The Issue The issue is whether Respondent properly denied Petitioner certification as a Florida firefighter.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, a resident of Ohio, requested to qualify for the Florida Minimum Standards Equivalence Examination, based on his experience, to become a Florida firefighter. Petitioner's request effectively "challenged" the exam and requested an exemption from attending the Florida Minimum Standards Course. Petitioner could have taken the Florida Minimum Standards Course. If he had taken the course, he may have had an opportunity to review video tapes and other instructional materials which are available but not a required part of the basic curriculum. Instead, Petitioner elected to furnish Respondent with his out-of-state firefighter credentials. Subsequently, Respondent granted Petitioner the requested exemption. Prior to taking the examination, Respondent's staff accurately informed Petitioner about the scope, structure and subject matter of the test during numerous telephone calls. On at least ten occasions, Respondent's staff described the test to Petitioner and told him how to prepare for it. Respondent's staff specifically told Petitioner that he should study the International Fire Service Training Association Manual (IFSTA Manual). As to part one of the practical portion of the exam, Petitioner knew that Respondent would test him on the breathing apparatus, the one and three quarter-inch hose and nozzle operation, and the twenty-four foot ladder evolution. Respondent told Petitioner that he needed to know how to perform all skills set forth in the IFSTA Manual because Respondent randomly selects six different sections of tasks to test on part two of the practical examination. The six skill sections which are picked for part two remain unknown to anyone in advance of the test regardless of whether he is out-of-state or in-state applicants. These skills are chosen by Respondent's Field Representatives in their offices at the Florida State Fire College prior to going to a testing site or for testing at the Florida State Fire College. The two parts of the practical examination are of equal worth. An examinee begins with 100 points and points are deducted for deficiencies throughout the exam. Candidates are required to achieve a score of at least seventy (70) points in order to pass the practical examination. Petitioner took his Minimum Standards Equivalency Practical Examination on April 28, 1997, at the Florida State Fire College in Ocala, Florida. Petitioner's final score on the April 28, 1997, Minimum Standards Equivalency Practical Examination was twenty-five (25) points, which was not a passing score. Candidates are allowed one retest of the Minimum Standards Equivalency Practical Retest if they are not successful on their initial test. Petitioner chose to take the test again on July 28, 1997, at the Florida State Fire College in Ocala, Florida. Respondent's Field Representative administered part one of the Minimum Standards Equivalency Practical Retest to Petitioner. Petitioner did not take part two of the Minimum Standards Equivalency Practical Retest. He chose to quit after realizing that his score on part one was so low that he could not pass the retest as a whole. After deciding not to take part two in the Minimum Standards Equivalency Practical Retest, Petitioner approached Field Representative Bill DePauw to tell him that he was quitting. Petitioner was not attired in the mandatory minimum safety gear, but in civilian clothes. At that time, Mr. DePauw was in the process of testing another examinee. Mr. DePauw told the Petitioner he needed to talk to Larry McCall, Field Representative Supervisor. Petitioner then approached Mr. McCall and informed him that he would not be taking part two of the retest. Mr. McCall asked Petitioner to leave the testing grounds because Petitioner was being loud and disruptive to the applicants testing or waiting to be tested. Further, once an applicant decides not to continue, he is no longer allowed in the testing area. Petitioner informed Mr. McCall, both on the field and in Mr. McCall's office, that the Florida exam and the process were "chicken." Petitioner lost seventy-five (75) points on part one of the Minimum Standards Equivalency Practical Retest. The maximum allowable deduction for part one of fifty (50) points was deducted from Petitioner's part one score. Therefore, Petitioner's final score on the Minimum Standards Equivalency Practical Retest administered on July 28, 1997, was fifty (50) points, which is not a passing score. Applicants are assigned a number during orientation. From that time on, the applicants are referred to only by that number to ensure impartiality. The applicant's name is attached to the number after the exam, sometimes several days later. The examiner makes up a package of exams, numbers the packets, and then circles six (6) skills at random in each packet. No names are applied to the packets and the numbers are not assigned to the examinees until the day of testing. The Field Representatives are required to give an orientation prior to each Minimum Standards Equivalency Examination on the day of the exam. The orientation consists of walking the applicants through each section of part one. The Field Representatives use the same form check-off sheet during each orientation to ensure that each candidate is given the same orientation. The Field Representatives use a scoresheet to grade the applicants which is a guide to simplify the scoring process. The numeric values on the scoresheet are negative points deducted from an applicant's raw score of 100 points. The Field Representatives only make deductions when the applicant does not follow the required procedure for performing the evolution. Petitioner admits that the point deduction is correct for exceeding the required time on the breathing apparatus evolution. Petitioner admits that he had to go back to the loop during the hose and nozzle evolution to fix the kinks in the hose line. Additionally, he took a couple of steps backwards while he was pulling the hose line. Walking backwards occurs when a candidate takes two steps or more backwards, walking in the opposite direction from where he is looking. There are no warnings issued for walking backwards during the certification examination. Petitioner admits that the deduction for exceeding time during the hose and nozzle evolution was correct. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Petitioner struggled during the ladder evolution. He lacked control of the ladder at all times during the demonstration. All of the deficiencies which Petitioner admits to amount to a total of 35 negative points as the least possible point deduction. That equals a score of 65 without Petitioner even having taken part two. A score of 65 is not a passing score.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Bill Nelson in his capacity as State Fire Marshal enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for a Certification of Compliance as a Florida Firefighter. DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 20th day of August, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Elenita Gomez, Esquire Division of Legal Services Department of Insurance and Treasurer 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Paul Appleton 13500 Shaker Boulevard, No. 102 Cleveland, Ohio 44120 Bill Nelson, Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, Brandon Michael Post (Petitioner or Mr. Post), achieved a passing score on the practical exam for firefighter certification.