Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Respondent was licensed by Petitioner as a certified air conditioning contractor having been issued license No. C-2805 (Exhibit 1). From 1984 to June 29, 1992, Respondent was the qualifying contractor of record for Jay's Air Conditioning & Refrigeration (Exhibits 1 and 2). On December 11, 1991, Respondent and Vincent Tipaldo executed a contract for the sale and purchase of certain goodwill and inventory of Jay's Air Conditioning & Refrigeration, of Pinellas County, Florida from the Respondent to Tipaldo. (Exhibit 4). Paragraph 5 of the above agreement stated that Respondent agreed to allow Vincent Tipaldo to use Respondent's contractor license until the buyer, Vincent Tipaldo, obtained his own. Vincent Tipaldo transferred $18,000.00 to Respondent as consideration for the contract with the remaining $10,000.00 to be paid to Respondent in installments of $318 per month for three years. Respondent authorized Vincent Tipaldo and other uncertified and unregistered persons to pull and obtain permits under his license for Jay's Air Conditioning & Refrigeration from December 11, 1991 to May 5, 1992 (Exhibit 5). Shortly after the sale of the business Respondent was injured in a vehicle accident and was unable to work. Tipaldo stopped the monthly payments to Respondent and Respondent ceased supervising the projects. The situation deteriorated and civil litigation is ongoing. On May 5, 1992 and thereafter, Respondent no longer authorized anyone to pull permits or act under his license for Jay's Air Conditioning & Refrigeration using license No. C-2805 (Exhibit 5). On June 29, 1992, Respondent submitted to Petitioner a change of status no longer acting as the qualifying contractor of record for Jay's Air Conditioning & Refrigeration (Exhibit 2). Respondent did not supervise and had no active participation in the operation, management or control of the business from shortly after December 11, 1992 to June 29, 1992. Tipaldo was not licensed and has never been licensed as an air conditioning contractor by the PCCLB (Exhibit 3). After Respondent no longer authorized Tipaldi or anyone else to pull permits for Jay's Air Conditioning & Refrigeration in May 1992, Joe B. Hutson became the qualifying contractor of record for Jay's Air Conditioning & Refrigeration (Exhibits 6, 7 and 9).
Recommendation It is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the license of Jay W. Beckner as a certified air conditioning contractor be suspended for a period of six months under such conditions as the Board deems appropriate. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of January, 1993, at Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS 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 6th day of January, 1993. COPIES FURNISHED: David S. Sadowsky, Esquire 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 34616 Jay W. Beckner P.O. Box 20573 Bradenton, Florida 34203 William J. Owens, Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 11701 Belcher Road - Suite 102 Largo, Florida 34643 5116
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent should deny Petitioner the right to take the state air conditioning contractor examination for lack of good moral character.
Findings Of Fact The National Assessment Institute ("NAI") provides examinations to the State Construction Industry Licensing Board, including the examination given for certification as a state air conditioning contractor. Petitioner has unsuccessfully taken the state air conditioning contractor examination approximately four times in the past. Petitioner has reviewed previous examinations and is familiar with procedures imposed pursuant to Section 455.229(2), Florida Statutes. No part of the examination may be copied, including any part of the questions or answers. Loose-leaf student manuals purchased from NAI may be taken into a review and retained by the student after the review is completed. Scratch paper provided by NAI officials during a review must be turned in at the conclusion of the review. On April 23, 1993, Petitioner reviewed a recent state air conditioning contractor examination. Petitioner reviewed the examination at a branch office of the NAI. Prior to April 23, 1993, Petitioner purchased a student manual. Petitioner placed one piece of carbon paper over one piece of blank paper and inserted the carbon set between two pages of the student manual. Petitioner taped closed the two pages of the student manual and tabbed the taped pages of the student manual ("altered pages"). Petitioner inserted three more carbon sets inside the student manual in identical fashion, producing a total of four altered pages. During the examination review on April 23, 1993, Petitioner placed a blank sheet of scratch paper on top of the first altered page of the student manual. Petitioner wrote the answers to the first part of the examination on the scratch paper. The answers were copied on the carbon set underneath the scratch paper. In a similar manner, Petitioner copied answers to each of the remaining three parts of the examination on the carbon sets inside each of the remaining altered pages in the student manual. Petitioner used a numeric code of "1-4" to represent answers "a-d" on each part of the examination. Petitioner used arithmetic symbols and other lines to disguise his effort by making it appear he was writing down mathematical formulas. However, the sequence of numbers "1-4" correspond to the correct answers "a-d" for each part of the examination reviewed. Petitioner copied 200 examination answers. During his testimony at the formal hearing, Petitioner explained: I did do something wrong. Transcript at 47. What I was trying to do was take down all the different letters. . . . I wanted to see if there was some kind of sequence where there were more A's, B's, more C's or more D's used. Transcript at 49. I was desperate. My whole life is air conditioning and refrigeration. * * * I've been trying to pass that test for at least the last two years, maybe more. . . . I believe it's been at least four times, maybe more. Transcript at 47. NAI representatives monitoring the examination review telephoned local police, and Petitioner was arrested pursuant to Section 455.2175, Florida Statutes. The materials used by Petitioner to copy examination answers were confiscated by police. Criminal charges were dismissed without conviction. Each examination question costs the state approximately $200. The 200 questions corresponding to the 200 answers copied by Petitioner will no longer be used by the state. Petitioner testified that he has dyslexia and attention deficit disorder. However, Petitioner has never requested additional time for an examination, never notified Respondent of Petitioner's disability, and never requested Respondent to provide special examination facilities or procedures.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request to take the state air conditioning contractor examination for the reasons stated herein. