Findings Of Fact This case arose upon notification to the Petitioner, Pamela Y. Dennis, that she had received a failing grade on the Cosmetology Instructors Examination. Specifically, she received 70 percent on the examination and needed a 75 to pass. She chose to contest this action by the agency in according her a failing score, by contesting her grade on questions 2, 5, 7, 12, 16 and 17 on the lecture portion of that examination. She ultimately requested and received a formal proceeding before this Hearing Officer. The Petitioner testified on her own behalf. In essence, the testimony consisted of her contention that as to the contested questions, some of the examiners gave her scores of "yes", meaning that she had answered correctly, while others gave her scores of "no" and others gave her partial credit. Her complaint is, in essence, that if one examiner gave her a "yes" result on a question, why was that grade not accepted in order to give her full credit for the question. She also complained that the comments the examiners gave, when they accorded a "no" score or a partial score for a particular question, are differing in nature and some examiners, as to the same question, made no comment at all. She contends that the examiners' scorings were inconsistent with each other on each of the questions at issue and that therefore, if any examiner gave her a "yes" answer, then she should have received full credit for the answer to that question. In fact, however, as established by Dr. Eunice Loewe, Ph.D., the examination developer, the Petitioner was accorded credit for all yes or "y" grades given her by the examiners on the questions at issue, as well as all "p", or partial credit, scores given her. She only received no credit at all on a given question if none of the examiners gave her a partial or a "yes" score on that question. In other words, the scoring was not done by grading according to what the majority of examiners gave her for a particular question. If that had been done, she would actually have lost points below that which she actually scored, according to Dr. Loewe, because by a "majority vote" method of scoring, a majority of examiners giving her a "no" grade on a given question, even when some examiners had graded her with a "yes", would prevent her from getting any credit at all for that question. That was not done in the grading, according to Dr. Loewe, rather, the Petitioner was accorded credit for all partial or "yes" answers. The examiners are currently teachers of the same subject matter. They are required to make comment on a candidate's response to a particular question or a portion of the examination when they give her a "partial" or a "no" grade on that question. It is not required that all comments be the same, because this is a demonstration type examination where the grading to a large extent must, by necessity, be somewhat subjective. Because this is a physical demonstration type of examination, the agency, in an attempt to be totally fair with candidates, required the examiners to make these comments if they were not going to give her a "yes" grade on a particular question or area of classroom presentation. In summary, Dr. Loewe established that the Petitioner was a "borderline candidate" who had close to a passing score and upon whose grading the examiners were split as to the questions involved. The point is that if the grades on the questions involved had been by a majority vote of the examiners with no credit being given at all for any question if the majority of examiners did not vote "yes", the Petitioner would have received a lower score. The fact that the examiners were split on these questions did not in itself penalize the Petitioner because she was given credit for partial or "yes" grades by the examiners. There was no showing that the individual examiner's grades of "no", "yes" or "p" (for partial) on any of the questions at issue were incorrect grades. In fact, a review of the score sheets of the various examiners, in evidence as Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2, reveals that although some do not make comment on some questions, where others do make comment, and some comments are different, the majority of the examiners grading "no" or "partial" made similar comments about the same question. There was simply no showing by the Petitioner that the method of administration of this examination was unfair, nor that the content of the questions was unfair or biased. It was not demonstrated that the examiners had unfairly scored the lecture demonstration portion of the examination. Indeed, the Petitioner was a borderline candidate and came close to passing the examination. She had a complete lesson plan as required and presented a fairly thorough lecture. She did not follow the lesson plan closely enough, however, according to a number of the examiners. They indicated by their comments that she seemed to "jump around" and other comments indicated that she relied too heavily on her notes and seemed to read from notes to a great extent in making her lecture presentation. These example comments and others revealed by the testimony of record and the score sheet exhibits reveal that the examiners did indeed give careful consideration to her presentation and they have not been shown to have graded unfairly or in a biased manner.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is therefore RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Respondent agency determining that the score accorded Pamela Y. Dennis on the Cosmetology Instructors examination was an accurate score and that her petition be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of September, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 20th day of September, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Pamela Y. Dennis, pro se 2221 Dumfries Circle Jacksonville, Florida 32216 H. Reynolds Sampson Deputy General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Myrtle Aase Executive Director Board of Cosmetology Department of Professional Regulation Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether or not the Petitioner is eligible for licensure by endorsement.