The Issue Whether the Respondent, a licensed general contractor, committed the offenses alleged in the three administrative complaints and the penalties, if any, that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of contracting pursuant to Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent has been licensed as a general contractor by the Petitioner. Respondent was issued license number CG C010162 in 1975 and has held that licensure ever since. The first complaint against Respondent’s licensure, like the three complaints at issue in this proceeding, arose from a post-Hurricane Andrew contract. That complaint was resolved by stipulation of the parties. Respondent did not admit to wrongdoing in his stipulation. Respondent was financially unable to comply with the terms of the settlement. Consequently, his license was suspended at the time of the formal hearing. There was no explanation as to why this complaint, which occurred at approximately the same time as the three contracts at issue in this proceeding, was prosecuted separately. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was the qualifier for Allstate Construction Management, Inc. (Allstate), a Florida corporation. THE RODRIGUEZ CONTRACT (DOAH CASE 96-4580) On March 17, 1993, Allstate entered into a contract with Anthony Rodriguez to build a garage at 15525 SW 209th Avenue, Miami, Florida. The contract price was $16,250.00, which included “plans, permit and cleanup.” Allstate was paid the sum of $4,062.50 on March 17, 1993. Allstate obtained the Dade County building permit for the project on March 26, 1993. Allstate was paid the sum of $5,593.75 on April 5, 1993, after the concrete blocks were installed. On April 8, 1993, Allstate requested a tie beam/reinforcing inspection from the Dade County building department. In response to that request, Antonio Varona inspected the project on April 12, 1993. The inspector noted that the project was not ready for inspection because no truss plans were available. Respondent testified, credibly, that he had to construct the roof conventionally because of the difficulty in obtaining pre-fabricated trusses; however, that testimony does not explain why there were no truss plans available for inspection. Appropriately engineered truss plans are required for a roof to pass inspection. Despite the failure of the project to pass inspection, Mr. Rodriguez accepted the roof and paid Allstate $4,968.75 on May 21, 1993. As of May 21, 1993, there remained a final payment of $1,625 on the contract. After May 21, 1993, Respondent and Allstate left the Rodriguez job. There was a dispute in the evidence as to whether Mr. Rodriguez fired Allstate or whether Allstate abandoned the project. This dispute is resolved by finding that the evidence was insufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Allstate abandoned the Rodriguez project. When Allstate left the Rodriguez job, there were sufficient funds remaining unpaid to complete the project. Because he had obtained the initial building permit, it was incumbent upon Respondent to either obtain a final inspection of the project or notify the building department that his company had been terminated by the owner. Respondent did neither. THE ELLIS CONTRACT (DOAH CASE 96-4581) At the times pertinent to this proceeding, William R. Ellis owned the Arleen House, which is an apartment building located at 2191 N.E. 168th Street, North Miami Beach, Florida. This building suffered damages from Hurricane Andrew. On September 11, 1992, Respondent and Mr. Ellis inspected the building and Respondent prepared an estimate as to the items that had been damaged by the hurricane and other non-hurricane related repairs that should be made. The mansard roof for this building had been damaged by Hurricane Andrew to the extent that it contained gaping holes. Shortly after that inspection, Mr. Ellis met with his insurance adjuster who gave him a check in the amount of $13,000 to repair the roof. It was necessary to dry in the roof and repair the mansard as soon as possible to avoid additional damage to the building from rains. While there was a dispute as to the extent of the services Allstate was to provide Mr. Ellis, the record is clear that Respondent, on behalf of Allstate, agreed to undertake the roof repair for the sum of $13,000. Respondent told Mr. Ellis that his company had a roofing crew ready to begin work on the roof repairs as soon as Mr. Ellis paid the sum of $13,000. Between September 11 and September 15, 1992, Mr. Ellis gave Allstate a check in the amount of $13,000 with the understanding that the check he had received from the insurance company had to clear before his bank would honor the check he was giving to Allstate. Immediately thereafter1 Allstate sent a roofing crew to the project for the purpose of temporarily covering exposed areas. Despite having been told by Mr. Ellis that the check he was giving Allstate would not be good until after the check for the insurance proceeds had cleared, Allstate did not wait to deposit Mr. Ellis’ check. Respondent was promptly notified that the check Mr. Ellis had given him would not be honored by Mr. Ellis’ bank. Respondent immediately thereafter withdrew the roofing crew from the project. The roofing crew had made only minor repairs at the time they were withdrawn from the project. Respondent knew, or should have known, that the building was vulnerable to further damage from rain. On September 15, 1992, Mr. Ellis gave Respondent a second check in the amount of $13,000. This check cleared the banking process on September 18, 1992. Mr. Ellis made repeated efforts to have Allstate send a crew to repair the roof. After it withdrew the crew that had been sent to the property when Allstate received the first check, Allstate did not take action to protect the property by repairing the exposed areas of the roof. Towards the end of September 1992, a heavy rainstorm caused additional damages to Mr. Ellis’ building. Allstate did not send a crew to the project again until October 6, 1992. Mr. Ellis hired this crew away from Allstate. He testified he did so because the crew complained about Allstate not paying for the materials they were using to repair the roof and because the workmen were threatening to file liens against the property. Mr. Ellis paid this crew the sum of $3,400 to temporarily repair the roof. He then entered into a contract with another contractor to complete the roofing repairs for the sum of $17,500. Mr. Ellis demanded the return of the $13,000 he paid to Allstate, but, as of the time of the formal hearing, he had not been repaid. THE KUCHENBACKER