Findings Of Fact On or about August 30, 1988, the Petitioner, Gregory W. Isphording, applied for licensure as a Florida professional geologist without written examination under Section 492.105(2)(c), Florida Statutes (1987). The Petitioner has an undergraduate degree in geology (as well as some credit towards a master's degree). He also has 3.9 qualifying years of work experience in the field of geology since earning his undergraduate degree. The Petitioner's work experience while he was pursuing his undergraduate degree between May, 1979, and May, 1984, was unusual. His father, Dr. Wayne C. Isphording, a Florida licensed professional geologist and a Ph.D. and professor of geology at the University of South Alabama, which the Petitioner was attending, employed his son in his firm, Tierra Consulting, Inc. Through this unusual opportunity (and even before that, as a result of being raised in the home of a geology professor), the Petitioner had opportunities for valuable practical learning and experience not available to many other geology students. He was trained under the direct supervision of his father in drilling, sampling and analysis techniques. When the Petitioner became proficient in these techniques, his father began to supervise him less and rely more and more on the Petitioner to perform these tasks accurately and effectively. By approximately May, 1980, at the end of the first year of his employment, the Petitioner's father began to rely on the Petitioner to train other students employed by Tierra Consulting. The Petitioner's employment continued through May, 1984, when he was graduated with a degree in geology. During his undergraduate years, the Petitioner worked full-time for his father's firm, working an average of 50 hours a week. Although his grades suffered as a result of his long hours, the Petitioner was convinced that the experience he was receiving in the field was more important than his grades and would land him a better, more responsible, and higher paying job. His work experience is indeed impressive for an undergraduate. It includes topographic and geologic surveying of a mine site in the Boqueron Valley in the Republic of Panama, assisting in field and laboratory analyses on the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers environmental assessment of D'Olive Bay, Alabama, environmental and geologic and topographic investigation of a SMACKO Drilling Corp. oil well site in southern Mobile County, Alabama, and responsibility for topographically mapping a portion of the Three Mile Creek flood plain for use in connection with litigation against the City of Mobile. During his employment in his father's firm during his undergraduate years, the Petitioner also had the opportunity to collaborate with his father on, and coauthor, several abstracts presented at meetings of various professional associations. (These were not published papers in the strict sense in that they did not undergo the lengthy, rigorous critical review associated with formal published academic papers.) Despite the Petitioner's impressive work experience, he was unable to prove that he was involved in the synthesis and application phases of the work of a professional geologist. His was more the work of a technician; his father was available to synthesize and apply the data that his son collected. In this sense, the Petitioner's relationship with his father was much like the relationship between a master craftsman and his apprentice. To the extent that he did participate in the synthesis and application of the data he collected, it appears that his participation was in the nature of private study under the tutelage of a college professor. As such, his work was an adjunct to his formal education. Although the Petitioner's knowledge and understanding of geology increased over time during his undergraduate years, it was not proven that the Petitioner was in a position to engage in the synthesis and application required of one who assumes the role of a geologist working under the supervision of a licensed professional geologist (analogous to a journeyman working under the supervision of a master) before his formal education was completed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Professional Geologists enter a final order denying the application of the Petitioner, Gregory W. Isphording, for licensure as a Florida professional geologist. RECOMMENDED this 28th day of June, 1989 in Tallahassee, 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 28th day of June, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory W. Isphording, pro se 8819 Orange Oaks Circle Tampa, Florida 33637 Clark R. Jennings, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Allen R. Smith, Jr. Executive Director Board of Professional Geologists 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Kenneth Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729
The Issue The issues presented are: (1) whether or not Respondent wrongfully eliminated materials from the Candidate/Petitioner during the April 19, 1990 engineering examination, and if so, (2) whether the Candidate/Petitioner received a failing grade because the materials were wrongfully eliminated.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner (#100021) received a score of 69.0 on the Professional Engineer Fundamentals Examination given April 19, 1990. A minimum passing score was 70.0 on the examination which is written by National Council of Engineering Examiners and graded by Education Testing Service. (Transcript Pages 36 and 39) Prior to the April 1990 examination, the Board sent each candidate a letter, dated December 18, 1989 (Exhibit P-1) (Transcript Page 9 and 12), which said, "No review publications directed principally toward sample questions and their solutions of engineering problems are permitted in the examination room." (Transcript Page 31). The candidates were also provided with a "Candidate Information Booklet" dated January 1990 (Exhibit R-1, Transcript Page 77). The booklet states on page 14, "No books with contents directed toward sample questions or solutions of engineering problems are permitted in the examination room." (Transcript Pages 77 and 96). Petitioner, who also took the October 1989 examination had received notice at that examination that the Board of Engineers intended to change the procedure allowing reference materials in the examination. (Transcript Page 89 and Respondent's Exhibit 2.) The Board of Professional Engineers advised the examination supervisor and proctors that no engineering "review" materials would be allowed in the examination although engineering "reference" materials could be brought into and used for the examination. However the books which were excluded included books without "review" in the title, books with "reference" in the title, and books which contained problems and solutions. Before the examination began Deena Clark, an examination supervisor, read over a loud speaker system names of books that would not be permitted (Transcript Page 81). Practice examination and solution manuals were not allowed for use by engineering candidates (Transcript Pages 93 and 94). Schram's outlines and other materials were also excluded (Transcript Page 91). Also excluded was Lindeburg's 6th edition, "Engineering In Training Review Manual." (Transcript Pages 16 and 79). This decision was verified by the Board before the examination began (Transcript Page 81). After the examination had begun, Ms. Clark announced that the candidates