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the documentary evidence received, the statement of position offered by counsel for Respondent, State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medical Examiners, and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found: Petitioner, Ariel Hollero Garcia, M.D., filed an application for licensure by endorsement with the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Medical Examiners (Respondent) on or about September 29, 1981. Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement was denied by the Respondent based on its determination that Petitioner has not been certified by licensure examination of the National Board of Medical Examiners and that, while he was certified by the Federation of State Medical Boards of the United States, Inc., as having completed its examination, it was not within the ten (10) years immediately preceding the filing of his (Petitioner's) application for licensure by endorsement. Petitioner was certified by the Federation of State Medical Examiners in June of 1971. Petitioner agrees with the above-recited facts; however, he feels that the ten (10) year requirement should be waived for him in these circumstances, inasmuch as his application was submitted for licensure by endorsement within only approximately three (3) months beyond the ten (10) year filing period during which an applicant can be certified (licensed) by endorsement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement be DENIED. 1/ JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of August, 1982.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner should receive a passing grade on the Clinical Application of Medical Knowledge and Basic Science & Disease Process portions of the Florida Medical Licensure Examination ("FMLE") administered November 15 and 16, 2001.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency responsible for licensing and regulating physicians practicing medicine in Florida, including foreign-licensed physicians. Sections 458.311 and 458.3115, Florida Statutes (2001); Rule 64B8-5.002, Florida Administrative Code. The Department is also authorized to administer licensing examinations to physicians seeking to practice medicine in Florida. Section 456.017, Florida Statutes (2002). Dr. Rivero was accepted as a candidate for the FMLE and sat for the examination on November 15 and 16, 2001. Dr. Rivero attained a scaled score of 332 points on the Basic Sciences & Disease portion of the examination and 331 points on the Clinical Application of Medical Knowledge portion of the examination. Each of these portions of the FMLE administered November 15 and 16, 2001, had a minimum passing score (also known as "cut score") of 350 points. On November 15, 2001, the first day of the examination, the Department staff who were to administer the examination were notified that the Federal Express shipment of examination materials was incomplete and did not include the laboratory value sheets and the answer sheets to be used for each portion of the examination. The supervisor of the examination administration arranged to have copies of the appropriate documents available that morning. The examination candidates, who had been told to arrive at the examination site at 7:30 a.m., were not admitted to the examination room until 8:30 a.m. as a result of the problem with the laboratory value and answer sheets. The candidates were told to skip the questions that required use of the laboratory value sheets and to write the answers in the examination booklets for the questions that required use of the answer sheets. The candidates were advised prior to beginning the examination that they would be allowed additional time to transfer their answers from the booklet to the answer sheet. The examination began at 9:30 a.m. on November 15, 2001, after a delay of one hour. The administration supervisor made an error calculating the time and gave the candidates four hours and ten minutes to complete the examination, rather than the prescribed four hours. In addition, all candidates who wanted additional time to transfer their answers from the examination booklet to their answer sheets were given as much additional time as necessary. Dr. Rivero experienced stress and nervousness as a result of the delay and confusion in the administration of the examination that might have affected her performance on the examination. She did, however, have sufficient time to complete the examination on November 15, 2001, and to transfer her answers to the answer sheet. The minimum passing score on both portions of the examination was 350 points. These "cut scores" were developed for the November 2001 FMLE using the Angoff method of scoring. The Angoff Method is a widely used method for selecting the "cut score" for an examination. For each administration of the FMLE, a group of physicians are chosen to review the examination and determine, question by question, the percentage of minimally competent people who would answer each question correctly. The "cut score" for each portion of the examination is developed by averaging the responses of the physicians. The Angoff method was a valid methodology for ascertaining the "cut scores" for the November 2001 administration of the FMLE. After the examination was scored, a group of physicians