Findings Of Fact By his answers to Petitioner's Request for Admissions, Respondent indicates, and it is so found, that he is currently licensed by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board under license CA C010372 as a certified air conditioning contractor; that his license was in effect at all times material to the allegations involved in this hearing; and that his license was in effect as of the date of the hearing. The Construction Industry Licensing Board, (Board), is the state agency responsible for licensing construction trades professionals in this state. Sometime prior to August 18, 1987, Respondent's firm contracted with Ralph Worthington to replace the air conditioning system at Mr. Worthington's home in Pinellas County, Florida. The contract price was $3,075.00. The work was completed. On August 19, 1987, Dale J. Parker, a mechanical inspector for the City of St. Petersburg, which utilizes the Standard Mechanical Code as a guideline for construction in the city, inspected the unit in question installed by Respondent's concern, Residential Air Conditioning. A permit to complete the work had been issued on June 25, 1987 for the work. No explanation was given for why the inspection was not done until approximately two months after the permit was issued, but that delay is not relevant to the issues here. During his inspection, Mr. Parker found that the provisions of Sections 303.2 and 303.3 of the Standard Mechanical Code had not been followed by the Respondent's firm in that no light was available in front of the unit, no electrical disconnect was furnished for the unit, and there was no clear access to the unit. Access is required to be through an unencumbered space no less than 22 by 36 inches. When he went up into the attic to examine the unit, he found the area to be tight and dark. At the time, he was unable to see any defects other than those he listed, but his general opinion of the installation was that it was "not a good job" and was somewhat "sloppy". As a result of the defects he saw, he rejected the work and "red tagged" it. Issuance of a red tag requires correction of the defect and reinspection of the work. Evidence indicates that the required light had not been there prior to Respondent's installation and the access to the unit, which required stepping over an air duct, was the same as it had been before the installation of the new unit. The Code requirement to correct these defects existed when the house was built. It is clear the initial installation, not done by Respondent, was also deficient. Respondent admits that when he installed the new unit, he assumed the responsibility for correcting the existing deficiencies and bringing the installation up to Code requirements. However, Mr. Worthington, the homeowner, would not allow Respondent's personnel back into his residence to correct the problems. This does not excuse the improper installation but would have resulted in a waiver of the reinspection fee. On October 1, 1987, William Rinehart, owner of Johnson's Air Conditioning, who had been contacted by Mr. Worthington, sent his technician, Mr. Aleshire out to the property to make the repairs. Mr. Aleshire discovered a lot of water in the insulation in the attic in the area around the air conditioning unit. He also noticed that duct work had come loose from the unit, that the unit was tilted, and that both the primary and secondary drain pipes were clogged with sand at the outside outlet. When he moved the insulation, he found the attic floor had rotted as a result of water condensation which had spilled out of the drain pans surrounding the unit onto the floor. As a result, the attic floor fell through into the room below. Mr. Aleshire found that the air handling unit was improperly tilted. So was the primary drain pan which was improperly tilted away from the drain. Since the drain was clogged, when the condensation collected in the pan, instead of draining out, it ran over the opposite side of the pan into the secondary pan from which it could not drain because that plug was clogged as well. As a result, the condensation water ran over out onto the attic floor. Aleshire also noticed that some of the wiring had to be replaced because of a lack of sealing and failure to use Romex connectors, both of which are required by the Code. In his opinion, however, except for the electrical problems and the tilted air handling unit and drain pans, the installation was up to Code. Had it not been for the clogged drains, the unit would probably have worked satisfactorily for a long period without problems. There is no evidence to connect the clogged outside drains with the Respondent. He is, however, responsible for the other defects noted. Both Aleshire and Rinehart consider the tilted installation of the air handling unit improper. Mr. Rinehart would have used adjustable bolts to affix the unit and a carpenter's level to insure the drainage was proper. The failure to level the unit is negligence and the failure to utilize proper sealant and Romex connectors constituted misconduct since both are required by the Code. Respondent does not deny either of these defects. He contends his firm did what it agreed to do. When Mr. Worthington complained, he initially responded and attempted to correct the problems but was unable to do so to Mr. Worthington's satisfaction. The problems were not corrected by Respondent. Nonetheless, Respondent contends his firm tried to do a proper job and feels Worthington overreacted, frequently complaining when a workman was only a few minutes late for a scheduled appointment. Respondent was not personally aware of the details of the installation in question, did not do any of the work himself; nor did he inspect the job when it was completed. When this work was being done, Respondent, who is in partnership with Mr. Neidrich was in Tampa opening another office for the firm. He first found out about it after a complaint was filed and, in an effort to work out their differences, attempted to contact Worthington up until the time the Department of Professional Regulation got into the picture. Respondent, who qualified the company under his license, is an engineer and his primary function with the company is to design complicated systems. He visits jobs of "difficult installation" but acts merely as a consultant on the company's routine business. He performs quality checks from time to time on routine as well as major jobs to insure the work is being done properly. Though he testified he does this on a weekly basis, he admitted his last inspection was four weeks before the hearing. The correction of the defects identified herein was subsequently accomplished by another contractor hired by Mr. Worthington at additional cost. He also paid $422.80 to replace floor covering damaged as a result of the tilted air conditioning unit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Neal A. O'Connor be reprimanded and pay an administrative fine of $500.00. