Findings Of Fact Petitioner was a candidate for licensure as an electrical contractor and took the electrical contractor examination given July 26, 1983. Petitioner's initial grade was 70 percent. Additional credit was given based on certain objections and Petitioner's grade was raised to 73.5 percent. The minimum passing score on this examination is 75 percent. See Rule 21GG- 6.01(4), F.A.C. Respondent concedes that Petitioner's answer to question #11 should be credited since the .80 multiplier utilized by the Board in its calculation was not correct pursuant to note 10A of Table 310-16 of the National Electrical Code. Petitioner's grade is thereby further raised to 74.5 percent. Question #13 involves the calculation of electrical service for a lobby room of an apartment house. There was no listing for a lobby on the Table 220- 25 of the National Electrical Code and since this lobby is found in an apartment building, the service should be the same as a residence which is three watts. Furthermore, Petitioner made mistakes on the percentage he utilized on both motor loads and incorrectly multiplied the fire alarm service by 1.25. Petitioner incorrectly answered question #16, in part because he utilized two watts instead of three watts for the lobby computation. As noted above, the lobby was in an apartment house and should have been assigned the residential rate. Question #23 reads as follows: The owner is thinking of taking 2400 square feet of the lobby and adding a barber shop with 120/208 single phase panel. There would be a 9 KW hot water heater (at 125 percent) and 15 other receptacles, a reverse cycle air conditioner, 3 HP, 208 volt. How many amps would this add to the service? The accepted answer to the above question is computed by adding the additional current requirements to the existing lobby area. Petitioner followed this procedure but went one step further. He deducted the current required for the 2400 feet of lobby space which would no longer exist if the barber shop were added. Question #23 clearly contemplates removal of 2400 feet of lobby space. Therefore, the best answer to the question is derived by following Petitioner's procedure rather than Respondent's. Petitioner should be given credit for his answer to this question, thus raising his grade to 75.5 percent. Petitioner marked the wrong answers on his answer sheet for questions 49 and 60. He was not given credit for his correct calculations on his work sheet since the Board does not grant credit for any information which is not reflected on the answer sheet. This has been a consistent Board policy.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order assigning Petitioner a grade of 75.5 percent on the July, 1983 electrical contractor examination. DONE and ORDERED this 22nd day of May, 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of May, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: David G. Budd, Esquire 660 Ninth Street, North Naples, Florida 33940 Drucilla E. Bell, Esquire Deputy General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Jerry W. Hendry, Executive Director Electrical Contractors Licensing Hoard 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue By Administrative Complaint filed September 2, 1977 the Florida Electrical Contractors' Licensing Board (FECLB) seeks to revoke, annul, withdraw or suspend the state electrical contractor's certification of Michael Lang who holds certificate No. 0000227, and Lang's right to do business thereunder. As grounds therefor it is alleged that Lang pulled the permits on 5 homes under the authority of his state license where work was to be done by Blue Streak Electric in which Lang had no interest. This was alleged to constitute violation of 468.190(2)(a), (b), (c), and (d)F.S. Five witnesses, including Respondent, testified and three exhibits were admitted into evidence.
Findings Of Fact Michael T. Lang holds state electrical contractor license No. 0000227 and has been so licensed for about 3 years. He also holds Palm Beach and Broward County electrical contractor's licenses. Lang has never done any electrical contracting work under his state certificate outside Broward or Palm Beach counties. Wayne Johnson is a journeyman electrician who has been employed by Lang since about 1973. Johnson worked on numerous houses for which Lang was the contractor and served as Lang's alter ego in many business functions such as ordering supplies, submitting proposals for bids, and signing checks. In 1976 Lang encountered financial reverses due to the construction industry slump and was close to being closed down by IRS. It was difficult for him to obtain supplies with IRS attaching bank accounts and accounts receivable. Johnson formed Blue Streak Electric to perform electrical repairs on weekends and evenings to supplement his dropping income from Lang. Blue Streak was not a qualified corporate electrical contractor although Johnson and Lang had discussed the concept of qualifying Blue Streak to be able to get supplies that Lang was finding increasingly difficult to do. Before the necessary information had been submitted to qualify Blue Streak, Johnson bid on 5 house wiring jobs in Palm Beach County and obtained the contracts under Blue Streak Electric. The permits were pulled by Mike Lang Electric (Exhibits 1, 2, and 3) and under his county contractor's certificate number U8732. On the application for electrical permits (Exhibits l, 2, and 3) here involved, in the blank following "State and County Occupational License