could put certain copyrighted materials in a three-ring binder and use them which had been excluded earlier (Transcript Page 85). This was in response to candidates who needed economics tables for the examination However, no time was provided the candidate to prepare these references and only one minute was added to the examination time. (Transcript Page 85). Petitioner did not bring any economic tables to the examination site except those contained in books which were not allowed in the examination. (Transcript Page 19). Petitioner did not remove the economic tables and permitted references from the Lindeburg's review manual until lunch and these tables were not available to him on the morning examination. (Transcript Pages 22 and 88). Of the six engineering economics questions on the morning portion for the examination, the candidate correctly answered four. No data was provided on the nature of these questions. The Candidate correctly answered 53 questions in the morning (weighted x 1) and 23 questions in the afternoon (weighted x 2) for a total of 99 weighted required points. He answered eight questions correctly in the "addition" portion of the examination. The table for eight additional questions correct in the "Scoring Information Booklet" used in determining the candidates final grade shows the adjusted equated score was 126 and his scaled score was 69. (Page 21 of booklet). The value of each economics question converted to final scoring scale was enough that passage of one economics question would have resulted in passage of the examination. The exclusion of certain materials from the examination was arbitrary and capricious and was done by a few individuals without any stated objective standard published by the board. Further, the board knew before the examination which books were to be excluded and could have notified examinees of the exact items to be excluded. The Board's generally poor handling of this matter is exemplified in announcing after the examination had begun that items previously excluded could be used if placed in a ring binder but not allowing any time to prepare such materials. (Tx. pgs., 74-80, 84-86, and 91-97) The Petitioner would have used several tables which were excluded if the announcement had been made before the morning examination began with time to put the items in acceptable form. After notifications in October 1989, December 1989, and January 1990, Petition admitted that he did not call the Board of Professional Engineers to ask for guidance on books that would not be allowed on the April 1990 examination (Transcript Page 29). However, a final decision on books to be excluded was not made until approximately two weeks before the examination. The Petitioner did not show that the two questions which he missed on the Engineering Economics portion of the morning examination were missed for lack of the tables. The examination is a national examination and there is no evidence that the requirements and limits established by the Board in Florida were applicable nationwide. To alter the national instructions locally potentially adversely affects Florida results.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Petitioner be permitted to take the examination without charge on one occasion. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of March, 1991. 1/ The general information provided to examinees by the State Board regarding the values of questions on the examination and scoring it misleading or inaccurate because neither the weighted required score nor the adjusted score was 48% of 80, 280, or any other number related to the scaled score of 70. The manner in which these values are associated with the scale score of 70 is contrary to the Board's explanation and is not self evident. This is a potential problem if the matter were formally challenged, and it appears the Board needs to reassess its procedures and instructions. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-5728 The Petitioner did not submit proposed findings. The Respondent submitted proposed findings which were read and considered. The following proposed findings were adopted or reject for the reasons stated: Adopted. Issue not fact. - 4. Rejected. Preliminary statement not fact. 5. -12. Adopted. Rejected. Preliminary statement not fact. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as preliminary statement. Adopted. Adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: Alan K. Garman Civil-Tech, Inc. 3573 Commercial Way Street B Spring Hill, FL 34606 William F. Whitson, Law Clerk Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Rex Smith Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to credit for his answers to questions 42 and 81 of the morning session of the Fundamentals of Engineering Examination portion of the engineering licensure examination given on April 15, 2000.
Findings Of Fact Worku took the Fundamentals of Engineering Examination portion of the examination for licensure to practice as an engineer intern on April 15, 2000. The examination is a national multiple-choice examination developed and administered by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors (NCEES). The examination is divided into a morning session and an afternoon session. The questions in the morning session are worth one raw point each. The questions in the afternoon session are worth two raw points each. Worku challenged questions 42 and 81, which were on the morning session of the examination. Worku received 56 raw points for the morning session and 52 raw points for the afternoon session for a total raw score of 108 on the examination. Based on the NCEES' Score Conversion Table, a raw score of 108 converts to a score of 69. A converted score of 70, which equates to a raw score of 109-113, is a passing score. Question 81 asked the examinee to identify the geometric shape that was given by an equation provided in the question. Each examinee was given a reference manual during the examination. The manual contains general formulas for the types of geometric shapes listed as possible answers to question 81. The equation given in question 81 was for a specific shape and was not listed among the general formulas in the reference manual. Worku felt that because the general equation was not used that the equation was stated incorrectly. However, the equation was stated correctly. The equation differed from the equation listed in the reference manual because it was for a special shape of the geometric figure. Worku did not answer question 81 correctly. Question 42 dealt with recrystallization as it relates to metal. The question asks the examinee to pick the answer which explains the reference to the term "recrystallization" in the question. Worku contends that there are two correct answers to question 42 and that the answer which he provided is one of the correct answers. The answer which Worku provided is not a correct answer. It refers to the process of annealing, which is the process of decreasing the toughness of a metal. Recrystallization can be a part, but is not always part of annealing. Recrystallization and annealing are not synonymous terms; thus Worku is not entitled to credit for question 42.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Amanuel Worku failed the Engineering Fundamentals Examination with a score of 69. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of January, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ Susan B. Kirkland 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 5th day of January, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Amanuel Worku 18492 Northwest 52nd Path Miami, Florida 33055 Douglas Sunshine, Esquire Florida Engineers Management Corporation 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Natalie A. Lowe, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Barbara D. Auger, General counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner's request for license by endorsement as a professional engineer should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, James R. Eason (Petitioner), is the pavement management coordinator for the Hernando County Public Works Department. He is a registered professional engineer in the State of Georgia, having received Professional Engineering Registration Number 17320 in 1988. In March 1997, Petitioner filed an application with Respondent, Board of Professional Engineers (Board), seeking licensure by endorsement as a professional engineer in this state. On July 1, 1997, the Board issued its preliminary decision in the form of a letter advising Petitioner that his application had been denied. As grounds, the Board stated that Petitioner had received a raw score of 67 with five points awarded for Veterans Preference on the Principles and Practice portion of the examination. The letter further explained that a raw score of 70 or above was required in order for his score on the Georgia examination to be recognized in the State of Florida and that "Chapter 471, F.S. does not provide for awarding of points for Veterans Preference." The denial of the application prompted Petitioner to bring this action. Petitioner is a graduate of, and holds a bachelor's degree in civil engineering from, the Georgia Institute of Technology. He has a record of four years active engineering experience of a character indicating competence to be in responsible charge of engineering. The parties have also stipulated he is of good moral character, and he has never been under investigation in another state for any act which would constitute a violation of Chapters 455 or 471, Florida Statutes. Petitioner passed the Fundamentals portion of the professional engineering examination administered in 1973 by the State of Georgia. He obtained a score of more than 70. In April 1988, Petitioner took the Principles and Practice portion of the examination. A grade of 70 was required to pass the Georgia examination. Petitioner received a grade of 67 on the initial scoring of the Principles and Practice portion of the examination, plus a five-point Veterans Preference credit, for a total grade of 72. The Veterans Preference credit is provided by Georgia law to all candidates who are members or former members of the Armed Forces of the United States and meet certain service requirements. In Petitioner's case, he had served eight years on active duty as a member of the United States Naval Reserve, and he was honorably discharged as a Lieutenant on July 3, 1969, upon expiration of his active duty commitment. At least ninety days of his active duty military service was during wartime or at a time when military personnel were committed by the President of the United States. The examination administered by the State of Georgia in April 1988 was a national examination published by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying, and it was identical to the examination administered by the State of Florida at that time. Florida, like Georgia, requires a grade of 70 to pass the examination, but it does not provide a Veterans Credit for service to candidates who are members or former members of the Armed Forces of the United States. Therefore, in the State of Georgia, a veteran can pass the examination with a raw score as low as 65. To this extent, the two examinations are not substantially equivalent. Among other things, Petitioner pointed out at hearing that he needed only three points to achieve a passing grade on the Principles and Practice portion of the examination. Therefore, he concluded that the awarding of that amount of extra points for being a veteran amounted to only a single standard deviation, and thus the extra points were immaterial in relation to the overall score. However, the Board does not construe this three-point deficiency as being "immaterial," and had Petitioner received the same score in Florida, he would not have passed the examination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for licensure by endorsement as a professional engineer. DONE AND ORDERED this 25th day of November 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of November, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph M. Mason, Jr., Esquire Post Office Box 1090 Brooksville, Florida 34605-1900 Edwin A. Bayo, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0755
Findings Of Fact C. T. "Pete" Knowles, III, was ,a student in Western Civilization, HY102, at Seminole Community College. This course was instructed by Leonard Zilles. Zilles established a grading format for HY102 which was announced orally to the class. The establishment of this system and its oral publication to the students was within his discretion under the college's policy handbook, although instructors are encouraged to publish course requirements in writing. The course, HY102, was an eight (8) week summer course presented in four, two week segments. There were four noncumulative examinations, one after each two week segment. Each examination consisted of two parts, a multiple choice portion and an essay portion. A total of six course points could be earned on each examination, two points maximum for the multiple choice portion and four points for the essay portion. One course point was earned for obtaining a numerical score between sixty and eighty-three on the multiple choice portion, or the equivalent of a letter grade of "D". Two points were earned for a numerical score of eighty-four points or higher on the multiple choice portion of the examination, or the equivalent grade of "C". No student could earn more than two points, or a "C", on the multiple choice portion of the examination. Letter grades were assigned to the essay portion of the examinations and three course points were earned for a "B" and four course points for an "A". No credit was received by the student on the essay portion of the examination for performance determined by the instructor to be below a grade of "B". A student who received less than a numerical grade of sixty on the multiple choice portion of the examination could still be awarded points for his performance on the essay portion. Final grades for the course were determined upon the accumulation of course points by a student. For the accumulation of four points a student received a grade of "D" in the course, for eight points a grade of "C," for sixteen points a grade of "B," and for twenty points a grade of "A." Attendance in the course was not mandatory and no statement was made regarding whether examinations were mandatory. Paul Jenkins, the only student in this course who made an "A," stated that a discussion was held during a class break immediately preceding the fourth examination in the course concerning whether students could skip the last examination and based their final grade upon the number of course points they had accumulated. This question was not raised in class and the matter clarified. There is no indication that Knowles was a party to this discussion; however, both Knowles and Frederick Norris testified that Zilles never