Findings Of Fact Introduction On an undisclosed date, respondent, Department of Transportation (DOT), gave notice to qualified and interested contracting firms that it was accepting bids from firms interested in providing various services on State Job No. 90030- 3539. Such bids were due on or before June 24, 1987. In general terms, the project required the successful bidder to perform various maintenance services on the Old Seven Mile Bridge between Pigeon Key and Knight Key just southwest of Marathon in Monroe County, Florida. The parties have stipulated that the project involves the following classes of work: Bridge painting 82 percent Restoration of spalled areas 6 percent Miscellaneous concrete and steel 9 percent Maintenance of traffic 3 percent In response to this offer, three contractors submitted timely bids. These included petitioner, Midwest Industrial Painting of Florida, Inc. (Midwest), intervenor-respondent, Cone Constructors, Inc. (CCI), and J. D. Abrams, Inc. Their respective bids were $1,746,390, $1,122,000 and $2,149,345. The parties have stipulated that the bids of both CCI and Midwest are below the DOT budget estimate and preliminary estimate for the project. On August 3, 1987 DOT posted its intent to award the project to CCI, which submitted the lowest dollar bid. Thereafter, petitioner timely filed a protest challenging the award of the contract to CCI. In its formal protest, Midwest contended that CCI was ineligible to submit a bid since it was not prequalified by DOT to perform bridge painting, a service required for this job. The filing of the protest prompted the instant proceeding. The Project The Old Seven Mile Bridge, once a vital link in the Florida Keys highway network, was replaced in the early 1980s with a new Seven Mile Bridge. Since its replacement, the old bridge has had very little, if any, traffic and is no longer in service as a state highway. Indeed, its center span has been removed, and it is used primarily as two fishing piers by avid anglers and for access to Pigeon Key where a University of Miami research facility is located. The legislature recently mandated that the old bridge be turned over to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR). So that DNR receives the bridge in good condition, DOT intends to perform all necessary maintenance and rehabilitation prior to its turnover. The project has been identified as State Job 90030-3539. The job includes painting the exposed structural steel, doing "corrective measures" to portions of the structural members, and other miscellaneous work. The project will be funded wholly with state funds, and is not considered a critical job. Although at hearing DOT personnel considered the structural work to be the most important aspect of the project, and the painting to be incidental, DOT did not prepare the bid specifications in this manner. Rather, it elected to prepare the specifications listing bridge painting as normal work. By categorizing the work in this manner, DOT did not contravene any statute, rule or standard. Had DOT categorized painting as "specialty" or incidental work on the project, painting would have been considered an incidental aspect of the job, and bidders would not have to be prequalified in bridge painting. However, DOT did not assert its specifications were in "error," or that this might serve as a ground to reject all bids. Indeed, there is no evidence that any bidder was confused or had any doubt as to the services required under the contract. Prequalification Requirements DOT requires that, on projects exceeding a cost of $250,000, bidders obtain a certificate of qualification setting forth the areas (classes) in which they are qualified to perform work. This is commonly known as prequalification. One of these classes of competency is bridge painting, which constituted approximately 82 percent of the work to be done on Old Seven Mile Bridge. The parties have stipulated that CCI's certificate of qualification did not include bridge painting as an area in which it had been qualified. Despite several post-June 24 requests by DOT to furnish additional information, CCI had not yet supplied such data at the time of hearing as would enable it to qualify. On the other hand, Midwest was conditionally qualified in this area, but, because of certain DOT reservations, its certificate was due to expire on June 15, 1987. However, Midwest requested a Section 120.57(1) hearing to contest this expiration date, and Midwest has, with DOT's acquiescence, continued to use its certificate for bidding purposes until an adjudication of the claim is made. Without a certificate of qualification, DOT rules provide that a contractor not be given bid documents that would enable it to submit a bid. Further, DOT witnesses confirmed that no bidder has ever been authorized to become prequalified after it had submitted a bid, nor has a nonqualified bidder been awarded a contract. The agency does have a "policy" of allowing contractors who are qualified in the major work class of minor bridge work (but who are not qualified in bridge painting) to receive bid documents on certain major projects. Even so, this policy, however applied in the past, has never been used on a project such as this, and DOT officials confirmed that this was the first time bid documents had been erroneously sent to a nonqualified bidder. DOT's Reaction to the Bids Through "inadvertence" or "error," DOT furnished bid documents to CCI. Thereafter, CCI, Midwest and a third contractor submitted bid proposals. When the bids were opened, DOT discovered that the lowest dollar bidder (CCI) had not been prequalified on bridge painting. The bids were then routed to the DOT technical review committee, a five person committee that reviews projects where the bids do not conform with award criteria. This committee made no recommendation and was "uncommitted." The matter was then reviewed by the DOT awards committee which unanimously recommended that the contract be awarded to CCI even though it had not prequalified on one segment of the work. In proposing that the contract be awarded to CCI, DOT acknowledges that this is not its normal practice. Indeed, it concedes that this is probably the first occasion that it has proposed to award a contract to a nonqualified bidder. However, it considers the project "unique" in the sense that the bridge will be turned over to DNR immediately after the work is completed. In addition, by using CCI, it can save around $624,000 in state funds which can be used to claim almost another $6 million in matching federal funds for other state work. Finally, DOT is fully satisfied that CCI is capable of performing the work on the project, particularly since it considers the structural repairs the most important aspect of the job. If CCI's bid is rejected, DOT's preference is to reject all bids and relet the project. The agency's nonrule policy is that, for projects valued at more than $250,000, a contract will be awarded if the lowest bid is no more than seven percent above DOT's estimate of the project's value. In this case, both CCI and Midwest submitted bids below DOT's budget and preliminary estimates. The Bidders Midwest, which is located in Tarpon Springs, Florida, has been in the bridge painting business for many years, and has worked on DOT projects since 1974. This is the first occasion the firm has filed a protest. The firm is capable of performing the required work. Although its certificate of qualification was supposed to expire on June 15, or before the June 24 bid opening day, Midwest challenged this action and the certificate continues to be used for bidding purposes. The apparent low bidder (CCI) is located in Tampa, Florida and has been engaged in a number of DOT projects since it was formed approximately five years ago. It is now working on three other DOT bridge projects. The firm was prequalified in the bridge painting class in 1983 and 1984, but for some reason, allowed its qualification to lapse. Its present certificate is valid until April 30, 1988 and qualifies CCI to bid on several types of major bridge projects. CCI stands by its bid proposal, and is fully confident the work can be done for $600,000 less than proposed by Midwest. The firm has access to the necessary equipment and manpower to perform the job.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered rejecting the bid of Cone Constructors, Inc. on the ground it was unqualified and non-responsive, and instead awarding the contract on State Job 90030-3539 to Midwest Industrial Painting of Florida, Inc., which submitted the lowest responsive bid. DONE AND ORDERED this 15th day of September, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of September, 1987.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Respondent, Raymond E. Hirst, Jr., professional engineer, was licensed as such by the State of Florida under license number PE 0017307. Prior to March 22, 1983, the Respondent, for Mech-Mar Engineering Company, Inc., designed a storage bay and mini- warehouse project to be built by Ruth Stein Construction for William M. Kwasniki, to be located on South Babcock Street in Palm Bay, Florida. Petitioner designed the facility and signed the plans for construction on March 22, 1983. A note clearly marked on the sheet index on the upper right hand corner of the first page of the plan set reflects, "The engineer's services do not include supervision of the construction of this project." The plans consist of three sheets of drawings, each of which is sealed and signed by the Respondent. The first sheet reflects the foundation plan. The second shows the electrical riser and firewall detail, and the third reflects the elevations. On or about April 3, 1983, the contractor, Ruth Stein, submitted these plans to the City of Palm Bay building department. The plans were approved for construction by the office of the chief building official, Paul Olsen, and formed the basis for the issuance of the construction permit. Neither the engineer's specifications nor calculations were submitted and filed with the plans. However, calculations were not required by the City of Palm Bay at that time. Two amendments to the plans were filed by the Respondent on May 31, and August 10, 1983. No revised drawings were submitted, however. The drawings that were submitted by Ms. Stein, but drawn by Respondent, were used to insure that the plans conformed to standard building codes, zoning codes, etc., but were not reviewed by the city for compliance with engineering standards and no engineering analysis was done by the city on these or any other plans at that time. The need to do so was apparently recognized later, however, as such analyses are now done on a routine basis. The plans were also to be used by the city's inspection staff to compare work being done by the contractor with the plans to insure that the work conforms to them. During construction, the building being erected according to Respondent's plans, a concrete block structure, collapsed. This collapse occurred sometime prior to May 20, 1983. After the structure collapsed, the city building office again approved the plans drawn by Respondent for reconstruction. The contractor was told to clean up the site and was then allowed to rebuild. Not only the original plans but the amendments referred to above, including that dated August 10, 1983, called for partitions within the building. After rebuilding, the structure was inspected by the city and a certificate of occupancy was issued in August, 1983. No complaints have been filed regarding this construction since that time. After the collapse, an inspection of the collapse site revealed that in some areas on the west part of the structure, cells of the concrete blocks being used to form the walls had not been filled with concrete as was required by the design submitted by Respondent. In the opinion of Mr. Olsen, this defect was a fault not of the Respondent