No." was entered "227". No evidence was presented regarding the occupational license number of Lang but 227 is the number of his state certification. Some two weeks after the work was commenced under the Blue Streak contract and was about fifty percent complete, the building inspectors stopped the work because Blue Streak was not a licensed electrical contractor. Johnson had been, and was at the time, a salaried employee of Lang who was supervising the work done under these contracts. Upon stopping of the work by the Palm Beach County inspectors these contracts were turned over to Mar Electric who employed Johnson to complete the work he had initially bid on. Mar visited the sites from time to time and received payment from the builder for the work performed. Lang received no income from these projects. Lang was not an officer in Blue Streak and had no financial interest in Blue Streak at any time here involved. Upon learning that Johnson had entered the bids by Blue Streak and pulled the permits under Lang's license, Lang recognized that problems could ensue but this information was received only a couple of days before the work under Blue Streak's contract was stopped. About the same time the work by Blue Streak was stopped by the inspector the IRS levied on Lang and closed his business. The Palm Beach County licensing authority took action against Lang and, in April, 1977 suspended his county electrical contractor's license for one year on the same facts here involved.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent's certification as an electrical contractor in Pinellas County should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Petitioner, Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board (Board) was the county agency responsible for the certification of members of the construction trade and the regulation of that trade in Pinellas County, Florida. Respondent, Gabriel Varro, was certified as an electrical contractor by the Board and held such certification at all times pertinent hereto. On June 18, 1998, Nicholas Sasso, a building inspector with Pinellas County, visited a construction site at 24698 U.S. Highway 19 in Clearwater, Florida, where Respondent was engaged in electrical work. Mr. Sasso was supposed to conduct an inspection of electrical work done by the Respondent at that site but when he arrived at the construction site, at 11:45 a.m., was unable to gain entry to the site. At that time, Mr. Sasso called Respondent by telephone and left a message for Respondent to call back to reschedule the inspection. Respondent did not call in for re-inspection until October 23, 1998, over four months later. In response, however, Mr. Sasso again went to the site for an inspection on that day, where he found at least five violations of the building code for which he issued red tags (requirements for correction). At that point, Respondent had 15 working days to take corrective action, pay the red tags, and call for re-inspection. Mr. Sasso also called Respondent and left a message on the answering machine, but Respondent did not call back. On December 8, 1998, the Building Department's computer produced a notice of Respondent's failure to take sufficient corrective action or pay the red tags. Mr. Sasso returned to the site on November 16, 1998, for a follow-up and found that the Respondent had failed to take the required corrective action. Mr. Sasso returned to the site on December 8, 1998, and found the violations had still not been corrected. On December 30, 1998, the computer again indicated Respondent's failure to correct or pay the red tags, so Mr. Sasso went to the site, saw the deficiencies had not been corrected, and issued to Respondent, a Notice of Violation for failure to take corrective action and to pay red tags, and for electrical violations of the National Electrical Code and/or the standard building code which he had observed on several prior official visits to the construction site. Respondent was advised on the Notice of Violation that failure to correct the deficiencies within 15 working days of the citation would result in a court citation. Respondent called Mr. Sasso that same day, upon receipt of the Notice of Violation, and indicated he would comply with the requirements of the code, but he had not done so when Mr. Sasso returned to the site on February 4, 1999, to conduct a follow-up inspection, appropriate action has not been taken. Respondent claims he paid the red tags even though he did not cause the defects; and requested the Building Department to take his name off the permit. Respondent explained the mix-up by claiming the owner of the property had taken out the permit himself and put his, Respondent's, name on it as contractor because Respondent had agreed to do part of the project to correct some work done improperly by a tenant of the park which had resulted in a violation being issued to the park owner. The majority of the deficiencies discovered, Respondent claims, were located inside a structure on the property to which he never got access. Respondent also contends he limited his work to correction of an improper connection from the meter to the riser. He claims he advised the property owner that the only way he, Respondent, would call for an inspection would be if he were provided access to the structure so he could let in the inspector. It appears that because of a subsequent determination that the entire project violated the zoning laws, the job was cancelled by the owner. On February 17, 