The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his solutions to three problems on the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the engineering licensure examination administered on October 29, 1999, by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: On October 29, 1999, as part of his effort to obtain a Florida engineering license, Petitioner sat for the Principles and Practice of Engineering Examination (Examination). This is a national examination developed and administered by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors (NCEES). Petitioner chose to be tested in mechanical engineering. Petitioner received a raw score of 47 on the Examination. For the mechanical engineering specialization, a raw score of 47 converts to a score of 69. To pass the Examination, a converted score of 70 is needed. Petitioner formally requested (in writing, by letter dated March 13, 2000) that his solutions to Problems 141, 144, and 147 on the Examination be rescored. Petitioner's written request was made to the Board's "Legal Section," which forwarded it to the NCEES. The NCEES's rescoring of Petitioner's solutions to Problems 141, 144, and 147 resulted in his receiving no additional points. The Board received the NCEES's rescoring results on or about April 25, 1999. After receiving a letter from Petitioner (dated May 3, 2000) requesting a "formal hearing," the Board referred the matter to the Division. Problems 141, 144, and 147 were worth ten raw points each. Petitioner received four raw points for his solution to Problem 141. In his solution to Problem 141, Petitioner failed to take into consideration bending stresses and loads. Therefore, in accordance with the requirements and guidelines of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem, the highest raw score that he could have received for his solution to this problem was a four, which is the score he received. Petitioner received a raw score of two for his solution to Problem 144. In rescoring Petitioner's solution to this problem, the NCEES rescorer made the following "comments": A correct solution [to this problem] must include an energy balance on the open feedwater heater to determine the fraction of flow through turbine T1 that is extracted and taken to the open feedwater heater. a correct equation for determining the specific work developed by the two turbines on the basis of one pound entering turbine T1. The equation the examinee has written assumes the same flow through both turbines. determination of the mass rate of flow (m1) at the inlet to turbine T1. This is determined by dividing the net power by the specific net work. determining the rate at which heat is added in the steam generator and reheater. finally, dividing the rate at which heat is added in the steam generator by the heating value times 0.75 with the appropriate conversion factors. The examinee has used the new power (200 MW or 200 x 105)as the rate at which heat is added in the steam generator and reheater. This is incorrect. The scoring plan states 2 RUDIMENTARY KNOWLEDGE . . . OR-(3) determines tons/day = Wnet/7650, Wnet = (h1 - h2) + (h3 - h4) This is what the examinee has done. Based on the scoring plan and the above analysis, a score of 2 is recommended. There has been no showing that the foregoing "analysis" was in any way flawed or that application of the requirements and guidelines of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem should have resulted in Petitioner receiving a raw score higher than two for his solution to Problem 144. Petitioner received a raw score of four for his solution to Problem 147. In rescoring Petitioner's solution to this problem, the NCEES rescorer made the following "comments": The examinee used an incorrect temperature difference in [his] calculation of the heat transferred by convection and radiation from the outer surface of the pipe. Most of the examinee's work for requirement (b) was not needed. In doing that unnecessary work, however, [he] made two significant errors: 1. [He] evaluated a radiation exchange between the steam inside the pipe and the environment surrounding the pipe. The pipe shields the environment surrounding the pipe from the steam. 2. The examinee's equation "Total heat Loss = Conductive + Radiation" is not satisfactory. In attempting to evaluate the heat transfer from the insul[a]ted pipe, [he] assumed that the outer surface heat transfer coefficient was very high; 3.0 is not high. The examinee made no attempt to evaluate the payback period for the insulation. There has been no showing that the foregoing analysis was in any way flawed. For the errors made by Petitioner in his solution to Problem 147, a 50% "grade reduction" was warranted pursuant to the "error analysis" portion of the NCEES scoring plan for this problem. 1/ The remaining portions of the scoring plan for Problem 147 provided as follows: 10: Essentially complete and correct solution. May have one or two minor math, data, or chart reading errors. . . . Grade of 8: A grade of 8 will result from having any combination of the above listed errors which causes a grade reduction between 10% and 50%. A Grade of 6: A grade of 6 will result from having any combination of the above listed errors which causes a grade reduction between 30% and 50%. Grade of 4: 2/ A grade of 4 will result from having any combination of the above listed errors which causes a grade reduction between 50% and 70%. Grade of 2: A grade of 2 will result from having any combination of the above listed errors which causes a grade reduction between 70% and 90%. Grade of Zero: Nothing presented that warrants a grade of at least 10%. It is unclear from a reading of the NCEES scoring plan for Problem 147 whether a grade reduction of 50% should result in a raw score of four or six. The plan is ambiguous in this regard. While it may be reasonable to interpret the plan as requiring that a raw score of six be given where there is a grade reduction of 50%, the plan is also reasonably susceptible to the interpretation that a 50% grade reduction should result in a raw score of four, the score Petitioner received for his solution to Problem 147. It therefore cannot be said that the scoring of his solution to this problem was inconsistent with the problem's scoring plan, as reasonably construed.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered rejecting Petitioner's challenge to the failing score he received from the NCEES on the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the October 29, 1999, engineering licensure examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of October, 2000.