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 26th day of October, 1994. DANIEL MANRY 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 26th day of October, 1994. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 94-1766 Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted in substance Rejected as conclusion of law 3.-8. Accepted in substance 9.-12. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial 13. Accepted in substance 14.-15. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial 16. Rejected as not supported by credible and persuasive evidence 17.-18. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial Rejected as not supported by credible and persuasive evidence Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial and as recited testimony Rejected as not supported by credible and persuasive evidence Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact 1.-8. Accepted in substance Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial Rejected as not supported by credible and persuasive evidence 11.-13. Accepted in substance COPIES FURNISHED: Richard Hickok Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Jack McRay Acting General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 James W. Kline, Esquire P.O. Drawer 30 180 South Knowles Avenue Winter Park, Florida 32790-0030 Clark R. Jennings, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Deptartment of Legal Affairs Administrative Law Section Suite PL-01, The Capitol Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Respondent violated local law by engaging in the installation of a range hood without timely obtaining a permit; improperly supervised the project and exceeded the scope of work that he is licensed, in violation of subsections 489.129(1)(d)(m), and (j) 489.115; 489.117(2) and 489.119 and 489.105(4), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings: Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, was, at all times material hereto, the state agency charged with regulating the construction industry in Florida. Respondent was, at all times material hereto, a certified air conditioning contractor, License Number CA-C018243, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and was the qualifying agent for Kitchen Ventilation Specialists (KVS or Respondent). Roberto Villanueva is the owner and president of R.V. Air Conditioning Incorporated (RV). RV had a permit to perform air conditioning work at the Cardoza Hotel in Miami Beach, Florida. During May, 1987, KVS obtained a contract to install a six foot stainless steel hood in the kitchen of the Cardoza. The job was scheduled for June 4, 1987. Respondent dispatched too employees to the Cardoza at 6:30 a.m. on June 4, 1987 to hang the hood per "Falios plans." Villanueva observed KVS' employees installing the rang- hood at the Cardoza and notified chief inspector Ed Stein that he had the permit for the air conditioning work at the Cardoza Hotel, that the employees of KVS were not working under his permit, and that they were installing the hood without a permit. Ed Stein approached the KVS employees and determined that they did not have a permit and did not hold a certificate of competency to make the installation. He issued a stop-work order and a notice of violation to KVS once he determined that they were employees of that entity. Stein asked the employees to gather their tools and leave the job site. The employees left the site at that time. He returned the following day and noticed that the hood had been completely installed in contravention of the stop-work order. R.V. Air Conditioning ran the ductwork and connected the ventilation system to the hood installed by EVS. While Respondent denied that his employees completed the installation of the hood in contravention of the work-order, such testimony is not credible in view of the fact that R.V.'s employees had no incentive to complete the installation for the hood when it was Villanueva who called the building department to advise that work was being done on the job-site which they had obtained a permit for and that KVS employees failed to obtain a permit. It is common knowledge, within the construction industry, that attaching the hood in the manner in which KVS employees did so was, in effect, installing a hood and not just "hanging" a hood. Respondent, on the other hand, contended that setting this hood on the Cardoza job-site was not installing a hood because he did not run the ductwork to the hood. However, on cross-examination, Respondent conceded that there was no difference between hanging or installing the hood. Respondent's contention that he was under the impression that he was working under the permit obtained by the general contractor, R.V. Air Conditioning, is unpersuasive and is not credited herein. This is especially so in view of the fact that when the stop-work order was issued to his employees, he phoned Ed Stein and explained that his employees were only delivering and setting the hood and that a permit was not required. Stein thereupon replied that he had to either obtain a permit or get a writing from the general contractor, R.V. Air Conditioning, explaining that he was working under that contract. Respondent failed to obtain such a writing and did not obtain a permit until July 7, 1987, at which time he completed an application for a permit to "hang" the hood. Respondent paid an administrative fine and a fee amounting to twice the usual amount for the permit. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Respondent's certified air conditioning contractor's license be placed on probation for a period of twelve (12) months. Petitioner imposed an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) payable to Petitioner within 30 days of the filing of its Final Order. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. 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 31st day of October, 1988.
