The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaints filed against him, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was licensed as a certified general contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CG C000942. At all times material hereto, Respondent was the licensed qualifying agent for Twenty First Century Construction Management, Inc. On September 5, 1992, Willie Janes, doing business as Janes Roofing Contractor, entered into a contract with Debourah Benjamin to replace the roof at her residence located in Margate, Florida. The contract price was $6,748, but Janes later agreed to do the work for $6,248, which was all Benjamin's insurance company would pay. On November 26, 1992, Benjamin gave Janes a check in the amount of $2,200 as a down payment on the work. The check was payable to Willie Janes. At the time Janes entered into his contract with Benjamin, his local roofing license had expired, and he was not licensed as a roofing contractor by the State of Florida. Respondent applied for the roofing permit for the Benjamin job. The City of Margate Building Department issued permit number 11525-R by and through Respondent's licensure on December 3, 1992. Janes commenced work on the Benjamin project on November 26, 1992. On December 8, 1992, the City of Margate Building Department performed a tin tag inspection of the work done by Janes. The work failed the inspection that day but passed two days later. On January 11, 1993, Benjamin issued a second check, in the amount of $2,300, payable to Willie Janes, for the purchase of roof tile. Janes did not order and did not pay for the roof tile until approximately June 25, 1993. The tile was delivered to Benjamin's residence a few days later and placed on the roof for installation but Janes did not return to the project site. The amount of tile delivered to Benjamin's residence was not sufficient to cover the entire roof. On approximately June 25, 1993, Benjamin noticed for the first time that the name of the company on the permit posted at her residence was Twenty First Century Construction. Neither the Respondent nor Twenty First Century Construction Management, Inc., had any involvement in Benjamin's project other than obtaining the building permit. Benjamin contacted the building department which issued the permit and was referred to Petitioner. An employee of Petitioner advised her that the qualifier for Twenty First Century Construction was Respondent. Benjamin had never heard of Respondent at the time. Benjamin contacted Respondent by telephone several times about completing the work commenced by Janes. Respondent repeatedly promised to finish the roof but never did. Benjamin next contacted the Margate Police Department to report the activities of Respondent and Janes. On September 3, 1993, Officer Liberatori of the Margate Police Department spoke to Respondent by telephone, and Respondent promised to complete the work within 30 days. However, Respondent did nothing to complete the work. The last inspection performed on the Benjamin project under permit number 11525-R was the dry-in inspection performed on February 8, 1993. Permit number 11525-R expired on July 8, 1993. In December 1993 Benjamin had the project completed by another contractor. On November 16, 1992, Delos and Barbara Johnson entered into a written contract with Respondent to remodel a porch enclosure at the Johnson residence in Coral Springs, Florida, for a contract price of $10,250. The Johnsons made three payments to Respondent: $1,000 on September 28, 1992; $5,000 on November 17, 1992; and $3,000 on December 2, 1992. On October 12, 1992, Respondent applied for a building permit from the City of Coral Springs for the Johnson remodeling. The City of Coral Springs issued permit number 920004472 by and through Respondent's licensure on November 30, 1992. When the City of Coral Springs issues a building permit, it provides with the permit a list of the required inspections. Respondent proceeded with the construction until December 2, 1992, when he received the third payment. Thereafter, Respondent ceased all construction activities on the Johnson project. Shortly thereafter, the Johnsons learned from the Coral Springs Building Department that their remodeling project had failed to pass the required inspections. When they confronted Respondent regarding his failure to obtain the required inspections, he represented to them that he had made a videotape of all the work he performed, that he himself was a building inspector and could inspect his work, and that he could get a special inspector to inspect the project from the videotape. At no time material hereto was Respondent a certified building inspector. Videotaping a construction project in lieu of obtaining required inspections is not permitted under the South Florida Building Code nor is it permitted by the City of Coral Springs Building Department. Of the required nine inspections for the project, Respondent only obtained three inspections. Of those three, he only passed two. Respondent's failure to obtain the required inspections constitutes a violation of the South Florida Building Code, the minimum standard required for any type of building construction in South Florida. A contractor's failure to adhere to that minimum standard causes harm to the public from deteriorating construction. The Johnsons and the City of Coral Springs Building Department gave Respondent an opportunity to obtain and pass the required inspections and complete the construction project. When Respondent declined to do