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for the regulatory process governing firefighters, including the process by which candidates apply for certification as firefighters in the State of Florida. In addition to meeting certain background and training requirements, candidates must take and attain passing scores on the Firefighter Minimum Standards Written and Practical Examination (firefighter examination) administered by the Department. Mr. Post applied to the Department for firefighter certification. There is no dispute that Mr. Post met the background and training qualifications for certification in all respects. In addition, Mr. Post took and passed the written portion of the firefighter examination. At issue is whether Mr. Post attained a passing score on the practical portion of the firefighter examination (practical exam). The practical exam has four components covering the following subjects: self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA); hose operations; ladder operations; and fireground scenarios. In order to pass the practical exam, a candidate must obtain a score of at least 70 percent on each component. If a candidate does not pass the practical exam, the candidate is offered the opportunity for a retest. The practical exams are conducted by Bureau field representatives. A field representative evaluates each candidate's performance and records the candidate's scores on a form called "minimum standards exam field notes" (field notes). There is a separate field notes form for each component of the practical exam. The field notes form identifies each of the separate skills or activities tested. Certain items are scored on a pass-fail basis, because they are considered mandatory skills. Thus, the failure to achieve an acceptable result in a mandatory item results in automatic failure for the component. Other tested items are considered evaluative, and the candidate's performance is given a point score. A total of 100 points is possible for all of the evaluative items; a candidate must attain a score of at least 70 to pass the component. Mr. Post took the firefighter examination on June 13, 2012. In the practical exam, Mr. Post received passing scores of 100 percent for the SCBA component; 100 percent for the hose operation component; and 70 percent for the fireground scenarios component. However, Mr. Post failed the ladder operations component. Mr. Harper was the field representative who administered Mr. Post's practical exam on June 13, 2012, and who completed the field notes reflecting how he scored Mr. Post's performance. Mr. Harper has been a Bureau field representative for more than five years, and in that time, he has administered thousands of practical exams. Mr. Harper gave Mr. Post a failing score for not donning and securing all personal protective equipment (PPE) properly. Donning and securing PPE properly is considered a mandatory item that has to be achieved, because of the importance of this skill to a firefighter's safety. To emphasize the safety concern associated with failing to don and secure all PPE properly, Mr. Harper also gave Mr. Post a failing score for committing an unsafe act that could result in serious injury or death. The "unsafe act" scoring category is separate on the field notes form from the mandatory item "donning and securing all PPE properly." However, a failing score in either one of these categories alone required an automatic failure for the ladder operations component. Thus, giving Mr. Post a failing score for an "unsafe act" had no effect on his score; Mr. Post's failing score for not donning and securing his PPE properly required an automatic failure for the ladder operations component. Mr. Harper credibly explained why he judged Mr. Post's donning and securing of his PPE to be improper. He recalled in precise detail how Mr. Post's mask had a five-point harness mechanism that is designed to hold the face piece tight to the face, creating an air-tight seal that will keep out dangerous smoke and fumes. There were two straps at the temple, two straps at the jaw, and one at the top center. To secure the mask, the two jaw straps are supposed to be pulled tight at the same time, then the two temple straps are pulled tight at the same time, then the top strap is pulled last to pull the mask up evenly on the face. Mr. Post did not secure his mask this way. Instead of pulling the two jaw and temple straps at the same time, he held the face piece with one hand, and pulled the straps on one side of his face with his other hand. This pulled the mask to the side, instead of centering it. Mr. Post testified that his face piece was on good enough for him to achieve an air-tight seal, which was maintained throughout the exercise. Therefore, he took issue with the opinion that the way he put on his PPE was unsafe. Mr. Post's statements were inconsistent regarding whether the mask was askew, pulled to one side. At the final hearing, Mr. Post testified at first that Mr. Harper's field notes comment was incorrect when it said that the "face piece was pulled to left side." Mr. Post testified that he disagreed with the field notes comment that his face piece was "pulled to one side." But then Mr. Post acknowledged that "it could have been maybe a little bit to the left, but there was no poor seal at all times." This latter statement was closer to Mr. Post's statement in his hearing request: "I had a seal of my face piece but was failed because the harness wasn't quite centered on my head." Mr. Post essentially admitted that he did not "properly" don and secure all of his PPE; his argument is with the extent to which it was improper, and whether his failure to properly secure the harness actually caused harm. Mr. Harper's testimony that Mr. Post improperly donned and secured his PPE and that this failure was an unsafe act that could result in serious injury or death is accepted. Mr. Harper credibly explained the danger of a mask not being harnessed securely with a centered face piece. Even though it is possible to initially attain a proper seal with an off-centered face piece, as Mr. Post did, the fact that it is not properly secured to be centered on the face means that it is easier to dislodge than a centered, properly-harnessed mask. Anything jarring the head gear, or even an abrupt head movement, could cause the mask to move further off-center and break the critical seal that protects the firefighter from toxic gases and smoke. These serious risks cannot be brushed aside simply because Mr. Post managed to make it through a short simulated exercise without dislodging his off-centered mask. The Bureau notified Mr. Post that he did not achieve a passing score on his practical exam because of his failed score on the ladder operations component. As provided by statute, Mr. Post was advised that he was allowed one opportunity to retake the practical exam. Mr. Post took the practical exam retest on September 18, 2012. Once again, Mr. Harper was the field representative who administered the practical exam to Mr. Post. Mr. Post admitted that his retest "was pretty sloppy." On the hose operations component, once again, Mr. Post had problems donning and securing all of his PPE. This time, the problems were with the gear that was supposed to protect his torso. As Mr. Post acknowledged, "my shoulder strap was twisted and . . . my high-pressure hose [was] under [the] strap. That is true. I remember