1998, Mr. Sasso also observed electrical work being carried on at an RV park in Pinellas County. Because Mr. Sasso could not recall any permit having been pulled for electrical work at that site, he stopped to see what was going on and identified himself to the workman on the job. The worker identified himself as Respondent and gave Mr. Sasso his card. Respondent advised Mr. Sasso of what he was doing, and when Mr. Sasso advised Respondent that he could not legally do the work without first obtaining a permit, Respondent indicated he was going to get it. Mr. Sasso noted that a trench had been dug near a power line, creating a potentially dangerous situation, and that five 50-watt electrical outlets had been installed on pedestals outside the front of the clubhouse. This was confirmed by the proposal submitted to the client by Respondent on September 2, 1998, and accepted by the client on December 4, 1998. The proposal called for the electrical permit to be included in the total contract price of $7,000. Respondent admits to giving the owner of the property a proposal for electrical work to be done, but claims, as the proposal form indicates, the owner was to dig the trench. The owner had the trench dug, as called for, and also placed the pedestals. The digging and the placing of the pedestals were an integral part of the project which Respondent had agreed to perform, and those actions required a permit to be issued prior to starting the work. The required permit was not obtained by Respondent or anyone else, and the work in progress has not been completed. Petitioner has suggested that Respondent be fined $750.00 for the violation alleged in Count One; $300.00 for the violation alleged in Count Two; and $750.00 for the violation alleged in Count Three. Counts One and Three are classified by statute as "major" violations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board, enter a final order assessing an administrative fine of $1,050.00 for the violations alleged in Counts One and Two. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of August, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of August, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: William J. Owens, Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 11701 Belcher Road, Suite 102 Largo, Florida 33773-5116 Gabriel Varro 1910 Union Street Clearwater, Florida 33763-2249
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been licensed as a certified electrical contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued License No. EC0000971. At all times material hereto, Respondent has been the sole qualifying agent for AAA Quality Electric, Inc. (hereinafter "AAA"), a California corporation with its principal office located in Riverside, California. At all times material hereto, Respondent has been a permanent resident of the State of California. By Order of Emergency Suspension of Licensure entered on September 12, 1990, by the Secretary of the Department of Professional Regulation, Respondent's license as a certified electrical contractor in Florida was summarily suspended. At the time, Respondent held either master's licenses or contractor's licenses in 21 states and held hundreds of city licenses. Between January, 1989 and June, 1990, AAA operated in 11 states. During that time period, AAA had as many as 65 people working in the office in California, with as many as 85 electricians in the field. During that time period, AAA had as many as 14 electricians working in the State of Florida. AAA only hired electricians who possessed either a journeyman's or a master's license in the jurisdiction where they worked since that level of licensure enables that electrician to work without direct, on-the-job supervision. AAA advertised when a position was open and administered to job applicants an examination which AAA considers equivalent to a journeyman's examination. To be hired, one needed to pass the examination. AAA would also require that a new employee provide AAA with his or her license number or a copy of his or her current licensure. AAA also employed area supervisors and regional supervisors. Respondent was available to any of the journeymen or masters working for him either by telephone or by sky pager at all times. If anyone doing an installation had a problem, that person could contact Respondent to discuss the problem with him. Respondent's permit-pulling policy was to pull a permit whenever one was required. He had on file, in the various jurisdictions, letters allowing one of his employees to pull permits under his State of Florida license number. For example, in Pompano Beach, which is located in Broward County, Respondent had on file a letter allowing Bill Mopis to pull permits under Respondent's license even though Mopis held a master's license in Broward County and could pull permits under his own license number. By the time that Petitioner suspended Respondent's license to practice electrical contracting in the State of Florida, Respondent had changed his permitting policies so that a permit was pulled for any type of work performed in the State of Florida. AAA advertised in newspapers and in telephone directory yellow pages. When a request for service was made, one of the journeymen or master electricians employed by AAA would be dispatched to the work location. AAA in California was aware of which employee had been dispatched to perform which job. On the day following the job, AAA would call the customer to make sure that the customer was satisfied by the