Findings Of Fact Regulation of those practicing acupuncture first became law in Florida with the passage of Chapter 80-375, Laws of Florida (1980). Therein it was declared unlawful for any person to practice acupuncture in this state unless such person has been certified by the Department of Professional Regulation. This statute, as amended, and now contained in Section 468.323, Florida Statutes (1981), requires an applicant for certification to practice acupuncture in this state to pass an examination which tests the applicant's competence and knowledge of the practice of acupuncture and "includes a practical examination of the skills required to practice acupuncture, covering diagnostic techniques and procedures, point/meridian selection, needle insertion, manipulation and removal, patient care, sanitation and antiseptic application." The technique of point/meridian selection, needle insertion, manipulation and removal, which Section 468.323 requires a successful applicant to demonstrate are techniques basic to traditional Chinese acupuncture. All of these Petitioners failed the clinical practical portion of the examination given in August, 1982. The August, 1982, examination was the second examination given in this state to applicants for certification to practice acupuncture. The first examination was given in December, 1981. Due to the lack of known-to-be qualified examiners in Florida, Respondent contacted the State of California, who has licensed acupuncture practitioners since 1976, and arranged to have acupuncturists who have served as examiners in California, serve as examiners for the practical part of the Florida examination for the examinations given in December, 1981, and August, 1982. All of the examiners who administered and graded the practical portion of the August, 1982, examination have practiced acupuncture for at least five years and have served as examiners in California for at least three years. Most of these examiners hold degrees in medicine or oriental medicine and all are highly qualified acupuncturists. All of these examiners were assembled before the commencement of the examination and instructed for twelve to eighteen hours to assure that all were grading on the same scale and their grades would be as consistent as practicable. They were provided with Acupuncture Examiner Manual (Exhibit 14) which contains grading criteria for each task on the practical examination. Petitioners contend that this examiner manual established grading criteria for procedures that are unnecessary and/or not practiced by many acupuncturists, thereby taking from the examiners the initiative to grade the examinees on their overall demonstration of acupuncture techniques. A careful review of Exhibit 14 does not compel this conclusion. To the contrary, Exhibit provides the examiners with examples of techniques that demonstrate competence as well as techniques demonstrating superior performance. As noted below, the areas in which the greatest number failed was in location of acupuncture point and length of needle/angle of insertion/manipulation. In the former a passing grade was given if the candidate needled on the proper meridian. A superior grade resulted if the candidate was less than one-half inch off point and on the meridian. In the latter the candidate received a passing score if he got two of the three, viz, angle of insertion, length of needle and/or manipulation, correct. Either twisting and twirling or lifting and thrusting of the needle was accepted for manipulation for either tonification or sedation. Instructions were mailed to all applicants advising of the time and place of their examination; the format of the examination; the bibliography of books to study for Part II of the examination, Theory and Practice of Acupuncture; how Part IV of the practical examination will be graded and that it will consist of: (1) Needle Insertion, Manipulation and Removal and (2) Patient Care, Sanitation and Antiseptic Application (Exhibit 4). Also forwarded to the applicants were the rules governing acupuncture clinics, Chapter 10D-81, Florida Administrative Code, and Chapter 21-12, Florida Administrative Code, covering licensing procedures for acupuncturists, including scope of the examination. Every examinee's scores for items 6, 11, and 16 on Part IV.1 of the August, 1982, examination intended to test examinees' performance in needle inspection prior to insertion were invalidated by Respondent at the examination because: Candidates did not adhere to this criteria, it would appear that while this is a vital precautionary measure to be utilized in the practice of acupuncture, candidates, however, consistently failed this criteria. The contention is that since applicants used newly purchased pre-packaged needles, disposable needles, and their personal needles, the assumption is that candidates were confident of the "good" condition of needles, and with the exception of one candidate this appears to be true. Prior to the August, 1982, acupuncture licensure examination, Respondent did not specify to Petitioners any text as reference for the clinical practical portion (Part IV) of the examination, nor did Respondent expressly notify Petitioners that they would be tested on points/meridian location in Part IV.1 of the examination. Respondent did not instruct examiners for the August, 1982, examination that they had to determine the accuracy of Petitioners' point/meridian location through the examinees' use of the proportional measurement method, including the comparison of the size of their hand to Petitioners' hands, and then palpation, and the examiners did not use this method of determining the accuracy with which Petitioners located acupuncture points on the clinical practical examination. Respondent did not notify Petitioners expressly in writing prior to the examination that they were required to insert the needle at an angle, either with or against the flow of energy along the meridian, in order to receive a score for "correct angle" on the August, 1982, acupuncture licensure clinical practical examination. Respondent did not notify Petitioners expressly in writing prior to the examination that they had to demonstrate one of the needle manipulation techniques known as "twisting and twirling" or "lifting and thrusting" in order to receive a score for "correct manipulation" on the August, 1982, acupuncture licensure clinical examination. Respondent did not notify Petitioners by rule or otherwise that "needle manipulation" would be graded in two separate items on the grade sheet for each acupuncture point on the examination. Nor did Respondent notify Petitioners expressly in writing prior to the examination that they had to close the hole for tonification and leave the hole open for sedation in order to receive a score for "proper removal" of the needle on this examination. Respondent did not notify Petitioners expressly in writing prior to the examination that they had to cleanse hands by washing with soap or scrubbing with alcohol or an antiseptic solution prior to handling needles and that they had to maintain "sterile hands" when handling any of the needles in order to receive a "pass" score for item 2 of Part IV.2 of the examination. Nor did Respondent so notify Petitioners that they had to use an antiseptic agent, such as betadine solution, hydrogen peroxide, or alcohol, to cleanse the skin area in which needle insertion was to be performed in order to receive a pass score for item 3 of Part IV.2 of this examination. Nor did Respondent so notify Petitioners that once their hands had been cleansed the cleansed hands could not be used to adjust their clothing or in any other manner that would not maintain sterility in order to receive a "pass" score for item 4 of Part IV.2 of the examination. Respondent did not adopt a rule specifying the criteria by which examiners were to be selected prior to the August, 1982, acupuncture examination, nor did Respondent adopt a rule specifying point/meridian location as a grading criterion for the August, 1982, examination. "Superior manipulation" and "extreme care exercised" are not terms of art in the practice of acupuncture. Acupuncture is defined in the statutes and rules to mean "the insertion of needles into the human body, or the treatment of specific skin areas by means of mechanical, thermal, or the electrical