CONTRACT (DOAH CASE 96-4582) On November 6, 1992, Allstate entered into a contract with Carl F. Kuchenbacker to repair his residence at 18500 SW 88th Road, Miami, Florida. Mr. Kuchenbacker’s residence had been damaged by Hurricane Andrew. The initial contract price was $33,375.00. Respondent secured the building permit and Allstate began work on the project. During the course of the work, additional work was added to the contract, which raised the total contract price to $38,015.00. In late February or early March, 1993, Allstate abandoned the project without just cause and without notice to the owner. At the time it abandoned the project, Allstate had been paid the sum of $26,620.00. Allstate failed to pay all of the subcontractors and materialmen who had performed work or provided material for the Kuchenbacker job. As a result of that failure, valid liens were recorded against Mr. Kuchenbacker’s property. The following liens were recorded: Rite-Way Plumbing and Plastery, Inc. in the amount of $3,520.00; Commercial Lighting and Maintenance, Inc., in the amount of $1,835.00; and Scott Bornstein Plumbing, Inc., in the amount of $798.00. Allstate had received sufficient funds from the owner to pay these liens, but neither Respondent nor Allstate paid these liens. Mr. Kuchenbacker and Petitioner’s expert witness testified that the value of the work performed by Allstate before it abandoned the job was $21,000.00. Mr. Kuchenbacker also testified as to the items that remained undone and as to the percentage of the work that had been completed. From that testimony and from the testimony as to the estimated costs of completing the job, it is found that the sum of $11,395.00, which was the difference between the total contract price and the total amount that was paid to Allstate, was sufficient to complete the project and pay off the liens on the property. Respondent did not call for a final inspection of the property and he did not advise the Dade County Building Department that he was abandoning the project. Allstate abandoned the Kuchenbacker project because it went out of business.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that that Petitioner enter a final order that adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained herein. It is further recommended that Petitioner impose fines totaling $5,000 against Respondent’s licensure as follows: For the violation established by Count I of DOAH Case 96-4580, an administrative fine in the amount of $500. For the violation established by Count II of DOAH Case 96-4580, an administrative fine in the amount of $500. For the violation established by Count IV of DOAH Case 96-4580, an administrative fine in the amount of $250. For the violation established by DOAH Case 96-4581, an administrative fine in the amount of $500. For the violation established by Count I of DOAH Case 96-4582, an administrative fine in the amount of $750. For the violation established by Count II of DOAH Case 96-4582, an administrative fine in the amount of $2,000. For the violation established by Count III of DOAH Case 96-4582, an administrative fine in the amount of $500. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED THAT in addition to the fines recommended for the violations found in DOAH Case 96-4581, Respondent’s licensure be suspended for two years. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED THAT in addition to the fines recommended for the violations found DOAH Case 96-4582, Respondent’s licensure be suspended for two years, to run concurrently with the suspension recommended for DOAH Case 96- 4581. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of May, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Hearings Hearings CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative 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 this 23rd day of May, 1997
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Mary Jean Brooker, is a teaching veteran of approximately 18 years, and most recently was employed by Petitioner as a specific learning disabilities (SLD) teacher at Bear Creek Elementary School in St. Petersburg, Florida, pursuant to an annual contract. Respondent received worker's compensation benefits from June 8, 1992, to November 30, 1992, based on the recommendation of Petitioner's worker's compensation doctor, Scott Russell, M.D., her treating physician, and Terry Dillon, M.D., who conducted an independent medical exam (IME) at Petitioner's request. Respondent's leave (and claim for benefits) was caused by an accident in which she was injured on June 8, 1992, when a recycling truck backed into her vehicle while she was driving on school grounds. The injury in the above accident aggravated a previous back injury that Petitioner sustained when she was "rear ended" in an automobile accident in December 1990. Upon being placed on worker's compensation leave, Respondent was not advised by Petitioner's employees or agents what her limitations were in terms of working at home or elsewhere. Dr. Terry P. Dillon, a self-employed physician employed by Medical Doctors of Morton Plant, Inc., conducted an IME on Respondent. Dr. Dillon specializes in treating and evaluating patients who sustain on the job injuries and consults with industrial managers on work place injuries. Dr. Dillon's evaluation was requested by Petitioner's risk management section. Dr. Dillon took a medical history of Respondent and conducted muscular, skeletal and imaging studies. Dr. Dillon also reviewed Respondent's prior medical records. Dr. Dillon's first examination of Respondent was on September 17, 1992. He noted that Respondent had a long history of low back pain; facial joint pain with some symptoms which were spontaneous and other lower back and neck pain and facial joint injuries stemming from the motor vehicle accident during December 1990. During the more recent accident of June 8, 1992, Dr. Dillon observed an increase in the symptoms and Respondent also consulted with a chiropractor and a neurologist who observed tenderness over Respondent's neck muscles and shoulder blades. Dr. Dillon observed no evidence of injuries to Respondent's upper extremities other than a mild compression of nerves in the upper torso area. Dr. Dillon evaluated the tenderness in Respondent's low back but he detected no spasms. He found some sciatic tenderness in the lower extremities although he noted no lower nerve deficits during the normal clinical exam. Dr. Dillon observed some degenerative changes associated with age and the accident related injuries. He was unable to tell if bony changes were due to the more recent