work that had been performed. In March, 1989, Anna and Rudolf Reider contacted AAA pursuant to an ad in the telephone directory yellow pages and requested that an electrician come to their residence to install a ceiling fan. The residence was located in Pompano Beach, Broward County, Florida. Terry Stewart, who holds a master's license from Broward County, responded to their call. When he arrived, Mrs. Reider explained to him that she also wanted a wall outlet which was located behind her bed in a different room to be moved a few feet to the side in order to make it accessible. Stewart took down a light fixture from the ceiling and replaced it with a ceiling fan. He also moved the wall outlet located in the master bedroom by running conduit along the wall and mounting a metal outlet box on the wall in the outlet's new location. Stewart charged the Reiders $391.30, which represented the rate of $46.50 per 1/2 hour plus materials. He also applied a senior citizen discount of 10% to the labor portion of the bill. The hourly rate charged by Stewart was that rate which was quoted over the telephone by AAA to Mrs. Reider when she placed the service call and is in accordance with the labor rate reflected on the work order. The Reiders were satisfied with the ceiling fan installation and with the price charged by Stewart. Although Mrs. Reider had shown Stewart an electrical installation located on her porch, which installation is a pipe with wires inside, and told him that was what she expected, and although she admits that she knew that the new wall outlet would not look the same as the other outlets in the room because there had to be an exposed pipe on the wall, she and her husband were dissatisfied with the appearance of the wall outlet extension in their bedroom. Mrs. Reider subsequently contacted AAA, and Stewart returned her phone call. He advised her that he was willing to come back to her residence and change the appearance of the installation by using a smaller pipe, but he would need to charge her $46.50 for the return service call. Mrs. Reider was unwilling to pad any additional monies for Stewart to return and has never had that work accomplished. Both the ceiling fan and the extended wall outlet work properly. Stewart did not obtain a permit before performing the electrical work. There was no licensure barrier to Stewart obtaining a permit and the inspections that attend the obtaining of a permit since at the time Respondent was licensed by Petitioner, AAA had an occupational license to perform work in Broward County, and no occupational license was required for the City of Pompano Beach since AAA did not maintain an office within that municipality. When Stewart completed the job, he gave the Reiders a 5-year extended warranty, and both Mr. and Mrs. Reider signed the work order authorizing the work and payment therefor, and acknowledging satisfactory completion of the work. The Chief Electrical Inspector for the City of Pompano Beach believes that an electrician, to work without supervision, must be either a journeyman or a master electrician, which Terry Stewart was. The City of Pompano Beach has taken no action against AAA for failure to pull a permit for the Reider job. Although the Chief Electrical Inspector believes that a permit is required for any electrical work performed within the City of Pompano Beach, as provided in the City's permitting ordinances at Section 301.1(e), Section 301(b) (2) sets forth exceptions to the permitting requirements and provides that: No permit shall be required, in this or any of the following Sections, for general maintenance or repairs which do not change the Occupancy and the value of which does not exceed Eight Hundred Dollars ($800.00) in labor and material. ... At the time that AAA performed the work at the Reider residence, the ad which appeared in the yellow pages portion of the telephone directory did not contain Respondent's license number. The City of Pompano Beach has adopted the South Florida Building Code which adopts the National Electrical Code. The National Electrical Code provides that the bonding jumper is to be a green wire or the wire is to be left bare. In the receptacle installed by Stewart, a white wire was used for the bonding jumper. That violation of the National Electrical Code is easily remedied by stripping the white wire bare or by substituting a green wire. Such work is covered under the warranty given by AAA to the Reiders. Although the 1990 National Electrical Code prohibits the use of outlet boxes as the sole support for a ceiling fan and provides an exception from that requirement, the evidence is unclear as to the requirements of the National Electrical Code in force at the time the work was performed. Within the electrical trade, taking down an existing light fixture and replacing it with a ceiling fan and moving a wall outlet are considered to come within the definition of repair and maintenance work. Accordingly, the work performed by AAA at the Reider residence was excluded from permitting requirements both by definition and by cost. Mary Scalza is the owner of Rub-A-Dub Laundromat in West Palm Beach. Early Saturday morning, on June 2, 1989, she experienced a breaker box "blowout", which incapacitated 14 of her washing machines. She located AAA's ad in the yellow pages of the telephone directory and called. AAA quoted her the price for emergency, weekend repairs, and she agreed. Terry Stewart responded to the call. When he arrived at Rub-A-Dub, he saw that the breaker