The Issue The issues are whether the existing and proposed provisions of Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-15.005, as identified in the next paragraph, are invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Gold Coast School of Construction, Inc. (Gold Coast), engages in the business of offering courses to individuals who seek to become certified or registered contractors in Florida. Gold Coast offers prelicensing courses for prospective general contractors, building contractors, residential contractors, Class A air conditioning contractors, Class B air conditioning contractors, Class C air conditioning contractors, and roofing contractors. Enrollment in these classes ranges from 200-600 students annually. For the trades in which Gold Coast offers prelicensing courses, Gold Coast is substantially affected by the proposed rule, which would substantially raise the net-worth requirements imposed on prospective contractors, reduce the number of persons who could qualify for certification, and reduce the number of persons who would enroll in Gold Coast's prelicensing courses. Petitioner Douglas L. Gamester (Gamester) has passed the Construction Industry Licensing Board (Respondent) examination for certification as a general contractor. After he filed his rule challenge, Respondent granted him a general contractor's certificate and approved his qualification of a business entity. Gamester is not substantially affected by the rule or proposed changes to the rule. Although Gamester may, in the future, attempt to obtain other contracting certificates in other trades, any finding of such plans at present would be based entirely on speculation. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-15.005 provides: 61G4-15.005 Requirements for Certification and Registration. In order that the Board may carry out its statutory duty to investigate the financial responsibility, credit, and business reputation of a new applicant for certification or registration or a change of status of a certification or registration, an applicant shall be required to forward the following to the Department for a review by the Board: A credit report from any nationally recognized credit agency as defined in subsections 61G4-12.011(13) and (14), F.A.C. A financial statement, not older than 12 months, which shall contain information indicating the current assets, current liabilities, total assets, total liabilities, and total net worth, and which shall report all material financial changes occurring between the date of the financial statement and the date of the application. As a prerequisite to issuance of a certificate, an applicant shall, in addition to the submissions required in subsections and (2) above, submit competent, substantial evidence to the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board demonstrating the following: Net worth as listed below for the following categories of contractors: General Contractor, $20,000; Building Contractor, $20,000; Residential Contractor, $20,000; Sheet Metal Contractor, $10,000; Roofing Contractor, $10,000; Class A Air Conditioning Contractor, $10,000; Class B Air Conditioning Contractor, $10,000; Class C Air Conditioning Contractor, $10,000; Mechanical Contractor, $10,000; Commercial Pool/Spa Contractor, $10,000; Residential Pool/Spa Contractor, $10,000; Swimming Pool/Spa Servicing Contractor, $2,500; Plumbing Contractor, $10,000; Underground Utility and Excavation Contractor, $10,000; Solar Contractor, $10,000; Residential Solar Water Heating Specialty Contractor, $2,500; Specialty Structure Contractor, $10,000; Pollutant Storage System Specialty Contractor, $10,000; Gypsum Drywall Specialty Contractor, $2,500; Gas Line Specialty Contractor, $10,000; or Glass and Glazing Specialty Contractor, $10,000. Possession of either a letter of credit or a compliance bond established to reimburse the appropriate parties for diversion of funds, abandonment, and all other statutory violations, said instruments to be issued in the same license classification to dollar ratio listed in paragraph (a), above. The aforementioned instruments are not to be construed as performance bonds. Net worth shall be defined to require a showing for all contractor licensure categories that the applicant has a minimum of 50 percent (%) of the amount in cash. Cash shall be defined to include a line of credit. On February 6, 2004, Respondent published in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Volume 30, Number 6, proposed changes to Florida Administrative Code 61G4-15.005(3)(a), so that the new net-worth requirements would be as follows (new language is underlined and old language is stricken): Net worth as listed below for the following categories of contractors: General Contractor, $80,000 20,000; 20,000; 10,000; 10,000; Building Contractor, $40,000 Residential Contractor, $20,000; Sheet Metal Contractor, $20,000 Roofing Contractor, $20,000 Class A Air Conditioning Contractor, $20,000 10,000; Class B Air Conditioning Contractor, $20,000 10,000; Class C Air Conditioning Contractor, $20,000 10,000; Mechanical Contractor, $20,000 10,000; Commercial Pool/Spa Contractor, $20,000 10,000; Residential Pool/Spa Contractor, $20,000 10,000; Swimming Pool/Spa Servicing Contractor, $10,000 2,500; Plumbing Contractor, $20,000 10,000; Underground Utility and Excavation Contractor, $20,000 10,000; Solar Contractor, $20,000 10,000; Residential Solar Water Heating Specialty Contractor, $5,000 2,500; Specialty Structure Contractor, $20,000; 10,000; Pollutant Storage System Specialty Contractor, $20,000; 10,000; Gypsum Drywall Specialty Contractor, $5,000; 2,500; Gas Line Specialty Contractor, $20,000 10,000; or [sic]. Section 489.105(3), Florida Statutes, divides contractors into Division I and Division II. Division I contractors are general, building, and residential contractors. Division II contractors are all other contractors. Section 489.105(3), Florida Statutes, defines Division I contractors as follows: "General contractor" means a contractor whose services are unlimited as to the type of work which he or she may do, who may contract for any activity requiring licensure under this part, and who may perform any work requiring licensure under this part, except as otherwise expressly provided in s. 489.113. "Building contractor" means a contractor whose services are limited to construction of commercial buildings and single-dwelling or multiple-dwelling residential buildings, which commercial or residential buildings do not exceed three stories in height, and accessory use structures in connection therewith or a contractor whose services are limited to remodeling, repair, or improvement of any size building if the services do not affect the structural members of the building. "Residential contractor" means a contractor whose services are limited to construction, remodeling, repair, or improvement of one-family, two-family, or three-family residences not exceeding two habitable stories above no more than one uninhabitable story and accessory use structures in connection therewith. In contrast to building and residential contractors, a general contractor is unlimited in the scope of work that he or she may under take, subject to Section 489.113(3), Florida Statutes, which requires a contractor to subcontract out electrical, mechanical, plumbing, roofing, sheet metal, swimming pool, and air conditioning work, unless the contractor is certified or registered in the particular trade. Building contractors may undertake work on residential or commercial structures not more than three stories high, and residential contractors may undertake work on limited residential structures not more than two stories high. Although Petitioners identify various small jobs that require a general contractor's certificate or registration, such as the construction of small communications towers, balcony repairs in parking garages, and door repairs in high-rise apartments, the