The Issue The issue for consideration in this matter is whether Respondent's operation of an overweight truck over the low-limit bridge involved herein is a violation and if so, what penalty should be assessed.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Department of Transportation was the state agency responsible for enforcing the statutes involving commercial carrier and truck vehicle weights on covered vehicles operated on the streets and highways of this state. It does so through its Office of Motor Carrier Compliance staffed with uniformed certified law enforcement officers who have the authority to conduct random safety and compliance inspections of commercial vehicles being operated in this state. The parties agree that on August 8, 1991, Respondent, P.J. Constructors, Inc. was prime contractor to the Petitioner, Department of Transportation for the removal and replacement of a highway bridge over the Florida Turnpike where it intersects with Hood Road in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. At the time in issue, Respondent was operating a 1981 MAC tractor trailer low boy on which it was transporting a piece of heavy construction equipment. At the time in issue, Officer Neff stopped the vehicle for crossing over this bridge which was clearly posted as having a maximum weight limit for tractor trailers of 15 tons, (30,000 pounds). Following standard Department weighing procedures measuring weight at each axle and combining those weights to arrive at a total, and using portable Department scales which are calibrated every 6 months for accuracy, Officer Neff determined the vehicle weight at 54,800 pounds. This was 24,800 pounds over the legal weight and resulted in a penalty assessment of $1,240.00 at 5 per pound of overweight. The approaches to this bridge were clearly marked at several locations with signs indicating the maximum weight permitted for this type vehicle was 15 tons. These signs were located at sites which were far enough away from the bridge to give a driver ample notice of the restrictions and ample opportunity to turn around or to take an alternate route over roads situated between the signs and the bridge. In addition to the signs, however, earlier the same day, as warnings were issued to users of the bridge who were going to a construction site on the other side, Respondent's driver was specifically told of the bridge's low limits and advised of an alternate route to avoid it. Admittedly, the alternate routes would be longer than the route over the bridge, but no evidence as presented by either party as to how much the difference was. Respondent's General Manager, Mr. McAllester, claims the signs were not in position on the two occasions he visited the site during the bid process in February or March, 1991. He cannot say that he knew where the signs might have been located (away from the site), but avers only that he did not see any. However, officer Neff specifically checked to see that the signs were in place before issuing the citation on August 8, 1991 and it is, therefore, found that the signs were properly in place on that date. Mr. McAllester also urges in the alternative, however, that even if the signs were in place, as contractor on the bridge replacement project, the terms of the bid specifications, which directs contractors from operating equipment in excess of the maximum weights set out by law, exempts the contractor where the existing road or bridge is to be removed as a part of the work included in the project. The bridge in issue here was removed and replaced as a part of the project on which Respondent was contractor and the current bridge has no limit. Mr. McAllester admits that when the instant citation was issued, Respondent had no special permit to cross the bridge with an excess load. Once the citation was issued, however, Respondent quickly retained an engineer to do a structural analysis of the bridge in issue. Based on that analysis, Respondent thereafter sought and obtained permission to cross the bridge with an overload provided all other traffic was stopped on Hood Road while the excessively laden vehicle was on the bridge so it would be the only vehicle thereon at the time, and provided that vehicle kept to the center of the road while on the bridge. Subsequent to the citation and before the permit was issued, Respondent did not operate any excessively laden vehicles on the bridge. Respondent admits that at the time the citation was issued, there was traffic operating both on the Turnpike and on Hood Road. Therefore, a potential danger to the public existed. Nonetheless, traffic was maintained on both roadways throughout the entire project without incident. None of the weight limits or a need to maintain weight standards was discussed at the pre-bid conference, however.
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 $1,240.00 against the Respondent. P.J. Constructors, Inc. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of July, 1992. Vernon L. Whittier, Jr., Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Foster McAllester Vice President and General Manager P.J. Constructors, Inc. 4100 S.W. 70th Court Miami, Florida 33155 Ben G.Watts Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Bldg. 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458 Thornton J. Williams General Counsel ]Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0458
Findings Of Fact Seago Group, Inc., the Applicant/Intervenor, owns a tract of land in Lee County Florida, which is completely surrounded by creeks and canals, including Indian Creek on the north. The Intervenor intends to develop the parcel and is seeking a permit from the Department to construct a bridge over Indian Creek to provide access. There is presently a cul-de-sac at the end of Indian Creek Drive on the north side of the creek. The bridge would extend Indian Creek Drive over the creek onto the applicant's property. The Intervenor held an option to purchase land for the right-of-way on the north side of the creek. The Petitioners own property adjacent to Indian Creek Drive. The Petitioner Helwig owns property upon which be resides, and which adjoins the proposed bridge site. The Petitioner Rowe owns property upon which he resides several lets up Indian Creek Drive from the proposed bridge site. The Intervenor originally made application to construct a road over Indian Creek at a different, but nearby location using a culvert rather than a bridge. The Department's staff appraised the application and recommended that it be denied because deposits of fill around the culverts would have eliminated productive submerged creek bottoms, interfered with the ability of the aquatic habitat to support fish and wildlife populations, and eliminated shoreline vegetation which serves to filter runoff which enters the creek, thus helping to preserve good water quality in the creek. The application was withdrawn by the Intervenor before final action was taken on the Department's staff recommendations. The Intervenor thereafter filed the instant application. The application was to construct: ... A 26 ft. wide by 50 ft. long vehicular bridge constructed with 21" prestressed slabs on pile bent abutments over Indian Creek in Lee County, Florida. The application further provided: All work will be conducted on upland with no need for any equipment or material required to be in the water. All equip- ment and material will be delivered by upland access. The application did not reflect that Intervenor had previously sought a permit for the culvert constructions, but the Department was clearly aware of the previous applications and its appraisal of the bridge application was treated as a supplement to the appraisal of the culvert application. In its Notice of Intent to Issue the Permit, the Department erroneously designated the bridge as a "two-span" bridge. The application is actually for a one-span bridge. In its notice the Department added the following specific conditions: Turbidity screens shall be used during construction. Drainage at bridges approaches shall be by swale and no ditches shall be constructed. Drainage shall meet county specifications. No dredging or filling in Indian Creek. No bridge construction shall take place until ownership or easement is obtained through Mr. David Ruch's property pursuant to letters on file with the Department. The Intervenor has acceded to the specific conditions and agreed to comply with them in the event the permit is ultimately issued. All of the pilings for the proposed bridge would be constructed at or above the mean high water line of Indian Creek. Some turbidity could be expected during construction, however, the use of turbidity screens would eliminate any significant impact upon the water quality, fish and other wildlife resources of Indian Creek during construction. The only potential source of pollution from the bridge after construction would be from runoff entering Indian Creek from the bridge. The amount of runoff that would result from a 50 ft. long by 26 ft. wide bridge is negligible. The limited impact that such runoff could have upon the creek can be eliminated by having drainage flow through a swale system. Since the Intervenor has agreed to utilize a swale system, it does not appear that the bridge would have any adverse impact upon the water quality of Indian Creek or any other water body. Neither does it appear that the bridge would adversely affect fish and wildlife resources. Since all bridge pilings would be constructed at or above the mean high water line, transitional zone vegetation can continue to flourish along the shoreline. The planned clearance between the creek elevation at mean high water and the bridge is seven feet. The bridge would thus impede traffic by any boats that protrude more than seven feet above the water line. This presents no significant navigational impact in Indian Creek. There are two avenues for navigating from the bridge site on Indian Creek to the Caloosahatchee River. One of these avenues is presently obstructed by a bridge with an elevation less than that proposed by the Intervenor. The other avenue is obstructed by a very shallow area that will not permit navigation by other than very small vessels. The Department in the past has denied applications to dredge that shallow area. The Intervenor and the Department have submitted Proposed Findings of Fact. To the extent that these proposed findings have not been included in the foregoing Findings of Fact, they are hereby adopted as fully as if set forth herein.