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's license as a professional engineer should be disciplined for the reasons given in the Administrative Complaint filed on March 30, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In this disciplinary action, Petitioner, Florida Engineers Management Corporation (FEMC), seeks to impose penal sanctions on the license of Respondent, Allen A. Davis, a professional engineer, on the ground that he committed negligence in the practice of engineering by signing and sealing the electrical portion of a set of plans when he had no expertise in that area of engineering. Respondent denies the allegation and contends that when he signed and sealed that part of the plans, he did not intend to hold himself out as an electrical engineer or for anyone to rely upon the plans in that respect. Respondent is a long-time licensed professional having been issued Professional Engineer License No. 8986 on September 15, 1961, by the Florida Board of Professional Engineers. His current license is effective through February 28, 2001. Respondent's specialty is as a structural engineer, and he holds himself out as having expertise in only that specialty. By experience gained over the years, however, he has a general familiarity with most aspects of engineering, including electrical engineering. Upon graduation from college, Respondent worked for the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT). After leaving DOT some 20 years ago, he engaged in the engineering practice "in various forms of housing construction, including subdivisions, PUD's, house plans themselves, hydraulics and drainage projects involved in civil works throughout." For the last 15 years, he has also served as an engineering consultant for Volusia County. Most recently, he has operated a "one-man shop" in Deland, Florida, "checking, reviewing, and supervising production of plans for houses and other structures involving buildings, and [performing] some highway work [and] some traffic work." Rule 61G15-23.002(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides that whenever an engineer places his signature and seal on a set of documents, the engineer is responsible for all work contained in the documents. However, engineers are only required to sign and seal that portion of a document for which they are proficient. Under informal agency policy, which the FEMC's expert says is based on a "common sense" interpretation of the cited rule, any other drawings which are signed and sealed should contain a disclaimer indicating that the engineer is not responsible for the content which lies outside of his expertise. Whether this policy was disseminated to engineers throughout the state in 1994 is unknown. One of Respondent's projects involved a two-story residential home in Palm Harbor, Florida, being constructed by Brattlof Construction Company, Inc. (Brattlof) in 1994. The third page of the plans described the electrical floor plan for the residence. In June 1994, Respondent signed and sealed that page, even though this discipline was outside his specialty area, and he failed to put a disclaimer on the sheet. As it turned out, the electrical plan contained numerous deficiencies as recited in paragraph 5 of the Administrative Complaint. Respondent says he signed all pages of the plans since this was a long-time practice of other professional engineers in the Volusia County area. An electrical draftsman for Brattlof actually prepared the electrical plan. At that time, the Volusia County Building Department required that before it would accept any building plans, all pages had to be signed and sealed. Although the record is not altogether clear, it appears that if a project was "below 600 amp," a master electrician could sign that portion of the plans. In this case, the house apparently fell into this category. Even so, Respondent signed and sealed every page of the drawings in order to file them with the local agency. By doing so, Respondent unintentionally contravened the rule and informal policy. Respondent pointed out, however, that Brattlof later submitted a separate electrical plan prepared by the electrical subcontractor as a part of the permit process. The significance of this submission was not explained in the record. According to Petitioner's expert, if an engineer is faced with a situation where a signature and seal is required on every page, he or she should engage the services of another professional (an architect or engineer) with expertise in electrical engineering, who could then review the plans and sign and seal them. In terms of mitigation, there is no evidence that Respondent has ever been the subject of a disciplinary action during his lengthy 38-year career as a licensed professional engineer. In addition, there is no evidence that a third party was injured, mislead, or adversely affected by relying on the plans. The project can be considered "minor", no restitution was required, and once this matter was brought to Respondent's attention, he began the practice of placing a disclaimer on all pages outside of his specialty. Finally, it can be inferred that Respondent has high professional standing among his peers, given the fact that he has testified as an expert around 500 times since gaining licensure.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and that he be given a reprimand. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of October, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 12th day of October, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis Barton, Executive Director Florida Board of Professional Engineers 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-0500 Natalie A. Lowe, Esquire Florida Board of Professional Engineers 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-0500 Dennis K. Bayer, Esquire Post Office Box 1505 Flagler Beach, Florida 32136 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact In April 1995, Abraham S. Inlong (Petitioner) took the Electrical Engineer part of the Professional Engineering Examination (Examination). A minimum grade of 70 is required to pass the Examination. The Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers (Respondent) notified Petitioner that he had failed the Examination, having received a grade of 69.10. The Examination is a national examination and is graded by national examiners. Respondent issues licenses to practice professional engineering in the State of Florida and administers the Examination on behalf of the State. Petitioner challenges, the answer selected by the national examiners to Problem 433, Question 6 of the Examination, which is A. Respondent selected D as the answer, which states that A, B, and C are all correct. As part of the instructions for candidates taking the Examination, the candidates were to choose the best answer. The best answer is the correct answer. Respondent's response to Problem 433, Question 6 was regraded by the national examiners. They denied Respondent any additional credit. The best and correct answer to Problem 433, Question 6 is the answer identified by Respondent as the answer by the national examiners, i. e., A. The answer selected by Petitioner is not the best and correct answer. A diagram is part of the challenged problem and question. The diagram is clear and unambiguous. The scope of knowledge required for the challenged problem and question is not beyond the knowledge reasonably expected from a candidate for licensure. The challenged problem and question contain sufficient information for a candidate for licensure to select the best and correct answer. Additional information was unnecessary, including whether the system was balanced or unbalanced. The challenged problem and question are clear and unambiguous. The challenged problem and question are not devoid of logic and reason. The challenged problem and question are valid. Statistics indicate that 60 percent of the candidates for licensure (candidates), who took the Examination, answered Problem 433 correctly and that 48 percent of the candidates answered Problem 433, Question 6 correctly.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers, enter a final order dismissing Abraham S. Inlong's examination challenge and denying him licensure. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of August, 1996, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL, 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 1st day of August, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 96-0031 The following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Partially accepted in findings of fact 1 and 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. Partially accepted in findings of fact 4 and 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. Rejected as being not supported by the greater weight of the evidence, not supported by the more credible evidence, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being not supported by the greater weight of the evidence, not supported by the more credible evidence, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being not supported by the greater weight of the evidence, not supported by the more credible evidence, argument, or a conclusion of law. Rejected as being not supported by the greater weight of the evidence, or not supported by the more credible evidence. Rejected as being not supported by the greater weight of the evidence, or not supported by the more credible evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1. Partially accepted in finding of fact 1. 2. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 3. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 4. Partially accepted in finding of fact 2. 5. See Preliminary Statement. 6. See Preliminary Statement. 7. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 4. 9. Partially accepted in finding of fact 7. 10. Partially accepted in finding of fact 11. 11. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 9. 13. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. 14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 10. Partially accepted in findings of fact 9 - 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 12. Partially accepted in finding of fact 6. Rejected as being subordinate, argument, or a conclusion of law. Partially accepted in finding of fact 8. Partially accepted in finding of fact 14. Partially accepted in finding of fact 13. Rejected as being subordinate, or unnecessary. Rejected as being subordinate, or unnecessary. Rejected as being subordinate, or unnecessary. NOTE--Where a proposed finding has been partially accepted, the remainder has been rejected as being subordinate, irrelevant, unnecessary, not supported by the greater weight of the evidence, not supported by the more credible evidence, argument, or a conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold M. Braxton, Esquire One Datran Center, Suite 400 9100 South Dadeland Boulevard Miami, Florida 33156-7815 R. Beth Atchison Assistant General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0755 Lynda Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to an award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes, and, if so, the amount of such award.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Joseph Ovadia, M.D., is a licensed physician in the State of Florida, having been so licensed since approximately April of 1985. On or about October 10, 1994, the Respondent initiated an administrative action against the Petitioner, as directed by the Probable Cause Panel of the Board of Medicine in AHCA Case No. 93-17425, through the filing of an Administrative Complaint. The Administrative Complaint in AHCA Case No. 93-17425 charged the Petitioner with one count of making a deceptive, untrue, or fraudulent representation in or related to the practice of medicine, in violation of Section 458.331(1)(k), Florida Statutes. In the Administrative Complaint it was alleged that the Petitioner had stated under oath that he was Board Certified in Orthopedic Surgery when, in fact, he was not Board Certified in any medical specialty. A Corrected Administrative Complaint was subsequently filed against the Petitioner to correct a minor and irrelevant factual allegation. The Petitioner denied the allegations in the Corrected Administrative Complaint and requested a formal hearing on the matter. The proceeding was referred to the Division of Administrative Hearings, where it was docketed as DOAH Case No. 95-0322, and styled as Agency for Health Care Administration, Board of Medicine vs. Joseph Ovadia, M.D. Following a formal hearing before the Division of Administrative Hearings, a Recommended Order was issued in which it was recommended that the charge against the Petitioner be dismissed. Ultimately, the Board of Medicine issued a Final Order dismissing all charges against the Petitioner in DOAH Case No. 95-0322, and on August 2, 1996, the Petitioner filed a timely petition seeking an award of attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to Section 57.111, Florida Statutes. The Petitioner, Joseph Ovadia, M. D., has been, at all times material to this proceeding, the sole proprietor of an unincorporated professional practice domiciled in this state with its principal office in this state. The Petitioner has never had more than three employees. The Petitioner’s net worth is less than two million dollars. In the course of defending against the charges in DOAH Case No. 95-0322, the Petitioner incurred attorney’s fees in the amount of $4,190.001 and incurred costs in the amount of $201.50. The administrative charges filed against the Petitioner arose from the following question and answer in the deposition testimony of the Petitioner taken on July 9, 1992, in a civil action involving injuries to a patient who had been examined by the Petitioner: Q. Are you Board Certified, Doctor? A. Yes. At the time of the Probable Cause Panel meeting at which it was decided to file charges against the Petitioner, the information before the panel included a transcript of the deposition that included the above-quoted question and answer and an affidavit from the Executive Vice President of the American Board of Medical Specialties to the effect that the Petitioner was not Board Certified in Orthopedic Surgery. The panel did not have before it any evidence as to why the Petitioner gave that deposition answer or what the Petitioner’s intent was at the time he gave that answer. The Petitioner's actual intent when he gave the subject deposition answer was described as follows in the findings of fact in the underlying case: 9. The [Petitioner] is foreign-born and is a foreign medical graduate, having graduated from the Medical School at McGill University in Canada. Among graduates of Canadian medical schools it is common to refer to the examinations for licensure in the United States, such as those of the National Board of Medical Examiners or the Federation of State Medical Boards, as the 'boards.' When the [Petitioner] gave the answer described in paragraph [5] of these findings of fact he was thinking in terms of the Canadian jargon, rather than the American jargon. The [Petitioner] did not intend by the answer described in paragraph [5] to imply that he was board certified by the American Board of Orthopedic Surgeons. The [Petitioner] has never intentionally represented to anyone that he was board certified by the American Board of Orthopedic Surgeons.