stated that taking all examinations was a course requirement. Knowles arranged with his Health instructor, John Panatallis, to take his final examination in Health early so that Knowles could begin his vacation with his family. Panatallis inquired of Knowles when he came to take the Health examination how Knowles stood in Zilles' class, and Knowles advised Panatallis that he had enough points to ensure a "C." Pantallis stated that he did not require attendance at examinations but averaged a zero for a missed examination in his grading system. Knowles was aware that he had accumulated eight points on the basis of a discussion with Zilles one week before the fourth examination, at which time Zilles told Knowles that he had made a "B" on the essay portion of the third examination giving Knowles a total of eight points for the course. Knowles did not take the fourth examination because he did not believe that the examination was mandatory and in accordance with the professor's grading process, Knowles could not improve his course grade even if he earned a maximum of six course points. Zilles gave Knowles an "F" based upon Knowles' failure, in Zilles' opinion, to complete the course by taking the fourth examination. The director of academic affairs, Dr. Anita Harrow, stated that the college's handbook required that instructors be responsible for identifying course objectives and for making grading procedures clear to students. Instructors were urged, but not required, to present course objectives and grading procedures to the students in writing. In accordance with the college's policy, instructors were free to choose from any recognized standard of evaluation in grading the performance of their students, and attendance at examinations was not a uniform requirement for course completion. In response to a hypothetical question based upon the facts presented regarding the grading procedures and the information presented to the students in HY102 by Mr. Zilles, Dr. Harrow stated that in her opinion she would deem the course grade to be based upon the points accumulated by the students without regard to completion of all the examinations in the course. Mr. Zilles' grade sheet for the course, HY102, was introduced as Exhibit 1. Examination of this exhibit reveals that of the eleven students who finished the course and took the fourth examination, only four students received grades in accordance with the grading format which Zilles had announced. Grades of "B" were reported for Laplant and McDonald who had accumulated only eleven points. Rios accumulated a total of ten points, four of which were earned on the fourth examination, but received a grade of "D." Only two students, Bland and Laplant who could not improve their grades by taking the fourth examination took it. Lastly and most importantly, Pagan, who received no credit for the final examination, received a grade of "D" in the course based upon his accumulation of five course points for his previous work. Analysis of Exhibit 1 shows no consistency in the assignment of grades based upon the stated criteria.
Recommendation During the hearing process Mr. Knowles made the counsel for the College and the Hearing Officer aware of the fact that a determination on his petition was necessary for his continued enrollment in junior college. Mr. Milwee, the representative of the College, advised that if the Trustees of the College did not obtain a recommendation in time to consider it on the evening of the hearing, that it would be a month before the recommendation of the Hearing Officer could be considered. After the conclusion of the hearing, a posthearing conference was held in which the parties, having been advised of their procedural rights under Section 120.57, requested and agreed to the Hearing Officer making an oral recommendation for consideration by the Trustees to be followed by a formal written recommended order as required by the statute. After deliberation, the Hearing Officer's recommendation was announced to the parties. This written order is based upon the notes prepared by the Hearing Officer during his deliberations on the question. The following recommendation is essentially that presented to the parties in the posthearing conference. Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that Seminole Community College adjust the grade received by C. T. "Pete" Knowles in Western Civilization, HY102, from a "F" to a "C" based upon the course points accumulated by Knowles through the third examination. DONE and ORDERED this 13th of January, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: C. T. "Pete" Knowles 712 Eagle Avenue Longwood, Florida 32750 O. H. Eaton, Esquire Winter Park Federal Building 355 East Semonian Boulevard Altamonte Springs, Florida 32701
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a duly-licensed professional engineer in the State of Florida having been issued License No. PE0035663. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged, in pertinent part, with interpreting, enforcing, and regulating concerning the licensure and professional practice standards for professional engineers in the State of Florida embodied in Chapter 471, Florida Statutes. The Respondent practices engineering as Dr. S.K. Nayak & Associates, Regulatory, Environmental and Civil Engineering Consultants. That engineering firm is not licensed as a professional engineering firm in the State of Florida. On September 20, 1988, the permit to the JNC by the Department for its domestic waste-water treatment and disposal system expired. Thereafter, on June 16, 1989, an application to operate such a system was submitted to the Department by Mr. Cordes on behalf of the JNC. The Respondent was the professional engineer of record depicted on that application. On or about July 14, 1989, the Department issued a notice of permit denial concerning that application and cited six deficiencies as the basis for the denial. The notice of permit denial identified the JNC's reclaimed water distribution system as not being designed in accordance with sound engineering principles and practices, as delineated in Rule 17-6.070(1)(a), Florida Administrative Code, and the design as not being provided in the manner required by Rule 17-610.414, Florida Administrative Code. The permit applicant was thus advised by the notice of permit denial that some modifications for the water distribution and storage system would have to be undertaken and completed in order for permitting to be effected. Thereafter, on or about January 30, 1990, the Respondent submitted a design statement for a reclaimed water disposal system to the Department. The design must conform to certain criteria enunciated in Chapter 17-610, Florida Administrative Code. The design for such a system must be accompanied with an engineering report to document geohydrological conditions at the site and to document that a ground water mounding analysis has been performed for the percolation pond systems, in order to verify that the systems will perform satisfactorily under the pertinent provisions of Chapter 17-610, Florida Administrative Code. The Department considered the design submitted by the Respondent to constitute the necessary design for the application for a new operating permit for the JNC. Expert witness Bryant Marshall's testimony establishes clearly that the creation of the design and its submittal to the Department constitutes a specific type of engineering practice and moreover that that sort of design requires a specific