Findings Of Fact On September 19, 1979, Lester Nelson, Hospital Consultant for the Petitioner, conducted a survey of Monticello Manor and discovered certain Class III deficiencies, one of which was roach infestation in the cabinets beneath the kitchen sink. Ms. Rhoades was present on that date and was aware of the deficiencies to be cited. The facility was notified by letter dated October 22, 1979, that the deficiencies cited were to be corrected by November 1, 1979. A revisit of the nursing home was made by Mr. Nelson on November 27, 1979, by which time all deficiencies had been corrected with the exception of the roach infestation. On that date, roaches were observed in three of the five cabinets inspected. At the time of the September 19 survey, Monticello Manor had in effect a Service Agreement with Truly Nolen for pest control services. In addition, a maintenance man was spraying the premises twice a week. On December 1, 1979, Respondent entered into a contract with a different exterminating company after cancelling its contract with Truly Nolen.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED THAT: The Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter its final order imposing a civil penalty in the amount of one hundred dollars against the Respondent. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of June, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Department of Administration Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of June, 1980. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold L. Braynon, Esquire District X Legal Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 91 West Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Ms. Carolyn Rhoades Administrator Monticello Manor 1701 North Federal Highway Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Steven W. Huss, Esquire Staff Attorney Central Operations Services Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. David H. Pingree, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether the Respondent, Terry John Conley, d/b/a Terry's for Men's/Women's Hair, should be disciplined for violating Section 477.029(1)(i), Florida Statutes (1985)?
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding the Respondent, Terry John Conley, was licensed to practice cosmetology and to operate a cosmetology salon in the State of Florida. Mr. Conley's license numbers are CL 0095556 and CE 0028208. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Mr. Conley was the owner of a cosmetology salon known as Terry's for Men's/Women's Hair (hereinafter referred to as "Terry's"). Terry's is located at 272 Palm Coast Parkway, Palm Coast, Florida 32026. On December 3, 1987, an employee of the Petitioner inspected Terry's. More than one of the drawers where employees of Terry's stored sanitized brushes and combs contained hair, coins, cards and medicine. Mr. Conley admitted that there may have been coins in the drawers and a little hair on brushes. Two additional alleged violations were cited as a result of the December 3, 1987, inspection. These alleged violations were corrected as of the date of the next inspection of Terry's by the Petitioner. On September 21, 1988, the same employee of the Petitioner that inspected Terry's on December 3, 1987, inspected Terry's again. During this inspection the inspector determined that the drawers where sanitized brushes and combs were stored were in a condition similar to their condition on December 3, 1987. Additionally, the following additional conditions were discovered during the September 21, 1988, inspection: Hair rollers, and the trays where hair rollers were kept, contained an excessive amount of hair and dirt; The Petitioner's sanitation rules were not displayed for public viewing in a conspicuous place; and More than one of the five sanitizer jars for combs were not filled sufficiently-to cover all of the teeth of the combs. Mr. Conley admitted that the jars are refilled "every day or two." The inspector also cited Terry's because one of the persons working at the shop had allegedly used clippers and scissors without sanitizing them. This alleged violation was not supported by the weight of the evidence. Mr. Conley has been operating Terry's for eleven years. The cited violations of December 3, 1987, and September 21, 1988, are the first violations cited against Mr. Conley or Terry's.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Terrance John Conley, d/b/a Terry's for Men's/Women's Hair be found to have violated Rules 21F-20.002 and 21F-20.004, Florida Administrative Code, in violation of Section 477.029(1)(i), Florida Statutes. It is further RECOMMENDED that Terrance John Conley, d/b/a Terry's for Men's/Women's Hair be required to pay an administrative fine of $150.00. DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 10th day of April, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Tunnicliff Senior Attorney Tobi C. Pam Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Terry John Conley d/b/a Terry's for Men's/Women's Hair 272 Palm Coast Parkway Palm Coast, Florida 32307 Myrtle Aase Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Kenneth Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Section 760.10, Florida Statutes, by denying Petitioner employment with Respondent because of her sex (female).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, a female and a member of a protected class, completed an application for employment with Respondent in or about February of 2002 for the position of Wastewater Operator "C." The particular position she applied for was a night shift position which runs from 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. In February of 2002, Respondent had an opening for a Class "C" Wastewater Operator's position. Prior to that time, this position had been open for approximately one year. Respondent's standard interview process for a wastewater position is that Charles McDonald ("McDonald"), the Wastewater Production Supervisor, reviews the applications to see if they have the minimum qualifications for the open position. If the applicant possesses the minimum requirements, McDonald will schedule an initial appointment with the applicant. At this initial appointment, McDonald reviews the duties of the position with the applicant and finds out some general background on the applicant. Once that is accomplished, McDonald will arrange for an interview with his superior, James Anselmo ("Anselmo"), the Division Chief over the water and wastewater treatment facilities of Respondent. Anselmo, in his capacity as a Division Chief, oversees the operations of the water and wastewater treatment facilities of Respondent, as well as all the personnel matters in those departments. Anselmo has served as a supervisor for Respondent for fourteen (14) years, and during that time has not had any grievances or complaints of discriminatory treatment filed against him. The Wastewater Operator "C" that Respondent was seeking to hire was to perform chemical analysis and perform general preventative maintenance work. This chemical analysis work on the water samples consists of performing "solids determination, chlorine residual and pH determination; perform [ing] sludge volume tests; measure dissolved oxygen levels; perform [ing] chlorine residual test; turbidity and telemetry monitoring." These chemical testing duties consist of more than gathering samples, but also include taking them to the lab, actually performing the tests and then reading and