The Issue Should Respondent's Law Enforcement Certificate be revoked, suspended, or otherwise disciplined?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The Commission is the agency of the State of Florida charged with the responsibility for the certification and de- certification of law enforcement officers. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was a certified law enforcement officer having been certified by the Commission on January 24, 1992, and issued law enforcement certificate number 20445. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was employed by the Cape Coral, Florida Police Department (CCPD). As a certified law enforcement officer, Respondent is sworn to uphold the laws of the State of Florida, in both an on-duty and off-duty capacity, and must follow a personal code of conduct which precludes the use of marijuana in an on-duty or off-duty capacity. Respondent was aware at the time he was hired by the CCPD that law enforcement officers had to abide by the Drug Free Workplace standards. As part of the biannual physical examination required by the CCPD, the Respondent, on June 4, 1999, presented to the Lee Memorial Health Systems, a/k/a Lee Convenient Care, a Collection Site as defined in Rule 59A-24.003(4), Florida Administrative Code, for the purpose of giving a urine specimen for drug testing. Strict procedures were followed in the collection of Respondent's urine specimen taken on June 4, 1999, in order that the integrity and chain of custody of the specimen were maintained. Respondent's urine specimen taken on June 4, 1999, was collected, identified, and forwarded to Diagnostic Services Inc., d/b/a DSI Laboratories (DSI) in accordance with the procedure set forth in Section 112.0455(8), Florida Statutes, and Rule 59A-24.005, Florida Administrative Code, for the purpose of testing for drugs. DSI is a Forensic Toxicology Laboratory as that term is defined in Rule 59A-24.003(8), Florida Administrative Code, and is a certified, state and federally-licensed forensic toxicology laboratory which conducted the tests of Respondent's urine specimen taken on June 4, 1999. Respondent's urine specimen given on June 4, 1999, was given Specimen ID No. 11A, 292409 and Laboratory Accession No. 99- 157-0716. When urine is tested for the presence of marijuana, a positive result is indicated when the nanogram level of cannabinoids, or THC, reaches a level of 50 or higher on the initial screening, or immunoassay test. Rule 59A- 24.006(4)(e)1, Florida Administrative Code. If the immunoassay test is positive, the sample is subjected to a much more specific test, the Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (GCMS) test. A result of a nanogram level of 15 or higher is a positive test result for the presence of cannabinoids or THC. Rule 59A-24.006(4)(f)(1), Florida Administrative Code. The establishment of the cut-off levels on the immunoassay or GCMS tests eliminates any possibility of positive test results due to accidental ingestion. Respondent's urine specimen of June 4, 1999, was first subjected to the immunoassay test which reported a level of 169 nanograms of THC in Respondent's urine. Respondent's urine sample was then subjected to the GCMS test which reported a result of the presence of 37 nanograms of THC in Respondent's system. Elizabeth Burza, n/k/a Elizabeth Brunelli, the certifying scientist on the two tests conducted on Respondent's urine specimen of June 4, 1999, reviewed and approved the integrity of the chain of custody, that the machines used to test the specimen were operating correctly, and the accuracy of the positive result for cannabinoids in Respondent's system. On June 8, 1999, Ms. Brunelli certified that urine specimen number 11A-292409 tested positive for presence of cannabinoids. The urine specimen number and laboratory accession number were that of Respondent's urine specimen submitted on June 4, 1999. Abel Natali, M.D. was the Medical Review Officer of the tests conducted on the urine specimen number 11A-292409 submitted by Respondent on June 4, 1999. On June 9, 1999, Dr. Natali reviewed and approved the testing procedures and results thereof. Dr. Natali confirmed the conclusions of Ms. Brunelli that the test results as to specimen number 11A, 292409 did not reflect abnormality, and accurately reflected a positive reading of 37 nanograms of THC, cannabinoids, in Respondent's system. On June 10, 1999, Dr. Natali telephoned Respondent to confirm that Respondent had tested positive for cannabinoids. Dr. Natali inquired of Respondent as to any valid reason for the positive test for marijuana, such as: (1) was there a possibility that medical research had exposed Respondent to marijuana and; (2) had Respondent ingested any prescription or over-the-counter drugs which may have contained marijuana. The purpose of these questions was to allow the tested person to admit or deny use, and to allow the Medical Review Officer to follow up on valid explanations for exposure controlled substances. Respondent told Dr. Natali that he had been