stimulation, for the purpose of controlling and regulating the flow and balance of energy in the body." There are numerous "schools" of acupuncture throughout the world where "masters" teach different techniques. However, all of these schools teach the traditional Chinese theory of acupuncture which is to balance the energy in the body by "tonifying" those areas where there is insufficient energy and "sedating" those areas with too much energy. No evidence was presented that different acupuncture "points" are used at the differing schools of acupuncture or that proper results can be obtained if the needle is not inserted accurately on the point to he needled. These "points" are where needles are inserted and manipulated to increase or decrease the flow of energy on that meridian. The differences in these schools of acupuncture, including the western or scientific, consists mainly of techniques used to attain the desired end. Of these techniques, depth of needle, angle of insertion, and how a needle is manipulated to stimulate the point are perhaps the most significant. Of the three texts referred to the applicants for study, two describe the traditional Chinese art of acupuncture, while the third, by Felix Mann, tests the Chinese art of acupuncture against western scientific bases to demonstrate the efficacy or lack thereof of some of these procedures. While a scientific basis for certain of the traditional Chinese theories cannot be demonstrated, Mann, and others in the scientific world, contend these theories to be without merit. Pursuant to the Chinese school of acupuncture, both depth and angle of insertion of the needle are important. For tonification this school teaches that the needle be angled with the flow of energy, and stimulation of the point is attained by: (1) Repeatedly lift the needle gently subtaneously, then thrust it back with force; (2) Twist and twirl the needle back and forth with small amplitudes and slowly; (3) Insert the needle slowly, twirl it gently. When withdrawing, rest the needle just beneath the skin for a short interval, then withdraw it swiftly; and (4) After withdrawing the needle, close the acupuncture hole by applying slight pressure over it, preventing the vital energy from the channel from escaping. For sedation the needle is inserted against the flow and the manipulations above-noted for tonification are, insofar as practicable, reversed and the hole is left open for the excess energy to escape (Exhibit 6). Traditional Chinese acupuncture emphasizes the importance of point location, angle of insertion, depth of penetration of the needle, the type manipulation used and opening or closing of the hole. All schools emphasize the importance of point location. Some schools, finding little scientific basis for angle and depth of insertion, de-emphasize the importance of these techniques. Many contend that there is no basis for angled insertions solely for tonification or sedation, that with adequate stimulation, depth of needle is unimportant and that almost any type of stimulation is adequate for either tonification or sedation. Little scientific basis for leaving the hole open or closing the hole for sedation and tonification, respectively, has been demonstrated. Since many acupuncture practitioners in the western world, particularly medical doctors, attain stimulation by the use of electricity, and electricity will pass through body tissue easier than manually transmitted vibrations of the needle, the depth of penetration for these practitioners using electrical stimulation is not particularly important. Accordingly, those practitioners give little weight to depth of penetration. Manipulation of the needle during and after insertion consists principally of lifting and thrusting or twisting and twirling. The needle can be moved only in three dimensions, but the speed and amplitude of those movements can be varied. Variations of the speed, amplitude and direction of the movement of the needle are obtained by "plucking" the needle, "scraping" the needle, "shaking" the needle, "flying" the needle, and "trembling" the needle. (Exhibit 28) Movements in certain directions with emphasis are specified for tonification and other movements for sedation are important in the practice of traditional Chinese acupuncture. In the instructions given to the applicants, including all of these Petitioners, they were directed to bring acupuncture needles of various sizes they would use in their practice and all material needed for sanitation and antiseptic application. For Part IV of the examination, each applicant was advised prior to the examination (Exhibit 5) that he/she would be required to perform needle insertion, manipulation and removal on themselves for three different acupuncture points, that the examiner will designate the points on which needle insertion, manipulation and removal are to be performed; that they were to demonstrate for the examiners how they would treat a patient in their clinic when performing needle insertion, manipulation and removal; that they are required to demonstrate only the proper sterilization and sanitation procedures and proper needling techniques for the designated acupuncture points; and that minutes is allotted for this portion of the test. The examination was conducted in a motel room having a sink for the applicant to wash his hands, a straight chair and coffee table for applicant to sit on and set up his equipment and two chairs for the two examiners. Upon entry into the room, each applicant was given the information contained in Exhibit 10. Several Petitioners testified Exhibit 10 was not read to them, while all examiners testified that Exhibit 10 was read to each applicant. All Petitioners who testified prepared a lower leg for acupuncture, all acknowledged that they used a different needle for each insertion, and each acknowledged that he/she was directed to tonify or sedate three specific points. Exhibit 10 directs the procedures each Petitioner testified he followed with the possible exception of the words "using correct angle and needle manipulation" following the directions to "tonify spleen 6" or "sedate liver 4." While a few of the Petitioners attributed their failure to use correct needle angle prescribed by traditional Chinese acupuncture to the failure of the examiners to so instruct them, most of the Petitioners who didn't angle the needle testified that they used a perpendicular needle angle of insertion of the needle because they didn't believe in the efficacy of angling the needle; or to the instruction to insert the needle as they would on a patient in their clinic. Since they didn't use angled insertions on their patients or "close the hole" or "leave the hole open" when treating their patients, they didn't demonstrate the use of those techniques on the examination. Petitioners' primary complaints about the examination concern the failure of Respondent to more specifically tell them exactly what they would be required to do on the practical part of the examination to obtain a passing grade. Su Liang Ku was a successful applicant for licensure on the August, 1982, examination and testified as an expert witness in these proceedings. He acknowledged that the instructions that he was given were not all-encompassing and that he did not always "close the hole" when applying tonification procedures to patients in his office; however, he clearly recognized the need to demonstrate to the examiners all of the appropriate techniques when taking an examination. Ku had taken exams in Burma, China and California before taking the Florida examination and was not surprised by the tests he was asked to perform on the practical examination or uncertain whether the needle should be angled, the hole closed or left open, or whether he should demonstrate more than one technique used to stimulate the point. Had some of these Petitioners recognized and kept in mind this innate distinction between adequate clinical procedures and examination procedures, they, too, would have passed this examination. Petitioner William Skelton failed Part IV of the examination largely because he was graded zero by both examiners for "needle manipulation and removal" for two of the three points. He was also given a below average by both examiners on needle length for one point. Skelton understood he would be examined on traditional