recording the results. These lab-testing duties are considered an essential function of this position. The job description for this position also states that an operator "performs general preventive maintenance work" on machines. Anselmo considered this requirement to include changing packing on pumps, changing oil, greasing motors and pumps, making adjustments on machines and fixing broken lines. He feels this requirement is important because it is necessary to have all of his wastewater employees cross-trained to perform multiple functions. Petitioner's application was initially forwarded to Anselmo, who reviewed it and was impressed with the fact that the applicant possessed an "A" license. As a result, he forwarded the application to McDonald to initiate the interview process. It made no difference to Anselmo whether the applicant was a male or a female. In or about March 2002, McDonald contacted Petitioner by telephone and arranged for her to come meet him for an initial interview. During this initial interview with McDonald, Petitioner indicated to him that she did not perform any maintenance duties at her previous employment with the City of Orlando. McDonald mistakenly understood Petitioner to say that she did not do any lab work at the City of Orlando, but rather it was done at the laboratory by others. After the initial interview with McDonald, he spoke with Anselmo and informed him that he had a lady that had put in for the Wastewater Operator "C" position, and suggested that he interview her. McDonald did not emphasize the fact that Petitioner was a female, but rather made his usual comment that it was either a lady or a guy that was coming in for the interview. Anselmo indicated that McDonald should bring her over immediately for the second interview. Petitioner then had an interview with Anselmo in his office later that same day. This interview began by Anselmo and Petitioner shaking hands. McDonald was present and handed Anselmo a copy of Petitioner's application. Prior to this meeting, Anselmo had not been in possession of a copy of Petitioner's application, other than his very brief initial review of it. Before getting into the substantive interview, Anselmo initially said to Petitioner "Carmen Christensen, that's a very unique name. I went to school with a friend, and his name was Carmen also." Anselmo intended this comment simply to be small talk, and to serve as an "ice breaker." Anselmo and McDonald both testified that Anselmo never stated to Petitioner: "I thought you were a man with the name Carmen." They also denied that Anselmo stated "I went to school with a twin by that name." Anselmo made no references to Petitioner's gender during the interview. This testimony is credible. After this initial "ice breaker," Anselmo then reviewed Petitioner's application and began asking her questions about it. As a result of not seeing the application prior to this, Anselmo got a few of the minor items on her application wrong. On her application, Petitioner indicated that her duties at the City of Orlando had required her to "grab samples." In reading this, Anselmo assumed that this meant that Petitioner simply gathered water and did not perform any laboratory tests on the sample. Thus, Anselmo was hoping that Petitioner would elaborate and demonstrate to him that she had actually performed laboratory testing on these samples. During the interview, Anselmo asked Christensen questions about her duties at the City of Orlando. Petitioner responded that she simply collected samples and carried them to the lab, and occasionally, ran a few tests. Petitioner did not share any specific types of tests that she had done while at the City of Orlando. Anselmo encouraged Petitioner to take the opportunity during the interview to elaborate on these duties, but she failed to do so. When he asked her whether she had performed specific tests, she respondent that she did not because laboratory employees had performed those tests at the City of Orlando. Petitioner also did not present Anselmo with any of the written certificates that she now claims she possesses. At no time during the interview did Petitioner give Anselmo sufficient reason to believe that she did more than gather water samples at her previous job and bring them to the lab. During the interview, Anselmo also asked Petitioner questions about her maintenance duties while at the City of Orlando. Petitioner responded that maintenance work at the City of Orlando was done by maintenance personnel and, thus, she had not done any such work. Finally during the interview, Anselmo asked Petitioner about the reasons for her termination by her previous employer, the City of Orlando. Petitioner informed Anselmo that she had been terminated from the City of Orlando based on allegations of "falsified records." The City considers allegations of falsification of records to be a serious violation. Anselmo was not able to verify the reasons for Christensen's termination from the City of Orlando because she had indicated on her application that they could not contact her previous employers. Based on this request by Petitioner, Anselmo made no independent efforts to verify the reason for her termination. At no time during the interview did Anselmo ever tell Petitioner that he did not want females working at the facility. In fact, Anselmo testified that he hires employees based simply on their qualifications, not their gender; although no other female operator is employed by Respondent. Other than the alleged comment about her name, Petitioner did not offer any other evidence that Anselmo had any problem with women working in the wastewater facility. Instead, Petitioner gave her "opinion" that she was not hired because she is a female. At the end of the interview, Anselmo informed Petitioner that Respondent was still accepting applications for the position. Following the interview, Anselmo and McDonald discussed Petitioner's qualifications as a candidate. They agreed that she appeared to be inexperienced based on her responses during the interview. In particular, they were concerned with her lack of maintenance and laboratory testing experience. Anselmo completed an Applicant Referral form on or about March 12, 2002, in which he indicated that Petitioner had been "rejected" for the position of Wastewater Operator "C." On that form, Anselmo indicated that Petitioner had been rejected for employment because she "said she had no lab experience or did not perform any maintenance. Performing lab tests and maintenance is crucial to this position." Anselmo testified that this form accurately sets forth the reasons on which he made the decision to reject Petitioner for employment. Subsequent to Petitioner's interview, McDonald and Anselmo had the opportunity to interview two additional candidates, Richard Neitling ("Neitling") and Richard Burns ("Burns"). Neitling set forth more laboratory testing experience than Petitioner in his interview and on his resume. He indicated during his interview with Anselmo that he had done the specific laboratory tests that Respondent does at its wastewater facility, including BOD's, suspended solids, mixed liquid suspended, sludge samples and TSS. He also indicated during his interview that he had maintenance experience, including tearing down pumps, changing filters and oiling and greasing machines. Based on these expressed qualifications and experience set forth in his application and presented during his interview, as well as the fact that he was a "C" Operator and