exposed to marijuana at a party where people were smoking marijuana and that he had smoked marijuana. However, during his testimony at the hearing, Respondent could not recall making that statement to Dr. Natali, and denied smoking marijuana at the party. Dr. Natali advised Respondent that he would be reporting the positive test results for marijuana to his supervisor, and that Respondent could request a retest. Respondent did not request a retest. On June 10, 1999, the positive test results for marijuana were reported to Lieutenant Everly, CCPD. Subsequently, on June 10, 1999, Lieutenant Everly and Lieutenant Furderer requested that Respondent submit another urine sample for testing. Although Respondent was not told that failure to submit another urine specimen would result in his termination from CCPD, he was advised that failure to submit another urine specimen could possibly result in his termination from the CCPD. Respondent agreed to the submission of a second urine specimen, and on June 10, 1999, Lieutenant Furderer transported Respondent to DSI Laboratories where Respondent submitted another urine specimen for testing. The collection and testing of the second urine specimen submitted by Respondent on June 10, 1999, and identified as 11A, 303243, was handled in accordance with the rules and statutes governing the collection and testing of urine specimens for the purpose of determining the presence of illegal drugs in the person's system. Ms. Brunelli, certifying scientist, certified the results of the two tests conducted on Respondent's second urine specimen identified as number 11A,303243. Ms. Brunelli certified specimen 11A, 303243 as being positive for the presence of cannabinoids on the immunoassay test at a level of 209 nanograms, and on the GCMS test at a level of 56 nanograms. Stephen I. Merlin, M.D., Medical Review Officer, reviewed and approved the collection and testing procedures used with Respondent's urine specimen submitted on June 10, 1999, and identified as 11A, 303243, and the positive results of the tests (a nanogram level of 209 for the immunoassay test and a nanogram level of 56 for the GCMS test) as reviewed and approved by Ms. Brunelli. Dr. Merlin informed Respondent that he had tested positive for cannabinoids, and inquired as to whether Respondent had taken any prescription drugs containing marinol, or if Respondent had been exposed to marijuana. Respondent replied in the negative. Respondent did not request a retest. Respondent's only explanation for the presence of cannabinoids in his system was the possible passive inhalation of marijuana smoke at a party in a motel room on the weekend prior to giving the first urine specimen on June 4, 1999. While passive inhalation of marijuana smoke under controlled conditions may possibly result in negigible amounts of cannabinoids being detected in a person's urine, Respondent failed to show that the conditions in that motel room were such that it would have resulted in passive inhalation of marijuana smoke by Respondent to the degree that his urine would have reflected, upon testing, even negigible amounts of cannabinoids, let alone the levels found in Respondent's urine. Respondent offered no evidence to demonstrate that he may have accidentally ingested marijuana during this period of time. Respondent's June 4, 1990, and June 10, 1999, urine specimens were disposed of on July 5, 2000. Prior to their disposal, Respondent did not contact anyone and request that the specimens be retain for retesting. Subsequent to being notified of the results of the second urine test, the CCPD terminated Respondent. However, after the CCPD held an informal hearing, CCPD reinstated Respondent. At the time of this hearing, Respondent was still working with the CCPD, apparently in an administrative capacity. Respondent presented no evidence of complete rehabilitation or substantial mitigating circumstances. The nanogram levels for cannabinoids reported for the initial and confirmation tests for the urine specimen given by Respondent on June 4, 1999, and the nanogram levels for cannabinoids reported for the initial and confirmation tests for the urine specimen given by Respondent on June 9, 1999, exceeded the nanogram levels for cannabinoids set out in Rule 59A-24.006(4)(e)1.(f)l., Florida Administrative Code, for positive testing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Commission enter a final order revoking Respondent's Law Enforcement Certificate number 20445. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of January, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 12th day of January, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Gabrielle Taylor, Esquire Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1489 Robert B. Burandt, Esquire 1714 Cape Coral Parkway, East Cape Coral, Florida 33904-9620 A. Leon Lowry, II, Program Director Division of Criminal Justice Professional Services Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Michael Ramage, General Counsel Department of Law Enforcement Post Office Box 1489 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent's license as a medical technologist in Florida 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 Board of Clinical Laboratory Personnel was the state agency in Florida responsible for the regulation of the medical technology profession in this state, and for the licensing of medical technologists in Florida. Respondent, James A. Beyer, was licensed as a medical technologist under license number JC0033961, originally issued on November 27, 1995, and current until June 30, 2000. On February 23, 1996, B.A., a 21-year-old female, was admitted to Naples Community Hospital complaining of increasing abdominal pain. Laboratory tests run on the patient indicated she was undergoing an ectopic pregnancy. A diagnostic laporoscopy was performed, as were subsequent laporotomy and left salpingectomy with lysis of adhesions. It was also determined she had severe pelvic inflammatory disease with bilateral tubo-ovarian complexes. As a result, she was placed on drug and antibiotic therapy which improved her condition. The pathology report based on the surgery performed on the patient revealed no evidence of intrauterine pregnancy in the fallopian tube specimen. She was discharged from the hospital on February 29, 1996. Final diagnosis, as indicated on the discharge summary, was "left ectopic pregnancy" with secondary diagnoses of chronic pelvic inflammatory disease and extensive pelvic adhesions. Notwithstanding the final diagnosis, as noted on the discharge summary, the Agency contends a second pregnancy test done on the patient revealed she was not pregnant. The laboratory tests giving rise to the allegedly erroneous initial diagnosis were processed in the hospital's lab by one of two technologists. Respondent was one of the two. It appears the test results for patient B.A. were confused in the lab with those of another patient. No evidence was presented to show who actually handled and processed B.A.'s specimen, nor was any evidence introduced by Petitioner to show what the laboratory's appropriate procedures were. However, Respondent's initials were entered into the computer as having done the allegedly erroneous test. Respondent labeled the incident regrettable, as indeed it was. He admits that human error caused the mix-up in specimens, but notes that the incident took place in the primary care chemistry section of the laboratory which was staffed by several different individuals. He claims it is impossible to determine who was responsible for the error. Respondent has no memory of doing the procedure and does not believe he did it. His belief is based on several factors. The first of these is that for the error to have occurred, there would have to have been at least two specimens present: that of B.A. and that of another patient. The demographic information relating to B.A. would have to have been placed on the analyzer with the specimen from the other patient. When Respondent does this test, it is his procedure to hold the specimen in his hand while he reads the label and enters the patient identification information into the analyzer computer. Then he labels the serum cup to be used with the same patient identification information as is on the specimen container he is holding. Before running the test, he verifies the identification number on the test sample cup against the identification number in the computer, and it is inconceivable to him that he would have picked up another patient's sample and placed a portion of it on the instrument instead of the sample on which he was working. Another reason he believes he did not commit the error is that the incident was thoroughly and promptly investigated by laboratory and hospital personnel, and the human error cause was treated without placing blame on anyone. No disciplinary action was taken against him by the hospital, and he is still employed by Naples Community Hospital in the laboratory in the same position as before the incident occurred. His annual ratings before and after the incident have been "meets" or "exceeds" standards. Respondent is of the opinion that the Department of Health's investigation into the incident was superficial at best and lacks concrete evidence to support the claims of misconduct made. Petitioner presented no information to indicate what are the appropriate procedures to be followed in the laboratory for the procedure in issue.