box was located between two rows of washing machines on the floor and next to the overflow drain. He advised Scalza that the location of the box was a code violation, and the box had to be relocated. He told her the approximate cost of doing so but told her that she would have to call AAA to verify with the Company what the cost would be. She told him that the cost of relocating the box was too expensive and implored him to effectuate some repair so that her machines would be operable as soon as possible. Stewart explained to her the dangerous nature of the location of the box but agreed to effectuate a temporary repair. Stewart was unable to replace the entire breaker box; rather, he replaced all inside parts, using the old box. Although Scalza denies that Stewart told her he was simply effectuating a temporary repair until Monday morning when he could obtain the proper parts from a parts supply company, the work order signed by Scalza conforms with AAA's policies regarding temporary repairs. Specifically, the work order provides that no guarantee was given for the work. It is clear that Stewart did return to Rub-A-Dub Monday morning, and Scalza refused to let him touch the breaker box. When Stewart finished his temporary repair on Saturday afternoon, he submitted to Scalza a statement in the amount of $892.10. She gave him a check for $600.00 and paid him the balance in cash. When Scalza's husband came to the laundromat, he became very angry about the amount of the bill. On Monday morning, Scalza contacted the electrical inspector for the City of West Palm Beach, who came to the laundromat, looked at the work that had been accomplished, and "red tagged" the job due to the location of the breaker box. Scalza did not advise him that it was simply an emergency temporary repair. Scalza stopped payment on her check and contacted AAA, advising them not to return to complete the job. When an emergency repair is effectuated in West Palm Beach, it is Permissible for the permit to be pulled on the next business day. Since AAA was fired from the job on the next business day, AAA did not apply for a permit. Instead, AAA sent Stewart back to Rub-A-Dub to refund to Scalza the cash portion of her payment to AAA and to remove the parts Stewart had used for which Scalza would not pay. Scalza gave Stewart the parts which AAA had supplied which had already been removed by the other electrical company hired by her to do the work. That subsequent company did pull a permit for the work at Rub-A-Dub and did relocate the breaker box, which apparently Scalza authorized that company to do. The electrical inspector for the City of West Palm Beach agrees that the responsibility for pulling the permit on the Rub-A-Dub job was that of the subsequent company that effectuated the repairs and not the responsibility of AAA which had been fired from the job before it could pull a permit on Monday, the next business day following the emergency repairs effectuated over the weekend. Petitioner's witnesses agree that if the work done by AAA was a temporary repair for a few days, then the work that was accomplished by Stewart was, in fact, a safe, temporary repair. Further, it is a "judgment call" as to whether an electrician is required to bring electrical service up to code requirements, regardless of the nature of the work an electrician has been called upon to do. Further, anything involving water is always a "judgment call." Even Petitioner's expert would consider effectuating repairs to the breaker box in the location it was in when Stewart came to Rub-A-Dub if the box was completely enclosed and weatherproofed. No evidence was offered as to whether the box was completely enclosed and weatherproofed. Alton F. LaBrecque is an employee of AAA. He holds a journeyman's license from Pinellas County. Pinellas County and Hillsborough County have a reciprocal agreement regarding licensing, i.e., as long as a person holds a journeyman's license from one of those counties, he is not required to obtain a journeyman's license to work in the other county which is on the other side of the bridge. It is the practice in both Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties that if a journeyman who is licensed in one of those counties shows his card to an inspector from the other county, that is all that is required by the inspector of the other county to insure himself that the journeyman is properly licensed. The City of Tampa, which is in Hillsborough County, allows Hillsborough County to regulate licensing. If a person is licensed to work in Hillsborough County, then he is also licensed to work within the City of Tampa. At all times material hereto, AAA had an occupational license to work within the limits of the City of Tampa. On September 26, 1989, Heidi Bekiempis contacted AAA to request that someone come to her residence in Tampa to replace a dimmer switch. Alton LaBrecque responded to that call. When he arrived at the Bekiempis residence, Mrs. Bekiempis also advised him that certain lights within the house were flickering. LaBrecque replaced the dimmer switch which had been completely burned. It is LaBrecque's practice to involve the customer in the work that he is doing as much as possible so that they understand what is being done and why. When he checked the breaker box, he noticed that there were loose connections within the breaker box. He had Mrs. Bekiempis "running around the house" turning lights on and off while he tightened wires and checked the breakers. LaBrecque tested each