that was the actual position being offered, Neitling was offered the position of Operator "C." It was later discovered, however, that Neitling had provided false information on his application, and, therefore, he was never actually hired for the position. Respondent then turned its attention to the application of Burns. On his application and resume, Burns indicated that he could perform "all aspects of treatment plant op's." In addition, he indicated that he had 15 years experience as a wastewater plant operator, and that he possessed a Level "A" operator's license, the same license possessed by Petitioner. After submitting his application for employment to Respondent, Burns received an interview from McDonald and the lead operator, Tad Blazer ("Blazer"). During this interview, Burns informed McDonald and Blazer that he had previously done laboratory testing including OUR's, BOD's, fecal's and others. They also asked Burns about his maintenance skills, and he informed them that he had received cross-training in maintenance, preventive maintenance and pulling of pumps while at Orange County. Approximately a week after this initial interview, Burns had an interview with Blazer, McDonald and Anselmo. In this second interview, Burns again shared his laboratory testing experience, his maintenance skills and his cross-training. In particular, Burns represented that he could do all of the laboratory testing that the position required, and that he had extensive background in equipment maintenance. Burns also indicated to Anselmo that he had 15 years of experience in all aspects of the treatment process, including lab work and maintenance duties. In addition, Burns informed them that he had spent two months at Orange County in a cross-training program that consisted of him performing strictly maintenance duties. During this interview, Burns also shared with Anselmo the reasons for his leaving Orange County. He informed Anselmo that he had been terminated by mutual agreement, but that the reasons for the termination involved a conflict with one supervisor, not actual performance problems. Following this interview, but prior to hiring him, Anselmo and McDonald visited Orange County's personnel department and reviewed Burns' file. In reviewing his file, they discovered that he had exceptional evaluations except for his last year, and that the only negative comments in his file involved failure to give proper notice prior to taking a vacation. There were no allegations of falsification of any records in Burns' file at Orange County. Based on his background and hands-on experience, Burns was eventually hired by Respondent for the Operator "C" position in May of 2002. At the time he was hired, Burns could perform all of the functions set forth on Respondent's job description for the position of an Operator "C." More importantly, he had conveyed to McDonald and Anselmo that he was capable of performing all of those duties. Respondent's wastewater facility is smaller than the facility that Petitioner worked at while with the City of Orlando. In fact, the City of Orlando's facility has a capacity of 25 million gallons of water a day, while Respondent's facility can handle only 750,000 gallons per day. In addition, the City of Orlando employs two or three times more employees that Respondent. William Hurley ("Hurley"), the Section Manager for the Orange County Wastewater Utility, testified that he has been employed in the wastewater industry for 28 years, and has worked at four different facilities during that time. In his experience, larger facilities often require different tasks from their operators than smaller facilities require of operators. Hurley also testified that he plays a role in the hiring of operators at Orange County. In this capacity, he would consider it a serious violation, and it would give him serious concern, if an applicant revealed to him during the interview process that there were allegations of her committing a falsification of records at her previous employer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order which DENIES the Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Carmen Christensen 5419 Shiloh Drive Adamsville, Alabama 35005 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Paul J. Scheck, Esquire Shutts & Bowen LLP 300 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1000 Post Office Box 4956 Orlando, Florida 32802-4956 Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Petitioner should receive a passing grade for the Florida Optometry Licensure Examination taken on July 23 through 25, 2004.
Findings Of Fact Dr. Cook is a licensed optometrist in the State of Michigan. She received her Doctor of Optometry degree in 1985, and became licensed in the same year. Dr. Cook has taken the Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin state licensure examinations and passed all three examinations on her first try. For 17 years, Dr. Cook practiced optometry at the University of Michigan Health Services. This was a comprehensive practice, including eye examinations with dilation, treatment of eye diseases, emergency care, and the monitoring and follow-up care of patients with glaucoma, cataracts, and other diseases. Except for providing care to family members, Dr. Cook has not practiced professionally, on a regular basis, since August 2001, when she moved to Florida. Dr. Cook is a Fellow of the American Academy of Optometry. She was accepted at the final hearing as an expert in optometry. Dr. Cook desires to become licensed in Florida to practice optometry. As part of the process to apply for licensure in Florida, Dr. Cook is required to retake parts one and two of the national board examinations and to pass the Florida examination for licensure. She retook the national board examinations and passed on the first try. In August 2003, she took the clinical portion of the Florida examination and failed. In July 2004, Dr. Cook retook the clinical portion of the Florida examination. A passing score on the clinical portion is 80. She scored 75.75 on the July 2004 examination, and, thus, failed the clinical portion. For the clinical examination, Dr. Cook was required to bring her own "patient" upon whom some of the examination's required procedures were required to be performed. Some of the procedures are performed on "patients" brought by other candidates taking the examination. The grading on each procedure in the clinical examination is done by two examiners who are licensed, practicing optometrists. A candidate will be graded by a different set of examiners for the morning and afternoon sessions. The examiners are chosen by the Board of Optometry and trained by the Department's Testing Services Unit and outside practitioner consultants prior to the administration of each examination. The examiners are provided with a set of Grading Standards for their use during the grading of the examination. The purpose of the training and standards is to make the grading process objective and to provide grading uniformity and consistency. The examiners are required to grade and mark their scores independently. They are not to compare or discuss their scoring with other examiners at any time. If both examiners' grades agree, the candidate is given either no credit or full credit, depending on whether the examiners considered the procedures were properly performed. If the examiners disagree on the grading, the candidate is given the average of the two grades actually awarded, which is the sum of the two grades