Chinese acupuncture, and to tonify a point, he angled the needle in the direction of flow. He also understood point location was very important and that when told to tonify Spleen 6 he was expected to insert the needle at the correct point. Despite his acknowledgment that he understood he was being examined in traditional Chinese acupuncture, Skelton closed the hole on one point traditional Chinese acupuncture indicates should be left open. Petitioner Anna Alvarez failed Part IV of the August, 1982, examination largely as a result of the marks she received from both examiners on length of needle/angle of insertion/manipulation. These marks were 2 for both examiners for points 2 and 3 while for point 1 examiner A scored her performance zero and examiner B scored it 2. Had a passing mark from each examiner been awarded for all three points on this item of the examination, she would easily have passed Part IV of the examination. Ms. Alvarez testified that she did not understand she was being graded on point selection; however, she received passing marks in accuracy of location of acupuncture points from both examiners for all three points. Ms. Alvarez also testified that she achieved chi at two points and after receiving chi it is not necessary to manipulate the needle. While this procedure may well be appropriate in practice, the examiner can hardly determine that the applicant is competent as an acupuncturist unless acupuncture techniques are demonstrated. Simply announcing the arrival of "chi" after which additional stimulation may not be necessary, does not demonstrate manipulation. On the third point, Liver 4, she testified that she did not want sedation so she did not try to get chi. She also testified that the needle was inserted perpendicular to the skin for each point. One of the criteria tested on this part of the practical examination is angle of insertion. While the efficacy of angle of insertion is disputed by many, it is entrenched in traditional Chinese acupuncture and all candidates were aware that the examination would be in this field. Applicants were not given a failing score if needle was not angled, but received a higher score if this technique was demonstrated. Petitioner Paul Gonzalez failed Part IV of the August, 1982, examination largely because of the grades he received in accuracy of location of acupuncture point and in length of needle/angle of insertion/manipulation. For point one, Gonzalez was marked zero by both examiners. He testified that he was told to do Liver 8 and he got mixed up and inserted the needle at Kidney 8. He also testified that he had brought only 1-1/2 inch needles to the examination despite instructions received in Exhibit 4. On cross examination he testified that he had other needles with him but used only 1-1/2 inch needles in the examination. Gonzalez expected to he tested on traditional Chinese acupuncture procedures and attempted to demonstrate those techniques and needle insertion and manipulation. However, of the six grades received for each of the four sections on which the candidates were graded (two examiners x three points) Gonzalez received 2 - 3's and 4 - 2's for length of needle/angle of insertion/manipulation. Only on point 3 did his total score for a point reach the passing level of 3. Gonzalez angled the needle against the flow when he was told to sedate Gall Bladder 41. He also testified he was not told to tonify or sedate the other two points; however, this is contrary to the testimony of the examiners that they read Exhibit 5 to all applicants and to the testimony of other witnesses that they were told to tonify or sedate each point to be needled. Petitioner Edward Rumsey failed Part IV of the August, 1982, examination after receiving zeros from both examiners on point selection for point 1, a 3 and a 0 for point selection for point 2, and 2 - 2's for point selection for point 3. For needle manipulation and removal he received zeros from both examiners for points 1 and 2. In each of the 4 techniques tested for the three points, Rumsey received a total score less than 12 which reduces to an average score of less than 3 needed for passing. Rumsey testified he studied the books on Chinese acupuncture listed on Exhibit 4. When told to tonify Stomach 36, he inserted needle perpendicular to the skin. When told to tonify Spleen 10, he inserted the needle at an angle to the flow. When told to sedate Gall Bladder 41, he again inserted needle perpendicular to the skin. Rumsey further testified the only manipulation technique he used was twisting the needle and he didn't demonstrate closing the hole or leaving the hole open. As with other applicants, the examiners who tested Rumsey were seated in chairs facing Rumsey and could observe him clearly. Rumsey, as did several other witnesses, contended the examiners could not ascertain the needle was inserted more than 1/2 inch from the correct point unless they actually measured. The various acupuncture points are located a certain number of "cuns" from an anatomical landmark and there are a specified number of cuns between two anatomical landmarks. For example, Exhibit 9, p 91, shows there are 8 cuns between the nipples on a man's chest. An experienced acupuncturist should be able to locate a point with considerable accuracy by viewing the anatomical landmark and, by eye, selecting the point 3/8, 1/4, etc. of the distance between these landmarks. Petitioner, David Bole, failed part IV of the August, 1982, examination because he received an average score high enough to pass only one of the four criteria graded by the examiners, viz, "condition of needle - handle comes in contact with skin." On needle manipulation and removal, he received for point 1 a 0 and a 3; for point 2 - 3 zeros; and for point 3 - 2 fours. On accuracy of point location, Bole received 2 - 3's for point 1; a zero and a 3 for point 2; and a 4 and a 3 for point 3. For length of needle/angle of insertion/manipulation, he received scores of 3 and 2 for point 1; 2 and 3 for point 2; and 3 and 4 for point 3. Bole also received a mark of at least one fail by both examiners in the sanitation part of Part IV. Any grade of fail in the sanitation portion of the examination results in a final grade of fail. Bole testified he holds a Ph.D. in psychology and has been practicing acupuncture under the supervision of a medical doctor. He studied the recommended texts to prepare for the examination, but relied on his experience, past training and instruction to proceed as he would with a patient in his own clinic, in demonstrating his proficiency in traditional Chinese acupuncture. Bole testified he inserted the needle at an angle with the flow when directed to tonify and against the flow when directed to sedate. He also demonstrated closing the hole or leaving the hole open as appropriate. He used the same swab to clean all points as well as to seal the hole and he used 1-1/2 inch needles for all points. Bole acknowledged that knowing length of needle used allows the examiner to determine the depth the needle is inserted. His principal objection is that insufficient directions were given to applicants for the applicants to understand exactly what they were expected to demonstrate. Harvey J. Kaltsas failed Part IV of the August, 1982, examination by reason of the low scores he received in accuracy of locating acupuncture point and length of needle/angle of insertion/manipulation. On point location Kaltsas received passing grades of 3 by each examiner for points 1 and 2, but for point 3, received grades of 0 and 2. For length of needle/angle of insertion/manipulation he received a 2 from each examiner for point 1, a 3 from each examiner for point 3, and one 2 and one 3 for point 2. Kaltsas testified that in his training, the angle of insertion of the needle is the most important factor in needling. To prepare for the examination Kaltsas studied the texts recommended in Exhibit 10 and assumed the examiners would be looking for methods of tonification and sedation discussed in the books on traditional Chinese acupuncture. For each of the three points he was told to tonify or sedate, he inserted the needle perpendicular to the skin. Kaltsas also testified he didn't think the examiners were looking for point location because they didn't take physical measurements to check the accuracy of each point he needled. Petitioner