The Issue Whether the construction activities undertaken by Respondent at the home of George Scantland which lies seaward of the Sarasota County Coastal Construction Control Line constitute a violation of Section 161.053(12), Florida Statutes, and Rule 16B-33.004(4), Florida Administrative Code, and, if so, should an administrative fine be assessed against the Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made. George Scantland owns a single-family home on Casey Key in Sarasota County, Florida, which lies seaward of the Sarasota County Coastal Construction Control Line ("CCCL"). Scantland contracted with the Respondent to perform certain construction activities at his home. At the time Respondent entered into the contract, Garry Battaglia was President of the Respondent corporation. On February 13, 1990, the Respondent requested a consultation from the Department regarding the proposed construction activities at Scantland's home. The Respondent submitted a plan of the proposed construction along with the consultation request. At the time of the consultation request, Scantland's single-family home consisted of an on-grade slab on the ground floor level and an elevated second floor with a wooden cantilevered deck on the north and south sides of the property. The consultation request and plan indicate that the Respondent wished to construct a third-story addition including a cupola above the existing second floor, an elevator within the existing wall on the south side of the home, and an enclosure for stairs outside on the existing south side wall. On June 4, 1990, a Department engineer responded to the consultation request in a letter notifying the Respondent that the proposed third-story addition, the cupola and the elevator qualified for an exemption. However, construction of the stairwell enclosure did not qualify for an exemption pursuant to Section 161.053(12), Florida Statutes, because the enclosure modified the existing structure outside the limits of the existing foundation. And, pursuant to Rule 16B-33.004(4), Florida Administrative Code, a permit was required for the proposed stairwell enclosure because the enclosure constituted an addition to a major structure proposed above a preexisting concrete deck. On October 18, 1990, the Department's area inspector visited Scantland's home, prepared a site inspection report, and took photographs. The site inspection report indicates that Respondent was engaged in construction activities at Scantland's home and requested comment from the Department's staff as to whether the work was exempt or required a permit. The first photograph (Exhibit 2A) taken on October 18, 1990, by the area inspector indicates that the existing concrete deck on the ground floor of the north side of the house had been drilled and rebar had been inserted and that concrete blocks were being placed at the bottom of the drills and rebar locations. Another photo (Exhibit 2C) taken on October 18, 1990, by the area inspector depicts the southern wall of the house with temporary shorings supporting the remains of the second floor wooden deck located on top of the preexisting concrete deck. The photo shows that wooden posts in the concrete deck, which had supported the second floor elevated wooden deck, had been flush cut to the ground. After reviewing the site inspection report and photographs, the area engineer in Tallahassee asked the inspector to revisit the site to gather further information regarding Respondent's construction activities. The area inspector revisited the site on October 24, 1990, and prepared a Warning Notice and Violation Report which he hand-delivered to an employee of the Respondent on the job site. The area inspector also took additional photographs (Exhibits 5A-5C) during this visit. The Warning Notice was issued for the placement of drilled rebar and block columns atop an existing concrete slab and placement of a tie-beam system atop the block columns. The Warning Notice put the Respondent (owner's agent) on notice that a violation has possibly occurred and instructed the Respondent to stop construction pending a determination from the Department's Tallahassee office. The Violation Report, which begins the formal entry into the violation process, was issued to both Scantland and the Respondent for the construction of new perimeter block walls atop an existing ground floor concrete deck seaward of the CCCL without obtaining a permit from the Department. The area inspector's initial determination that Respondent's construction activities constituted a statutory violation was confirmed by the Department's engineering staff in Tallahassee. The photographs (Ex. 5A - 5C) taken by the area inspector on October 24, 1990 demonstrate that even after receipt of the Warning Notice, the Respondent continued construction at Scantland's home. The first photograph (Ex. 5A) taken from the north side of the house, shows that placement of the rebar and columns had been completed and a beam had been constructed across and underneath the existing wooden deck on the second floor. A second photograph (Ex. 5B) taken from the south side of the house, shows the new columns and new tie-beams constructed atop the preexisting concrete deck. On November 16, 1990, the area inspector conducted a follow-up inspection of the site, prepared a site inspection report, and took photographs (Ex. 7A -7B). The site inspection report confirms that Respondent was still engaged in construction activities at the site. The report indicates that the area inspector spoke with Garry Battaglia on the site and that Battaglia planned to continue construction until a stop work order was received. Battaglia advised the area inspector at this time that he was applying for a permit for the work. The first photograph (Ex. 7A) taken by the area inspector on November 16, 1990 is an exterior view of the south side of the house which shows that the wall atop the preexisting concrete deck on the southern addition was completed. The second photograph (Ex. 7B) shows the interior of the southern wall where construction of the second story was taking place over the new column wall and tie-beam system built atop the preexisting concrete deck. The Respondent received a copy of a Notice of Apparent Violation of Section 161.053(2), Florida Statutes, dated November 20, 1990, issued by the Department to Scantland for unauthorized construction/excavation seaward of the Sarasota County CCCL. The Notice advised the parties to stop construction activities pending compliance with the law. On December 10, 1990, the Department received an after-the-fact permit application, plan of construction, and survey of the property from the Respondent as agent for Scantland. The plan of construction accurately depicts the structure which is currently on the property, as modified by the Respondent. The completed construction is totally different from the construction activities described in Respondent's consultation request of February 13, 1990. The consultation request submitted to the Department by Respondent in February, 1990 did not indicate that any construction would occur on the north or west side of the structure above the preexisting concrete deck or that the elevator would be constructed on the southwest corner of the home outside the existing wall or that an enlarged garage/storage area would be constructed. All of the above were ultimately constructed by Respondent. The survey of the property, dated March 23, 1990, shows that there was preexisting concrete deck on the ground floor level and a wooden deck on the second floor and that the concrete deck was a separate entity from the strip footing supporting the preexisting structure and that there was no enclosed space above the preexisting concrete deck. On December 19, 1990 the area inspector returned to the site and took additional photographs (Ex. 10A - 10C) and filed a site inspection report. The Respondent continued to engage in construction on the house even after receipt of the Warning Notice and Notice of Apparent Violation. The construction on the south and west sides of the house were never completed, there was a new corridor wall between the elevator shaft and the interior wall of the house, a new column and some new slabs on the ground outside the preexisting foundation of the house. On January 2, 1991, in response to the after-the-fact permit application, plan and survey filed by the Respondent, the Department staff advised the Respondent by letter that the application was incomplete and told the Respondent to stop any further construction activities on the site that had been identified as requiring a Department permit. On January 10, 1991, the Department received from Respondent another plan of the existing structure entitled "Existing First Floor Drawing" drawn on October 25, 1990. The drawing indicates that there was open lattice on the south side of the house; and, the drawing refers to the concrete on the north and south sides of the home as "concrete walk". On January 17, 1991, the area inspector visited the site again, took additional photographs (Ex. 12A -12C) and filed a site inspection report. Again, it was evident that Respondent continued construction on the house despite receipt of the Department's notice of January 2, 1991 advising Respondent to cease any further construction activities. The Respondent received a Notice of Violation, Cease and Desist Order issued by the Department on January 17, 1991 for unauthorized construction seaward of the CCCL. On July 22, 1991, the Department issued Permit No. ST-807 ATF CF to the Respondent as agent for Scantland, authorizing the after-the-fact activities and the proposed minor structures with the condition that the violation would be addressed by the Department through a separate agency action. The generally-accepted definition of "foundation" states that a foundation is the support part of a structure and is restricted to the structural member that transmits the superstructure load to the earth. The strip footing, or wall footing, directly beneath Scantland's home transmits the load of the superstructure to the ground and thus constitutes the foundation of the preexisting structure. The footings on the north and south sides of the home underneath the concrete deck did not support the preexisting structure but rather only supported the preexisting second story wooden deck. As such, the footings below the concrete deck did not constitute part of the foundation of the preexisting structure. The construction at Scantland's home constitutes construction outside the foundation of the Scantland's home and additions to the Scantland's home above the preexisting concrete deck. Respondent knew, or should have known, that a construction permit was required for the construction activities at the Scantland home based on the Department's response to the consultation request. Respondent's continued construction activities at the Scantland home constitutes a violation of the statutes and rules and was intentional in that the Respondent continued the construction activities at the Scantland home despite the repeated notices and warnings by the Department to cease construction until the matter was resolved. The Respondent was agent for Scantland and responsible for obtaining all necessary permits. The construction activities conducted at the Scantland home by the Respondent does not come within the exemption provided for in Section 161.053(12), Florida Statutes, and Rule 16B-33.004(4), Florida Administrative Code, adopted in accordance with the Department's statutory authority. Therefore, the construction was a violation of the statute and Department rule in that Respondent failed to obtain a permit before beginning construction. And, such violation could subject the Respondent, as the owner's agent responsible for obtaining the permit, to a possible assessment of an administrative fine pursuant to Section 161.054, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, accordingly, RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a final order assessing an administrative fine in the amount of One Thousand Five Hundred and No/100 Dollars ($1,500.00) against Respondent. In making this recommendation, I am mindful of Respondent's repeated failure to comply with the repeated notices and warnings without any attempts to resolve the matter. Another basis for the fine is to ensure immediate and continuous compliance in the future as set forth in Section 161.054(4), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of October, 1992 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of October, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 92-2292 The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner in this case. Specific Rulings on Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner The following proposed findings of fact are adopted as modified in substance in the Recommended Order. The number(s) in parenthesis is the Finding of Fact which so adopts the preceding proposed finding(s) of fact: 1-9(1-9 respectively): 10(10-11); 11(12); 12(13); 13(13, 14); 14(15); 15(16); 16(17); 17(18-20); 18(21); 19(22); 20(23-24); 21(25); 22(26); 23(27); 24(28-29); 25 (30); 26-28(31); 29(32); 30(33); 31-33(34); 34(35); 35(36); 37(37); 38(38-39); 39(40); and 40-42(41-44). The Department's proposed finding of fact 36 is covered in the Preliminary Statement. The Respondent did not file any proposed findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: Lanette M. Price, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Garry Battaglia, Qualified Representative G & R builders of Distinction, Inc. 107 Corporation Way, Suite B Venice, Florida 34292 Virginia B. Wetherell Executive Director Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station #10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000 Kenneth Plante General Counsel 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard Mail Station #10 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent committed the allegations contained in the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties Petitioner Department of Health has regulatory jurisdiction over licensed dentists such as Respondent. In particular, Petitioner is authorized to file and prosecute an administrative complaint, as it has done in this instance, when a panel of the Board of Dentistry has found probable cause exists to suspect that the licensee has committed one or more disciplinable offenses. Respondent Pasquale Almerico, Jr., a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania School of Dental Medicine, has been licensed to practice dentistry in the State of Florida since 1984. Respondent's address of record is 704 North Alexander Street, Plant City, Florida. The Events On February 16, 2010, patient P.D., a 60-year-old female, presented to Respondent's dental office to discuss the replacement of a partial, removable denture that was causing discomfort. The partial denture, which another dentist installed some 15 years earlier to fill the gaps created by lost teeth in the lower-left portion of P.D.'s mouth——specifically, teeth numbers 18 and 19——was secured by a metal “C-clasp” attached to tooth number 20. Noticing immediately that the partial denture was ill fitting, Respondent recommended its replacement with a three- unit cantilever bridge at teeth numbers 19, 20, and 21. As explained during the final hearing, a cantilever is a type of fixed bridge that attaches to adjacent teeth on one end only. Thus, in this instance, abutment crowns on teeth numbers 20 and 21 would connect to a pontic (an artificial tooth) extending into the gap formerly occupied by tooth number 19. P.D. consented to the suggested treatment during the February 16 office visit, at which point Respondent removed the existing crown on tooth number 20, took a radiograph of the relevant area, and performed a thorough clinical examination of teeth numbers 20 and 21. Although Respondent observed some abrasion2/ on the distal surface of tooth number 20 where the C- clasp of the partial denture had been attached, the teeth otherwise appeared healthy——i.e., neither Respondent's direct visualization of the teeth nor his review of the radiograph suggested the presence of decay. At the conclusion of the February 16 visit, Respondent prepared teeth numbers 20 and 21 (a process that involves the use of a drill to remove enough enamel from the teeth so that the bridge will fit properly), took a final impression, and provided P.D. with a temporary bridge. P.D. returned to Respondent's office on March 3, 2010, at which time Respondent removed the temporary bridge and performed a “try-in” with the metal framework of the new bridge. During this process, Respondent directly visualized tooth number 20 and, as was the case during the previous visits, observed no signs of decay.3/ However, Respondent noticed that the metal framework would not seat correctly, which prompted him to take a new impression. Thereafter, on March 10, 2010, Respondent removed P.D.'s temporary bridge and conducted a try-in with the new metal framework——affording him a third opportunity to visualize tooth number 20. Once again, Respondent observed no indications of decay or any other issues. Of the opinion that the second impression had yielded a satisfactory framework, Respondent scheduled P.D. to return at a later date for the seating of her new bridge. Upon P.D.'s return on March 24, 2010, Respondent removed the temporary bridge and directly visualized tooth number 20 for a fourth time; no decay was observed. Respondent then proceeded to seat the cantilever bridge, which fit well and caused the patient no discomfort. At that point, it was anticipated that P.D. would follow up with Respondent in six months for routine cleaning and maintenance. As it happens, though, P.D. returned to Respondent's office a mere five days later, on March 29, 2010. During the visit, P.D. reported that her new bridge was “hurting” and that she was feeling “pressure constantly.” Notably, however, P.D. denied that the pain was of such intensity that it kept her awake at nighttime, which militated against a conclusion that the patient was suffering from an abscess.4/ In response to P.D.'s complaints, Respondent adjusted and flossed the bridge. That an adjustment was made so soon after the bridge's seating, although less than optimal, was by no means unusual; indeed, Petitioner's expert witness concedes that neither the timing of the March 29 visit nor P.D.'s report of pressure necessitated a clinical examination or the taking of an x-ray on that date.5/ Nine days later, on April 7, 2014, P.D. appeared at Respondent's office once again, this time with the complaint that she was biting her cheek. During the clinical examination that ensued, Respondent surmised that the cheek biting, if any, had been caused by a different, aging bridge located in the upper left of P.D.'s mouth (at teeth numbers 11 through 14).6/ Respondent did, however, notice that the new bridge was hitting high, which prompted him to make a minimal adjustment using a rubber wheel. Although Petitioner contends that Respondent should have taken an x-ray during the April 7 visit to rule out an abscess, the evidence demonstrates that P.D. exhibited none of the clinical symptoms sometimes attendant to such a condition. Save for her report of “cheek biting,” P.D. presented with no complaint of severe——or, for that matter, any——pain,7/ nor did she exhibit any discomfort during the adjustment. Moreover, P.D. did not react adversely when Respondent used the end of his examination mirror to perform percussion on the bridge. Finally, Respondent detected no inflammation below the gum line. Subsequently, on April 13, 2010, P.D. returned to Respondent's office and reported that the new bridge was “catching her lip.” P.D. complained of no other pain relating to the new bridge, and Respondent's clinical examination yielded no indications (e.g., thermal sensitivity or sensitivity to percussion) that the patient was suffering from an abscess.8/ Owing to the dearth of symptoms suggestive of endodontic involvement, Respondent determined that an x-ray was unnecessary. However, Respondent made a minimal adjustment to the new bridge and sent P.D. on her way, with the expectation that the patient would return in six months for a follow-up visit. Although P.D. would return a mere six days later, on April 19, 2010, her complaints at that time related only to the aging bridgework at teeth numbers 11 through 14 (seated years earlier by another dentist), which Respondent discovered was “hitting hard.” Significantly, P.D. raised no issues concerning her new bridge at teeth numbers 19 through 21, and Respondent's examination revealed, yet again, no signs of endodontic involvement.9/ As such, Respondent did nothing more than make a slight adjustment to the bridge at teeth numbers 11 through 14.10/ Soon thereafter, P.D. scheduled another appointment and returned to Respondent's office on April 27. On this occasion, as with the previous visit, P.D. voiced no complaints concerning her new bridge, and Respondent observed no signs of inflammation, cheek biting, or any problems. This time, however, P.D. accused Respondent of “breaking” the bridgework at teeth numbers 11 through 14 and suggested that he provide a replacement free of charge. Respondent was understandably dismayed by P.D.'s demand, for he had never caused any damage to the 11 through 14 bridge; moreover, the bridge in question, although in poor condition, was by no means “broken.” At that point, Respondent terminated his relationship with P.D. Expert Testimony As noted previously, Petitioner advances two unrelated theories in support of its charge that Respondent violated the minimum standard of care. First, Petitioner contends that, prior to the seating of the new bridge on March 24, 2010, Respondent failed to treat decay supposedly present on the distal surface (i.e., the part of the tooth that faces the back of the mouth) of tooth number 20. In light of Respondent's concession that the standard of care requires the removal of existing decay prior to the seating of a bridge, Petitioner's first theory boils down to a factual dispute over whether decay was present on tooth number 20 on March 24, 2010. In an attempt to establish the presence of decay, Petitioner adduced testimony from Dr. Solomon Brotman, an eminently qualified dentist with more than 30 years of practical experience. Although Dr. Brotman concedes that he never clinically examined P.D., he nevertheless maintains that the presence of “substantial” decay on tooth number 20 is demonstrated by x-rays in Respondent's possession when the bridge was seated.11/ Dr. Brotman further opines that the x-rays of tooth number 20 are not reasonably susceptible to any other interpretation (e.g., abrasion or erosion), and that Respondent may have missed the decay because it is “sometimes” tooth colored. Finally, Dr. Brotman asseverates that, in cases involving interproximal decay, it is appropriate to make a diagnosis based solely on an x-ray. Respondent counters with testimony from Dr. Robert Fish, an expert with an equally impressive background, who credibly asserts that the x-rays in question are not suggestive of decay but, rather, abrasion12/ that likely resulted from the ill-fitting “C-clasp” of the removable partial denture——an opinion that jibes with Respondent's persuasive testimony that he observed abrasion on the distal surface of tooth number 20. Dr. Fish further contends that, had decay been present, it is highly unlikely that Respondent would have missed it given the number of times he directly visualized tooth number 20 prior to the seating.13/ The short of it is that decay quite possibly existed on the distal surface of tooth number 20 at the time Respondent seated the bridge. However, Respondent's persuasive account of his clinical observations of the tooth, buttressed by the credible testimony of Dr. Fish, leaves the undersigned with substantial doubt on this point. As such, Petitioner has failed to sustain its burden of proof. The undersigned now turns to Petitioner's alternative theory, namely, that “continuing, localized dental pain” required Respondent to rule out the possibility of an abscess at the root of tooth number 20. In relevant part, the Amended Complaint alleges: Continuing, localized dental pain is a symptom of endodontic involvement. Minimum standards of diagnosis and treatment in the practice of dentistry require that when a patient complains of continued dental pain, a dentist take radiographic images of the symptomatic area to determine whether there is endodontic involvement. . . . Patient appointed with Respondent for relief of pain five times [after the bridge was seated] . . . . Respondent Dr. Almerico did not take radiographs of that area or otherwise rule out endodontic involvement during those visits. By failing to take radiographic images to determine possible endodontic involvement at bridge #19-21, Respondent failed to meet minimum standards of dental diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. (emphasis added). Fairly read, the Amended Complaint alleges the standard of care as follows: when a patient reports continuing, localized dental pain, a practitioner must take an x-ray of the symptomatic area or otherwise rule out endodontic involvement. As Respondent correctly argues, however, the testimony of Petitioner's expert departs substantially from the theory pleaded in the charging document. First, contrary to paragraph 27 of the Amended Complaint, which alleges a failure to take x- rays “or otherwise rule out” an abscess, Dr. Brotman's formulation of the standard of care absolutely requires the taking of an x-ray to eliminate the possibility of endodontic involvement. To muddy the waters further, Dr. Brotman's articulation of the prevailing standard at times focused not on P.D.'s supposed reports of continued pain but, rather, the fact that