The Issue The issue is whether Respondent properly denied Petitioner's application for certification as a firefighter after Petitioner failed to successfully pass the practical portion of the Minimum Standards Examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied for certification as a firefighter in October 2002. In order to be certified, Petitioner was required to successfully complete the Minimum Standards Course. The course consists of taking a minimum of 360 hours of training at one of 30 certified centers in Florida. After completing the training course, Petitioner was required to take the Minimum Standards Examination, which is structured in two parts: a written portion and a practical portion. The practical portion consists of four sections or evolutions including the Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA), the hose pull, the ladder operation, and the fire skills section. To pass the four practical evolutions, an applicant must achieve a score of at least 70 percent on each one. Each evolution of the practical exam has certain elements or skills that are graded. The ladder test contains eleven skills and requires that the test be completed in not more than two minutes and forty-five seconds. The eleven skills for the ladder evolution include but are not limited to the following: ladder properly lifted, carried, (50 feet) and positioned for raise; maintains control of ladder during entire operation; extremities in safe position during entire operation; ladder halyard properly secured and proper safety applied; fly section extended without utilizing the wall; and fly section out and positioned correctly. After completing the Minimum Standards Course, Petitioner took the initial Minimum Standards Examination on February 19, 2003. Petitioner passed the written portion of the exam but did not pass the practical portion of the initial exam because he made a score of 60 on the ladder operations evolution of the practical examination. In a memorandum dated March 5, 2003, the Department formally advised Petitioner that he had failed the ladder portion of the practical exam for failure to maintain control of ladder. The memorandum also informed Petitioner that he was scheduled for a retake of the minimum standards practical retest of the ladder evolution. In another memorandum dated March 5, 2003, the Department advised Petitioner that he was scheduled to retake the ladder portion of the practical examination at the Florida State Fire College in Ocala, Florida, on May 22, 2003, at 8:00 a.m. Petitioner took the retest of the ladder portion of the practical examination as scheduled on May 22, 2003, in Ocala, Florida. Petitioner did not successfully complete the retest, losing points on three skills and not completing the test in the requisite amount of time. However, there was a problem with the ladder used by Petitioner on the retest in that the "fly" was not locked on the ladder. Ralph Chase is a field representative with the Division of State Fire Marshall of the Department. Mr. Chase was the examiner who tested Petitioner on the retake of the ladder portion of the practical exam on May 22, 2003. Mr. Chase is an experienced examiner. Because of the problem with the ladder on Petitioner's initial attempt on the ladder retest, Mr. Chase allowed Petitioner a second attempt to pass the ladder retest on May 22, 2003, although it is unusual to do so. On the second retest, Petitioner finished the test within the required amount of time but points were counted off for the following skills: ladder properly lifted, carried, (50 feet) and positioned for raise; extremities in safe position during entire operation; ladder halyard properly secured and proper safety applied; and fly section out and positioned correctly. Mr. Chase also made a notation that Petitioner had "poor control" but nonetheless gave Petitioner a passing score on the mandatory skill of maintaining control of ladder during the entire operation. Petitioner made a score of 60 on his second attempt of the retest which is below the required passing score of 70. Phillip Hershman was present at the retest in Ocala on May 22, 2003. Mr. Hershman was there to retake the hose pull portion of the practical exam. At the time of the hearing, he had been employed by the Suwannee County Fire Department for two months. Mr. Hershman was about 50 feet away from Petitioner during Petitioner's ladder retest. There was considerable noise near Mr. Hershman because the self-contained breathing apparatus test was also being conducted nearby. Mr. Hershman had a side view of Petitioner during the ladder retest. He could not see everything that was going on during the ladder retest. Mr. Hershman saw Petitioner look over the ladder and say something to Mr. Chase but could not hear what was said. He saw Mr. Chase speaking to Petitioner. When Petitioner picked up the ladder for the retest, Mr. Hershman saw the rungs of the ladder slide open. He saw Petitioner adjust the ladder and pick it up again. He did not see the ladder touch the wall until final resting of the ladder. Petitioner maintains that the ladder he used on the second retest attempt on May 22, 2003, was defective in the same manner as the first. However, Mr. Chase examined the ladder used in the second test to make sure it was in the correct position. Upon examining the ladder Petitioner used in the second retest, Mr. Chase found it to be "normal." It is unclear from the record whether Mr. Hershman witnessed both of Petitioner's attempts at the ladder retest on May 22, 2003. In any event, in instances where Mr. Hershman's testimony and Mr. Chase's testimony are in conflict, Mr. Chase's testimony of the events regarding Petitioner's retest is more persuasive. He is an experienced examiner, he was the person testing Petitioner, and he has a clear recollection of the events that occurred. While Mr. Hershman's testimony is credible, he was not in the same position, neither physically nor through experience, as Mr. Chase to determine how Petitioner should have been graded on the retake tests. In the First Amended Denial Letter dated August 15, 2003, Respondent informed Petitioner that since he passed the written portion of the Firefighter Minimum Standards Examination, a Firefighter I certificate was enclosed. Further, the August 15, 2003, letter informed Petitioner that he did not achieve a passing score on the 24" Ladder Carry, Raise and Extension evolution of the Firefighter Minimum Standards practical retest. He was informed that it will be necessary to either repeat the entire Minimum Standards Course or complete the Firefighter II Course before retaking the Firefighter Minimum Standards Examination.