but of the contractor. No determination was made by the city as to: whether the block walls as designed by Respondent met Standard Building Code (SBC) requirements; whether the walls were supported laterally as required; whether anchorage of the roof trusses to the walls was accomplished; whether Respondent properly, or at all, designed a roof diaphragm for this project; whether the walls were adequate to meet the wind load requirements (the SBC suggests that maximum wind velocity standard is 90 mph.); whether the lentils were adequate; and whether the truss anchorage limits were satisfactory. (According to Mr. Olsen, this decision is left up to the engineer who designs the structure.) The city found, however, that a part of the reason for the collapse of this structure was that the trusses for the roof were set too soon, were not adequately braced, contained questionable materials, and wore questionably fabricated. Though the city was not critical in its analysis of Respondent's performance, the experts retained by Petitioner to evaluate his drawings were. Mr. James O. Power, who has been a registered structural engineer since 1947 did not examine the building site but is aware of the project in question. He reviewed the drawings prepared by Respondent, photos taken of the site, the investigative report, letters and correspondence from Respondent with calculations contained therein, and the Respondent's amendments to the original drawings. On the basis of this evidence, he formed an opinion as to Respondent's performance as an engineer on this project and prepared several letters on the subject dated July 6 and October 21, 1983, and January 30 and September 7, 1984, all of which constitute his opinion as to Respondent's performance. In substance he concluded that Respondent's engineering performance on this project was unsatisfactory showing basic negligence and lack of due care as well as a lack of understanding of the basic engineering requirements for the job. In his opinion, overall, the drawings lack sufficient detail. For example, they, (a) show no interior partitions (partitions were defined in an amendment to the drawing filed after the collapse); (b) show that while the southern wall has few openings, the north wall has many, (this is significant in that because of the lack of partitions, the walls must resist the winds playing upon them as vertical cantilevers); (c) show that the number 5 vertical bars in the fill cells are 12 feet apart, (to serve as reinforced masonry, they should be 4 but no more than 8 feet apart depending on the circumstances); (d) reflect a ceiling height of 14 feet whereas later drawings show a difference in elevation; (e) show that the tie beam is to be constituted of inverted masonry U-beam 16 inches deep filled with concrete and reinforcing steel without providing for any obvious way to insert the concrete within the beam; (f) failed to show with detail the strap makeup or method of connection for the hurricane straps to be used to hold down the roof trusses to the walls, (the drawings show that the strap is to loop over the truss and if the straps do not do so, the connection is weak); (g) reflect that the door height at the openings on the north and south side doors are different than the tie beam height but there is no showing of how the weight of the roof is to be distributed over the door head only 8 inches below the tie-beam (this could contribute to the collapse of the building); and (h) failed to show drawings of trusses by the Respondent. In this regard, the truss company's drawings and specifications are insufficient. Since the Respondent's drawings do not define with particularity how the trusses are to be constructed, the truss fabricator must make assumptions as to the stress and load to be applied. With regard to the pre-engineered and pre-manufactured roof trusses, Mr. Power is of the opinion that the designer, Respondent, should have: (1) stated his criteria for the design of the truss (Respondent did not do this); (2) stated the qualifications of the designer (Respondent did not do this); (3) submitted clear instructions regarding his design (Respondent's are unclear and unsatisfactory). Mr. Power also indicates that in his experience, bracing for the trusses is installed at the building site and that only the basic truss is constructed at the truss company's plant. Respondent, on the other hand, contends that the practice in Brevard County is for the building designer, as here, to give the basic specifications needed for the truss, and thereafter, the truss designer, working for the truss company, designs and builds the complete truss for delivery to the site. If Mr. Power's position is to be believed, personal supervision of the designer would be required at the site once the basic truss was delivered. Here, however, Mr. Power operates out of Miami and Petitioner has failed to show that he is familiar with the trade practice in the area involved in this dispute. Respondent's position is somewhat supported by the fact that his plans contain a disclaimer of supervision and no issue was made that this is a forbidden or unaccepted practice. Consequently, it cannot be said that Respondent's design of the trusses in this case was faulty. Mr. Power also identified several "design deficiencies" in Respondent's work. Among these were that there was no requirement for the use of reinforced masonry which is different from concrete and that Respondent's drawings provided no details or standards for the mortar or grout, the substance used to fill the holes in concrete blocks which should have a minimum slump of 8 inches. (If one tried to fill these cells from the top of a 14 foot wall, it is most likely that the cell, the hole within the blocks, would not be filled.) Further, the formulae used by Respondent in his calculations are for solid materials in the walls -- not for cinder block which was the material called for here. On the basis of the above discrepancies, it appeared to Mr. Power that Respondent did not understand the difference between the requirements for construction with concrete block and those for construction with reinforced masonry. In addition, according to Mr. Power, the reinforcing walls inserted in the design by the Respondent after the collapse of the building are of materials not permitted by the SBC. Also the SBC requires that the ratio of length to width of roof diaphragm should be no more than 4. The purpose of this is to provide support to the top of the wall so as to resist loads placed upon it by the force of wind. Here, Respondent's design has not adequately provided this reinforcement, in Mr. Power's judgment, and the design does not meet the SBC requirement. The SBC also requires designs of buildings to be constructed in the Palm Bay area to be able to withstand 90 mph winds. Mr. Power's calculations based on Respondent's plans and drawings show it is questionable that a building built pursuant to Respondent's plans would sustain 90 mph winds. The fact that the chances are only one in fifty that in any given year winds of this speed would be reached is immaterial. As to the filling of the holes (cells) in the concrete block, Mr. Power contends that it is a good practice to show in the drawing a breakout in the block at the bottom of the wall so that the builder can see that the concrete has in fact gone all the way down to the bottom as it should. Here, however, the building code does not require this to be done. Again, considering the Respondent's use of cement instead of grout to fill the cells, the Respondent followed county practice and the SBC does not specifically require the use of grout. Nonetheless, Mr. Power is of the opinion that even though Respondent's drawings indicated that he would not inspect at the site, it was unreasonable for Respondent to expect the cells to be filled since it is well known that many contractors do not inspect to insure that the cells are filled as called for. Mr. Power is also of the opinion that the lintels as described in one of the amendments to the basic drawings, though permissible for use, are inadequate to handle the indicated roof load and the drawings prepared by Respondent did not show the lintel capacity. Mr. Power contends that the SBC requires drawings to show sufficient detail to indicate the intent of the designer to allow the contractor using the drawings to conform to code standards. Admittedly, this is subjective criteria, not an objective one, as to what constitutes sufficient detail. The amendments added to the original designs helped somewhat to correct the deficiencies, but do not make them adequate. Taken as a whole, the drawings are not adequate, in the opinion of Mr. Power, to comply with the SBC. They are not adequate to pass on the designer's intent to the contractor and they are not adequate to show the designer's understanding of design elements. These errors and deficiencies described above are, in the opinion of Mr. Power, significant and not minor. Based on his analysis of the overall drawings and situation, he concluded that Respondent has not demonstrated his capability to handle this particular task which, in the opinion of Mr. power, is relatively simple. Respondent's drawings and the other documents pertinent to the project in issue here including calculations, correspondence, photos, and the investigative report, were also reviewed by Ernest C. Driver, a Florida licensed consultant engineer operating in Cairo, Georgia. Mr. Driver also reviewed Mr. Power's reports and is in complete agreement with his conclusions. He did some calculations on his own and on the basis of them, formed an opinion of Respondent's performance as an engineer on this project. He found that the reinforcing of the cinder block cells on the walls were too widely spaced at 12 foot centers instead of 4 to 8 foot centers. In addition, he did not agree with the engineering conclusions drawn by the Respondent. The calculations performed by Respondent were, in his opinion, improper and as a result, the design is over-stressed by approximately 215 percent. This came about, apparently, because Respondent designed a wall as though there were no doors in it. In addition, the way the tie beam is designed, it is impossible to get the reinforcing concrete into the "U." Further, the hurricane straps required to affix the roof trusses to the tie beam cannot be attached to the beam itself. Also, the design called for concrete block to be installed above the doors. This procedure placed as much as four times the load the lintel should carry. Mr. Driver also found that the diaphragm used by Respondent was of gypsum board which, in his opinion, is not a proper material for diaphragms. Also, according to Mr. Driver's interpretation of Respondent's plan, there is no way that the wind shear force applied to the diaphragm can be transmitted to the side wall and thence down to the earth. This is a definite deficiency and Respondent's drawings and notes are not complete enough to allow a clear determination of what is required as to materials to be used and how the work should be accomplished. Other deficiencies are seen in that the drawings show a 230 foot long building without an expansion joint. In Mr. Driver's opinion, this is far too long for construction without such a joint. In addition, the 26 foot high end wall is not addressed in the design which has no indication of how the roof is to be attached to it. Mr. Driver concurs with Mr. Power's opinion regarding the insufficiency of the plans and specifications offered by Respondent for the roof trusses in that there is no framing plan nor are there specifications identified for the trusses. Shop drawings should have been provided instead of only a cut sheet. While this witness does not know what the current Brevard County practice regarding the design and construction of trusses is, he is convinced that it is as Respondent says