record generally supports the finding that the scope of jobs undertaken by general contractors is more extensive than the scope of jobs undertaken by building contractors, and the scope of jobs undertaken by building contractors is more extensive than the scope of jobs undertaken by residential contractors. This case involves one of the requirements imposed on persons seeking to become certified as contractors in specific trades. Certification is distinct from registration. Section 489.105(7) and (8), Florida Statutes, defines "certificate" as a certificate of competency issued by Respondent and a "certified contractor" as a contractor who may practice anywhere in the state. Section 489.105(9) and (10), Florida Statutes, defines "registration" as registration with Respondent and a "registered contractor" as a contractor who may practice only in the local jurisdiction for which the registration is issued. Section 489.115(1), Florida Statutes, prohibits any person from engaging in the practice of contracting without first obtaining a certificate or registration in the appropriate trade. Section 489.115(5)(b) and (6), Florida Statutes, provides: (b) In addition to the affidavit of insurance, as a prerequisite to the initial issuance of a certificate, the applicant shall furnish a credit report from a nationally recognized credit agency that reflects the financial responsibility of the applicant and evidence of financial responsibility, credit, and business reputation of either himself or herself or the business organization he or she desires to qualify. The board shall adopt rules defining financial responsibility based upon the applicant's credit history, ability to be bonded, and any history of bankruptcy or assignment of receivers. Such rules shall specify the financial responsibility grounds on which the board may refuse to qualify an applicant for certification. * * * (6) An initial applicant shall, along with the application, and a certificateholder or registrant shall, upon requesting a change of status, submit to the board a credit report from a nationally recognized credit agency that reflects the financial responsibility of the applicant or certificateholder or registrant. The credit report required for the initial applicant shall be considered the minimum evidence necessary to satisfy the board that he or she is financially responsible to be certified, has the necessary credit and business reputation to engage in contracting in the state, and has the minimum financial stability necessary to avoid the problem of financial mismanagement or misconduct. The board shall, by rule, adopt guidelines for determination of financial stability Although testimony at the hearing suggested that "history of bankruptcy" meant an inability to generate sufficient cash flow to pay debts owed, it is more likely that a "history of bankruptcy" is a record of filing for bankruptcy. Like the appointment of a receiver, the filing of a petition for bankruptcy is an action that is easily detected, as opposed to the inability to pay debts as they matured or the existence of liabilities in excess of assets--either of which, for most natural persons, is difficult to determine, especially historically. The "credit report" mentioned in Section 489.115(5)(b), Florida Statutes, and the "credit report" mentioned in Section 489.115(6), Florida Statutes, is the same credit report. Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-12.011(11) and (12) defines the credit report as follows: A “credit report from a nationally recognized credit agency that reflects the financial responsibility of the applicant, certificateholder or registrant”, shall for the purposes of Section 489.115(6), F.S., mean a credit report that provides full, accurate, current, and complete information on the following items in a manner which allows the Board to determine the credit worthiness of the applicant: Payment history; Credit rating; Public filings in county, state and federal courts; Bankruptcies, business history, suits, liens, and judgments, all on a nationwide basis; Location of business, number of years in business; Social security numbers, if available, of all corporate officers, owners and partners, and all federal employer identification numbers, if available, held by the applicant or any business entity that he currently qualifies or is applying to qualify; and UCC filings. A “nationally recognized credit agency” shall mean a credit agency that: Obtains credit information both within and outside the State of Florida; Validates, updates, and maintains the accuracy of credit information obtained; and Obtains credit reports from at least two (2) credit bureaus. The statutory requirement of a credit report focuses upon an individual's creditworthiness, based on his or her use or abuse of credit and payment history. The closest that these statutes come to specifying net worth as a criterion of certification are the requirements of "financial. . . responsib[ility]" and "the minimum financial stability necessary to avoid the problem of financial mismanagement or misconduct," which is the cause of about 70 percent of all disciplinary proceedings against contractors. However, these statutory references guide Respondent in the authorized use of the credit report, which does not warrant the imposition of a net-worth requirement. First, the credit report lacks net-worth information. Second, the credit report presents a subject's financial history--most of which is of no use in establishing the subject's present net worth. In contrast to these provisions in Section 489.115(5)(b) and (6), Florida Statutes, Section 489.1195(1)(d), Florida Statutes, expressly authorizes Respondent to adopt rules imposing "net worth" and "cash” requirements on individuals seeking to qualify as financially responsible officers (FROs) for construction businesses. The Legislature clearly evidenced its ability to require net worth as a condition to certification as an FRO, which are not involved in this case, and obviously elected not to impose as onerous a requirement upon contractors themselves. Respondent determined the new net-worth requirements in the proposed rule by two means. Respondent had not changed the net-worth requirements for Division II contractors for 20 years, so Respondent estimated that the effects of inflation justified the increases set forth in the proposed rule. Respondent had raised the net-worth requirements for Division I contractors from $10,000 to $20,000 in 1998. Respondent derived the new net-worth requirements for general and building contractors based on estimates of weekly salaries for these respective contractors, not inflation. The present record contains no evidence of the rate of inflation during any relevant period of time, nor any evidence of average weekly salaries paid by Division I contractors. Nor does it appear that Respondent considered such data when determining the new net-worth requirements in the proposed rule.