The Issue Whether Petitioner's application for licensure by examination as an engineering intern should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Prior to his admission to the Mechanical Engineering Program at the University of South Florida on August 30, 1982, Petitioner Evans attended a three-year full-time Mechanical Engineering Diploma Program at the College of Arts, Science and Technology in Kingston, Jamaica. Upon completion of the program, Petitioner was awarded the College Mechanical Engineering Diploma. The diploma from the College of Arts, Science and Technology was conferred in an educational system based upon the English System of Education. The diploma was not a university degree, such as a Bachelor of Science. It is more akin to a certificate from a specialized training program. Such diplomas are often called Associate Degrees when they are issued by junior colleges in the United States. 750 credit hours were transferred from the College of Arts, Science and Technology and were applied to the lower level requirements for the Mechanical Engineering Program when Petitioner was enrolled at the University of South Florida. As with all transfers from other schools of higher education, Petitioner was not given credit for those courses in the grade point average (GPA) he was required to achieve at the university. Throughout his enrollment at the university prior to the actual award of his Bachelor of Science (BS) degree, Petitioner Evans was in the Mechanical Engineering Program. During the thirteen terms the Petitioner attended the university before he was awarded his BS degree, he repeated the following engineering department courses: EGN 3313 STATICS (3 times); EML 4503 MACH AN & DES 2 (2 times); ENG 4314 AUTO CONTROLS I (3 times) and EML 4106 C THERM SYS & ECO (4 times). Petitioner ultimately achieved a "A" in EGN 3313 STATICS; a "C" in EML 4503 MACH AN & DES 2, as well as ENG 4314 AUTO CONTROLS I. His final grade in the coursework for EML 4106 C THERM SYS & ECO was a "B". At all times while Petitioner was in attendance at the university, the Mechanical Engineering Department required students to have a GPA of 2.2 or better in a specific schedule of coursework before a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering (BSME) degree would be awarded by the faculty of the Department. The curriculum for the Mechanical Engineering Program at the University of South Florida was accredited by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET) based upon the program requirement that a degree in mechanical engineering would be conferred only on students with a 2.2 or better GPA. The fall term of August 24, 1987 - December 12, 1987, was designated as Petitioner's final term of his senior year as an undergraduate seeking a BSME degree. Although the means used by the Mechanical Engineering faculty to calculate a GPA during this particular time period was unavailable, there is no dispute that the faculty applied its policy and determined that a BSME could not be awarded to Petitioner because he did not meet the academic standard of 2.2 or better GPA in the scheduled courses. Due to the averaging required to arrive at a GPA, Petitioner's repetition of so many courses lowered his overall GPA even though he successfully completed each course on his final attempt. When Petitioner was personally informed of the faculty's decision by his assigned faculty adviser, he questioned whether he could retake some of the courses to bring his GPA status up to the level demanded by the faculty. This idea was discouraged by his adviser because Petitioner would have to repeat a large number of courses over a lengthy period of time. The averaging techniques used to compute a GPA makes such an endeavor very time consuming with small results for the effort spent. Based upon the advice he received, Petitioner acquiesced in the faculty's decision to award him a B.S. in Engineering-Option in General and accepted the degree. At the close of his undergraduate academic pursuits, Petitioner had an overall GPA of 2.082 and a GPA in departmental course work of 1.79. This departmental GPA was calculated by eliminating 3 "Fs" from his transcript, per the university's forgiveness policy. All other course repeats lowered his overall GPA and his departmental GPA. In spite of the overall GPA and departmental GPA determination, Petitioner did take and successfully passed every course within the curriculum of the Mechanical Engineering Program at the University of South Florida. The B.S. degree awarded to Petitioner is an alternate degree within the university. It is designed for students who have either completed a specialized program but were unable to meet a faculty's higher GPA standard or for those students who never designated a specialty within the engineering school, but met general university degree requirements. This program has never been accredited by ABET. ABET relied upon the faculty's representation that students who received BSME degrees would obtain a 2.2 or better GPA in the program before the degree was awarded when accreditation was granted by the board. It is unknown as to whether the program would have been approved if a lower success standard had been set for the students. On July 9, 1990, Petitioner's application for the Fundamentals Examination was received by the Department. The application was rejected on September 24, 1990, because the Department determined Petitioner did not meet the statutory and rule provisions governing admissions to the examination. From August 27,, 1984 - December 11, 1987, Petitioner was in the final year of an approved engineering curriculum in a university approved by the Board. He successfully completed the courses in the curriculum, but his GPA in the program was lowered by his numerous repetitions of the same courses before successful completion occurred.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: Petitioner's application to take the examination administered by the Department for the Board be denied. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of August, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 August, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Pages 1-2: Accepted. See Preliminary Statement Issue I-Page 3: Paragraph one. Accepted. See HO #11. Paragraph two. Accepted. See HO #7. Paragraph three. Accepted. See HO #3. Paragraph four. Accepted. See HO #8. Paragraph five. Accepted. See HO #4, #10, #11 and #12. Paragraph six. Accepted. Paragraph seven. Accepted. See HO #15. Paragraph eight. Accepted. See HO #12. Paragraph nine. Accepted. Paragraph ten. Accepted. Paragraph ten. Rejected. Cumulative. Issue II-Page 7: Paragraph one. Accepted. See HO #13. Issue III-Page 8:Paragraph one. Accepted. Paragraph two. Rejected. Cumulative. Paragraph three. Accepted. Paragraph four. Rejected. Mixed Question of Law and Fact. Witness Incompetent to determine. Paragraph five. Rejected. Cumulative. Respondent's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: Accepted. See HO #14. Accepted. See HO #14. Accepted. See HO #1. Accepted. See HO #3 and #4. Accepted. See HO #13. Accepted. See HO #12 and #13. Accepted. See HO #8 and #13. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #5. Accepted. See HO #11. Rejected. Irrelevant. Accepted. Accepted. See HO #10. Rejected. Insufficient facts presented. See HO #8. Accepted. See HO #6. Accepted. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Irrelevant. Rejected. Improper legal conclusion. Rejected. Contrary to fact. See HO #12. COPIES FURNISHED: Weldon Earl Brennan, Esquire SHEAR NEWMAN HAHN & ROSENKRANZ, P.A. 201 E. Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1000 Post Office Box 2378 Tampa, Florida 33601 Edwin A. Bayo, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Suite LL04, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Carrie Flynn, Executive Director Jack McRay, General Counsel Florida Board of Professional Department of Professional Engineers Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0755 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue The issues presented are: (1) whether or not Respondent wrongfully eliminated materials from the Candidate/Petitioner during the April 19, 1990 engineering examination, and if so, (2) whether the Candidate/Petitioner received a failing grade because the materials were wrongfully eliminated.