August 1992 motor vehicle accident or were a result of the earlier accident. He opined that it was more likely than not that the injury was not related to the '92 accident. Finally, Dr. Dillon speculated that Respondent evidenced some "psychological investment of pain" however he could not confirm his speculation. Dr. Dillon opined that Respondent should "go forward with an active rehabilitation program" and that after approximately four weeks she should be able to return to work part-time in light duty status and perhaps after eight weeks of following such a regimen, Respondent should be able to return to work full-time after 16 weeks. In concluding, Dr. Dillon opined that Respondent was totally unable to work the entire month of September 1992, although he felt that thereafter she should have been able to work on a part-time basis. Respondent was not issued any work restrictions by Dr. Dillon. Respondent was rated "temporary total disability" by Dr. Dillon which means that she was unable to do a combination of sitting, standing and walking during a three to four hour period. Respondent also served as an SLD coordinator while employed at Bear Creek. As an SLD teacher and coordinator, Respondent had to assess and work with the development of skills for SLD students. Her class sizes ranged from a high of 20 to a low of 8 students and the instruction was individualized. In 1992, Respondent advised her principal, Susan Daniels, that she had an auto accident during 1990 although she did not request any specific accommodation based on the injuries sustained in that accident. During the summer of 1992, while employed as a summer school teacher, Respondent was involved in the August 1992 accident. As a result of that accident, Respondent incurred injuries and advised Daniels that she would be unable to continue teaching during the summer and the beginning of the 1992-93 school year. Respondent also told Daniels during the summer of 1992 that she, at times, experienced severe pain from the 1992 accident. Respondent's husband purchased a daycare center during 1991. When the business was purchased, Respondent often assisted her husband in the operation of the daycare after school hours and on weekends. For her services, Respondent was paid a salary until July 1993. While Respondent was convalescing after the 1992 accident, she often went to the daycare center, out of boredom, to assist the daycare staff. The daycare center has a staff of approximately eight teachers who work a full time schedule. Prior to the accident during 1992, Respondent worked approximately eight to ten hours per week at the center. After the accident, she has been working approximately 2 1/2 to 4 hours per week doing such things as answering the phones, responding to inquiries about rates, assisting in billings and other related chores. Respondent and her husband moved to a new residence on September 18, 1992. Respondent assisted in the move by doing such things as loading clothing, lamps and light items such as pictures and other small memorabilia into her car. Additionally, Respondent assisted in cleaning the old home that they were moving from and she did some cleaning of the new home before they placed heavy furniture and appliances in the home. Respondent did not do any heavy lifting or pulling during the move on September 18, 1992. Respondent has "good" and "bad" days. In other words, her level of pain fluctuates from day to day. Respondent was placed under surveillance by the worker's compensation carrier for Petitioner. During the surveillance, Respondent was observed assisting in the move from periods up to two hours during the a.m. and approximately three hours during the p.m. on September 19, 1992. However, Respondent did not lift any heavy items and the videotape of the move did not establish anything to the contrary. To the extent that she was seen lifting a large trash bin, it could not be determined how heavy that trash bin was. Respondent was assisted, by another female, in lifting the trash bin and taking it to the sidewalk. Investigators Angela Elliott and Clifford Froggat placed Respondent under surveillance during September and November 1992. On November 5, Respondent was observed travelling from her residence to the daycare center where she remained an undetermined amount of time. Respondent has been paid worker's compensation benefits for the injuries sustained in the June 8, 1992, motor vehicle accident. Respondent has filed a tort claim against the alleged tortfeasors and she expects to repay the Petitioner for any worker's compensation benefits that she recovers as a result of that claim. Respondent reported for work when she was released by her treating physician.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order withdrawing the suspension and ultimate dismissal of Respondent and reinstate her to the position of an SLD teacher and make her whole for any loss of pay she sustained as a result of her dismissal. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of April, 1994, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 6th day of April, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-2293 Rulings on Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: Paragraph 6, adopted as relevant, paragraphs 2 and 3, Recommended Order. Paragraph 8, adopted as modified, paragraph 7, Recommended Order. Paragraph 12, adopted as modified, paragraph 17, Recommended Order. Paragraph 14, adopted as modified, paragraph 15, Recommended Order. Paragraph 15, adopted as relevant, paragraph 14, Recommended Order. Paragraphs 16 and 17, rejected irrelevant. Paragraphs 18 and 19, adopted in the Preliminary Statement, paragraph 1. Rulings on Respondent's proposed findings of fact: Paragraphs 5 and 6, adopted as modified, paragraph 22, Recommended Order. Paragraph 9, adopted as modified, paragraph 20, Recommended Order. Paragraphs 10 and 11, rejected, irrelevant and/or subordinate. Paragraphs 15 and 16 rejected, argument. Paragraph 18, rejected, not probative. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert G. Walker, Jr., Esquire 1432 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 34616-6147 Lawrence D. Black, Esquire 650 Seminole Boulevard Largo, Florida 34640-3625 Douglas L. "Tim" Jamerson Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0400 Dr. J. Howard Hinesley Superintendent Pinellas County Schools 301 Fourth Street, Southwest Largo, Florida 34640-3536
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Subsection 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1997), and Subsections 489.129(1)(n) and (o), Florida Statutes (1995).