type of geotechnical and geohydrological engineering experience. Upon reviewing the design statement submitted by the Respondent, the Department advised Mr. Cordes of numerous items of incompleteness which would need to be addressed before an evaluation of the proposal, including design, could be performed. Mr. Cordes was informed of this by letter from the Department of February 23, 1990, which was copied to the Respondent. See, Exhibit B in evidence. Upon reviewing the design submitted, the Department determined that, because of the limited data and analyses and absence of calculations in that design document, that the Respondent had not demonstrated that he was qualified to perform such geotechnical and hydrogeological engineering, with pertinent calculations and depictions as was required for a project such as that proposed, nor had that type of required engineering work been done. Ultimately, therefore, it filed a complaint against the licensure of the Respondent with the Petitioner licensing agency. On April 9, 1990, the Respondent submitted a signed and sealed withdrawal of the design statement previously submitted to the Department. The Respondent contends that he never intended that the design statement originally submitted should constitute the final "as built" design for the water reclamation facility involved. Rather, he contends that it was intended by the Department, by himself, and by his client to be merely a preliminary or suggested design solely for purposes of negotiation concerning the permit denial and an attempt to work out a satisfactory arrangement with the Department in terms of the Department's conditions and requirements for design and construction, so that the proposed facility could be permitted. The Respondent contends that that was not the practice of engineering but, rather, submittal of a preliminary design statement which he claims the Department required of him. He thus submitted the design statement with the full understanding that it was not intended by him, or by the Department for that matter, to be a feasible final proposal or design and knowing that it was not up to standard or intended to be and knowing that it did not comply with certain applicable rules and regulations, he did not sign or seal it. Mr. Marshall, the expert witness put forward by the Petitioner, opined that the submission of substandard work, merely because another party has requested it for negotiating purposes, or for whatever reason, still is not acceptable practice for a licensed professional engineer. Merely because one is of the intent and opinion that submittal of the work will not be the final work product, by which the facility in question is to be built, is no excuse for not complying with proper standards of professional engineering practice. The Respondent's soil and ground water data was shown by Mr. Marshall to be inadequate because it did not provide for the necessary calculations which could indicate whether the performance of the system will actually meet the design criteria, given the geotechnical soil and hydrogeological conditions prevailing at the site, which were not adequately allowed for by their entry into proper calculations which should have been performed by the Respondent. The Respondent's professional history moreover does not reflect adequate geotechnical or hydrogeological experience and training necessary for a project such as the JNC at issue. It has been established by Mr. Marshall's testimony, which is adopted, that standards of practice were not followed because an appropriate subsurface exploration geotechnical investigation, laboratory soil testing, engineering analysis, and ground water mounding analysis was not performed. Even if the Respondent had adequate training in geotechnical and hydrogeological engineering, he promulgated a deficient engineering document in terms of this design, regardless of whether or not it was signed or sealed, because it constituted the practice of professional engineering and yet he failed to perform and to indicate on his design that the geotechnical and hydrogeological investigations required for such work had been performed. The document was based only on a review of available published information regarding surficial and sub-surficial soil conditions. No test borings were done in accordance with standard practice. The percolation testing performed by the Respondent was shown by Mr. Marshall to be inadequate under the circumstances of the project for which design was being considered. The proper geotechnical exploration, in keeping with standard engineering practice, would require the use of soil test borings to depths of 20 to 30 or perhaps 40 feet below ground surface. This would be necessary to properly characterize the aquifer and subsurface conditions and to evaluate the properties of the soil within that zone to determine what the actual hydraulic characteristics of the subsurface profiles would be. It would then be necessary to perform laboratory permeability testing on the soil samples from the various depths so as to properly characterize the aquifer performance or predicted aquifer performance for the entire depth zone to those significant depths. Just the top 18 or 20 inches of soil is not an adequate investigation. Further, the Respondent provided no documentation for his conclusions regarding established ground water movement, established surface water flow, and confirmed ground water table elevations. According to Mr. Marshall, it is safe to assume that surface water flow might be to the southeast given the site's topography and the fact that the ground slopes downward toward the southeast and generally toward the east, as well. However, the Respondent provided no documentation of any test borings or other site-specific geotechnical investigation work done to verify anything about the direction of ground water flow nor the ground water table elevation. Apparently the Respondent relied upon general information contained in a soil survey of Jefferson County but did not do site-specific investigatory work, in keeping with standard engineering practice, which would allow him to make those types of conclusions in a legitimate fashion. Mr. Marshall thus opined and established that the submission of the work by the Respondent was substandard work and that it is not justifiable engineering practice to submit such substandard engineering work, even if it is done at the request of another party with an understanding between the engineer and the other party and the client that this work is merely to be a preliminary design for purposes of negotiation between the regulator and the client. It is also no excuse for such substandard engineering practice that the Respondent submitted it without it being signed or sealed in his capacity as an engineer. The lack of the signing or sealing does not render it immune from having to comport with standard, acceptable engineering practice. Accordingly, it has been demonstrated that the Respondent was negligent in the practice of engineering in these particulars, with regard to his participation and design concerning the JNC project. Because the Respondent intended that this be a preliminary submittal, solely for the purposes of negotiation between himself, his client, and the regulatory agency and did not intend that it be a final design to be built in an attempt to comply with regulatory requirements, he has not been shown to have intentionally committed misconduct in the practice of engineering.