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner (#100021) received a score of 69.0 on the Professional Engineer Fundamentals Examination given April 19, 1990. A minimum passing score was 70.0 on the examination which is written by National Council of Engineering Examiners and graded by Education Testing Service. (Transcript Pages 36 and 39) Prior to the April 1990 examination, the Board sent each candidate a letter, dated December 18, 1989 (Exhibit P-1) (Transcript Page 9 and 12), which said, "No review publications directed principally toward sample questions and their solutions of engineering problems are permitted in the examination room." (Transcript Page 31). The candidates were also provided with a "Candidate Information Booklet" dated January 1990 (Exhibit R-1, Transcript Page 77). The booklet states on page 14, "No books with contents directed toward sample questions or solutions of engineering problems are permitted in the examination room." (Transcript Pages 77 and 96). Petitioner, who also took the October 1989 examination had received notice at that examination that the Board of Engineers intended to change the procedure allowing reference materials in the examination. (Transcript Page 89 and Respondent's Exhibit 2.) The Board of Professional Engineers advised the examination supervisor and proctors that no engineering "review" materials would be allowed in the examination although engineering "reference" materials could be brought into and used for the examination. However the books which were excluded included books without "review" in the title, books with "reference" in the title, and books which contained problems and solutions. Before the examination began Deena Clark, an examination supervisor, read over a loud speaker system names of books that would not be permitted (Transcript Page 81). Practice examination and solution manuals were not allowed for use by engineering candidates (Transcript Pages 93 and 94). Schram's outlines and other materials were also excluded (Transcript Page 91). Also excluded was Lindeburg's 6th edition, "Engineering In Training Review Manual." (Transcript Pages 16 and 79). This decision was verified by the Board before the examination began (Transcript Page 81). After the examination had begun, Ms. Clark announced that the candidates could put certain copyrighted materials in a three-ring binder and use them which had been excluded earlier (Transcript Page 85). This was in response to candidates who needed economics tables for the examination However, no time was provided the candidate to prepare these references and only one minute was added to the examination time. (Transcript Page 85). Petitioner did not bring any economic tables to the examination site except those contained in books which were not allowed in the examination. (Transcript Page 19). Petitioner did not remove the economic tables and permitted references from the Lindeburg's review manual until lunch and these tables were not available to him on the morning examination. (Transcript Pages 22 and 88). Of the six engineering economics questions on the morning portion for the examination, the candidate correctly answered four. No data was provided on the nature of these questions. The Candidate correctly answered 53 questions in the morning (weighted x 1) and 23 questions in the afternoon (weighted x 2) for a total of 99 weighted required points. He answered eight questions correctly in the "addition" portion of the examination. The table for eight additional questions correct in the "Scoring Information Booklet" used in determining the candidates final grade shows the adjusted equated score was 126 and his scaled score was 69. (Page 21 of booklet). The value of each economics question converted to final scoring scale was enough that passage of one economics question would have resulted in passage of the examination. The exclusion of certain materials from the examination was arbitrary and capricious and was done by a few individuals without any stated objective standard published by the board. Further, the board knew before the examination which books were to be excluded and could have notified examinees of the exact items to be excluded. The Board's generally poor handling of this matter is exemplified in announcing after the examination had begun that items previously excluded could be used if placed in a ring binder but not allowing any time to prepare such materials. (Tx. pgs., 74-80, 84-86, and 91-97) The Petitioner would have used several tables which were excluded if the announcement had been made before the morning examination began with time to put the items in acceptable form. After notifications in October 1989, December 1989, and January 1990, Petition admitted that he did not call the Board of Professional Engineers to ask for guidance on books that would not be allowed on the April 1990 examination (Transcript Page 29). However, a final decision on books to be excluded was not made until approximately two weeks before the examination. The Petitioner did not show that the two questions which he missed on the Engineering Economics portion of the morning examination were missed for lack of the tables. The examination is a national examination and there is no evidence that the requirements and limits established by the Board in Florida were applicable nationwide. To alter the national instructions locally potentially adversely affects Florida results.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Petitioner be permitted to take the examination without charge on one occasion. RECOMMENDED this 27th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of March, 1991. 1/ The general information provided to examinees by the State Board regarding the values of questions on the examination and scoring it misleading or inaccurate because neither the weighted required score nor the adjusted score was 48% of 80, 280, or any other number related to the scaled score of 70. The manner in which these values are associated with the scale score of 70 is contrary to the Board's explanation and is not self evident. This is a potential problem if the matter were formally challenged, and it appears the Board needs to reassess its procedures and instructions. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 90-5728 The Petitioner did not submit proposed findings. The Respondent submitted proposed findings which were read and considered. The following proposed findings were adopted or reject for the reasons stated: Adopted. Issue not fact. - 4. Rejected. Preliminary statement not fact. 5. -12. Adopted. Rejected. Preliminary statement not fact. Rejected as irrelevant. Rejected as preliminary statement. Adopted. Adopted. COPIES FURNISHED: Alan K. Garman Civil-Tech, Inc. 3573 Commercial Way Street B Spring Hill, FL 34606 William F. Whitson, Law Clerk Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Rex Smith Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to additional credit for his responses to Question No. 130 of the Principles and Practice of Engineering portion of the engineering licensure examination administered on April 23, 1999, by the National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Dennis Vann (Petitioner), is an applicant for licensure as a professional engineer in the State of Florida. On April 23, 1999, Petitioner sat for the Principles and Practice Engineering Examination portion of the engineer licensure examinations. This is a national examination developed, controlled, and administered by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES). Petitioner received a raw score of 45 on this examination. For the electrical engineering discipline, a raw score of 45 results in a converted score of 67. A minimum converted score of 70 is required to pass this examination. A raw score of 48 results in a converted score of 70. Therefore, Petitioner needs an additional 3 raw score points to earn a passing score on the examination. Petitioner challenged the