Respondent made more than one adjustment to the new bridge subsequent to its seating: A Sure. I think we fell below the minimum standards on 4/7, 4/13 and 4/19 of 2010, because each of those visits, because the patient came back with the bite having shifted, which for that reason Dr. Almerico continued to adjust the bite on each visit. * * * BY MR. PRICE: Q Doctor, you just gave an opinion that is the standard of care that a patient with more than one adjustment, they automatically get an X-ray. You just gave that as a standard-of-care opinion, didn't you? A Yes, sir. (emphasis added).14/ In light of the significant degree to which Dr. Brotman's testimony deviates from the theory charged in the Amended Complaint, it is concluded that Petitioner has failed to convincingly articulate the minimum standard of performance against which the undersigned, as fact-finder, can independently evaluate Respondent's conduct. Even assuming that Petitioner had established the standard of care (as pleaded), there is a dearth of credible evidence that P.D. presented with continuing, localized pain relating to the new bridge. As detailed previously, P.D.'s report on April 7 that she was “biting her cheek” involved the older bridge at teeth numbers 11 through 14; on her next visit, she complained only that her new bridge was “catching her lip”; on April 19, P.D. merely informed Respondent that the older bridge was “hitting hard”; and, on her final visit, P.D. complained of nothing at all (save for her dubious request for a free replacement of the older bridge).15/ Such hardly constitutes a pattern of ongoing, localized pain. In any event, the persuasive evidence demonstrates that Respondent “otherwise ruled out” endodontic involvement through his clinical observations. Indeed, as Dr. Fish persuasively explained during his testimony, P.D. presented with none of the symptoms16/ sometimes associated with the presence of an abscess——e.g., sensitivity to temperature, exquisite pain, sensitivity to percussion, a fistula, or inflammation——during the office visits of April 7, 13, 19, and 27, 2010, thereby obviating the need for an x-ray. Ultimate Factual Determinations It is determined, as a matter of ultimate fact, that Respondent is not guilty of violating section 466.028(1)(x).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Board of Dentistry dismissing Count I of the Amended Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of July, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S EDWARD T. BAUER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of July, 2014.
Findings Of Fact Both Hewitt Contracting Company, Inc., (Hewitt), and Vogel Brothers Building Company, (Vogel), submitted a bid on Florida Department of Transportation, (FDOT) project number 105003631, for the construction of a minor bridge in Hillsborough County, Florida. Both Hewitt and Vogel had been pre-qualified by FDOT to bid on its projects, The determination of pre-qualification was done for FDOT by Charles Goodman, a registered professional engineer. Pre-qualification is not done on a project by project basis but instead is determined on a particular work category in advance. Vogel was low bidder for the project in issue and Hewitt was second low bidder. Hewitt timely filed a notice of protest and formal protest based on its claim that Vogel was not properly pre-qualified for minor bridge construction. Vogel has no experience building bridges for FDOT or for any other state and the instant project was the first project for FDOT in which Vogel had bid as a prime contractor. However, the company has been in business in Wisconsin since the 1920's and has performed numerous construction projects at various locations throughout the country. Those that have required heavy pouring of concrete have been primarily parking garages, pedestrian walkways, and wastewater treatment plants. Within those types of categories, several construction techniques were used which are similar if not identical to those used in bridge building. Vogel has, however, no pile driving experience which would be used in this project. Vogel does not own all of the equipment that would be necessary to construct this project. Ownership is not required, however, so long as the applicant is willing and able to provide the equipment through other means such as lease or rental. Though Vogel has presented no evidence of specific rental agreements, it has the financial capacity to rent the required equipment and there is little doubt it could do so. By the same token, Vogel does not currently employ any personnel in Florida who have experience in the construction of bridges similar to the project under consideration nor does the company presently employ any professional engineers totally registered as such in Florida. It does, however, employ professional engineers registered elsewhere with experience that would be pertinent to this project and, as it has done in the past, would, if necessary, bring those personnel to Florida to assist in this project. During the time Mr. Goodman was performing as a qualification engineer, he reviewed all 900 contractors doing business with FDOT at least twice and some, three times. In performing the qualification review, he looked only at the applications of the various contractors and did not talk to any of the company representatives. By the same token, he did not discuss the applications with anyone in the department. The decision on approval was his alone. Mr. Goodman was aware of Vogel's prior experience and the fact that it had constructed several pedestrian overpasses and recognized that the company's experience with the classical type bridge such as is involved here is limited. However, he was satisfied that while Vogel does not own all of the equipment necessary for completion of this project, it does own enough equipment to complete part of the work and the remainder of the items on the FDOT equipment list which it does not own, it can procure from outside sources. He is also aware of the fact that Vogel does not have any experience driving piles of the size required for this project. It does, however; do mass pours of concrete and is involved in larger construction projects such as water and sewage treatment plants. Most of its experience is in the construction of commercial buildings in Wisconsin. In his analysis, Mr. Goodman used an evaluation sheet in conjunction with the table contained in Rule 14-22, F.A.C., to come up with an ability factor. This does not, however, have any substantial impact on approval. In the instant case, out of a possibility of 25 points, Vogel was awarded 0 points on bridge construction as it pertained to both completed and ongoing projects. In fact, Vogel was awarded points only in those experience areas not related to bridge projects. As to organization and management, it received 10 points in each out of a possible 15 points for each. These awards related to the company's skills in general. Since Mr. Goodman's consideration was based only on what was contained in the application, he does not know if any personnel have experience in constructing bridges as are called for in this project. His decision was based on his conclusion that Vogel had done similar work on other projects equivalent to the least of the qualifications for bridges, (pedestrian overpasses, parking garages, and water plants), which involved techniques similar to those used in construction of the least complex bridge. This information upon which Mr. Goodman relied came from Vogel's brochure and he is not personally aware of the projects or when and where they were constructed. The FDOT policy was to require an applicant to meet the equipment and experience even for minor bridges, and in this case, in Mr. Goodman's opinion, Vogel, which had built box culverts which are legally defined as a minor bridge at a low level, qualified. In making their analyses, FDOT evaluators are required to look at minimums, not optimums, and Vogel's experience, in the opinion of Mr. Goodman, satisfied the requirements at the lowest level. Even though this project involved procedures it had not previously done, Vogel's qualification was determined on the basis of general requirements and not on the basis of the specific requirements of this project which had not been identified at the time qualification was established. Mr. Goodman did not verify any of the statements made in Vogel's application with Vogel or any other individual, nor did he attempt to contact any reference or other party to inquire regarding Vogel's ability to construct the project. Mr. Goodman's decision to qualify Vogel was reviewed, prior to the hearing, by Mr. Kayser, the current qualification engineer for FDOT. He looked at Vogel's application and based on what he saw, (their ability to procure the required equipment; the types of projects they have completed in the past; and the intricate techniques involved therein), is of the opinion that Vogel is capable of completing this project successfully. If he were doing a qualification evaluation on Vogel today, he might require some verification of certain items, and request evaluations of the quality of the work they have done, but that would be all. The fact that most of the work Vogel has done is out of the state does not bother him, nor does the fact that the contractor is from out of state. Many of the successful contractors with whom FDOT has done business are in the same category. Had Vogel built only buildings, he might have had some concern. However, the diversity of their projects, including many where the work and techniques used are similar to that used in bridge construction, makes him comfortable with them, and he would not attempt to decertify or disqualify Vogel. In support of Petitioner's point of view, Mr. Andrew Clark, executive vice president of a general contracting firm specializing in heavy bridge construction, feels Vogel does not have the experience to construct bridges, major or minor. While it can pour concrete, it does not have the people qualified and necessary to do bridge work. There is more to building a bridge than pouring concrete and Vogel does not appear, to Mr. Clark, to have the experience or equipment sufficient to properly finish the concrete surface. For example, though it might be able to rent a screed, it does not have the people qualified to use it properly. It does not have the experience to drive piles and it does not have the equipment necessary to do that job nor do its proposed suppliers of rental equipment. Mr. Clark, however, is a competitor and was, in fact, a bidder on this project. In the event the award to Vogel is set aside and a re-bid authorized, Mr. Clark's company would be in a position to bid again. Mr. Clark also looked at the equipment listed in Vogel's brochure and determined that most of the equipment on that list is not used in construction of either major or minor bridges. By the same token, the projects listed on Vogel's experience list do not qualify it to do bridge work since they are not similar and the techniques utilized therein are not necessarily the same. Mr. Clark is of the opinion that the project in issue is not the typical minor bridge project. The design is somewhat different and requires the use of different techniques. He feels Vogel's experience would not prepare it to successfully accomplish the project. Though FDOT follows up its award by numerous inspections during the construction phase, in his opinion these inspections are inadequate since they generally relate to the materials being used by the contractor and not to the contractor's workmanship. Mr. Clark's opinions are supported by those of Mr. Barrett, president of another construction company which deals primarily in bridge construction. In Mr. Barrett's opinion, Vogel's experience in construction of water and sewage treatment plants and parking garages does not qualify it to build bridges since the company has no expertise in the techniques need for that type of construction. Petitioner has been qualified to do minor bridge construction since 1962 and has constructed approximately 75 minor bridges within this state. It's personnel include numerous people who have extensive experience in pouring bridge decks and driving bridge pilings. It has the needed equipment, including cranes, pile drivers, welding equipment, and screeds, and more important, the experienced people who know how to use it properly. Having reviewed Vogel's prior projects and equipment owned, Petitioner's owner, Mr. Hewitt, cannot see where Vogel is qualified by experience or equipment to do bridge construction. In his opinion, Vogel is a building contractor, not a bridge builder. He is satisfied that the skills developed in general contracting do not qualify an individual to do bridge work. These skills are different, and the level of subcontracting is different. In addition, construction standards and tolerances are much stricter in bridge projects than in other general contracting projects. Petitioner raises a legitimate question regarding Vogel's ability to do this particular job. However, it's evidence is in the form of testimony of individuals who, though individuals of long experience in their fields, were not offered as experts in the area. Further, all except one, have an interest in the outcome of this case. On the other hand, Vogel has been shown to be a competent and successful builder and there is no evidence to show that the pre- qualification process utilized by FDOT here was either inappropriate or improperly applied.