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a final order denying Petitioner's application and that Petitioner be permitted to either repeat the Minimum Standards Course or complete the Firefighter II course before retaking the Firefighter Minimum Standards Examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Casia R. Belk, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0330 William Glenn Cone, Esquire 1530 Ryar Road, No. 7 Jacksonville, Florida 32216 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent properly denied Petitioner's application for certification as a firefighter after Petitioner failed to successfully pass the practical portion of the Minimum Standards Examination pursuant to Sections 633.34 and 633.35, Florida Statutes, and Rules 4A-37.056 and 4A-37.062, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has served as a voluntary firefighter in Bay County, Florida, for approximately nine years. He first applied for certification as a firefighter in October 2001. In order to be certified, Petitioner was required to successfully complete the Minimum Standards Course. The course consists of taking a minimum of 360 hours of training at an approved school or training facility. After completing the training course, Petitioner was required to take the Minimum Standards Examination, which is structured in two parts: a written portion and a practical portion. The practical portion consists of four sections including the Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA), the hose pull, the ladder operation, and the fire ground skills. The purpose of the practical portion of the exam is to simulate real fire ground scenarios. To pass the four practical evolutions, an applicant must achieve a score of at least 70 percent on each one. Each evolution of the practical exam has certain steps that are mandatory. Failure to complete a mandatory step results in automatic failure of that portion of the exam. The mandatory steps for the SCBA evolution include the following: (a) complete the procedure in not more than one minute and forty-five seconds; and (b) activate the PASS device in the automatic position. After completing the Minimum Standards Course, Petitioner took the Initial Minimum Standards Examination on May 1, 2002. He was well rested on the day of the test, having slept approximately eight hours the night before. Petitioner passed the written portion of the exam but failed the practical portion of the initial exam because it took him one minute and fifty-nine seconds to complete the SCBA evolution. In a memorandum dated May 7, 2002, Respondent formally advised Petitioner that he had failed the SCBA portion of the practical exam because he exceeded the maximum time for the procedure. The memorandum also stated as follows in pertinent part: Important information about retesting and certification renewal is enclosed. Please read it carefully. You have automatically been scheduled for the next available examination, and written notification indicating your test date and location is enclosed. You are not required to call the Bureau for scheduling. Thank you. (Emphasis provided) In another memorandum dated May 7, 2002, Respondent advised Petitioner that he was scheduled to re-take the SCBA portion of the practical examination at the Florida State Fire College in Ocala, Florida, on May 24, 2002, at 8:00 a.m. The memorandum included the following relevant information: If you are unable to take the examination on the assigned date, please advise the Bureau and we will reschedule you for the next examination. Note: You must retest within six (6) months of the original test date. All an applicant has to do to reschedule a retest exam is to call Respondent's Bureau of Fire Standards and Training and request to be rescheduled. Respondent does not require applicants to provide a justifiable reason in order to be rescheduled. It is a routine and standard practice for Respondent to reschedule exams. Some applicants fail to show up for their retest exam without calling Respondent. In that case, Respondent automatically reschedules the retest. Applicants must take their retest exams within six months of their initial exam dates. Applicants that fail to meet this requirement must repeat the training course. Respondent reminds applicants of these requirements when they call to reschedule retests or fail to show up for retest, and the next retest exam date falls outside of the six-month window. If applicants still wish to reschedule retests outside the six-month window, Respondent will accommodate the requests. The next exam date that Petitioner could have taken his retest was in September 2002, which would have been within the six-month window. Petitioner testified that he called Respondent on May 16, 2002, to reschedule his retest because May 24, 2002, was not convenient with his work schedule. Petitioner also testified that an unidentified female in Respondent's office told him that he could not change the date of his retest. Petitioner's testimony in this regard is not persuasive. Petitioner's job involved working the "graveyard shift" at the Panama City Airport, loading and unloading planes. On May 23, 2002, Petitioner began working at 2:00 a.m. He finished his shift at approximately 1:00 p.m. Petitioner then immediately loaded his gear and began the trip to Ocala, Florida. The trip took about six hours, due to a traffic jam in Tallahassee, Florida. He arrived in Ocala at approximately 8:00 p.m. EST, located the testing site, and checked into a motel. Petitioner reported to the testing site the next morning. He did not tell any officials at the testing site that he was too tired to take the test. Petitioner failed the retest of the SCBA portion of the exam. Petitioner's time for the retest of the SCBA evolution was two minutes and twelve