it is, to wit: that they are completely fabricated at the shop and delivered completed for installation to the job site, this is a poor practice. Connected to the issue of roof trusses is that regarding the metal hurricane straps which Respondent indicated his plans called for. These metal straps, which can easily be bent by hand are, in the opinion of Mr. Driver, a poor method of affixing the trusses to the tie beam. There are too many things that can go wrong such as hinging, the lack of a firm seating for the strap in the concrete, the bending of the metal, and the pulling of the affixing nails through the holes in the strap thereby resulting in no grip. In addition to his dissatisfaction with the use of concrete to fill the cells in the cinder blocks, Mr. Driver also feels that the use of concrete to fill a continuous 14 foot cell is improper. In his opinion, the drawings should call for a solid block every 4 feet and for weep holes through which compaction can be noted periodically throughout that distance. All of this should be in the engineer's notes. The notes by Respondent do not identify these areas. Even though Respondent's notes called for the 14 feet to be filled, his plans failed to provide methods to insure that complete filling was accomplished. Examination of the pictures of the wall after the collapse reveals that complete filling was not accomplished and this failure on the part of Respondent to provide a reasonably foolproof method of insuring complete compaction cannot be excused and responsibility shifted to the contractor by the mere statement by Respondent on the plans that he would not inspect. Engineering practice is made up of judgment as well as the specific formulae which can be obtained from engineering textbooks. There are assumptions which may be made -- some good and some bad. In the opinion of Mr. Driver, the defects described above indicate that Respondent's assumptions were bad. As a result, his judgment was bad. He feels that, in light of all the evidence, Respondent was negligent, failed to use due care, failed to conform to accepted engineering principles, failed to accomplish drawings sufficiently detailed to instruct the contractor as to exactly what needed to he done, and failed to provide drawings which, if followed exactly as presented, would by themselves, enable a builder to construct a safe structure. Here, based on the drawings prepared and submitted by Respondent, a builder would have to demonstrate a high and exceptional degree of expertise in order to fill in the omitted details required to make the building safe. Acceptable drawing standards are not defined with specificity in the SBC. Much is subjective rather than objective. For example, nothing in the SBC prohibits the use of gypsum board as a horizontal diaphragm, but, in the opinion of Mr. Driver, it is not common practice to use it for such. This goes to the question of judgment. In any event, the code may be erroneous in some particulars and not all answers are contained in it. It is for this reason that the law requires the use of a licensed engineer whose judgment fills in the gaps left by the code. Here all the defects identified in Respondent's drawings are within the province of an engineer. These are the items an engineer is needed for to accomplish. Here, in the opinion of Mr. Driver, there are too many defects and Respondent's work does not conform to any of the standards used in the engineering community as to schooling, information gained from working with other engineers, or the witness's personal experience. In rebuttal to the above, Respondent presented no experts of his own, but testified as to his disagreement with the analyses of Petitioner's experts. The testimony by Mr. Power and Mr. Driver is found to be accurate and descriptive of the defects in Respondent's performance. There are a few exceptions such as where local Brevard County practice differs from the experience of these experts, however, taken as a whole, the evidence clearly indicates Respondent's shortcomings for the most part. The testimony of the experts has established a series of defects in Respondent's performance which he has failed to satisfactorily rebut.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that Respondent, RAYMOND HIRST, be placed on probation for one year, that he be reprimanded, and that he pay an administrative fine of $500.00. RECOMMENDED this 19th day of February, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of February, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Carol L. Gregg, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Raymond Hirst 379 Franklyn Avenue Indiatlantic, Florida 32903 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Allen R. Smith, Jr. Board of professional Engineers Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioners own property located in Section 6, Township 9, Range 16 East, Gilchrist County, Florida (the "Moore property"). Mrs. Linda Bridges owns property adjacent to and south of the Moore property (the "Bridges property"). Respondent, Bridges ("Bridges"), is in possession and control of the Bridges property. Mr. Glenn Miller owns property adjacent to and south of the Bridges property (the "Miller property"). ITT-Rayonier owns property west of the Moore, Bridges, and Miller properties (the "ITT property"). A dirt road runs north and south in front of and along the western border of the Moore, Bridges, and Miller properties (the "road"). The road separates the ITT property, to the west, from the Moore, Bridges, and Miller properties, to the east. Prior to 1989, surfacewater historically flowed in a northeasterly direction. It flowed northeasterly from the ITT property through a 24 inch road culvert onto the Bridges property. It then flowed north through a 36 inch culvert on the southerly portion of the Moore property, across the Moore property, and into Weeks Lake to the north of the Moore property. In 1989, with the consent of Bridges but without a permit from the District, Petitioners began a construction plan that included the installation of two 62 inch culverts to enhance the northeasterly flow of surfacewater from the ITT property to Weeks Lake. One 62 inch culvert was intended to replace the 24 inch culvert under the road forming the westerly boundary between the ITT property and the Moore and Bridges properties. The second 62 inch culvert was intended to replace the 36 inch culvert on the southerly boundary of the Moore property. The second 62 inch culvert was needed so the same volume of surfacewater flowing from the ITT property through the 62 inch road culvert could continue its northerly flow from the Bridges property to the Moore property and on to Weeks Lake. Petitioners replaced the 24 inch road culvert with a 62 inch culvert but left intact the 36 inch culvert on the southerly portion of their property. Thus, a greater volume of surfacewater can flow from the ITT property through the 62 inch culvert onto the Bridges property but a lesser volume of surfacewater can flow from the Bridges property through the 36 inch culvert onto the Moore property. Petitioners removed fill material from the ITT property to widen and increase the height of the road bed on the westerly boundary between the ITT and Moore properties. The heightened road bed impounds a greater volume of surfacewater on the ITT property before it flows over the road onto the Moore property. This can increase the rate of flow of surfacewater through the 62 inch road culvert onto the Bridges property under certain circumstances. Petitioners increased the depth and width of existing ditches, and added new ditches along a portion of the road bed onto the Bridges property. The increased ditch capacity further increases the volume of surfacewater that can flow onto the Bridges property. Petitioners constructed a berm running east and west on the southerly boundary of the Moore property. This increases the volume of surfacewater that can be impounded on the Bridges property without flowing onto the Moore property through areas other than the 36 inch culvert that Petitioners left intact on the southerly portion of their property. The 62 inch road culvert, increased ditch capacity, heightened road bed between the ITT and Moore properties, the berm on the southerly portion of the Moore property, and the 36 inch culvert increase the volume of surfacewater that is impounded on the Bridges property before continuing its historic northeasterly flow. Surfacewater impounded on the Bridges property floods the Bridges property and properties to the south of the Bridges property. Although flooding occurred on the Bridges property prior to the 1989 construction, flooding on the Bridges property and properties south of the Bridges property is greater since Petitioners completed construction. In addition, the ITT property drains more readily. On or about October 13, 1993, Bridges applied to the District for a General Surfacewater Management Permit to replace the 62 inch road culvert with a 24 inch culvert pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 40B-4.2010(1)(a). A General Surfacewater Management Permit is issued for activities that have little or no potential adverse impact to surfacewater resources for the District. The application satisfied all of the criteria for the permit at issue. ITT does not object to the proposed permit even though more surfacewater will be impounded on the ITT property. Issuance of the proposed permit will approximate the flow of surfacewater that existed prior to Petitioners' installation of a 62 inch road culvert without a permit in 1989.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Suwannee River Water Management District, enter a Final Order and therein GRANT Respondent, Paul Bridges', Application For Agriculture Or Forestry General Surfacewater Management Permit. DONE and ENTERED this 2nd day of March 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL S. MANRY 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 2nd day of March 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-6656 Petitioners' Proposed Findings Of Fact. 1.-4. Rejected as immaterial 5. Rejected as recited testimony 6.-7. Rejected as not supported by credible and persuasive evidence 8. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial 9.-13. Rejected as not supported by credible and persuasive evidence 14.-15. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial 16.-19. Rejected as not supported by credible and persuasive evidence Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial Rejected as not supported by credible and persuasive evidence Rejected as recited testimony 23.-24. Rejected as not supported by credible and persuasive evidence Respondent, Paul Bridges, Proposed Findings Of Fact. Respondent, Bridges, did not submit proposed findings of fact. Respondent, Suwannee River Water Management District, Proposed Findings Of Fact. All of the District's proposed findings of fact are accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. and Jerrilyn Moore, pro se Route 2, Box 120-E Trenton, FL 32693 Paul Bridges, pro se Route 2, Box 120K-1 Trenton, FL 32693 Janice F. Bessinger, Esquire Brannon, Brown, Haley, Robinson & Cole Post Office Box 1029 Lake City, FL 32056-1029 Jerry Scarborough, Executive Director Suwannee River Water Management District Route 3, Box 64 Live Oak, FL 32060