and a psychometrician met to review all of the questions that were the subject of a complaint by examination candidates and all of the questions that a statistically significant number of candidates answered incorrectly. The group also conducted a Point by Serial review of the examination, which involves establishing that the candidates scoring highest on the examination answered a particular question correctly, while candidates scoring lowest on the examination answered the same question incorrectly. As part of this post-examination review, the November 2001 FMLE was reviewed for discrepancies between the order of the answers to questions in the English version of the examination and the order of the answers to questions in the Spanish version of the examination. No discrepancies were found.2 In addition, Dr. Rivero conceded that there were no discrepancies between the English and Spanish versions of the questions she answered incorrectly. The results of the review of the November 2001 FMLE established that the examination was fair, reliable, and valid. The November 2001 FMLE was developed, scored, and reviewed in accordance with the procedures normally used by the Department. Dr. Rivero has failed to establish that she should be awarded additional credit for any question the Department scored as incorrect on the Basic Sciences & Disease and on the Clinical Application of Medical Knowledge portion of the examination.3
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health enter a final order dismissing the petition of Ana Rivero challenging her failing scores on the Clinical Application of Medical Knowledge and Basic Science & Disease Process portions of the FMLE administered November 15, and 16, 2001. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of December, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 20th day of December, 2002.
The Issue Whether the Petitioner achieved a passing score on the Laws and Rules Part of the August 13, 1993, Optometry Examination and thereby receiving an overall passing grade.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department enter a Final Order denying the relief sought by the Petitioner. RECOMMENDED this day 18th of February, 1994, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of February, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-5809 The following constitutes my specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Petitioner, James R. Coppola's Proposed Findings of Fact. Petitioner did not number his proposed findings of fact; however, I have taken the liberty to number them 1 through 14, beginning with the second full paragraph. Proposed findings of fact 1 and 3 are covered in the Preliminary Statement of the Recommended Order. Proposed findings of fact 2, 11 and 13 are neither material nor relevant to this proceeding. Proposed findings of fact 4 - 10, 12 and 14 are rejected for the reasons stated in Findings of Fact 7 - 19. Respondent, Department's Proposed Findings of Fact. Respondent has broken his proposed findings of fact into three categories and numbered each category separately; however, I have taken the liberty to renumber them 1 through 20, beginning with number 1 under Statement of the Case through 5 under Second Challenge. The following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parenthesis is the Finding(s) of Fact which so adopts the proposed finding(s) of fact: 1(3,4); 8-9(10); 10(12); 11(18); 12(9); 14(7); 15(10); 16(14); 17(15); 18(18) and; 19-20(14). Proposed findings of fact 2 - 7 are covered in the Preliminary Statement of the Recommended Order. Proposed finding of fact 13 is adopted in Finding of Fact 10, except that portion concerning the statement that the language "not to exceed $2500" does not appear in Chapter 21Q-15, Florida Administrative Code, which is rejected. See the language of Chapter 21Q-15, Florida Administrative Code, in Finding of Fact 10. COPIES FURNISHED: James B. Coppola 254 Felton Avenue Port Charlotte, Florida 33952 William M. Woodyard, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Diane Orcutt, Executive Director Board of Optometry Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to a passing score on the clinical examination of the July 2002 optometry licensure examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner earned a bachelor of science degree in mathematics from Baylor University in 1978 and a doctor of optometry degree from the University of Houston in 1982. He subsequently became licensed to practice optometry in West Virginia and Texas. After practicing for years in West Virginia, Petitioner practiced for 13 years in Texas before moving to Florida in June 1999. In July 2002, Petitioner took the clinical examination portion of the optometry licensure examination. To obtain a license, a candidate must pass this portion of the examination, as well as the portions pertaining to pharmacology and ocular disease and Florida laws and rules. Petitioner has already passed these other portions, so the clinical examination is what he must pass to earn a Florida license. The clinical examination is a practical examination in which a candidate must demonstrate specific procedures. Respondent selects the procedures to be demonstrated on the basis of their importance to the practice of optometry. Respondent scores the clinical examination by averaging the scores of two examiners, who score the candidate's work independent of each other. The clinical examination is divided into two sections, and a different pair of examiners score each section. An examiner must be a Florida-licensed optometrist for at least three years prior to the examination. The examiner may not be under investigation or have been found to have violated Chapter 456 or 