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent violated Sections 455.228, 489.127(1)(a) and (f), 489.129(1), (h), (m) and , and 489.531(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1995), 1/ and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed in accordance with Florida Administrative Rule 61G4-17.001. 2/
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency responsible for regulating contractors in the state. Respondent is not licensed as a general contractor and is not the qualifying agent for Freeman Associates ("Freeman"). In April 1995, Respondent entered into a contract with Charles and Lenore Brunty to renovate the Brunty residence located at 1301 Kanab Avenue North West, Palm Bay, Florida. The contract price for the renovation was $48,494.86. Respondent provided the Bruntys with a written estimate of cost. The written estimate bears the headings, "Freeman Associates," "General Contracting," and "Property Improvements." It describes the type of work to be performed and separate costs for "Roofing," "Exterior Paint," "Exterior Windows/Screens," "Interior Woodwork," "Interior Cabinets," "Plumbing," "Electrical," "Air Conditioning/Hearing," "Interior Paint," "Flooring," and "Addition-Kitchen, Breakfast, Bath." Respondent represented to the Bruntys that he would oversee or supervise all of the renovations to their residence and would provide all permits. The contract states: Any and all work requiring permits shall be obtained by me and/or subcontractors prior to starting of any work on this project. Petitioner's Exhibit 2. Respondent obtained bids from subcontractors, oversaw their work, and charged the Bruntys for the work performed by the subcontractors. Respondent agreed to begin work on June 12, 1995. However, he performed no work before July 21, 1995. The work performed by Respondent did not comply with industry standards. Respondent removed the roof without providing adequate protection for the interior of the home. The weather damaged the ceilings and the Mexican tile. The ceilings had to be replaced by the Bruntys. The Mexican tile has not been replaced because of cost. On September 9, 1995, the Bruntys cancelled the contract. On September 19, 1995, Respondent presented a bill to the Bruntys for $16,826.38. The Bruntys telephoned the suppliers and discovered that Respondent had not paid the suppliers. The tile supplier's invoice was altered. The price had been exaggerated by $2,120, or more than 100 percent. The Bruntys refused to release any funds to Respondent until Respondent provided a full accounting. On October 6, 1995, Respondent filed a mechanic's lien against the Brunty property for $16,826.38. Thereafter, Respondent filed a second lien for $34,835.33. Respondent certified in the liens that he had paid for materials and performed all work. However, the two liens overstate the work performed and the cost of materials. Respondent in fact failed to pay all liens. The combined total of the two liens exceeds the contract price by $3,166.85. Respondent did not complete the renovations to the Brunty property and is not entitled to full payment of the contract price. The liens caused the lender to withhold construction funds for the renovations until the matter was resolved in civil court. In the interim, the Bruntys paid materials, subcontractors, and legal fees out of their own funds. In May 1995, Respondent acted as a general contractor in a second transaction. Respondent contracted with Mr. Curt Iffinger, a licensed air conditioning contractor, to install an air conditioning system at the home of Mr. Albert Bresch located at 4149 Sherwood Boulevard, Melbourne, Florida. Respondent represented to Mr. Iffinger that Respondent was a general contractor. Mr. Bresch paid Respondent for the installation. Mr. Iffinger performed the required installation. Respondent refused to pay Mr. Iffinger. Mr. Iffinger filed a mechanic's lien against the Bresch property. Respondent failed to cause the lien to be removed within 75 days and executed an affidavit stating that all liens were paid in full.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Sections 455.228, 489.127(1)(a) and (f), 489.129(1), (h), (m) and (o), and 489.531(1)(a) and imposing an administrative fine of $8,500. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of November, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of November, 1997.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Respondent, Denver Sammons, was licensed by the State of Florida as a registered air conditioning contractor, Class B, and Respondent qualified Denny's Air Conditioning Service under his license. At the January 8, 1985 meeting of the Broward County Central Examining Board of Mechanical Technicians, (Board), the Board heard a complaint by Port Distributors, a local air conditioning supplier, to the effect that Mr. Sammons had submitted two checks to that company in August, 1982, both of which were returned for insufficient funds and that neither had been redeemed. The Board decided to notify the Respondent of the complaint against him and give him an opportunity to respond at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Board which was held on March 12,1985. At that Board meeting, at which Respondent was present, Mr. Julius M. Farinhouse, Jr., representative of Port Distributors, outlined its complaint against the Respondent detailing the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the bad checks and the need by the recipient to secure a judgment against the Respondent for the amount represented by the checks. There was evidence presented to the Board that these checks issued to Port Distributors were not the only checks written by Respondent that were not properly and promptly honored. Respondent testified before the Board regarding the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the checks and contested the seriousness of the offense alleging that when notified of the bad checks, he had reimbursed Port Distributors for the majority of the sum covered by the two dishonored checks, but this repayment was applied toward current accounts rather than in satisfaction of the bad checks, contra to the intention of the Respondent. Having considered both the testimony presented by the complainants and the Respondent, the Board, that same date, March 12, 1985, nevertheless entered a Final Order finding that the passing of bad checks to Port Distributors by the Respondent constituted an act involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or lack of integrity in the operation of Respondent's contracting business; that he failed to make any effort to pay the outstanding bill owed to Port Distributors; and that this misconduct constituted a failure to comply with the standards of Section 9-7, Broward County Code. As a result, the Board ordered the Respondent's Broward County Certificate of Competency revoked that date. The Order of the Board made provision for Respondent to apply for reinstatement of his Certificate of Competency but no such application has ever been made. For several years prior to the issuing of the Certificate of Competency by Broward County, Respondent had, under the old procedure, held a Certificate of Competency issued by the City of Hollywood, Florida and had, each year, renewed that Certificate upon the payment of a $30.00 fee. The Certificate issued by the city was renewed effective January 1, 1985 and reflected on its face, that it was good until December 31, 1985. However, when the Broward County Board of Mechanical Technicians began to issue its county-wide Certificate of Competency, all prior city-issued certificates were declared to be null and void. As a result, though Respondent continued to hold his Hollywood certificate, it was ineffective and he should not have been allowed to renew it by the city, since he was, at that time, covered by a county Certificate of Competency. By action of the Board on March 12, 1985, Respondent's Board (County- wide) Certificate of Competency, which was the only valid certificate he held at the time, was revoked. Because of this revocation, Respondent was, thereafter, allowed to work as a journeyman for another Master Technician but could not contract in his own name or for his own business nor could he pull building permits from any county or city building office. Notwithstanding this, on or about August 12, 1985, Respondent entered into a contract acting as Denny's Air Conditioning, with Isabel Parra. This contract was to remove her old heating and cooling system in her residence at 2207 North 46th Avenue in Hollywood and to install a new unit to consist of a three ton gas furnace with air conditioning coil and condenser. Pursuant to the contract, Respondent did, in fact, remove the old unit and install a new one. However, he did not pull a building permit with the county or city building office and on August 