STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL ) REGULATION, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
vs. ) CASE NO. 88-3310
)
MARTIN GOLD, )
)
Respondent. )
)
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Pursuant to notice, a formal hearing was conducted in this case on April 11, 1989, in Miami, Florida, before Stuart M. Lerner, a duly designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings.
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner: Elizabeth Alsobrook, Esquire
Northwood Centre
1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
For Respondent: Carlos Garcia, Esquire
8603 South Dixie Highway Suite 400
Miami, Florida 33143 INTRODUCTION
On January 22, 1989, an administrative complaint was filed against Respondent, a Registered Specialty Contractor licensed by Petitioner, alleging that he committed the following violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, in connection with an undertaking of the contracting business for which he was the "qualifying agent:"
Respondent proceeded without timely obtaining all required inspections, violating local law, either deliberately or through improper supervision, in violation of 489.129(1) (d) , (m) , 489.119; 489.105(4).
Respondent exceeded the scope of his license, violating sections 489.129(j), 489.115(1) (b) , and 489.117(2), by
contracting to do this job, for which Respondent was not properly licensed. There was gross negligence and/or
incompetence in connection with said job, attributable either to Respondent personally, or to Respondent's failure to properly supervise, in violation of Section 489.129(1) (m) , (j) ; 489.119;
489.105(4); the problems being generally in relation to: Improper stucco [sic] work; failure to assure that the work was done up to building code.
The complaint requested that the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, in view of these alleged violations, enter an order "imposing appropriate disciplinary sanctions on Respondent."
In accordance with Respondent's request, the matter was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings for the assignment of a Hearing Officer to conduct a formal hearing on the allegations set forth in the administrative complaint. At said hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of five witnesses: Terry Dudley, who, along with his wife, contracted with Respondent's business enterprise to complete the construction project which is the subject of the instant controversy; William Sernaker, a general contractor Respondent hired to oversee the completion of this project; and Grant Morse, Russell Bergsma, and James Tucker, three Metropolitan Dade County building inspectors who inspected the project on various occasions. In addition to this testimony, Petitioner offered into evidence ten exhibits, all of which were received. A copy of the "local law" which Respondent allegedly violated, however, was not among these exhibits. Neither did Petitioner seek to have the Hearing Officer take official recognition of this "local law" pursuant to Section 120.61, Florida Statutes.
Respondent presented no testimony other than his own. He also offered one exhibit into evidence. This lone exhibit was admitted.
The parties were given ten days from the date of the filing of the hearing transcript with the Division of Administrative Hearings to file proposed recommended orders. The transcript was filed with the Division on May 11, 1989. Neither party timely filed a proposed recommended order or any other post- hearing pleading.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based upon the record evidence, the Hearing Officer makes the following findings of fact:
Martin Gold is now, and has been since July, 1986, licensed by Petitioner as a Registered Specialty Contractor authorized to do painting and waterproofing work in Dade County. He holds license number RX 0051718, which expires June 30, 1989. Since receiving his license he has been disciplined twice by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board.
Gold is the President of Team Leisure Corp., a construction company, and is also its "qualifying agent."
On August 14, 1986, Team Leisure Corp. entered into a written contract with Terry Dudley and his wife, Patricia, in which it agreed, for $12,000, to build a two-room, 27-foot by 13- foot addition to the Dudley home located at 15510 Leisure Drive in Dade County and to install new windows in the existing structure. According to the terms of the agreement, Team Leisure was to do "no painting."
In his capacity as President of Team Leisure Corp., Gold hired William Sernaker to directly oversee the completion of the construction work specified in the Dudley contract. At the time, Sernaker was licensed as a general contractor in Dade County. As part of his arrangement with Gold, Sernaker assumed responsibility for ensuring that all work permits and inspections necessary to complete the Dudley project were obtained.
On September 4, 1986, Sernaker obtained a building permit for the Dudley project. Thereafter, work on the project commenced. The foundation for the addition was laid and, on September 10, 1989, it passed the inspection of James Tucker, a Dade County building inspector. Fifteen days later, Tucker conducted a tie beam inspection. This phase of the project also received his formal approval.
Sernaker obtained a roofing permit on October 14, 1986. The exterior of the roof was inspected by Russell Bergsma, another Dade County building inspector, on October 21, 1986. It too passed inspection.