breaker in the box with a digital meter and then with an infrared tester. Using the two different pieces of equipment, he tested both the line side and the load side of the breakers while they were carrying a full load. He discovered that three single-pole 20-amp breakers and one double- pole 60-amp breaker were consuming electricity as it passed across the breakers. Manufacturer specifications allow a breaker to consume up to .029 volts. The four breakers in question were each consuming one volt which is equal to 120 watts. He understood that the implication of the fact that those breakers were "hot" and consuming electricity meant that they would not trip properly and there was a danger of wires burning or even a fire starting. He also understood that a bad breaker had been the cause of the dimmer switch burning. Although his work order completed at the time indicated that a breaker was only giving off 87-93 volts and he testified at the final hearing that each of the breakers was consuming one volt, even the one volt consumption testified to at the final hearing was sufficient to show that a dangerous condition existed and the breakers needed replacing. Even though Mrs. Bekiempis denies authorizing the replacement of the circuit breakers, she does admit that LaBrecque told her about the danger of a fire, and she signed the work order after completion of the job acknowledging the satisfactory completion of the work. That work order clearly reflects the replacement of the breakers, the results of LaBrecque's testing, the reason why the breakers were replaced, and an itemized listing of the costs for the replacement breakers. It is found that Mrs. Bekiempis authorized replacing the breakers. Mrs. Bekiempis paid AAA $384.00 for the work performed. The replacement dimmer switch works properly, and the Bekiempis' lights stopped flickering after LaBrecque replaced the bad breakers. Mrs. Bekiempis unsuccessfully tried to stop payment on her charge card for all of the work performed by AAA. Between September 26, 1989, and February 15, 1990, the replaced breakers and the replacement breakers were primarily in the possession of Mr. and Mrs. Bekiempis. During that time, Mr. Bekiempis gave breakers to two different electricians for testing. On February 15, 1990, he gave breakers to an investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation. On February 20, 1990, the investigator gave breakers to Joe Bolesina, the Chief Electrical Inspector for Pinellas County. At some subsequent time, Bolesina marked four breakers and gave them to a clerk in his office to send to General Electric for testing. When Bolesina subsequently received breakers from General Electric, he returned them to Petitioner's investigator who retained custody of them until his deposition was taken in this case on October No explanation was offered as to how the breakers which were marked as an exhibit to the deposition of Petitioner's investigator on October 10 got to the deposition of Joe Bolesina taken on October 11 at which time the breakers were marked as an exhibit to his deposition. No explanation was offered as to who had custody of the breakers between October 11 and the time they were produced at the final hearing commencing on October 17, 1990. It is probable that the breakers that were marked at some unidentified time by Joe Bolesina are the same breakers which were admitted in evidence at the final hearing in this cause since the tags placed on the breakers by Bolesina remain on the breakers. However, there is no basis for assuming that the breakers which were replaced by LaBrecque five months before Bolesina received them and marked them were the same breakers that were replaced by LaBrecque. During the afternoon of Saturday, March 17, 1990, a tornado blew down a huge oak tree located in the front yard of the residence of Clarence Cruey in the City of Tampa. As it fell, the tree tore the entire electrical service off the front of the Cruey residence, including the meter, the riser, and the wires. The customer had no power at all. Cruey looked in the yellow pages to find an electrical contractor who would come to his residence immediately to effectuate the repair work even though it was still storming. AAA responded to his call, quoted to him its rates for 1-hour emergency service, and dispatched Alton LaBrecque and another AAA employee to perform the services. The two men worked there in the dark and in the rain for four hours, replacing Cruey's electrical service. Few of the parts were capable of being reused since they had been damaged by the tree or because they did not meet code requirements. For example, a Delta surge arrester had been used previously, and that type of equipment was, at the time, illegal in Tampa. AAA completely replaced the riser, hub, meter can, meter socket, wiring, and many other parts. At the conclusion of their work, AAA presented an itemized bill to Cruey in the amount of $2,556.17, and Cruey signed the acknowledgment that all work had been performed satisfactorily. He paid for the work by credit card but subsequently stopped payment, and AAA has been paid no monies for their labor or material regarding the Cruey job. Since the work at the Cruey residence was performed on an emergency basis on a Saturday, on the following Monday LaBrecque went to pull the permit for the work. Employees at the City of Tampa would not accept his permit application saying that he was not authorized to pull a permit for AAA and that a copy of AAA's workmen's compensation