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
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Department should give the Petitioner a passing grade on the October, 1993, Principles and Practices of Civil/Sanitary Engineering Examination.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Jane A. Caldera, took the October, 1993, Principles and Practices of Civil/Sanitary Engineering Examination and received a failing grade. Her grade was 67.20; passing was 70. In terms of raw scores, 48 was passing, and the Petitioner scored 45 points. During the morning session of the exam, candidates were allowed to answer any four of twelve "essay" questions. During the afternoon session, candidates were allowed to answer any four of twelve multiple-choice questions. One of the "essay" questions the Petitioner chose to answer during the morning session, number 125, had three parts. The Petitioner did not answer the second part and answered the third part correctly. On the first part, she properly set up the multiple equations necessary to answer the question but made a calculation error in the last step, and her answer was 810 linear feet instead of the correct answer of 630 linear feet. Question 125 was graded in accordance with a scoring plan that set out the following "'Problem Weighting": t' Part (a) 4 points, Part (b) 4 points, Part (c) 2 points." It also provided, in part, that a score of six points out of ten, signifying "minimum competence, required: "Correct solution to either part (a) or part (b) and part (c) or a solution with a combination of two deficiencies consisting of some series of logic errors, computation errors, or insufficient accuracy as defined above." The next highest possible score, according to the scoring plan, was score of four out of ten for "more than a rudimentary knowledge but insufficient to demonstrate competence." On question 125, the Petitioner was awarded two out of a possible four points on part (a) (in which the Petitioner's solution contained a calculating error), none of four possible points on part (b) (which the Petitioner did not answer), and both of the two possible points on part (c) (which the Petitioner answered correctly), for a total of four out of the ten possible points on question 125. The Petitioner's score on question 125 was consistent with the scoring plan, which also was applied to all of the other candidates. Both question 125 and the scoring plan were provided by the National Council of Examiners of Engineers and Surveyors. A primary purpose of the scoring plan is to ensure consistently rational scoring. To eliminate the chance of bias, questions are graded "blindly," using the scoring plan. Statistically, question 125 has achieved reliable test results. The candidates scoring higher on the examination overall also scored better on question 125. The Petitioner contended that there is a better scoring plan for question 125 under which she would have scored six out of a possible ten points. While the Petitioner's proposed scoring plan is logical, and may even be a better scoring plan, the Petitioner did not prove that the scoring plan utilized by the Department was arbitrary or devoid of logic. One of the multiple choice questions the Petitioner chose to answer during the afternoon session, number 423, had ten parts, each worth one point. The Petitioner received no credit for her answers to parts (2) and ( 3 ), Parts (2) and (3) of question 423 are prefaced by a descriptor of the characteristics of a freeway section. One of the characteristics is a "V/C" of 0.60; another is a peak hour factor (PHF) of 0.90. Part (2) of question 423 asked for the "maximum number of vehicles going west during a one-hour period under these conditions." To answer the question, the Petitioner solved for "maximum service flow," assuming ideal conditions. The Petitioner did not apply the PHF of 0.90; as a result, her answer did not take PHF into consideration. It is found that part (2) of question 423 is at least ambiguous. It asked for "maximum number of vehicles . . . during a one-hour period," not the actual number of vehicles. This could lead one to believe that it asked for "maximum service flow, extended over one entire hour, without considering the PHF. On the other hand, the question specified vehicles "going west . . . under these conditions," implying the actual volume and the application of the PHF. Only 31% of the candidates answering question 423 answered part (2) correctly. (43.6% gave the same answer as the Petitioner.) In and of themselves, those statistics do not prove that the question was invalid or unreliable. But they support the finding that the question was at least ambiguous. Part (3) of question 423 asked the candidates to assume a capacity in passenger cars per hour per lane (pcphpl) and to solve for the "average travel speed . . . under these conditions." The Petitioner solved for the average speed at the volume of traffic that would result from the given number of pcphpl, under "ideal conditions," without applying the "V/C" ratio of 0.60. It is found that part (3) of question 423 also is at least ambiguous. After having given the candidates the characteristics of the road in the preface to question 423, including a "V/C" of 0.60, part (3) asked the candidates to assume a pcphpl. It is not clear whether the given pcphpl was intended to override, or be the result of the application of the V/C' factor of 0.60, or whether the "V/C" factor was supposed to be applied to the pcphpl. On part (3) of question 423, 52.6% of the candidates answering the question chose the answer for which credit was given; 28.3% chose the Petitioner s answer. Those statistics do not prove that the question was invalid or unreliable. But neither was there any evidence that they would be inconsistent with a finding that the question was at least ambiguous.