seconds. Additionally, Petitioner had point deductions for failing to complete the "seal check" and failing to properly don and secure all personal protective equipment correctly. In a letter dated May 26, 2002, Petitioner alleged that Respondent had denied his request for a different test date. Petitioner claimed that fatigue had prevented him from succeeding at the test. He requested another opportunity to retest the SCBA evolution within the required six-month period. Shortly thereafter, Fire Chief Tim McGarry from the Thomas Drive Fire Department on Panama City Beach, Florida, called Respondent's Field Representative Supervisor, Larry McCall. During that conversation, Mr. McCall told Chief McGarry that Petitioner could have decided not to show up for the retest. In a letter dated June 3, 2002, Mr. McCall responded to Petitioner's letter. In the letter, Mr. McCall stated that the question of whether Respondent erroneously denied Petitioner's request to reschedule the retest would be closed unless Petitioner could provide more specific details. In a memorandum dated June 6, 2002, Respondent formally advised Petitioner that he had failed the retest. In a letter dated June 6, 2002, Petitioner stated that he could not remember the name of the person he spoke to when he requested a change in his retest date. Once again, Petitioner requested an opportunity to take the retest. Mr. McCall spoke to Petitioner in a telephone call on June 18, 2002. During that conversation, Petitioner indicated that he would file his Election of Rights form, requesting an administrative proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner's application. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _ SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of April, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Elenita Gomez, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0330 Mark D. Dreyer, Esquire 747 Jenks Avenue, Suite G Panama City, Florida 32401 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether Petitioner achieved a passing score on the Practical Examination for Retention of Firefighter Retest.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for the certification of firefighters in the State of Florida, pursuant to chapter 633, Florida Statutes. In or around 2008, Petitioner achieved his Firefighter Minimum Standards Training Certification, which was valid for three years. To maintain his certification, it was necessary for Petitioner to either: maintain employment as a firefighter (or serve as a volunteer firefighter) for at least six consecutive months during the three-year period subsequent to his certification; or successfully complete the retention examination, which is identical to the practical examination given to new applicants.1/ Petitioner could not satisfy the first option, and was therefore required to take the retention examination. Petitioner's first attempt to successfully complete the retention examination occurred on May 20, 2011, and included four components: self-contained breathing apparatus ("SCBA"), hose operation, ladder operation, and fireground skills. To pass the retention examination, an examinee must earn scores of at least 70 on each section. Each portion of the retention examination has certain evaluative components that are graded. For instance, the ladder operation consists of 15 skills——e.g., maintaining contact with the ladder at all times, lifting and securing the ladder properly, using proper hand position——that the examinee must complete within the maximum time of four minutes and 30 seconds. A failure to finish the tasks within the allotted time results in an automatic failure and a score of zero, even if the examinee performs each of the 15 skills successfully.2/ Although Petitioner achieved perfect scores of 100 on the ladder operation and fireground skills components, he was unable to achieve scores of 70 or higher on the SCBA or hose portions of the practical examination. Petitioner, like all candidates who fail the retention examination on the first attempt, was offered one retest opportunity.3/ Petitioner's retest was administered on September 22, 2011, at the Ocala Fire College. On that occasion, Petitioner passed the SCBA and hose portions——the sections that he failed during his previous attempt——with scores of 85. Interestingly, however, the Department's field notes indicate that Petitioner exceeded the ladder evaluation's maximum permitted time by 32 seconds, a performance 58 seconds slower than his recorded time just four months earlier, when he achieved a perfect score. The field notes further reflect that Petitioner committed no errors in connection with the 15 ladder skills and that his failing score was entirely attributable to the examiner's conclusion that the time limit had been exceeded. During the final hearing, Respondent called Thomas Johnson, the field representative for the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training that administered Petitioner's retest, who testified that he timed the ladder examination with a stopwatch, and that Petitioner did not complete the evaluation within the prescribed time period. Significantly, however, the Department elicited no detail from Mr. Thomas with respect to the causes——e.g., loss of ladder control, tripping, fumbling, etc.——of Petitioner's purported failure to complete the evaluation within the allotted time.4/ In contrast, Petitioner testified that although he was not permitted to bring a timekeeping device to the examination (the Department forbids examinees from doing so), he is confident that he completed the ladder retest within the prescribed time limit: Mr. Saintilmond: All right. On the date of the retest, I was taking the ladder examination. I've gone through the evolution. I did not fumble around. I did not take any time. I went through the exam as trained. No fumbling around, no waiting, no nothing. And I believe that I completed the evolution on time. And I passed the examination before. I've done it several times. But on this particular day, on my retake, I know I went through this evolution and I passed it with no fumbling around. Final Hearing Transcript, p. 12. Notwithstanding the anecdotal nature of Petitioner's evidence, his description of the evaluation, which was credible and adequately detailed, carries significant persuasive force in light of his perfect completion of the same ladder examination—— with 26 seconds to spare——just four months before the retest. The undersigned therefore accepts Petitioner's version of the events and finds that he did not exceed the maximum time limit of four minutes and 30 seconds during the September 22, 2011, retention examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter an order granting Petitioner's application to retain his certification as a firefighter in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of May, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Edward T. Bauer Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of May, 2012.