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Frazier was licensed by the Department as a certified roofing contractor, having been issued license number CC CO56955 as Ronald Lee Frazier, d/b/a Frazier Urethane 4 No Leak. On or about November 24, 1995, Frazier, contracted with Victor and Janie Anderson to remove and replace the roof of the Anderson's home at 433 111th Street, Marathon, Florida, for $4,657.25. The Andersons paid the full contract price to Frazier in two increments. On or about November 24, 1995, they paid $2,328.62, and on or about January 25, 1996, they paid $2,328.63. In January 1996, Frazier removed and replaced the Anderson's roof, but Frazier applied the new roofing material without first installing a base sheet or moisture barrier. No evidence was presented on the specific manufacturer's specification for the product installed by Frazier; however, the evidence did establish that typical manufacturers' specifications for products such as urethane require the installation of a base sheet before such products are applied. The Monroe County Building Code does require that self-adhesive roofs such as the one installed by Frazier must have a one ply ASTM D226 type II anchor sheet with a four-inch headlap. In other words, the roof should have a base sheet of 30-pound felt before the urethane is applied. The base sheet or moisture barrier helps keep water off the roof, and it also facilitates removal and replacement of the roof. Failure to install the base sheet contributed to the development of roof leaks which the Andersons began noticing approximately 17 months after the work was done, a much shorter time than the normal life expectancy for the urethane roof materials that Frazier used. Frazier's failure to install a base sheet on the Andersons' roof constitutes incompetency in the practice of contracting. The only way to correct Frazier's work on the Anderson's roof is to remove the roof installed by Frazier and install a new roof in a proper manner. The Andersons began noticing leaks in the roof in June 1997. They notified Frazier by telephone and by letters. Frazier and his employees inspected the Anderson's roof and agreed to perform work to stop the leaks. In September 1997, Frazier went to the Anderson's home and began attempting to work on the roof. Monroe County roofing inspector Al Forrest met with Frazier that day at the Anderson's home and discussed the work that needed to be done. Frazier agreed to correct the deficiencies in the roof; however, Frazier left that day without completing the work and never returned to perform further work. On or about December 1, 1995, Vivian Haverly contracted with Frazier to repair the leaky roof on her home at 1711 Avalon Avenue, Ft. Pierce, Florida. Frazier was to install a new urethane roof on Ms. Haverly's house. Among other things, the contract called for Frazier to "raise the A/C unit on stand as per code." The contract price was $5,039.00. Pursuant to the contract, Ms. Haverly paid Frazier $1,039.00 on December 1, 1995, and $3,900 on January 19, 1996. The Southern Building Code Congress International (SBCCI) has been adopted as the building code by all counties in Florida except for Dade and Broward Counties. Section 1509.1.2 of the SBCCI provides that "[r]oof coverings shall provide weather protection for the building at the roof." Frazier's crew worked on Ms. Haverly's roof but never fixed the leaks. The leaks worsened, causing damage in the interior of Ms. Haverly's house. Frazier failed to raise the roof-mounted air conditioning equipment and sprayed urethane on the air conditioning unit, damaging it to the point that the air conditioner became inoperable and had to be replaced at a cost of $2,700. Frazier did not spray urethane on the portion of the roof below the air conditioning unit as he should have done. Ms. Haverly had to have another company repair her roof. On or about April 18, 1997, John Ward entered into a contract with Frazier as Frazier Urethane 4 No Leak to repair the roof of a two-story building in Marathon, Florida, owned by Virginia Ward and managed for her by her son John Ward. Frazier was to apply a urethane coating to the roof and fix roof leaks for $4,200. The Department incurred costs for the investigation and prosecution of Case Nos. 98-5213 and 99-2186 in the amount of $1,219.18. The Department incurred costs for the investigation and prosecution of Case No. 99-3573 in the amount of $244.65.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that Ronald Lee Frazier did not violate Subsections 489.119(2) and 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes, as set forth in Count III of Case No. 98-5212; finding that Ronald Lee Frazier did violate Subsection 489.129(1)(n), Florida Statutes (1995), as set forth in Count III of Case Nos. 98-5213 and 99-2186 and Count II of Case No. 99-3573; finding that Ronald Lee Frazier did violate Subsection 489.129(1)(o), Florida Statutes, as set forth in Count III of Case No. 99-3573; imposing an administrative fine of $1,000 for violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(n), Florida Statutes, in Count III of Case Nos. 98-5213 and 99-2186; imposing an administrative fine of $1,000 for violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(n), Florida Statutes, in Count II of Case No. 99-3573; imposing an administrative fine of $1,500.00 for violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(o), Florida Statutes, in Count III of Case No. 99-3573; suspending Ronald Lee Frazier's license for six months; assessing costs of $1,463.83 for investigation and prosecution in Case Nos. 98-5213, 99-2186, and 99-3573; and taking no action to enforce or collect payment of the fines or assessed costs without authorization of the bankruptcy court unless Ronald Lee Frazier's bankruptcy petition is dismissed or discharged. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of August, 2000, 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 30th day of August, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Theodore R. Gay, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 401 Northwest Second Avenue Suite N-607 Miami, Florida 33128 Ronald Lee Frazier Post Office Box 12735 Ft. Pierce, Florida 34979-2735 Ronald Lee Frazier 1006 Southwest Sultan Drive Port St. Lucie, Florida 34983 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Rodney L. Hurst, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Construction Industry Licensing Board should discipline the Respondent, Ysidro Cid Fernandez, on the basis of the charges alleged in the Administrative Complaint which the Petitioner, the Department of Professional Regulation, filed against him on November 30, 1987.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Ysidro Cid Fernandez, is licensed as a certified roofing contractor in the State of Florida, holding license number CC-C029602. The Respondent's license was in effect at all times referred to in these Findings of Fact. On or about March 15, 1986, an employee of Sunshine Solar and Roofing, a roofing company for which the Respondent acted as qualifying agent, entered into a contract with Fred Chambers to re-roof a house Chambers owned at 5871 64th Terrace North, Pinellas Park, Florida. The house was a small house, with not more than 1000 square feet of living area, and the contract was to re-roof the entire house for $600 plus tax ($31.50). The shingles to be used were to be 20-year shingles. The contract also provided: "Install on front F/S [far side] 8' long 5" wide T/G [tongue in groove] board." The Respondent's company did the work in April, 1986. Chambers paid the full amount of the contract, $200 down and the balance on or about May 1, 1986. Despite the re-roof, the roof still leaked where it did before the work was done. When Chambers called for warranty repair work, the Respondent refused until Chambers paid what the Respondent said was the cost of extra work the Respondent claimed Chambers had had the Respondent's workers do. The Respondent first came to the opinion that extra work had been done after he received invoices from his supplier indicating that his employees had ordered 1600 square feet of shingles for the job. The Respondent asserted that the contract called for only the front far side of the roof to be replaced. He bases this interpretation of the contract on the language quoted in the last sentence of Finding 2, above. The Respondent claimed that 1600 square feet was twice as much shingle as would be needed to re-roof half of the existing roof. Regardless whether the Respondent's employees ordered too much shingle for the Chambers job, or where the extra shingle might have gone, if not on the Chambers roof, the contract provided for the entire Chambers roof to be replaced for the contract price. The Respondent was not justified in demanding additional money before doing warranty work. The City of Pinellas Park, Florida, the governmental entity with jurisdiction over the Chambers job, required that a building permit be obtained before commencing the Chambers re-roofing construction. The City of Pinellas Park also required inspections of the Chambers re-roofing job. The Respondent claimed to have timely obtained a building permit for the Chambers job and, in testimony at final hearing, detailed an elaborate story about how he went about getting one. But the Respondent's own evidence, in the form of late-filed Respondent's Exhibit 2, establishes that he did not apply for the building permit until December 17, 1987, after receiving notice through the November 30, 1987, Administrative Complaint in this case, that the Department was charging him with failure to obtain a building permit for the job. Not having obtained a building permit, the Respondent did not call for the required inspections for the job. The evidence did not prove that the Respondent was grossly negligent or incompetent in estimating the cost of the Chambers job. First, the evidence did not prove that the job was seriously underestimated; to the contrary, the evidence tended to show that the Respondent's employees ordered more material than needed for the job. (When this came to the Respondent's attention, he unfairly blamed Chambers for having his employees do extra work not called for by the contract.) Second, the Respondent had nothing to do with the cost estimate on the job. The Respondent's price per square foot of roof area was fixed; he depended on his employees to accurately measure the size of the roof being priced. There is no evidence how the Respondent went about training his employees to measure a roof for purposes of a cost estimate. The Respondent has been disciplined by the Construction Industry Licensing Board once before. He received a reprimand in August, 1987, for failure to obtain a building permit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order suspending the Respondent's license for one year and fining the Respondent $2,500. RECOMMENDED this 25th day of July, 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 25th day of July, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-0570 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1987), the following rulings are made on the Petitioner's proposed findings of fact (the Respondent not having filed any): Rejected in part (the Respondent's name is not Thomas L. Jackson); otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected in part; the evidence did not prove that the roof was unfinished or that the roof was done correctly or that the work was done incorrectly, only that it leaked after the work was done. 4.-6. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as not proven by the evidence. (See 3., above.) Accepted and incorporated. COPIES FURNISHED: David Bryant, Esquire 13014 North Dale Mabry Suite 315 Tampa, Florida 33618 Ysidro Cid Fernandez 2700 North McDill Avenue Suite 204 Post Office Box 4726 Tampa, Florida 33607 Ysidro Cid Fernandez 8109 Rivershore Drive Tampa, Florida 33604 Fred Seely, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Kenneth Easley, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729
