FILED Department of Business and Professional Regulation Deputy Agency Clerk CLERK = Evelte Lawson-Proctor Date 3/17/2011 Fite # STATE OF FLORIDA FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS FILED Florida Engineers Management Corporation Clerk FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, mM CLERK y DATE = 3- t+ Bett— Petitioner, FEMC Case No. 2010003118 Vv. MARLIN BRINSON, P.E., Respondent, ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT COMES NOW the Florida Engineers Management Corporation (FEMC) on behalf of Petitioner, Florida Board of Professional Engineers, hereinafter referred to as “Petitioner,” and files this Administrative Complaint against MARLIN BRINSON, P.E., hereinafter referred to as “Respondent”. This Administrative Complaint is issued pursuant to Sections 120.60 and 471.038, Florida Statutes. Any proceeding conceming this complaint shall be conducted pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes. In support of this complaint, Petitioner alleges the following: 1. Petitioner, Florida Board of Professional Engineers, is charged with regulating the practice of engineering pursuant to Chapter 455, Florida Statutes, This complaint is filed by the Florida Engineers Management Corporation (FEMC) on behalf of Petitioner. FEMC is charged with providing administrative, investigative, and prosecutorial services to the Florida Board of Professional Engineers pursuant to Section 471.038, Florida Statutes (1997). 2. Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a licensed professional engineer in the State of Florida, having been issued license number PE 60749. Respondent's last known address is 19001 NE 14 Ave, #120, Miami, FL 33179. 3. In 2007 and 2008 renovations to the roof of a structure were performed at Boca Del Mar Country Club which is located in unincorporated Palm Beach County (Roofing Project). During inspections of the work done on the Roofing Project numerous errors were found by the local building official. As a result of the errors, the Boca Raton Building Department left a Correction Notice on the site stating: “Make all corrections and have an engineer certify roof- then call for reinspection.”” 4. In response to the Correction Notice, personnel of Florida Testing, Engineering & Consulting Inc. conducted an inspection of the Roofing Project. This inspection constituted the engineering field work which provided the justification for an As-Built Certificate (Certificate) that was signed by Respondent on March 24, 2008. 5. The Certificate was addressed to the Boca Raton Building Department and described the roof being inspected, the means of inspection, and the findings of the inspection. The Certificate then ended with Respondent's engineering opinion in which Respondent stated: “To the best of my knowledge, belief and professional opinion, the above roof installation complies with the minimum requirements as set forth by the Florida Building Code and the approved documents.” 6. Based in material part upon Respondent’s opinion in the Certificate, a Final Inspection was approved by the local building inspector and a Certificate of Completion was issued for the Roofing Project. In fact, many of the deficiencies noted in the Correction Notice, especially those relating to inadequate installation of flashing at the intersections with walls, with FBPE vs. Marlin Brinson, P.E., Case No. 2010001118 changes in roof slope, and at roof penetrations had not been corrected. These deficiencies would have had to have been corrected for the Roofing Project to be in material compliance “with the minimum requirements as set forth by the Florida Building Code and the approved documents” as stated in the Certificate. 7. Respondent’s March 24, 2008 letter is an engineering “certification” as that term is defined in Rule 61G15-18.01 1(4), Florida Administrative Code, (‘a statement signed and/or sealed by a professional engineer representing that the engineering services addressed therein, as defined in Section 471.005(6), F.S., have been performed by the professional engineer, and based upon the professional engineer’s knowledge, information and belief, and in accordance with commonly accepted procedures consistent with applicable standards of practice,...”), “Certifications” are subject to the standards set out in Rule 61G15-29.001 which require that if an engineer is presented with a “certification” that “.. -involve{s] matters which are beyond the engineer’s scope of services actually provided...” that the engineer must “... (a) modify such certification to limit its scope to those matters which the engineer can properly sign and/or seal, or (b) decline to sign such certification.” 8. Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, provides that an engineer is subject to discipline for “{v}iolating ... [a] rule of the [BJoard....” 9. Based upon the facts set forth in Paragraphs 3-7, Respondent failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 61G15-29.001 by not declining to sign the Certificate or by not materially limiting its scope. 