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Respondents committed the violations alleged in the amended administrative complaint, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating fire extinguisher dealers. Respondent, Ricardo Cabrera, holds a fire extinguisher permit class 03 license (No. 109176000192) and is the qualifier for the company, B.C. & A.B.C. Fire Extinguisher Maintenance (license No. 702193000190 - Fire Extinguisher Dealer Class "C"). At all times material to the amended administrative complaint, Carlos Javier Gonzalez-Clavell was employed by Respondent but was not licensed or permitted to service fire extinguishers. In August, 1995, Respondents were placed on probation for a period of two (2) years. A special condition of Respondents' probation required Ricardo Cabrera to supervise all activities undertaken by the company to insure its employees complied with all regulations. In response to a complaint unrelated to the quality of Respondent's work performance, Ms. Barrow directed an investigation of the Respondent's business premises. Mr. Parks was assigned the investigation of whether Respondents were employing unlicensed workers to perform servicing or recharge of fire extinguishers. On January 29, 1996, Mr. Parks went to Respondent's place of business and observed someone loading a vehicle with fire extinguisher equipment and supplies. He also observed the male near a tank which he presumed was nitrogen. He assumed the person was recharging a fire extinguisher. During the described activity Respondent was not in sight. The person described in paragraph 7 later identified himself as Carlos Javier Gonzalez-Clavell. The vehicle being loaded belonged to Mr. Clavell. Respondent was on the business premises at all times noted above. He was out of view but supervising Mr. Clavell's activities. Mr. Clavell did not recharge fire extinguishers and was not permitted to perform license activities.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Insurance and Treasurer enter a final order dismissing the amended administrative complaint. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 5th day of February, 1997. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of February, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Joe Demember, Esquire Division of Legal Services 512 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Ricardo Cabrera 3340 South Lake Drive Miami, Florida 33155 Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Y. Sumner General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, LL-26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether Petitioner was wrongfully denied certification as a fire fighter due to his visual problems.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Petitioner, Louis C. Decker, is currently employed as a paid fire fighter in the City of Palm Bay, Florida. Additionally, Petitioner serves as a volunteer fire fighter in the town of Micco, Florida. Petitioner has served as a fire fighter in both a paid and/or volunteer status for approximately two and one-half (2 1/2) years. By letter dated April 9, 1981, Respondent, Office of the State Fire Marshal, advised Petitioner that he would not be certified as a fire fighter in Florida based on "pre-employment paper work submitted to the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training [which] reflect that [Petitioner] does not meet the qualifications set forth in Section 633.34(5), Florida Statutes." That statute provides in pertinent part that "any person initially employed as a fire fighter must be in good physical condition as determined by a medical examination as prescribed by the Division." That letter added that a pre-employment medical examination of Petitioner indicates a condition other than normal which is outside the parameters of the visual acuity medical standards for fire fighters. Dr. Andrew Zorbis, an ophthalmologist, was received as an expert in ophthalmology herein. Dr. Zorbis examined Petitioner on July 15, 1981. The results thereof reveal that Petitioner's uncorrected visual acuity with the right eye was 20/50 minus 2 and the uncorrected visual acuity with Petitioner's left eye was 20/50 plus 1, with the total uncorrected visual acuity in both eyes being 20/50 plus 2. During the examination, Petitioner was "squinting" severely, which provided him with the best possible uncorrected visual acuity. That is, without squinting, Petitioner's visual acuity would have been much worse and most probably would have been within the range of 20/200 to 20/100. Dr. Zorbis concluded that Petitioner could not be certified based on the NFPA booklet which sets forth the State's Fire-Fighter Standards 2/ and provides that the cause for rejection for an appointment shall be standard visual acuity without correction less than 20/40 in one eye and 20/100 in the other eye. That rule also provides that the corrected vision must be less than 20/20 in one eye and 20/40 in the other eye. Dr. Zorbis also examined Petitioner with his current prescription glasses which reveal a visual acuity of 20/40 in the left eye and 20/30 in the right eye, with corrected vision in both eyes of 20/30 plus Based on the current standards of required visual acuity, Petitioner, therefore, failed to meet either the uncorrected or the corrected visual acuity standards. Dr. Zorbis added that Petitioner was examined under optimum circumstances under a variety of targets. Accordingly, the above test results of Petitioner's