so, the attorney hired by the Johnsons discharged Respondent. The Johnsons had paid approximately 90 percent of the money they had saved for the porch enclosure to Respondent, and they could not afford to continue with the construction project using the services of another contractor until November 1994. Rick Hugins of Hugins Construction Corp., the remedial contractor, needed to pass the required inspections that Respondent had neglected in order to be permitted by the City of Coral Springs Building Department to complete the project. Work that needed to be inspected was concealed by subsequently- installed construction materials which had to be removed in order that the required inspections could be performed. Numerous code violations were discovered in the concealed work. The work performed by Respondent was below industry standards. The Johnsons paid Hugins Construction Corp. $10,000 to correct the code violations, to pass the required inspections Respondent had missed, and to complete the project. Hugins completed the project by January 23, 1995. Respondent has been previously disciplined by Petitioner on charges of assisting unlicensed activity and of failing to notify Petitioner of his current mailing address and telephone number. That discipline included the payment of an administrative fine and an assessment of costs associated with that investigation and prosecution.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in Counts I and III of the Administrative Complaint filed against him in DOAH Case No. 97- 1365, finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint filed against him in DOAH Case No. 97-1368, requiring Respondent to pay restitution to the Johnsons, assessing against Respondent the costs of investigation and prosecution through the time the final order is entered, and revoking Respondent's certification as a general contractor in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of July, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of July, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Dorota Trzeciecka, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 401 Northwest Second Avenue, No. N-607 Miami, Florida 33128 Edward Conrad Sawyer, Esquire 1413 North 58th Avenue Hollywood, Florida 33021 Rodney Hurst, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Respondent, Roger S. Williams, held registered building contractor license number RB0026339 issued by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing board, authorizing him to perform contracting under his individual name. Respondent, Frederick S. Schreiner, held certified general contractor's license numbers CG C004811 and CG CA04811 also issued by Petitioner authorizing him to perform contracting under his individual name and under Cape Development Corporation. Williams served as president of Architectural Builders, Inc. (ABI), a development firm located in Palm Bay, Florida. Schreiner was engaged in the contracting business generally in the Brevard County, Florida area. He has done construction work for ABI and Williams for the past eight or nine years. ABI held no licenses from either the state or local governments. On October 31, 1979, ABI entered into a construction contract with Jack and Stella Oleksy to construct a home at 842 South Becker Street, Palm Bay, Florida. The contract was approved by R. S. Williams as president of ABI. At a later undisclosed date, Williams attempted to pull a City of Palm Bay building permit on behalf of ABI. Whether the City gave formal or informal approval at that point is not clear; in any event the construction of the home began shortly thereafter. Several weeks later the City's chief building official told Williams that because he did not have local competency with the City, he could not pull a permit for a job. Williams was also advised that a recent change in state law required ABI to qualify to do business if ABI intended to construct homes within the City. When told that Frederick Schreiner would be constructing the home for ABI and that Schreiner held an appropriate license, the City official told Williams to have a construction contract executed between ABI and Schreiner to build the home. Thereafter, Schreiner pulled a permit for the job and posted it on the building site. He also gave the City a contract executed by he and ABI and which was dated November 29, 1979. During the course of the construction, Schreiner visited the building site approximately six to eight times. The work was done entirely by subcontractors who had been used on other construction jobs by Williams and Schreiner. The subcontractors were paid by ABI but worked under the supervision of Schreiner. When the job was completed Williams signed the final payment affidavit on which it was indicated that Williams was the contractor on the job. Oleksy was on the site daily to inspect the work. He complained periodically about various aspects of the job to Roger Williams. His main complaint concerned the trusses on the roof which he contended were out of alignment causing a wavy and uneven roof line. After the house was essentially completed, Oleksy lodged a complaint with Williams concerning the workmanship on the roof. Williams sent a carpenter to visit the premises who found some "variations" and worked for approximately three hours to correct the problem. He was then told by Oleksy it looked okay. Within the next few days, Oleksy again complained to Williams that the roof was wavy. Williams then sent out a roofing crew to attempt to correct the problem. After they completed