463, Florida Statutes. Prior to performing their duties, examiners must attend a standardization program, at which they are trained in identifying the skills to be examined and the standards to be applied. All of the examiners for a specific examination date attend the same standardization program, at which Respondent's coordinators present several hundred slides showing correct and incorrect procedures and answer any questions that examiners may have. In general, Petitioner challenges the work of one of Respondent's staff in rescoring his examination and calculating his score as 74.10. Although still not a passing grade, 74.10 is one point closer to passing than was his originally reported score of 73.10. However, this staffperson rechecked her work and later confirmed that 73.10 was the correct score. At the hearing, Petitioner specifically challenged Questions 33(b), 33(c), 35(b), 37(a), and 38(b). These questions are all from the same section of the examination, so the same two examiners scored each of them. In Questions 33(b) and (c), the candidate must perform tonometry on a nondilated eye and demonstrate the proper mires width and correct mire alignment, respectively. For Question 33(b), Examiner 143 gave Petitioner no credit, noting that the mires width was "too thin," and Examiner 242 gave Petitioner no credit, noting that the mires width was "too thin" and there was "not enough flourescein." For Question 33(c), Examiner 143 gave Petitioner no credit, noting that the mires were "no [sic] aligned," and Examiner 242 gave Petitioner no credit, noting that the "mires [were] off." Petitioner has failed to prove error in either score. For Question 33(b), both examiners found the same condition. The candidate, not the examiner, as Petitioner claimed, is responsible for adding flourescein. Insufficient flourescein would leave the mires too thin. Examiner 242's additional note explains the source of Petitioner's error in Question 33(b). Petitioner's argument that he could still obtain a proper ultimate reading despite insufficient flourescein and thin mires lines misses the point of the question, which is to determine if candidates can take the conventional steps toward the ultimate objective of estimating intraocular pressure. For Question 33(c), both examiners drew similar pictures showing that Petitioner's mires lines were misaligned. Petitioner produced no evidence to the contrary. His argument that he could not have answered Question 34 correctly without solving Question 33(c) misses the point of Question 34, which is merely to determine if a candidate can accurately read a dial. For Question 35(b), the candidate must demonstrate proper illumination of an inferior angle of the eye. Examiner 242 gave Petitioner credit, but Examiner 143 gave Petitioner no credit, noting "poor lighting." It is entirely possible that Examiner 242, who was first to examine the demonstrated angle, found adequate lighting, but, due perhaps to patient movement with no readjustment, Examiner 143 found inadequate lighting. In this procedure, only one examiner can check the angle at a time. For Question 37(a), the candidate must determine the presence of iris processes by showing the correct response and clear focus. Examiner 242 gave Petitioner credit, noting that Petitioner "repositioned [patient] and got focus of angle and answered correctly," but Examiner 143 gave Petitioner no credit, noting "no view or focus." As noted by Examiner 242, Petitioner had to reposition the patient and did so to earn credit for this item. Evidently, Petitioner failed to do so for Examiner 143. For Question 38(b), the candidate must demonstrate the specified angle of the eye with proper illumination. Examiner 242 gave Petitioner credit, but Examiner 143 gave Petitioner no credit, noting "no view of angle." Again, the most likely reason for the loss of a view was patient movement without an accompanying readjustment of the focus. Petitioner has failed to prove that he is entitled to any additional points for the clinical examination portion of the optometry licensing examination that he took in July 2002.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Optometry enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's challenge to the clinical examination portion of the July 2002 optometry licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 23rd day of April, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Joe Baker, Jr., Executive Director Board of Optometry Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin C07 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 A. S. Weekley, Jr. Holland & Knight LLP Post Office Box 1288 Tampa, Florida 33602 Cassandra Pasley Senior Attorney Office of the General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703
The Issue Whether the Petitioner's challenge to the licensure examination should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a candidate for optometry licensure. He took the examination for licensure in August 1999. The Respondent is the state agency charged with the responsibility of administering license examinations. In September 1999, the results of the August 1999 examination were provided to Petitioner. The examination grade report advised Petitioner that he had failed two portions of the licensure examination. A candidate must pass all portions of the exam to become licensed. As to the clinical portion of the examination, the Petitioner challenged the results due to what he maintained were "discrepancies" in the grading system. As to each question challenged in the clinical portion, the Petitioner cited the differing grades from the two examiners as the basis for his dispute. When the Petitioner received credit for the question from one examiner, he believed