scoring of Question No. 130 on the examination and formally requested the NCEES to rescore his solutions to the question. The NCEES rescored Question No. 130 and determined that Petitioner was not entitled to any additional points for Question No. 130. For Question No. 130, the maximum score achievable was Petitioner received a score of 4 on that item. The NCEES developed and used an Item Specific Scoring Plan (ISSP) for each examination question. Question No. 130 was scored by the NCEES according to the ISSP for that question. Question No. 130 contains two subparts, which require the examinee to address four discrete requirements. Petitioner correctly calculated the bus current (requirement 3). However, Petitioner failed to properly calculate the busway loading and determination of adequacy (requirement 1), the bus impedance (requirement 2), and percent voltage drop (requirement 4). Petitioner's response to Question No. 130 was initially assigned a score of 4. However, if graded correctly, that response would have resulted in a score of 6. The credible testimony of Respondent's expert was that under the ISSP for Question No. 130, Petitioner is entitled to a score of 6 for his response. With a score of 6 for Question No. 130, Petitioner's raw score is increased to 47. A raw score of 47 results in a converted score of 69. Even with the 2 additional points awarded to Petitioner's response to Question No. 130, his score on the professional engineering licensure examination is still below 70 and is not a passing score. Question No. 130 provides all the necessary information for an examinee to solve the problem. Moreover, Question No. 130 is properly designed to test an examinee's competence in electrical engineering.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered concluding that Petitioner is entitled to a score of 6 points for his response to Question No. 130, and recalculating Petitioner's total score on the examination on the basis of that conclusion. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 21st day of April, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis Vann Post Office box 23054 Tampa, Florida 33623 William H. Hollimon, Esquire Ausley & McMullen 227 South Calhoun Street Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1884 Dennis Barton, Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Board of Professional Engineers 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Natalie A. Lowe, Esquire Florida Engineers Management Corporation 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is licensed as a psychologist in Argentina, where she was educated. She attended the University of Buenos Aires completing a six-year program in four years. Petitioner received a degree in psychology from the University of Buenos Aires on December 23, 1977, but did not receive her diploma from that institution until June of 1979. She became licensed as a psychologist by the Ministry of Health in 1979. Upon her graduation from the University of Buenos Aires, Petitioner began to practice psychology in Argentina. She worked in a hospital from 1979 to 1983. Petitioner describes this period of work as her "internship." She also worked in a drug abuse program, which she also describes as an "internship." During these work experiences, Petitioner supervised other personnel. During the same period of time, specifically from 1980 to 1982, Petitioner also engaged in private practice. In 1981 Petitioner enrolled in the Argentina School of Psychotherapy for Graduates, where she took a number of courses and wrote a paper which she presented to the faculty there. The Argentina School of Psychotherapy for Graduates is not a degree-granting institution. Upon completion of the four year program, only a certificate is issued. Petitioner did not produce a transcript from the Argentina School of Psychotherapy for Graduates as part of her application for licensure in Florida. She submitted only a syllabus, i.e., a listing of the names of the courses she took at that institution. A syllabus, however, is not a transcript. Subsequently, Petitioner moved to the state of Michigan where she applied for licensure as a psychologist at the master's degree level. Based upon her education and training, she received a limited license to practice psychology in 1989. Michigan recognizes master's degree level psychologists. In Florida, however, master's degree level applicants are not eligible for licensure as psychologists. In 1991 Petitioner was interviewed by the licensure board in Michigan. Subsequent to that interview, Michigan granted her full licensure to practice as a psychologist in that state. In granting Petitioner full licensure, the Michigan licensing board deemed that her education and training were equivalent to education and training at the doctorate level even though between 1989 and 1991, Petitioner had not added to her education credentials. She had merely obtained additional supervised experience. At some point, Petitioner took and passed the Michigan examination for licensure. The Michigan examination is not the same as the examination for licensure developed by Professional Examination Services. Petitioner has never taken the national examination required for licensure in Florida. In 1993, Petitioner applied for licensure as a psychologist in Florida. She maintains that Michigan's determination that her education and training are equivalent to a doctorate level education should be sufficient to qualify her for Florida licensure as well. She admits, however, that she does not have a Ph.D. She also admits that there is "a huge difference" between the training in Argentina and the training in the United States. As part of her application process and in order to demonstrate to Respondent her qualifications for licensure in Florida, Petitioner submitted her education and training credentials to two foreign education credentialing services. One of those services determined that Petitioner has the equivalent of a Bachelor of Science degree in psychology from an institution in the United States that has regional academic accreditation, plus completion of four years of advanced theoretical and clinical training. The other service found that Petitioner has the equivalent of a bachelor's degree in psychology. The second credentialing service was unable to evaluate Petitioner's studies at the Argentina School of Psychotherapy for Graduates because that institution is not recognized as a degree-granting institution of higher education. Neither of those evaluations could verify that Petitioner possesses the equivalent of a doctorate degree as a result of her training and education in Argentina. In 1992, the University of Buenos Aires created a Ph.D. program in psychology; however, that program did not exist at the time that Petitioner attended that institution. The Argentina School of Psychotherapy for Graduates is not a degree granting institution and does not offer a doctorate program in psychology. At the time that Petitioner chose to attend the University of Buenos Aires and the Argentina School of Psychotherapy for Graduates, it was possible to obtain a Ph.D. in psychology in Argentina, but Petitioner chose not to pursue that course of study. Based upon Petitioner's advanced education beyond her bachelor's degree, she has the educational equivalent of a master's level degree without the thesis generally required to obtain such a degree.