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 Professional Engineers finding the Respondent guilty of violating Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, to the extent that he is guilty of negligence in the practice of engineering and that he be issued a reprimand and that his licensure be placed in probationary status for a period of one year with reasonable terms to be decided by the Board, including the requirement of continuing professional education in the area of compliance with appropriate professional practice standards. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of March, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of March, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-7994 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-23. Accepted, to the extent they are consistent with the findings of fact of the Hearing Officer and otherwise as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Rejected, as not being entirely in accordance with the greater weight of the evidence; to some extent, irrelevant; and to some extent, as being legal conclusions and not proposed findings of fact. Rejected, as not being entirely in accordance with the greater weight of the evidence, as constituting an incorrect conclusion of law, and as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. 4-5. Rejected, as not in accordance with the greater weight of the evidence in its entirety, as constituting argument rather than a proposed finding of fact, and being an incorrect conclusion of law. 6. Rejected, as not in accordance with the greater weight of the evidence in its entirety, as constituting argument rather than a proposed finding of fact, as being an incorrect conclusion of law, and to some extent, irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Anthony Cammarata, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Shrinivas K. Nayak 3512 Shirley Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jack McRay, Esq. General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0755
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to credit for his answers to Questions 34, 65, and 75 on the Fundamentals of Engineering portion of the engineering licensure examination administered on the morning of April 15, 2000, by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: On April 15, 2000, as part of his effort to obtain a license to practice as an engineer intern in the State of Florida, Petitioner sat for the Fundamentals of Engineering Examination (Examination). This was a national multiple-choice examination developed and administered by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors (NCEES). The Examination was divided into two sessions: a morning session (AM Part), which tested "lower division subjects" (that is, "the first 90 semester credit hours . . . of engineering course work for a typical bachelor engineering degree program"), and an afternoon session (PM Part), which tested "upper division subjects" (that is, "the remainder of the engineering course work"). Questions on the AM Part were worth one raw point each. Questions on the PM Part were worth two raw points each. The NCEES provided candidates taking the Examination with a Fundamentals of Engineering, Discipline Specific, Reference Handbook (Reference Handbook) that they were allowed to refer to during the Examination. The Reference Handbook, as noted in its Foreword, "contain[ed] only reference formulas and tables; no example problems [we]re included." Petitioner received a total raw score of 104 on the Examination (54 for the AM Part and 50 for the PM Part). According to the NCEES's Score Conversion Table, a raw score of 104 converted to a score of 69. To pass the Examination, a converted score of 70 (or 107-109 raw points) was needed. Accordingly, Petitioner fell three raw points short of receiving a passing score. Petitioner has formally requested that the grading of his answers to Questions 34, 65, and 75 of the AM Part be reviewed. He received no credit for any of these answers. Had these answers been deemed correct (and he received one raw point for each answer), he would have passed the Examination (with a converted score of 70). Question 34 of the AM Part was a clear and unambiguous multiple-choice question that covered subject matter (integral calculus) with which Petitioner and the other candidates should have been familiar. There was only one correct answer to this question, and it was among the responses from which the candidates had to choose. Petitioner chose another answer that was clearly incorrect because it represented a particular solution or expression, and not the "general expression" (representing all solutions) called for by the question. He therefore appropriately received no credit for his answer. Questions 65 and 75 of the AM Part, like Question 34, were clear and unambiguous multiple choice questions that covered subject areas (centroids and thermodynamics, respectively) with which Petitioner and the other candidates should have been familiar. Each of these questions, again like Question 34, had only one correct answer that was listed among the choices from which the candidates had to choose. To answer each question correctly, the candidates had to use a formula that was set forth in the Reference Handbook (on page 21 in the case of Question 65 and on page 46 in the case of Question 75). Petitioner selected neither the correct answer to Question 65, nor the correct answer to Question 75, and therefore was not entitled to any credit for his answers to these questions.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered rejecting Petitioner's challenge to the failing score he received from the NCEES on the Fundamentals of Engineering portion of the April 15, 2000, engineering licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of November, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 15th day of November, 2000.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is eligible for licensure by endorsement as a professional engineer and/or waiver of Part I of the engineering licensing examination.
