STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

BOARD OF ARCHITECTURE, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 77-1748

)

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", 6501 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 B. 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 two bedroom apartment building, 8th Avenue, South, Jacksonville Beach, 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 an architect, held with the State of Florida, Division of Professions, Department of Professional and Occupational Regulations, Florida State Board of Architecture.

   
   

2. The Petitioner has accused the Respondent of affixing his name and seal as an architect to plans, drawings and/or specifications for a two bedroom apartment building, at 8th Avenue, South, Jacksonville Beach, Florida, when the plans, drawings and/or specifications were not prepared by the Respondent or

   under his responsible supervising control, in violation of Section 467.14(1)(c), Florida Statutes, and Rule 21B-5.02(5), Florida Administrative Code.

   
   

3. The facts reveal that William Stanley Smith, Jr., the President of Universal Environmental Control, Inc., had hired Donald C. Peck, a licensed Florida architect, to draw certain plans for a group of apartment buildings that were being constructed by Smith. The Petitioner's Exhibit 1, admitted into evidence, is a blueprint of the original plans. The original plans were used five or six times in constructing apartments in the Jacksonville Beach, Florida area. These plans had been submitted to the State of Florida, Department of Business Regulations, Division of Hotels and Restaurants and the Jacksonville Beach, Florida Municipal Officials, for their approval. These plans had been accepted by the mentioned agencies.

   
   

4. Donald C. Peck moved his base of operation from Jacksonville Beach, Florida, and notified Mr. Smith of his move. The significance of this move related to the fact that Smith needed to get an architect to replace Peck on the future building projects which he intended to construct. In terminating their relationship, Peck released the original tracings to Smith, these original tracings being the basis of the blueprints which are Petitioner's Exhibit 1.

   The letter of release may be found as Respondent's Exhibit 1, admitted into evidence, and this letter allowed Smith to use these plans in whatever fashion he deemed appropriate.

   
   

5. In accordance with the release, Smith hired Lewis Medlin to draw site plans for the apartment complex to be constructed at 8th Avenue, South, Jacksonville Beach, Florida. Smith also intended for Medlin to review the originals of the plans which are Petitioner's Exhibit 1, as a prelude to getting the necessary approval of the various state and local agencies.

   
   

6. Medlin did in fact draw a site plan which is page one of Respondent's Exhibit 2, admitted into evidence. He also reviewed pages two through six of Respondent's Exhibit 2. The pages two through six are for the most part the same as Petitioner's Exhibit 1, admitted into evidence, to include mistakenly leaving the description of the property as being located at 10th Avenue and not 8th Avenue. The change noted in the Respondent's Exhibit 2 compared to Petitioner's Exhibit 1 was that involving the title block of the architect in certain pages of the drawing.

   
   

7. The work that Medlin did on the project was in accordance with the desires of his client, Mr. Smith, and with the permission of the former architect, Peck. The question then becomes one of whether or not the Respondent has affixed his name and seal as an architect to the plans, drawings and/or specifications of the 8th Avenue, South, Jacksonville Beach, Florida project, when said plans, drawings and/or specifications were not prepared by him or under his responsible supervising control and thereby constituted violations of Section 467.14(1)(c), Florida Statutes, and Rule 21B-5.02(5), Florida Administrative Code.

   
   

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

   
   

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

      1. Any architect's certificate of registration issued in accordance with the provisions of this chapter shall remain in full force until revoked

   for cause as provided 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:

   (c) 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.)

   
   

9. 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.

   
   

10. 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 nonprofessional and was felt to be 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.

    
    

11. 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 Mr. Peck. 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 clans.

    
    

12. The case at bar is distinguished from that in Markel, supra, because of Medlin's direct contact with his client; the involvement of a professional 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.

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

    
    

14. The undersigned has received and reviewed the Proposed Recommended Orders of the parties and 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

    
    

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

    
    

16. 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 Room 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: 77-001748

Orders for Case No: 77-001748