26, 1985, officials of the City of Hollywood issued a Notice of Violation to Mrs. Parra reflecting that Denny's Air Conditioning installed a central air conditioning unit without permit and without possessing a valid contractor's license. Mrs. Parra further contended that when she turned on the unit, the noise it made was extremely loud and not to her satisfaction. Evidence introduced by both Petitioner and Respondent, however, indicates that the Respondent installed the new unit exactly as the old unit had been installed. Mrs. Parra testified that she had not heard the old unit in its heating mode and therefore had no idea whether it made as much noise as the new unit did. In any event, she withheld some of the funds that were due Respondent until such time as he agreed to have someone come out and correct the problem. It has been several months since the parties agreed to this and Respondent still has not corrected the problem. He contends that the contractor with whom he arranged to correct Ms. Parra's problem has been unable to get with her since she works during the days and is home only in the evenings. In any event, though not charged as a violation, it would appear that Respondent has failed to follow through on his work and on his commitment to complete an acceptable installation for Mrs. Parra. Petitioner also alleges that on or about June 25, 1985, the Broward County Consumer Protection Board issued a cease and desist order to Respondent for representing that he was qualified to perform contracting work in Broward County without possessing local competency. No evidence was introduced, however, to satisfy or establish this allegation. Because of the dispute between Mrs. Parra and the Respondent, and her dissatisfaction with the quality of his installation, she filed a complaint with the Board and on December 10, 1985, the Board again met and heard her testimony and that of Mr. Sammons. As a result, on December 20, 1985, the Board found that Respondent's contract with Mrs. Parra was based on a representation to her that he was a contractor when in fact the prior action of the Board had denied him this status. The Board further found that he failed to pull a permit for the installation of the unit in Ms. Parra's home and thereafter failed to comply with the warranty given to her under the contract executed by him on August 12, 1985, nor did he provide her with the rebate promised. Based on these Findings of Fact, the Board concluded that the Respondent willfully, deliberately, or negligently disregarded or violated the provisions of the South Florida Building Code; that he contracted to act as a qualifying agent for his business when he was not certified to do so; that he contracted and did work which was not within the description of the class (journeyman) for which he had been certified by the Board; and that he abandoned without legal excuse a construction project in which he was engaged and under contract to complete. As a result, the Board ordered that his journeyman's Certificate of Competency be revoked effective that day. Once the journeyman's certificate was taken away, Respondent was not authorized to act as an air conditioning installer or contractor under any circumstances. Notwithstanding this, on February 20, 1986, Respondent again, acting as Denny's Air Conditioning, entered into a contract with Dr. Eisenstein to install a new two-ton split system in the doctor's home in Hollywood for a total price of $2,530.00. Since Dr. Eisenstein had previously dealt with Respondent on several occasions and found him to be reliable, the doctor responded to Respondent's request for an advance by giving him a $2,000.00 deposit. The contract was not actually finalized until late in March, 1986 and work was to begin in early April. However, on April 1, 1986, Respondent called Dr. Eisenstein and advised him that his truck, in which was stored the equipment for installation into the doctor's home and the money bag which contained the balance of the doctor's downpayment had been illegally repossessed by Respondent's bank the night before. As a result, Mr. Sammons indicated he would not be able to begin the project but assured the doctor that someone else would do so starting at the end of the week. In fact, no work was ever started by the Respondent or anyone else on his behalf. After several days, when Dr. Eisenstein attempted to call Respondent, he found that Respondent's phone had been disconnected and when on April 5, 1986, the date promised by Respondent, no one came to begin work on the project, the doctor began undertook an investigation which led to the ultimate contact of the doctor by the Respondent. To reach Respondent, Dr. Eisenstein had checked with Respondent's business landlord and when Respondent finally called the doctor back, he was irate that the doctor had done so. During that conversation Dr. Eisenstein advised Respondent that he should either repay the money advanced or do the work. In fact, neither was done. During the month of April, 1986, Dr. Eisenstein sent Respondent two letters by certified mail requesting that he either refund the advance payment or do the work promised under the contract. One letter was returned undelivered. The other was apparently delivered. When neither letter resulted in any satisfaction, the doctor, in early June, 1986, sent a letter of complaint to DPR outlining the situation. Respondent tells an incredible tale regarding the facts and circumstances which led up to the dispute with Dr. Eisenstein. Admitting that he was somewhat in debt to his bank, he claims that certain payments that he made to the bank with part of the money advanced by the doctor was used improperly by the bank and applied toward other obligations rather than the debt on his truck. He claims the repossession of the truck was illegal and improper because, by the payment mentioned above, if properly applied, the truck would have been paid off. This story is almost a duplicate of that regarding the excuse for the bad checks to Port Distributors. Respondent further contends that that bank thereafter engaged in a conspiracy against him to bring about his financial ruin; that the bank hired several individuals to assault him and his wife outside their church; that he has received several threats of bodily harm from the bank; and that all of this has resulted in his filing suit against the bank in local court. This story was told by the Respondent under oath. However, Respondent failed to provide any names or documentation to support this with the exception of the name of the bank allegedly involved. When asked where copies of the documentation were that would support his allegations, he responded with, "Oh, they're at home in a file." In short, it would appear that Respondent's story is a gossamer of fantasy which, while possibly believed at this point by Respondent, has very little basis in fact. Respondent also contends, for example, that Dr. Eisenstein requested that he not pull a permit for the work to be done at his house because he did not want city officials for one reason or another to know that the work was being done. This information was not brought out through Dr. Eisenstein, but rather through the testimony of the Respondent. None of these stories were backed up by any document or supporting evidence. Consequently, it is found that while Respondent may well believe what he is saying, his are in fact, incredible. Respondent was disciplined on two separate occasions by the Broward County Central Examining Board of Mechanical Technicians and Respondent has not shown that these actions were procedurally violative of due process. Consequently, they are found to have occurred and to be valid. Respondent was not permitted to attack the circumstances leading up to the action by the board and the Hearing Officer declined to relitigate the factual propriety of the Board's two actions. Once having lost his Master Technician's license, Respondent was no longer authorized to pull building permits in Broward County and notwithstanding that, nonetheless did commence work for Mrs. Parra on a job which, under the ordinances of the county, required a permit be pulled. He also failed to live up to the terms of a warranty inherent in his contract with her. The evidence also established that subsequent to the withdrawal of his Journeyman's certificate, he nonetheless entered into a contract for the installation of a system in Dr. Eisenstein's house and accepted a substantial advance payment which he neither returned nor earned when he failed to begin any work on the project. In the opinion of the Petitioner's expert, Respondent's conduct in this instance was totally unprofessional and unethical. In fact, as a professional, if the circumstances occurred as alleged by Respondent, he should have made immediate arrangements to in some way make restitution of the funds to his client or have the work done by someone else. The evidence here shows that Respondent made no effort to make some accommodation to the client. He entered no promissory note (Respondent claims that as a gentleman, he has no need of notes as his word is sufficient); he made no attempt to let the client know what had happened; and in short, it appears that Respondent was out to make a quick buck (the expert's phrase) without attempting to in any way satisfy his client.