties end has specifically incorporated the substance of those Recommended Orders herein, with the exception of the Conclusions of Law and Recommendation of the Petitioner which are rejected for the reasons set forth in this Recommended Order.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

13. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction in this cause.

    
    

14. Based upon a full consideration of the facts herein, it is concluded as a matter of law that the Petitioner has failed to establish a violation of Section 467.14(1)(c), Florida Statutes.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the action by administrative complaint against Lewis

C. Medlin, the Respondent, be dismissed.

DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of May, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida.

CHARLES C. ADAMS

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings

530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675

COPIES FURNISHED:

Selig I. Goldin, Esquire Post Office Box 1251 Gainesville, Florida 32602

Frederick B. Tygart, Esquire 609 Barnett Regency Tower Regency Square

Jacksonville, Florida 32211

Docket for Case No: 77-001384

Orders for Case No: 77-001384