that." His jacket was pulled up in the back, and his shirt was exposed. Based on these problems, Mr. Post received an automatic failure under the mandatory category for failing to don and secure all PPE properly. Mr. Post admitted that he failed to don and secure all of his protective equipment properly. The protective jacket is not supposed to be pulled up in the back, exposing one's shirt. Shoulder straps are not supposed to be twisted, with the high-pressure hose caught under a strap. Mr. Post testified that he did not think he should have been failed for these admitted problems with putting on his protective gear, because no skin was exposed. However, he offered no legitimate challenge to the reasonableness of the exam itself, which makes the proper donning and securing of all of one's PPE a mandatory step. As described, it was entirely reasonable to give Mr. Post an automatic failure on this retest component for his improper donning and securing of his protective gear. Mr. Post also received an automatic failure in the ladder operations component. There were two separate problems with this exercise. One problem was Mr. Post's failure to fully secure the ladder's "dogs" or locking devices that secure the separate sections of a multi-section ladder. The dogs are like clamps that are activated by a spring mechanism; when employed properly, they clamp around a rung at the joinder point of the ladder's separate sections. In Mr. Post's ladder exercise, he failed to properly employ the dogs; they were not fully secured in place around the rung. Instead, they were balanced on the tips, sitting on top of the rung, instead of locked around the rung. Mr. Post attempted to argue that it was not possible for him to have failed to properly employ the dogs in this manner because if the dogs were not locked, the ladder would have fallen down and his stayed upright. However, as Mr. Harper credibly explained, the dogs were sitting on top of the rung (instead of clamped around it). As such, the ladder could remain upright, albeit, in a precarious state that depended on the dogs keeping their balance on top of a rung, instead of in a secure state with the dogs locked in place around the rung. Mr. Harper's testimony is credited; Mr. Post did not effectively rebut the testimony regarding his improper employment of the dogs. The second problem Mr. Post had in the ladder operations component of his retest came in the part of the exercise in which Mr. Post was supposed to exit the building carrying the "victim" and retreat to safety. According to the field notes, Mr. Post received an automatic failure for committing an unsafe act that could result in serious injury or death, because he was running backwards with the victim. Mr. Post did not take issue with this aspect of his retest scoring, admitting that the field notes were accurate: "When you're carrying the victim out of a building, that's the only time you're allowed to go backwards, but I guess I was running where I should have been walking. But I don't really--I don't really testify against that." Mr. Post expressed some generalized concern with the fact that the same field representative--Mr. Harper--administered Mr. Post's initial examination and the retest. However, no evidence was offered to suggest that Mr. Harper's administration of the practical exam or the retest was improper or unfair to Mr. Post in any respect. Indeed, Mr. Post essentially conceded that Mr. Harper fairly and reasonably assessed Mr. Post's admittedly sloppy performance on the retest. Mr. Post's concession in this regard puts to rest any implication that Mr. Post might not have failed the retest if a different field representative had been assigned. Instead, the evidence established that Mr. Post's performance in the practical exam retest earned three different automatic failures, any one of which would have resulted in an overall failing grade on the retest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Respondent, Department of Financial Services, denying the application of Petitioner, Brandon Michael Post, for certification as a firefighter in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of April, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of April, 2013.
The Issue Is Petitioner entitled to be certified as a Firefighter based upon examination results through an examination administered by Respondent? See Section 633.35, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied for certification as a Firefighter on June 19, 1998. Subsequently he completed the Firefighter training program administered at Volusia County Fire Science Institute commensurate with the requirements set forth in Section 633.35(1), Florida Statutes. On December 15, 1998, Petitioner took the state examination following completion of the "Minimum Standards Course." The state examination was administered by the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training. That examination was constituted of a written and practical portion with the expectation that a minimum score of 70% was required in both aspects of the examination. See Rule 4A-37.056(6)(b), Florida Administrative Code. When the December 15, 1998 examination was graded, the Petitioner passed the practical with a score of 90. Petitioner did not pass the written, receiving a score of 66. Officials within the Respondent's agency were persuaded that some portions of the examination given on December 15, 1998, were arguably beyond the abilities of a beginning Firefighter. This decision was arrived at recognizing that material on the test had been presented in the "Minimum Standards Course." Nonetheless, adjustments were made to the scores of the candidates in recognition of the difficulty of some of the examination questions. The re-scoring improved Petitioner's written score from 66 to 67. On February 9, 1999, Petitioner retook the written portion of the state examination and received a score of 59. That score was adjusted on the same basis as has been described in relation to the December 15, 1998, examination session. With the adjustment Petitioner received a score of 62. Petitioner took a third written examination on May 12, 1999. This examination was given, having purged the examination instrument of the more difficult questions that had been presented on the occasion of the December 15, 1998, and the February 9, 1999, examinations. In the instance of the May 12, 1999 examination, Petitioner received a 66 on the written portion. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the nature of the examinations, taking into account the adjustments in the scoring, were beyond the expectation of the competence of a candidate who had undergone the "Minimum Standards Course" in preparation for this state examination or that Respondent failed to appropriately administer and grade the examinations given Petitioner.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That a final order be entered upholding the examination results in the several examinations administered to Petitioner in relation to the written portion, as adjusted, and finding that Petitioner has exhausted his opportunities for examination in this cycle. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of December, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 23rd day of December, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Elenita Gomez, Esquire Department of Insurance 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Anthony Robert Shuta, II 3043 Pine Tree Drive Edgewater, Florida 32141 Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill Nelson, State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capital, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's apparent failure to achieve a passing score on the written portion of the Firefighter Minimum Standards retest resulted from improper administration or grading of the examination by Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order dismissing Cruz's petition and denying his application for certification as a Florida firefighter. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 4th day of June, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Hipolito Cruz, Jr. 1214 Southwest 46 Avenue Deerfield Beach, Florida 33442 James Morrison, Esquire Department of Insurance 200 East Gaines Street 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether Petitioner achieved a passing score on the Practical Examination for Retention of Firefighter Retest.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for the certification of firefighters in the State of Florida, pursuant to chapter 633, Florida Statutes. In or around 2008, Petitioner achieved his Firefighter Minimum Standards Training Certification, which was valid for three years. To maintain his certification, it was necessary for Petitioner to either: maintain employment as a firefighter (or serve as a volunteer firefighter) for at least six consecutive months during the three-year period subsequent to his certification; or successfully complete the retention examination, which is identical to the practical examination given to new applicants.1/ Petitioner could not satisfy the first option, and was therefore required to take the retention examination. Petitioner's first attempt to successfully complete the retention examination occurred on September 26, 2011, and included four practical components: self-contained breathing apparatus ("SCBA"), hose operation, ladder operation, and fireground skills.2/ To pass the retention examination, an examinee must earn a score of at least 70 on all sections. Each portion of the retention examination has certain evaluative components that are graded. For instance, the ladder operation consists of 15 skills——e.g., maintaining contact with the ladder, lifting and securing the ladder properly, using proper hand position——that the examinee must complete within the maximum time of four minutes and 30 seconds. The ladder operation also requires the examinee to fulfill ten mandatory components, which include, among other things, maintaining control of the ladder at all times and securing the "dogs"3/ properly. Pertinent to the instant case, noncompliance with respect to any of the mandatory elements results in automatic failure, irrespective of the examinee's performance in connection with the 15 evaluative components. It is undisputed that Petitioner achieved passing scores on the fireground skills, SCBA, and hose components of the retention examination; Petitioner was unable, however, to complete the ladder evaluation within the prescribed time limit, which resulted in an automatic failure. Petitioner, like all candidates who fail the retention examination on the first attempt, was offered one retest opportunity.4/ Petitioner's retest was administered on November 15, 2011, at the Ocala Fire College, during which he passed the SCBA and hose portions of the examination. (For reasons not explained during the final hearing, Petitioner was not required to re-take the fireground skills component.) Once again, however, Petitioner failed the ladder evaluation, as established by the final hearing testimony of Tuffy Dixon, the field examiner on that occasion.5/ Mr. Dixon explained, credibly, that Petitioner scored an automatic failure because he neglected to lock one of the ladder's "dogs"——one of the ladder evaluation's ten mandatory components.6/ Accordingly, the evidence demonstrates that Petitioner failed the November 15, 2011, retention examination retest.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter an order denying Petitioner's application to retain his certification as a firefighter in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of July, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Edward T. Bauer Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of July, 2012.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner successfully completed the Minimum Standards Practical Examination for Retention of Firefighter Certification Retest.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was certified as a Florida firefighter by Respondent on June 27, 1991, being issued certificate number C- 62497. During the period 1991 through 1994, Petitioner was not active as a firefighter, either in a paid or volunteer role. He maintained his certification by completion of a 40-hour continuing education class in vehicle extrication in 1994. During the period 1994 through 2000, Petitioner was not active as a firefighter, either in a paid or volunteer role. His primary income was derived from being a painting contractor. Effective July 1995, Florida's law, regarding certification of firefighters, changed to require firefighters to take and pass the Examination when they have not been active as a firefighter, either paid or as a volunteer, for a period of three years. The Florida law was Section 633.352, Florida Statutes. As a result, in order for Petitioner to retain his certification, he was required to take the Examination. On September 8, 2000, Petitioner made application to take the Examination, which consisted of four areas--SCBA, Hose Operations, Ladder Operations, and Fireground Skills. Petitioner's primary preparation for the Examination was a private refresher course offered by the Marion County School Board. The refresher course consisted of a 24-hour class, spread over three days. The refresher course reviewed the four areas on the Examination. During the refresher course, approximately 20 hours were devoted to practicing the four areas. As to practicing the SCBA skill, under the supervision of an instructor, two to three hours on the first day were devoted to timed conditions and one to two hours on the second and third day were devoted to timed conditions. The instructor of the course taught and explained to the attendees, including Petitioner, that time was an issue in the Examination and that completing the timed skills within the maximum time allotted is pass/fail. On September 25, 2000, Petitioner took the Examination. None of the candidates taking the Examination were identified by name but were given numbers for identification. Prior to March 1, 2000, the scoring system for the Examination consisted of initially giving each candidate 100 points and thereafter, subtracting points for things done incorrectly. On and after March 1, 2000, the scoring system changed and consisted of each candidate starting with zero points and being awarded points for things done correctly. Three of the four skilled areas on the Examination were being timed. The timed skills were SCBA, Hose Operations, and Ladder Operations and mandatory steps existed for each skill. Each mandatory step for each skill was required to be successfully completed and, if not, the candidate received an automatic failing score for the skill. Examiners for the Examination, during orientation, reviewed the timed skills with the candidates and explained the grading for each of the skills. Furthermore, the examiners explained to the candidates that