The Issue Whether Petitioner achieved a passing score on the Practical Examination for Retention of Firefighter Retest.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for the certification of firefighters in the State of Florida, pursuant to chapter 633, Florida Statutes. In or around 2009, Petitioner achieved his Firefighter Minimum Standards Training Certification, which was valid for three years. To maintain his certification, it was necessary for Petitioner to either: maintain employment as a firefighter (or serve as a volunteer firefighter) for at least six consecutive months during the three-year period subsequent to his certification; or successfully complete the retention examination, which is identical to the practical examination given to new applicants. Petitioner could not satisfy the first option, and was therefore required to take the retention examination. Petitioner's initial attempt to successfully complete the retention examination occurred on September 21, 2012, and included four practical components: self-contained breathing apparatus ("SCBA"), hose operation, ladder operation, and fireground skills. To pass the retention examination, an examinee must earn a score of at least 70 on all sections. Each portion of the retention examination has certain evaluative components that are graded; the ladder operation, for instance, consists of 15 skills——e.g., maintaining contact with the ladder, lifting and securing the ladder properly, using proper hand position——that the examinee is expected to complete. Significantly, the ladder operation also requires the examinee to fulfill ten mandatory components, which include, among other things, maintaining control of the ladder at all times, donning protective gear appropriately, and finishing the exercise within the time limit of four minutes and 30 seconds. Pertinent to the instant case, noncompliance with respect to any of the mandatory elements results in automatic failure, irrespective of the examinee's performance in connection with the evaluative components. It is undisputed that Petitioner achieved passing scores on the fireground skills, SCBA, and hose components of the retention examination. With respect to the ladder evaluation, however, Petitioner failed to comply with two mandatory elements (he exceeded the time limit and neglected to don his hood properly), which resulted in an automatic failure. Petitioner, like all candidates who fail the retention examination on the first attempt, was offered one retest opportunity.1/ Petitioner's retest was administered on November 8, 2012, at the Ocala Fire College, during which he passed the SCBA and hose portions of the examination. (Petitioner was not required to re-take the fireground skills component.) As for the ladder evaluation, the Department contends, and Petitioner does not dispute, that a time of four minutes and 49 seconds was recorded——a result that exceeds the time limit of four minutes and thirty seconds. Petitioner speculates, however, that the examiner, Thomas Johnson,2/ could have mistakenly started the timer during the safety inspection. While it is true that the timing process should not begin until an examinee completes a safety examination of the ladder, Petitioner has adduced no evidence, persuasive or otherwise, that Mr. Johnson started the clock too soon. Petitioner has therefore failed to show that he achieved a passing score on the ladder evaluation and, consequently, on his retention retest.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter an order denying Petitioner's application to retain his certification as a firefighter in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Edward T. Bauer Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of March, 2013.
The Issue The issue in the case is whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint are true, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with regulation of hotels and restaurants pursuant to Chapter 509, Florida Statutes. The Respondent is a restaurant located at 29 North Boulevard of the Presidents, Sarasota, Florida 34236. Giuseppe Casadio owns and operates the restaurant. On March 25, 2002, an employee representing the Petitioner performed a routine inspection of the Respondent restaurant. Violations of applicable food and fire safety regulations, adopted and enforced by the Petitioner, were noted during the inspection. The inspector identified the violations to the owner and scheduled a re-inspection for March 27, 2002. On March 27, 2002, the Petitioner's employee re- inspected the Respondent restaurant and determined that some of the violations remained uncorrected. The uncorrected violations are related to refrigeration problems, pest control issues, inadequate fire extinguishers, and improper use of an electrical extension cord. The refrigeration problems resulted in a failure to maintain food at appropriate temperatures. The walk-in refrigerator was not chilling properly, and food items including salmon and ham were not chilled to the 41 degrees Fahrenheit required pursuant to regulation. The required storage temperature is intended to retard spoilage and the development of bacteria. At the time of the initial inspection, the Respondent's walk-in refrigerator unit was malfunctioning. The day after the initial inspection, repairs were made to the unit, but the repairs were inadequate and the food storage temperatures remained excessive at the time of the re-inspection. After the re-inspection, additional repair work was required. Another uncorrected violation was the improper storage of a prepared garlic and oil mixture in a "reach-in" refrigerator on the cook's line. The temperature of the mixture was 56 degrees, in excess of the 41 degrees Fahrenheit required pursuant to regulation. Prepared garlic and oil mixtures present the potential for development of botulism if not chilled and stored appropriately. The pest control issue cited in the inspection related to the detection of roaches around the dishwashing machine. The restaurant has a contract with a pest control company, but the measures being taken to reduce the roach population are apparently inadequate. Fire prevention regulations require that an appropriate fire extinguisher be within a travel distance of 30 feet from "high hazard" cooking equipment. The Respondent was not in compliance with the regulations at the time of either inspection because the fire extinguisher was improperly located. Fire prevention regulations prohibit use of electrical extension cords except for temporary use during cleaning. At the time of both inspections, an extension cord was being used to power the reach-in refrigerator unit at the end of the cook's line. The Petitioner has prosecuted similar allegations against the Respondent in a prior administrative proceeding. Pursuant to a Final Order issued in 2001 based on an agreed stipulation and consent order, the Petitioner has previously identified code violations related to improper food storage temperature and inadequate fire suppression equipment during inspections in 1999 and 2001.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a Final Order imposing a fine of $5,600, and requiring that the Respondent attend a Hospitality Education Class at his own expense within 60 days of the date of the Final Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of October, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 17th day of October, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph Casadio Osteria Incorporated 29 North Boulevard of the Presidents Sarasota, Florida 34236 Giuseppe Casadio 934 Boulevard of the Arts Sarasota, Florida 34236 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Susan R. McKinley, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner successfully completed the Practical Examination for Retention of Firefighter Retest.