An electrical permit was obtained for the Dudley project on November 17, 1986, by Robins Electric, a subcontractor. When the electrical work was initially inspected by Grant Morse, another Dade County building inspector, it was rejected because there were a "few outlets missing." The record is unclear as to the results of any subsequent electrical inspections.
Morse also conducted an inspection of the framing work done on the Dudley project. He did so on or around November 21, 1986. In his view, the framing was "not to code." Accordingly, he left a "tag" at the job site on which he gave the following written explanation for his rejection of the framing work:
All window bucks must be tight with caulking, no gaps. When the stucco meets the window frame, it should be set back at approximately a 45-degree angle at a width of one quarter to provide a groove to be filled with caulking.
Continuous back bed of caulking must be maintained.
A follow-up inspection of the framing work was performed by Bergsma on December 1, 1986. In Bergsma's opinion, while some corrections had been made, deficiencies remained. He therefore issued another rejection.
A third framing inspection was conducted on December 3, 1986. Tucker was the inspector who performed this inspection. He approved the work that had been done. Prior to this inspection, Gold had paid another contractor $600 to "redo" the framing. This additional expense was not passed on to the Dudleys.
Morse attempted to conduct a final building inspection on December 22, 1989. He was unable to do so, however, because "[n]o one was home."
From the outset, Gold kept abreast of the progress that was being made on the Dudley project by communicating with Sernaker. He also visited the job site on at least a weekly basis.
Gold also heard from the Dudleys concerning the status of the project. The Dudleys closely monitored the work of Sernaker and his crew. If the work was not done to their satisfaction, they expressed their disapproval to Sernaker and, if he did not rectify the matter, they complained to Gold over the telephone. The following were among the complaints made by the Dudleys: the foundation was not level; the roof did not contain any fiberglass material; the window frames did not fit properly; the wood used for the open beam ceilings had cracks in it and was unsightly; the walls in the den were not level and had cracks in them; the linoleum on the Dudleys' screened-in porch was ripped by workers putting up a wall; the outside stucco was cracking and peeling; and trash was left on the property.
An effort was made to address the Dudleys' concerns. For instance, in response to the Dudleys' complaints, a "thin cap" was placed over the foundation to make it level. The roof was redone with fiberglass material. The Dudleys were reimbursed for the linoleum they needed to replace on their porch. A contractor was hired to correct the framing problem. Nonetheless, the Dudleys became increasingly dissatisfied with Team Leisure Corp.. Sometime shortly before January 6, 1987, they became so dissatisfied that they ordered Sernaker and his crew off their property and refused to make any additional payments.
Following this incident, Gold met with the Dudleys and attempted to mollify them. This was his first face-to-face meeting with them. He offered to send another contractor to the Dudleys' home to perform the work the Dudleys believed needed to be done to satisfactorily complete the project. The Dudleys accepted this offer.
On January 6, 1987, Gold sent the Dudleys a letter which read as follows:
As per our mutual agreement, these are the items you requested be taken care of. Once taken care of, you agree to sign completion certificate so we can be funded.
COMPLETED (please check upon satisfaction)
1.) Touch up outside windows.
2.) Windows to be locked in.
3.) Walls in den to be taken down and leveled out.
4.) Frame around closet door.
5.) Fix two windows; replace concrete in doors and windows.
6.) Clean up.
7.) Replace vinyl, in rear den.
8.) $100.00 dollars to Mrs. Dudley, for clean-up.
9.) 10 year guarantee- roof and release of lien [sic].
10.) Concrete over build.
11.) Crack under window sill.
12.) Nail in door frame.
13.) Gaps in drywall bedroom.
14.) Stucco cracking outside.
15.) Electrical inspection. (not to be Mike Charles.)
Accepted and Approved: x
x
After receiving this letter, Mr. Dudley checked all but items 2, 5, 6, 8, and 9 on the letter's "completion certificate." Neither he nor his wife, however, signed this "completion certificate." Although the cracks in the outside stucco had been repaired at the time Dudley checked item 14, the stucco subsequently started cracking again.
A final building inspection of the Dudley project was conducted by Tucker on January 13, 1989. The project was "turned down" by Inspector Tucker because it was unpainted. Under their contractual agreement, the Dudleys, not Team Leisure Corp., were responsible for the painting of the project. The painting was not done because the Dudleys noticed cracks reappearing in the outside stucco.