he should have received credit from the second as well. The clinical portion of the exam was scored by two examiners who independently reviewed the candidate's work. Typically, the candidate for licensure indicates when the examiner is to evaluate the work by stating "grade me now." As to each task, the candidate receives two scores. The scores are added together and divided by two to reach the overall clinical score. Based upon when the candidate directs the examiner to grade, it is possible to receive conflicting results in the scoring process. It is the overall score that determines whether a candidate receives a passing grade on the clinical portion. According to Dr. Liebetreu, a marginal candidate may well be able to correctly perform the task for one examiner yet do so incorrectly for the second reviewer. The method of scoring therefore gives the marginal candidate some credit. As to the questions challenged in the pharmacological portion of the exam, the Petitioner argued that the questions were misleading or had multiple correct answers. Each question challenged offered one most correct answer that the Petitioner should have selected in order to receive full credit. The Petitioner has failed to established that the answers he provided were "more correct" than the ones used by the Respondent to grant credit. The photographs used in the examination were of sufficient quality to provide the candidate with appropriate views to answer questions. The questions challenged were not ambiguous or misleading. The candidates were provided adequate time to complete all portions of the examination. Persons scoring the Petitioner's work during the clinical portion of the exam were not permitted to confer. Their scores were to be based solely on the work they observed. The overall scores issued by persons scoring the Petitioner's work were within acceptable statistical standards.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Health, Board of Optometry, enter a final order denying the Petitioner's challenge to the August 1999 examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. PARRISH 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 20th day of June, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Navin Singh, O.D., pro se 103 Knights Court Royal Palm Beach, Florida 33411 Amy M. Jones, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle Southeast, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703 Eric G. Walker, Executive Director Board of Optometry Department of Health 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 William W. Large, General Counsel Department of Health 4052 Bald Cypress Way Bin A00 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1701 Angela T. Hall, Agency Clerk Department of Health 2020 Capital Circle Southeast, Bin A02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1703
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his responses to question numbers 21 and 24 of the Principles and Practice of Engineering Examination administered in April 1998.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner took the April 24, 1998 professional engineering licensing examination with an emphasis in civil engineering. A score of 70 is required to pass the test. Petitioner obtained a score of 69. In order to achieve a score of 70, Petitioner needs a raw score of 48. Therefore, Petitioner is in need of at least one additional raw score point. Petitioner is challenging question numbers 21 and 24. They are both multiple-choice questions and worth one point each. Exhibit 10 contains a diagram for the candidate's use in answering question numbers 21 and 24. Question 21 requires the examinee to calculate the percentage of wooded land on the diagram. The diagram contains a rectangle labeled "woodlot," and within the rectangle are three non-contiguous areas marked with schematics of trees. The Petitioner reduced the percentage of wooded area to conform to the portion of the area labeled "woodlot" marked with schematics of trees. In regard to question number 21, the Petitioner asserts that as a matter of convention, by failing to put the trees everywhere in the wooded lot, one may assume that there are trees only where there is a schematic of the trees. The Petitioner's challenge was rejected on the basis that the scorer opined that it is standard practice that drawings are only partially filled with details, and the most reasonable interpretation of the site plan drawings is that the woodlot fills the entire area enclosed by the rectangle. John Howath, a professional engineer, testified regarding accepted conventions in engineering drawings. In Howath's opinion the drawing on the examination used inconsistent methodologies and was confusing regarding whether all of the area designated by the label or "call out" of woodlot was in fact wooded. Both the Petitioner and Mr. Howath referred to drawings in the Civil Engineering Reference Manual which showed areas on drawings totally covered with visual indications of a particular material or condition. Peter Sushinsky, a professional engineer, testified as an expert for the Respondent. Mr. Sushinsky acknowledged the Petitioner's exhibits; however, Mr. Sushinsky noted that these were only a few examples of drawings that are available. Mr. Sushinsky referenced construction drawings he had seen in his practice with partial "cross-hatching" just like the diagram on the examination. In sum, Mr. Sushinsky's experience was that diagram might be totally or partially "cross-hatched." In Mr. Sushinsky's opinion it was not a bad diagram, only subject to a different interpretation by a minor group. Question number 24 asked the candidate to calculate the weir peak discharge from the catchment area using the rational