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of May, 1989 at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 25th day of May, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth A. Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Neal A, O'Connor 1925 Hastings Drive Clearwater, Florida 34623 Kenneth A. Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Petitioner, vs CASE NO.: 89308 DOAH CASE NO.: 89-0186 NEAL A. O'CONNOR, LICENSE NO.: CA C010372, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, John L. Horn, applied for and took the February 22, 1980, examination for a Class B air conditioning contractor's license, having been qualified, and meeting all preliminary requirements to sit for this examination. Mr. Horn answered Question 6 of the exam by selecting multiple choice Answer E. Question 6 of the February 22, 1981, examination was as follows: The contractor for the classroom and office building shown on Drawing AC-3 is required to accurately measure the air flow from each of the air handling units. Which of the following methods should be used? A magnehelic gauge with the high pressure port connected to the supply duct and the low pressure port connected to the return duct. An inclined draft gauge with a pitot tube traverse at several points in the supply duct to determine the mean velocity. An inclined draft gauge with a pitot tube traverse in the centerline of the supply duct to determine the actual velocity. A rotating vane anemometer located in the supply duct air stream. A velometer located at each sidewall outlet. All answers except Answer B were graded as incorrect, including the answer submitted by Mr. Horn. The February, 1980, Class B air conditioning contractor's examination was developed by American Community Testing Services, located in Jacksonville, pursuant to a contract with the Department of Professional Regulation. Question 6 was prepared by Mr. Larry Simmons for the testing service. This question seeks multiple Choice Answer B as the correct answer. Each examination question is written by an expert in the field, and is then checked by another expert for accuracy. The questions are then reviewed by a consultant to the testing service who is a professor of mechanical engineering. These internal review procedures are utilized to minimize the existence of errors. Prior to the time an examination question is used, it is subjected to Departmental review to assure that any grammatical errors are corrected. Subsequent to the examination, Question 6 and the various answers given by examinees were analyzed. Based upon testing criteria, Answers C and D in Question 6 were judged to possibly be correct, in addition to Answer B. Based on this same testing criteria, however, Answers A and E were not possibly correct. A discrimination index disclosed that Question 6 was a difficult question. Nevertheless, every examinee is qualified by experience to sit for the examination, which is designed for competition among peers. The post-examination review procedures used by the Department are for the purpose of assuring that there is not another correct answer. This review is performed by the writer of the question and an expert in the field being reviewed. The preferred method for measuring air flow is to use a pitot tube traverse, as suggested by Answer B. Other methods are available alternatives, but are not given as choices in the answers to Question 6. Answer A is incorrect because it measures static pressure and not air flow. Answer D is not correct because of the large hole that would have to be cut in the duct in order to insert the instrument, and after sealing the duct no reading could be taken. Answer E is also incorrect because it would allow air to flow into the room. Answer C could be correct in a small duct, but not in the duct shown on the drawing accompanying Question 6. The question seeks the best answer among the five choices; Answer B is the only acceptable choice and the correct answer. Twelve of the 14 persons who scored in the upper 27 percent on the examination answered Question 6 correctly, by choosing Answer B. Only 7 of the 19 persons who scored in the lower 27 percent on the examination answered this question correctly. This difference produced a discrimination index of .47 percent, which is within professional testing standards as an accurate measure of the validity of the question. This evidence was not controverted. Thus, based upon generally accepted testing criteria, the discrimination index shows Question 6 to be a valid question, and Answer B to be the correct answer. Mr. Horn's contentions are not supported by the weight of the evidence presented. The burden of proof is upon an applicant for a license to demonstrate that he meets all standards for eligibility. Mr. Horn did not present sufficient evidence to meet this burden of proof, and the Board established by substantial, competent evidence the validity of Question 6 and the correctness of Answer B.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of John L. Horn for a license as a state certified Class B Air Conditioning Contractor be denied. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 15th day of April, 1981. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of April, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: John L. Horn 114 Willow Branch Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32205 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Patricia R. Gleason, Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact On February 16, 1977, Joe Hodges, an inspector in petitioner's employ, inspected respondent's premises in the normal course of his duties. On a form styled "Public Food Service Inspection Record," Mr. Hodges noted that respondent's refrigerators lacked thermometers; that the dishwasher needed a new temperature gauge; that a screen door opening onto the outside from the kitchen was not in good repair; that the employees' restroom had no soap and towels and had a window screen in need of repair; that the surfaces of some work tables were not smooth; that the employees' hair restraints were ineffective; and that there were many roaches. After this inspection, respondent Laramore acquired thermometers for the refrigerators, caused the area outside the premises to be cleaned, put soap and towels in the employees' restroom and caused the restroom window screen to be repaired. On March 22, 1977, Mr. Hodges returned to respondent's premises, inspected again and issued a formal directive to respondent to exterminate roaches, clean the kitchen floors, repair certain nozzles on the dishwasher, clean certain equipment, store food elsewhere than on the floor of the walk-in refrigerator, lower the temperature in certain refrigerators, provide additional refrigerator thermometers, repair the lining of a freezer lid, and furnish effective hair restraints to employees. On the following day, respondent contacted Larry Farris of Panhandle Pest Control, who regularly sprayed the restaurant for bugs, and asked him to take whatever extra steps were necessary to exterminate the roaches. On the same day, respondent contacted Easom Plumbing Company and arranged for the dishwasher to be repaired. The screen door was fixed, although it was broken subsequently by men using dollies to deliver supplies. Respondent caused the freezer lining to be replaced, certain table tops to be sanded down, a sink drain to be repaired, and the entire kitchen to be steam cleaned. On March 21, 1977, Mr. Hodges returned to respondent's premises and filled out a call back inspection report which listed the items set forth in the notice to show cause, petitioner's exhibit No. 1. On December 30, 1977, together with Mr. George Parish, Mr. Hodges made another visit to respondent's premises. Mr. Parish and Mr. Hodges found roaches, a torn screen on the back door, dirty equipment and a refrigerator containing salad and pastries stored at a temperature of 56-60 degrees. Mr. Parish saw live German cockroaches in many places, notably near an oven no longer used for cooking. This oven, certain other equipment, aswell as dish and pot storage shelves were dirty and needed to be cleaned. Mr. Parish noticed roach excrement caked alongside one of the tables in the kitchen. Mr. Parish and Mr. Hodges found that the sink drain leak had been fixed. They perceived no deficiency in respondent's employees' hair restraints, even though these did not differ significantly from restraints used in the spring of 1977. They also found that respondent's dishwasher had been repaired. At the time of the inspection on December 30, 1977, the dishwasher operator, who was washing one load after another, made a wash cycle last two and a half minutes and followed up with a rinse cycle lasting a minute and a half. The dishwasher contained a hot water heater to boost the temperature of the water used for washing and rinsing dishes in the machine. Although this was in good working order, the dishwasher was being operated with a rinse water temperature of only 172 degrees. The normal wash cycle is 30 seconds and the rinse cycle normally lasts only 12 seconds. With repeated loads of dishes and abnormally long cycles, the water used for dishes in later loads does not reach the same high temperature as at first.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner assess a civil penalty against respondent in the amount of one hundred dollars ($100.00). DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of January 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Lawrence D. Winson, Esquire The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Mr. Herman D. Laramore, Esquire Post Office Box 793, Courthouse Marianna, Florida 32446
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence submitted and the entire record complied herein, I hereby make the following Findings of Fact: Respondent, John Anthony Fantasia, is, and has been at all times material hereto, a certified air conditioning contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CA C024378. Mr. Joseph Wilensky resides in a single family home at 1020 N.E. 160th Terrace in North Miami Beach, Florida. On December 23, 1983 there was a fire at Wilensky's home. The fire was primarily located in the basement near the oil heating unit, some type of electric heating device which utilized a heat strip and part of the central air conditioning unit. The air conditioning and heating systems all sustained damage in the fire. A few days after the fire, an insurance adjuster went to Wilensky's home and recommended a general contractor by the name of H. E. Nason. Nason inspected the damage at the Wilensky home and later sent Respondent over to inspect the damage for an estimate. Nason had previously used Respondent as a sub- contractor on other projects. The Respondent submitted a bid of $2,600 to Nason to install an air conditioning system with a heat strip in the Wilensky home. Thereafter, Nason entered into a contract with Wilensky to make the repairs and sub-contracted the entire job to Respondent. In January 1984, approximately one week after the contract was signed, Respondent, with the assistance of a single helper, removed the old air conditioning and heating units and installed a new central air conditioning/heating unit. Mr. Wilensky was at home while the work was performed. Wilensky observed the Respondent perform some of the work but did not watch Respondent the whole time. Wilensky was talking with his wife either in the dining room or in the kitchen when Respondent informed him that he had just finished with the switch and that the unit was "all set." Prior to installing the new unit, no work permits were pulled nor inspections called for by either Respondent or Mr. Nason. The Respondent believed that Nason, as general contractor, was obligated to pull all necessary work permits. The Respondent connected the new