STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

GEORGE R. BRIGGS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) CASE NO. 93-0139

)

BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL )

ENGINEERS, )

)

Respondent. )

)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, final hearing in the above-styled case was held in Naples, Florida, on April 5, 1993, before Robert E. Meale, Hearing Officer of the Division of Administrative Hearings.

APPEARANCES

The parties were represented at the hearing as follows: For Petitioner: George R. Briggs, pro se

26171 Hickory Boulevard Unit 9C

Bonita Springs, Florida 33923

For Respondent: Edwin A. Bayo

Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to licensure as a professional engineer by endorsement.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

By application executed July 1, 1992, Petitioner requested licensure as a professional engineer by endorsement.

By letter dated October 19, 1992, Respondent informed Petitioner that his application for licensure by endorsement was denied. The letter explains that Petitioner lacked the necessary 30 years of continuous engineering experience.

By Election of Rights executed October 27, 1992, Petitioner demanded a hearing.

At the hearing, each side called one witness. Petitioner offered into evidence five exhibits, and Respondent offered into evidence one exhibit. All exhibits were admitted except Petitioner's Exhibit 3.

The transcript was filed April 26, 1993. Neither party filed a proposed recommended order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. By Application executed July 1, 1992, Petitioner requested licensure as a professional engineer by endorsement. The application showed that Petitioner has been licensed or registered as a professional engineer for 25 years, so this is not an issue.

   
   

2. The sole issue in the case is whether Petitioner has 30 years' continuous professional experience as a professional engineer.

   
   

3. The application shows continues employment from June, 1960, through "present." In fact, the last job listed on the application ended on December 31, 1992.

   
   

4. Respondent has already given Petitioner full credit for continuous professional experience from June, 1960, through April, 1962; and January, 1965, through February, 1987. The periods for which Petitioner received 50% credit are April, 1962, through January, 1965; and October, 1988, through December, 1992. For one period, Petitioner received no credit: March, 1987, through October, 1988.

   
   

5. The time for which the Board has already given Petitioner credit totals

   329 months. Petitioner requires credit for another 31 months in order to qualify for licensure by endorsement as a professional engineer.

   
   

6. Petitioner received half credit for his work from May, 1989, through December, 1992, for SuperAmerica. He received half credit because his application disclosed that he merely supervised construction of convenience stores during these 44 months.

   
   

7. However, only 40% of Petitioner's time was spent supervising construction. The remaining 60% was spent doing design and design coordination. This latter work is entitled to full credit because it involved relatively complex engineering work in connection with the design and layout of underground fuel storage tanks, monitoring systems, and recovery systems.

   
   

8. By dividing Petitioner's work during the above-described 44-month period between the construction-supervision work and the design work, Petitioner worked 17.5 months on construction supervision and 26.5 months on design. Reducing the construction-supervision work by half, Petitioner is entitled to a total of 35.25 months of credit for the SuperAmerica work. Rounded down to 35 months, this gives Petitioner an additional 13 months than what the Board gave him, for a new total of 342 months.

   
   

9. The remaining two periods for which Petitioner received only half credit involve 41 months when he taught civil engineering from April, 1962, through January, 1965, and October, 1988, through May, 1989. He received half credit because the nature of the material taught did not warrant full credit.

10. However, during these periods, Petitioner spent about half of his time doing outside consulting work on various engineering jobs. The nature of the work was of a complexity comparable to that typically performed by a professional engineer in the course of his or her employment.

    
    

11. The credit should be adjusted for the above-described 41-month period. Half of this time was spent on teaching, for which half credit is appropriate; thus, Petitioner earns 10.25 months for this work. The other half is entitled to full credit, so Petitioner earns 20.5 months for this work. The resulting total of 30.75 months, which is rounded off to 31 months, is 11 months more than the credit given him by the Board. The extra 11 months give Petitioner 353 months.