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered awarding the contract on State Project No. 105003631 to Vogel Brothers Building Company. RECOMMENDED this 24th day of August, 1988, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of August, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2898BID The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER 1. & 2. Accepted and Incorporated herein 3. & 4. Accepted and Incorporated herein 5. - 8. Accepted and Incorporated herein Accepted except for the statement that letters from rental companies were not submitted & 11. Accepted and Incorporated herein 12. - 14. Accepted and Incorporated herein Accepted but not probative of any material fact & 17. Accepted but not probative of any material fact Accepted but incomplete Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence Rejected as a comment on the evidence and not a Findings of Fact Accepted but not probative of any material fact Rejected as irrelevant & 25. Rejected as contra to the weight of the evidence Accepted but not probative of any material fact FOR THE RESPONDENT AND INTERVENOR 1. & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein 3. & 4. Accepted and incorporated herein & 7. Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted & 11. Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted Accepted and incorporated herein Not established Accepted but not probative of any material fact Accepted and incorporated herein Accepted and incorporated herein COPIES FURNISHED: Crit Smith, Esquire 215 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Brant Hargrove, Esquire Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Ronald E. Cotterill, Esquire 1519 North Dale Mabry, S-100 Lutz, Florida 33544 Kaye N. Henderson, Secretary Department of Transportation Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450 Thomas H. Bateman, III General Counsel Department of Transportation 562 Haydon Burns Building 605 Suwannee Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent is guilty of incompetence in the practice of dentistry by failing to meet the minimum standards of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been a licensed dentist in the State of Florida continuously since May, 1974. He holds license number DN0006246. He began practicing orthodontics in 1974. On April 27, 1984, Lisette Estrella, who was 19 years old, made her initial visit to Respondent's office. She complained that the teeth in her upper arch pointed to the right and wanted them straightened. At the time, Ms. Estrella suffered from several dental and skeletal problems. First, she suffered from a transverse arch discrepancy. Her upper arch was constricted and asyrninetrical with greater constriction on the right-hand side. Moreover, the upper arch form was tapered and the lower arch form was ovoid. Second, she suffered from a Class 2 dental malocclusion. Her teeth did not interdigitate or meet as they should have. From one side to the other, her bite ranged from end-to-end through an area of correct overbite to an overjet with a crossbite in one specific area. Third, she was missing teeth #19 and 30, which are first molars in the lower arch. As a result, her lower arch was unstable and drifting. Fourth, she had an impacted #6 tooth, which is the upper right cuspid. This tooth was out of the occlusal plane and behind the upper arch with only the cuspal tip penetrating the roof of the mouth. Fifth, the midline of the upper arch had shifted to the right, largely as a result of the first problem described above. The proper dental treatment of Ms. Estrella would have been first to correct the most severe problem and create a proper upper arch form. It is customary to address such skeletal issues before addressing dental issues. The appropriate treatment for correcting the upper arch form would have been to install a palatal expander, which can be attached either to the bone as an orthopedic device or the teeth as an orthodontic device. Once the upper arch was expanded, the impacted upper right cuspid could be moved into proper alignment. The expansion of the arch and realignment of tooth #6 would greatly assist in creating a good form for the upper arch and would substantially correct the midline and occlusion problems. The appropriate treatment would have also addressed the lower arch problems by stabilizing the lower arch in which several teeth were severely tipped. Without proper occlusion between the upper and lower arches, the upper teeth would not remain straight because forces like chewing would cause constant movement. Respondent elected to treat the midline problem directly without addressing the underlying problems involving the transverse upper arch discrepancy or lower arch instability. Respondent made molds of Ms. Estrella's upper and lower arches during the April 27 visit. Following an interim office visit on May 4, Respondent extracted teeth ##6 and 13 on May 7, 1984. Respondent performed the extractions without first determining whether tooth #6 could have been moved back into place during the two-year treatment timeframe to which the patient had agreed. The possibility that the tooth was unmovable was remote. At the time of its removal, tooth #6, although impacted, was healthy, and the condition of the surrounding tissue did not justify removal of the tooth. At very minimum, Respondent should have determined whether the tooth could have been moved back into the occlusal plane prior to its removal. The removal of tooth #13 was also inappropriate. Respondent removed this tooth, which was healthy and normal, only to open up a space to permit correction of the midline problem. Under the circumstances, Respondent's treatment was inappropriate. The removal of a cuspid is a serious matter and rarely performed, especially without first trying to save the tooth. The cuspid, as a canine tooth, is the longest and strongest tooth in the arch. It is critical to establishing and maintaining the structure of the arch and anterior guidance in the arch. Involving the anterior or front teeth, the cuspid plays an important role in dental aesthetics. In the absence of the cuspid, the function of guidance must be assumed by the molars and premolars, whose roots and enamel are not designed for this purpose. By removing the two teeth from the upper arch and applying certain appliances, Respondent caused enough teeth in the upper arch to tip so as to move the midline about two millimeters and appear to straighten Ms. Estrella's upper teeth. However, the roots of the tipped teeth did not move at all. Respondent had in fact left a 10 millimeter discrepancy between the apex and crown of these teeth. Moving only the crowns or tips created an unstable condition that could deteriorate over time. The removal of teeth #6 and #13 deprived Ms. Estrella of an opportunity to achieve a permanent solution through realignment of the upper right cuspid, expansion and reshaping of the upper arch, and establishment of an improved occlusion. Treatment of these underlying dental and skeletal problems would have largely eliminated the midline problem, which was merely a cosmetic symptom of these more serious problems. In addition to making only superficial, impermanent changes in the midline, Respondent's treatment was deficient in exacerbating the transverse upper arch discrepancy, which was Ms. Estrella's most serious problem. By the end of Respondent's treatment, the upper arch was slightly more constricted than it had been before; the anterior upper arch was one millimeter narrower and the posterior upper arch was about the same. Petitioner proved that Respondent's treatment of the malocclusion was inappropriate and the removal of teeth #6 and #13 was unnecessary and harmful. Petitioner proved that, in the course of such treatment, Respondent failed to meet the minimum standards of performance in diagnosis and treatment when measured against generally prevailing peer performance. Petitioner did not prove that Respondent failed to install wires and spacers for two months during the course of his treatment of Ms. Estrella. Ms. Estrella missed all of her office visits from August 14, 1984, until January 21, 1985, when she came by the office and asked to resume treatment. After two no- shows and six visits, Ms. Estrella's last office visit with Respondent was on April 3, 1985. The long period during which she received no dental attention, the short time that she had been seeing Respondent again, the two no-shows during that short time, and Respondent's failure to record all activities in his medical charts preclude an assessment of whether Respondent failed to install the wires and spacers during the two-month period in question.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order reprimanding Respondent, imposing an administrative fine of $2000, and placing Respondent on probation for a period of one year, subject to such conditions as the Board of Dentistry may specify, including the requirement that Respondent complete a total of 60 hours of continuing education courses in excess of the continuing education required for renewal of licensure. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of June, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE 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 27th day of June, 1989. APPENDIX Treatment Accorded Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-5. Adopted or adopted in substance. 6. Rejected as recitation of testimony. 7-11. Adopted or adopted in substance. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as irrelevant except that fourth sentence is adopted. Rejected as recitation of testimony. Rejected as recitation of testimony and, In light of the inconclusiveness of the evidence as to the presence or absence of spacers and wires, irrelevance. Rejected as recitation of testimony except that second sentence is adopted. Rejected as recitation of testimony, although, as in other cases of rejection for this reason, portions of the testimony have been credited and resulted in a finding of fact. Rejected as recitation of testimony. 19-26.Adopted or adopted in substance. First sentence adopted. Second sentence rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Remainder rejected as recitation of evidence. Rejected as cumulative. 29-30.Adopted. 31. Rejected as subordinate. 32-34.Adopted or adopted in substance. 35-36.Rejected as subordinate and legal argument. Treatment Accorded Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1-3. Adopted or adopted in substance. Rejected to the extent that references to infection and function, including potential function in the proper treatment of Ms. Estrella, are against the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected to the extent that Respondent properly diagnosed the transverse arch discrepancy, that tooth #6 was infected, purposeless, and unmovable or likely unmovable, that tooth #13 should be removed due to the fact that it was in crossbite and creating a crowding condition in the upper arch, and that a three-piece bridge was indicated. 