Findings Of Fact Mr. Pointon is a candidate for re-certification as a firefighter in the State of Florida. In 2004, Mr. Pointon obtained his Firefighter Minimum Standards Training Certification. A certification is valid for three years. Since 2004, he has been unable to find gainful employment as a firefighter. In 2007, Mr. Pointon obtained re- certification. He has been working two jobs, unrelated to firefighting, and has been unable to volunteer as a firefighter. To maintain certification, a certified firefighter, within the three-year period, must either be employed as a firefighter in a career status position or a volunteer firefighter for at least six consecutive months. If a certified firefighter fails to fit within either of the two statuses within the three-year period, the certified firefighter must take the practical portion of the Firefighter Minimum Standards examination, i.e., the Firefighter Minimum Standards Practical Examination (Practical Examination) to retain certification as a firefighter. The Practical Examination includes a written examination, as well as four practical components. The four practical components include (a) Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA); (b) Hose Operations; (c) Ladder Operations; and (d) Fireground Skills. In order to pass the Practical Examination, a candidate must achieve a score of at least 70 percent on each of the four components. Pertinent to the instant case, the SCBA component is scored using a form listing five mandatory steps, which the candidate must pass, and ten "evaluative component" steps worth ten points each. During the SCBA portion of the examination, a candidate is required to follow the mandatory criteria; the mandatory criteria are required to be completed correctly, including completion of all protective equipment, which includes pulling on the candidate's hood that protects the skin from flash fire; and (c) a candidate is required to complete the mandatory criteria within the maximum allotted time. A candidate, who successfully completes the five mandatory steps, receives a total score of the sum of the points from the ten "evaluative component" steps. A candidate's failure to comply with the mandatory criteria is considered a critical failure. A critical failure is grounds for an automatic failure. A candidate is able to take the re-certification test twice. If a candidate fails the first time, the candidate is automatically afforded an opportunity for a retest. On May 25, 2010, Mr. Pointon took his initial Practical Examination for the re-certification. He completed the SCBA in two minutes and 45 seconds, which was beyond the maximum allowed time of one minute and 35 seconds. Therefore, the Department determined that Mr. Pointon failed to successfully complete that component and, as a result, failed that section of the Practical Examination. Mr. Pointon contends that, on May 25, 2010, during his inspection of the equipment, bottle and air pack, to make sure that it was functioning properly, he discovered that the equipment was not functioning properly. Further, he contends that he made two exchanges of equipment before he obtained properly functioning equipment. Mr. Pointon's testimony is found to be credible. The field representative who administered the initial Practical Examination testified. The field representative did nothing different with Mr. Pointon than he did with any of the other candidates. Furthermore, Mr. Pointon was the eleventh candidate to undergo testing and, by being the eleventh candidate, Mr. Pointon had ample opportunity to test his equipment and ensure that the necessary preparation was conducted before his (Mr. Pointon's) exam began. The field representative's testimony is found to be credible and more persuasive. Therefore, the evidence demonstrates that Mr. Pointon failed to successfully complete the SCBA component within the maximum allotted time. Hence, the evidence demonstrates that, on May 25, 2010, Mr. Pointon failed the SCBA section of the Practical Examination. On September 23, 2010, Mr. Pointon took a retest of the SCBA component. The Department determined that he failed the retest for failure to don all Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), in particular his NOMEX hood. Failure to don all PPE is grounds for automatic failure. As to the retest, Mr. Pointon contends that he was wearing his NOMEX hood. The field representative who administered the retest testified. The field representative observed the NOMEX hood around Mr. Pointon's neck; Mr. Pointon was not wearing the NOMEX hood. The field representative's testimony is more persuasive. Therefore, the evidence demonstrates that, on September 23, 2010, Mr. Pointon failed to don all the PPE by failing to don his NOMEX hood. Hence, the evidence demonstrates that, on September 23, 2010, Mr. Pointon failed the retest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order: Finding that Mark Pointon failed to successfully complete the Practical Examination for Retention of Firefighter Retest; and Denying Mark Pointon's application for recertification as a firefighter in the state of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 1st day of August, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 1st day of August, 2011.