Marie Burleson failed Part IV of the August, 1982, examination partly as a result of running out of time before point 3 was needled. However, even if the score on point 3 could be ignored, Burleson would have failed all of the criteria except "needle manipulation and removal." For the accuracy of location of the two points needled, Ms. Burleson received two 2's for point 1 and one 2 and one 3 for point 1. Zeros were given for point 3. For length of needle/angle of insertion/ manipulation, Burleson received a score of 3 from one examiner for points 1 and 2, but a score of 1 from the other examiner. For a "condition of needle" Petitioner received a score of 4 from one examiner for points 1 and 2, but received a score of 0 and 3 from the other examiner. Both the examiners scored Burleson zero on point 3. Burleson attributed her difficulty in not completing point 3 to the fact that she had no comfortable place to put her foot while she was needling the leg. She testified that when she started to insert the needle in point 3, her foot slipped off the chair and the needle was bent. Burleson is a graduate of an acupuncture school in California from which she took most of her studies by correspondence. She spent only one month full-time in classrooms before graduation. At the examination, Burleson used a one-inch needle inserted perpendicular to the skin for both points 1 and 2. She demonstrated closing the hole for the two points tonified. Petitioner Henry Meritt failed Part IV of the August, 1982, examination as the result of failing all of the criteria except "condition of needle" for which he was graded a 3 by each examiner for each of the 3 points. He also failed the sanitary part of Part IV with respect to his handling of needles. For accuracy of location of acupuncture point Meritt scored 3's for points 1 and 2 and zero for point 3 by both examiners. For length of needle/angle of insertion/manipulation, Meritt scored a zero and 2 for point 1, two 2's for point 2, and a zero and a 3 for point 3. For "needle manipulation and removal" both examiners scored Meritt zero for points 1 and 2 and he received a 2 and a 4 for point 3. Meritt contends he was not instructed to demonstrate how he located the points to be needled and that he thought, as did others, that point location was to be graded only in Parts II and III of the examination. In view of Finding of Fact 5 above, that point location is the most important element in acupuncture, such contentions are simply not credible. Without inserting the needle on the point or at least on the meridian on which this point is located, the desired results are not obtainable. This Petitioner testified tonification is obtained simply by leaving the needle inserted and without manipulation, that he used 1-1/2 inch needles for all points, that it was immaterial what length needle he used because they were inserted only 1/4 inch and that his two examiners were unprofessional during the time he was in the room taking his practical examination. He graduated from Doctor Dale's Institute in New York and refers to himself as Dr. Meritt although he has no doctoral degree in medicine or anything else. Petitioner Charles McWilliams failed Part IV of the August, 1982, examination by reason of obtaining a total score from both examiners below that required for passing in all of the criteria tested except "condition of needle - handle comes in contact with skin" on which he received a score of 3 from each examiner for each of the 3 points. For accuracy of location of acupuncture points, examiner A gave him a 4 for each of the 3 points, while examiner B awarded him scores of 3, 2 and 0 for points 1, 2 and 3, respectively. For length of needle/angle of insertion/manipulation for point 1 he received scores of 1 and 2; for point 2 scores of 2 and 3; and for point 3 scores of 2 and 2. For "needle manipulation and removal" for point 1 he received scores 2 and 0; for point 2 scores of 2 and 0; and for point 3 scores of 0 and 3. McWilliams testified he understood the practical part of the examination would be based on the texts to which he had been referred in Exhibit 4; that he angled his needle; that a 1-1/2 inch needle was used to tonify Stomach 36 (point 1) and Spleen 10 (point 2) and a 1-inch needle was used to sedate Gall Bladder 41 (point 3); that when he withdrew the needle from point 3, a drop of blood appeared and he put a swab on the hole; and if the latter motion constituted closing the hole, he closed the hole at point 3. McWilliams does not adhere to the theory that closing the hole or leaving the hole open is effective in tonification or sedation. Petitioner James Bissland failed Part IV of the August, 1982, examination because of failing scores received in accuracy of location of acupuncture point and length of needle/angle of insertion/manipulation and because he received a fail score from examiner A on the use of antiseptic solution on the skin prior to needle insertion on all three points needled. Bissland's scores for accuracy of point location were 2's for points 1 and 2 and 3's for point 3. For length of needle/angle of insertion/manipulation he scored a 1 and a 2 for point 1; a 1 and a 2 for point 2; and 2's for point 3. Bissland contends he did not know he would be graded on accuracy of point location but, had he known, he would have done nothing different than he did on the examination. Bissland studied the texts referred to in Exhibit 4 and expected Part IV of the examination to be a demonstration of the knowledge presented in Parts II and III. When told (by Exhibit 5) that he should demonstrate to the examiners the procedures he used in his own clinic, Bissland testified that is what he did. For each point Bissland used a 1-inch needle and a Japanese shallow needle technique with each needle penetrating 1/4 to 1/2 inch. No angling of the needles was performed. Bissland normally provides stimulation by electricity and does not angle the needles unless anatomically necessary. Since he was advised that electrical stimulation would not be allowed on the examination, he demonstrated slow and rapid insertion of the needle, slow and rapid rotation of the needle, and what he considered proper removal of the needle. Petitioners' expert witness, Peter Lu, took and passed the acupuncture examination in August, 1982. His father and grandfather were both Chinese medical doctors and Lu graduated from Hong Kong Western Pacific College where he studied acupuncture and Chinese medicine for four years. He considers point location and depth of needle insertion very important in acupuncture and an examiner can judge the depth of insertion by the length of the needle used. He was taught for tonification to angle the needle with the flow and to close the hole to prevent the escape of energy. For sedation he was taught to angle the needle against the flow and to leave the hole open to release the undesirable energy. Lu would consider a demonstration unsatisfactory if an examinee bent a needle while needling himself. Petitioners presented an expert witness who opined that test results on a practical examination were unreliable when two examiners on a scale of 0 to 4 gave scores 3 or more points apart. Here, the examiners were directed to give the applicant being tested a passing score if they could not clearly see what the applicant was demonstrating. This expert also testified the grades are unreliable where one examiner awards a pass and the other a fail. On the sanitation and antiseptic application part of the examination, the only grades authorized are pass and fail. At one point on the scale on which such performance is weighed there must be a equipoise between pass and fail. Thereafter, whichever way the scale is tilted determines the grade assigned. In this examination, the two examiners agreed on the grade to be assigned for 81 percent of the applicants. Part of the 19 percent on which they disagreed can be attributed to the instructions to award a pass score if the demonstration couldn't be clearly seen by the examiner. Even without this instruction, a difference of only 19 percent is a reasonable deviation in scores assigned by two examiners.