On or around March 4, 1987, Mr. Dudley telephoned Inspector Bergsma and asked him to conduct an informal field inspection of the project. Bergsma complied with Dudley's request. When he arrived at the Dudley home, Dudley showed him a "gap on the rear of the house ... where the two roofs are at different levels and come together." Bergsma told Dudley that "[i]t didn't belong there" and that it would have to be eliminated if the structure was to pass a final building inspection. As of the date of the hearing, the structure had not passed such an inspection.
Team Leisure Corp. received $10,200 for the work done in connection with the Dudley project. The remaining $1,800 of the $12,000 that the Dudleys were to pay pursuant to the contract was held in escrow by a bank. Ultimately, this $1,800, along with approximately an additional $500 from Team Leisure Corp., was given to the Dudleys as part of a settlement between them and Team Leisure Corp.. The money was to be used by the Dudleys to pay another contractor to complete the project to their satisfaction.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Department of Professional Regulation has been vested with the authority to issue licenses to those seeking to engage in the construction contracting business in Florida who have been deemed qualified for licensure by the Construction Industry Licensing Board and who have paid the requisite fee. Section 489.115, Fla. Stat. Licensure permits the licensee "to engage in contracting only for the type of work covered by the [license]." Section 489.115(1)(b), Fla. Stat.
A business entity, like Team Leisure Corp., may obtain such a license, but only through a "qualifying agent." The "qualifying agent" must be "legally qualified to act for the business organization in all matters connected with its contracting business and [have the] authority to supervise construction undertaken by such business organization." The license which authorizes the business entity to act as contractor in the construction industry is issued "in the name of the qualifying agent, and the name of the business organization [is] noted thereon." Section 489.119, Fla. Stat. The license which is the subject of the instant disciplinary proceeding is such a license. It is issued in the name of Respondent, who is the "qualifying agent" for Team Leisure Corp..
Once a license is issued, it may be revoked or suspended by the Construction Industry Licensing Board if an administrative complaint is filed alleging that the licensee committed any of the acts proscribed by Section 489.129(1), Florida Statutes, and it is shown that the allegations of the complaint are true. Proof greater than a mere preponderance of the evidence must be submitted. Clear and convincing evidence is required. See Ferris v. Turlington, 510 So.2d 292 (Fla. 1987); Pascale v. Department of Insurance, 525 So.2d 922 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988). "The evidence must be of such weight that it produces in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction, without hesitancy, as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established." Slomowitz v. Walker, 429 So.2d 797, 800 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Furthermore, the revocation or suspension of a license may be based only upon offenses specifically alleged in the administrative complaint. See Hunter v. Department of Professional Regulation, 458 So.2d 842, 844 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1984).
At the time the administrative complaint in the instant case was filed and at all material times prior thereto, Section 489.129, Florida Statutes, provided in pertinent part as follows:
The board may revoke, suspend, ... the certificate or registration of a contractor and impose an administrative fine not to exceed $5,000, place a contractor on probation, or reprimand or censure a contractor if the contractor, or if the business entity or any general partner, officer or director, trustee, or member of a business entity for which the contractor is a qualifying agent, is found guilty of any of the following acts:
* * *
(d) Will full or deliberate disregard and violation of the applicable building codes or laws of the state or of any municipalities or counties thereof.
* * *
(j) Failure in any material respect to comply with the provisions of this act.
* * *
(m) Upon proof that the licensee is guilty of fraud or deceit or of gross negligence, incompetency, or misconduct in the practice of contracting.
If a contractor disciplined under subsection (1) is a qualifying agent for a business entity and the violation was performed in connection with a construction project undertaken by that business entity the board may impose an additional administrative fine not to exceed $5,000 against the business
entity or against any partner, officer, director, trustee, or member if such person participated in the violation or knew or should have known of the violation and failed to take reasonable
corrective action.
The board may specify by rule the acts or omissions which constitute violations of this section.
Effective October 1, 1988, Section 489.129, Florida Statutes, was amended to give the Construction Industry Licensing Board the additional authority to require an errant contractor to make "financial restitution to a[n aggrieved) consumer" and to take "continuing education" courses. Because the amendment imposes new penalties and it took effect after the acts of alleged professional misconduct were committed by Respondent, it has no application to the instant case. See Larson v. Independent Life and Accident Insurance Co. 29 So.2d 448 (Fla. 1947); Anderson v. Anderson, 468 So.2d 528, 530 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), cert.
denied, 476 So.2d 672 (Fla. 1985).