their work, Williams received no further indication that the owner was unhappy. Williams later had a local relator familiar with the subdivision and an experienced carpenter who had framed more than 150 homes to view the roof. Both concluded the roof was of good workmanship and of similar quality to other homes in the neighborhood. Oleksy later filed a complaint with the City of Palm Bay concerning his roof. The City sent its chief building official to inspect the home. He described the roof as being of "poor workmanship". The same conclusion was reached by the city building inspector who also inspected the property. Because of this, the City made the notation "Hold problem roof" in its file and did not issue a certificate of occupancy to Oleksy. However, the City did not construe the roof to constitute a violation of the building code. Respondents asserted that a 1979 change in the law as to the qualification of agents caused doubt and confusion as to what was required by ABI and Williams. They also point out that if indeed a violation occurred, it was not intentional. Rather, Respondents simply desired to comply with all applicable statutes and regulations so that their construction businesses could continue to operate in a lawful manner. Other than the alleged violations herein, Respondents were not shown to have been subject to any prior disciplinary proceedings.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Roger S. Williams, be found guilty as charged in Count I, and be given a public reprimand. the remainder of the charges should be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Frederick L. Schreiner, be found guilty as charged of all allegations except willfully and deliberately violating a state law, and be given a public reprimand. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of June, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 1982.
The Issue Whether pursuant to Sections 57.111 or 120.595(1), Florida Statutes, Petitioner Rafael R. Palacios (Palacios) should be awarded reasonable costs and attorney's fees incurred in defense of an administrative proceeding against him that was initiated by the Respondent, Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Department). Whether pursuant to Section 120.595(1), Florida Statutes, Petitioner Steven L. Johns (Johns) should be awarded reasonable costs and attorney's fees incurred in defense of an administrative proceeding against him that was initiated by Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Steven L. Johns, is a Florida Certified General Contractor and the principal qualifier for C. G. Chase Construction Company (Chase Construction). In 1994, Chase Construction entered into a construction contract with Carnival Cruise Lines for an expansion project at the Port of Miami. Chase Construction subcontracted the mechanical work to R. Palacios & Company. Petitioner, Rafael R. Palacios, is the president, primary qualifier, and 100 percent stockholder of R. Palacios & Company. Palacios' principal place of business is located in Miami, Florida. In July and December 1998, Palacios employed less than 25 employees and had a net worth of less than $2,000,000. The contract for the Port of Miami project consisted of two phases. Phase I was to construct an arrival lobby and an enclosed walkway to a terminal. Phase II included the addition of boarding halls, the renovation of an existing elevated area, and the addition of baggage areas. A foundation permit had been pulled for Phase I. The foundation work was quickly completed, and Chase Construction representatives advised both the Port of Miami and Carnival Cruise Lines that they could go no further without a permit. Work stopped for a short period of time. In June 1995, a Representative from the Port of Miami called Chase Construction and told them to go to the Dade County Building and Zoning Department (Building Department) the next day to meet with Port of Miami officials, the architect, and building and zoning officials. Johns sent Dave Whelpley, who was a project manager and officer of Chase Construction. Palacios did not attend the meeting. Dr. Carlos Bonzon (Bonzon) was the director and building official of Dade County's Building Department during the majority of the construction activities at the Port of Miami by Chase Construction. As the building official, Dr. Bonzon gave verbal authorization for the work on the project to proceed above the foundation without a written permit. Inspections were to be done by the chief inspectors for Dade County. After the meeting with the Building Department officials in June 1995, Johns understood that authorization had been given by the building official to proceed with construction without a written permit. Work did proceed and inspections were made on the work completed. The Dade County Building Code Compliance Office (BBCO) had the responsibility to oversee Dade County's Building Department. In early 1996, an officer of the BBCO accompanied a building inspector during an inspection of the Port of Miami project. It came to the attention of the BBCO officer that no written permit had been issued for the project. The BBCO officer notified the chief of code compliance for Dade County. A written permit was issued for Phase II of the Port of Miami Project on February 6, 1996, at which time approximately 80 percent of the work had been completed. On the same date, Chase Construction issued a memorandum to its subcontractors to secure the necessary permits. Shortly after the permits were issued, an article appeared in