The Issue Should the certificate of registration of Petitioner, Professional Pain Management, Inc., License No. PMC 296, as a privately-owned pain management clinic, be revoked?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Professional Pain Management, Inc., License No. 296, is a pain management clinic (PMC) subject to the requirements of sections 458.3265 and 459.0137, Florida Statutes (2010).1/ PMC 296 is not wholly-owned by medical doctors (M.D.s), osteopathic physicians (D.O.s), or a combination of M.D.s and D.O.s. PMC 296 is not a health care clinic licensed under chapter 400, part X, Florida Statutes. PMC 296 has three equity shareholders. Their names and percentages of ownership interests are: Robert Ciceles (20 percent); Terra Hom (40 percent), and Erez Cohen (40 percent). None of the three equity shareholders is a physician, M.D. or D.O. Erez Cohen is, and at all pertinent times, has been president of PMC 296. He is not an M.D. or a D.O. Since at least August 2010, the owners and officers of PMC 296 were aware of the requirement that it be wholly physician-owned, effective October 1, 2010. PMC 296 was, at all times pertinent to this proceeding, not wholly-owned by physicians, M.D.s, D.O.s, or a combination of M.D.s and D.O.s. A dispute among the shareholders arising out of a dissolution of marriage proceeding has prevented PMC 296 from establishing ownership by a M.D., a D.O. or a combination of M.D.s and D.O.s. Management of PMC 296 plans to transfer ownership to physicians at an unspecified future date once the shareholder dispute is resolved. There was no evidence of any exemption from the operation of sections 458.3265 and 459.0137 presented at the hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health issue a final order revoking the certificate of registration of Professional Pain Management, Inc., License No. PMC 296. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of September, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II 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 30th day of September, 2011.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: Petitioner sat for the optometry licensure examination administered by the State of Florida in September, 1989. The examination included a clinical portion, consisting of three components: Section 1; Section 2; and a refraction exercise. The maximum number of points Petitioner could have earned on each these three parts of the examination was as follows: Section 1- 28 points; Section 2- 52 points; and refraction exercise- 20 points. Petitioner needed a combined total of 80 points on these three parts of the examination to pass the clinical portion of the examination. He received a combined total of 78 points: 28 points for Section 1; 30 points for Section 2; and 20 points for the refraction exercise. On Section 2 of the clinical portion of the examination, Petitioner was required to perform the following 15 routine optometric procedures, with each procedure worth the number of points indicated: Demonstrate equator- 5 points; Demonstrate posterior pole- 5 points; Scan vessel- 5 points; Demonstrate a parallelpiped focusing on the endothelium- 4 points; Estimate anterior chamber depth- 2 points; Demonstrate technique to determine cell and flare- 2 points; Demonstrate optic section of crystalline lens- 2 points; Demonstrate crystalline lens retroillumination- 2 points; Demonstrate anterior vitreous- 4 points; Focus on optic disc and estimate C/D ratio- 2 points; Demonstrate AV crossing and estimate AV ratio- 3 points; Determine foveal reflex- 3 points; Demonstrate accurate measurement of intraocular pressure- 5 points; Demonstrate nasal angle and describe structures- 4 points; and Estimate pigment deposition- 4 points. Petitioner's attempted performance of these routine procedures was independently observed 1/ and graded, on a pass/fail basis, by two qualified examiners, each of whom had been given detailed instructions regarding their responsibilities prior to the administration of the examination. The examiners had been instructed to use a standard of minimal competency in deciding whether to give a candidate a passing or failing grade. Their determination as to whether Petitioner had met this standard with respect to a particular procedure was necessarily a subjective process which required them to exercise their professional judgment. Petitioner received full credit for a procedure if both examiners gave him a passing grade (P). He received no credit for a procedure if both examiners gave him a failing grade (F). Where one examiner gave him a passing grade and the other examiner gave him a failing grade, Petitioner received half credit for the procedure. The following are the individual grades that were given Petitioner for each of the 15 procedures he attempted to perform: Examiner 40 Examiner 54 Procedure 1 F F Procedure 2 P P Procedure 3 F F Procedure 4 P F Procedure 5 P P Procedure 6 P F Procedure 7 P P Procedure 8 F F Procedure 9 P P Procedure 10 P P Procedure 11 P P Procedure 12 P P Procedure 13 F F Procedure 14 F P Procedure 15 P P As they had been instructed to do, if they gave Petitioner a failing grade or a borderline passing grade, Examiners 40 and 54 provided written comments regarding the grade on the grade sheets they filled out. The passing grades that, in the view of the Examiner 40, warranted such comments were those given for Procedures 6, 10 and 15. Examiner 54 believed that the passing grades he gave for Procedures 2, 7, 11 and 14 deserved such comments. With respect to the failing grade he gave Petitioner for Procedure 1, Examiner 40 commented on his grade sheet, "never got view." Examiner 54's comment for this procedure was, "very poor focus." Petitioner was initially provided with a binocular instrument that, due to his inability to fuse, he was unable to use to perform Procedure 1. He so advised the two examiners, who obtained another instrument for him to use. After testing the instrument, Petitioner was asked by the examiners if it was better. Petitioner responded in the affirmative, but indicated to them that it still was not ideal. He thereafter attempted to perform the procedure and asked the examiners to grade him. Procedure 4 is performed with a slit lamp. When the candidate has performed the procedure and he is ready to be graded, he so informs the first examiner, who thereupon looks through the oculars to ascertain whether the candidate has demonstrated a parallelpiped focusing on the endothelium of the cornea of the patient's eye. After the first examiner has completed his evaluation and the candidate indicates that he is ready to be graded again, the second examiner takes the oculars to make his determination as to whether the candidate has properly performed the procedure. The candidate is responsible for holding the focus throughout the procedure. If he does not hold the focus, one examiner may see a properly performed parallelpiped, while the other may not and therefore justifiably give the candidate a failing grade. As noted above, Petitioner received a passing grade from Examiner 40 and a failing grade from Examiner 54 for Procedure 4. The comment, "specular reflection,'1 appears on Examiner 54's grade sheet next to the failing grade he gave for this procedure. This comment suggests that, unlike Examiner 40, Examiner 54 was unable to observe a parallelpiped focused on the endothelium because the reflection of light off the cornea interfered with his view. Apparently, during the time between the examiners' observations, there had been a change in focus that resulted in Examiner 40 seeing one thing and Examiner 54 seeing another. In giving Petitioner a failing grade for Procedure 14, Examiner 40 commented on his grade sheet, "never got stable view." Examiner 54, while he gave Petitioner a passing grade for this procedure, made the comment on his grade sheet regarding this procedure that Petitioner achieved a "very borderline focus." Furthermore, Examiner 54's grade was based upon an observation that was not made at the same time as the observation upon which Examiner 40's grade was based.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board of Optometry reject Petitioner's challenge to the failing score he received on the clinical portion of Part II of the September, 1989 optometry licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 24th day of August, 1990. STUART M. LERNER 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 24th day of August, 1990.