A "qualifying agent" has the statutory responsibility "to supervise, direct, manage, and control the contracting activities of the business entity with which [he] is connected." Section 489.105(4), Fla. Stat. He retains this responsibility even in those instances where he hires another contractor, as did Respondent in the instant case, to oversee a construction project of the business entity he has qualified. Under such circumstances, he nonetheless may be subjected to disciplinary action pursuant to the foregoing provisions of Section 489.129, Florida Statutes, for acts or omissions constituting a breach of his duty to supervise. See Alles v. Department of Professional Regulation, 423 So.2d 624 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).
The administrative complaint lodged against Respondent charges him with various violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, relating to the construction of an addition to the home of Mr. and Mrs. Dudley. This was a project undertaken by Team Leisure Corp., the business entity for which Respondent is the "qualifying agent." Among the allegations set forth in the complaint is that "Respondent proceeded without timely obtaining all required inspections, violating local law, either deliberately or through improper supervision, in violation of 489.129(1) (d) , (m) , (j) ; 489.119; 489.105(4)." The Department of Professional Regulation, however, failed to present at hearing any persuasive competent substantial evidence of the contents of the applicable "local law" Respondent allegedly violated insofar as it may have imposed time requirements for obtaining inspections. Neither did the Department request that official recognition be taken of the "local law" in question. See Holmes v. State, 273 So.2d 753, 755 (Fla. 1972) (trial court, in its discretion, may "take judicial cognizance of those ordinances which it is charged with enforcing if convenience and expediency so suggest"); Section 90.202, Fla. Stat. (trial court is authorized to take judicial notice of "[d]uly enacted ordinances of municipalities and counties located in Florida, provided such ordinances and resolutions are available in printed copies or as certified copies"). Inasmuch as the record lacks an adequate indication as to precisely when inspections had to be obtained under the "local law" referenced in the administrative complaint, the Construction Industry Licensing Board should dismiss the allegation that Respondent failed to obtain inspections in accordance with the time requirements prescribed by this "local law."
The administrative complaint further alleges that "[t]here was gross negligence and/or incompetence in connection with said job, attributable either to Respondent personally, or to Respondent's failure to properly supervise, in violation of Section 489.129(1) (m) , (j) ; 489.119; 489.105(4); the problems being generally in relation to: Improper st[u]cco work; failure to assure that the work was done up to building code." To establish the "gross negligence
and/or incompetence" of a contractor, the Department must show that there has been a substantial departure from the standard of care that a reasonably prudent contractor would exercise under like circumstances. See Concrete Construction Inc., of Lake Worth v. Petterson, 216 So.2d 221, 222 (Fla. 1968) ("simple negligence .. is [the] failure to exercise reasonable care and prudence," whereas "[g]ross negligence simply defined is [the] failure to use [even] slight care"); Purvis v. Department of Professional Regulation, 461 So.2d 134, 136 (Fla 1st DCA 1984) (terms "negligence" and "incompetency" used in statute setting forth grounds for discipline against licensed veterinarians defined as "meaning a failure to comply with the minimum standard of care or treatment required of a veterinarian under the circumstances"). More than isolated instances of inattention to detail or inadvertence amounting to mere negligence must be shown by the Department. See Everett v. Gillepsie, 63 So.2d 903 (Fla. 1953).
In support of its charge against Respondent of "gross negligence and/or incompetence," the Department presented proof that the stucco on the outside of the addition to the Dudley home developed cracks and that during certain phases of the project, in the opinion of the building inspectors who examined the premises, the structure did not comply with the applicable building code. In short, it simply established that there were imperfections in the structure that may have been the result of negligence on the part of someone connected with its construction. See Cadillac Fairview of Florida, Inc. v. Cespedes, 468 So.2d 417, 421 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985) (showing of violations of the South Florida Building Code is evidence of negligence, but it is insufficient, standing alone, to support a finding of liability against the developer). The Department failed to demonstrate, however, that these imperfections were attributable to, or reflected, a substantial breach by Respondent of the standard of care a "qualifying agent" must exercise in supervising a construction project such as the one undertaken by Team Leisure Corp. in the instant case. Indeed, the record is devoid of any persuasive competent substantial evidence as to what is the standard of care against which Respondent's supervisory activities are to be measured. Absent such evidence, the charge that Respondent displayed "gross negligence and/or incompetence," within the meaning of Section 489.129, Florida Statutes, should be dismissed, inasmuch as Respondent's involvement in the Dudley project was limited to the exercise of supervisory authority. See Purvis v. Department of Professional Regulation, 461 So.2d at 136.