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's license as a registered air conditioning contractor be revoked. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of August, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of August, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: G. Vincent Soto, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Mr. Denver Sammons Post Office Box 7437 4614 Madison Street Hollywood, Florida 33021 Mr. Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Van B. Poole, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued against him and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is a Spanish-speaking native of Cuba with little or no understanding of the English language. He has resided in Miami-Dade County since coming to this country 18 or 19 years ago. In or around 2006, Respondent decided he wanted to start an air conditioning contracting business in Miami-Dade County, and he went to the downtown Miami location of the Miami- Dade County Code Compliance Office (Compliance Office) to inquire about the licensing requirements with which he would have to comply to legally operate such a business in the county. The Compliance Office is responsible for licensing construction contractors (in various trades) operating in Miami- Dade County. The contractors whom the Compliance Office licenses include mechanical contractors doing air conditioning work. Individuals who desire to go into the air conditioning contracting business in Miami-Dade County must complete and submit to the Compliance Office an eight-page "initial application," accompanied by "letters of experience" and a $315.00 application fee. The application is reviewed by the Miami-Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board (CTQB). If the CTQB determines that the applicant is qualified to take the licensure examination, the applicant is allowed to sit for the examination. Passing the examination is a prerequisite to licensure. If a passing score is attained, the applicant is notified by the Compliance Office and given the opportunity to submit a "business application" and supporting material (including proof of liability insurance and workers' compensation coverage), accompanied by another $315.00 application fee. If the CTQB approves the "business application," the "applicant is issued a contractor's license number" and given a "competency card" (reflecting such licensure) by the Compliance Office. The applicant then must register with the Department before being able to engage in any contracting work in the county. When Respondent went to the Compliance Office's location in downtown Miami, he was approached by a man carrying a clipboard who spoke Spanish. Respondent was led to believe by the man that he worked for the county (although the man did not present any identification verifying his employment status). The man offered to help Respondent apply for a license, an offer Respondent accepted. After obtaining information from Respondent, the man filled out an application form (which was in English) for Respondent and "kept" the completed form. He then collected from Respondent $350.00. The man told Respondent that Respondent would be receiving his license "by mail." Respondent did nothing further (including taking the licensure examination) to obtain a Compliance Office-issued license for his air conditioning contracting business. Given what he was told by the man (whom he trusted) at the Compliance Office's downtown Miami location, Respondent did not think anything else was required of him, and he acted accordingly. Approximately a month after his visit to the Compliance Office, Respondent received what, on its face, appeared to be a Compliance Office-issued "competency card" indicating that his business, G & G Air Conditioning, Inc., had been issued an "A/C UNLTD" license, License No. 05M000987, with an expiration date of September 30, 2007, and that he was the "qualifying agent" for the business. Although Respondent did not realize it at the time, the "competency card" was a "fraudulent document." The Compliance Office had never in fact issued any license to Respondent or his air conditioning contracting business. Indeed, the Compliance Office had not even received a licensure application, or, for that matter, anything else, from Respondent (including the $350.00 he had paid for what he thought was an application fee). Reasonably, but erroneously, believing that the "competency card" was authentic, Respondent, with the assistance of a friend able to read and write English, completed and submitted the paperwork necessary to register with the Department so that he would be able to engage in the business of air conditioning contracting in Miami-Dade County. Respondent had picked up the application packet (the contents of which were in English) when he had visited the Compliance Office's downtown Miami location. Respondent's friend translated the contents of the application materials for Respondent. For each item requiring a response, Respondent told his friend what entry to make. The final page of the application materials contained the following "Attest Statement," which Respondent signed (after it was translated for him by his friend): I have read the questions in this application and have answered them completely and truthfully to the best of my knowledge. I have successfully completed the education, if any, required for the level of licensure, registration, or certification sought. I have the amount of experience required, if any, for the level of licensure, registration, or certification sought.[1] I pledge to comply with the applicable standards of practice upon licensure, registration, or certification. I understand the types of misconduct for which disciplinary proceedings may be initiated. Among the representations Respondent made in his completed application was that he possessed a valid "local competency card" issued by the Compliance Office. He believed, in good faith, but again, incorrectly, that the "competency card" he had received in the mail was such a card. In accordance with the instructions in the application materials, Respondent attached a copy of this card to his application. The Department received Respondent's completed application for registration on April 20, 2006. On May 23, 2006, the Department issued the registration for which Respondent had applied. Had the Department known that the "competency card" Respondent had attached to his application and had falsely, but not fraudulently, claimed to be valid was in fact a counterfeit that did not accurately represent the local licensure status of Respondent and his business, the Department would have denied Respondent's application for registration. Following a police investigation, two Compliance Office employees, along with a former Compliance Office employee, were arrested for selling "fraudulent licenses." The police alerted the Compliance Office of the results of its investigation in or around July 2006 (after the Department had already granted Respondent's application for registration). The Compliance Office thereupon conducted an audit, which revealed that Respondent was among those who had received a "fraudulent competency card" from the arrestees. Respondent was so notified by letter (sent by the Compliance Office). Prior to his receipt of the letter, Respondent had no idea that the "competency card" he had received in the mail was not what it purported to be. Had he known it was a "fraudulent document" he would have never applied for registration with the Department. The total investigative and prosecutorial costs incurred by the Department in connection with the instant case (excluding costs associated with any attorney's time) was $32.66.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board issue a Final Order revoking Respondent's registration and requiring him to pay the Department $32.66 (representing the Department's investigative and prosecutorial costs, excluding costs associated with attorney time) for the violation of Section 489.129(1)(a), Florida Statutes, Section 455.227(1)(h), Florida Statutes, and Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, described above that the Department alleged in its Administrative Complaint and subsequently proved by clear and convincing evidence at the final hearing. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 22nd day of October, 2007.