formula. The Petitioner asserts the question is misleading and should read, "What is the peak discharge from the watershed?" The Petitioner bases his assertion on the ground that the "rational formula" is used to compute discharge from a watershed not a weir, as mandated by the question. The scorer did not address the Petitioner's concerns. The scorer stated, "It is clear from the item statement that the weir equation is not to be used." However, the questions ask the candidate to compute the weir discharge. Jennifer Jacobs, a professor of engineering, testified regarding the rationale formula that it was used to calculate watershed discharge and not weir discharge. All experts agreed that the rational formula is not used to compute weir discharge. The experts all agree that the question was confusing because the rational formula is not used to calculate the discharge from a weir. The Respondent's expert justifies the answer deemed correct on the basis that if one uses the rational formula and computes the watershed discharge, one of the answers provided is close to the result. The Respondent's expert calculated the watershed discharge as 230.6 cubic feet per second (cfs). The answer deemed correct was 232 cfs. The expert stated the weir attenuates flow. If the weir attenuates flow one would expect an answer less than 230.6 cfs., not an answer equal to or greater than 230.6 cfs. The amount of attenuation is based upon the physical features of the impoundment area and the mouth of the weir. Weir Attenuation varies. The only answers smaller than 230.6 are 200 or 32. Is the 232 cfs. answer wrong because it does not allow for attenuation by the weir? How much did the weir attenuate the flow? Under these facts, the question is capricious. The Respondent argues that the Petitioner didn't follow instructions while acknowledging that the "correct" answer is not the answer to the question that was asked.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent enter a final order awarding Petitioner two raw points and a passing score on the Principles and Practice of Engineering Examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of May, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 20th day of May, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark W. Nelson 720 Northwest 31st Avenue Gainesville, Florida 32609 Natalie A. Lowe, Esquire Board of Professional Engineers 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Dennis Barton, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William Woodyard, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues in this case are: (1) whether Petitioner’s application pursuant to Section 458.315, Florida Statutes, for a temporary certificate to practice in an area of critical need should be granted or denied; and (2) whether Petitioner is entitled to withdraw his application prior to action by the Board of Medicine on the merits of the application.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a medical doctor, presently licensed to practice medicine in the State of New York. Petitioner signed a Florida Department of Health Board of Medicine Application for Temporary Certificate to Practice in an Area of Critical Need on June 19, 2003. Question number 13 on that application form asked, “Have you ever had any Medical/professional license revoked, suspended, placed on probation, received a citation, or other disciplinary action taken in any state territory or country?” Petitioner answered “yes” to question number 13. The Notice of Intent to Deny issued by the Florida Board of Medicine cited as the only reason for denial “[t]he applicant had action taken against the license by the New York and the Utah Medical Licensing Boards.” It has since been confirmed that the Utah Division of Occupational & Professional Licensing did not take any action against Petitioner’s medical license in Utah. The New York Department of Health, Monitoring Unit, Office of Professional Medical Conduct, did take action against Petitioner’s medical license in New York. The New York Department of Health described its action as follows: Dr. Jacoby currently holds a valid NYS medical license, and is permitted to practice in this State, however the sanctions imposed by the enclosed Order are still in effect, and have not yet been fully satisfied. The suspension was lifted in January 2003, however the three years probation remains ‘tolled’ at this time, to be imposed when Dr. Jacoby returns to the practice of medicine in this State. [Emphasis added.] The underlying reason for Petitioner’s discipline in New York is for failing to repay a student loan guaranteed by the federal government. Petitioner had secured a health education assistance loan guaranteed by the federal government for approximately $51,000.00 between 1982 and 1983. The loan came due nine months after Petitioner graduated from medical school in June or July of 1984. Petitioner did not make any payments toward the loan for approximately 18 years. In September of 2002, Petitioner finally settled his long past-due student loan debt. Petitioner requested to withdraw his Application for Temporary Certificate to Practice in an Area of Critical Need after the Credentials Committee voted to recommend denial of his application to the full Board of Medicine. Petitioner promptly made a similar written request addressed to the full Board of Medicine. The full Board of Medicine denied Petitioner’s request to withdraw his application. The Board of Medicine then considered the merits of Petitioner’s application and voted to deny the application. The Board’s action was memorialized in a Notice of Intent to Deny Licensure by Area of Critical Need, which reads as follows in pertinent part: This matter came before the Credentials