Findings Of Fact On December 3, 1979, the petitioner forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings a request for a formal hearing in the instant case. On January 7, 1980, the hearing was scheduled for February 28, 1980 in Bradenton, Florida. The Notice of Hearing which was mailed to the Respondent at the address furnished the Petitioner was returned undelivered with no forwarding address. Attempts to locate the Respondent proved unsuccessful until June 5, 1981, at which time an investigator from the Board located the Respondent working as a foreman on a construction site in Clearwater, Florida, and served him with a copy of the Notice of Hearing. On April 15, 1978, the Respondent entered into a contract with Mollie Cooper to construct a 12' x 31' room addition including a family room, bedroom and bath, onto an existing residence. The contract price was $11,340.00. An initial payment of $5,670.00 was made on April 17, 1978 by Ms. Cooper to the Respondent's construction company, Southern Cross. In the contract, the Respondent agreed to complete the working drawings for the addition and to obtain building permits. The Respondent obtained a building permit for the project from the City of Bradenton, Department of Planning and Development on May 17, 1978. The Respondent began working on the addition in May of 1978. On May 30, 1978 workmen poured the slab for the addition. When Ms. Cooper awoke on June 4, 1978, she discovered approximately four inches of water in her house which was caused by the slab being poured at the wrong angle. Later that day, a workman arrived at Ms. Cooper's home and removed the ends of the roof including fascia and guttering. Nothing further occurred until June 29, 1978 when the Respondent delivered concrete blocks to Ms. Cooper's home. Ms. Cooper never spoke to the Respondent after June 29, 1978, but her lawyer did contact the Respondent's attorney regarding problems which she was having with the Respondent's work. The job was never finished by the Respondent and Ms. Cooper was required to spend approximately $1,500.00 to repair her home. The Respondent holds active registered contractors license No. RR 0012951. The City of Bradenton has no local licensing board.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent's license as a registered residential contractor be revoked and an administrative fine of $500.00 be imposed. DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of September, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH 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 21st day of September, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Barry Sinoff, Esquire 2400 Independent Square One Independent Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue The issue is whether Franklin County (County) has given reasonable assurance that it satisfies all requirements for an after-the-fact permit authorizing the construction of a rock revetment seaward of the coastal construction control line (CCCL) on Alligator Drive, also known as County Road 370.
Findings Of Fact The Nature of the Dispute The origins of this dispute date back a number of years. In short, the County currently has two adjoining revetments seaward of the CCCL on County Road 370 (Alligator Drive) located on Alligator Point in the southeastern corner of the County.1 County Road 370, situated immediately adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico, is a vulnerable structure and eligible for armoring. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.002(64). The old revetment is permitted; the new revetment is not. Pursuant to a Department enforcement action directed at both revetments, the County applied for an after-the-fact permit to authorize the construction of the new revetment. See Case No. 12-3276EF. The two revetments, totaling around 2,800 feet in length, abut County Road 370 and join near the intersection of Alligator Drive and Tom Roberts Road. The road itself is around 50 or 60 feet from the edge of the revetments. The old revetment extends around 2,000 feet west of the intersection while the new revetment extends 800 feet east of the intersection. There is a curve in the road at the intersection, and at that point the road elevation drops two or three feet for an undisclosed distance. The revetments, however, run in a straight line. There is no beach and dune system in front of the old revetment, while a small amount of exposed sand is located on the far eastern end of the new revetment. Due to storm events over the years, unauthorized debris has been placed on top of the old revetment by the County. Under the terms of the enforcement action, the County is required to remove the debris. This will reduce the height of the old revetment by several feet below its original height of nine feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD).2 Where the two revetments join, however, the height differs by only around a foot. The Bank owns property across the street from the old revetment and alleges that, for several reasons, the site and design of the new revetment, coupled with the reduction in height of the old revetment, will cause erosion of the shoreline around the old revetment and expose County Road 370 and the adjacent upland Bank property to erosion. Although the current design and location of the old revetment have been finalized through prior agency action, the Bank has asked that the permit be denied unless the County relocates rock boulders from the new to the old revetment and raises its height back to nine feet NGVD. The County asserts that the Bank's real aim here is to require the County, at taxpayer expense, to reconstruct the old revetment to its original height. Otherwise, the Department will not waive the 30-year erosion control line restriction and allow the Bank to fully develop its property that is seaward of the CCCL. See § 161.053(5)(b), Fla. Stat. The Old Revetment Since the late 1970s, the County has owned and maintained that portion of County Road 370 that is the subject of this dispute. In May 1986, the Department of Natural Resources, which was later merged with the Department, issued to the County CCCL Permit No. FR-204 for the construction of the old revetment, then 1,500 feet long. The revetment was located approximately 350 feet east of Department Reference Monument R-211 to approximately 150 feet west of the Department Reference Monument R-213. In November 1994, the Department issued to the County CCCL Permit No. FR-446 for the re-construction of the old revetment, as well as a 500-foot extension of the eastern limits of the structure with granite boulders. The revetment, as extended, is located approximately 540 feet west of Department Reference Monument R-212 to approximately 140 feet east of Department Reference Monument R-213. The permit did not authorize placement of any construction debris within the revetment. With the extension, the total length of the old revetment is now approximately 2,000 feet. After an application for a joint coastal permit to conduct a beach and dune restoration project was filed by the County in September 2006, a Department site inspection revealed the presence of concrete debris and other debris material stacked on top of the old revetment. A debris removal plan was formulated by the Department, which was intended to be incorporated as a special condition in the joint coastal permit. In May 2011, the joint coastal permit was approved and included a debris removal plan. Because of financial constraints, however, the County did not undertake and complete the work relating to the beach and dune restoration plan or the debris removal plan. In January 2012, another inspection was conducted by the Department to document how much debris was in the old revetment and where it was located. The inspection revealed the presence of a significant amount of concrete debris and other debris material scattered throughout the revetment and continuing eastward. That same month, largely at the urging of the Bank, the Department issued a one-count Notice of Violation (NOV) alleging that after a storm event in July 2005, the County placed unauthorized construction debris and other debris material in the old revetment seaward of the CCCL, and that the debris still remained within the footprint of the revetment. See Case No. 12- 3276EF. (The Bank unsuccessfully attempted to intervene in the enforcement action.) As corrective action, the County was required to remove all debris, seaward of the CCCL, from and adjacent to the footprint of the old revetment no later than 60 days after the end of the hurricane season. That work has not yet been performed, probably because the work on both revetments will take place at the same time. After the debris is removed, the height of the old revetment will vary from between five and eight feet NGVD rather than the original nine-foot height. This was not the relief that the non-party Bank desired in the enforcement action. Instead, the Bank has always wanted the old revetment to be reconstructed to the nine-foot NGVD standard authorized in the original construction permit. Even so, the enforcement action is now final, as no appeal was taken by the County. Except for the unauthorized debris, the old revetment meets all Department standards. The New Revetment Under emergency circumstances, between September 2000 and July 2005 the County placed material, including granite rock boulders and debris material, in a location east of the old revetment, seaward of the CCCL. The construction activity is located approximately 140 feet east of Department Reference Monument R-213 to approximately 80 feet east of Department Reference Monument R-214 and is around 800 feet in length. However, the County did not obtain a permit for the temporary structure within 60 days after its construction, as required by section 161.085(3), Florida Statutes. In July 2005, Hurricane Dennis made landfall in the Florida Panhandle causing damage to the shoreline along Alligator Drive. As an emergency measure after the storm event, the County placed rock boulders that had been displaced back into the new revetment seaward of the CCCL. The County also placed other unauthorized concrete debris and debris material within the footprint of the rock revetment seaward of the CCCL. Again, no timely authorization for this work was obtained by the County. In August 2012, the Department issued an Amended NOV in Case No. 12-3276EF adding a second count, which alleged that the County had failed to obtain a permit for the placement of the rock boulders and unauthorized debris. On April 18, 2013, the Department issued a Final Order in Case No. 12-3276EF. As to Count II, it gave the County two options for corrective action: (a) that the County submit "a complete permit application for a rigid coastal armoring structure located between Department reference monuments R-213 and R-214 that complies with all applicable Department permitting rules and statutes"; or (b) that "the County remove all material placed seaward of the CCCL pursuant to a Department approved debris removal plan[,]" leaving that portion of County Road 370 without a revetment. 