vision are the best that Dr. Zorbis could obtain. Dennis "Buddy" Dewar, Chief of the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training, was received as an expert in fire fighter certification standards and qualifications. The task of a fire fighter requires excellent visual acuity. Fire fighters perform a variety of arduous functions under stress, both mental and physical and in so-called "smoky" conditions. Fire fighters are called upon to safely drive vehicles despite glare from light, road moisture or wetness. Fire fighters usually work in smoke-filled rooms and buildings. The permissible visual acuity parameters are 20/40 in one eye and 20/100 in the other eye, uncorrected; correctable to 20/20 in one eye and 20/40 in the other eye. A fire fighter suffering from a visual acuity problem worse than 20/40 puts himself in a position whereby he would have difficulty seeing through smoke and thereby jeopardized his life, the safety of himself, his peers and the safety of the citizens that he is charged with protecting. Chief Dewar indicated that fire fighters often find themselves disoriented in darkened, smoke-filled rooms. With the normal emotional and psychological stresses involved in a fire fighting activity, a fire fighter suffering uncorrected vision outside the Prescribed parameters compounds the stressful duties under which a fire fighter must perform. Finally, Chief Dewar examined the breathing mask used by Petitioner which has an insert for a corrective lens. Chief Dewar credibly testified that the particular mask used by Petitioner, with the breathing apparatus and corrective lens insert intact, has not been approved by the National Institute of Safety and Occupational Health or the American National Standards Institute. Petitioner, Louis C. Decker, as previously stated herein, has been employed as a fire fighter for approximately two and one-half (2 1/2) years. During this period, Petitioner has worked approximately twenty (20) fires as a volunteer fire fighter. Petitioner was denied certification and was not permitted to enroll in the certification and standards school based on certain pre-enrollment documents submitted which indicated that he suffered from a visual acuity problem. Petitioner has had hose-line and ladder training. Additionally, Petitioner has undergone emergency medical services training, salvage training, and hydraulics training. Petitioner has also fought "fake" fires. Petitioner uses a device called a Scott air mask which is a device used to enter a burning structure. According to Petitioner, with his corrective lens inserted in the Scott air mask, his visual acuity is 20/20. 3/ It was noted that Petitioner was told to refrain from driving a vehicle due to a problem he was experiencing with his vision. Several of Petitioner's coworkers appeared and testified as to his satisfactory performance in fighting fires. (Testimony of Captain Green, Lieutenant Samuel Evans and Bryon Williams Varn.) 4/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner's request for State certification as a fire fighter by the State Fire Marshal, be DENIED. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of September, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 11th day of September, 1981.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner’s application for certification as a firesafety inspector should be granted.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for the certification of firesafety inspectors in the State of Florida pursuant to Chapter 633, Florida Statutes (2009).1 In September 2008, Mr. Bates completed his coursework for certification as a firesafety inspector. In November 2008, Mr. Bates submitted an application for certification as a firesafety inspector. Sometime between November 19, 2008, and December 5, 2008, the Department notified Mr. Bates that the Department did not have a copy of his high school diploma and the certificate showing that course work for the building construction for the fire service had been completed. On December 5, 2008, the Department received documentation showing that Mr. Bates had graduated from high school and had completed the course work for the building construction for the fire service. Scheduling a time to take the firesafety inspector examination can be done online by going to the Pearson Vue testing center website and entering the ID and password provided by the Bureau. Mr. Bates attempted to schedule the examination by telephone and was unsuccessful, but he did not attempt to schedule the examination online. Sometime during January or February 2009, Mr. Bates was able to obtain a date for the examination. Mr. Bates took the examination for firesafety inspector certification for the first time on February 13, 2009. A passing score on the examination was 70 percent. The Bureau sent a notice to Mr. Bates that his score was 56 percent. The notice of the test results advised that he could retake the examination within six months of his test date of February 13, 2009, and that he could review his test questions by contacting the Promissor at www.promissor.com. On April 3, 2009, Mr. Bates contacted Charles Brush, who was the standards supervisor for the Bureau, to schedule a review of his examination taken in February. Mr. Brush was responsible for the testing for certifications and renewals issued by the Bureau. Due to miscommunications with the Bureau, Pearson Vue testing center, and Mr. Bates, Mr. Bates was not scheduled for a review of his examination until May 2009. Mr. Bates reviewed his examination in May 2009; however, after he had gone through the examination one time, he was not allowed to again review the examination. This restriction on the review process is designed to prevent applicants from memorizing questions from the examination. Many of the questions on the examination may be used again in another examination. Because of the communication issues concerning the test review, Mr. Brush gave Mr. Bates an open-ended time extension to retake the examination. Sometime between February 13, 2009, and June 27, 2009, Mr. Bates took a weekend course to practice for the examination. On June 27, 2009, Mr. Bates retook the firesafety inspector examination and again scored 56 percent, which was a failing score. The notice of the test results provided that “[s]hould you fail the retest or waive your right to a retest, the only way to obtain certification is retake the course(s) required, submit a new application for approval, and pass the certification examination.” Mr. Bates does not contest the scores that he received on the examinations. He contends that he should be entitled to be certified as a firesafety inspector due to the amount of time that passed between the completion of his coursework in September 2008 and the taking of the examinations in February and June 2009. He was not able to retain coursework information from September 2008, when he completed his courses, until February 2009, when he first took the test.