air conditioning/ heating unit to an electrical box which served as an on/off disconnect switch. The on/off disconnect switch was wired to the power source "ahead of the main." "Ahead of the main" is a term used in the electrical industry meaning that an apparatus is wired directly to a power source, by-passing the fuse box or main circuit breaker entirely. In this manner, the apparatus cannot be turned off from the fuse box. Such wiring violates the National Electrical Code, presents a serious hazard of fire and reflects gross negligence and incompetence. The evidence did not establish that the Respondent wired the on/off disconnect switch to the power source when he installed the new unit. There was at least an equal amount of credible evidence that the disconnect switch had been utilized with the previous unit and was in place prior to Respondent's installation work. Shortly after the unit was installed, Wilensky became dissatisfied because he believed that the unit was not heating or cooling properly and that his electricity bills were too high. Respondent returned to Mr. Wilensky's home on several occasions to do additional work on the unit, such as changing thermostats, in an attempt to satisfy Mr. Wilensky. Wilensky was not satisfied with the additional work performed by Respondent and their previously good relationship deteriorated rapidly. Wilensky called Florida Power & Light Company to complain about the high electric bills and an inspector went out to his home. The inspector informed Wilensky that the wiring leading to the air conditioning/heating unit was not done properly. On March 4, 1985, at the request of Mr. Wilensky, Benny Biscotti, an electrical building official for the City of North Miami Beach, performed an inspection at the Wilensky residence. In his inspection, Biscotti confirmed that the wiring leading to the air conditioning/heating unit was hooked up "ahead of the main." The wiring in Wilensky's home was corrected by AVI/AMEX Electric Company on January 16, 1986. The City of North Miami Beach has adopted the South Florida Building Code (SFBC). The SFBC required that a mechanical permit be obtained for the installation of the air conditioning/heating unit. The SFBC did not require an electrical permit in this instance because there was no showing that the installation of the unit required new permanent wiring or an alteration or change to the existing electrical system. The evidence did not establish that electrical upgrading (an increase in capacity for voltage and amperage) was required to accommodate the new air conditioning/heating unit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that the Amended Administrative Complaint filed herein be dismissed. DONE and ORDERED this 27th day of July, 1987 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON Hearing Officer, Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of July, 1987. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Adopted in Finding of Fact 2 Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 2. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 5. Rejected as not supported by the weight of credible testimony. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 5. Rejected as not established by the weight of the evidence. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 7. Partially adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Mr. Wilensky's testimony that he saw Respondent connect the switch to the fuse box is unpersuasive, particularly in view of the fact that he did not observe all of the work performed by Respondent, his admitted lack of knowledge of air conditioning and electrical matters and his intense negative feelings regarding Respondent resulting from this entire incident. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 5. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 8. Rejected as unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 8. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 8. Rejected as not supported by credible evidence. Rejected as not supported by credible evidence. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 14. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Adopted in Finding of Fact 13. Rejected as not supported by credible evidence. Biscotti's testimony that the wiring was "recent" was based on the history of the work related to him by Mr. Wilensky. Although Biscotti testified that it looked as if "recent work" had been done, the admitted that his opinion was primarily based on Wilensky's statement to him that Respondent had installed new wiring. Rejected as not established by the weight of the evidence. Rejected as not established by the weight of the evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in substance in Finding of Fact 4. Rejected as not established by the weight of the evidence. Rejected as not contrary to the weight of the evidence. Addressed in Conclusion of Law section. Addressed in Conclusions of Law section. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 6. Rejected as a recitation of testimony/evidence. Rejected as a recitation of testimony/evidence. Rejected as a recitation of testimony/evidence. Rejected as a recitation of testimony/evidence. Rejected as a recitation of testimony/evidence. Rejected as subordinate and/or unnecessary. Addressed in Procedural Background section. Addressed in Procedural Background section. Addressed in Procedural Background section. Rejected as subordinate. Rejected as subordinate. Rejected as subordinate. Rejected as subordinate. Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent (The Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order is written in the form of Conclusions of Law only and includes no specific findings of fact upon which a ruling can be made.) COPIES FURNISHED: Gus Vincent Soto, Esq Joe Sole, Esq. Department of Professional Department of Professional Regulation Regulation 130 North Monroe Street 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750 Edward Bringham, Esq. Fred Seely 25 West Flagler Street Executive Director City National Bank Bldg. Department of Professional Suite 933 Regulation Miami, FL 33130 P.O. Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32201 Van Poole Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0750
