STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

MARY CAMPILII, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 88-0883

)

DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL ) REGULATION, BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC ) EXAMINERS, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative Hearings, by its duly designated Hearing Officer, James E. Bradwell, held a public hearing in this case on September 28, 1988 in vest Palm Beach, Florida. Thereafter, the parties requested leave to file proposed recommended orders but none were filed.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Mary Campilii, pro se

2921 Buckridge Trail

Loxahatchee, Florida 33470

For Respondent: William Leffler, Esquire

Assistant General Counsel

Department of Professional Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301

ISSUE PRESENTED

The issue presented is whether or not Petitioner passed the 1987 chiropractic examination.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Petitioner, Mary Campilii, was a candidate for the May 14-17, 1987 chiropractic examination.

   
   

2. Petitioner achieved an overall score of 72, as reflected by an upward revision to her original score of 66, on the practical section of the examination. Petitioner achieved a score of 76 on the Florida laws and rules section of the examination. A minimum score of 75 is required to pass both the practical and laws and rules sections of the examination.

   
   

3. Petitioner has challenged the method of grading utilized by the Respondent contending that it is subjective as it elates to her, and did not properly reflect her level of achievement and knowledge to the questions that

   she answered on the May 1987 examination. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that she demonstrated expert or superior knowledge in her answers to any of the questions on the May 1987 exam that she now challenges.

   
   

4. The oral practice examination for chiropractic certification is an independent, subjective grading of a candidate's responses to questions asked by two graders. The graders have all been licensed to practice chiropractic for more than five (5) years in Florida and have undergone several hours of standardization training prior to examining the candidates for license certification. One of the techniques required of graders is that they must write their comments if they give a candidate any score less than a 3, which is a passing grade. The grade range is from 1-4. A score of 3 is assigned when a candidate demonstrates minimum competency and a score of 4 is given when a candidate demonstrates superior or expert knowledge in the subject area tested.

   
   

5. Petitioner presented Thomas P. Toja, an expert in grading chiropractic examinations for the Board, who offered his opinion that had the grading system utilized by Respondent been different, i.e. a system whereby a candidate could be accorded a score somewhere between a 3 and 4, when such candidate has demonstrated more than minimum competency but less than superior or expert knowledge in the subject area tested, a candidate, such as Petitioner, could have achieved an additional 3 points to her score of 72, and thereby received a passing score of 75. Petitioner has not, however challenged validity of the existing rule which permits Respondent to utilize the grading procedures applied in this case.

   
   

6. Stephen Ordet, a licensed chiropractor in Florida for more than 7 years was received as an expert in the grading of chiropractic examinations in Florida, and was one of the graders during the May 1987 examination. Ordet's opinion, which is credited, was that Petitioner did not earn a score of 4 on any of the questions that she now challenges, and was correctly assigned a score of

   3 for each of the responses she gave to questions she challenged.

   
   

7. Thomas P. Hide, a chiropractor who specializes in the area of sports related injuries, was tendered and received as an expert in the area of reviewing x-rays and the grading of the chiropractic examination. Hide credibly testified and it is found that Petitioner was properly assigned a score of 3 on questions 8, 12, 20, 22, 28, 29, 30 and 33.

   
   

   CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

   
   

8. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter of and the parties to this action. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes.

   
   

9. The parties were duly noticed pursuant to the notice provisions of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes.

   
   

10. The authority of the Respondent is derived from Chapter 460, Florida Statutes.

    
    

11. A candidate who unsuccessfully sits for a licensure examination must demonstrate that a subjective evaluation by an expert examiner is arbitrary. Harac v. Department of Professional Regulation, 484 So.2d 1332, 1338 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1986). Herb the Respondent demonstrated that it conducts its examinations fairly, uniformly and in accordance with its rules and regulations. As such, Respondent's judgment as to the proper grading of Petitioner's examination will

not be disturbed as it has not been shown that the grading was either arbitrary or devoid of logic and reason. See, State ex rel Topp v. board of Electrical Examiners for Jacksonville Beach, 101 So.2d 583 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958). A review of all the evidence presented herein demonstrates that Petitioner failed to substantiate any basis to award her a passing grade on the chiropractic examination. Petitioner failed to demonstrate that she displayed expert or superior competency to the challenged questions where she received a score of 3 but contends she should have a score of 4. Finally, Petitioner failed to demonstrate that the actual score that she was assigned by the graders to any of the challenged questions was either arbitrary or capricious.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order finding that Petitioner

failed to demonstrate that she met the minimum criteria to pass the challenged chiropractic examination and deny her request for licensure.

DONE and ENTERED this 8th day of December, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida.

JAMES E. BRADWELL

Hearing Officer

Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building

2009 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

(904) 488-9675

Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of November, 1988.

COPIES FURNISHED:

H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750

Dr. Mary Camiplii 2921 Buckridge Trail

Loxahatchee, Florida 33470

Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750

Lawrence A. Gonzalez, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation

130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750

Docket for Case No: 88-000883

Orders for Case No: 88-000883