    
    

12. Petitioner did not contend at the hearing that he was entitled to any credit for the period from October, 1988, through May, 1989. During this time, he was employed as a real estate broker and appraiser.

    
    

13. Based on the foregoing, Petitioner lacks the requisite 360 months of professional experience. Even if the recommended adjustments had resulted in a recalculation of 360 months, there has been a clear break in professional employment from March, 1987, through October, 1988, during which time Petitioner's employment as a real estate broker and appraiser had nothing to do with professional engineering.

    
    

    CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

    
    

14. The Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties. Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. (All references to Sections are to Florida Statutes.)

    
    

15. Petitioner must prove entitlement to licensure by a preponderance of the evidence. Department of Transportation v. J. W. C. Company, Inc., 396 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).

    
    

16. Section 471.015(5)(b) provides that an applicant may obtain licensure as a professional engineer without taking an examination if certain requirements are met. Section 471.015(5)(b)2 requires "30 years of continuous professional- level engineering experience."

    
    

17. Petitioner has failed to show that he meets the statutory requirement of 30 years' continuous professional-level engineering experience. Given the break attributable to real estate work, it is clear that Petitioner fails to meet this requirement for licensure by endorsement.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is hereby

RECOMMENDED that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement.

ENTERED on May 7, 1993, in Tallahassee, Florida.

ROBERT E. MEALE

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 on May 7, 1993.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Edwin A. Bayo

Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050

George G. Briggs 26171 Hickory Blvd.

Bonita Springs, FL 33923

Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street

Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792

Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street 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.

================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER

=================================================================

STATE OF FLORIDA

DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS

GEORGE R. BRIGGS,

Petitioner,

vs. DOAH CASE NO. 93-0139

BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS,

Respondent.

/

FINAL ORDER

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard before the Board of Professional Engineers at a regularly-scheduled meeting held in Key West, Florida on June 9, 1993, for consideration of the Recommended Order entered in this cause by Robert E. Meale, Hearing Officer, dated May 7, 1993.

Appearance for Petitioner: Edwin A. Bayo

Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs PL-01, The Capitol

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Appearance for Respondent: No appearance.

The Board, having reviewed the complete record in the above-styled cause, including the transcript and exhibits, hereby makes the following rulings on the Exceptions filed by the parties.

1. The Board ACCEPTS Petitioner's exception to Finding of Fact Number 12. The Board finds that Petitioner, at pp. 35 and 36 of the transcript, testified that during the period he was employed as a real estate broker and appraiser, he was also engaged in the practice of engineering for approximately 20 hours per week. The Board therefore rejects Finding of Fact Number 12.

   
   

2. The Board REJECTS Findings of Fact Numbers 7 and 8. The maximum allowable experience credit for construction supervision is 50 percent of actual time. The Board finds that if Petitioner was working on engineering design, he had to have been working under a Florida licensed professional engineer's responsible charge in order to do so legally. Petitioner has not submitted any employment verification from a Florida licensed professional engineer to verify that experience; therefore, there is no competent substantial evidence to sustain a finding that the experience credit for the time period should be in excess of 50 percent.

With these modifications, the Board ACCEPTS the remaining Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Recommendation contained in the Recommended Order, and said Recommended Order, as modified, is hereby declared to be the Final Order of the Board of Professional Engineers.

The Parties are notified, pursuant to Section 120.68, Florida Statutes, that they may appeal this Final Order by filing, within thirty days of the filing date of this Order, a notice of appeal, accompanied by filing fees prescribed by law, with the District Court of Appeal.

DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of June, 1993, by the Florida State Board of Professional Engineers.

CHARLES E. LANGBEIN CHAIRMAN

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by U.S. Mail to George R. Briggs, 26171 Hickory Boulevard, Unit 9-C. Bonita Springs, Florida 33923, this 29th day of June, 1993.

Docket for Case No: 93-000139

Orders for Case No: 93-000139