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying Mr. Bates’ request that he be certified as a firesafety inspector. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of April, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of April, 2010.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Francis Edward Neuzil, Jr. (Respondent), was certified as a firefighter and firesafety inspector in the State of Florida, holding certificates 7360 and FI-39965, respectively. Respondent's firefighter certification was issued on or about February 22, 1979, and his firesafety inspector certification was issued on or about January 9, 1985. On or about December 20, 1991, Respondent was charged by Information with one count of grand theft in the Circuit Court, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida, in Case No. 91-23492CF10. On or about May 11, 1992, Respondent plead nolo contendere to grand theft for violating Subsection 812.014(1)(a), Florida Statutes, a third degree felony. Adjudication was withheld, and Respondent was placed on 18 months probation with special conditions of 50 hours of community service and no consumption of drugs or alcohol. On or about January 14, 1993, the court terminated Respondent's probation, approximately 10 months prior to the scheduled time for his probation to end. The incident which led to Respondent's felony charge occurred on or about December 7 or 8, 1991, at a Sam's store in Broward County after 11:00 p.m. A sprinkler system was being installed and was sufficiently completed for inspection by a firesafety inspector. Respondent went to Sam's store acting in the capacity of a firesafety inspector. Originally, he had estimated that only 10 minutes would be needed to accomplish his task--check the water gauges--but the sprinkler installers were behind schedule and it took approximately an hour. Prior to arriving at Sam's, Respondent had consumed approximately 10 beers. While waiting to perform the inspection, Respondent, who was not in uniform, walked around in the store, consuming an unknown quantity of beers that he had brought into the store with him. Respondent was observed by an electrical worker and several of Sam's employees who either saw him drinking beer or smelled the alcohol on his person and who either knew who he was or were told by other workers or employees who he was. These same individuals witnessed Respondent take several items to the rear entrance--through which everyone working that night or morning was coming and going--and out of the store. Respondent did not attempt to conceal the items. None of the individuals questioned Respondent about the items or stopped him. However, one employee contacted a Sam's manager who was present. They discovered store items were missing, went to Respondent's vehicle which was parked at the rear entrance, as was everyone else's vehicle, and saw the items inside his vehicle. Law enforcement was called, and Respondent was arrested. All the people who saw Respondent at Sam's store believe that he was intoxicated. Respondent has little or no recollection of the incident, and what he does recall is vague. He does not recall taking the items, all of which were items that he had seen before in Sam's and wanted for the Boy Scouts with whom he volunteers. However, he does recall picking up a light bulb and an electrical cord with no ends to it. As a result of the incident, Respondent was suspended by the Fire Chief of the City of Miramar and has not acted in the capacity as a firesafety inspector since December 1991. Even though Respondent pled nolo contendere to the felony charge of grand theft, mitigating circumstances exist, both at the time of the incident and subsequent thereto. Medically, Respondent is diagnosed as an alcoholic, having the disease alcoholism. During the incident, he suffered an alcoholic blackout and, as a result, has little or no recollection of taking the items. Furthermore, Respondent was incapable of forming the requisite intent to steal the items. Additionally, immediately after the incident, he sought treatment and checked himself into a rehabilitation center. Respondent is now a recovering alcoholic. He regularly attends meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous and is monitored by a sponsor who is also a professional firefighter (10 years) and a recovering alcoholic (approximately six years). Further, since January 1992, Respondent has been receiving medical assistance with his alcoholism. Even though he needs to remain in a recovery program, he does not pose a threat to his profession. 1/ Moreover, during Respondent's career as a firefighter (almost 15 years) and firesafety inspector (almost nine years), his certifications have never been disciplined and he has been actively participating in his community. Through his community involvement, Respondent established the City of Miramar's Fire Prevention Bureau and raised money to fund the Bureau. Additionally, he has received many job-related commendations and service recognitions and he has volunteered extensively to work with service organizations, such as the Boy Scouts. Petitioner's consistent policy is to not consider mitigating factors in disciplinary action against a firesafety inspector's certification. In matters involving a plea of nolo contendere, the consistent policy is that an applicant for firesafety inspector will not be issued a certification and that, if the individual has been issued a certification, Petitioner will seek revocation of the certification, regardless of mitigating circumstances. Petitioner is not seeking to discipline Respondent's certification as a firefighter since his certification, by statute [Section 633.351(2), Florida Statutes], was revoked until termination of his probation which occurred on January 14, 1993.