6-7. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as irrelevant. First sentence adopted. Remainder rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as unsupported by the evidence. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. 12 and 14. Adopted in substance. 13. Rejected as irrelevant in light of the inconclusiveness of the evidence as to the presence or absence of spacers and wires. 15-21. Rejected as recitation of the evidence and irrelevant. 22-23. Rejected as recitation of the evidence and irrelevant and, as to the last sentence in both paragraphs, against the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence except that the cosmetic improvement to the midline has been adopted. Rejected as recitation of the evidence and legal argument. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. Rejected as unsupported by the evidence. As noted above, the evidence is insufficient to support a finding either way on this issue. 28-31. Rejected as against the greater weight of the evidence. 32. First two sentences adopted. Remainder rejected as recitation of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Susan L. Branson Roberts & Reynolds, P.A. Comeau Building, Suite 308 319 Clematis Street Post Office Box 709 West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-0709 Joseph E. Neduchal Neduchal & Magee, P.A. 226 Hillcrest street Orlando, Florida 32801 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 William Buckhalt Executive Director Board of Dentistry 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues in these cases are whether the allegations of the administrative complaints are correct, and, if so, what penalty, if any, should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is charged with responsibility for regulation of the practice of engineering within the State of Florida. At all times material to these cases, the Respondent has been licensed by the State of Florida as a professional engineer holding license PE40904. At the hearing, the Petitioner presented the testimony of Joseph Berryman, P.E., a professional engineer licensed by the State of Florida. Mr. Berryman was accepted as an expert in structural engineering design, including aluminum structure design. Mr. Berryman's testimony regarding deficiencies in the Respondent's design of the projects referenced herein was clear and persuasive. In response, the Respondent testified that the referenced projects met applicable professional standards, including load and stress standards. The Respondent's primary engineering experience has apparently been in the realm of civil, not structural, engineering. According to Mr. Berryman, the Respondent's calculations included material errors, reflected structural elements other than those identified in the design documents, and revealed misunderstanding and misapplication of engineering precepts. The Respondent's testimony has been rejected. Mr. Berryman's testimony has been credited. DOAH Case No. 12-1635PL (Del Vecchio) On October 7, 2011, the Respondent signed, sealed, and dated a one-page structural engineering design document for construction of an aluminum screen swimming pool enclosure located at "3611 Throle" in Rockledge, Florida (the "Del Vecchio" project). The document failed to include elements and information required by the Florida Building Code (FBC) and by the Petitioner's rules. The document failed to identify the height of the mansard rise, failed to detail a proper end connection between diagonal roof bracing and the frame of the structure, failed to identify the size of the "K-bracing" elements included in the design, failed to indicate the size of the corner columns or to show a corner column section, and referenced a design element that had been superseded elsewhere in the document. Additionally, the frame spacing dimensions set forth on the document failed to conform to the width of the proposed structure. Because the material to be used in construction of the proposed structure was aluminum, the applicable design standard is set forth in Chapter 20 of the FBC and the Aluminum Design Manual (ADM). The standard requires that every element in the structure must be so proportioned as to resist the applied loading without exceeding the allowable stress for the construction material and without exceeding the allowable stress for each specific element of the structure's construction. Mr. Berryman reviewed the project proposed in the document for compliance with the standard set forth in the ADM and determined that the proposed structure (specifically the proposed roof beams, columns, and purlins) would not be sufficient to comply with applicable stress and load requirements. Mr. Berryman's analysis of the design proposed by the Respondent has been fully credited. The Respondent's preparation of the design document for the Del Vecchio project demonstrated a lack of due care in the practice of engineering and a lack of due regard for professional engineering standards. DOAH Case No. 12-1636PL (Nunez) On September 20, 2011, the Respondent signed, sealed, and dated a three-page structural engineering design document for construction of an aluminum screen swimming pool enclosure located at 4128 Southwest 102nd Lane Road, in Ocala, Florida (the "Nunez" project). The document failed to include elements and information required by the FBC and by the Petitioner's rules. The document failed to identify the height of the mansard rise and failed to detail a proper end connection between diagonal roof bracing and the frame of the structure. Because the material to be used in construction of the proposed structure was aluminum, the applicable design standard is set forth in Chapter 20 of the FBC and the ADM. The standard requires that every element in the structure must be so proportioned as to resist the applied loading without exceeding the allowable stress for the construction material and without exceeding the allowable stress for each specific element of the structure's construction. Mr. Berryman reviewed the project proposed in the document for compliance with the ADM and determined that the proposed structure (specifically the proposed roof beams, columns, purlins, cable bracing, anchor bolts, and gusset plates used in a roof beam splice) would not be sufficient to comply with applicable stress and load requirements. Mr. Berryman's analysis of the design proposed in the Respondent's document has been fully credited. The Respondent's preparation of the design document for the Nunez project demonstrated a lack of due care in the practice of engineering and a lack of due regard for professional engineering standards. DOAH Case No. 12-1637PL (Dunaway) On September 8, 2011, the Respondent signed, sealed, and dated a three-page structural engineering design document for construction of an aluminum screen swimming pool enclosure located at 8538 Southwest 135th Street, in Ocala, Florida (the "Dunaway" project). The document failed to include elements and information required by the FBC and by the Petitioner's rules. The document failed to identify the height of the gable rise, failed to detail a proper end connection between diagonal roof bracing and the frame of the structure, failed to indicate the size of the corner columns or to show a corner column section, and failed to identity the metal alloy of a clip used at a detailed shoulder connection. Because the material to be used in construction of the proposed structure was aluminum, the applicable design standard is set forth in Chapter 20 of the FBC and the ADM. The standard requires that every element in the structure must be so proportioned as to resist the applied loading without exceeding the allowable stress for the construction material and without exceeding the allowable stress for each specific element of the structure's construction. Mr. Berryman reviewed the project proposed by the Respondent's design document using the information set forth in the ADM and determined that the proposed structure (specifically the proposed roof beams, columns, and shoulder connection fasteners) would not be sufficient to comply with applicable stress and load requirements. Mr. Berryman's analysis of the design proposed in the Respondent's document has been fully credited. The Respondent's preparation of the design document for the Dunaway project demonstrated a lack of due care in the practice of engineering and a lack of due regard for professional engineering standards.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order reprimanding the Respondent, placing the Respondent on probation for a period of two years under terms and conditions deemed appropriate by the Petitioner, and imposing a fine of $6,000 against the Respondent. Additionally, the final order should prohibit the Respondent from the practice of structural engineering until the Respondent submits to the Petitioner proof of his successful completion of an appropriate examination to be designated by the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: John Jefferson Rimes, III, Esquire Florida Engineers Management Corp. 2639 North Monroe Street, Suite B-112 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Scott Guy Campbell Apartment 805 250 58th Street, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33710 Zana Raybon, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2639 North Monroe Street, Suite B-112 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5268 Michael Flury, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 J. Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Respondent's alleged violation of Section 466.24(3)(a), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Dr. Albert Leo Vollmer is registered as a dentist with the Florida State Board of Dentistry, license no. 1437, and practices dentistry at Satellite Beach, Florida (Testimony of Mullins). On July 19, 1973, Allen M. Dingman made application to the Veterans Administration for medical benefits consisting of dental treatment (Petitioner's Exhibit 3). Authorization was given by the Veterans Administration for the requested treatment and Mr. Dingman sought the services of the Respondent. Respondent submitted a treatment plan to the Veterans Administration which was approved. Respondent thereafter provided dental services to Mr. Dingman and, in October, 1973, billed the Veterans Administration for the completed treatment. On October 18, 1973, payment in the amount of $503.00 was approved and paid to the Respondent by the Veterans Administration. This included payment for providing a 3/4 crown on tooth 20 in the amount of $115.00, a full gold crown on tooth 19 for $110.00, and a gold pontic on tooth number 18 for $90.00 (Petitioner's Exhibit 4). In April, 1974, Mr. Dingman visited Dr. Robert B. Downey, D.D.S., concerning a bridge which Respondent had provided him to replace the second molar (tooth number 18), which bridge Dingman had subsequently lost. He asked Dr. Downey what the cost would be to remedy his problem and informed him that the Veterans Administration had paid for the other work. Dr. Downey thereupon contacted the Veterans Administration concerning the prior treatment (Testimony of Dingman, Downey). Approximately a year later, Mr. Dingman was examined by Dr. Fred C. Nichols, D.D.S., of the Veterans Administration, who found that Dingman did not have gold crowns on teeth number 19 and 20, nor a gold pontic to replace tooth number 18. Mr. Dingman showed Dr. Nichols a cast metal frame work which had once been intended as a unilateral mandibular partial denture to replace tooth number 18 (Testimony of Nichols; Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5). The Veterans Administration, by letter of May 19, 1975, advised the Respondent that he would be billed for $315.00 representing the work which had not been performed. Respondent advised the VA that Mr. Dingman had objected to crown