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a psychologist either by endorsement or by examination. DONE and ENTERED this 7th day of June, 1996, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, 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 7th day of June, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 94-4675 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 20- 22, 24, 28 and 46 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 4 and 10 have been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 6, 13-17, 19, 39, 41- 43, 47, and 50-54 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel, conclusions of law, or recitation of the testimony. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 8, 12, 18, 25-27, 34- 38, 40 and 49 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the competent evidence in this cause. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 23, 29-33, 44, 45, and 48 have been rejected as being subordinate to the issues herein. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-10, 12 and 15 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 11, 13 and 14 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel. COPIES FURNISHED: Frank P. Rainer, Esquire 215 South Monroe Street, Suite 815 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Virginia Daire, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol PL-01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Dr. Kay Howerton, Executive Director Agency for Health Care Administration Board of Psychology 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner's academic record meets the academic requirements that are prerequisites to taking the Fundamentals of Engineering examination.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner submitted an application for approval to take the Fundamentals of Engineering examination. The Petitioner studied engineering at the Tongji University in the People's Republic of China from 1991 to 1995. He majored in Building Engineering and was awarded the degree of Bachelor of Engineering on July 10, 1995. Beginning in September of 1995, the Petitioner studied engineering at the graduate level at Tongji University. His graduate studies lasted until April of 1998, at which time he was awarded the degree of Master of Engineering with a major in Structural Engineering. During the course of his graduate studies at Tongji University from September of 1995 until April of 1998, the Petitioner completed a total of 38 semester credit hours. Those semester credit hours included the following courses with their indicated semester credit hours: Applied Statistics 2 credit hours Numerical Analysis 3 credit hours The courses titled Applied Statistics and Numerical Analysis are both higher mathematics courses. In the fall of 2000, the Petitioner began further graduate studies in engineering at Auburn University. He studied at Auburn University through the spring of 2002. The courses taken by the Petitioner at Auburn University included the following, with the indicated number of semester credit hours: Advanced Structural Analysis 3 credit hours Advanced Stress Analysis 3 credit hours Structural Dynamics I 3 credit hours Finite Element Methods in Structural Mechanics 3 credit hours The course titled Finite Element Methods in Structural Mechanics is a higher mathematics class. The other three Auburn courses listed immediately above, if not pure mathematics courses, are certainly courses which involve the application of advanced principles of mathematics. To successfully complete such courses, a person would have to be well-grounded in higher mathematics. In the fall of 2002, the Petitioner transferred to the University of Florida where he continued his graduate studies in engineering. On December 20, 2003, the University of Florida awarded the Petitioner the degree of Master of Engineering with a major in Civil Engineering. Pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15- 20.007 the Petitioner submitted his educational credentials to an educational evaluator approved by the Board. The evaluator selected by the Petitioner was Josef Silny & Associates, Inc. (Silny). Following its evaluation of the Petitioner's educational credentials, Silny prepared a Report of Evaluation of Educational Credentials (Silny Report) dated June 15, 2005. The Silny Report reached the conclusion that the Petitioner's undergraduate education at Tongji University was not the equivalent of a degree in engineering earned from a program approved by ABET. Silny was of the view that the Petitioner's undergraduate course of study at Tongji University was not equivalent because his curriculum was deficient five semester credit hours in higher mathematics and basic sciences and was deficient one semester credit hour in humanities and social sciences.1 The conclusions reached in the Silny Report were based on an evaluation of the Petitioner's undergraduate course work at Tongji University from 1991 to 1995. The Silny Report did not take into consideration any of the courses taken by the Petitioner during his graduate studies at Tongji University from 1995 to 1998, during his graduate studies at Auburn University from 2000 to 2002, or during his graduate studies at the University of Florida from 2002 to 2003. During his undergraduate engineering studies at Tongji University, the Petitioner completed 36 semester hour credits of course work in the areas of higher mathematics and basic sciences. Silny is of the opinion that semester credit hours completed at Tongji University represent less study than semester credit hours completed at an accredited engineering school in a university in the United States of America. Specifically, Silny is of the opinion that semester credit hours completed at Tongji University are the equivalent of only 75 percent of semester credit hours earned in accredited engineering programs in the United States of America. Accordingly, when Silny evaluated the Petitioner's undergraduate education credentials, Silny multiplied the 36 semester credit hours the Petitioner had completed at Tongji University in the areas of higher mathematics and basic sciences by a factor of 0.75, and concluded that those 36 semester credit hours were equivalent to only 27 semester credit hours at an accredited engineering program in the United States of America.2 Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.007 includes the following requirements regarding applicants with degrees from foreign institutions: Applicants having degrees from foreign institutions shall be required to document “substantial equivalency” to the 2002 ABET Accreditation Yearbook for Accreditation Cycle Ended September 30, 2002 engineering criteria. This document is hereby incorporated by reference. In order to document “substantial equivalency” to an ABET accredited engineering program, the applicant must demonstrate: 32 college credit hours of higher mathematics and basic sciences. The hours of mathematics must be beyond algebra and trigonometry and must emphasize mathematical concepts and principles rather than computation. Courses in probability and statistics, differential calculus, integral calculus, and differential equations are required. Additional courses may include linear algebra, numerical analysis, and advanced calculus. As for the hours in basic sciences, courses in general chemistry and calculus-based general physics are required, with at least a two semester (or equivalent) sequence of study in either area. Additional basic sciences courses may include life sciences (biology), earth sciences (geology), and advanced chemistry or physics. Computer skills and/or programming courses cannot be used to satisfy mathematics or basic science requirements. 