Findings Of Fact Stephen G. Blume, the Respondent, is a state certified Class A contractor under Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. He holds license number CA C009753, and he is the qualifying agent for BCH Mechanical, Inc. (BCH), a Florida corporation, in which Blume is the principle stockholder. BCH is a mechanical contractor and concentrates its efforts in commercial construction work, particularly in shopping center construction. BCH subcontracts from owners or general contractors for the installation of heating, ventilating, and air conditioning for individual establishments within shopping malls. Prior to February 18, 1983, the Respondent contracted with a general contractor for the Respondent to provide heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment to approximately 15 stores in the Aventura Mall in Dade County, Florida. The work was of a nature for which the Respondent and BCH were qualified to perform under Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. On February 18, 1983, the Respondent and his company contracted with Richard E. Hahn, doing business as Temp-Rite Air Conditioning and Refrigeration, Inc., to install air conditioning systems in spaces 128, 163, 645, and 677 at the Aventura Mall. See attachment to Respondent's Exhibit 1, and paragraph 3 of the administrative complaint. On February 23, 1983, the Respondent obtained building and mechanical permits to perform heating, ventilation, and air conditioning work on spaces 163, 645, 677, and 128 at the Aventura Mall. See Petitioner's Exhibit 1. The Respondent did not attempt to list the permits in the name of Hahn at the time of application or subsequently. Richard Hahn did not have a certificate of competency to do air conditioning construction work, and was not qualified in Dade County to obtain a permit to do that work himself. He also was not licensed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board to perform this work. The Respondent selected Hahn by the following process. When he got to the mall, he contacted Robert Shaw Controls, the company that was doing work on the concourse air conditioning systems at the mall. Employees of Robert Shaw told the Respondent of three pipe fitting companies that were then doing work at the mall. All three gave the Respondent bids, and Respondent selected Hahn's company as low bidder. There is no evidence that Blume was a friend of Hahn prior to this contract. Respondent's company specializes in installation of air conditioning systems in shops in commercial malls. Respondent's company employs 30 to 40 people. Most of this is handled by his own employees, without subcontracts. Thus, for most of his work, there is no need for a licensed subcontractor. At the Aventura Mall project, the Respondent determined that he needed to hire a subcontractor affiliated with the pipefitters union for the work on first floor shops. The Respondent did not have a bargaining agreement with the pipefitters union, and thus could not call the Dade County pipefitters' hiring hall to hire a pipefitter as a temporary employee. Instead, Respondent had to subcontract the work to a pipe fitter union member. Respondent determined that he needed pipefitter union affiliation because that union was quite strong in Dade County, and use of nonunion members might have caused labor unrest at the mall work site. It was not to the economic advantage of the Respondent to subcontract the work to Hahn. It would have been more profitable to the Respondent to have followed his usual business practice of doing the air conditioning pipe fitting work using his own nonunion pipefitter employees. The Respondent asked Hahn if he was a licensed contractor for his work, whether he was a union pipe fitter, and whether he carried worker's compensation coverage. The Respondent was told by Hahn that he had a license, that he was a journeyman union pipe fitter, and that he did carry worker's compensation coverage. Following his past practice, the Respondent asked Hahn only for proof of his worker's compensation coverage. The Respondent did nothing to attempt to verify the truth of Hahn's assertion that he was a licensed contractor. The Respondent could have verified the existence of Hahn's license by either asking Hahn to show him his license card or by telephoning the license record officer in Dade County and asking that agency to verify Hahn's license. The Respondent did not do either of these things both of which were relatively easy to do. The Respondent had memorized his own contract license number. William Lessaris was employed by the Respondent and BCH Mechanical, Inc., to provide daily supervision of the project. Lessaris was at the job site daily. Other BCH employees were also on the job site. John D. Arition is Mechanical and Building Inspector and Plans Processor for far the Building and Zoning Department of Dade County, Florida. Arition was called by Lessaris to come to the job site to perform the air conditioning inspection. Arition did not tell BCH Mechanical, Inc., when he would arrive. When Arition arrived on the job site, Hahn was there. Arition asked Hahn for his license to do the work. Hahn told Arition that he did not have a license. Arition ordered Hahn to cease work. Hanh picked up his tools and left the job site. Arition then talked with Lessaris and told him about the problem with Hahn. The work was completed satisfactorily, without defects. Subsequently, Hahn was administratively charged with violating various provisions of Dade County construction law, was found to have committed six violations, was fined a total of $2,700 and had his personal certificate of competency suspended for one year. Blume was asked to appear at the hearing, but could not due to prior scheduled work. There is no evidence that Blume was given adequate notice of the date of the hearing, and it appears that he was given only short notice of the precise date. Blume was not subpoened to appear, and was not at fault in failing to appear. Blume voluntarily supplied Dade County with all documentary evidence requested.
Recommendation In consideration of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Petitioner enter a final order finding no violations as alleged, and dismissing the administrative complaint. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of March, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. 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 29th day of March, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William Sizemore, Esquire Suite 838, Plaza On The Mall 201 East Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33602 Salvatore Carprino, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