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order: Suspending Respondent's certification as a firesafety inspector for a period of two years, retroactive to May 11, 1992, the date of Respondent's plea of nolo contendere. Reinstating Respondent's certification at the conclusion of the suspension and thereafter, for a period of one year, placing Respondent's certification on probation under whatever terms and conditions that Petitioner deems just and appropriate. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 16th day of December 1993. ERROL H. POWELL 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 16th day of December 1993.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's second failed Firesafety Examination should be invalidated because of faulty examination questions, and, if so, the relief to which Petitioner is entitled.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an applicant for certification as a firesafety inspector in the State of Florida. As an applicant for certification as a firesafety inspector, Petitioner was required to complete an approved Inspector Training Course before sitting for the Firesafety Exam. In March 2012, Petitioner successfully completed an approved Inspector Training Course. The Department establishes general curriculum parameters for firesafety inspector training courses taught throughout the State of Florida. Approximately two years before Petitioner commenced his Inspector Training Course, the Department informed entities offering training courses that the textbook, Brannigan's Building Construction for the Fire Service (4th edition), should no longer be used as a reference source when preparing students for the Firesafety Exam due to the limited availability of the textbook. The Brannigan textbook had been recognized by the Department for many years as an approved training guide. Petitioner, after completing his Inspector Training Course, spent several months studying for the Firesafety Exam. On August 30, 2012, Petitioner took the Firesafety Exam for the first time and answered 57 of 100 questions correctly. Petitioner failed this examination. Approximately three weeks later, Petitioner, on September 18, 2012, took the Firesafety Exam a second time. Petitioner answered 63 of 100 questions correctly. Petitioner once again failed the Firesafety Exam. By letter dated September 21, 2012, the Department informed Petitioner that because "you failed both the initial and retake examinations, it will be necessary for you to repeat the Inspect[or] Training [Course], and you will be required to submit a new application." Petitioner does not wish to repeat the Inspector Training Course. When Petitioner took his retake examination on September 18, 2012, he encountered several questions that, in his opinion, presented information that was different from what he learned from his Inspector Training Course. Upon post-exam investigation, Petitioner, after having met with a representative from the Department, identified nine questions from the retake examination that he believes were derived from the Brannigan textbook. Of the nine "Brannigan" questions identified by Petitioner, he provided correct answers to six of the questions during his retake examination. According to the Department, even if Petitioner received credit for the additional "Branningan" questions (as identified by Petitioner) that he answered incorrectly, he would have only achieved an exam score of 66 out of 100, which is still a failing score. The Department disagrees with Petitioner's assertion that there were nine "Brannigan" questions on the retake examination. The Department concedes, however, that there was one question on the retake examination that was taken directly from the Brannigan textbook. Petitioner answered correctly on his retake examination the one Brannigan question identified by the Department. Petitioner did not prove that there were nine "Brannigan" questions on the examination, but he did prove the existence of one "Brannigan" question on the examination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order denying Petitioner's challenge to the failing score he received on the September 2012 Firesafety Inspector Certification Examination and dismiss the petition in this proceeding. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of March, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LINZIE F. BOGAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of March, 2013.
Findings Of Fact The parties agreed that the City of Winter Park or the City Commission was the Public Employer as defined by Chapter 477, Florida Statutes. The Public Employees Relations Commission's file contains the affidavit of Pat Hill attesting to the fact that the Winter Park Professional Fire Fighters Local #1598 was a duly registered employee organization as of the date of hearing. This affidavit was executed on May 2, 1975. The Petition recites that recognition of Petitioner was requested on January 16, 1975. The Public Employer has not responded to the request for recognition. The Winter Park Fire Department is composed of full-time and volunteer fire fighters. The Petitioner seeks to represent only full-time fire fighters, of which there are approximately 38, and would seek to represent all fire fighters in the Department except the chief. The Winter Park Fire Department is composed of the chief, fire inspector (fire marshall), three captains, three lieutenants, one mechanic, various engineers and fire fighters. There are two fire stations, Station 1 and Station 2, each station having three shifts. Station 1 is commanded by a captain and Station 2 is commanded by a lieutenant who reports to the captain who also is the shift commander. It should be noted, however, that the captain would not respond to a fire in Station 2's area, therefore, generally, a lieutenant would not work on a fire scene for the captain. Each shift has approximately eleven men, including the captain and