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Clinical Laboratory Personnel enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of September, 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 8th day of September, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Howard M. Bernstein, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration Post Office Box 14229 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-4229 James A. Beyer 2501 8th Street West Lehigh Acres, Florida 33971 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Pete Peterson, General Counsel Department of Health Bin A02 2020 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Eric G. Walker, Executive Director Board of Clinical Laboratory Personnel Department of Health 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied for licensure by examination to practice cosmetology within Florida after having completed 600 hours of instruction in cosmetology. Petitioner took the examination in Winter Haven, Florida, on August 27, 1981. The examination consists of two parts, written and practical, each of which must be passed to obtain licensure. The passing grade on each portion of the examination is 75. Petitioner received a grade of 85 on the written and 73.5 on the practical examination. The practical examination of August 27, 1981, was graded by Virginia Stolz and Kathryn Clymer, both of whom are licensed cosmetologists who have been employed by the Department of Professional Regulation as examiners for cosmetology examinations during the past six years. The practical examination is an opportunity for examinees to demonstrate their competence by performing several cosmetology services within a given amount of time. The services performed, the given time for each service, and the number of points assigned each service are defined by Board rule and incorporated into the grading score sheet for the practical examination. During the hair shaping portion of the practical examination, the Petitioner informed an unidentified examiner of problems with her model's hair which included gaps in the hair from a recent tint and haircut. The Petitioner was informed by the unidentified examiner that she should skip over the gaps since they could not be shaped into the haircut and corrected. Notwithstanding this, two points were deducted frog Petitioner's score due to gaps in her model's hair. When deficiencies are reported, it is the normal procedure for an examiner to make notations in writing; however,. the examiner's notes pertaining to the examination of August 27, 1981 have been destroyed. If an examiner is informed of deficiencies in a model's hair prior to the start of the examination, points for the deficiency are not deducted when the problem is noted by the examiner. In Petitioner's case, however, the timer had already started before she was given the opportunity to point out the gap problem with the model's hair and no notes exist to confirm that the examiner did not deduct points for the preexisting problem. It is possible to lose time by reporting deficiencies because they are reported after the timer is started. The amount of time normally lost in such a situation is 2-3 minutes out of the 30 minutes allocated for hair shaping. Following the 30 minutes allocated for hair shaping, the Petitioner was to clean the station where she performed the haircut. The clean up time was in addition to the 30 minutes given for the shaping procedure and had no maximum time set for the procedure to be completed. When she finished the hair shaping procedure, the Petitioner waited for a broom and dust pan to clean her station. Since she was fartherest away from available cleaning materials, Petitioner was among the last examinees to get access to the cleaning tools. Due to her concern that points would be deducted if she stayed in the station area too long waiting for cleaning tools, Petitioner did not clean her station and instead went to the area where other examinees were sent. When the examiners realized that Petitioner had joined the other examinees and not cleaned her station, she was sent back to her station to sweep her model's hair. However, points were deducted from her test score for failing to clean her station despite no time limit being attached to the cleaning portion of the examination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner be given a passing grade on the practical portion of the August 27, 1981 cosmetology examination based on deductions which were erroneously made on the hair shaping and station cleaning portion of her practical examination. DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of April, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, 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 26th day of April, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: George Waas, Esquire SLEPIN SLEPIN LAMBERT & WAAS 1114 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Susan Tully, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Suite 1601 - The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Myrtle Aase, Executive Director Florida Board of Cosmetology Old Courthouse Square Building 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Samuel R. Shorstein Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Subsection 456.072(1)(aa), Florida Statutes (2003),1 and, if so, what discipline should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the regulation of medicine pursuant to Chapters 20, 456, and 458, Florida Statutes. Dr. Weiner, is and was at all times material to this proceeding, a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME76902. He has been practicing medicine