STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

DIANA COOK, )

)

Petitioner, )

vs. ) CASE NO. 91-6316

)

DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL )

REGULATION, BOARD OF ) ARCHITECTURE and INTERIOR DESIGN, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a final hearing in the above-styled matter was held on September 24, 1992, in Orlando, Florida, before Joyous D. Parrish, a designated Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings. The parties were represented at the hearing as follows:

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Richard G. Sunner

150 West Warren Avenue Post Office Box 520771

Longwood, Florida 32752-0771

For Respondent: Arthur R. Wiedinger, Jr.

Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Suite 1603, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES

The central issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to licensure as an interior designer.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This case began on August 22, 1991, when the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Architecture and Interior Design, issued a notice to Petitioner advising her that her application for registration to be licensed as an interior designer had been denied. The basis for the denial was Petitioner's failure to show sufficient evidence that the requirements of Section 481.203(8), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 89-19, Laws of Florida, had been met. Thereafter, the Petitioner requested a hearing and the case was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for formal proceedings on October 2, 1991.

At the hearing, the Petitioner testified in her own behalf and offered exhibits numbered 1 through 18 and 22 which have been received in evidence. The Respondent's composite exhibit 1 was admitted into evidence.

The transcript of the proceedings was filed October 16, 1992. After the hearing, the parties filed proposed recommended orders which have been considered in the preparation of this order. Specific rulings on the proposed findings of fact are included in the attached appendix.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Based upon the testimony of the witness and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made:

1. The Petitioner is an applicant for licensure as an interior designer. Petitioner timely filed for registration without examination and paid all appropriate fees.

   
   

2. The Petitioner, after being notified of the denial of her request for licensure, timely requested an administrative hearing to establish her record of experience in the field.

   
   

3. The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility of reviewing such applications for licensure.

   
   

4. The Department stipulated at hearing that the Petitioner, for the years 1987, 1988, and 1989, had appropriate experience to qualify as interior design experience. Consequently, the only issue as to Petitioner's experience related to the time frame prior to 1987. Accordingly, the Petitioner must show three additional years of appropriate experience.

   
   

5. In as early as 1979, Petitioner began work hanging wallpaper for an interior design firm in Ohio. Because of the success of that work, she started her own business, Quality Paper Hanging.

   
   

6. As an outgrowth of the paper hanging work and her experience with the interior design firm, Petitioner expanded her business to include remodeling jobs and design work. This work constitutes interior design experience.

   
   

7. In 1981, Petitioner became licensed as a home improvement contractor. According to Petitioner the contractor's license was required as she was no longer just hanging wallpaper but was designing and pulling permits for remodeling work. Petitioner used licensed electricians, plumbers and carpenters to perform the work under her supervision and direction.

   
   

8. Examples of the work Petitioner performed during this period were two funeral home remodeling jobs. Petitioner worked for a funeral home company that retained her to remodel an existing home and to convert a second location into a branch home. Both projects involved the drawings and design work required of an interior designer. These projects were completed prior to 1983 and evidence interior design experience.

   
   

9. Another project completed by Petitioner prior to 1983 was a remodeling job for the Hensil family. This project involved the redesign of a kitchen and basement area and evidences interior design experience.

   
   

10. In 1983, after an unpleasant divorce, Petitioner moved from Ohio and, unfortunately, lost her business records for the work performed prior to the move. However, Petitioner's testimony as to the type of work performed during

    the years 1981 and 1982 has been accepted, and constitutes interior design experience for that period.

    
    

11. After 1983, Petitioner held herself out as an interior designer and performed interior design work in Florida. More specifically, Petitioner designed and supervised the remodeling of a kitchen for the Nunn home, remodeled a porch and bath entry for the Morris home, and worked for Home Interiors for fourteen months. While with Home Interiors, Petitioner designed remodeling projects, consulted on new construction, and assisted a builder as was required. The work with Home Interiors to the extent that it involved redrafting plans and remodeling projects constituted interior design experience.