16 college credit hours in humanities and social sciences. Examples of traditional courses in this area are philosophy, religion, history, literature, fine arts, sociology, psychology, political science, anthropology, economics, and no more than 6 credit hours of languages other than English or other than the applicant’s native language. Courses in technology and human affairs, history of technology, professional ethics and social responsibility are also acceptable. Courses such as accounting, industrial management, finance, personnel administration, engineering economics and military training are not acceptable. Courses which instill cultural values are acceptable, while routine exercises of personal craft are not. 48 college credit hours of engineering science and engineering design. Courses in this area have their roots in mathematics and basic sciences but carry knowledge further toward creative application. Examples of traditional engineering science courses are mechanics, thermodynamics, electrical and electronic circuits, materials science, transport phenomena, and computer science (other than computer programming skills). Courses in engineering design stress the establishment of objectives and criteria, synthesis, analysis, construction, testing, and evaluation. In order to promote breadth, at least one engineering course outside the major disciplinary area is required. In addition, evidence of attainment of appropriate laboratory experience, competency in English, and understanding of the ethical, social, economic and safety considerations of engineering practice must be presented. As for competency in English, transcripts of course work completed, course content syllabi, testimonials from employers, college level advanced placement tests, Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) scores of at least 550 in the paper- based version, or 213 in the computer-based version, will be accepted as satisfactory evidence.
Recommendation On the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued concluding that the Petitioner has met the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-20.007, and is eligible to take the Fundamentals of Engineering examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 2006, 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 29th day of March, 2006.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to licensure by endorsement pursuant to Section 464.009, Florida Statutes, as implemented by Rule 64B9-3.008.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at hearing 1/ and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Petitioner is now, and has been continuously since June 27, 1980, registered as a practical nurse in Ontario, Canada. She holds registration number HJ-11850. She received her initial registration after taking and receiving a score of 563 on the June 1980 Canadian Nurses Association Practical Nurse/Nursing Assistant Registration/Licensure Examination (CNAPN Test). The CNAPN Test that Petitioner took was, at that time, one of the two Canadian national licensure examinations developed and administered by the Canadian Nursing Association Testing Service (CNATS). The other was an examination for professional/registered nurses (CNATS/RN Test). In 1980, the examination that applicants seeking to be licensed as a practical nurse in Florida had to take and pass was the State Board Test Pool Examination (SBTPE) for practical nurses. This examination (which is now known as the National Council Licensure Examination, or NCLEX, for practical nurses) was a national examination developed and administered by the National Council of State Boards of Nursing (National Council). In or about early 2000, Petitioner applied for licensure by endorsement as a practical nurse in Florida. Her application fees were received by the Board on February 1, 2000. Petitioner's application was not properly notarized, did not contain a completed statement of physical and mental health, and was not accompanied by the necessary written verification of her Ontario registration and examination scores. Petitioner was notified of the foregoing deficiencies, and she corrected them on or about February 28, 2000. Petitioner subsequently received a letter from the Board advising that the Board does not "endorse L.P.N's from Canada." Petitioner thereafter requested, and was granted, the opportunity to go before the Board to explain why she believed that she was entitled to licensure by endorsement. Petitioner appeared before the Board at its April 2, 2000 meeting. At the meeting, Petitioner argued that she (and other "L.P.N's from Canada" like her) qualified for licensure under that subsection of the Board's licensure by endorsement rule (Subsection (4) of Rule 64B9-3.008, Florida Administrative Code) which provided, in pertinent part, as follows: "An applicant having successfully completed the Canadian Nurses Association Testing Service (CNATS) examination from 1980 up to August 9, 1995, with a minimum score of 400 on the examination . . . can be licensed by endorsement." After Petitioner's presentation, the Board asked her whether she would be willing to waive her right to have a final decision on her application within the 90-day period prescribed by Section 120.60, Florida Statutes, so that the "history" of the rule provision cited by Petitioner could be researched. Petitioner indicated that she would be willing to do so, and the Board deferred its decision on Petitioner's application until its June 2000 meeting. Research conducted by Board staff on the "history" of Subsection (4) of Rule 64B9-3.008, Florida Administrative Code, revealed that: during the 1980's, the Board was advised that the National Council had performed a psychometric analysis of the CNATS/RN Test and determined that a score of 400 or above on the CNATS/RN Test was the substantial equivalent of a passing score on the SBTPE/NCLEX for registered nurses; there is no indication that the National Council has ever performed a similar analysis of the CNAPN Test; such an analysis, however, was performed in 1984 by a Board staff member, who determined that the CNAPN Test was neither substantially equivalent to, nor more stringent than, the SBTPE/NCLEX for practical nurses, and she so advised the Board; and the Board, since 1984, has consistently declined to grant licensure by endorsement based upon scores received on the CNAPN Test. Petitioner appeared before the Board again at its June 7, 2000 meeting and made an additional presentation to the Board in support of her application for licensure. After hearing from Petitioner, the Board advised her that it was denying her application because she had not demonstrated that she had passed a licensure examination that was equivalent to, or more stringent than, the SBTPE/NCLEX for practical nurses. On June 14, 2000, the Board reduced its decision to writing in a Notice of Intent to Deny, which read as follows: Beverly Umilta Neblett has applied for licensure as a practical nurse by endorsement. The application came before the Board of Nursing at a duly noticed public meeting on June 7, 2000, in Jupiter, Florida. Upon review of the application file, the Board has determined that the applicant i[s] not eligible for licensure on the following grounds: Applicant has not passed a licensing examination that is at least equivalent to or more stringent than that required in Florida in 1980 under Section 464.009, Florida Statutes, and Rule 64B9-3.008, Florida Administrative Code. It is therefore ORDERED that the application for licensure of Beverly Umilta Neblett is [h]ereby DENIED. It is this proposed agency action that Petitioner is challenging in the instant case.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying Petitioner's application for licensure by endorsement as a practical nurse. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of December, 2000.