2013 Fla. ENV LEXIS 16 at *16. Desiring to protect its infrastructure, the County opted to apply for an after-the-fact permit. The Permit Application In March 2013, the County filed an application for an after-the-fact permit for the construction of the new revetment. As directed by the Department, the County proposes to construct a new revetment located between Department Reference Monuments R- 213 and R-214. The height of the new revetment will be around nine feet NGVD, while its slope will be one vertical to three horizontal. The old revetment is not quite as steep, having a slope of one vertical to two horizontal. The application includes a debris removal plan for the removal of construction debris as well as other debris scattered through the new revetment. Construction debris occupies a large portion of the new revetment and largely appears to be associated with storm damaged concrete sidewalk. All derelict concrete and asphalt material that is located water ward of Alligator Drive and landward of the mean high water line is to be removed. Both the County and its engineering consultant will monitor the work at the project. After reviewing the application, the Department proposed to issue after-the-fact CCCL Permit FR-897. The Bank then filed its Petition, as later amended. Petitioner's Objections As summarized in its PRO, the Bank alleges that the County did not give reasonable assurance that the following statutory and rule provisions have been satisfied: section 161.053(1)(a), which provides that special siting and design considerations shall be necessary seaward of the CCCL "to ensure protection of . . . adjacent properties"; rule 62B-33.005(2), which requires that the applicant provide the Department with sufficient information to show that adverse impacts associated with the construction have been minimized and that construction will not result in a significant adverse impact"; rule 62B-33.005(3)(a), which requires that the Department "[d]eny any application for an activity which either individually or cumulatively would result in a significant adverse impact including potential cumulative effects"; rule 62B-33.0051(2), which provides that armoring "shall be sited and designed to minimize adverse impacts to the beach and dune system, marine turtles, native salt-tolerant vegetation, and existing upland and adjacent structures"; and rule 62B-33.0051(2)(a), which requires armoring to "be sited as far landward as practicable to minimize adverse impacts . . . on existing upland and adjacent structures." See PRO, pp. 16-17. A common thread in these regulatory citations is that a revetment should be constructed in a manner that does not cause adverse impacts on "adjacent property." Except for the above cited provisions, no other permit requirements are contested, and the County's prima facie case satisfied those other requirements. The Bank's odd-shaped property, acquired in a foreclosure proceeding, abuts that portion of Alligator Drive immediately adjacent to the old revetment. The eastern boundary of the Bank's property is at least 300 feet west of the new revetment and extends westward along County Road 370 until it intersects with Harbor Circle. The entire tract is separated from the old revetment by County Road 370, a two-lane paved road. The property was once used as a KOA campground; however, the predecessor owner acquired development rights for a Planned Unit Development, which apparently cannot be fully developed unless the old revetment is raised back to its original height by the County or some other acceptable form of erosion protection is provided by the Bank at its own expense. The essence of the Bank's complaint is that the new revetment, as now sited and designed, will expose the old revetment to a higher rate of erosion, and ultimately accelerate the erosion of its property across the street. The Bank asserts that this will occur for three reasons. First, the removal of construction debris from the old revetment will lower its height, weaken the structure, and create a "discontinuity in height and composition between the revetments," resulting in increased exposure to erosion. Second, the toe of the new revetment (at the western end of the structure) will extend ten feet further seaward than the old revetment, creating a discontinuity and placing the old revetment at higher exposure to erosion. Finally, the Bank contends a discontinuity already exists between the two revetments due to the curved shape of the road at the intersection, causing the western end of the new revetment to extend further seaward than the old revetment. The Bank argues that the discontinuity will amplify the wave action on the shoreline during a severe storm event and eventually cause a breach of the old revetment. In sum, the Bank is essentially arguing that unless the two revetments mirror each other in height and slope, and consist of the same construction materials, the after-the-fact permit must be denied. The Bank's expert, Mr. Chou, a coastal engineer, was employed shortly before the final hearing and made one visit to the site. Regarding the removal of unauthorized construction debris from the old revetment, Mr. Chou was concerned that, while not ideal, the debris offers a degree of shoreline protection. He recommended that if removed, the debris be replaced with boulders comparable to the design standard of the new revetment. However, the record shows that when the loose and uneven debris is removed from the old revetment, the existing rocks will be moved to an interlocking or "chinking" configuration that actually enhances the stability and integrity of the structure.3 The Bank is also concerned that the height and slope of the two revetments differ. Mr. Chou testified that there exists the increased potential for erosion as a result of what he described as a discontinuity, or a difference of characteristics, between the two revetments. He opined that the protective function of the old revetment will be compromised by the removal of the granite boulders, which will lower the overall height of the revetment between two and four feet. According to Mr. Chou, if the new revetment suffers a direct hit by a major storm, i.e., one capable of dislodging the armor, he would "expect damage, significant damage, right next to it." Mr. Chou conceded, however, that if a permit is not approved, and the County elects to remove the new revetment, it could result in a significant adverse impact to property located along Alligator Drive. Mr. Chou further acknowledged that there will be no significant adverse effect on the old revetment during "everyday" winds, waves, and currents. Finally, he agreed that if the toes of the new and old revetments are essentially the same, as the certified engineering plans demonstrate they are, it will "minimize" the discontinuity that he describes. Notably, in 2005, Hurricane Dennis actually caused accretion (an increase in sand) on the Bank property, rather than erosion. While there are some differences in height and slope between the two revetments, no meaningful differences from an engineering perspective were shown. Through the County's coastal engineer, Mr. Dombrowski, who over the years has visited the site dozens of times and worked on a number of major projects in the area, it was credibly demonstrated that the old and new revetments will, in effect, form one continuous armoring structure that will provide shoreline protection along Alligator Drive. In terms of toe, slope, height, and construction material, there will be one continuous and straight revetment along the road, with a "fairly consistent elevation and slope going from one end to the other." If a major storm event occurs, the impacts to both revetments will likely be the same. In any event, there is no requirement that the County construct a revetment that is storm proof or prevents severe storm damage. The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the new revetment is consistent with the siting and design criteria in rule 62B-33.0051(2). The design of the new revetment is consistent with generally accepted engineering practice. The new revetment is sited and designed so that there will be no significant adverse impacts, individually or cumulatively, to the adjacent shoreline. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.005(3). The County has provided the Department with sufficient information to show that adverse and other impacts associated with the construction are minimized, and the new revetment will not result in a significant adverse impact to the Bank's property. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B-33.005(2). The new revetment should toll erosion – which now occurs on Alligator Point at the rate of five feet per year -- and provide shoreline protection. Finally, the construction of the new revetment will not cause an adverse impact to the old revetment. For all practical purposes, the two revetments have existed side-by-side since 2005. The Bank failed to offer any credible evidence that the new revetment has had a significant adverse impact on the old revetment over the last nine years.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order approving the County's application for after- the-fact permit number FR-897. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of July, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 23rd day of July, 2014.
Findings Of Fact The property here involved comprises 6.2 acres located in Southeast Clearwater near U.S. 19 and Nursery Road. It fronts on Nursery Road, which is on the north side of the property and the zoning is RM-16 (medium density multifamily). A multifamily HUD project is under construction and approximately two-thirds complete. The issue in this case is the denial of Chateaux de Ville's application for a variance to erect a six-foot wall on the front property line which abuts Nursery Road. Zoning regulations authorize a 30-inch fence along the front property line. Preliminary site plan for this townhouse development was approved by the City Commission on November 19, 1981 (Exhibit 1), as a Final Site plan. A minor amendment to this plan to erect the 30-inch masonry wall in the setback area in the northwesterly corner of the property was approved December 15, 1983 (Exhibit 2). On August 13, 1982, the City of Clearwater Engineering Department approved Final Site plans which showed the proposed six-foot high concrete wall on the front property line running the entire length of the property along Nursery Road (Exhibit 8). That approval was granted subject to compliance with all zoning regulations. No approval from the City Planning Department was obtained for this proposed wall. A second amendment to the site plan to add a bath house adjacent to the swimming pool was approved April 19, 1984, by the City Manager upon recommendation of the Planning Department (Exhibit 3). A third revision to the site plan to provide for a six foot perimeter wood fence along the east, west, and south sides of the property and to provide six-foot fences between the individual townhouse unit rear yards located both internally and along the east, west, and south perimeter of the project area was approved in July 1984 (Exhibit 4). In recommending approval of this amendment, which complied with the zoning regulations, the Planning Director noted that no fencing is being provided for the townhouse units along the north side of the project adjacent to Nursery Road. Without obtaining a building permit for its construction, a six-foot concrete block wall was erected on the front property line (adjacent to Nursery Road) by the developer. No building permit for such construction would have been issued by the City until a variance in permitted fence height had been obtained. The building and zoning regulations provide that no fence higher than 30 inches can be erected in the front setback area without first obtaining a variance. Approximately one-third of the tract being developed is occupied by a lake on the south end of the property. This lake was described as a very attractive lake with good fishing. Appellant contends that this lake constitutes an attractive nuisance and the wall on the front of the property is needed to keep children from entering the property. Appellant also contends that the six-foot wall along the front of the property is needed to protect the residents from burglars, thieves, and other criminal elements who easily could enter the property from Nursery Road if the fence is not there to deter them. The wall also serves to complete the six-foot enclosure around the property.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioners are entitled to an after-the-fact building permit for work done to their manufactured home on Big Pine Key following Hurricane Irma.