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers, enter a final order granting the Petitioner's examination challenge in part, to the extent that parts (2) and (3) of question 423 of the October, 1993, Principles and Practices of Civil/Sanitary Engineering Examination are found to be ambiguous, but nonetheless finding that the Petitioner did not successfully complete the examination. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of September, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida. J.LAWRENCE J JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of September, 1994. APPENDIX To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1993), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected, as not proven, that the Petitioner's proposed scoring plan is only 'appropriate, reasonable, and fair deduction for a math error," or that the deduction of two points was "a 50% deduction, or a "totally unfair and unreasonable percentage" or that it is "inappropriate . . . to tie the solutions or partial solution together." Otherwise, accepted but subordinate and argument. Rejected, as not proven, that the two-point deduction for a math error is a 50% deduction and is clearly inconsistent with" the reference material. Otherwise, accepted but subordinate and argument. Rejected, as not proven, that the Petitioner received a 50% deduction on question 125, or that the NCEE scoring plan was inconsistent and should be considered arbitrary by problem chosen." Otherwise, accepted but subordinate and argument. Rejected, as not proven, that NCEE's "two point (20%) increment grading scale is an unfair, unlogical, and unreasonable means to evaluate" or that it is "too rigid to fairly evaluate detailed engineering solutions." Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven. 9.-10. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. Rejected as not proven that question 423(2) asked for "maximum volume or "service volume," or that the PHF was added "arbitrarily, and for no reason." Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to facts found that 43.6% is a majority. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and found that question 423(3) is ambiguous. Rejected as not proven that LOS "Et" conditions should be assumed or that "A" is the best answer, or that 423(3) is "devoid of reason, capricious, and a 'trick' question." Otherwise, accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and found that question 423(3) is ambiguous. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-9. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. First sentence, accepted and incorporated. Second sentence, rejected as contrary to facts found that an adjustment necessarily and unambiguously follows. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Rejected as contrary to facts found that an adjustment necessarily and unambiguously follows. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. However, PHF is used to determine actual maximum numbers of vehicles, not maximum service flow or maximum possible numbers of vehicles. Rejected. (It asked for average speed.) Rejected as contrary to facts found that an adjustment necessarily and unambiguously follows. Rejected as not established by the evidence that they are statistically valid, only that they are not statistically invalid. COPIES FURNISHED: Jane A. Caldera 5414 Deerbrooke Circle Tampa, Florida 33624 Wellington H. Meffert, II, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, Esquire Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0764
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
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Petitioner should receive additional credit for his answers to questions 121 and/or 222 on the civil/sanitary engineer examination administered on April 18 and 19, 1997.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Board of Professional Engineers was the state agency in Florida responsible for the licensing of professional engineers in this state and for the regulation of the engineering profession. Petitioner graduated from the University of South Florida in December 1990, with a degree in geo-technical engineering, a sub-specialty of civil engineering. He is not, nor does he claim to be, a structural engineer. He has practiced in the field of geo-technical engineering since his graduation and has taught soil mechanics at the master’s level at the university. He sat for the professional engineer’s examination administered by the Respondent in April 1997. Thereafter, by grade report dated July 29, 1997, the Department’s Bureau of Testing notified Petitioner that he had earned a score of 69.00 on the examination he had taken. Since a passing score for the examination which Petitioner took is 70.00, Petitioner failed the examination. Petitioner requested a formal hearing to challenge the grading of examination questions numbers 121 and 222, on each of which he earned a score of four. The maximum obtainable score on each question is ten. On question 121, the candidate is given a situation involving a sheet-pile wall section, and is asked to (a) sketch and dimension the earth pressure diagram acting on the wall after the proposed dredging has been completed; and (b) determine the factor of safety against the kick-out after the dredging. Scoring of the Petitioner’s examination was done by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (Council). The