The Issue The issue for consideration in this matter is whether the Respondent violated the weight limitations for truck traffic over a low limit bridge on SR 850 in Palm Beach County, Florida on November 12, 1991, and if so, what is the appropriate penalty.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Department of Transportation, was the state agency responsible for enforcing the state statutes involving commercial carrier weight compliance in this state which it does through its Office of Motor Carrier Compliance staffed with uniformed certified law enforcement officers who have the authority to cite drivers and owners of commercial vehicles which violate the load limits on the streets and highways of this state. On November 12, 1991, at approximately 2:30 PM, Officer Roy Neff stopped the Respondent's open board truck for crossing the low limit bridge located on State Road 850 in North Palm Beach, Florida, while apparently overloaded. The truck was carrying a load of drywall sheets and stucco. Officer Neff weighed the vehicle with the Department's portable scales he carried with him. These scales are calibrated for accuracy every 6 months. He utilized the standard Department weighing procedure which calls for a weight under each axle combined to give a total vehicle weight. This vehicle weighed 68,000 pounds loaded, according to this procedure used. Because this particular bridge was allowed no more than 26 tons, (52,000 pounds), of weight for a vehicle in this category, (non-trailer with 2 axles), Officer Neff cited the Respondent's driver for an overweight of 16,000 pounds. Since overweight is penalized at 5 per pound, the penalty assessed was $800.00. The approach to this bridge was clearly marked at several locations with signs indicating the maximum weight permitted for this bridge was 26 tons. These signs were located at sites which were far enough away from the bridge (1 mile and 1/2 mile) to give a driver ample opportunity to turn around or to take an alternate route to his destination on roads situated between the signs and the bridge. When the citation was issued here, the driver posted an acceptable bond and the vehicle was released. Respondent does not deny its vehicle as loaded exceeded the state's weight limitations for this bridge. However, it contends that the amount of overweight was less than that determined by officer Ness and it therefore overpaid the penalty by $252.30. Respondent bases this calculation on what it claims was the load on the truck at the time, multiplied by the weight per piece as provided by the manufacture of the product. In support of its claim, Respondent offered a handwritten, self-made list of weights purportedly taken from manufacturer furnished documents. These weights are then utilized in a computation of total load weight based on another handwritten list of materials, reportedly on the truck at the time, which was reconstructed from the delivery ticket for that trip approximately one week or so after the citation was issued. The weakness of this evidence is compounded by the fact that there is no weight in the "manufacturer's" list for the 30 sheets of 14 foot long drywall which Respondent claims weigh a total of 4,284 pounds. There is also no source for the 6,000 pounds of stucco. Presumably, the "75 stucco" relates to 75 bags at 80 pounds per bag. No doubt Respondent's protestations of overpayment are honestly made and made with good intentions. However, its evidence in support of its claim does not outweigh the evidence that the Department scales used to conduct the inspection here were calibrated for accuracy every 6 months. There is no evidence to indicate either that they were not accurate when used or that the weighing procedures followed were improper.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered assessing a civil fine in the amount of $800.00 against the Respondent, Delta Building Supplies. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Vernon L. Whittier, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street, MS - 58 ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of July, 1992. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Tim Czencz Delta Building Supplies 12951 SW 124th Street Miami, Florida 33186 Ben G. Watts Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent engaged in negligence in the practice of engineering, in violation of Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been licensed as a professional engineer in Florida since 1968, holding license number 18122. He is a member of the American Society of Professional Engineers and the Florida Engineering Society. Respondent served as the engineer of record for the Le Porin residence in Charlotte County, Florida. This case arose from a complaint made by an official with the Charlotte County Building Department (Building Department) following the submission of what he concluded was an incomplete drawing by Respondent in connection with the Le Porin job. The present case addresses the sufficiency of the strapping of the roof truss to the concrete block wall of the Le Porin residence. Petitioner does not challenge the sufficiency of the straps themselves. Petitioner challenges the sufficiency of the nails attaching the top of the straps to the roof truss and the sufficiency of the anchors screwing the bottom of the straps into the concrete block wall. In response to the request of the Building Department official, Respondent submitted a “Correction Detail” on May 29, 1999, to the Charlotte County Building Department. The purpose of the detail was to address a concern of the Building Department official about missing or missed truss straps. The text accompanying the detail asserts that the actual lift-up value is 1482 pounds. The text adds: “Missed or missing truss straps with less than 1000 lbs. of up-lift . . .” The diagram accompanying the detail shows an RT22TW retrofit strap extending from the truss down along the interior of two filled concrete blocks, which represent the uppermost two rows of blocks forming the exterior wall. The diagram depicts the strap as attached to the concrete blocks by three 3/16” x 2” tapcons: one is in the filled center of the uppermost concrete block, one is in the solid base of the uppermost concrete block, and one is in the filled center of the second uppermost concrete block. The portion of the strap abutting the truss reveals six dots on alternating sides of the upper portion of the strap, although it is unclear if these dots represent nails. The diagram depicts the upper portion of the strap as running along the broad face of the rafter, but not extending across the top of the rafter and down the opposite side. Respondent