Findings Of Fact On June 24, 2014, Petitioners paid $115,0003 to acquire title to a lot in unincorporated Monroe County bearing the address of 31480 Avenue F, Big Pine Key (Lot). The Lot is in the Avenues neighborhood within the Sands subdivision, which consists of site-built and manufactured homes. The Lot measures 100 feet deep and 40 feet wide. Because the back 20 feet of the Lot is submerged bottom of a canal, the effective area of the lot is 80 feet deep by 40 feet wide. The Lot is at the southern end of Big Pine Key, just north of Route 1. About 400 feet--or six lots--to the east of the Lot is water that connects to the open waters of the Atlantic Ocean about two miles to the south and to the Gulf of Mexico a greater distance to the north. The landward extent of the canal at the back of the Lot extends three or four lots to the west. The Avenues neighborhood features an alternating series of evenly spaced canals and lettered avenues, all running in an east-west direction. The six canals are of roughly equal dimensions. The canal behind the Lot is the second closest to the ocean. The Lot is in Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood zone AE, indicative of a relatively high risk of flooding. The base flood elevation of the Lot is nine feet above mean sea level.4 The base flood elevation is the elevation specified for a structure to avoid floodwaters from the base flood event, which is the flooding projected to result in a flooding event with an annual probability of occurrence of 1%.5 The prevailing elevation of the Sands subdivision is only three feet above mean sea level, so that the base flood event would inundate the subdivision by an average of about six feet of water. The AE zone is associated more with rising and wind- driven water. The VE zone, which extends from the water to a point three lots east of the Lot, is associated with the stronger water forces of surging water. These zones reflect the projected relative risks to structures posed by the depth of a flood and the energy of the water column in terms of velocity and, where applicable, wave action. When they acquired the Lot, Petitioners also acquired the title to a 56-foot by 12-foot 1970 Ritz-Craft, Inc., manufactured home located on the Lot (Trailer). Originally purchased for about $2000, the Trailer has been located on the Lot continuously since at least December 28, 1971, when a predecessor-in-interest of Petitioners filed with the Monroe County property appraiser's office a Declaration of Mobile Home as Real Property. When acquired by Petitioners, the Trailer still had many of its original fixtures, including the original Formica counter, bathroom, and trailer tub, and the finished floor was composed of vinyl strips glued together, the walls were covered in wood paneling, and the kitchen cabinets were made of wood. Given practices prevailing in the industry at the time of the manufacture of the Trailer, the subflooring, cabinets, and unfinished counters were likely particleboard, which is highly susceptible to water damage, and the walls were likely plywood, although these components may have been replaced over the years. The front of the Trailer is the 12-foot end facing Avenue F to the north, and the back of the Trailer is the 12-foot end facing the canal to the south. Abutting one side of the Trailer is a freestanding wood deck measuring 16 feet by 8 feet. At all material times, the Trailer's foundation has consisted of stacks of concrete blocks forming piers under the Trailer. These stacks elevate the Trailer so that the finished floors were about three feet above grade. If the elevation of the Lot approximated the average elevation in the Sands subdivision, without regard to wave action and tide, storm surge would need to exceed six feet to submerge the finished floors of the Trailer. In their first three years of ownership, Petitioners performed the usual maintenance on the Trailer, including a paint job, but did not alter the components described above. The only major work took place in May 2017 when Petitioners paid $2210 to Privateer Alliance, a certified general contractor, to disconnect their septic tank and connect to central sewer lines. On September 10, 2017, Hurricane Irma, a category-four storm, made landfall at Cudjoe Key. The storm caused extensive flooding and wind damage in the Florida Keys, but especially in Big Pine Key, which is about ten miles east of Cudjoe Key. The damage along Avenue F indicated that the causative force was moving water more than from rising water, and structures east of the Lot suffered more damage than structures farther from the water.6 In compliance with a mandatory evacuation order, neither Petitioner was in the Trailer when Hurricane Irma struck. The storm inflicted the most damage to the Sands subdivision, among residential areas. On Big Pine Key, floodwaters reached five to eight feet above mean sea level, and floodwaters in the vicinity of the Trailer persisted for about 12 hours, as noted by Respondent.7 Respondent offered into evidence Composite Exhibit L, page 1, which is a map entitled, "Coastal Depth Grid." The map depicts the portion of the Avenues that includes the Lot. The map bears coloring that, according to the legend, is intended to report the flooding depths from Hurricane Irma. Although the variations in color are too slight to differentiate among the varying depths shown in the legend, Respondent construed the Coastal Depth Grid to show nine feet of floodwater over the Lot. Respondent offered no predicate for the Coastal Depth Grid. To the contrary, one of Respondent's witnesses, Mary Wingate, who is a 24-year employee working in Respondent's Floodplain Office of its Building Department, testified to a more reasonable floodwater depth of five to eight feet. A floodwater depth no higher than the low end of Ms. Wingate's estimate is supported by the damage to the interior of the Trailer, as discussed below.8 For these reasons, the Coastal Depth Grid is not credited as a source of a finding of floodwater of nine feet above mean sea level over the Lot. Following a major storm, prior to the order allowing residents to return to their homes, building or safety inspectors visit affected areas and make initial determinations of the safety of individual residences. If a structure is determined to be unsafe, the inspector posts a red card that states, "Destroyed," so as to prevent reoccupation or re-energizing of the residence. Fifty to sixty inspectors for the entire Keys started inspections in the upper keys on September 13 or 14. Reflective of the devastation caused by Hurricane Irma in the Florida Keys, three weeks passed before a building inspector visited the Lot on October 3, 2017. At that time, the building inspector, who is a licensed professional engineer, determined that the Trailer had been destroyed, so the inspector posted a red card on the Trailer. This determination was based on damage to the front of the Trailer, which was visible from the street; the inspector did not examine the interior, the utilities, or the back of the Trailer. From the street, the inspector correctly determined that the walls, windows, and doors had been unaffected, but the siding and trim would require repair. For the roof and roof structure, the inspector checked boxes stating that these elements required repair and replacement; perhaps, the seemingly inconsistent checkmarks were intended to mean that repair would be sufficient for some parts of the roof and some parts of the roof structure, but replacement would be necessary for other parts of these two elements. In fact, neither the roof nor roof structure required replacement, although the roof required the replacement of a damaged roof panel. In a brief narrative, the inspector noted on the inspection form: "Building completely off foundations & separated from entry stairs & deck." Perhaps due to a daunting workload, the inspector failed to notice that the back of the Trailer was still on its concrete block stacks. The front of the Trailer had been driven off its stacks, likely by storm surge, and rested about four feet from its original position, still somewhat above grade because it rested atop debris. On October 14, 2019, a building inspector conducted another inspection of the Trailer and determined that the damage equaled or exceeded 50% of its assessed value, pursuant to the SI/SD ordinance, which is discussed in the Conclusions of Law. Again, this inspection did not include an examination of the interior of the Trailer. The October 14 determination relied on a FEMA-supplied tool, Composite Exhibit L, page 2 (FEMA Tool), for estimating damage based on a "long-duration" saltwater inundation of a manufactured home. Two problems preclude reliance on the FEMA Tool. First, the inspector used the above-described Coastal Depth Grid to determine that the Lot was subjected to a floodwater depth of nine feet--or six feet above the finished floor of the Trailer. Because the actual floodwater depth was substantially less than nine feet, the FEMA Tool produced an excessive estimate of damage. Second, the inspector applied the FEMA Tool to a flooding event that was not shown to be of long duration, as required for use of the tool.9 It is impossible to determine which of the two flaws in the use of the FEMA Tool produced the greater distortion in damage estimates. Even when using a more-reasonable input of three to four feet of flooding above the finished floor--i.e., six to seven feet of floodwaters--the FEMA Tool predicts that the air conditioning unit, subfloor, finished floor, and bottom cabinets would be completely destroyed. The air conditioning unit, which is installed in the wall, was undamaged, as were the bottom cabinets. The flooring components are discussed below, but were not completely destroyed. The FEMA Tool predicts near-total to total destruction of the plumbing, doors, and wall finishes, which, as discussed below, were substantially undamaged. The FEMA Tool predicts damage of 38% to 72% to the electrical system, which was undamaged. In other respects, as well, the FEMA Tool over-estimates the extent of the damage to the Trailer. The failure of the parties to offer into evidence the FEMA tool for short-duration saltwater flooding to a manufactured home precludes a finding as to the extent to which the actual floodwaters were substantially shallower than even Ms. Wingate's estimate or the duration of inundation was very brief. In either case, the repairs undertaken by Petitioners are a good measure of the damage to the Trailer, except for the finished floor. First, Petitioners rented some jacks and, with one or more friends, lifted the front of the Trailer, restacked the concrete blocks, and reset the Trailer atop them. Apparently at the same time, Petitioners also restored the wood deck to its prestorm condition. The retail value of this work was $1000. Second, the storm damaged the weatherhead or cap that shields the electric service line from the elements where the line enters the Trailer. The retail value of the work to replace the weatherhead and perform the electrical safety inspection required before the power company would restore power to the Trailer was $1060. Third, the storm caused minor damage to one or more plumbing lines. The retail value of this repair work was $240. Fourth, various exterior panels required repair or replacement due to damage. The retail value of the repairs was $575, and the retail value of the replacement of 16 outer panels was $1280. Fifth, the storm destroyed the skirting along the bottom of the Trailer. The retail value of this replacement work was $1056. Sixth, the retail value of minor trim repairs necessitated by the storm was $500. The retail value of the above-described work was $5711. During the same time period, Petitioners performed additional work for which they never obtained a permit. The Conclusions of Law explain the relevance of the retail value of this work, which consisted of the installation of five new windows at $1075, the application of window sealant, caulking and hardware totaling $295, and the installation of a new front door for $320. The retail value of this work, which did not address floodwater damage, was $1690. This work plus the previously described work thus totaled $7401. This leaves the finished floor and subflooring and one panel of plywood that had separated