STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

CLAUDIO RICARDO RAMOS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO.: 82-2893

)

DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL )

REGULATION, (Board of ) )

Architecture), )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice the Division of Administrative Hearings by its designated Hearing Officer, Michael Pearce Dodson, held the final hearing in this case on March 8, 1983, in Miami, Florida. The following appearances were entered:

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Claudio Ricardo Ramos, pro se

140 Northwest 87th Avenue Apartment G-222

Miami, Florida 33172

For Respondent: John J. Rimes III, Esquire

Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Room LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32301

BACKGROUND

These proceedings began on October 15, 1982 when Petitioner filed a letter dated October 9, 1982 requesting an appeal of his failing grade on the Architecture Examination, Part A, given in June 1982. On October 26, 1982 the case was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the assignment of a Hearing Officer and the scheduling of a final hearing. At that hearing Petitioner presented his own testimony and offered Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 which was received into evidence. Respondent presented the testimony of one witness. Joint Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 were offered and received into evidence. At the conclusion of the hearing the parties were informed of their right to file proposed findings of fact and a proposed Recommended Order. Petitioner waived his opportunity, but Respondent filed a proposed Recommended Order containing findings of fact. To the extent that those proposed findings are not reflected in this Order, they are rejected as being either not supported by the weight of admissible evidence or as being irrelevant to the issues determined here.

Sonny's Italian Restaurant v. Department of Business Regulation, 414 So.2d 1156, 1157 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner Claudio Ricardo Ramos was a candidate on the 1982 Architecture Design and the Site Planning Examination administered on June 14- 16, 1982 by the Department of Professional Regulation. He is a graduate of the University of Miami with a Bachelor of Architecture Degree and is presently employed by an architecture firm in Miami, Florida.

   
   

2. On September 10, 1982 Petitioner was informed by the Department that he had received a failing grade on Part A of the examination. After a review of his examination he requested a formal hearing to contest his failing grade.

   That request initiated these proceedings.

   
   

3. The professional architecture examination consists of two parts, Part A and Part B. Part A is known as the site planning and design portion of the exam. It requires a candidate to draw a solution to a problem involving (a) site plans, (b) floor plans, (c) building sections, (d) two significant building elevations, (e) diagrams of structural systems, (f) diagrams of environmental control systems, and (g) a typical wall section.

   
   

4. Part A is blind-graded by at least two examiners designated and approved by the Department. Each examiner judges the individual applicant's entire work product pursuant to evaluation criteria set out in Section 21B- 14.03(1), Florida Administrative Code. Grades ranging from 1 through 4, depending on the quality of the work, are awarded by each examiner. An applicant must have a minimum average of 3 in order to pass Part A of the examination.

   
   

5. On the June 1982 examination, all candidates were required to design a small municipal airport terminal building in a midwestern location. The problem required a site plan, ground level plan-north elevation, second level plan, and a cross-section of the facility. While Petitioner demonstrated on his examination that an effort had been made to comply with the instructions set out in the examination and preexamination booklet, he failed in several significant areas to design a structure consistent with the program's requirements. His design for the terminal failed to fit the criteria for floor areas, entrance- exist requirements, circulation pattern through enplaning and deplaning and to comply with the required structural and mechanical details. These deficiencies in Petitioner's design cannot be explained as merely a difference in professional judgment. They are fundamental mistakes which in some respects make his design functionally unsound. It is apparent from Petitioner's design that he spent a considerable portion of his allotted time on the ground level of the airport terminal design and then was without adequate time to prepare the second level plan and integrate that plan with the ground level.

   
   

6. Petitioner has failed to present evidence showing that the failing grade he received was given in a capricious or arbitrary manner. Petitioner's grade was well within the range of reasonable professional judgment on what is an unsuccessful performance of the Part A examination.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

7. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this case. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes (1981). These proceedings were brought pursuant to Section 455.217(2), Florida Statutes (1981) as implemented by Sections 21-11.11 and 21-11.12,

   Florida Administrative Code, which provides for a review of examinations administered by the Department of Professional Regulation.

   
   

8. When an applicant challenges the grade he received on a professional licensing examination he must show by a preponderance of the evidence that the grade was arbitrarily or capriciously given by the examining board. State ex rel. Glasser v. Pepper, 155 So.2d 383, 384 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963). No proof was presented of capriciousness or arbitrariness by Respondent in awarding the failing grade to Mr. Ramos. At best the proof here shows only that Petitioner, as the graduate of an architecture school, disagrees with the professional judgment exercised by the examiners. The evidence does show that the grade awarded Mr. Ramos was well within the range of reasonable professional judgment.

   
   

9. Petitioner has made no showing here of an entitlement to a new grade or passing score on Part A of the June 1982 architecture examination. In re Altchiler, 4 FALR 724-A (Florida Board of Dentistry, Final Order, January 16, 1982); Parimal Chokhawala v. Department of Professional Regulation, 5 FALR 98-A (Florida Board of Dentistry, Final Order, November 8, 1982); Mancino v. Board of Architecture, Case No. 83-141 (Florida Division of Administrative Hearings, Recommended Order, March 7, 1983).

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED:

That the Board of Architecture enter a Final Order denying the application of Claudio Ricardo Ramos for licensure as an architect on the grounds that he failed to successfully pass Part A of the architecture examination.

DONE and RECOMMENDED this 7th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida.

MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of April, 1983.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Claudio Ricardo Ramos

140 Northwest 87th Avenue Apartment G-222

Miami, Florida 33172

John J. Rimes III, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Room LL04 Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Herbert Coons, Jr., Executive Director Florida Board of Architecture

Old Courthouse Square Building

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Fred Roche, Secretary

Department of Professional Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Docket for Case No: 82-002893

Orders for Case No: 82-002893