the Miami Herald concerning the project and the lack of written permits. Respondent, Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Department) became aware of the situation as a result of the newspaper article and began an investigation. Diane Perera (Perera), an attorney employed by the Department since 1993 to prosecute construction-related professional license law violations, played a major role in determining and carrying out the Department's subsequent actions regarding the Port of Miami project and persons licensed by the Department who had been involved in the project. The Department opened investigations against eight Department licensees. Those licensees included two building officials, Bonzon, and Lee Martin; four contractors, Johns, Palacios, Douglas L. Orr, and D. Jack Maxwell; one engineer, Ramon Donnell; and one architect, Willy A. Bermello. By Administrative Complaint prepared by Perera and filed on September 9, 1997, before the Building Code Administrators and Inspectors Board (BCAIB), the Department charged Bonzon with various violations of Part XIII of Chapter 486, Florida Statutes, for having allowed above-grade construction on the project to proceed in the absence of approved plans and building permits. In conjunction with the Bonzon case, Charles Danger (Danger), a licensed professional engineer and Director of BBCO testified in a deposition that above-grade construction of the project had proceeded without a building permit and without approved plans in violation of Chapter 3, Section 301 of the South Florida Building Code. He also testified that Bonzon had exceeded his authority under the South Florida Building Code by authorizing the above-grade construction and that the contractors who performed the work did so in violation of the South Florida Building Code. The Department's charges against Bonzon were resolved through a settlement agreement, whereby Bonzon agreed to relinquish his building code administrator's license. A final order of the BCAIB accepting the settlement agreement was filed on July 2, 1998. In the settlement agreement, Bonzon specifically agreed that his interpretation of the South Florida Building Code provisions, including portions of Section 301, was erroneous. On June 24, 1998, the Department presented the Department's Case Number 97-17322 involving Johns to the Division I Probable Cause Panel (PCP) of the Construction Industry Licensing Board (CILB). The panel members on this date were Gene Simmons and Wayne Beigle. Stuart Wilson-Patton and Leland McCharen, assistant attorneys general, were present to provide legal advise to the PCP. The prosecuting attorney presenting the case to the panel was Perera. The Department was requesting a finding of probable cause against Johns for a violation of Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes, for knowingly violating the applicable building code by performing above-grade construction work on the Port of Miami project in the absence of approved plans and specifications. Prior to the meeting of the Division I PCP of the CILB, Perera had furnished the two panel members documentary evidence pertaining to the case, copies of which were received in evidence at the final hearing as Respondent's Exhibits 5 and 13, with the exception of a letter dated July 31, 1998, from Petitioners' attorney, Renee Alsobrook. Respondent's Exhibit 5 consisted of materials taken from the Bonzon and Lee Martin cases, including the transcript of the December 22, 1997, deposition of Charles Danger, who was the building officer for the BBCO from 1991 to 1998. Respondent's Exhibit 13 was the investigative file for the Johns' case. The Division I PCP discussed Johns' case and voted to request additional information regarding whether any fast track ordinance existed in Dade County, and if so, how it might have applied to the Port of Miami project. On June 24, 1998, the Division II PCP of the CILB met and discussed the Palacios case, which was designated as the Department's Case No. 97-17313. The members of the panel were James Barge and Richard Cowart. Mr. Wilson-Patton and Mr. McCharen were present to provide legal advise to the PCP. The prosecuting attorney presenting the case to the PCP was Perera. The Department was requesting a finding of probable cause against Palacios for violating Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes, by knowingly violating the applicable building code by performing above-grade construction work on the Port of Miami project in the absence of approved plans and a building permit. Prior to the Division II PCP meeting, the panel members were provided with materials which were received in evidence at the final hearing as Respondent's Exhibits 5 and 14, with the exception of letters dated July 31 and August 26, 1998, from Renee Alsobrook. Respondent's Exhibit 14 is the Department's investigative file on the Palacios case. Following a discussion of the Palacios case, one of the panel members made a motion not to find probable cause. The motion died for lack of a second, and the panel took no further action on the case that day. Pursuant to Section 455.225(4), Florida Statutes, the case was treated as one in which the PCP failed to make a determination regarding the existence of probable cause and was presented to Hank Osborne, Deputy Secretary of the Department, to make a determination whether probable cause existed. On July 2, 1998, Deputy Secretary Osborne found probable cause, and the Department filed an Administrative Complaint against Palacios, charging a violation of Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes. The Department never served Palacios with the Administrative Complaint filed on July 2, 1998. The Department did not notify Palacios that the Administrative Complaint had been filed and did not prosecute the Administrative Complaint. At the time the Administrative Complaint was filed, the Department believed that the Legislature was in the process of enacting legislation to repeal Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes. Chapter 98-419, Laws of Florida, which became law on June 17, 1998, repealed Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes, effective October 1, 1998. Because of the repeal and the lack of a savings clause for pending cases, the Department determined that as of October 1, 1998, the Department did not have authority to take disciplinary action based on a violation of Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes. On December 18, 1998, the Department presented the Department's Case Nos. 97-17133 and 97-1732 to the PCPs for a second time with a recommendation to find probable cause that Johns and Palacios had violated Section 489.129(1)(p), Florida Statutes, for proceeding on any job without obtaining applicable local building permits and inspections. Mr. McCharen was present to provide legal advice to the PCPs. Ms. Perera was also present during the meetings of the PCPs. Documentary materials presented to the PCP considering Palacios' case included the materials on the Bonzon and Martin cases which had been previously presented to the PCP panel in June 1998 and the investigative files on Palacios. The investigative file included letters with attachments from Palacios' attorney Rene Alsobrook concerning the materials contained in the Bonzon and Martin cases as they related to Palacios and the investigative file on Palacios. Additionally, the investigative file contained a report from Frank Abbott, a general contractor who had been asked by the Department to review the file on Palacios. Mr. Abbott concluded that Palacios had violated several provisions of Chapters 489 and 455, Florida Statutes, including Section 489.129(p), Florida Statutes. The PCPs found probable cause in the Johns and Palacios cases. On December 23, 1998, the Department filed administrative complaints against Palacios and Johns alleging violations of Section 489.129(1)(p), Florida Statutes. The cases were forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment to an administrative law judge. Palacios and Johns claimed that they were relying on the authorization from Bonzon when they proceeded on the above-grade construction work. No formal administrative hearing was held on the administrative complaints filed on December 23, 1998. On December 18, 1998, a Recommended Order was issued in the related case against Lee Martin, Department Case No. 97-11278, finding that Mr. Martin, the building official who replaced Bonzon and assumed responsibility for the Port of Miami project, had the discretion to allow the remaining construction to proceed while taking action to expedite the plans processsing. A Final Order was entered by the Department dismissing all charges against Mr. Martin. On February 26, 1999, Petitioners Palacios' and Johns' Motions to Dismiss and Respondent's responses were filed. The Motions to Dismiss did not request attorney's fees or costs and did not reference Section 120.595(1), Florida Statutes. The motions did contain the following language: The DBPR has acted in an improper and malicious manner by precluding the Respondent from asserting his response to the second draft Administrative Complaint and requesting the Panel to find probable cause for reasons other than whether there was probable cause to believe the Respondent violated specific disciplinary violations. On March 19, 1999, the cases were consolidated and noticed for hearing on May 12-13, 1999. Section 489.129, Florida Statutes, was amended during the 1999 legislative session to provide: A contractor does not commit a violation of this subsection when the contractor relies on a building code interpretation rendered by a building official or person authorized by s. 553.80 to enforce the building code, absent a finding of fraud or deceit in the practice of contracting, or gross negligence, repeated negligence, or negligence resulting in a significant danger to life or property on the part of the building official, in a proceeding under chapter 120. . . . On April 15, 1999, the Department filed a Motion for Leave to Revisit Probable Cause Panel and to Hold in Abeyance. On April 20, 1999, Petitioners filed a response, stating they did not object to the granting of the motion to hold in abeyance. The final hearing was cancelled, and the cases were placed in abeyance. On May 24, 1999, the Department submitted a Status Report, stating that the cases would be placed on the next regularly scheduled PCP meeting scheduled for June 16, 1999. By order dated May 25, 1999, the cases were continued in abeyance. On July 1, 1999, Palacios and Johns filed a Status Report, indicating that the cases would be presented to the PCPs sometime in July and requesting the cases be continued in abeyance for an additional 30 days in order for the parties to resolve the issues. On July 30, 1999, Palacios and Johns filed a Status Report, stating that the cases were orally dismissed on July 28, 1999, and that a hearing involving issues of disputed facts was no longer required. Based on Johns' and Palacios' status report, the files of the Division of Administrative Hearings were closed by order dated August 3, 1999. No motion for attorney's fees and costs was filed during the pendency of the cases at the Division of Administrative Hearings. On August 3, 1999, orders were entered by Cathleen E. O'Dowd, Lead Attorney, dismissing the cases against Palacios and Johns.