from the wall and was flopping. The plywood paneling is de minimis. One panel of wall plywood separated from the wall, although it is unclear how that happened, and the repair would represent an insignificant expense, even if the panel had to be replaced. One of the Petitioners testified that there was water damage on the floor at the front of the Trailer extending across the front room and into the living area, where it discolored the bottom four inches of a sofa cover and left a muddy residue. At the back of the trailer, Petitioner found a water mark about one-half inch high along metal bunkbeds. According to this witness, the walls bore no dirt or mud, and neither they nor the cabinets were damaged by the water, but the vinyl floor tiles separated by no more than 1/8th of an inch due to ungluing from exposure to the water. This testimony is credited. The floodwater that entered the Trailer left a silty deposit on the floor, so it was relatively easy to determine the vertical reach of any floodwater that entered the Trailer, and the limited damage to the roof and sides of the Trailer does not appear to have allowed significant, if any, amounts of rain water into the Trailer. The crucial questions, which are left unanswered in this record, involve the extent of the work necessary to restore the finished floor and subflooring to their prestorm condition and the retail value of the cost of this work. One of Petitioner's witnesses was David Koppel, who is a licensed professional engineer with considerable experience in the assessment of damages, partly from a 22-year career with Respondent. In December 2018, Mr. Koppel inspected the foundation, tie-downs, interior and underneath of the Trailer, both flooring units, and the walls and cabinets and concluded that the structural elements were "sound" and everything was intact as it was built, except for a little "swelling and separation" of the finished floor, which Mr. Koppel testified was so minor that its repair or replacement would be left to the owners' choice. Mr. Koppel opined that all work had been performed in conformance with the 1970 Building Code, which was in effect when the original building permit was issued. Mr. Koppel's testimony is problematic in two regards.10 He mistook the vinyl floor for a wood floor, and he misidentified the referent as the owners' preference instead of the prestorm condition, as explained in the Conclusions of Law. Otherwise, Mr. Koppel's testimony is credited. There is no evidence that Petitioners repaired or replaced any of the items that Mr. Koppel inspected, prior to his inspection, so he would have found any damage, such as rot or mildew, that would have developed in the intervening 15 months between the storm and his inspection. This leaves as the sole open question as to damages the retail value of the cost of the work to repair or replace the damaged portion of the finished floor--an issue that is not addressed in the record. Lastly, it is necessary to determine the prestorm value of the Trailer. The property appraiser assessed the Trailer at $17,769. After a 20% adjustment, as discussed in the Conclusions of Law, Respondent increased the value of the Trailer to $21,323. Petitioners' witness, an experienced real estate appraiser, testified that the Trailer was worth $53,618, using the cost approach to value. Her total estimate of the cost of the structure, if new, was $73,450, which she reduced by $19,832 for depreciation. Petitioners' appraiser never explained why she estimated only $20,000 or 27% for depreciation for a 50-year-old manufactured home. Her appraisal also lacked comparable sales to back up her cost approach to value and never took into account published sources of market values for used manufactured homes. Petitioners' evidence does not persuade that a manufactured home, parked beside the ocean for 50 years, is worth today over $50,000. Thus, Petitioners failed to overcome the adjusted assessed value of $21,323. However, the proved retail value of the work associated with damage and improvements of $7401 is less than 50% of the value of the Trailer of $21,323. Following the storm, Petitioners and contractors performed the above-described work. By May 12, 2018, Respondent initiated an investigation into the substantial unpermitted work that Petitioners had undertaken. On June 8, 2018, Respondent issued a Notice of Violation/Notice of Hearing for July 26, 2018 (NOV). The NOV alleges the unpermitted work and requires corrective action of obtaining an after-the-fact or demolition permit. The hearing before the special magistrate took place on September 27, 2018. At the hearing, as stated in Petitioners Exhibit F, Respondent's counsel advised the special magistrate: This one isn't terribly complicated or terribly difficult in that we just need the after the fact permit so that the inspections can be performed to make sure that the utilities are connected, safely reconnected, reattached. It's currently on the blocks in the proper situation, hopefully it doesn't happen again. The NOV proceeding concluded with the parties' agreement that Petitioners would file an application for an after-the-fact permit, although the discussion indicates that Respondent was focusing exclusively on the necessity of a permit to replace the Trailer on its concrete block stacks and to replace the wood deck to its original position abutting the Trailer. The after- the-fact permitting process then ensued, as described in the Preliminary Statement.
Findings Of Fact Prior to March of 1981, Maxmedia held permits 8463-6 and 8462-6 issued by the Department for signs on property leased from Lust Industries located approximately at the intersection of U.S. 17/92 and Virginia Avenue in the city of Orlando, Florida. On March 23, 1981, Maxmedia advised the Department that the sign for which it held the above permits had been dismantled, and permits numbered 8463-6 and 8462-6 were returned to the Department for cancellation. On March 18, 1981, the Department received the application of Lust Industries for a sign at the location where the Maxmedia sign had been permitted, to be erected on property owned by Lust Industries. This application contained several irregularities, and the Department accepted it as an application only for the south face of the proposed sign. On May 27, 1981, the Department received the application of Lust Industries for the north face of this sign. The requested permits were issued by the Department on May 27, 1981. On February 24, 1981, Maxmedia executed a lease to property located approximately 30-50 feet south of the Lust Industries property. The term of this lease was to run from April 1, 1981 to April 1, 1984. On March 21, 1981, the Department received an application from Maxmedia for permits to erect signs at the location 30-50 feet south of the location owned by Lust Industries where Maxmedia had permits until it surrendered them. These permits were denied by the Department because of the permit application already received from Lust Industries for a sign 30 to 50 feet to the north. On March 23, 1981, Maxmedia applied to the city of Orlando for a building permit to erect the sign at its leased location south of the Lust Industries property, and this permit was issued to Maxmedia by the city. In January or February, 1981, Lust Industries had applied to the city of Orlando for a permit to build a sign on property near the sign of Maxmedia which was dismantled in March of 1981, but the requested city permit was denied because of the proximity of this location to the Maxmedia sign. After, the Maxmedia sign had been taken down, Lust Industries again applied for a city of Orlando building permit, but this was after the city permit had already been issued to Maxmedia; thus, the city again denied a permit to Lust Industries due to the existence of the outstanding permit held by Maxmedia. In May or June of 1981, after having received a building permit from the city of Orlando, and after having leased the property, Maxmedia proceeded to erect the sign 30-50 feet south of the Lust Industries property. It is this sign that is the subject of the Department's violation notice issued on June 30, 1982. It is the existence of this sign of Maxmedia, permitted by the city of Orlando, and erected on land currently leased, that prevents Lust Industries from obtaining the city of Orlando building permit it needs in order to be able to erect a sign 30 to 50 feet to the north. Thus, the Department seeks to revoke the state permits it issued to Lust Industries which violate the harmony of regulations provisions of the statutes and rules.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department issue its Final Order revoking the permits held by Lust Industries, dismissing the Notice of Violation against Maxmedia, Inc., and granting the application of Maxmedia, Inc., for permits as requested in its application received on March 24, 1981. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 18th day of April, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of April, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Haydon Burns Building, M. S. 58 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-8064 William F. Poole IV, Esquire 644 West Colonial Drive Orlando, Florida 32802 Gerald S. Livingston, Esquire P. O. Box 2151 Orlando, Florida 32802 Paul N. Pappas, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent committed the allegations contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Department of Health has regulatory jurisdiction over licensed dentists such as Respondent. In particular, Petitioner is authorized to file and prosecute an administrative complaint, as it has done in this instance, when a panel of the Board of Dentistry has found probable cause exists to suspect that the licensee has committed one or more disciplinable offenses. Respondent Pasquale Almerico, Jr., a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania School of Dental Medicine, has been licensed to practice dentistry in the State of Florida since 1984. Respondent's address of record is 704 North Alexander Street, Plant City, Florida. The Events On February 16, 2010, patient P.D., a 60-year-old female, presented to Respondent's dental office to discuss the replacement of a partial, removable denture that was causing discomfort. The partial denture, which another dentist installed some 15 years earlier to fill the gaps created by lost teeth in the lower-left portion of P.D.'s mouth——specifically, teeth numbers 18 and 19——was secured by a metal “C-clasp” attached to tooth number 20. Noticing immediately that the partial denture was ill fitting, Respondent recommended its replacement with a three- unit cantilever bridge at teeth numbers 19, 20, and 21. As explained during the final hearing, a cantilever is a type of fixed bridge that attaches to adjacent teeth on one end only. Thus, in this instance, abutment crowns on teeth numbers 20 and 21 would connect to a pontic (an artificial tooth) extending into the gap formerly occupied by tooth number 19. P.D. consented to the suggested treatment during the February 16 office visit, at which point Respondent removed the existing crown on tooth number 20, took a radiograph of the relevant area, and performed a thorough clinical examination of teeth numbers 20 and 21. Although Respondent observed some abrasion2/ on the distal surface of tooth number 20 where the C- clasp of the partial denture had been attached, the teeth otherwise appeared healthy——i.e., neither Respondent's direct visualization of the teeth nor his review of the radiograph suggested the presence of decay. At the conclusion of the February 16 visit, Respondent prepared teeth numbers 20 and 21 (a process that involves the use of a drill to remove enough enamel from the teeth so that the bridge will fit properly), took a final impression, and provided P.D. with a temporary bridge. P.D. returned to Respondent's