lieutenant, assigned, and there are approximately 6-5 at Station 1 and 4-5 at Station 2. The Mechanic is a fully qualified fire fighter and the Chief feels that this dual capability makes him more valuable to the Department. The Fire Inspector (Fire Marshall) is a special staff officer who inspects building plans for compliance with fire safety codes, assist in operational planning, and directs the activities of fire safety inspectors assigned to him. The Deputy Chief acts as the second in command of the Department, assistant to the Fire Chief, and coordinates and directly supervises the shift captains. He would respond to any fire alarm in Area 1 or 2 which was other than a minor fire, and command the fire scene, except those to which the Chief responded. It was apparent that the Fire Chief was the major policy maker, but the Deputy Chief was the "detail man" charged with developing and executing major polices determined by the Chief. The Deputy Chief prepared the Standing Operating Procedures (SOP's), letters of change to the SOP's, and other letters of direction received from the Chief. Although the Chief would consult with the Deputy Chief on budgetary, personnel, and planning matters, the Chief retained the authority to determine policy. The Deputy Chief was authorized to exercise his discretion in implementing these polices particularly those related to personnel; assignments, transfers, and approval of leaves. The Mechanic is assigned to maintain and repair all the department's trucks and pumps. The Chief testified that the Mechanic had and needed knowledge of regular gasoline engines, diesel engines, and pumps. The Chief further testified that the Mechanic's position was held by a man who had been an engineer with the Department, who had the requisite skills, and the Chief had promoted him to provide him additional compensation in order that he would take the job. The Mechanic spends almost all of his 40-hour week in the performance of mechanic's duties, but as a qualified fire fighter he is qualified to perform fire fighting duties if necessary. In actuality the Mechanic does not fight fires, but has the capability if required. The Mechanic schedules his own work and reports to the Deputy Chief. He is on call when not on duty. He is assisted as required by other firemen if additional physical strength is necessary to perform a specific task. The status of the current mechanic is apparently in flux, and the Chief has referred to a study committee of firemen and officers the problem of to what rank and seniority the individual should revert. The Mechanic is not required to be a fire fighter. It was apparent from the Chief's testimony regarding various major policy decisions that he consulted with fire department personnel who would be effected by a proposed policy either by means of a group meeting, study committee or similar decision making process. Such input was obtained from personnel not so much on the basis of rank in the Department but rather on the issue involved and who it affected. The Chief was dependent upon his special staff members, i.e., the Deputy Chief and Fire Marshall, for special plans and operational advice, however, the pattern for decision making did not restrict input solely to officer personnel. The company officers provide budgetary information by preparing lists of their stations' and shifts' projected equipment, consumable, and capital outlay needs in the upcoming fiscal year. Based upon this data the Chief and Deputy Chief prepare the budget for submission to the City Manager. Items requested by company officers are reviewed by the Chief and Deputy Chief and are generally approved if they are not too expensive and appear to be justifiable. The Chief indicated that he gave careful consideration to such requests, pointing out an expensive hose dryer purchased at the request of Station 2's officers and a coffee maker needed and requested by Lt. Legarde, the latter being a direct authorization purchase from current funding. The company officers were responsible for the assignment of duties of subordinate personnel at their station on their shift both on equipment and station work details. Because of the limited numbers of personnel assigned at the stations, the company officers participated in clean up details including the handling of the light clean up duties. The company officers had only limited authority to grant leaves. Company officers would not have authority to suspend personnel except under those circumstances in which the individual would pose a hazard to himself and others such as an employee reporting to work drunk. Disciplinary cases would be referred through the Deputy Chief to the Chief for final action with appeal rights to the civil service board. The authority to grant regular leave similarly would necessitate approval by the Deputy Chief. The company officers forward the request to the Deputy Chief and explain the basis for the request. According to the testimony, officers would not generally present a recommendation regarding approval to the Deputy Chief. Company officers do have authority to grant temporary exchanges of duty although this would be reported as a courtesy to the Deputy Chief. Company officers do evaluate personnel and these evaluations would be a considerable but not determinative factor in promotion. It would be one of several things which a panel of fire officers from surrounding communities would consider in evaluating an employee's eligibility for promotion. The Chief indicated that although by law he could select from the several highest individuals recommended, he had established a policy that he would promote the highest recommended. Merit increases were authorized and dependent upon evaluations, however, because of nonavailability of funds, merit increases had not been paid for some time and no one could foresee their payment. The relationship of company officers on the table of organization would indicate that the Lieutenant at Station 2 was subordinate to the Captain at Station 1. However the Captain is more closely under the supervision of the Deputy Chief. The conduit for information is through the chain of command, however, any person who was not present or otherwise reasonably available would be skipped.