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether Respondent's license as a professional engineer in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Board of Professional Engineers was the state agency responsible for the licensing of professional engineers in this state. Respondent, James B. Whittum, was licensed as a professional engineer by the Board under License No. PE 0027689, dated March 9, 1979. He is a consulting engineer dealing primarily in aluminum structures - mostly pool enclosures. Starting in 1990, Respondent did a number of designs, some thirty to fifty a year, for Paglino Aluminum, an aluminum contractor located in Tampa, which might also have had offices in Miami. The company is now out of business. Sometime in 1992 Respondent approved plans for Paglino for a residence for Mr. and Mrs. Marrero. These drawings were for an aluminum enclosure. He did not personally make the drawing which had been done by Mrs. Paglino. He did not know where the Marrero residence was but claims that at no time did he do or approve any drawings which he believed would be utilized for construction in Miami. In order to save clients money, Respondent had established a practice with Paglino and with a number of other clients by which he would train them in how to design and draw the pool cages. Respondent would provide the clients with a design booklet and instruction on how to use it. The client would bring drawings to the Respondent who would check them over to make sure that everything was done according to the design basis. A copy of the design guide was furnished to Paglino. Once Respondent received the drawings from the client, he would go through the whole design procedure himself to be sure that the drawings conformed to the code. In order to place his signature and seal on drawings, he had to have an identification of the site (either the name of the owner or the address of the site), the dimensions of the slab on which the structure is to be built, and the orientation of the structure with reference to the existing building to which it was to be attached. With regard to the specific plans in issue, Mr. Whittum did not know the structure was to be built in Dade County. The plans he saw bore the Marreros' name but not their address. He never spoke to the Marreros except for one call from Mrs. Marrerro, after the structure was built, complaining about it. Before signing the plans, Respondent checked in the Tampa phone book for listings for Marrero and found twenty-five or thirty listings for that name. He assumed the Marreros for which these plans were drafted were one of those families listed. It is not Respondent's practice to know the street address for every design he signs and seals. He inquired of several other engineers designing aluminum structures to see if they did the same as he proposed before signing and sealing these plans. He found that they have either the name of the owner or the street address, but not necessarily both. Included in those with whom Respondent spoke concerning this issue were engineers in Sarasota and Cape Coral. This testimony by Mr. Whittum as to the practice of other engineers is hearsay, however. Most counties in Florida, except Pinellas County, do not allow the use of standard plans as submittals for the purpose of permitting. However, an engineering firm has drawn a set of master drawings for the design of aluminum structures. These drawings were done for the Pinellas Chapter of the Aluminum Association of Florida, and each aluminum contractor in that county files them with the Pinellas Building Department. Thereafter, when plans are submitted, the Department official examines the plans with reference to the standard and decides whether or not to issue the permit. If the plans submitted by the contractor conform to the master design no engineer's signature or seal is required. This procedure has no bearing on any other county in Florida, however, and Respondent does not contend he believed at the time that the plans he signed would be used for construction in Pinellas County. It was not Respondent's practice to require a street address for the plans he signed and sealed for Paglino Aluminum. It was his understanding, however, that the instant structure was to be built in Hillsborough County because all the other jobs he had done for that company were, without exception, built in Hillsborough County. At no time did Paglino ever seek Respondent's permission to transfer these drawings to Dade County. By the same token, nobody asked him if the design he drew would be appropriate for Dade County. Had they done so, he would have told them the drawings were not suitable to meet the South Florida Building Code where the structural design standards are, in many ways, more stringent than in the Standard Building Code. As a result of this incident, Respondent has changed the procedure he follows. He now requires the drawings include a statement of who purchased the plans and who the proposed permitting authority is. This is not required by rule but is a precaution he takes. In his opinion, the drawings in issue were site specific. They showed the dimensions of the slab the structure was to be built on which determines the design for the size of the beams and their