The remaining allegation against Respondent is that he "exceeded the scope of his license, violating sections 489.129(j), 489.115(1)(b), and 489.117(2), by contracting to do [the Dudley project], for which Respondent was not properly licensed." The statutory provisions cited in this portion of the administrative complaint, when read together and in conjunction with the provisions relating to "qualifying agents," permit the Construction Industry Licensing Board to take disciplinary action against a license held in the name of a "qualifying agent" if the business entity he has qualified contracts to do work not authorized by the license. The license which is the subject of the instant case is a "specialty contractor" license. It allows Team Leisure Corp. and Respondent, its "qualifying agent," to engage in the contracting business only to the extent that they undertake painting and waterproofing projects. The addition to the Dudley home which Team Leisure Corp. contracted with the Dudleys to construct was not such an authorized project. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes, there is cause to take disciplinary action against Respondent in his capacity as Team Leisure Corp.'s licensed "qualifying agent." See Alles v. Department of Professional Regulation, 423 So.2d at 627.
In determining what disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent, it is necessary to consult Chapter 21E-17, Florida Admininstrative Code, which contains the Construction Industry Licensing Board's disciplinary guidelines. Cf. Williams v. Department of Transportation, 531 So.2d 994, 996 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (agency is required to comply with its disciplinary guidelines in taking disciplinary action against its employees).
Florida Administrative Code Rule 21E-17.001 provides in pertinent part:
Normal Penalty Ranges. The following guidelines shall be used in disciplinary cases, absent aggravating or mitigating circumstances and subject to the other provisions of this Chapter.
* * *
(3) 489.117, 489.113: Contracting beyond scope of license, no safety hazard. First violation, letter of guidance; repeat violation, $250 to
$750 fine.
(4) 489.117, 489.113: Contracting beyond scope of license, safety hazard is created. First violation, $250 to
$750 fine; repeat violation, $500 to
$1500 fine and six months'suspension.
Because there is no evidence that Respondent's violation created a "safety hazard," subsection (3), rather than (4), of Rule 21E- 17.001 applies in the instant case.
Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 21E- 17.007, the Construction Industry licensing Board, in addition to imposing the foregoing penalties, may also place the licensee on probation if it determines that such action is required "to assure that the licensee operates properly and within the law in the future."
"Repeat violation," as used in this rule chapter, is described in Florida Administrative Code Rule 21E-17.003 as follows:
As used in this rule, a repeat violation is any violation on which disciplinary action is being taken where the same licensee had previously had disciplinary action taken against him or received a letter of guidance in a prior case; and said definition is to apply regardless of the chronological relationship of the acts underlying the various disciplinary actions, and (ii) regardless of whether the violations in the present or prior disciplinary actions are of the same or different subsections of the disciplinary statutes.
The penalty given in the above list for repeat violations is intended to
apply only to situations where the repeat violation is of a different subsection of Chapter 489 than the first violation. Where, on the other hand, the repeat violation is the very same type of violation as the first violation, the penalty set out above will generally be increased over what is otherwise shown for repeat violations on the above list.
Respondent has been disciplined on two prior occasions. The nature of the offenses which led to these prior disciplinary actions is not apparent from a review of the record. Accordingly, absent any aggravating or mitigating circumstances or evidence that the public interest requires that Respondent be placed on probation, the appropriate penalty in this case would be an administrative fine in an amount ranging from $250 to $750
The aggravating and mitigating circumstances which are to be considered before a particular penalty is chosen are listed in Florida Administrative Code Rule 21E-17.002. They are as follows:
Monetary or other damage to the licensee's customer, in any way associated with the violation, which damage the licensee has not relieved, as of the time the penalty is to be assessed. (This provision shall not be given effect to the extent it would contravene federal bankruptcy law.)
Actual job-site violations of building codes, or conditions exhibiting gross negligence, incompetence, or misconduct by the licensee, which have not been corrected as of the time the penalty is being assessed.
The severity of the offense.
The danger to the public.
The number of repetitions of offenses.
The number of complaints filed against the licensee.
The length of time the licensee has practiced.
The actual damage, physical or otherwise, to the licensee's customer.
The deterrent effect of the penalty imposed.
The effect of the penalty upon the licensee's livelihood.
Any efforts at rehabilitation.
Any other mitigating or aggravating circumstances.
Having considered the facts of the instant case in light of the provisions of Chapter 21E-17, Florida Administrative Code, it is the view of the
Hearing Officer that the appropriate penalty in the instant case is a $750 administrative fine.