time was pass/fail for the SCBA and the Ladder Operations skills. The minimum score required to pass the Examination was 70 on each of the four skills. Petitioner received a score of zero on each of the SCBA and the Ladder Operations skills, which was failing for both. The maximum time allotted for SCBA was one minute and forty-five seconds, but Petitioner took one minute and fifty seconds; and for Ladder Operations was two minutes and forty-five seconds, but Petitioner took three minutes and twenty-five seconds. Petitioner exceeded the maximum time allotted for both skills. On November 29, 2000, Petitioner took the Examination Retest. He was only required to re-take the SCBA and the Ladder Operations skills; both again being timed. For the Examination Retest, Petitioner did not take a refresher course. He arrived at the Examination Retest early and was present for the orientation given by the examiners. Again, during the orientation, the examiners reviewed the timed skill with the candidates and explained the grading for each of the skills. Furthermore, the examiners again explained to the candidates that time was pass/fail on SCBA and Ladder Operations. On the Examination Retest, Petitioner passed the Ladder Operations skill. However, Petitioner failed the SCBA skill, having received a score of zero. The maximum time allotted for SCBA was one minute and forty-five seconds, but Petitioner took two minutes and twenty-six seconds. Petitioner exceeded the maximum time allotted for the SCBA skill. By letter dated December 7, 2000, Respondent notified Petitioner, among other things, that he had not successfully completed the Examination Retest and that, therefore, his application to retain his certification was denied. Applicants for retention of their certification are permitted to take the Examination Retest only once. An applicant for retention of certification, who fails the Examination and the Examination Retest, must take and successfully complete the Minimum Standards Course before being allowed to take the Examination again. Having unsuccessfully completed the Examination Retest, Petitioner cannot take the Examination again until he takes and successfully completes the Minimum Standards Course.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance enter a final order finding that Jeffrey M. Williams is not entitled to retention of his firefighter certification and that his certification has expired. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 15th day of June, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Jeffrey M. Williams 3241 Arthur Street Hollywood, Florida 33021 James Morrison, Esquire Department of Insurance 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer/Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to a passing grade on the Hose and Nozzle Operations part of the Minimum Standards Examination for firefighter certification.
Findings Of Fact Certification as a firefighter requires, among other things, that an applicant successfully complete a Minimum Standards Course and then pass the Minimum Standards Examination. The Minimum Standards Examination comprises a written test and a practice test, each of which an applicant must pass. The practical test comprises four parts, including Hose and Nozzle Operations. An applicant must pass each of the four parts, and a passing score is 70. On October 3, 2003, Petitioner first took the Minimum Standards Examination. She passed three parts, but failed the Hose and Nozzle Operations part. She was entitled to one retest, without having to retake the Minimum Standards Course, which she has already passed. On November 20, 2003, Petitioner retook the Hose and Nozzle Operations part of the Minimum Standards Examination. Petitioner received a score of 60 on the retest, and she challenges this score in the present case. Petitioner lost points for four reasons: she failed to have all of her protective gear donned and properly secured, she opened the hose nozzle too quickly, she closed the hose nozzle too quickly, and she ran with the hose. The Hose and Nozzle Operations part of the test is timed, and Petitioner previously had failed it because she had taken too long to complete the tasks within this part. Petitioner was a candid witness. At the end of the hearing, she essentially withdrew her challenge to the points that she had lost for operating the nozzle improperly. She instead focused on running with the hose and leaving her face shield up during part of the examination. In fact, the examiner testified without doubt that Petitioner had misoperated the nozzle during two tasks. Clearly, Petitioner failed to prove that the examiner's scoring of these two tasks was incorrect. As for running, Petitioner testified that she ran, but, consistent with the test rules, received a shouted warning from the examiner and did not run again. If so, she should not have lost points for running. However, the examiner again is clear that Petitioner ran after the warning. Aware that she had failed the same test previously for not completing this part of the test within the allotted time, Petitioner probably felt a sense of urgency to complete this part of the test. Petitioner's testimony about running is vague at times and even contradictory. Much of Petitioner's early testimony on this point disputes the clarity of the shouted warning not to run, suggesting that she may have run through a large portion of this part of the test. Later, though, Petitioner concedes that the shout was probably a warning not to run. On balance, Petitioner has failed to prove that the examiner improperly deducted points for running. The last issue in dispute is whether Petitioner performed part of the test with her face shield improperly raised. Petitioner testified that her face shield was always in the proper position, and, on this issue, Petitioner produced a fellow student who testified that he saw Petitioner's face shield in the proper position. However, the other student did not see the whole test and presumably was not observing Petitioner as closely as was the examiner. The examiner was most definite in his testimony on the issue of the face shield. He saw Petitioner engage in the awkward task of unloading the heavy hose, and he saw that a section of hose bumped the face shield from its down position into a partial up position. The examiner watched to see if Petitioner would immediately lower the face shield, but she did not. At that point, the examiner properly deducted points for failing to keep the gear properly secured.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's challenge to the scoring of the Hose and Nozzle Operations part of the Minimum Standards Examination that took place on November 20, 2003. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE 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, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Ruth Gutierrez 1585 Northeast 110th Terrace Miami, Florida 33161 Casio R. Sinco Assistant General Counsel Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333