office on March 3, 2010, at which time Respondent removed the temporary bridge and performed a “try-in” with the metal framework of the new bridge. During this process, Respondent directly visualized tooth number 20 and, as was the case during the previous visits, observed no signs of decay.3/ However, Respondent noticed that the metal framework would not seat correctly, which prompted him to take a new impression. Thereafter, on March 10, 2010, Respondent removed P.D.'s temporary bridge and conducted a try-in with the new metal framework——affording him a third opportunity to visualize tooth number 20. Once again, Respondent observed no indications of decay or any other issues. Of the opinion that the second impression had yielded a satisfactory framework, Respondent scheduled P.D. to return at a later date for the seating of her new bridge. Upon P.D.'s return on March 24, 2010, Respondent removed the temporary bridge and directly visualized tooth number 20 for a fourth time; no decay was observed. Respondent then proceeded to seat the cantilever bridge, which fit well and caused the patient no discomfort. At that point, it was anticipated that P.D. would follow up with Respondent in six months for routine cleaning and maintenance. As it happens, though, P.D. returned to Respondent's office a mere five days later, on March 29, 2010. During the visit, P.D. reported that her new bridge was “hurting” and that she was feeling “pressure constantly.” Notably, however, P.D. denied that the pain was of such intensity that it kept her awake at nighttime, which militated against a conclusion that the patient was suffering from an abscess.4/ In response to P.D.'s complaints, Respondent adjusted and flossed the bridge. That an adjustment was made so soon after the bridge's seating, although less than optimal, was by no means unusual; indeed, Petitioner's expert witness concedes that neither the timing of the March 29 visit nor P.D.'s report of pressure necessitated a clinical examination or the taking of an x-ray on that date.5/ Nine days later, on April 7, 2014, P.D. appeared at Respondent's office once again, this time with the complaint that she was biting her cheek. During the clinical examination that ensued, Respondent surmised that the cheek biting, if any, had been caused by a different, aging bridge located in the upper left of P.D.'s mouth (at teeth numbers 11 through 14).6/ Respondent did, however, notice that the new bridge was hitting high, which prompted him to make a minimal adjustment using a rubber wheel. Although Petitioner contends that Respondent should have taken an x-ray during the April 7 visit to rule out an abscess, the evidence demonstrates that P.D. exhibited none of the clinical symptoms sometimes attendant to such a condition. Save for her report of “cheek biting,” P.D. presented with no complaint of severe——or, for that matter, any——pain,7/ nor did she exhibit any discomfort during the adjustment. Moreover, P.D. did not react adversely when Respondent used the end of his examination mirror to perform percussion on the bridge. Finally, Respondent detected no inflammation below the gum line. Subsequently, on April 13, 2010, P.D. returned to Respondent's office and reported that the new bridge was “catching her lip.” P.D. complained of no other pain relating to the new bridge, and Respondent's clinical examination yielded no indications (e.g., thermal sensitivity or sensitivity to percussion) that the patient was suffering from an abscess.8/ Owing to the dearth of symptoms suggestive of endodontic involvement, Respondent determined that an x-ray was unnecessary. However, Respondent made a minimal adjustment to the new bridge and sent P.D. on her way, with the expectation that the patient would return in six months for a follow-up visit. Although P.D. would return a mere six days later, on April 19, 2010, her complaints at that time related only to the aging bridgework at teeth numbers 11 through 14 (seated years earlier by another dentist), which Respondent discovered was “hitting hard.” Significantly, P.D. raised no issues concerning her new bridge at teeth numbers 19 through 21, and Respondent's examination revealed, yet again, no signs of endodontic involvement.9/ As such, Respondent did nothing more than make a slight adjustment to the bridge at teeth numbers 11 through 14.10/ Soon thereafter, P.D. scheduled another appointment and returned to Respondent's office on April 27. On this occasion, as with the previous visit, P.D. voiced no complaints concerning her new bridge, and Respondent observed no signs of inflammation, cheek biting, or any problems. This time, however, P.D. accused Respondent of “breaking” the bridgework at teeth numbers 11 through 14 and suggested that he provide a replacement free of charge. Respondent was understandably dismayed by P.D.'s demand, for he had never caused any damage to the 11 through 14 bridge; moreover, the bridge in question, although in poor condition, was by no means “broken.” At that point, Respondent terminated his relationship with P.D. Expert Testimony As noted previously, Petitioner advances two unrelated theories in support of its charge that Respondent violated the minimum standard of care. First, Petitioner contends that, prior to the seating of the new bridge on March 24, 2010, Respondent failed to treat decay supposedly present on the distal surface (i.e., the part of the tooth that faces the back of the mouth) of tooth number 20. In light of Respondent's concession that the standard of care requires the removal of existing decay prior to the seating of a bridge, Petitioner's first theory boils down to a factual dispute over whether decay was present on tooth number 20 on March 24, 2010. In an attempt to establish the presence of decay, Petitioner adduced testimony from Dr. Solomon Brotman, an eminently qualified dentist with more than 30 years of practical experience. Although Dr. Brotman concedes that he never clinically examined P.D., he nevertheless maintains that the presence of “substantial” decay on tooth number 20 is demonstrated by x-rays in Respondent's possession when the bridge was seated.11/ Dr. Brotman further opines that the x-rays of tooth number 20 are not reasonably susceptible to any other interpretation (e.g., abrasion or erosion), and that Respondent may have missed the decay because it is “sometimes” tooth colored. Finally, Dr. Brotman asseverates that, in cases involving interproximal decay, it is appropriate to make a diagnosis based solely on an x-ray. Respondent counters with testimony from Dr. Robert Fish, an expert with an equally impressive background, who credibly asserts that the x-rays in question are not suggestive of decay but, rather, abrasion12/ that likely resulted from the ill-fitting “C-clasp” of the removable partial denture——an opinion that jibes with Respondent's persuasive testimony that he observed abrasion on the distal surface of tooth number 20. Dr. Fish further contends that, had decay been present, it is highly unlikely that Respondent would have missed it given the number of times he directly visualized tooth number 20 prior to the seating.13/ The short of it is that decay quite possibly existed on the distal surface of tooth number 20 at the time Respondent seated the bridge. However, Respondent's persuasive account of his clinical observations of the tooth, buttressed by the credible testimony of Dr. Fish, leaves the undersigned with substantial doubt on this point. As such, Petitioner has failed to sustain its burden of proof. The undersigned now turns to Petitioner's alternative theory, namely, that “continuing, localized dental pain” required Respondent to rule out the possibility of an abscess at the root of tooth number 20. In relevant part, the Amended Complaint alleges: Continuing, localized dental pain is a symptom of endodontic involvement. Minimum standards of diagnosis and treatment in the practice of dentistry require that when a patient complains of continued dental pain, a dentist take radiographic images of the symptomatic area to determine whether there is endodontic involvement. . . . Patient appointed with Respondent for relief of pain five times [after the bridge was seated] . . . . Respondent Dr. Almerico did not take radiographs of that area or otherwise rule out endodontic involvement during those visits. By failing to take radiographic images to determine possible endodontic involvement at bridge #19-21, Respondent failed to meet minimum standards of dental diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. (emphasis added). Fairly read, the Amended Complaint alleges the standard of care as follows: when a patient reports continuing, localized dental pain, a practitioner must take an x-ray of the symptomatic area or otherwise rule out endodontic involvement. As Respondent correctly argues, however, the testimony of Petitioner's expert departs substantially from the theory pleaded in the charging document. First, contrary to paragraph 27 of the Amended Complaint, which alleges a failure to take x- rays “or otherwise rule out” an abscess, Dr. Brotman's formulation of the standard of care absolutely requires the taking of an x-ray to eliminate the possibility of endodontic involvement. To muddy the waters further, Dr. Brotman's articulation of the prevailing standard at times focused not on P.D.'s supposed reports of continued pain but, rather, the fact that Respondent made more than one adjustment to the new bridge subsequent to its seating: A Sure. I think we fell below the minimum standards on 4/7, 4/13 and 4/19 of 2010, because each of those visits, because the patient came back with the bite having shifted, which for that reason Dr. Almerico continued to adjust the bite on each visit. * * * BY MR. PRICE: Q Doctor, you just gave an opinion that is the standard of care that a patient with more than one adjustment, they automatically get an X-ray. You just gave that as a standard-of-care opinion, didn't you? A Yes, sir. (emphasis added).14/ In light of the significant degree to which Dr. Brotman's testimony deviates from the theory charged in the Amended Complaint, it is concluded that Petitioner has failed to convincingly articulate the minimum standard of performance against which the undersigned, as fact-finder, can independently evaluate Respondent's conduct. Even assuming that Petitioner had established the standard of care (as pleaded), there is a dearth of credible evidence that P.D. presented with continuing, localized pain relating to the new bridge. As detailed previously, P.D.'s report on April 7 that she was “biting her cheek” involved the older bridge at teeth numbers 11 through 14; on her next visit, she complained only that her new bridge was “catching her lip”; on April 19, P.D. merely informed Respondent that the older bridge was “hitting hard”; and, on her final visit, P.D. complained of nothing at all (save for her dubious request for a free replacement of the older bridge).15/ Such hardly constitutes a pattern of ongoing, localized pain. In any event, the persuasive evidence demonstrates that Respondent “otherwise ruled out” endodontic involvement through his clinical observations. Indeed, as Dr. Fish persuasively explained during his testimony, P.D. presented with none of the symptoms16/ sometimes associated with the presence of an abscess——e.g., sensitivity to temperature, exquisite pain, sensitivity to percussion, a fistula, or inflammation——during the office visits of April 7, 13, 19, and 27, 2010, thereby obviating the need for an x-ray. Ultimate Factual Determinations It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent is not guilty of violating section 466.028(1)(x).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Board of Dentistry dismissing Count I of the Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of July, 2014, 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 9th day of July, 2014.