preparations and that he had therefore prepared a cantilever bridge which had been too bulky and thereafter another bridge was made at his expense which was apparently acceptable. The Veterans Administration reasserted its claim for $315.00 and Respondent, by letter of July 14, 1975, sought a credit for the work which he had performed, and by a further letter of August 12, 1975 advised that, although all of his records concerning Mr. Dingman could not be found, he estimated the cost of his actual work to be $207.90, and sought credit therefor (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 6). Respondent testified that although his original plan was to provide fixed bridge work for Mr. Dingman, upon reflection and after noting that the patient was a hypersensitive person who objected to having the necessary preparatory work that would be required for crowns, he decided to attempt to preserve the natural teeth if possible and not to "abort" them. He further testified that although he had requested his office assistant to prepare an amended VA form for the patient to reflect his decision to do a different type of work, he did not follow-up to see if it was sent in to the Veterans Administration. He further maintained that his office assistant had done poor work, that he did not pay much attention to the paper work in the office and, although he usually reviewed applications for treatment such as Exhibit 4 by "implicit faith", he would usually "skip-read" these forms and sign them without completely checking the details thereon. He stated that his accounts were in a mess during this period and that this was the reason the dental laboratory records concerning Mr. Dingman were unavailable and why he had since hired accountants to do his bookkeeping work. His present assistant supported the fact that when she was first employed about a year and a half ago, Respondent's records were sloppy and that it was her custom to prepare various forms for the Respondent's signature. Mr. Dingman denied that he had ever told the Respondent that he was afraid to have his teeth cut into, or that he was hypersensitive in nature (Testimony of Vollmer, Mander, Person, Dingman) Dr. Daniel Beirne, a physician of Indian Harbor Beach, testified that he had common patients with the Respondent, and that the Respondent had an excellent reputation for truth and veracity in the community. Dr. Downey testified to the Respondent's bad reputation as a dentist, as did Dr. Carroll D. House, a member of the Brevard Dental Society Grievance Committee (Testimony of Burre, Downey, House). Respondent's license to practice dentistry was suspended in 1958 for a period of three months for an advertising violation with the proviso that the suspension was suspended for a period of one year upon certain conditions. His license was again suspended for a period of six months in 1960 for advertising violations (Petitioner's Exhibits 7 & 8)
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Background At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Ronald L. Hurt, was a licensed professional engineer having been issued license number PE 0032435 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers (Board). Respondent was first licensed as a professional engineer in Kentucky in 1965 and received his Florida license in 1982. When the events herein occurred, respondent was a shareholder in and served as president of Anchor Engineering Company (Anchor) in Naples, Florida. He also supervised the structural engineering portion of the firm's business. He has since terminated that relationship and is now affiliated with another engineering firm in the same city. In August 1989 the City of Cape Coral (the City) issued an invitation to various engineering firms, including Anchor, to submit proposals to investigate the structural integrity of a seven year old abandoned building owned by the City and located on St. Jock Boulevard. The City was considering whether to complete construction of the building and convert it into a community theater or to demolish the existing structure and build a new facility. At that time, the building was approximately 90% complete but without a roof and was between 6,000 and 8,000 square feet in size. Anchor was the successful "bidder" and respondent ultimately submitted a final written report to the City. Relying upon that report, the City decided to continue completion of the building. The project was successfully completed and is now known as the Cape Coral Community Theater. However, an engineer from another firm in Cape Coral obtained a copy of respondent's report, reviewed it, and based upon his belief that the report was deficient, filed a complaint against respondent with the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR). That prompted an investigation by DPR and the issuance of an administrative complaint charging respondent with negligence in the preparation of his report. The Scope of the Engagement The City's decision to seek a structural report came after another professional engineer, James A. Schivinski, had performed an inspection and prepared a "general physical condition report." The work was performed on an undisclosed date by Schivinski without charge and as a favor to the City. After making a field inspection, Schivinski recommended the City have a structural analysis of the building performed by a professional engineer. This was because he had observed "serious defects in the masonry wall construction of the building". Until a further assessment of the structural integrity of the building was made, Schwinski recommended that "work (should) not be continued." 1/ Schwinski's conclusions and recommendation are contained in a written report submitted to the City and received in evidence as petitioner's exhibit 2. Acting upon Schivinski's recommendation, on August 1, 1989, the City, through its contracts administrator, Al Melendez, telephonically solicited proposals from various engineering firms. Because the City desired to make a decision on the building as soon as possible, Melendez asked that each firm submit its proposal by the following day. Anchor did so and proposed to complete the work for $4,500. Other proposals included one by the engineering firm of Jenkins and Charland, which submitted a proposal in the amount of $14,000. Anchor's proposal was accepted by the city on August 2 and Anchor was told to complete a written report within two weeks from the date on which it was selected. The scope of the engagement was not reduced to writing by the City. However, according to Melendez, Anchor was to look at Schivinski's report, review a set of original drawings, and advise the City if it could "reasonably finish up the building." Anchor was not requested to perform testing to verify the strength of materials nor to furnish a final design report for the project. Further, the City did not expect Anchor to give them actual cost estimates for performing any required modifications. In its response to the invitation, Anchor agreed to (a) perform an on- site structural investigation of the existing structure ($1500), (b) review existing drawings of the structure ($1800), and (c) issue a written report based on the findings in the first two steps ($1200). The City agreed with this scope of services and Anchor proceeded in accordance with its proposal. As noted earlier, both the City and Anchor understood that no testing of materials (e. g., compression, prism and compaction tests) was to be performed by Anchor but instead would be done at a later time by a specialized testing firm if the City decided to continue with the project. The Preparation and Issuance of the Report Two Anchor professional engineers, Tony Boumitri and Paul Endres, promptly visited the building site on two occasions and made a visual inspection. In addition, respondent made two subsequent visits to the site to confirm his colleagues' conclusions. They also reviewed Schivinski's report and the original building plans for the structure. After a preliminary draft was prepared by Boumitri on August 11, 1989, respondent met with city officials for three hours to explain its content, answer questions and determine if further information was required. A final report entitled Structural Investigation Analysis and Report was then prepared by respondent, and another three-hour meeting with city officials was held to explain its content. On August 18, 1989, respondent signed and sealed the final report and delivered it to city officials. Thereafter, respondent met for several hours with the full city commission and gave an oral presentation concerning his report. The record raises an inference that a transcript of the commission meeting is available, and respondent's remarks and explanations given to the commission are available for review by any interested party. Among other things, respondent advised the City that his report was a preliminary report, that testing and confirmation of materials was still required at a later date, that the structure did not meet code requirements, but that with appropriate modifications the building could be used for its intended function. The Genesis of this Complaint On an undisclosed date after the report had been filed, a professional engineer, Jack T. Sauerland, who happened to work for the engineering firm which had submitted the unsuccessful $14,000 bid, requested a copy of respondent's report from the City. Ostensibly for the purpose of acting as a concerned citizen and taxpayer, Sauerland reviewed the preliminary and final reports, noted what he perceived to be various deficiencies in the final report, discussed those observations with certain city employees, and filed a complaint against respondent with DPR. That precipitated the filing of this action against respondent. Standards Governing Professional Engineers Both parties agree there are no written standards which set forth the specific matters that a professional engineer must put in an engineering report. According to the Board's expert, this is because a report can be used for a number of purposes and it would be difficult to write a rule that would fit all situations. However, the Board expert identified two broad standards, both set forth in Rule 21H-19.001(3)(a), Florida Administrative Code, that must be followed by a professional engineer when drafting a report. First, the engineer must use "due care" in preparing the report, and secondly, he must have "due regard for accepted engineering principles". According to the expert, these principles include such things as technology, mathematics, logic, and the clear and precise use of language. In other words, a report must proceed logically from evidence to assumption to analysis to conclusion and do so in clear and precise language. It is also inappropriate to omit information from the report even if the client is aware of the information being omitted. This is because persons using the report at a future time would not be privy to that omitted information and would be unable to evaluate its reliability. Thus, while an engineering report must satisfy the clients, it must also be complete enough to safeguard the public health, safety and welfare. The expert also opined that when an engineer's client is a governmental entity, such as a city, it is improper to supplement a written report by oral communications because (a) third parties relying on the written report at a future time would have no way of reviewing those oral comments and (b) the public records law dictates that such reports be reduced to writing. The Contents of the Report The report in question has been received in evidence as a part of petitioner's composite exhibit 6 and consists of ten pages including photographs. The written portion of the report is four and one-half pages. In addition, respondent submitted twelve pages of notes and calculations in conjunction with the report. The report is divided into six sections, including summary of findings, background information, field investigation, analysis, recommendations and conclusion. The scope of the report was described on page one as follows: Based on the data obtained, and based on the available