Committee of the Florida Board of Medicine at a duly-noticed public meeting on September 13, 2003, in Tampa, Florida and the full Board on October 3-4, 2003, in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. The applicant appeared before the Credentials Committee on September 13, 2003, and presented testimony regarding the application file. The application file shows: The applicant had action taken against the license by the New York and the Utah Medical Licensing Boards. Additionally, the Board considered applicant’s Motion to Withdraw his application during the full Board meeting and voted to deny applicant’s motion. The applicant is guilty of violating Section 458.331(1)(b), Florida Statutes, for having a license acted upon by another jurisdiction. Based on the foregoing, the Board may refuse to certify an applicant for licensure, or restrict the practice of the licensee, or impose a penalty, pursuant to Sections 458.331(2) and 456.072(2), Florida Statutes. It is therefore ORDERED that the application for licensure by area of critical need by DENIED. If a final order is issued denying Petitioner’s license, the denial will be reported to the Federation of State Medical Boards, which is a depository of all disciplinary actions and license application denials by state boards in the United States. In recent years, it has been the consistent practice of the Florida Board of Medicine to deny applications for licenses to practice medicine if the applicant’s medical license is on probation in another state. Such practice is not required by either rule or statute. The Board of Medicine does not make any effort to advise applicants or prospective applicants of its consistent practice of denying applications from physicians who are on probation elsewhere. At the time he filed the subject application, as well as at the time of his appearance before the Credentials Committee, Petitioner was not aware of the Board of Medicine’s history of not granting applications submitted by physicians on probation elsewhere. Had Petitioner been aware of the Board’s history in that regard, he would not have filed an application.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued in this case granting Petitioner’s application for a temporary certificate to practice medicine in communities of Florida where there is a critical need for physicians. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of April, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 22nd day of April, 2004.
The Issue Whether the Florida Real Estate Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Commission") should refuse, on the grounds set forth in its August 17, 1994, order, to certify Petitioner as qualified to practice as a real estate salesperson in the State of Florida?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: On or about June 20, 1994, Petitioner filed with the DRE an application for licensure as a real estate salesperson. Petitioner took the real estate salesperson's licensure examination that was administered on July 25, 1994, in Miami, Florida (hereinafter referred to as the "Examination"). The Examination, which consisted of 100 multiple choice questions, began sometime between 8:35 and 8:45 a.m. on the morning of July 25, 1994, after the candidates had been read approximately five pages of written Examination instructions. Petitioner entered the Examination room late, at approximately 9:45 a.m., at which time he was given an Examination booklet and answer sheet and escorted to his seat. He was asked if he wanted to be read the written Examination instructions that had been read to the candidates prior to his arrival, but he declined the offer inasmuch as he was anxious to begin the Examination. Petitioner was seated at a table next to Candidate #362078. Although there were two different "forms" of the Examination, an "odd form" and an "even form," both Petitioner and Candidate #362078 had the same form. On various occasions during the Examination, Petitioner looked at Candidate #362078's answer sheet to see Candidate #362078's answers. 1/ At least four proctors witnessed such conduct. In accordance with DRE policy, Petitioner was allowed to finish the examination. Petitioner answered 85 of the 100 questions on the Examination correctly, one less than Candidate #362078 answered correctly. Petitioner and Candidate #362078 answered 75 of the same questions correctly. There were five questions that both Petitioner and Candidate #362078 answered incorrectly. They chose the identical incorrect response on four of these five questions (Questions 24, 46, 59 and 99). On Question 24, Petitioner and Candidate #362078 both gave "A" as the answer to the question. Only 10.4 percent of the 1049 candidates taking the Examination gave this incorrect response to Question 24. On Question 59, Petitioner and Candidate #362078 again both gave "A" as the answer to the question. Only 12.4 percent of the 1049 candidates taking the Examination gave this incorrect response to Question 59.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Commission enter a final order refusing to certify Petitioner as qualified to practice as a real estate salesperson in the State of Florida, without prejudice to Petitioner reapplying for licensure at such time as he is able to show that, because of the lapse of time since the Examination and his subsequent good conduct and reputation, or other reason deemed sufficient, he is qualified to practice as a real estate salesperson and therefore the interest of the public and investors will not likely be endangered by the granting of such licensure. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 28th day of February, 1995. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of February, 1995.
