ou et STATE OF FLORIDA >, é Z A DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATOY & yp i) ie DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND pion 7 PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Petitioner, 6 7 . Uf ( BIPUL os Vs. ; CASE NO.: * 2006-066090 2007-013072 | OSCAR 8S. BENITEZ, Respondent. J ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT Petitioner, DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND. PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, ("Petitioner"), files this Administrative Complaint before the Board of Architecture and Interior Design against OSCAR 8S. BENITEZ, ("Respondent"), and says: . 1. Petitioner is the state-agency charged with regulating the practice of architecture pursuant to Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 455 and 4g 1, Florida Statutes. 2. Respondent, is and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed architect in the State of Florida, having been issued license number AR 91512. . 3. Respondent’s address of record is 9400 West Flagler Street, #405, Miami, Florida 33174. 4, On or about August 5, 2005, Jorge Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”) entered into a contract with Karen and Malcom Miller (“Miller”) to perform architectural services for a residential project located 15301 SW 102" Court, Miami, Florida. 5. Rodriguez prepared the drawings for the Miller project. 6. At all times material hereto, Rodriguez was not duly registered or certified to engage in the practice of architecture pursuant to Chapter 481, Florida Statutes, . 7. ‘Respondent signed and sealed the plans prepared by Rodriguez for Miller for permitting. 8. The aforementioned plans and drawings for the Miller project were prepared _ outside of Respondent's office. 9. Respondent failed to maintain as evidence of his efforts on the Miller project : written calculations, correspondence, time records, check prints, telephone logs, site visit logs or research done for the project. 10. Respondent failed to maintain written documentation on the Miller project that he has personally supervised the preparation of all documents and instruments of service, reviewed all project data, personally inspected the project site and entered into a written agreement with the persons preparing the documents accepting professional responsibility for such work. 1 1. The Respondent was not present when the plans were delivered to Miller. 12. Respondent did not supervise the preparation of the aforementioned plans and drawings for the Miller project. 13. The Respondent functioned as essentially a “plan stamper” for Rodriguez’s plans _ on the Miller project since Rodriguez is not licensed to practice architecture in the State of Florida. ee 14. The Respondent has adopted the aforementioned plans for the Miller project as his own work and thereby accepted professional responsibility for the aforementioned plans. 15. In preparation of the plans and drawings for the Miller project, Respondent was negligent in that he failed to exercise due care to conform acceptable standards of architectural practice in such a manner as to be detrimental to the public. 16. The plans and drawings for the Miller project were not of sufficiently high standard to clearly and accurately indicate or illustrate all essential parts of the work to which they refer. ) 17, The plans signed and sealed by the Respondent were never approved by the Building Department for permit and Miller has $2,700 in design fees and $169.10 for the cancelled permit processing fee. . 18. On or about March 3, 2004, Rodriguez entered into a contract with Javier Pino (“Pino”) to perform architectural services for a residential project located 5060 SW 154" Place, Miami, Florida. 19. Rodriguez prepared the drawings for the Pino proj ect, 20. At all times ‘material hereto, Rodriguez was not duly registered or certified to engage in the practice of architecture pursuant to Chapter 481, Florida Statutes. 21. Respondent sigried and sealed the ‘plans prepared by Rodriguez for Pino for permitting. 22. The aforementioned plans and drawings for the Pino project were prepared outside of Respondent’s office. . 23. Respondent failed to maintain as evidence of his efforts on the Pino project: written calculations, correspondence, time records, check prints, telephone logs, site visit logs or research done for the project. 24. Respondent failed to maintain written documentation on the Pino project that he has personally supervised the preparation of all documents and instruments of service, reviewed all project data, personally inspected the project site and entered into a written agreement with the persons preparing the documents accepting professional responsibility for such work. 25.. The Respondent was not present when the plans were delivered to Pino. 26. Respondent did not supervise the preparation of the aforementioned plans and drawings for the Pino project. 27, The Respondent functioned as essentially a “plan stamper” for Rodriguez’s plans on the Pino project since Rodriguez is not licensed to practice architecture in the State of Florida. 28. The Respondent has adopted the aforementioned plans for the Pino project as his own work and thereby accepted professional responsibility for the aforementioned plans: 29. ‘Jn preparation of the plans and drawings for the Pino project, Respondent was negligent in that he - failed to exercise due care to conform acceptable standards of architectural practice in such a manner as to be detrimental to the public. 30. The plans and drawings for the Pino project were not of sufficiently high standard to clearly and accurately indicate or illustrate all essential perts of the work to which they refer. 31. The plans signed and sealed by the Respondent were never approved by the Building Department for permit and Pino was required to hire another architect to coimplete the project. . COUNTI 32, Petitioner hereby realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through thirty one (31) as if fully set forth herein. 33. Section 481.221(4), Florida Statutes, states in pertinent part that no registered - architect shall affix her or his signature or seal to any final construction document or instrument of service which includes drawings, plans, specifications, or architectural documents which were not prepared by her or him or under her or his responsible supervising control or by another registered architect and reviewed, approved, or modified and adopted by her or him as her or his own work according to rules adopted by the board. 34, Rule 6 1G1-23.015(1), Administrative Code, require the architect to prepare and maintain as evidence of the architect’s, efforts: written calculations, correspondence, time records, check prints, telephone logs, site visit logs or research done for the project and shall provide such evidence to state or local authorities upon their request. , 35. Rule 61G1-23.015(2), Administrative Code, requires the architect to maintain written documentation that the architect has personally supervised the preparation of all documents and instruments of service, reviewed all project data, personally inspected the project site and entered into a written agreement with the persons preparing the documents accepting professional responsibility for such work. 36. Rule 61G1-23.015(3), Administrative Code, requires the architect to be present whenever such final work is submitted to a client, in order to respond to questions and maintain written minutes of such a submission meeting. 