drawings, Mr. Boumitri and Mr. Endres performed their structural analysis to deter- mine the adequacy of the structure, in its present condition, to serve its intended purposes. The intent of this investigation and report is to determine whether the existing structure can be safely completed to serve its intended purposes according to sound engineering and construction practices. Under the field investigation portion of the report, there are eight evidentiary findings. Because they (and other portions of the report) are in issue, they are repeated below: The foundation seems to have been con- structed according to the architectural plans, based on the test pits that have been excavated at three different locations of the building. Some of the pilaster columns have not been completed or may not have been constructed according to the architectural plans. Some of the pilasters on the north side as well as the south side of the building do not extend to the top of the tie beam. Using an "R" meter we have been able to determine the actual location of the existing bars. Some of the vertical reinforcement is mislocated and other vertical reinforcement is missing. Most of the horizontal joint rein- forcement was placed at approximately 4'-0" O.C. Numerous cracks were found in the walls and slabs. Other cracks or separations exist between the walls and the concrete masonry pilasters as shown on the north wall of the building. Most of the masonry units were constructed as running bond, yet some of the units were constructed as stack bond. Some features of less importance such as the interior stairs on the East end of the building are rotated 90 degrees from their original design as shown on the plans. Other walls and windows may have been added, de- leted or relocated and they no longer conform to the architectural plans. The workmanship in placing the masonry units varies from adequate to far below ade- quate level of today's standards. Most of the walls are in a wavy condition which may require a varying thickness of stucco finishes. Immediately after the foregoing findings, the report contains a section entitled "Analysis" consisting of six paragraphs, with the caveat that such analysis "takes into consideration the lack of inspection." They read as follows: The foundation seems adequate to carry the intended load in the interior locations around the stage and exterior locations as well. The number and location of the existing vertical reinforcement is not adequate enought to carry the intended lateral load and doesn't meet the minimum requirements of the 1979 edition or the 1985 /86 edition of the "Standard Building Code". The quantity and spacing of the existing horizontal joint reinforcement is adequate to meet the minimum area of steel reinforcement specified in the 1985/86 edition of the "Standard Building Code" for reinforced masonry. The height to thickness ratio of most of the masonry walls, interior and exterior, is above the recommended value in the 1979 or the 1985/86 edition of the "Standard Building Code." The beam over the stage area appears to be capable of carrying its intended load. This beam, due to the direction of the joists carries little of the roof load and is loaded nearly to its intended load presently. Little or no deflection is currently visable (sic). The steel joists appear to be capable of carrying their intended load based on data given by Tom Rayburr of Florida Aluminum. There are also five recommendations in the report which follow the analysis. They read as follows: A field survey be implemented to document the as built features of the building. Finish the construction of all pilasters as shown on the architectural plans. Provide a #5 bar in each pilaster, dowel the bottom end into the footing, dowel the top end into the tie beam, then fill with grout. Where the existing vertical reinforcement, whether in term of pilasters or filled cells, exceed the 5'-0" maximum spacing, provide a #5 hook bar at each roof joist location or at 5'-0" maximum spacing where no roof joist exits at exterior walls and at 13'-0" o.c. at interior walls. Weld the bar directly to the plate or to the bar of the tie beam. The other end of the #5 bars will extend to the bottom of the wall and will be drilled and epoxied into the foundation using epoxy non-shrink grout. Form and pour a minimum 8"x8" pilaster around it subject to Architectural approval. Where a pilaster is not feasible, provide a flat A36 steel bar (2"x1/4" minimum) instead of the #5 bar. The flat steel bar shall be hooked top and bottom to the tie beam and footing respectively. Alternatively, instead of the proposed pilasters, place 6x6 W2.XW2.9 W.W.F. flat sheets along both faces of the masonry walls. A minimum of 1" thick non-shrink grout shall be placed on each wall face. The welded wire fabric mesh shall be connected with metal ties thru the masonry wall at 32" intervals. Stucco finishes with standard metal lath shall be provided or as specified by the Architect. The ultimate conclusion of the report reads as follows: Although the building in its present condition does not meet the minimum code requirements, it can be reinforced in an efficient manner that would render it capable of serving its intended function. Criticisms of the Report It should be noted that the agency did not allege nor prove that the scope of investigation and review by respondent in preparing the report was improper or that the client was dissatisfied with his services. Also, the Board does not question the competency of respondent. Rather, the Board contends that respondent was negligent by failing to include greater detail and explanation in the written report. To support this charge the Board presented its consulting professional engineer, James O. Power, and the testimony of Sauerland, the complaining witness and also a professional engineer. Besides himself, respondent presented the testimony of two professional engineers, an architect, and the city engineer. The more credible and persuasive testimony is set forth below. It is true, as respondent points out, that in preparing his report, the agency's consulting engineer did not review the original building plans, make an on-site inspection or read the transcript of the city commission meeting when the report was formally presented to the commission. Thus, the expert was not privy to the many discussions between respondent and the City during the preparation of the report. However, Power considered none of these matters to be essential since his criticisms related only to the actual contents of the report itself. The DPR expert first found that "the scope of the investigation was never clearly defined" in the report. Although the witness did not specifically identify which portion of the report he considered to be deficient, it may be inferred that the witness was referring to the statement of intent (scope of report) recited in finding of fact 12 and the following language found in the first paragraph of the "Field Investigation" section of the report: Our field investigation has been performed for the purpose of establishing whether the structure is constructed according to plans and specification by Stout & Gerald, Inc. Architects of Cape Coral, Florida. According to Power, the report should have included a description of services to be provided by respondent to the client pursuant to their agreement. This would include such matters as whether or not (a) testing would be performed, (b) the structure would be evaluated for code compliance, (c) a design for corrective measures would be furnished, (d) a cost estimate for such modifications would be given, and (e) the investigation, evaluation and recommendations would be based on sound engineering principles. Although the parties clearly understood the scope of the investigation through several meetings and conversations, the written report itself did not adequately memorialize that agreement. 2/ Therefore, respondent is in technical violation of the engineering principle that he use due care in preparing the report. The expert also pointed out that respondent merely stated his assumptions without giving any justification for the same in the report or attached calculations. Those assumptions pertained to the foundation capacity, strength of the reinforcing steel, strength of the concrete, and strength of the concrete block masonry. While DPR's expert found most of the assumptions to be reasonable, the report itself does not state on what basis (e.g., testing, estimates, visual inspection, industry standards, experience, or other factors) the assumptions were made. Unless the logic underlying the assumptions is disclosed, a third party using the report would have no way to ascertain the reliability of the conclusions. While respondent may have orally explained the basis for his assumptions to city officials, and there was no uncertainty on the part of the client, a technical deviation from the due care principle occurred through this omission. Finally, the expert opined that the report contained no logical justification for the conclusions and recommendations. Put another way, the analysis proceeded illogically from the four assumptions in the report. For example, even though the report found a number of deficiencies in the masonry construction, including findings that the work did not adhere to the original drawings and that ratios did not meet building code requirements, the analysis concluded that the masonry work was done in accordance with "acceptable standards under engineering inspection." To this extent, the written report deviated from the engineering principles of logic and clear and precise language, and that it be prepared with due care. Based upon the deficiencies cited in this and the previous two findings, it is found that respondent was negligent in the practice of engineering in that he failed to use due care and to have due regard for acceptable standards of engineering principles. 3/ At hearing, respondent explained the scope of his investigation, gave the bases for the assumptions made in the report and recited the manner in which the conclusions and recommendations were drawn from the facts and assumptions. While these were valid and competent explanations, and had previously been orally given to the City, they were not fully incorporated into the written report. Testimony on behalf of respondent by the project architect established that, from an architect's as opposed to an engineer's perspective, he found the report satisfactory and "in keeping with the standards of other reports" given to him by engineers in the community. However, this testimony has not been accorded the weight given to the testimony of petitioner's consultant. Finally, the testimony of respondent's two engineering experts simply confirmed the fact that no specific written standards exist as to the content of engineering reports, and that in addition to the written report, it is a common practice for an engineer to supplement that report with oral advice to his client. Mitigation In mitigation, it must be noted that respondent's competence as a professional engineer is not in issue. Further, the City was completely satisfied with the report and encountered no problems during the subsequent completion of the building. Indeed, at hearing two city officials expressed satisfaction with respondent's work and the project architect found the report to be satisfactory. Moreover, there were no damages suffered by the client, and the public was not endangered by respondent's misfeasance. Respondent's only fault was in not reducing to writing the additional detail and explanation which he gave to city officials in face to face meetings. Finally, during respondent's twenty-five year career as a professional engineer, he has never been subjected to disciplinary action.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that respondent be found guilty of violating Subsection 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes (1989) and that he be given a private reprimand. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of April, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of April, 1991.