supplied a sheet of specifications from the manufacturer of the strap, Hughes Manufacturing, Inc., which shows a strap extending along one face of the rafter, across the top of the rafter, and then down a short distance along the opposite face of the rafter. The manufacturer’s diagram depicts a strap with a stronger grip on the rafter than the strap depicted in Respondent’s diagram in his correction detail, which shows a strap merely running along one face of the rafter. In the manufacturer’s installation, nails are driven into both sides of the rafter; in Respondent’s installation, nails are driven into only one side of the rafter. Evidently, the corrective nature of the retrofit straps precluded the installation of them over the rafters that had already been enclosed by the roof. The manufacturer’s specifications show that the RT 22 strap, which Respondent has proposed, is 14-gauge galvanized steel. The “TW” may refer to the fact that the strap is twisted by 90 degrees, so that it can be attached to the wide face of the rafter and the side of the concrete wall, which are perpendicular to each other. According to the manufacturer’s specifications, the RT 22 strap, which is 22 inches long and one inch wide, contains at least 18 symmetrically spaced, 3/16-inch holes for fasteners to attach the strap to the surfaces being secured. The manufacturer’s specifications state that the RT 22 strap requires 18 16d nails, assuming that both surfaces to which the strap is being attached are wood. At least in a wood-on-wood application, the manufacturer’s specifications provide that the normal design load of the RT 22 strap is 1116 pounds and the uplift design load is 1782 pounds. The specifications note that the manufacturer has derived the design loads from the National Design Specification for Wood Construction, 1991 Edition. By letter dated June 1, 1999, to the Building Department, Respondent provided additional information on the strapping of the trusses at the LePorin residence. The letter states that certain trusses were strapped with “one RT22TW (1484)” instead of a previously indicated strap and that the “remedial action is satisfactory when used with [three] 3/16 x 1 1/2 [long] (min.) Tapcons.” By Plan Review Correction List dated June 3, 1999, the Building Department cites, for two separate notes, the requirement of Standard Building Code (SBC) B 1606.1, which requires that all buildings must be designed to withstand prescribed wind loads. The first note acknowledges the use in the correction detail of three 3/16” Tapcons with straps to correct a problem of missing truss straps. The first note states that the attached specifications for Tapcons indicate shear values of 510 pounds (680 pounds x 0.25 x 3 Tapcons) for hollow block, and the note cautions that 510 pounds is insufficient for 1000 pounds of uplift. The second note requests a correction drawing for the missed straps showing a value of at least 1000 pounds. This latter note appears to be in reference to the truss straps with less than 1000 pounds uplift, as described above in Respondent’s correction detail. By letter dated June 9, 1999, to the Building Department, Respondent included manufacturer’s specifications from Concrete Anchor Systems for the Tapcons. Respondent explained that he used the strength design method for building design. He contended that using the 4:1 ratio as a safety factor, as sought by the plans examiner with whom Respondent had been dealing, would mix working stress design and strength design, which would be a poor engineering practice. The June 9 letter states that the manufacturer rates at 1782 pounds uplift the RT22TW strap at 14-gauge thickness, one inch width, and holes of 3/16” diameter. The letter contends that this equates to 2004 pounds deformation load (1-.1875)(.0747)(33,000). The June 9 letter asserts that the manufacturer rates an HFTM strap using six 3/16” x 1 1/4 inch Tapcons as capable of resisting 1700 pounds of uplift. Doing the calculations for an eccentric strap, Respondent determined that the manufacturer’s data yield a strength of 1037 pounds, which exceeds the design load of 1000 pounds. Noting that strength design uses factored loads, not safety factors, Respondent contended in the June 9 letter that the three Tapcons for the 3500-pound concrete at 3/16” x 1 1/4” is equal to 852 x 3 = 2556 (shear); 2556-1 x 1000 = 0.4; and 0.4 x the yield stress is equal to the nominal stress. Combining this with the factored load, Respondent contended, is good engineering practice and consistent with applicable codes. Accompanying Respondent’s June 9 letter is a June 9, 1999, letter from ITWRamset/Red Head, which manufactures the Tapcon anchors. The manufacturer’s letter sets forth the “ultimate shear failure loads” of the 3/16” x 1 1/4” anchors; in 3000 psi concrete, the shear strength is 852 pounds. The manufacturer’s letter adds that a safety factor of 4:1 (or 25 percent of this ultimate load capacity) is used for long-term static loads, not for short-term hurricane loads. The letter warns that the performance characteristics of Tapcon anchors are based on the embedment depth of the anchor and the base material into which the anchor is installed. Accompanying materials describing the specifications of the ITWRamset/Red Head Tapcon anchors state that, for embedment in solid concrete, one 3/16” x 1 1/4” anchor provides ultimate pullout strength of 581 pounds. (As noted by Respondent in his proposed recommended order, 1 1/4 inches is the depth to which the two-inch anchors would be embedded in concrete.) The same materials describe the ultimate shear strength for one 3/16” x 1 1/4” anchor, embedded in 3145 psi hard rock concrete, as 852 pounds. A cautionary installation note in the accompanying materials warns that “safe working loads for single installations under static loading should not exceed 25% of ultimate load capacity.” At the hearing, a state-certified general contractor testified for Respondent. He has worked extensively with Respondent for the past five years. Testifying that the general contractor is responsible for installing the straps, the contractor testified that he could drive six nails into the strap, but, if the strap had been wrapped over, he could have driven three nails on each