divided by two. If an examiner considers that a procedure is properly performed, the examiner marks the grade sheet with a "Y," indicating a yes. Examiners are taught to give the candidates the benefit of the doubt in borderline cases. If an examiner feels that the performance was borderline, the examiner must indicate "borderline" in the comment section on the grade sheet and specify the reason. If an examiner determines that the candidate did not properly perform the procedure, the examiner marks the grade sheet with an "N," indicating a no. An examiner is required to specify the reason for a no grade in the comment section on the grading sheet. Some of the procedures are performed once for both examiners. Other procedures are performed in groups, meaning that the procedures are performed twice, once before each of the examiners. In grouped procedures, the first examiner will read the directions for a procedure, and the candidate will perform the procedure after the directions are given. The first examiner will read the directions for the next procedure, and the candidate will perform the procedure after the directions are read. This format continues until the grouped segment is completed. The same procedures will then be performed for the second examiner, following the same format used by the first examiner. No records are kept to indicate which examiner graded first or second during any part of the examination. The examination candidate has control over when each examiner grades the candidate. When the candidate is ready to be graded, the candidate is required to say, "Grade me now." Dr. Cook has challenged the grades that she received for the following procedures: confrontational field test; measurement of pupil size; rating patient's response to light; demonstrating the equator and posterior pole during the binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy examination; the anterior vitreous portion of the biomicroscopy examination of the anterior segment; the choroidal crescent, posterior vitreous detachment, A-V three crossings out find and reflex, and hypertensive changes portion of the biomicroscopy examination of the fundus; and measuring eye pressure using a Goldmann Tonometer. A confrontational field test is a gross neurological field test in which the candidate compares her visual field to the patient's to pick up gross neurological defects. The Candidate Information Booklet (CIB) states that the confrontational field test is to be performed as described in Clinical Opthalmology by J.D. Duane. In order to perform this test, the candidate sits in front of the patient about a meter away. The patient covers one eye and looks at the candidate's eye, nose, or other structure so that the patient's gaze is not moving around. The candidate puts her non-moving fingers in different quadrants to test the patient's ability to see the fingers. It is important to keep the fingers stationary while performing the test because moving fingers could be detected by the patient even in a blind field. In other words, a patient who is not able to see a stationary finger may be able to detect a finger that is moving because the motion contributes to the detection. Dr. Cook performed the confrontational field test for both examiners simultaneously. She received .75 points out of a possible 1.5 points for the confrontation field test. Examiner 202 gave Dr. Cook full credit for the examination. Examiner 239 gave Dr. Cook no credit and noted the following in the comment section: "Moving fingers--Init performed 'wiggling fingers' while moving target fingers." Examiner 239 also noted "Did very brief static CF test but fingers moving not stationary." Dr. Cook admitted that she did wiggle her fingers during part of the performance of the examination, claiming that she was testing the patient's peripheral vision, which was not part of the examination. The examination was to be performed within the central 30 degrees. The preponderance of the evidence does not establish that Dr. Cook tested the four quadrants with non-moving fingers. Dr. Cook's score of .75 points is correct. As part of the clinical examination, the candidates are required to measure the size of the patient's pupil. In order to measure the pupil, the candidate must not sit in front of the patient. Sitting in front of the patient creates a stimulus for accommodation, which is a phenomenon where the pupil size changes unless the patient can look and focus on a target at a distance. Dr. Cook measured the pupil size of her patient simultaneously for both examiners. Examiner 202 gave Dr. Cook full credit for her performance in measuring the pupil size, and Examiner 239 did not give Dr. Cook credit for her performance. Examiner 239 noted in the comment section, "candidate sat in front of pt." Dr. Cook received .5 points out of a possible one point for measuring the pupil size during the pupillary examination. Dr. Cook claims that she sat off to the side of the patient, lined up her right eye with the patient's right eye, and asked the patient to sight at a target at a distance. The examiners were off to the side when Dr. Cook performed the procedure. The preponderance of the evidence does not establish that Dr. Cook was in the correct position when she measured the patient's pupil size. Dr. Cook's score of .5 is correct. As part of the examination, candidates are required to rate the patient's pupillary response to light on a pupillary scale. The CIB states, "Pupillary examinations, muscle balance, and motility, should be done on both eyes (including dilated eye)." Examiner 202 gave Dr. Cook full credit for rating the pupil, but indicated that her performance was borderline. Examiner 202 stated in the comment section: "borderline - she was confused about 0 to 4+, but eventually got it." Examiner 239 gave Dr. Cook no credit for her performance, and stated in the comment section: "4+ but did not indicate eye, not used to using 0 to 4 scale." Dr. Cook received .5 points out of a possible one point for rating the pupil on a pupillary scale. She gave the same answer simultaneously to both examiners. When Dr. Cook was asked to rate the pupils of her patient, Dr. Cook was uncertain which scale to use, the Marcus Gunn scale or a true light reflex scale. She indicated that she gave a response for both scales and that one of the responses was 4+. Dr. Cook stated at the final hearing that the left pupil was fixed and dilated, but she did not indicate that she rated the left eye as "0." The preponderance of the evidence does not establish that Dr. Cook advised the examiners of her rating of the left pupil. The score of .5 was correct. The binocular indirect ophthalmoscope (BIO) is an instrument used to examine the fundus, which is the inside back part of the eye. The BIO sits on the candidate's head. There is a small mirror attached, through which another viewer may see the view being seen by the candidate. The candidate holds a condensing lens, which is like a magnifying glass, to evaluate structures in the eye. Examining the fundus with the BIO is a simple procedure, which Dr. Cook performed 14 to 16 times every clinical day for over 17 years. Dr. Cook wore contact lenses during the examination. With the use of contact lenses, Dr. Cook has perfect vision. Dr. Cook adjusted the instrument before the testing procedure started, including adjusting the angle of light and setting the illumination. As part of the examination on the use of the BIO, a candidate is to demonstrate the equator and