37. Based upon the foregoing, Respondent has violated Section 481.221(4), Florida Statutes, and Rule 61G1-23.015, Administrative Code, by improperly certifying work prepared by another for the Miller project. COUNT I 38. Petitioner hereby realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through thirty one (31) as if fully set forth herein. 39. Section 481.225(1)(i), Florida Statutes, states in pertinent part that no registered architect shall aid, assist, procure, or advise any unlicensed person to practice architecture contrary to this part or to a rule of the department or the board. 40. Based upon the foregoing, Respondent has violated Section 481.225(1)(), Florida . Statutes, by assisting Rodriguez in his performance of unlicensed activity on the Miller project contrary to Chapter 481, Florida Statutes, | . COUNT I 41. Petitioner hereby realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through thirty one (31) as if fully set forth herein, 42. Section 481.225(1)(g), Florida Statutes, states in pertinent part that committing any act of fraud, deceit, negligence, in competency, or misconduct in the practice of architecture constitutes grounds for disciplinary action. | 43. Based upon the foregoing, Respondent has violated Section 481.225(1)(g), Florida Statutes by signing and sealing plans for the Miller project that do not conform to - acceptable standards of architectural practice. COUNT IV 44. Petitioner hereby realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through thirty one (31) as if fully set forth herein. . 45. Section 481.221(6), Florida Statutes, states final construction documents or instruments of service which include plans, drawings, specifications, or other architectural documents prepared by a registered architect as part of her or his architectural practice shall be of a sufficiently high standard to clearly and accurately indicate or illustrate all essential parts of the work to which they refer. , 46. Based upon the foregoing, Respondent has violated Section 481.221(6), Florida Statutes by signing and sealing plans for the Miller project that are not sufficiently detailed. | COUNT V 47. Petitioner hereby realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through thirty one Q by as if fully set forth herein. 48. ° Section 481. 221(4), Florida Statutes, states in pertinent part that no registered ~ architect shall affix her or his signature or seal to any final construction document or instrument of service which includes drawings, plans, specifications, or architectural documents which were not prepared by her or him or under her or his responsible supervising control or by another registered architect and reviewed, approved, or modified and adopted by her or him as her or his own work according to rules adopted by the board. 49. . Rule 61G1-23.015( 1), Administrative Code, require the architect to prepare and maintain as evidence of the architect’s efforts: written calculations, correspondence, time records, check prints, telephone logs, site visit logs or research done for the project and shall provide such evidence to state or local authorities upon their request. 50. Rule 61G1-23.015(2), Administrative Code, requires the architect to maintain written documentation that the architect has personally supervised the preparation of all documents and instruments of service, reviewed all project data, personally inspected the project site and entered into a written agreement with the persons preparing the documents accepting ~ professional responsibility for such work. Sl. Rule 61G1-23.015(3), Administrative Code, requires the architect to be present whenever such final work is submitted to a client, in order to respond to questions and maintain written minutes of such a submission meeting. 52. Based upon the foregoing, Respondent has violated Section 481.221(4), Florida Statutes, and Rule 61G1-23.015, Administrative Code, by improperly certifying work prepared -by another on the Pino project. COUNT VI 53. Petitioner hereby realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through thirty one (1) as if fully set forth herein, 54. Section 481.225(1)(i), Florida Statutes, states in pertinent part that no registered architect shall aid, assist, procure, or advise any unlicensed person to practice architecture contrary to this part or to a rule of the department or the board, 55. Based upon the foregoing, Respondent has violated Section 481.225(1)(i), Florida Statutes, by assisting Rodriguez in his performance of unlicensed activity on the Pino project contrary to Chapter 48 1, Florida Statutes. COUNT VII 56. Petitioner hereby realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through thirty one (31) as if fully set forth herein, 57. Section 481.225(1)(g), Florida Statutes, states in pertinent part that committing any act of fraud, deceit, negligence, in competency, or misconduct in the practice of architecture constitutes grounds for disciplinary action. 58. Based upon the foregoing, Respondent has violated Section 481.225(1)(g), Florida Statutes by signing and sealing plans for the Pino project that do not conform to acceptable standards of architectural practice. . . COUNT VUI 59. _- Petitioner hereby realleges and incorporates paragraphs one (1) through thirty one G 1) as if fully set forth herein. 60. Section 481.221(6), Florida Statutes, states final construction documents or instruments of service which include plans, drawings, specifications, or other architectural ‘documents prepared by a registered architect as part of her or his architectural practice shall be of a sufficiently high standard to clearly and accurately indicate or illustrate all essential parts of the work to which they refer. 61. Based upon the foregoing, Respondent has violated Section 481 2216), Florida Statutes by signing and sealing plans for the Pino project that are not sufficiently detailed. WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests the Board enter an Order imposing one or more of the following penalties: Imposition of probation, reprimand the licensee, revoke, . suspend, deny the issuance or renewal of the certificate or registration, require financial restitution to a consumer, impose an administrative fine not to exceed $5,000 per count, require continuing education, assess costs associated with investigation and prosecution, impose any or all penalties delineated within Section 455.227(2), Florida Statutes, and/or any other relief that the Board is authorized to impose pursuant to Chapters 481 and 455, Florida Statutes, and/or the rules promulgated thereunder. ‘ ; Signed this /7 J dayof Je iy , 2007. DAVID K. MINACCI Smith, Thompson, Shaw & Manausa, P.A. 3520 Thomasville Road, Fourth Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32309 FL Bar No. 0056774 (Ph) (850) 402-1570 (Fax) (850) 558-1613

Docket for Case No: 07-004632PL