Council determined that, with regard to requirement (a), Petitioner’s pressure distribution was of the correct form, but the labeling of the distribution had a major error. Petitioner assumed an incorrect factor which was deemed to be a major error calling for, under the approved scoring plan, a minimum four-point deduction. With regard to requirement (b), Petitioner chose not to solve for the factor of safety as he was required to do. This resulted in a minimum reduction of two additional points. This evaluation was concurred by Mr. Adams, the Board’s expert witness, in his testimony at hearing. Mr. Adams noted that where, as here, the engineer is dealing with soil mechanics, the at-rest conditions are one thing. The active and passive (A and P) conditions are the more dynamic, and here, where the problem calls for removal of soil from in front of a retaining wall, A and P pressures should have been used instead of at-rest pressures. Adams also concluded that Petitioner’s cited authority was not valid in this case. This authority used the at-rest pressure coefficient when all the authorities Mr. Adams could find used the A and P pressure coefficient. Petitioner admits that the coefficients utilized in determining earth pressures are A, P and at-rest (O). In this case, the whole problem must be considered. A tie-back system is presented, and in that case the sheet pile and the tie-back are assumed to hold the soil behind the wall in an at-rest condition so long as the sheet-pile wall does not move or deflect. Petitioner contends that Mr. Adams’ determination that removing the soil would destroy stasis and cause the wall to move is erroneous. In fact, he contends, the sheet-pile wall and the anchor system must move before the Board’s argument holds. He cites an authority in support of his position which was also cited to the Council scorer who, at Petitioner’s request, rescored his answer. The Council official who rescored Petitioner’s answer did not have access to Petitioner’s cited authority but rejected the citation as either incorrectly cited or incorrect in itself. Petitioner’s error called for a four-point reduction in score as to (a). Further, as to requirement (b), Petitioner, though asked to solve for the factor of safety against rotation, chose not to do so. This calls for an additional two-point reduction. Independent review of Petitioner’s answer, including an evaluation of his cited authority, and consideration of the other evidence pertinent to this issue, including his testimony, that of his witness, and the rescoring results by the Council, does not satisfy the undersigned that Petitioner’s answer merits additional credit. The score of four, as awarded, is appropriate. Question 222 deals with a cantilevered retaining wall with a wide foundation and piling in two rows, some in front and some in back, to support it. The candidate is required to determine the total lateral thrust per linear foot acting on the wall in issue; to determine the vertical load on a front row pile; and to explain possible ways that the pile foundation can resist the lateral thrust. According to Mr. Adams, Petitioner incorrectly calculated the lateral load by omitting the proper depth of the wall. With regard to the vertical loading, the Petitioner did not get to the proper vertical load on the front pile but received partial credit for other calculations he performed. As for the last requirement, one part of Petitioner’s answer was incorrect in that he did not explain passive pressures properly. What Petitioner mentioned was incorrect, and he did not mention battering of the piles, which was expected to be noted. According to Mr. Adams, Petitioner got two parts of the question correct, each of which is worth two points. Therefore, he received a score of four points. Petitioner contends that the Board and the Council are being too restrictive in their approach to the problem and not taking into account the whole problem. He claims that though he arrived at the wrong figure in calculating the lateral load, that does not justify his receiving no credit for that segment since the method he used for calculating the thrust was correct. He admits to having erroneously neglected the weight of the soil, but contends that his method of determining the solutions to resist lateral thrust is as good as that of the Board and the Council. Petitioner was given only partial credit for his use of the correct equation to calculate the lateral thrust because he used the wrong depth. His answer to the second part was wrong in that he completely neglected the weight of the soil and calculating the pile load, even though he used the correct figure to multiply the load per foot of the wall. His answer to the third requirement, dealing with lateral resistance of the pile, was insufficient to warrant a full award. Taken together, his answer, in the opinion of the Council’s scorer, merited only an award of four points. Petitioner did not show sufficient basis for increasing this award. The evidence presented by the Board clearly established that both questions in issue provided enough information to allow the candidate to answer them correctly, and both are questions that a candidate for licensure should be able to answer. The scoring plan for these questions was not shown to be inappropriate, and there is no evidence that it was not properly utilized.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a Final Order in this matter denying Petitioner additional credit for his answers to Questions 121 and 222 on the April 1997 Civil Engineer Examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Henri V. Jean 3273 Tanglewood Trail Palm Harbor, Florida 34685 R. Beth Atchison, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Lynda L. Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Angel Gonzalez Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner should have received a passing score on the SCBA (Self Contained Breathing Apparatus) section of the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training's Minimum Standards Practical Examination re-test administered on March 1, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: On November 15, 2000, after completing a training course at the Broward Fire Academy (where Lawrence Burns was his lead instructor), Petitioner took the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training's Minimum Standards Written and Practical Examinations. He received a passing score on the Written Examination and all sections of the Practical Examination, except for the SCBA section. On March 1, 2001, Petitioner re-took the SCBA section of the Practical Examination. The re-test was administered at the State Fire College in Ocala, Florida. Ralph Chase, a field representative with the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training, was Petitioner's examiner. Mr. Chase has been employed as a field representative with the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training for five years. Prior to coming to work for the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training, he was a firefighter with the City of Titusville for 21 years. He was a suppression lieutenant at the time he left the city's employ. Petitioner borrowed from the Broward Fire Academy the equipment that he needed for the re-test: two air tanks, a regulator, a harness, and a PASS device. A PASS device is a safety device worn by firefighters entering a hostile environment. When the device is activated in the automatic mode, it will emit a continuous, piercing sound if the firefighter is immobilized for longer than 30 seconds. To place the device in the automatic mode, a plastic switch must be moved into the appropriate position. When properly positioned in the automatic mode, the device makes a brief, chirping sound. It was emphasized to Petitioner during his training at the Broward Fire Academy that it was the responsibility of the student, before leaving the Academy with borrowed equipment, to inspect the equipment to make sure that the equipment was in good working order. Before leaving the Academy with the equipment that he borrowed for the re-test, Petitioner twice inspected the equipment and ascertained that it was in good working order. At the re-testing site, he re-inspected the borrowed equipment. The re-inspection revealed that all of the equipment was in good working order, except for the regulator. Petitioner obtained another regulator, along with a harness, at the re-testing site. He attached the PASS device that he had borrowed from the Broward Fire Academy to the harness and ascertained that "[e]verything was working properly." Before the re-test began, Mr. Chase advised Petitioner that "exceeding the maximum allotted time and/or failure to wear and activate the PASS device in the automatic mode w[ould] constitute an automatic failure for the SCBA evaluation." He further advised Petitioner to "speak loudly and clearly" if Petitioner wanted to tell Mr. Chase "anything during the testing." After Petitioner indicated that he was ready, the re- test began. Throughout the re-test, Mr. Chase stood "only a few feet" in front of Petitioner and watched him intently, focusing upon his hands. Petitioner signaled that he was "done" by clapping his hand. He finished the re-test in one minute and 16 seconds, well within the allotted time. At no time during the re-test, however, did Petitioner make an effort to place the PASS device in the automatic mode. Because he had neither seen Petitioner make such an effort, nor heard the chirping sound that is made when a PASS device is activated in the automatic mode, Mr. Chase walked up to Petitioner after Petitioner had signaled that he was "done" and confirmed that the PASS device switch was in the "off" position. Mr. Chase did not say anything to Petitioner about it. He simply told Petitioner to take off his mask. Shortly thereafter, Petitioner walked up to Mr. Chase and stated, "You know I turned my alert, my PASS alert off." Mr. Chase responded that he did not know what Petitioner meant, to which Petitioner replied, "I wanted you to know that I turned it . . . on and then I turned it off again." After telling Petitioner that he could not discuss the matter with him, Mr. Chase walked away. Petitioner did not at any time during the re-test tell Mr. Chase that he had placed the PASS device in the automatic mode. At no time at the re-testing site, either before, during, or after the re-test, did Petitioner tell Mr. Chase that there was any problem with the PASS device. Petitioner justifiably received a failing score of zero on the re-test because he had not make any effort to place the PASS device in the automatic mode. Petitioner did not report that there was any problem with the PASS device when he returned it to the Broward Fire Academy.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered rejecting Petitioner's challenge to the failing score he received on the SCBA (Self Contained Breathing Apparatus) section of the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training's Minimum Standards Practical Examination re-test he took on March 1, 2001. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of September, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 25th day of September, 2001.