side of the rafter. Petitioner has proved by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent’s proposed method of attachment of the strap to the rafter does not conform to the manufacturer’s specifications and constitutes negligence in the practice of engineering. The inability of Respondent to wrap the rafter was exacerbated by his failure to specify the number, weight, and location of nails. Without regard to whether such specifications are required in typical situations, in this situation, involving a retrofit of straps where a contractor and carpenter might be unable easily to drive nails, the engineer’s specification of the number, weight, and location of the nails was imperative. At the hearing, a state-registered structural engineer testified for Respondent. Based on his analysis, the three Tapcon anchors could safely withstand 1000 pounds of uplift. Respondent’s calculations use strength-design analysis, not allowable stress design analysis, and there is a question, under the SBC, as to the use of strength design in masonry, at least for wind loads. At the hearing, a state- registered engineer testified for Petitioner. He explained that the use of masonry, in strength-design analysis, is of limited usefulness, except for earthquakes, because of the difficulty in using the correct load and resistance factors, and the preferred characteristic of wood, as for wind loads, to resist higher forces for shorter durations (as contrasted to steel and masonry, whose ability to resist loads is unrelated to the duration of the load). Petitioner’s engineer testified that the SBC employs a testing affiliate, which has determined that the allowable stress on each of the subject Tapcons is 183 pounds, so that three Tapcons of the type specified could resist 549 pounds. Even with the historical, although now controversial, factor increasing the allowable stress for these three Tapcons by one- third, they could still not resist a 1000-pound shear load. Petitioner’s evidence challenging the sufficiency of the three Tapcon anchors is persuasive, but not quite clear and convincing. As noted below, negligence in engineering is especially dependent upon applied engineering practices and principles, and the testimony of Respondent’s expert is sufficient to insulate Respondent from an adverse finding as to the Tapcon anchors.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of negligence in the practice of engineering and issuing a reprimand. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 28th day of December, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis Barton, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Florida Engineers Management Corporation 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 Natalie A. Lowe, Esquire V.P. for Legal Affairs Florida Engineers Management Corporation 1208 Hays street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William H. Hollimon Ausley & McMullen 227 South Calhoun Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Joseph C. Cash 4422 Mundella Circle Port Charlotte, Florida 33948
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was employed by the Department of Transportation as a Highway Maintenance Technician Supervisor working out of Brooksville, Florida. He had been so employed by the Department of Transportation for some 5-7 years. As Maintenance Supervisor, Petitioner's job description required him to be a working supervisor, working along with his crew maintaining the roads, bridges, and rights-of-way on the state highway system. This involved heavy lifting, pulling and pushing. In January, 1989, Petitioner injured his back chopping firewood at his home and remained off duty until he was terminated on May 4, 1989. Petitioner was under the care of Dr. McBath, D. O. for this injury. Dr. McBath referred the Petitioner to Dr. Sutterlin, M. D., an orthopedic surgeon, who, following an examination on March 24, 1989, pronounced Petitioner capable of returning to unrestricted activity. Petitioner still contended that his back was bothering him and that he could not do the pushing, pulling and heavy lifting required of his job and requested assignment to a job where heavy lifting work was not required. At this time there were no vacancies in the Department of Transportation for the type of work sought by Petitioner. The report from Dr. Sutterlin was not presented to D.O.T. by Petitioner although Petitioner had a copy of that report at his predetermination hearing on May 4, 1989. At this predetermination hearing Petitioner contended that he was able to return to work but did not present medical evidence to this effect. Although the doctors pronounced Petitioner capable of returning to unrestricted activity they could not guarantee he would not have further back problems after returning to unrestricted activity. Petitioner contends that he was fit for duty and wanted to go back to work but his supervisor would not let him because they felt he was a high-risk due to his back problems.
Recommendation It is recommended that the complaint of Barry DeLong that he was discriminated against in employment by reason of physical handicap be dismissed. ENTERED this 4th day of June, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 4th day of June, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Proposed findings submitted by Respondent are accepted except for findings 8 and 10 insofar as these proposed findings are inconsistent with the Hearing Officers findings that DeLong never presented Dr. Sutterlin's report to the Department until after he had been dismissed. COPIES FURNISHED: Ben G. Watts, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 John R. Council, Esquire 306 South Fifth Street Dade City, Florida 33525 Charles G. Gardner, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Margaret Jones, Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 325 John Knox Road Suite 240, Building F Tallahassee, FL 32399-1570
Findings Of Fact On or about January 27, 1988, a DOT sign inspector observed Respondent's sign along U. S. 19 in the vicinity of S. R. 595. The sign had no permit attached, and DOT records revealed no permit has ever been issued for this sign. The sign is visible from U. S. 19. U. S. 19 is a federal aid primary highway.