The Issue Petitioner seeks licensure by respondent as an acupuncturist, and contends that respondent's proposed denial of his application would be improper because respondent proposes to rely on Rule 21-12.08, Florida Administrative Code, even though it was adopted after the application petitioner filed, and because respondent allowed too much time to pass (a) before requesting additional information from petitioner, (b) before acting dispositively on his application, and (c) before forwarding his request for a formal hearing to the Division of Administrative Hearings. Neither Mr. Bell's age nor whether he paid the $200 application fee is at issue in these proceedings. Petitioner seemed to contend, in a pleading filed three days before the final hearing, that Rule 21-12.08, Florida Administrative Code, is invalid. At the hearing, petitioner argued that Rule 21-12.08, Florida Administrative Code, did not square with Section 455.201, Florida Statutes (1981). The hearing officer declined to reach the merits of this contention, but without prejudice to petitioner's filing a rule challenge pursuant to Section 120.56, Florida Statutes (1981), or pursuing the matter on appeal under the authority of State ex rel. Department of General Services v. Willis, 344 So.2d 580, 592 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).
Findings Of Fact On July 27, 1981, respondent Department received petitioner's form "Application for Acupuncture Examination." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. Thereafter, on September 18, 1981, the Department filed its acupuncture rules with the office of the Secretary of State. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. These rules, including Rule 21-12.08, Florida Administrative Code, became effective 20 days later on October 8, 1981. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. On September 22, 1981, Mrs. Ann M. Mayne wrote petitioner Bell on behalf of the Department advising him that his "application for the acupuncture examination ha[d] been reviewed . . . [and determined to be] incomplete . . . [for failure to include an] official transcript from a school . . . approved in accordance with Rule 21-12.08 . . . [and/or failure to include an] affidavit . . . signed by an officer of the school . . . certifying to applicant's satisfactory completion of . . . training." Hearing Officer's Exhibit No. 2. The letter also advised: Your school or college has not been approved by this Department. The Department is in the process of trying to determine if your school meets the qualifications as set forth in Rule 21-12.08 in order for your school or college to be considered for approval. [Y]our acupuncture license and admission to the next acupuncture examination is denied, based on the deficiencies as indicated above. If all of this material is received in this office by October 9, 1981, your application will be reconsidered for the November 1981 examination. Otherwise, you will have to be considered for a subsequent examination. In accordance with 120.60(2), Florida Stat- utes, you have a right to a 120.57 hearing on this matter, if you request same within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter. Hearing Officer's Exhibit No. 2. On October 6, 1981, petitioner furnished the Department an official transcript attested to by one Walter D. Sturm, "President and Alumni Director" of the Occidental Institute of Chinese Studies Alumni Association. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. The Department of Professional Regulation received a telegram on October 16, 1981, which read: "REQUEST 120.57 HEARING REGARDING ACUPUNCTURE EXAM JASPER ODELL BELL AND YVONNE MARION BELL." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4. The Department received a letter from petitioner on October 22, 1981, "a follow- up letter to telegram of October 16, 1981." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. In this letter, dated October 20, 1981, petitioner stated, "I request a 120.57 hearing . . . due to the September 22nd letter's denial of admission to November acupuncture examination based on deficiencies indicated in that letter and the lack of your response within the 30-day hearing deadline." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. From records of the Division of Administrative Hearings, it appears that this letter, together with a request that a hearing officer be assigned, was received by the Division of Administrative Hearings on November 12, 1981. Mr. Inge, deputy director of respondent's Division of Professions, wrote Mr. Bell on November 18, 1981, as follows: Your application for the acupuncture examination has been reviewed and is hereby denied based on the information contained in your application and the findings thereof. Based on the information received from your school or college, it has been deter- mined that your school or college does not meet the criteria as set forth in Rule 21-12.08 in order to be approved by this Department. Pursuant to 120.60(2), Florida Stat- utes, your acupuncture license and admis- sion to the next examination is denied, based on your failure to qualify pursuant to Chapter 468, Part VIII and the rules adopted thereunder. In accordance with 120.60(2), Florida Statutes, you have a right to a 120.57 hear- ing on this matter, if you request same within 30 days of the date of this letter. Hearing Officer's Exhibit No. 1. The parties stipulated that the Department has yet to approve any school or college as meeting the criteria set forth in Rule 21-12.08, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law have been given careful consideration, and the proposed fact findings have been adopted to the extent that they were relevant and supported by the evidence, but not otherwise.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department deem petitioner's application approved and, subject to the satisfactory completion of an examination, license petitioner as an acupuncturist. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 29th day of March, 1982.
Findings Of Fact On April 27, 1987, Petitioner filed an application for licensure by endorsement with the Board of Chiropractic (the Board.) On September 13, 1988, an Order stating the Board's intention to deny Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement was filed by the Board. Petitioner timely filed a request for formal proceedings resulting in the above-styled matter being placed before the Division of Administrative Hearings. As a result of attempts to negotiate a settlement between Petitioner and Respondent, Petitioner filed a second application for licensure on or about June 19, 1989. At the July 27, 1989, meeting of the Board, Petitioner's second application for licensure by endorsement was denied. At the time of the final hearing, an Order had not yet been filed, but was to be forthcoming. The grounds for the Board's denial of Petitioner's April, 1987, application were that: Pennsylvania did not require applicants for licensure to receive a score of at least 75% on each portion of the state licensure exam; Pennsylvania did not require completion of continuing education as required of licensees in Florida; and Pennsylvania permitted licenses to be inactive for five years before said licenses became null and void. The Board of Chiropractic determined that the requirements for licensure in Pennsylvania are not substantially similar to, equivalent to, or more stringent than the current requirements of Chapter 460, Florida Statutes. At the hearing, counsel for Respondent waived the grounds regarding inactive licenses and completion of continuing education. The grounds for the Board's denial of Petitioner's June, 1989, application for licensure by endorsement are that the Pennsylvania requirements for licensure are not substantially similar to, equivalent to, or more stringent than the current requirements of Chapter 460, Florida Statutes. Specifically, the licensure examination administered by the Pennsylvania State Board of Chiropractic does not cover physical diagnosis and x-ray interpretation of chiropractic and pathology films, both of which are covered in the practical examination given by the Florida Board of Chiropractic as a requirement for licensure. Petitioner has taken and successfully completed parts I and II of the National Beard written examination. Petitioner has not taken or passed the National Board Written Clinical Competency Examination (which has been administered only since September, 1987). Petitioner has taken and successfully completed the Pennsylvania state licensure examination in chiropractic. Petitioner has been licensed as a chiropractor in Pennsylvania for 6 years. The pertinent Pennsylvania law in effect at the time that the Board considered Petitioner's applications for licensure by endorsement is set out in the following portions of Section 625.501 and Section 625.502, 63 Pennsylvania Statutes: s. 625.501 Applications for license Requirement for licensure.