Findings Of Fact From 1969 through 1974, Petitioner attended the Lipetsk Branch of the Moscow Institute of Steel and Alloys. In 1974, Petitioner graduated from the Lipetsk Polytechnical Institute (Institute) in Russia, with a degree in industrial and civil engineering. The degree in civil engineering earned by Petitioner is equivalent to a bachelor of science degree in civil engineering in the United States. Upon graduation from the Institute, Petitioner commenced her professional employment as an engineer on August 30, 1974, at the LIPTSKGRAZHDANPROEKT Design Institute. In January 1976, Petitioner was employed as a professional engineer at the State Design Institute DNEPRPROEKKTSTALKONSTRUKSIYA (DNEPR), where she was continuously employed until leaving the Soviet Union in December 1993. There are no specific licensing or registration requirements in Russia with respect to engineers. Therefore, after earning a degree in industrial and civil engineering, Petitioner could work as an engineer in Russia without taking any professional examination. However, in 1979, Petitioner took an examination in Russia that allowed her to sign her own drawings and calculations. During Petitioner's tenure at the DNEPR, she achieved the status of Senior Engineer in 1986; was promoted to the position of Category II Engineer for Steel Structures in 1988; was promoted to the post of Category I Engineer for Steel Structures in 1990; and was elevated to the position of Leading Engineer in 1991. To achieve the status of Category II Engineer for Steel Structures and Category I Engineer for Steel Structures at DNEPR, Petitioner had to take an examination in 1988 and in 1990, respectively. The promotion to each of these positions was predicated upon Petitioner's passing these examinations and demonstrating expertise in the areas of economics, chemistry, mathematics, physics, building materials, corrosion prevention, resistance of materials, and construction mechanics. As a result of passing the examinations in 1988 and 1990, Petitioner was not only promoted, but also received salary increases. Petitioner believes that the two examinations she took in Russia in 1988 and in 1990, while working at the DNEPR were substantially equivalent to the Fundamentals Examination. However, no evidence was presented to support this claim. The Fundamentals Examination is one component of the engineering licensing examination, and is designed to assess whether an individual is qualified to practice in this state as an engineer intern. This examination is usually taken either in the applicant's last year in engineering school or shortly after graduation. With regard to format, the Fundamentals Examination is an eight-hour examination and consists of 120 multiple-choice questions. The Principles and Practice Examination is the second part of the engineering licensing examination and is taken after successful completion of the Fundamentals Examination. Oscar E. Olsen, a structural engineer and owner of O.E. Olsen and Associates, a structural engineering firm, is currently Petitioner's employer. Mr. Olsen, who is generally familiar with the Fundamentals Examination, testified that the list of subjects covered on the two examinations taken by Petitioner in 1988 and 1990, coincide with the subject matter on the Fundamentals Examination. Mr. Olsen further testified that it appeared to him that the two examinations taken by Petitioner were comparable to the Fundamental Examinations required in Florida. Notwithstanding his testimony that the exams taken by Petitioner are substantially equivalent to the Fundamentals Examination, Mr. Olsen admitted that he has never seen or reviewed the examinations taken by Petitioner while she was in Russia. It is impossible to render a reasonable opinion as to whether the two examinations taken by Petitioner in Russia are substantially equivalent to the Fundamentals Examination, where the only information provided with regard to the former is a list of subject areas covered. Such a list gives no indication of the depth and specific content of the subject matter on the examinations; the difficulty of the examinations; the passing scores; the number and format of the questions; and the length of the examinations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Respondent, the Board of Professional Engineers, enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for waiver of Part I, the Fundamentals Examination, and for licensure by endorsement. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of December, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of December, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Murray Silverstein, Esquire Powell, Carney, Hayes, and Silverstein One Plaza, Suite 1210 St. Petersburg, Florida 33731-1689 Edwin A. Bayo Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Angel Gonzalez Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0755 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is licensed by the State of Florida as a laboratory technologist. Petitioner applied to the Respondent for licensure as a supervisor. On February 2, 1982, Respondent denied Petitioner's application to take the supervisory examination for the stated reason that Petitioner did not have ten years of experience. Petitioner holds a Bachelor's degree in Fine Arts from Florida International University. Petitioner has supplemented his education by taking additional science courses. The science courses taken before and after Petitioner received his Bachelor's degree total 26 semester credits. The courses taken after receipt of his degree have been specifically related to his field. Petitioner has been employed by the Miami Heart Institute since July 11, 1976, except for the period between September, 1976, and August, 1977. Dr. Jerome Benson is a pathologist and is the Director of Laboratories at the Miami Heart Institute. He is also Vice Chairman of the National Accreditation for Clinical Laboratory Sciences, the organization which accredits approximately 1,000 programs in the medical technology field and which is responsible for the Committee on Higher Education and Accreditation of the United States Office of Education, which accredits laboratories. He is familiar with accreditation of medical technology programs throughout the country and locally. He serves on the Advisory Committee at Miami-Dade Community College, and he planned the curriculum for the medical technology programs at both Miami- Dade Community College and at Florida International University. He was recognized as an expert by both parties. Dr. Benson believes that Petitioner is qualified to sit for the supervisory examination in terms of education, in terms of experience time, in terms of intent of the law, and in terms of protecting the public safety. He further believes that the science courses Petitioner has taken, both pre-baccalaureate and post-baccalaureate, qualify Petitioner for a Bachelor's degree in medical technology. Norman Bass was formerly Petitioner's immediate supervisor. He evaluates Petitioner's performance in the laboratory as excellent and believes that Petitioner is qualified through experience and academic courses to sit for the supervisory examination. At the time of the formal hearing in this cause, Petitioner had a total of 12,935 hours of work time at the Miami Heart Institute. Respondent considers 37.5 hours as constituting a full work week. George S. Taylor, Jr., reviewed Petitioner's application on behalf of Respondent. The application was received on January 18, 1982, and was denied on February 2, 1982, for the reason that Petitioner did not have ten years' experience. At the time, Respondent did not have current transcripts reflecting courses taken by Petitioner. Respondent did not request any, but simply used transcripts on file with Respondent which had been filed when Petitioner applied for his technologist's license, even though Petitioner's application for licensure as a supervisor reflected that he had taken various science courses at Miami-Dade Community College. Taylor is of the opinion that an applicant with 120 college credits must have between 25 and 30 of those credits in science courses in order to have a major in science; an applicant with 90 semester hours in college is required to have 17 to 24 credits in science in order to have a science major.