the posterior pole. In these procedures, the candidate finds the view of the applicable area, one examiner looks through the mirror after the candidate says "Grade me now," and then steps back. The second examiner then looks at the mirror after the candidate again says "Grade me now." Examiner 239 did not give full credit to Dr. Cook in demonstrating the equator. For the portion of the performance which requires the candidate to demonstrate an equator landmark, Examiner 239 gave Dr. Cook a "no" and stated in the comment section: "No clear view through the mirror @ 'Grade me now.'" Examiner 239 also gave Dr. Cook a "no" for an acceptable view of an equator landmark and stated in the comment section: "Dim illumination." Examiner 202 gave Dr. Cook credit for these two performance areas. In the portion of the examination in which the candidate is to demonstrate the posterior pole, the candidate is told that the disc and macula should be seen simultaneously. Examiner 239 did not give Dr. Cook credit for the portion of the examination where the disc and macula are to be viewed simultaneously. Examiner 239 stated in the comment section: "very dim view vis'd ONH not macula." Examiner 202 gave Dr. Cook credit for this portion of the examination. Between the first and second examiners' viewings for the equator and the posterior pole, the patient did not move, Dr. Cook held the focused view still, there was no change in illumination or intensity, and Dr. Cook did not change her position. Thus, it is more likely than not that Examiner 239 was mistaken. Dr. Cook received 3.5 points out of a possible seven points for examining the views of the equator and posterior pole during the binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy examination. She should be credited with an additional 3.5 points. As part of the examination, the candidates were asked to perform an examination using a biomicroscope, which is a microscope combined with a light source that is used to view different structures on the outside and inside of the eye. It is also called a slit lamp. For purposes of the licensure examination, the biomicroscope has a teaching tube attached through the left ocular, and when the examiner looks through the tube she sees the same view the candidate sees through the left ocular. A portion of the examination using the biomicroscope includes grouped procedures. The last procedure on one of the grouped procedures was focusing on the anterior vitreous of the patient's eye. The vitreous is made up of hyaluronic acid and contains vitreal strands made of collagen. As a person ages, the vitreal strands will increase and become more visible. A young patient may have vitreal strands that would be so difficult to see that on viewing the strands the view would appear to be "optically empty." In other words, the vitreous would appear clear on examination. Dr. Cook's patient was a healthy premed student in his early twenties. The patient did not have visible vitreal strands. Before performing the group of procedures, which included the focus of the anterior vitreous, Dr. Cook adjusted the height and width of the light. She set for a direct focal illumination, meaning the light was focused where she was looking. The patient remained still between the procedures, and Dr. Cook did not change the illumination between each grading. Examiner 216 gave Dr. Cook no credit for her focus of the anterior vitreous, stating the illumination was "too dim" and the "vit not seen." Examiner 268 gave Dr. Cook full credit for that part of the examination. Dr. Cook received 1.25 points out of a possible 2.5 points for her performance related to the anterior vitreous portion of the biomicroscopy exam of the anterior segment. Based on the patient's having no visible vitreal strands; the patient not moving between the grading procedures, and Dr. Cook not changing the illumination between grading procedures, it is more likely than not that Examiner 216 was mistaken. Dr. Cook should be awarded 1.25 points for performance of the focus on anterior vitreous. Dr. Cook received 3.5 points out of a possible seven points for her performance related to the choroidal crescent, posterior vitreous detachment, A-V three crossing outs, find and reflex, and hypertensive changes portion of the biomicroscopy exam of the fundus. One of the grouped portions of the examination using the biomicroscope included demonstrating whether a choroidal crescent was present. Determining the presence of a choroidal crescent was the fourth procedure in this grouped segment. A choroidal crescent can be seen when the candidate is looking at the optic nerve and the retina does not come all the way up to the nerve. The choroidal crescent will appear at the edge of the optic nerve. Examiner 268 did not give Dr. Cook any credit for determining whether the choroidal crescent was present, and stated in the comment section, "Did not focus on the edges of the ONH [optic nerve head]." Examiner 216 gave Dr. Cook full credit for the procedure. Dr. Cook did not demonstrate by the greater weight of the evidence that she should be given additional credit for this procedure. Unlike the evidence presented concerning the anterior vitreous, she did not establish that there was no change in illumination, her position, or the patient's position between the grading of the grouped segments. In order to perform the grouped procedures in which she was tested on the presence of the choroidal crescent, Dr. Cook had to move the focus and illumination to different locations related to the optic nerve. The last procedure in the same grouped segment involving the choroidal crescent was demonstrating posterior vitreous separation. Vitreous gel is attached to the back of the eye in several places. When the attachment points for the vitreous are pulled away or become loose, a ring-like structure can be seen where the vitreous pulled loose. Dr. Cook was asked to demonstrate and indicate whether a vitreous separation was present after she performed the procedure involving the choroidal crescent. The proper procedure for checking for posterior vitreous attachment would be to set the proper illumination, focus on the optic nerve, and pull back slightly on the "joy stick." Examiner 268 did not give Dr. Cook any credit for the procedure involving a demonstration of a posterior vitreous separation, stating in the comment section, "Did not pull back." Examiner 216 gave Dr. Cook full credit for the procedure. Again, Dr. Cook failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that she should be given additional credit for this portion of the examination. There was no showing that all conditions remained the same when each examiner graded this grouped segment of procedures. Another grouped segment of the examination called for Dr. Cook to start at the optic disc and follow a temporal arcade for a distance of approximately three disc diameters and demonstrate an AV crossing. Dr. Cook was to then indicate whether there were any characteristic hypertensive changes at the crossing. A vascular arcade is a curved shape with blood vessels coming out and arcing toward one another. Most of the blood vessels in the eye are located in this area. Some diseases such as diabetes and hypertension cause changes where the blood vessels in the arcade cross. In order to perform the AV crossing procedure, a candidate has to coordinate the microscope, going up and down and side by side. Lining up is critical on this procedure. Adjustments have to occur separately, once