insurance was not on record with the City. Although authorization letters had been previously submitted, and although a copy of the insurance certificate had been filed with the City in January when AAA's City of Tampa occupational license was renewed, LaBrecque had AAA send additional copies of those documents to the City. When he again attempted to apply for the permit, the City advised him that they still did not have copies of those documents. LaBrecque contacted AAA and another set of documents was provided to the City. When LaBrecque returned, he was told that the documents still had not been received. When LaBrecque hand- carried another set of those documents to the City and "stuffed it in their faces," they accepted his permit application, ten days after he first applied. The permit itself was not issued for several months, and by the time of the final hearing in this cause the City had still refused to make the required inspection although Respondent had called for the inspection a number of times, including once on the record during a hearing conducted by the Unified Construction Trades Board of the City of Tampa. Although refusing to make an official inspection, the Chief Electrical Inspector for the City of Tampa inspected the work at the Cruey residence on an "unofficial" basis. Based upon that unofficial inspection, he concluded that AAA had replaced parts that did not need replacement and that AAA had not done all of the work for which it had charged Cruey. On July 3, 1990, the Unified Construction Trades Board of the City of Tampa revoked Respondent's permitting privileges for 1 year for the work done at the Cruey residence. On August 7, 1990, the Unified Construction Trades Board of the City of Tampa suspended Respondent's permitting privileges to run concurrently with the revocation entered on July 3, 1990. On September 11, 1990, based on the fact that the City of Tampa had taken disciplinary action against Respondent, the Electrical Board of Adjustment, Appeals and Examiners of Hillsborough County suspended Respondent for a period of 5 years. These two disciplinary actions are not involved in the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent in this cause, and proof of them was offered by Petitioner for the sole purpose of aggravation of any penalty to be assessed against Respondent. Photographs admitted in evidence at the final hearing in this cause clearly refute the testimony given by the Chief Electrical Inspector for the City of Tampa which resulted in the July 3, 1990, revocation of Respondent's permitting privileges. The photographs reveal the work done by AAA and also depict the damaged parts which were replaced by AAA since those damaged parts were still lying in Cruey's yard at the time the photographs were taken. Respondent was prohibited by the Unified Construction Trades Board from offering the photographs and other evidence in defense of the charges then pending against him.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint and dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent in this cause. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 20th day of November, 1990. 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 20th day of November, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 90-6172 Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 1 has been rejected as not constituting a finding of fact but rather as constituting a conclusion of law. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 2-5, 7, 10, 16, 17, 20, 23, and 25-27 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 6, 9, 11-15, 18, 19, 22, and 28 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 8 has been rejected as being contrary to the weight of the evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 21, 24, and 29 have been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues herein. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1, 4, 4.1, 5-7.5, 7.9, 7.10, 7.13-7.16, 8, 8.1, 8.3-8.6, 8.8, 8.9, 9.0, 9.2-9.7, 9.10, 9.12-9.14, 9.16- 9.20, 10, 10.1, 10.3, 10.4, 10.6-10.19, 10.21-10.23, 12-12.8, 13.9, and 13.10 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting conclusions of laws, recitation of the testimony, or argument of counsel. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 2, 3, 7.6-7.8, 7.11, 7.12, 8.2, 8.10-8.12, 9.1, 9.8, 9.11, 9.15, 10.20, 11-11.2, 13.2, 13.4-13.8, and 13.11 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 8.7 has been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the credible evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 10.2, 10.5, 13, 13.1, and 13.3 have been rejected as being unnecessary for determination of the issues herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel O'Brien Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Robert G. Harris, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 David M. Gaspari, Esquire Adams, Coogler, Watson & Merkel Suite 1600, NCNB Tower 1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-2069 Neil F. Garfield, Esquire World Executive Building, Suite 333 3500 North State Road Seven Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33319 Scott Anderson, Esquire 2033 Main Street, Suite 402 Sarasota, Florida 33427 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that all charges against Floyd E. Williams be DISMISSED. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 9th day of June, 1983 in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 9th day of June, 1983.