for 23 years and has not previously been the subject of a disciplinary proceeding. Dr. Weiner is board-certified in anesthesiology. S.M. has been a patient of Dr. Weiner since 1999. S.M. sought treatment from Dr. Weiner for his lower back pain that he suffered as a result of a golf cart injury. Over the course of his care under Dr. Weiner up until the date of the incident, S.M. received numerous treatments for his back pain, including radiofrequency ablation and epidural steroids. Radiofrequency ablation uses a specific frequency of radio waves to help put specific pain nerves that go to the joints of the spine to sleep for a period of time. In this procedure a steroid is deposited inside the epidural space outside the spine. The procedure can help to treat back pain as well as pain extending down the legs of the patient. On January 29, 2005, S.M. presented to Dr. Weiner with complaints of lower back pain. After examining S.M., Dr. Weiner recommended that S.M. undergo a radiofrequency ablation procedure. Dr. Weiner ordered the radiofrequency ablation procedure and instructed his office to coordinate with the Center for Digestive Health and Pain Management (Center), to have the procedure scheduled. The Center, which is a separate facility from Dr. Weiner's office, scheduled S.M.'s treatment for February 19, 2004. The Center scheduled S.M. for a Fluoroscopic Epidural Steroid Injection, RACZ Technique, caudal approach, rather than the radiofrequency ablation procedure. A Fluoroscopic Epidural Steroid Injection, RACZ Technique, caudal approach, involves placing a needle down near the tailbone. A catheter is inserted through the needle into the space around the spine. A steroid medication is injected through the catheter. The purpose of the procedure is to decrease irritation and inflammation of the nerves as well as the discs. S.M. could have derived some benefit from the Fluoroscopic Epidural Steroid Injection, RACZ Technique, caudal approach. Patient charts at the Center are separate from the patient charts at Dr. Weiner's office. The Center's charts are made up by the Center staff and consist of forms for the specific procedure, a template of the procedure for the specific procedure, the nursing notes, billing sheets, and other administrative paperwork. When the Center erroneously scheduled S.M. for a Fluoroscopic Epidural Steroid Injection, RACZ Technique, caudal approach, the Center prepared paperwork necessary for the provision of that technique, including consent forms. On February 19, 2004, S.M. went to the Center with the belief that he was going to receive the radiofrequency ablation procedure. During this visit, S.M. was in a lot of pain and was eager to receive treatment for his back. Upon arrival to the Center, S.M. signed a consent form that referenced a Fluoroscopic Epidural Steroid Injection, RACZ Technique, caudal approach procedure. The nurse then confirmed with S.M., the technician, and Dr. Weiner that S.M. understood this procedure. Dr. Weiner also explained the Fluoroscopic Epidural Steroid Injection, RACZ Technique, caudal approach, to S.M before administering the treatment and also told S.M. that this was the first time he had undergone this procedure while under Dr. Weiner's care. Subsequent to signing the consent form, S.M. got undressed and was hooked up to an IV. He was then moved to another bed, and Dr. Weiner started to perform the Fluoroscopic Epidural Steroid Injection, RACZ Technique, caudal approach, on S.M. Dr. Weiner administered a local anesthesia and began to insert the tip of a needle into S.M.'s back. After partially inserting the needle in S.M.'s back, Dr. Weiner stopped the procedure and reviewed S.M.'s chart. He requested that S.M.'s chart that was in Dr. Weiner's office be brought to the Center. The chart revealed that the Fluoroscopic Epidural Steroid Injection, RACZ Technique, caudal approach, was not the procedure that was originally ordered at S.M.'s appointment on January 29, 2004. Once he realized the discrepancy, Dr. Weiner apologized to S.M. and explained that he began to do the wrong procedure. S.M. was then taken to the recovery room, and Dr. Weiner ordered the radiofrequency ablation procedure for a later date. S.M. did not receive the complete Fluoroscopic Epidural Steroid Injection, RACZ Technique, caudal approach, procedure on February 19, 2005. In or about March 2004, S.M. returned to the Center and had the radiofrequency ablation procedure completed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding that James P. Weiner, M.D., violated Subsection 456.072(1)(aa), Florida Statutes; issuing a reprimand; imposing a $1,000 fine; requiring 25 hours of community service; and requiring five hours of risk management education. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 31st day of March, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Bruce E. Jarman, graduated from the cosmetology program of Orlando Vocational-Technical Center in December 1992. The school is an institution accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. Mr. Jarman's grades were primarily A's in both practical competency and theory, with a few B's and two C's. Mr. Jarman sat for the January 21, 1993 cosmetology licensure examination and passed two of the three required parts. He did not pass the written clinical part, which required a score of 75. Mr. Jarman's score was initially 71; after his challenge, he was given credit for one additional item and his total scaled score was amended to 72. At the hearing Mr. Jarman narrowed his challenge to four written questions, #2, #41, #44 and #59. He also presented testimony and argument regarding the scoring and the over-all validity of the examination questions. Question #2 concerned the specific point at which a cosmetologist must commence timing for the processing of semi-permanent color. The process timing must commence after completing application of the color, since hair length, porous quality and other individual properties affect the time required for application. The textbook does not specifically furnish the right answer to the question; instead, it references the need to follow the product manufacturer's directions. The correct answer is found in those directions and in the understanding that if timing is commenced prior to the completion of application, the processing time might not be long enough. Mr. Jarman answered the question incorrectly. Question #41 concerned the qualities of over-processed curls. Frizzy hair is distinct from wavy hair. Frizzy hair is straight and very dry-looking due to being damaged. It has no waves when it is dry, and narrow waves when wet, as depicted in the textbook. Mr. Jarman chose the wrong answer. Question #44 concerned the action to be taken by a cosmetologist who is in the process of bleaching a client's hair when the client exclaims that he likes the color he sees prior to the completion of processing. The proper answer requires an understanding of procedures for lightening hair. Those procedures, including the need to conduct a series of strand tests, are described in the textbook. Mr. Jarman's answer was incorrect as he mistakenly concentrated on the preliminary strand test. Question #59 concerned the disadvantage of foil frosting versus cap frosting. The cap technique involves pulling clean strands of hair through a perforated cap with a hook. The foil technique requires taking alternating strands from a subsection and wrapping those strands individually in a foil packet. Foil frosting allows the better placement of streaks; it generally is preferred for sensitive scalp and for longer hair. However, the foil technique takes about twice as long as the cap technique. Although the textbook does not specifically state the relative merits of one technique over another, anyone who has performed the two techniques should recognize the proper answer. Mr. Jarman concentrated on the effect of chemicals on the scalp and selected the wrong answer. Each question provided four possible multiple choice answers. Selecting the proper answer required a process of elimination and a choice of the "best" answer. The questions were not ambiguous. Nor, as suggested by Mr. Jarman, did they require experience beyond the "entry-level". As part of their program of instruction, cosmetology students are given practical experience in the techniques to be tested. The examination taken by Mr. Jarman and his colleague, Mr. Sparrow, was a new examination and the pass rate was substantially lower than for prior examinations. This fact itself does not invalidate the examination. It was devised by a national professional testing firm; it was validated statistically through a mathematical process and was validated for content through a process which relies on the use of anchor items that have appeared in other examinations. The written clinical portion of the examination was designed to take the place of a practical examination requiring the use of live models. The clinical portion requires candidates to apply theory and judgement learned in their practicing laboratory in school. That is why the answers are not all found verbatim in the textbooks. In the credible opinions of the Board's several experts, including a psychometrician and an educator/practitioner with almost forty years' cosmetology experience, the January 1993 examination was valid and proper. The process of achieving scaled scores was also valid and proper.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the petition of Bruce E. Jarman, challenging his cosmetology examination score be denied. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 14th day of December, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MARY CLARK 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 14th day of December, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: Vytas J. Urba Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Bruce E. Jarman 1133 38th Street Orlando, Florida 32805 Jack McRay Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Suzanne Lee Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