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby
RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order (1) finding Respondent guilty of contracting outside the scope of his license in violation of Section 489.129(1) (j) , Florida Statutes; (2) imposing a $750 administrative fine upon Respondent for said violation, and (3) dismissing the remaining charges against Respondent set forth in the instant administrative complaint.
DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 30th day of May, 1989.
STUART M. LERNER
Hearing Officer
Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building
1230 Apalachee Parkway
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550
(904) 488-9675
Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of May, 1989.
COPIES FURNISHED:
Elizabeth Alsobrook, Esquire Northwood Centre
1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60
Tallahassee, Florida 323399-0792
Fred Seely Executive Director
Construction Industry Licensing Board
Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
Carlos Garcia, Esquire 8603 Dixie Highway
Suite 400
Miami, Florida 33143
=================================================================
AGENCY FINAL ORDER
=================================================================
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD
DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION,
Petitioner,
vs CASE NO.: 84871
DOAH CASE NO.: 88-3310
MARTIN GOLD,
LICENSE NUMBER: RX 0051718,
Respondent.
/
FINAL ORDER
THIS MATTER came before the Construction Industry Licensing Board pursuant to Section 120.57(1)(b)(9), Florida Statutes, on July 14, 1989, in Fort Lauderdale, for consideration of the Recommended Order (a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference) issued by the hearing officer in the above styled case. The Petitioner was represented by Ray Shope. The Respondent appeared pro se at the proceedings.
Upon consideration of the hearing officer's Recommended Order, including the exceptions filed, and the arguments of the parties and after a review of the complete record in this matter, the Board makes the following findings:
FINDINGS OF FACT
The hearing officer's findings of fact are hereby approved and adopted.
There is competent, substantial evidence to support the hearing officer's findings of fact.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Board has jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to the provisions of Section 120.57(1), and Chapter 489, Florida Statutes.
The Conclusions of Law of the Hearing Officer are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference except where said conclusions are in contradiction to the Conclusions of Law presented in the Petitioner's Exceptions to Hearing Officer's Recommended Order which are hereby approved and adopted and fully incorporated by reference.
The Respondent is guilty of failing to obtain required inspections and Respondent was grossly negligent and incompetent in the practice of contracting.
The recommended penalty of the Hearing Officer is rejected; the two previous disciplinary actions constitute aggravating evidence requiring an increase in penalty from that recommendation.
There is competent substantial evidence to support the Board's findings and conclusions.
WHEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
Respondent's licensure to practice contracting is hereby REVOKED.
Respondent shall pay to the Construction Industry Licensing Board an administrative fine in the amount of two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500.00) within thirty (30) days.
Pursuant to Section 120.59, Florida Statutes, the Parties are hereby notified that they may appeal this Order by filing one copy of a Notice of Appeal with the Clerk of the Department of professional Regulation, Northwood Centre, 1940 N. Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32301, and by filing the filing fee and one copy of the Notice of Appeal with the District Court of Appeal within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this Order.
This Order shall become effective upon filing with the Clerk of the Department of Professional Regulation.
DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of August, 1989.
MICHAEL BLANKENSHIP, CHAIRMAN
Construction Industry Licensing Board
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Final Order has been provided by U.S. Mail to
MARTIN Gold Carlos Garcia
99 N.W. 166 St. 8603 S. Dixie Highway North Miami, Florida 33169 Suite 400
Miami, Florida 33143
and by hand delivery/United States Mail to the Board Clerk, Department of Professional Regulation and its Counsel, Northwood Centre, 1940 North Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792, on or before 5:00 p.m., this 15 day of AUGUST 1989.
F I L E D
Department of Professional Regulation Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board
BOARD CLERK
CLERK DATE May 23, 1989
| Issue Date | Proceedings |
|---|---|
| May 30, 1989 | Recommended Order (hearing held , 2013). CASE CLOSED. |
| Issue Date | Document | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Aug. 10, 1989 | Agency Final Order | |
| May 30, 1989 | Recommended Order | Licensed specialty contractor authorized to do painting & waterproofing projects guilty of exceeding scope of license, not other charged violations. |
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD vs. STEPHEN J. BOROVINA, 88-003310 (1988)
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD vs MARVIN M. KAY, 88-003310 (1988)
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD vs. DAVID H. HAMILTON, 88-003310 (1988)
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD vs. BENJAMIN J. EIGNER, 88-003310 (1988)
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD vs. VICTOR S. DAVIS, 88-003310 (1988)