The Issue The issues are whether Petitioner, Christie Beverly, should be certified as a firefighter or, in the alternative, whether Petitioner should be allowed to re-take the Firefighter Minimum Standards Practical Examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a candidate for certification as a firefighter in the State of Florida. The Department is the state agency responsible for testing all candidates for certification as a firefighter, for conducting such tests, and for issuing a certification upon the successful completion of the minimum requirements by a candidate. One such examination administered by the Department is the Firefighter Minimum Standards Written and Practical Examination (firefighter examination). Petitioner successfully completed her firefighting training at the Manatee Technical Institute (MTI). Jeff Durling is an adjunct instructor at MTI, whose main purpose is to get candidates prepared for the state firefighter examination. During his particular MTI course, Mr. Durling's students were taught the three main types of hose pulls: flat, triple layer, and minuteman. Larry W. Schwartz, Jr., is the fire science coordinator of MTI. He oversees MTI's operations and is directly involved in its curriculum. Although Mr. Schwartz is familiar with the double minuteman hose pull, MTI has not taught it in the past because that particular pull has not been tested. The firefighter examination has a written portion, as well as four practical evolutions or components (self-contained breathing apparatus, hose operation, ladder operation, and fireground skills).2/ In order to be certified, a candidate has to achieve a score of at least 70 percent on each component. On Tuesday, June 14, 2011, at the MTI campus, Petitioner successfully completed all portions of the firefighter examination, except the hose component of the practical examination. Petitioner conceded that she exceeded the maximum time allowed to complete the hose component by eight seconds. At some point, Petitioner was notified that she did not receive a passing score on the hose component in the June 2011 firefighter practical examination. Petitioner was advised she could take the Firefighter Minimum Standards Practical Retest (retest) within six months of the June 2011 firefighter examination. Petitioner was required to successfully complete the retest or she would be required to re-take the firefighter course before she could take the test again. On Friday, September 23, 2011, Petitioner presented for her retest at the Florida State Fire College (Fire College) in Ocala, Florida. Petitioner arrived by 7:30 a.m. for her retest. There were over 403/ candidates present to take either an original firefighter practical test or a retest. The retest course was not ready at 7:30 a.m. On September 23, 2011, Eric Steves was also a retest candidate at the Fire College. Mr. Steves observed that the retest course was not set up when he arrived at 7:30 a.m. Further, he observed that the retest course was slightly different than the original practical test course in June 2011. There was no walk-through of the retest course prior to starting it, because the retest course was set up after the other candidates took their test and bad weather was approaching. Although Mr. Steves did not pass his retest, his testimony is credible as he has no vested interest in the outcome of this proceeding. Dennis Hackett is the standards supervisor with the Department's Bureau of Fire Standards and Training (Bureau). Mr. Hackett has administered and scored the minimum standard firefighter examination for candidates, including the retest examination. The majority of the candidates were given another practical test, not the retest administered to Petitioner. Mr. Hackett confirmed that the retest course was not ready at 7:30 a.m. on September 23, 2011. The Fire College was capable and did have the equipment to set up two different hose load courses. It is apparent that the Fire College adheres to a strict protocol in the administration of the firefighter testing; yet, it was not adhered to on September 23, 2011. There was a change to the practical testing component of the firefighter examination being implemented. The majority of the candidates on September 23, 2011, took a different practical test than the retest administered to Petitioner and Mr. Steves. Thomas M. Johnson has been a field representative for the Department's Bureau for seven years. As a field representative, Mr. Johnson has administered and scored numerous firefighting examinations and retest examinations. Mr. Johnson testified that Petitioner's retest course "would be set up when we were done with the rest of the students." He further testified that the retest course "would be set up when we were done with the other students who were taking the new evolutions." Although Mr. Johnson testified that Petitioner's retest was administered in a uniform manner, the credible evidence supports the position that the retest was not conducted following the strict protocol of the Fire College. For Petitioner's retest, the course barrels were held in place by field instructors. Petitioner questioned Mr. Johnson regarding their participation, asking: "Is that standard practice?" Mr. Johnson's response of "It was that day," lends credence that it was not standard practice or part of the uniform retest protocol. Further, Mr. Johnson's testimony that Petitioner was "in a hurry" to complete her retest is illogical. Petitioner waited for 40 or more candidates to test before her, and then she had to wait for the retest course to be assembled before she could attempt the course. There was a great deal of discussion about the type of hose pull required during the retest examination. There was no clear definition of a minuteman hose load or a double minuteman hose load.4/ Whether or not the hose pull was a minuteman or a double minuteman is irrelevant as the retest course was not prepared or set up by 7:30 a.m. as required by the Department's own rule. Mr. Johnson scored Petitioner on the retest examination. The score sheet used on the practical retest examination portion reflected three types of Hose Advancements: Flat Load, Triple Layer Load, and Minuteman Load. (An option to pull a double minuteman load is not printed anywhere on the score sheet.) Further review of the Department's score sheet reveals that someone wrote "4 LR"5/ out beyond the phrase: "Hose Advancement (1¾") ~~ Maximum Time 1:25." This phrase, "4 LR," is purported to mean that Mr. Johnson: asked her [Petitioner] to pull the left-side pre-connect, knock down the cone on the left first and then the cone on the right. And the reason it's above the minuteman is because that's the load she pulled, but it was not a minuteman. This "4 LR" phrase is well above the blank line found beside the words "Minuteman Load." The undersigned does not accept the "4 LR" phrase as an indication that the "double minuteman" hose pull was the retest examination option. Further, the score sheet also has blanks to be filled in by the scorer following the phrase: "Your target sequence is RT/Left or Left/RT ." However, the scorer did not fill in either blank. At the bottom of the page, there is an empty blank following "Candidate #," making it uncertain to whom this score sheet applies. On the score sheet, there is a written time of "2:39," the word "Fail" is circled, and there is a zero beside the "Score." The score sheet appears to be incomplete at best. Mr. Johnson was asked to confirm whether or not a double minuteman load was listed on the score sheet, and he confirmed that the phrase "double minuteman" load was not on the score sheet. The words "double minuteman" do not appear on the score sheet, nor is the type of hose load identified. It is impossible to determine what hose load Petitioner was directed to pull during her retest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of State Fire Marshal, enter a final order granting Petitioner's request to retest on the hose component of the practical portion of the firefighter examination and that Petitioner should be tested as if she were taking the retest within the six-month window for the retest. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 2012.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent properly denied Petitioner's application for certification as a firefighter after Petitioner failed to successfully pass the practical portion of the Minimum Standards Examination pursuant to Sections 633.34 and 633.35, Florida Statutes, and Rules 4A-37.056 and 4A-37.062, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has served as a voluntary firefighter in Bay County, Florida, for approximately nine years. He first applied for certification as a firefighter in October 2001. In order to be certified, Petitioner was required to successfully complete the Minimum Standards Course. The course consists of taking a minimum of 360 hours of training at an approved school or training facility. After completing the training course, Petitioner was required to take the Minimum Standards Examination, which is structured in two parts: a written portion and a practical portion. The practical portion consists of four sections including the Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA), the hose pull, the ladder operation, and the fire ground skills. The purpose of the practical portion of the exam is to simulate real fire ground scenarios. To pass the four practical evolutions, an applicant must achieve a score of at least 70 percent on each one. Each evolution of the practical exam has certain steps that are mandatory. Failure to complete a mandatory step results in automatic failure of that portion of the exam. The mandatory steps for the SCBA evolution include the following: (a) complete the procedure in not more than one minute and forty-five seconds; and (b) activate the PASS device in the automatic position. After completing the Minimum Standards Course, Petitioner took the Initial Minimum Standards Examination on May 1, 2002. He was well rested on the day of the test, having slept approximately eight hours the night before. Petitioner passed the written portion of the exam but failed the practical portion of the initial exam because it took him one minute and fifty-nine seconds to complete the SCBA evolution. In a memorandum dated May 7, 2002, Respondent formally advised Petitioner that he had failed the SCBA portion of the practical exam because he exceeded the maximum time for the procedure. The memorandum also stated as follows in pertinent part: Important information about retesting and certification renewal is enclosed. Please read it carefully. You have automatically been scheduled for the next available examination, and written notification indicating your test date and location is enclosed. You are not required to call the Bureau for scheduling. Thank you. (Emphasis provided) In another memorandum dated May 7, 2002, Respondent advised Petitioner that he was scheduled to re-take the SCBA portion of the practical examination at the Florida State Fire College in Ocala, Florida, on May 24, 2002, at 8:00 a.m. The memorandum included the following relevant information: If you are unable to take the examination on the assigned date, please advise the Bureau and we will reschedule you for the next examination. Note: You must retest within six (6) months of the original test date. All an applicant has to do to reschedule a retest exam is to call Respondent's Bureau of Fire Standards and Training and request to be rescheduled. Respondent does not require applicants to provide a justifiable reason in order to be rescheduled. It is a routine and standard practice for Respondent to reschedule exams. Some applicants fail to show up for their retest exam without calling Respondent. In that case, Respondent automatically reschedules the retest. Applicants must take their retest exams within six months of their initial exam dates. Applicants that fail to meet this requirement must repeat the training course. Respondent reminds applicants of these requirements when they call to reschedule retests or fail to show up for retest, and the next retest exam date falls outside of the six-month window. If applicants still wish to reschedule retests outside the six-month window, Respondent will accommodate the requests. The next exam date that Petitioner could have taken his retest was in September 2002, which would have been within the six-month window. Petitioner testified that he called Respondent on May 16, 2002, to reschedule his retest because May 24, 2002, was not convenient with his work schedule. Petitioner also testified that an unidentified female in Respondent's office told him that he could not change the date of his retest. Petitioner's testimony in this regard is not persuasive. Petitioner's job involved working the "graveyard shift" at the Panama City Airport, loading and unloading planes. On May 23, 2002, Petitioner began working at 2:00 a.m. He finished his shift at approximately 1:00 p.m. Petitioner then immediately loaded his gear and began the trip to Ocala, Florida. The trip took about six hours, due to a traffic jam in Tallahassee, Florida. He arrived in Ocala at approximately 8:00 p.m. EST, located the testing site, and checked into a motel. Petitioner reported to the testing site the next morning. He did not tell any officials at the testing site that he was too tired to take the test. Petitioner failed the retest of the SCBA portion of the exam. Petitioner's time for the retest of the SCBA evolution was two minutes and twelve seconds. Additionally, Petitioner had point deductions for failing to complete the "seal check" and failing to properly don and secure all personal protective equipment correctly. In a letter dated May 26, 2002, Petitioner alleged that Respondent had denied his request for a different test date. Petitioner claimed that fatigue had prevented him from succeeding at the test. He requested another opportunity to retest the SCBA evolution within the required six-month period. Shortly thereafter, Fire Chief Tim McGarry from the Thomas Drive Fire Department on Panama City Beach, Florida, called Respondent's Field Representative Supervisor, Larry McCall. During that conversation, Mr. McCall told Chief McGarry that Petitioner could have decided not to show up for the retest. In a letter dated June 3, 2002, Mr. McCall responded to Petitioner's letter. In the letter, Mr. McCall stated that the question of whether Respondent erroneously denied Petitioner's request to reschedule the retest would be closed unless Petitioner could provide more specific details. In a memorandum dated June 6, 2002, Respondent formally advised Petitioner that he had failed the retest. In a letter dated June 6, 2002, Petitioner stated that he could not remember the name of the person he spoke to when he requested a change in his retest date. Once again, Petitioner requested an opportunity to take the retest. Mr. McCall spoke to Petitioner in a telephone call on June 18, 2002. During that conversation, Petitioner indicated that he would file his Election of Rights form, requesting an administrative proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner's application. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _ SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 10th day of April, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Elenita Gomez, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0330 Mark D. Dreyer, Esquire 747 Jenks Avenue, Suite G Panama City, Florida 32401 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent properly denied Petitioner's application for certification as a firefighter after Petitioner failed to successfully pass the practical portion of the Minimum Standards Examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied for certification as a firefighter in October 2002. In order to be certified, Petitioner was required to successfully complete the Minimum Standards Course. The course consists of taking a minimum of 360 hours of training at one of 30 certified centers in Florida. After completing the training course, Petitioner was required to take the Minimum Standards Examination, which is structured in two parts: a written portion and a practical portion. The practical portion consists of four sections or evolutions including the Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA), the hose pull, the ladder operation, and the fire skills section. To pass the four practical evolutions, an applicant must achieve a score of at least 70 percent on each one. Each evolution of the practical exam has certain elements or skills that are graded. The ladder test contains eleven skills and requires that the test be completed in not more than two minutes and forty-five seconds. The eleven skills for the ladder evolution include but are not limited to the following: ladder properly lifted, carried, (50 feet) and positioned for raise; maintains control of ladder during entire operation; extremities in safe position during entire operation; ladder halyard properly secured and proper safety applied; fly section extended without utilizing the wall; and fly section out and positioned correctly. After completing the Minimum Standards Course, Petitioner took the initial Minimum Standards Examination on February 19, 2003. Petitioner passed the written portion of the exam but did not pass the practical portion of the initial exam because he made a score of 60 on the ladder operations evolution of the practical examination. In a memorandum dated March 5, 2003, the Department formally advised Petitioner that he had failed the ladder portion of the practical exam for failure to maintain control of ladder. The memorandum also informed Petitioner that he was scheduled for a retake of the minimum standards practical retest of the ladder evolution. In another memorandum dated March 5, 2003, the Department advised Petitioner that he was scheduled to retake the ladder portion of the practical examination at the Florida State Fire College in Ocala, Florida, on May 22, 2003, at 8:00 a.m. Petitioner took the retest of the ladder portion of the practical examination as scheduled on May 22, 2003, in Ocala, Florida. Petitioner did not successfully complete the retest, losing points on three skills and not completing the test in the requisite amount of time. However, there was a problem with the ladder used by Petitioner on the retest in that the "fly" was not locked on the ladder. Ralph Chase is a field representative with the Division of State Fire Marshall of the Department. Mr. Chase was the examiner who tested Petitioner on the retake of the ladder portion of the practical exam on May 22, 2003. Mr. Chase is an experienced examiner. Because of the problem with the ladder on Petitioner's initial attempt on the ladder retest, Mr. Chase allowed Petitioner a second attempt to pass the ladder retest on May 22, 2003, although it is unusual to do so. On the second retest, Petitioner finished the test within the required amount of time but points were counted off for the following skills: ladder properly lifted, carried, (50 feet) and positioned for raise; extremities in safe position during entire operation; ladder halyard properly secured and proper safety applied; and fly section out and positioned correctly. Mr. Chase also made a notation that Petitioner had "poor control" but nonetheless gave Petitioner a passing score on the mandatory skill of maintaining control of ladder during the entire operation. Petitioner made a score of 60 on his second attempt of the retest which is below the required passing score of 70. Phillip Hershman was present at the retest in Ocala on May 22, 2003. Mr. Hershman was there to retake the hose pull portion of the practical exam. At the time of the hearing, he had been employed by the Suwannee County Fire Department for two months. Mr. Hershman was about 50 feet away from Petitioner during Petitioner's ladder retest. There was considerable noise near Mr. Hershman because the self-contained breathing apparatus test was also being conducted nearby. Mr. Hershman had a side view of Petitioner during the ladder retest. He could not see everything that was going on during the ladder retest. Mr. Hershman saw Petitioner look over the ladder and say something to Mr. Chase but could not hear what was said. He saw Mr. Chase speaking to Petitioner. When Petitioner picked up the ladder for the retest, Mr. Hershman saw the rungs of the ladder slide open. He saw Petitioner adjust the ladder and pick it up again. He did not see the ladder touch the wall until final resting of the ladder. Petitioner maintains that the ladder he used on the second retest attempt on May 22, 2003, was defective in the same manner as the first. However, Mr. Chase examined the ladder used in the second test to make sure it was in the correct position. Upon examining the ladder Petitioner used in the second retest, Mr. Chase found it to be "normal." It is unclear from the record whether Mr. Hershman witnessed both of Petitioner's attempts at the ladder retest on May 22, 2003. In any event, in instances where Mr. Hershman's testimony and Mr. Chase's testimony are in conflict, Mr. Chase's testimony of the events regarding Petitioner's retest is more persuasive. He is an experienced examiner, he was the person testing Petitioner, and he has a clear recollection of the events that occurred. While Mr. Hershman's testimony is credible, he was not in the same position, neither physically nor through experience, as Mr. Chase to determine how Petitioner should have been graded on the retake tests. In the First Amended Denial Letter dated August 15, 2003, Respondent informed Petitioner that since he passed the written portion of the Firefighter Minimum Standards Examination, a Firefighter I certificate was enclosed. Further, the August 15, 2003, letter informed Petitioner that he did not achieve a passing score on the 24" Ladder Carry, Raise and Extension evolution of the Firefighter Minimum Standards practical retest. He was informed that it will be necessary to either repeat the entire Minimum Standards Course or complete the Firefighter II Course before retaking the Firefighter Minimum Standards Examination.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a final order denying Petitioner's application and that Petitioner be permitted to either repeat the Minimum Standards Course or complete the Firefighter II course before retaking the Firefighter Minimum Standards Examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of October, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS 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 October, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Casia R. Belk, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0330 William Glenn Cone, Esquire 1530 Ryar Road, No. 7 Jacksonville, Florida 32216 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