spacing. They also showed the orientation to the house where the structure would be connected. This was, he contends, all he needed to know to do the calculations for construction under the Standard Building Code. These calculations generally do not vary from county to county, with the exception of Dade and Broward County, where the South Florida Building Code is used. The plans Respondent signed and sealed did not indicate where the structure was to be built at the time he signed and sealed them. The plans called for a structure that could be put up anywhere in the state, except for Dade and Broward Counties. The fact remains, however, that at the time he signed and sealed these plans, Respondent did not know where the structure was to be built. His supposition that it would be built in Hillsborough County, while perhaps reasonable for a lay person, was not reasonable for a licensed professional engineer. According to James O. Power, a consulting structural engineer and expert in the practice of engineering, a structural engineer, in signing and sealing plans, accepts responsibility for the integrity of the design, certifies that the plans are good for their intended purpose, and asserts that the structure will be safe. A sealed plan may be necessary, depending on the building code and enforcement agency. The code leaves it up to the building official to require what he feels is necessary. Depending on the agency, permits may be issued on the basis of non-sealed plans. The seal carries with it the added imprimatur of the engineer's expertise. Properly sealed plans should: (1) identify the project; (2) identify the drafter; (3) identify the Code used; and (4) indicate limitations on responsibility the engineer has taken. Aluminum screen enclosures are generally similar and simple. Standard drawings can be developed for them. However, the standard plan, by itself, will not support a permit. To support the issuance of a permit, the plan must be site specific. This is a universal concept. For that purpose, additional drawings must be accomplished which consider and treat the specifics of that project. Frequently, plans are issued with a statement by the engineer limiting the degree of his or her responsibility, such as "only treating one issue" or "plans are standard and not site specific." No such limiting language was placed on the drawing in issue except, "This design is specific to this job. It is not valid if filed as a standard." In July, 1994, Mr. Power was contacted by the Department to evaluate the allegations against the Respondent in this case. In doing so, he reviewed the investigative report, portions of the transcript of the meeting of the Probable Cause Panel, the drawings in issue, and affidavits by Respondent and by the Dade County building official, but did not speak with any of them. Respondent's plans in issue bear the notation that the design is "job specific" and not valid if filed as a standard. This means that the plan should identify the job for which the plans were drawn and bear details pertinent to it. Here, the Respondent's plans refer to the "Marrero" job, and who the contractor was. In Power's opinion, this is not complete and it is not enough for the engineer to say he had the specifics in his mind. The plans must be complete and stand by themselves. Mr. Power admits he has not designed any pool enclosures. He also did not inquire whether Respondent had an office in Dade County or what the permit requirements of counties in the state are. However, in his opinion, it is universal that standard plans do not support the issuance of a permit. Respondent's design includes connection details, slab details and wind load requirements. However, the name of the owner, alone, is not site specific information. While the exact street location is not required, an identification of the area in which the project is to be built, at the very least by county, is. Respondent's expert, Mr. Sterling, is less critical of Mr. Whittum's performance. In his opinion, it is not common within the profession for signed and sealed drawings to have an address or a name or contractor's name on them. Having reviewed Respondent's drawings, Mr. Sterling does not see anything else he would need to know to properly design the structure. He does not agree with Mr. Power with respect to having the address on each and every drawing. To him, what is important in looking at the drawing from a structural point of view are the design criteria that were applied to that particular structure. To his knowledge there is no professional requirement, statute or regulation that would oblige one to provide additional information. He admits, however, that there may be different practices or rules being applied in Dade and Broward Counties with respect to structure of this type. By Final Order dated April 3, 1992, the Board disciplined Respondent's license for negligence in the practice of engineering by signing and sealing plans for an aluminum screened pool enclosure which the Hillsborough County Building Department found failed to meet acceptable engineering standards. The penalty imposed included an administrative fine of $500, a reprimand, and probation for one year under conditions designed to insure technical and professional enhancement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued finding Respondent guilty of negligence in the practice of engineering; imposing a fine of $1,000.00 and revoking his license, but that so much of the penalty as provides for revocation be suspended for a period of two years. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of May, 1995, in 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 31st day of May, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER 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. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. Accepted and incorporated herein. 2 - 11. Accepted and incorporated herein. 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. 13. - 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. 16. Accepted, but primarily a restatement of testimony. 17. - 22. Accepted, but these are primarily restatements of witness testimony. FOR THE RESPONDENT: - 4. Not Findings of Fact but statements of procedure followed. Unknown. - 9. Not Findings of Fact but comments of the evidence. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 13. Accepted. 14. - 17. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 21. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as surmise of witness, not knowledge. - 25. Accepted. - 28. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but a restatement of the issue. & 31. Not Findings of Fact but restatements of testimony. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. - 37. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but a restatement of the evidence. & 40. Not Findings of Fact but restatements of testimony. - 44. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but a restatement of testimony. More a comment by one witness on the testimony of another witness. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Mary Ellen Clark, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Charles S. Stephens, Esquire 1177 Park Avenue, Suite 5 Orange Park, Florida 32073 Lynda Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Angel Gonzalez Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Eugene Amrhein, is a certified roofing contractor, license number CC C020238, and was the qualifying agent for Knight Roofing, Inc. at all times relevant to these cases. On or about December 16, 1982, Respondent, conducting business through Knight Roofing Inc., contracted with Evelyn Nickerson for reroofing of a home at 707 N.E. 7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, Florida for a contract price of $1,485. She gave Respondent a downpayment of $785, and upon completion of the project paid the balance of $700. Respondent commenced work on the project without obtaining a permit, as required by Section 301.1(k), South Florida Building Code. Respondent also failed to obtain an inspection as required by Section 305.2(a), of this code. On or about March 10, 1981, Respondent conducting business through Knight Roofing, Inc., contracted with Judevilla Geria for the rebuilding of an existing flat tile roof for a contract price of $4,100. Respondent did not obtain the required building permit, in violation of Section 301.1(k), South Florida Building Code. Respondent did not perform the work contracted in that only a coat of paint was applied. He failed to rebuild the existing roof by recementing each tile, replacing rotten lumber, soffitt and fascia, nor did he replace approximately 50 tiles as required by the contract. However, Respondent has honored his warranty to Geria to the extent of repairing four leaks that developed subsequent to the work. On or about June 29, 1982 Respondent contracted with Golda Oxenberg to waterproof a roof at 3253 Foxcroft Road, Miramar, Florida. The contract price was $1,000. The project was completed and Respondent was paid in full. The Respondent violated Section 301.1(k), South Florida Building Code by failing to obtain a permit for this project. On or about August 22, 1983, Knight Roofing Inc., contracted with Joseph Castellano to repair the roof of a home at 1215 1st Street, Indian Rocks Beach, Florida. The contract price was $600, and included a two-year warranty. At no time was a licensed roofer present at the job site. David Ness, then an unlicensed individual, contracted for the work, performed the work, and received the payments. At no time did the Respondent supervise the work on the Castellano home. After completion, the roof began to leak. Respondent has not repaired the leak, despite his warranty. Respondent violated Section 108.2(d), Standard Building Code (adopted by Indian Rocks Beach Ordinance 291) by failing to obtain required inspections. However, no evidence was presented to show that Respondent violated Section 108.2(b), Standard Building Code, since a permit was obtained. Respondent has moved, but failed to notify the Construction Board of his new address as required by Rule 21E- 15.07, F.A.C. On March 7, 1984, Respondent contracted with Ralph Huff for roofing work at 3210 N.E. 9th Avenue, Pompano Beach, Florida. The contract price was $5,725, and the work was completed. Respondent admitted at hearing that he failed to follow up on his warranty agreement. Respondent did not violate Section 305.2(a), South Florida Building Code since a final inspection was obtained on October 25, 1984.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order revoking Respondent's license. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of June, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER 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 25th day of June, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William F. Beggs, Esquire BEGGS and VECCHIO 3012 East Commercial Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee Florida 32301 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville Florida 32202