-- An applicant for a license under this act shall submit satisfactory proof to the board that the applicant meets all of the following: (1) Is 21 years of age or older. Is of good moral character. Has a high school diploma or its equivalent. Has completed two years of college or 60 credit hours. Has graduated from an approved college of chiropractic, with successful completion of not less than the minimum number of hours of classroom and laboratory instruction required by regulation of the board, which minimum shall be at least 4,000 hours. Has passed the examination required under this act. Has not been convicted of a felonious act prohibited by the act of April 14, 1972 (P.L. 233, No. 64), known as The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, or of an offense under the laws of another juris- diction which if committed in this Commonwealth would be a felony under The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, unless the applicant satisfies all of the following criteria: At least ten years have elapsed from the date of conviction. Satisfactorily demonstrates to the board that he has made sig- nificant progress in personal rehabilitation since the conviction such that licensure of the appli- cant should not be expected to create a substantial risk of harm to the health and safety of his patients or the public or a substantial risk of further criminal violations. Satisfies the qualifica- tions contained in this act. An applicant's statement on the application declaring the absence of a conviction shall be deemed satisfactory evidence of the absence of a conviction, unless the board has some evidence to the contrary. As used in this section the term "convicted" shall include a judgment, an admission of guilt or a plea of nolo contendere. * * * s. 625.502. Examination * * * Nature and content of examination.-- The examination shall be oral, practical and written, upon the principles and technique of chiropractic and shall include the following subjects: anatomy, physiology, histology, chemistry, pathology, physics, bacteriology, diagnosis, hygiene and sanitation, symptomatology, chiropractic analysis, x-ray, chiropractic principles and a practical demonstration of chiropractic technique. * * * Testing organization.-- All written, oral and practical examinations required under this section shall be prepared and administered by a qualified and approved professional testing organization in accordance with section 812.1 of the act of April 9, 1929 (P.L. 177, No. 175), known as The Administrative Code of 1929, except that the oral and practical examinations shall not be subject to section 812.1 until such examinations are available from a testing organization. Score.-- A license shall be granted to an applicant who meets the requirements of this act and who achieves: An overall score of at least 75% on the entire examination; or An average score of at least 75% on the oral and practical examina- tion and a passing score on the written examination administered by the National Board of Chiro- practic Examiners as such passing score is determined by the national board. (Emphasis added.) The Pennsylvania Board of Chiropractic does not have any published rules regarding licensure of applicants in the State of Pennsylvania. The Petitioner did not prove that the Pennsylvania Board of Chiropractic examines applicants in the area of x-ray interpretation and physical diagnosis. The Petitioner did not prove that the Pennsylvania State Board of Chiropractic required applicants to re-take Pennsylvania's entire examination if any portion was failed. The Petitioner did not prove that the requirement of the Florida Board of Chiropractic that applicants for licensure be tested on ability to make physical diagnoses and to interpret chiropractic and pathology x-ray films is unreasonably restrictive or an extraordinary standard that deters qualified persons from entering chiropractic medicine in Florida or that it creates or maintains an economic condition that unreasonably restricts competition. The Petitioner did not prove that the requirement of the Florida Board of Chiropractic that applicants for licensure must re-take the entire licensure examination if any portion of the examination is failed is unreasonably restrictive or an extraordinary standard that deters qualified persons from entering chiropractic medicine in Florida or that it creates or maintains an economic condition that unreasonably restricts competition. The Petitioner did not prove either that it would be unreasonably restrictive or an extraordinary standard that deters qualified persons from entering chiropractic medicine in Florida or that it would create or maintain an economic condition that unreasonably restricts competition for the Florida Board of Chiropractic to decide that "the requirements for licensure in Pennsylvania are [not] substantially similar to, equivalent to, or more stringent than the current requirements of this chapter [460, Florida Statutes.]" Cf. Section 460.4065, Florida Statutes (1987 and Supp. 1988).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Chiropractic enter a final order denying the applications of the Petitioner, Norman R. Wiedow, D. C., for licensure by endorsement. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 11th day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 11th day of October, 1989.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a certified public accountant licensed in the State of Pennsylvania, having been licensed in 1961. The Petitioner is seeking licensure as a certified public accountant in Florida pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 43.308(3)(b), Florida Statutes, and Rule 21A-29.01(1)(b), Florida Administrative Code, that is, he seeks licensure in Florida by endorsement based upon his Pennsylvania licensure without the necessity for taking the Florida examination. At the time of the Petitioner's initial licensing in the State of Pennsylvania in 1961 he met Florida's requirements in the areas of education and experience. The Petitioner currently holds a valid license in Pennsylvania and is licensed in other states. The Board of Accountancy reviewed the Petitioner's application and determined that he met the Florida requirements for education and experience and that he was administered the same examination in Pennsylvania in 1961 that was administered in Florida in 1961, the uniform certified public accountancy examination administered by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). The Board determined, however, in its non-final order, that the Petitioner did not receive grades on that examination administered in Pennsylvania that would have constituted passing grades in Florida and denied his application. The rules of the Board require that an applicant for licensure as a certified public accountant receive a grade of 75 or above on all parts of an examination administered by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. See Rule 2IA-28.05(2)(3), Florida Administrative Code. The rules in effect in 1961 also required that a grade of 75 or above be received on all four subjects of the examination in order to achieve licensure in Florida. See Rules of the State Board of Accountancy Relative to Examinations and the Issuance and Revocation of Certificates, Rule 1(f). See also Section 473.10, Florida Statutes (1961). The requirement that applicants for licensure by endorsement receive grades on all four areas of the AICPA Exam of 75 or better has been enforced in Florida since the 1930's and has been a requirement embodied in the rules of the Board since 1949. In February, 1961, the Pennsylvania Board of Accountancy, pursuant to a resolution enacted for insular reasons of its own, determined to accept as passing the Petitioner's and