    
    

12. Following the work with Home Interiors, Petitioner worked for Burdines for approximately one year. While at Burdines, Petitioner did interior design work when it was available. During that time, Petitioner remodeled a kitchen for the Chafin home and worked with the Windoms on their remodeling project. These projects constituted interior design work.

    
    

13. After building a clientele and becoming familiar with the local trade people, Petitioner opened her own business, Interior Designs by Diana, in 1986. The experience with that company constitutes appropriate interior design experience.

    
    

14. In addition to the full-time work experience noted above, Petitioner has attended classes at two community colleges and has earned a 4.0 grade point for the six courses taken in design. The other course taken, college math, was also an A grade.

    
    

15. Petitioner has established that she has the requisite interior design experience to qualify for licensure.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

16. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the parties to, and the subject matter of, these proceedings.

    
    

17. In licensure proceedings, the applicant, Petitioner, bears the burden of establishing her entitlement to the registration sought.

    
    

18. Section 21, Chapter 88-383, Laws of Florida, provided a procedure for licensure without examination for any person seeking licensure as a registered interior designer. That provision was later amended by Chapter 89-19, Laws of Florida, to provide, in pertinent part:

    
    

    1. Any person who applies for licensure as a registered interior designer and remits the application and initial licensure fees by January 1, 1990, shall be licensed by the department without taking the written examination or otherwise meeting the qualifications of s. 481.209(2), Florida Statutes, provided that the applicant:

       * * *

       (b) Has used or been identified by the title "interior designer" and has at least 6 years of interior design experience.

19. In this case, the Petitioner has established that she has used or been identified by the title "interior designer" and has 6 years of design experience to become licensed.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED:

That the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Architecture and Interior Design enter a final order granting Petitioner's application for licensure as an interior designer.

DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of January, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

JOYOUS D. PARRISH

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 11th day of January, 1993.

APPENDIX TO CASE NO. 91-6316

RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER:

1. None submitted in a form sufficient to accept or reject. Petitioner's proposed order recited the conclusion of law that Petitioner had established six years of experience, prior to 1990, such that she should be qualified for licensure without examination.

   
   

   RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT:

   
   

   1. Paragraphs 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, are accepted.

   
   

2. Paragraphs 2 through 5 are accepted but are irrelevant. These paragraphs merely recite the procedural history this application apparently had.

   
   

3. With regard to paragraphs 8 and 9 which have been accepted, it should be noted that the work described was illustrative of the type of the work performed by Petitioner during the period noted. Petitioner did not testify that the work described was the only work she did during the years 1981 and 1982.

   
   

4. Paragraph 14 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence. While aspects of the work performed for Home Interiors would be more closely associated with "interior decoration," clearly other aspects of the work, such

   as assisting with drafts for remodeling, would be design experience. The percentages attributable to each type of work are not clear from this record; however, to suggest that none of the work for the fourteen month period was design experience is contrary to the evidence and a mischaracterization of Petitioner's job.

   
   

5. With regard to paragraph 15, it is accepted that Petitioner was employed at Burdines during the period noted; however, at the same time, Petitioner moonlighted design jobs such as that described in paragraph 16 in order to build a referral and clientele base so that she could later open her own business (which she did).

   
   

6. Paragraphs 18 is rejected as contrary to the weight of the evidence presented.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Arthur R. Wiedinger, Jr. Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Suite 1603--The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050

Richard G. Sunner John A. Sunner

150 West Warren Avenue

P.O. Box 520771

Longwood, Florida 32752-0771

Jack McRay, General Counsel Dept. of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street, Ste. 60

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792

Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Dept. of Professional Regulation

Board of Architecture & Interior Design 1940 N. Monroe Street, Ste. 60

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions to this Recommended Order. All agencies allow each party at least 10 days in which to submit written exceptions. Some agencies allow a larger period within which to submit written exceptions. You should contact the agency that will issue the final order in this case concerning agency rules on the deadline for filing exceptions to this Recommended Order. Any exceptions to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that will issue the final order in this case.

Docket for Case No: 91-006316

Orders for Case No: 91-006316