for each examiner. Examiner 268 did not give credit to Dr. Cook for this portion of the examination, stating in the comment section, "No view in the tube." Examiner 216 gave Dr. Cook full credit for the procedure. Dr. Cook has failed to establish that she is entitled to additional points for this portion of the examination. The AV crossing procedure involves making adjustments for each of the examiners as part of the examination, Dr. Cook has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that all conditions remained the same for each examiner. As part of the examination, candidates are tested on the use of the Goldmann Tonometer, which is a device used to measure eye pressure. The grading on this portion is divided into four categories: illumination at the proper angle, mires alignment, thickness of alignment, and the pressure measurement. Examiner 268 gave Dr. Cook full credit for all categories. Examiner 216 did not give credit to Dr. Cook for having the correct mires alignment, and gave full credit for the remaining categories, indicating that the mires width and the reading of the pressure were borderline. In the comment section, Examiner 216 drew the alignment which he viewed. The mires were not aligned correctly. Dr. Cook received 1.24-1.50 points out of a possible 2.5-3.0 points for the use of the Goldmann Tonometer. Dr. Cook argues that because she was given credit for the pressure reading that it would be impossible for the mires alignment to be incorrect. The reading of the pressure is to test the candidate's ability to read the dial on the tonometer; it is not to determine whether the reading that is on the dial is the actual pressure of the patient. The grading standards require that the examiner put down the reading that he saw during the viewing if it is different from the reading that the candidate gives as a response. Thus, it is possible to be given credit for the pressure reading without having the mires aligned correctly. Dr. Cook has not demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that she should be given additional credit for this portion of the examination. None of the examiners testified at the final hearing. The Department did call Dr. Gary McDonald, who was accepted as an expert in optometry.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered awarding Dr. Cook an additional 4.75 points for the clinical portion of the optometry licensure examination given on July 23 through 25, 2004, resulting in a passing grade of 80.25. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Edwin A. Bayó, Esquire Gray Robinson 301 South Bronough Street, Suite 600 Post Office Box 11189 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-3189 Allen R. Roman, Esquire Department of Health Office of General Counsel 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Joe Baker, Jr., Executive Director Board of Optometry Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C07 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 R. S. Power, Agency Clerk Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701
Findings Of Fact Petitioner sat for the Civil/Sanitary Engineer Examination on April 15, 1988. He received a failing grade with an original score of 41 raw points. Since that time, he has been awarded an additional 3 raw points and has a score of 44 raw points. A passing grade is 48 raw points and is, therefore, 4 raw points from passage. Petitioner contests the score given him on three of the problems on the examination. They are problems 120, 122, and 421. He did not have the test booklet he used at the examination available to him at the hearing. Though he recognizes that the grader who assessed his scores was not allowed to look at his test booklet during the scoring process, many of his calculations for problems 120 and 122 were made in it. Problem 120 requires the examinee to compute 6 stations and the coordinates of the 6 points of the two involved curves on a railroad spur line. Petitioner computed the six points to what he considers an acceptable tolerance and had also started to compute the coordinates as required by Requirement (b). His solution page for Requirement (a) of this problem reflects only the six points, of which 5 are marked incorrectly, and bears the grader comment, "show computations." The second page, relating to Requirement (b), on which the first 3 calculations are marked as incorrect, reflects only cursory calculations and bears the grader comment, "Incomplete." Petitioner was awarded a score of "4" for his solution to problem 120. According to the National Council of Engineering Examiners Standard Scoring Plan Outline, the guideline relating to "4", "BORDERLINE UNQUALIFIED", reads: Applicant has failed to demonstrate adequate knowledge in one or more categories. For example, approach may be correct but the solution is unreasonable. Significant constraints may have been overlooked. Solution is unacceptable but marginally so. The scorer's remarks concerning Petitioner's solution state: A solution which fails to demonstrate an adequate understanding of horizontal curve geometry as a result of logic errors, math errors, and failure to complete several parts. According to Petitioner, he used the Civil Engineering Reference Manual in his calculations. He also contends that Requirement (a) is far more important to the problem than is Requirement (b). Once the former is achieved, it is easy to achieve the latter. Admittedly, Petitioner did not complete Requirement (b) and, therefore, does not expect credit for it. However, he contends that having completed Requirement (a) correctly, he should have been awarded more than 40% credit. Petitioner also contends that the use of the term, "Not To Scale" in the test problem was deliberately deceptive which was not necessary to test engineers at this level of achievement. In this case, Petitioner contends the lack of availability of the examination test booklet in which he did many of his calculations hinders him in demonstrating the correctness of his solution. These computations, he contends, would show his computations in Requirement (a) were "close enough" to be graded correctly and without these computations, the scorer would not know if he did them or merely copied the answers. He would not, also, have any way of knowing if Petitioner has knowledge of horizontal curve geometry. Mr. Lippert, a licensed registered engineer testifying on behalf of Petitioner, believed that the answers to the problems to be more important than the computations. In a practical application he may be correct. However, in the instant case Petitioner is a candidate for certification as a Professional Engineer and was being examined on his qualifications for that status. In such a situation, it is not at all unreasonable to expect the candidate to demonstrate his method of arriving at his solution to demonstrate his understanding of the concept sufficiently to indicate his answer was neither copied nor a fluke. Since the candidate is seeking a higher degree of recognition, a requirement that he demonstrate a higher degree of professional skill is not unreasonable. Under the fact situation demonstrated here, the award of a "4" as a grade for Petitioner's solution to this problem is appropriate. In Problem 122, the candidate was required to use and show equations for his calculations of (a), the average maximum and minimum sanitary wastewater flows expected, in gallons per day, for the total complex in issue; (b), the theoretical full flow capacity