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application to take the examination for a supervisor's license. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 14th day of January, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 14th day of January, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Samuel S. Forman, Esquire The Counsel Building 2016 Harrison Street Hollywood, Florida 33020 Morton Laitner, Esquire Dade County Health Department 1350 North West 14th Street Miami, Florida 33125 David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of HRS 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is licensed as a psychologist in Argentina, where she was educated. She attended the University of Buenos Aires completing a six-year program in four years. Petitioner received a degree in psychology from the University of Buenos Aires on December 23, 1977, but did not receive her diploma from that institution until June of 1979. She became licensed as a psychologist by the Ministry of Health in 1979. Upon her graduation from the University of Buenos Aires, Petitioner began to practice psychology in Argentina. She worked in a hospital from 1979 to 1983. Petitioner describes this period of work as her "internship." She also worked in a drug abuse program, which she also describes as an "internship." During these work experiences, Petitioner supervised other personnel. During the same period of time, specifically from 1980 to 1982, Petitioner also engaged in private practice. In 1981 Petitioner enrolled in the Argentina School of Psychotherapy for Graduates, where she took a number of courses and wrote a paper which she presented to the faculty there. The Argentina School of Psychotherapy for Graduates is not a degree-granting institution. Upon completion of the four year program, only a certificate is issued. Petitioner did not produce a transcript from the Argentina School of Psychotherapy for Graduates as part of her application for licensure in Florida. She submitted only a syllabus, i.e., a listing of the names of the courses she took at that institution. A syllabus, however, is not a transcript. Subsequently, Petitioner moved to the state of Michigan where she applied for licensure as a psychologist at the master's degree level. Based upon her education and training, she received a limited license to practice psychology in 1989. Michigan recognizes master's degree level psychologists. In Florida, however, master's degree level applicants are not eligible for licensure as psychologists. In 1991 Petitioner was interviewed by the licensure board in Michigan. Subsequent to that interview, Michigan granted her full licensure to practice as a psychologist in that state. In granting Petitioner full licensure, the Michigan licensing board deemed that her education and training were equivalent to education and training at the doctorate level even though between 1989 and 1991, Petitioner had not added to her education credentials. She had merely obtained additional supervised experience. At some point, Petitioner took and passed the Michigan examination for licensure. The Michigan examination is not the same as the examination for licensure developed by Professional Examination Services. Petitioner has never taken the national examination required for licensure in Florida. In 1993, Petitioner applied for licensure as a psychologist in Florida. She maintains that Michigan's determination that her education and training are equivalent to a doctorate level education should be sufficient to qualify her for Florida licensure as well. She admits, however, that she does not have a Ph.D. She also admits that there is "a huge difference" between the training in Argentina and the training in the United States. As part of her application process and in order to demonstrate to Respondent her qualifications for licensure in Florida, Petitioner submitted her education and training credentials to two foreign education credentialing services. One of those services determined that Petitioner has the equivalent of a Bachelor of Science degree in psychology from an institution in the United States that has regional academic accreditation, plus completion of four years of advanced theoretical and clinical training. The other service found that Petitioner has the equivalent of a bachelor's degree in psychology. The second credentialing service was unable to evaluate Petitioner's studies at the Argentina School of Psychotherapy for Graduates because that institution is not recognized as a degree-granting institution of higher education. Neither of those evaluations could verify that Petitioner possesses the equivalent of a doctorate degree as a result of her training and education in Argentina. In 1992, the University of Buenos Aires created a Ph.D. program in psychology; however, that program did not exist at the time that Petitioner attended that institution. The Argentina School of Psychotherapy for Graduates is not a degree granting institution and does not offer a doctorate program in psychology. At the time that Petitioner chose to attend the University of Buenos Aires and the Argentina School of Psychotherapy for Graduates, it was possible to obtain a Ph.D. in psychology in Argentina, but Petitioner chose not to pursue that course of study. Based upon Petitioner's advanced education beyond her bachelor's degree, she has the educational equivalent of a master's level degree without the thesis generally required to obtain such a degree.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a psychologist either by endorsement or by examination. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of June, 1996, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 7th day of June, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 94-4675 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 20- 22, 24, 28 and 46 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 4 and 10 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 6, 13-17, 19, 39, 41- 43, 47, and 50-54 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 8, 12, 18, 25-27, 34- 38, 40 and 49 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the competent evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 23, 29-33, 44, 45, and 48 have been rejected as being subordinate to the issues herein. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-10, 12 and 15 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 11, 13 and 14 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank P. Rainer, Esquire 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 815 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Virginia Daire, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol PL-01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Dr. Kay Howerton, Executive Director Agency for Health Care Administration Board of Psychology 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