other candidates' scores in the Law and Practice portions of the AICPA licensure examination, even though those grades were below the score of 75. The Board thus deemed that the Petitioner passed the examination for purposes of licensure in Pennsylvania with a score of "75" by fiat, even though in fact the Petitioner did not receive an actual score of 75 in those two subject areas as determined by the AICPA which administered and graded the examination. The acceptance of the lower grade on the part of the Pennsylvania Board was not done pursuant to a regrading of the Petitioner's exam in an attempt to correct mistakes or errors in the AICPA's finding regarding his score, but was rather simply due to an arbitrary determination by the Pennsylvania Board that for the Petitioner and certain other Pennsylvania applicants the lower grade in that particular instance would be considered as passing. The Petitioner had no knowledge that the Pennsylvania Board had taken this action in arbitrarily upgrading his scores on two portions of the exam so that he passed the entire exam until he began his application process with the Florida State Board of Accountancy in September, 1980. During its investigation of the Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement, the Florida Board of Accountancy ascertained that the Petitioner had in fact received grades of 65 in the Law and Practice pertions of the Uniform AICPA Examination which were then subsequently arbitrarily raised by resolution of the Pennsylvania Board. The Florida Beard has at no time accepted as passing grades for a licensure examination those grades by applicants of less than 75 on the AICPA examination. It is true that prior to the Florida Board's becoming aware, in 1973, of the fact that Pennsylvania had arbitrarily raised some grades of its applicants, it did in fact accept some similarly situated candidates for licensure by endorsement in Florida. After becoming aware at that time of this arbitrary grade-raising process, the Board has consistently refused licensure to applicants from other states who actually received less than 75 on the AICPA Examination as determined by the AICPA. For considerations of equity and fairness the Board did, however, allow candidates who had already been licensed in Florida by endorsement prior to the Board's becoming aware of this anomaly to retain their licenses. Since the Petitioner failed to meet the AICPA examination requirement of a grade of 75 or better on all portions of the examination which was set forth and adopted in the Florida rules and statutes in effect at the time of his licensure in Pennsylvania in 1961, his request for licensure by endorsement was denied by the Board's non-final order on December 8, 1980.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of counsel, it is RECOMMENDED that the denial of the Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement by the Board of Accountancy of the State of Florida be upheld and that the petition be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of June, 1981 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 22nd day of June, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: George L. Waas, Esquire 1114 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 John J. Rimes, III, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Suite 1601, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue to be resolved is whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for her response to question nos. 122 and 222 of the civil engineering examination administered on October 31, 1997.
Findings Of Fact On October 31, 1997, Petitioner took the civil professional engineering licensing examination. A score of 70 is required to pass the test. Petitioner obtained a score of 69. Petitioner challenged the scoring of question nos. 122 and 222. As part of the examination challenge process, Petitioner's examination was returned to the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying where it was re-scored. In the re-score process, the grader deducted points from Petitioner's original score. Petitioner was given the same raw score of 6 on question number 122; however, on question number 222 her raw score of 4 was reduced to a 2. Petitioner needed a raw score of 48 in order to achieve a passing score of 70; she needed at least three additional raw score points to obtain a passing raw score of 48. Petitioner is entitled to a score of 6 on problem number 122. The solution and scoring plan for that problem required the candidate to obtain a culvert size in the range of 21-36 inches. The Petitioner incorrectly answered 3.1 feet or 37.2 inches. She is not entitled to additional credit for problem number 122 because she answered the question with the wrong size culvert. Problem number 122 required the candidate to use a predevelopment peak flow of 40 cubic feet per second (cfs). Petitioner used 58.33 cfs. She chose the maximum flow rather than the predevelopment peak flow. In solving problem number 122, Petitioner chose a design headwater depth of 4.8 feet. The correct solution required a design headwater depth of 5.7 feet. Petitioner made another mistake in problem number 122; she failed to check the water depth in the downstream swale. Petitioner concedes she was given sufficient information to solve problem number 122. She understood what the question was asking of her. She admits that she did not compute the critical depth of the water and that she did not complete the solution. Question number 222 had three parts. The candidate was required to determine the footing size, to select the reinforcing steel, and to provide a sketch for a concrete column located along the edge of a building. Petitioner understood the question and was provided enough information to solve the problem. Petitioner correctly checked the footing size as required by the first part; however, she did not select the reinforcing steel or show the required sketch. Therefore, Petitioner did not complete enough of the problem to qualify for a score of 4 points. She is entitled to a score of 2 points. The examination questions at issue here were properly designed to test the candidate's competency in solving typical problems in real life. The grader (re-scorer) utilized the scoring plan correctly. Petitioner has been in the United States for approximately eleven years. She lived in Romania before she came to the United States. In Romania, Petitioner used only the metric system in her professional work. While she has used the English system since moving to the United States, Petitioner is more familiar with the metric system. The Principles and Practice examination is an open-book examination. Petitioner took a book entitled the Fundamentals of Engineering Reference Handbook to the examination. When the proctor examined her books, she told the Petitioner she was not permitted to keep the handbook. The proctor took the handbook from the Petitioner. Petitioner protested the confiscation of her reference book because she had used the same book in two previous tests. About ten minutes later, the proctor's supervisor returned the book to Petitioner. Petitioner's book was returned at least ten minutes before the test began. She was permitted to use the book during the test. There is no persuasive evidence that the proctor's mistake in temporarily removing Petitioner's reference book caused her to be so upset that she failed the test. Candidates were not permitted to study their books prior to the beginning of the examination. Petitioner may have been nervous when the test began. However, Petitioner received a perfect score of ten points on the first problem she worked, problem number 121.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a Final Order confirming Petitioner's score on the examination and dismissing the Petitioner's challenge. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of January, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of January, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Natalie A. Lowe, Esquire Board of Professional Engineers 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William Bruce Muench, Esquire 438 East Monroe Street Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Dennis Bartin, President Florida Engineers Management Corporation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