10. Based on the foregoing, Respondent is charged with violating Section 471.033(1}(g), Florida Statutes, by “[v]iolating ... [a] rule of the [BJoard...” as a result of failing to comply with the requirements of Rule 61G15-29.001. FBPE vs. Marlin Brinson, P.E., Case No. 2010001118 WHEREFORE, the Petitioner respectfully requests the Board of Professional Engineers to enter an order imposing one or more of the following penalties: pemmanent revocation or suspension of the Respondent's license, restriction of the Respondent’s practice, imposition of an administrative fine, issuance of a reprimand, placement of the Respondent on probation, the assessment of costs related to the investigation and prosecution of this case, other than costs associated with an attorney’s time, as provided for in Section 455.227(3), Florida Statutes, and/or any other relief that the AY an appropriate. SIGNED this /4 day of Maré , 2011. COUNSEL FOR FEMC: John J. Rimes, II Prosecuting Attorney Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Florida Bar No. 212008 JR/sm PCP DATE: March 15, 2011 PCP Members: Charland, Rebane & Hahn ICATE OF S iC. I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was furnis i Ave, #120, Miami, FL 33179, by certified mail, on th of P.E. 19001 NE 14 11. FBPE vs. Marlin Brinson, P.E., Case No. 2010001118 4 FLORIDA ENGINEERS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION C/O FLORIDA BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS 2507 CALLAWAY ROAD, SUITE 200 TALLAHASSEE, FL 32303 (850) 521-0500 MARLIN BRINSON 19001 N.E. 14 AVE. #120 MIAMI, FL 33179 (305) 788-7036 Substantial interests will be greatly affected by the agency determination. My license is my livelihood. It is my means of securing the necessities of life for both my family and I. The agency determination would cause undue hardships and the inability for me to maintain my license. | received notice of the agency decision by way of certified mail on April 19, 2011. T was net heme. Rece ved Notice persorally by wey . te te MA. of Coveyer te My resideace on S/2 [1 @ 6-10 r Py B/S DISPUTED ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT Paragraph 6 of administrative complaint : “Based in material part upon Respondent’s opinion in the Certificate, a Final Inspection was approved by the local building inspector and a Certificate of Completion was issued for the Roofing Project. “ This statement is not a complete truth and it obscures very important and necessary facts. Paragraph 6 of administrative complaint : “In fact, many of the deficiencies noted in the Correction Notice.... had not been corrected.” This is absolutely not true, as those deficiencies noted in the Correction Notice were in fact both repaired and corrected. ALLEGATION Paragraph 9 of Administrative Complaint : “Respondent failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 61G15-29.001 by not declining to sign the Certificate or by not materially limiting its scope.” This is not true of me. The circumstances for which | would ‘decline to sign the Certificate or materially limit its scope’ does not apply in this case. Florida Administrative Code 61G15-29.001(2) states : “When an engineer is presented with a certification to be signed and/or sealed, he or she should carefully evaluate that certification to determine if any of the circumstances set forth in subsection (3) would apply. If any of these circumstances would apply, that engineer shall either: (a) modify such certification to limit its scope to those matters which the engineer can properly sign and/or seal, or (b) decline to sign such certification.” In this particular case, the circumstances as set forth in subsection (3) do not apply. Subsection (3) states (61G15-29.001(3)) : “Engineers who sign and/or seal certifications which: (a) relate to matters which are beyond the engineer’s technical competence, or (b) involve matters which are beyond the engineer’s scope of services actually provided, or (c) relate to matters which were not prepared under engineer's responsible supervision, direction, or control; would be subject to discipline pursuant to Rule 61G15-19.001(6), F.A.C. “ This rule requires that discipline would be meted out if these circumstances applied. Since these circumstances do not apply, | should not be disciplined or punished for wrongs that | did not commit. This is wholly unfair and quite unjust. RECOMMENDED ACTION All of the matters pertaining to this case (including the allegations against me) have already been, not only exposed, but also examined and reviewed by trial in the county court in and for Broward County, Florida, Civil Division Case NO. COSO08008021. It was convincingly proven during trial that all of the corrections on the correction notice were indeed dealt with and repaired in just fashion. The Judge heard all of their testimonies, heard all of their claims, saw all of their “evidence”, weighed their defense evaluated their arguments, and ultimately ruled against them. It goes without saying, py. A/S there were “mountains” of evidence stacked against them. They were found to be deceitful, dishonest, and hypocritical. Now here we are, it seems, re-trying this case all over again. In view of the foregoing, | strongly and respectfully recommend that this case/complaint against me be DISMISSED. Sincerel 4 be Ze arlin Brinson fg. S/o

Docket for Case No: 11-004239PL