and velocity with no surcharge; and (c), depth and velocity of flow for the estimated maximum flow rate. The candidate was instructed to conclude, if possible, that the sewer is not overloaded. The problem deals with a troublesome wastewater disposal system for a retirement community of 490 units with a population of 1,475. Here, Petitioner was awarded an a score of "8" and feels he should have received more. As to (a), Petitioner cited in his answer the reference manual he was using, a manual used by many engineers and one accepted in the profession, yet the grader apparently felt that the use of only the title was insufficient. He wanted the author's name, publisher, date of publication, and other salient information. Petitioner felt this was unnecessary in light of the well known status of the book. In (b), the problem calls for 10" UCP pipe. All pipe, depending upon the material from which constructed, has a different diameter. Petitioner's solution was marked at least partially incorrect because he assumed the interior diameter of the pipe as .83' when the problem stated the interior diameter was 10". Petitioner contends that even with that unnecessary calculation based on an incorrect assumption, his solution of 2.295 feet/second velocity was sufficiently close to the grader's solution of 2.35 feet/second to be marked correct. Similarly, Petitioner contends his velocity in (c) was within a "tolerable" margin and that his conclusions is "OK". While the grader considered his method in this section as "OK", he marked the calculation almost entirely wrong. This may be related to the formula used by Petitioner in (b) which, he admits, is wrong. He contends he must have brought the wrong number over from his calculations which he accomplished in his test booklet. This booklet is not now available, but, in any case, would not have been seen by the scorer. Petitioner also claims that the gallons per capita per day figure of 100 is the standard "everyone uses" to calculate problems involving sewage. Here, because he was taking an examination, he used a figure of 112.5 gallons per day, a compromise between 100 and 125, which he took from the reference manual without citing page number from which taken. Consequently, he contends the grader's comment that his figure is too high is in error but even if it was too high, he ran the calculations correctly and should be given full credit. It is his position that in a case like this, error on this high side, which would give greater capacity, is better than being short. Being correct would be even better, and Petitioner's solutions was not correct. In the scoring plan outline for this problem, an "8" is described as: QUALIFIED; All categories satisfied, errors attributable to misread tables or calculating devices. Errors would be corrected by routine checking, Results reasonable though not correct. and a "9" is described as: QUALIFIED: All categories satisfied, correct solutions but excessively conservative in choice of working values; or presentation lacking in completeness of equations, diagrams, orderly steps in solution, etc. The scorer's comments were: CQ. Fundamentals are correct. Solutions are basically correct and complete but contain math, unit, or tolerance errors making answers unacceptable; or the record is different, or in combination. Here, Petitioner contends that his ultimate solution, only .05 feet/second off in velocity is so close that the error is insignificant. It is close but the difference between an "8" and a "9" lies in the correctness of the ultimate solutions. "Close" is not "correct" and Petitioner's errors are not attributable to misread equations or devices but to his own improper assumptions. Because his calculations were done in a test booklet which is not now available it cannot be determined where the error originates which caused (c) to be marked as it was. Under the circumstances shown here, the score of "8" awarded is not inappropriate. Problem 421 calls for the candidate to find the required volume in cubic feet of on site storage so that post development flows on the parcel of land in question do not exceed the pre-development flows to the existing stream for the 25 year frequency rainfall. Petitioner determined the pre and post development numbers correctly but did the retention area in the old fashioned way resulting in his solution equating to 1/2 of the correct solution. The grader indicated that Petitioner's "procedures [sic] [were] in error here." Petitioner has a one page solution to the problem and got credit for his answer of "4.22" to the first stage of the problem as well as his answer to the second part. He admits, however, that his third step was wrong and that threw the problem answer off. He contends, however, that he was undergraded when awarded a "4" and while he admits to not deserving a "6", feels he should have received a "5". Grades for this problem were awarded on a 2-4-6-8-10 point scale. A "5" was not an authorized score. The scoring plan for this problem describes a "4" as: BORDERLINE UNQUALIFIED; Applicant has failed to demonstrate adequate knowledge in one or more categories. For example, approach may be correct but the solution is unreasonable. Significant constraints may have been overlooked. Solution is unacceptable but marginally so. A grade of "6" is described as: MINIMALLY QUALIFIED: All categories satisfied at a minimally adequate level. Here the scorer indicated: Pre and post calculation OK. An attempt at detention calculation made but no significant progress toward conclusion. Fails to demonstrate knowledge necessary to calculate detention as existing. Detention calculations fail to demonstrate knowledge of hydrograph [sic] nature of storage calculations. Only one data point obtained. The comments of the grader on the Petitioner's answer sheet clearly indicate that the answer given was incorrect and that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate adequate knowledge of the procedures in issue. Since there is no provision made to award any grade between "4" and "6", and since Petitioner's answer clearly, and by his own admission, does not qualify for a "6", the awarded score of "4" is appropriate. Based on the above, it is found that Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the scores given him on the problems in issue were incorrect, unsupported, or inappropriate.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered affirming the score awarded to Petitioner on questions 120, 122, and 421, respectively, of the Civil/Sanitary Engineer Examination administered to him on April 15, 1988. RECOMMENDED this 4th day of April, 1989 at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of April, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Leonard A. Smally Longboat Key, Incorporated 501 Bay Isles Road Longboat Key, Florida 33548 H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Allen R. Smith, Jr. Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether Petitioner should receive a passing score on the retake of the Minimum Standards Certification Examination for a firefighter, and whether Petitioner should be required to retake the Minimum Standards Certification Examination for a firefighter without repeating the Minimum Standards Course.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Tamara Lynn Rose (Rose), applied for certification as a firefighter on January 21, 1997. She completed a training course at the Broward Fire Academy. Rose took the initial Minimum Standards Examination for Firefighters in August 1997. She passed the written part of the examination, but failed the practical portion. On October 13, 1997, she retook the practical portion of the examination. The only portion of the examination results which Rose contests is the score received for the 1 3/4" Hose and Nozzle Operation of Part I of the examination. The hose and nozzle operation is a timed event. The hose advance exercise should be completed within two minutes. If the applicant takes over five minutes to finish the operation, 40 points are deducted from the applicant's score. In order to pass the practical examination, the applicant must score 70 percent or better on the examination. Rose took five minutes and thirty-six seconds to complete the hose and nozzle operation portion of the examination, resulting in a forty-point deduction and an automatic failure of the examination. The hose and nozzle portion of the examination consists of the applicant shouldering the hose load, advancing to the rear of the fire truck, making a u-turn and looping the hose, advancing to the front of the fire truck, bleeding the lines, advancing 100 feet, and knocking down three cones with the water coming from the nozzle. Rose had difficulty in getting the load out of the bed of the truck. The hose became tangled, and she had to stop and straighten out the hose. She walked to the front of the truck and began her hose drag, but the drag was slow and hard because the hose had caught on one of the truck's tires. She pulled the hose free. Because of the tangling of the hose and the hose catching on the tire, Rose lost too much time to be able to complete the hose and nozzle operation in a timely manner. The hose is loaded on the truck by students who are taking the examination. The loading is supervised by instructors who are certified firefighters. It is the responsibility of these instructors to correct any improper loading. The field representative from the State Fire Marshall's Office at the retest was Phillip Bagley. After retiring with 24 years with the Tampa Fire Department, Mr. Bagley began working for the State Fire Marshall in 1996. He has administered between 900 and 1,000 tests. He did not see any problem with the way that the hose was loaded on the truck. In his experience it is not uncommon for the hoses to become tangled, usually resulting from a failure of the applicant to get enough of the hose on the his shoulder causing the load to pull loose when the applicant steps down from the truck. The applicants are given an opportunity to inspect the hoses prior to beginning the examination. Prior to the examination being administered, the applicants are given an orientation and are advised that they should report immediately to the examiners any malfunction. At the time of the examination, Rose did not report to Mr. Bagley that the hose was improperly loaded. Rose also received a five-point deduction because she failed to form a loop during the hose advance portion of the examination. Rose is not contesting the five points that were deducted for failing to tie the safety knot during the 24-foot ladder extension portion of the examination or the five points that were deducted for not having her chin strap under her chin during the donning of the protective gear portion of the examination. Her total score for the retest was 50.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Rose's application for certification as a firefighter and requiring her to repeat the Minimum Standards Course prior to retaking the Minimum Standards Certification Examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of August, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Y. Sumner General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Karuna P. Rao, Esquire Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 33314 Tamara Lynn Rose, pro se 4051 Southwest 72 Terrace Davie, Florida 33314
Findings Of Fact On March 6, 1991, Mr. Leonard Baldwin, an inspector for the Department of Professional Regulation, inspected the salon known as Wonderful Hairweaving #2, located at 1439 Northeast 4th Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304. At the time he entered, the owner of the establishment, Kettly Guilbaud, was not present. Mr. Baldwin found two persons working at the salon; one person, a lady who identified herself as Rachel Guillaume, was placing chemicals on the hair of a patron as part of giving a permanent to the patron. The gentleman, who identified himself as St. Armond Iout, was cutting the hair of another patron. Both acknowledged that they had no license from the Department of Professional Regulation to perform cosmetology. Ms. Rachel Guillaume stated that she had only been at the salon for two days and was just there to help out a friend. It is not clear whether this was meant to mean that she was helping Ms. Guilbaud, the owner of the shop, or the person whose hair was being permed. It is more likely that she meant that she was helping Ms. Guilbaud. See Finding 6, below. Mr. Baldwin was not able determine how long Mr. Iout had been working there because of Mr. Iout's great difficulty with English. A customer translated for Mr. Iout, who told Mr. Baldwin through the customer that although he was cutting a man's hair, he did not work there. This is not believable. Mr. Baldwin also found sanitation violations at the salon, in that the implements available for use had not been sanitized, and they were kept in a drawer which was not clean. The sanitation rules were not displayed at the shop. Ms. Guilbaud testified that Rachel Guillaume was there only to answer the telephone and to make appointments for customers who would either call or come to the shop. Ms. Guilbaud was away at another location which she was preparing to open as an additional salon. She also testified that St. Armond Iout was there because the electrical inspector from the City of Fort Lauderdale was to come to the salon to look at some electrical wiring and that Mr. Iout was there only to meet the inspector. In view of Mr. Iout's very limited fluency in English this is unlikely, for he could have been no assistance to the electrical inspector. Rachel Guillaume could have admitted the inspector to the shop. I find the testimony of Mr. Baldwin persuasive, that both Ms. Guillaume and Mr. Iout were either perming or cutting hair. Neither were at the salon for the limited purposes described by Ms. Guilbaud. I accept Ms. Guilbaud's testimony that both Ms. Guillaume and Mr. Iout are not fluent in English, but Mr. Baldwin has not been confused by difficulties in understanding either Ms. Guillaume or Mr. Iout. What is significant is what Mr. Baldwin observed, not what Ms. Guillaume or Mr. Iout tried to explain to him.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED, based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, that a final order be entered by the Board of Cosmetology finding Kettly Guilbaud, doing business as Wonderful Hairweaving #2, to be guilty of the acts alleged in Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint, and that a fine of $600 be imposed. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 19th day of June 1992. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 19th day of June 1992. Copies furnished: Roberta Fenner, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kettly Guilbaud, pro se 1439 Northeast 4th Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33304 Ms. Kaye Howerton Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