The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner is entitled to a passing grade on the Hose and Nozzle Operations part of the Minimum Standards Examination for firefighter certification.
Findings Of Fact Certification as a firefighter requires, among other things, that an applicant successfully complete a Minimum Standards Course and then pass the Minimum Standards Examination. The Minimum Standards Examination comprises a written test and a practice test, each of which an applicant must pass. The practical test comprises four parts, including Hose and Nozzle Operations. An applicant must pass each of the four parts, and a passing score is 70. On October 3, 2003, Petitioner first took the Minimum Standards Examination. She passed three parts, but failed the Hose and Nozzle Operations part. She was entitled to one retest, without having to retake the Minimum Standards Course, which she has already passed. On November 20, 2003, Petitioner retook the Hose and Nozzle Operations part of the Minimum Standards Examination. Petitioner received a score of 60 on the retest, and she challenges this score in the present case. Petitioner lost points for four reasons: she failed to have all of her protective gear donned and properly secured, she opened the hose nozzle too quickly, she closed the hose nozzle too quickly, and she ran with the hose. The Hose and Nozzle Operations part of the test is timed, and Petitioner previously had failed it because she had taken too long to complete the tasks within this part. Petitioner was a candid witness. At the end of the hearing, she essentially withdrew her challenge to the points that she had lost for operating the nozzle improperly. She instead focused on running with the hose and leaving her face shield up during part of the examination. In fact, the examiner testified without doubt that Petitioner had misoperated the nozzle during two tasks. Clearly, Petitioner failed to prove that the examiner's scoring of these two tasks was incorrect. As for running, Petitioner testified that she ran, but, consistent with the test rules, received a shouted warning from the examiner and did not run again. If so, she should not have lost points for running. However, the examiner again is clear that Petitioner ran after the warning. Aware that she had failed the same test previously for not completing this part of the test within the allotted time, Petitioner probably felt a sense of urgency to complete this part of the test. Petitioner's testimony about running is vague at times and even contradictory. Much of Petitioner's early testimony on this point disputes the clarity of the shouted warning not to run, suggesting that she may have run through a large portion of this part of the test. Later, though, Petitioner concedes that the shout was probably a warning not to run. On balance, Petitioner has failed to prove that the examiner improperly deducted points for running. The last issue in dispute is whether Petitioner performed part of the test with her face shield improperly raised. Petitioner testified that her face shield was always in the proper position, and, on this issue, Petitioner produced a fellow student who testified that he saw Petitioner's face shield in the proper position. However, the other student did not see the whole test and presumably was not observing Petitioner as closely as was the examiner. The examiner was most definite in his testimony on the issue of the face shield. He saw Petitioner engage in the awkward task of unloading the heavy hose, and he saw that a section of hose bumped the face shield from its down position into a partial up position. The examiner watched to see if Petitioner would immediately lower the face shield, but she did not. At that point, the examiner properly deducted points for failing to keep the gear properly secured.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's challenge to the scoring of the Hose and Nozzle Operations part of the Minimum Standards Examination that took place on November 20, 2003. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Ruth Gutierrez 1585 Northeast 110th Terrace Miami, Florida 33161 Casio R. Sinco Assistant General Counsel Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for the certification of firefighters in the State of Florida, pursuant to chapter 633, Florida Statutes. In or around 2008, Petitioner achieved his Firefighter Minimum Standards Training Certification, which was valid for three years. To maintain his certification, it was necessary for Petitioner to either: maintain employment as a firefighter (or serve as a volunteer firefighter) for at least six consecutive months during the three-year period subsequent to his certification; or successfully complete the retention examination, which is identical to the practical examination given to new applicants.1/ Petitioner could not satisfy the first option, and was therefore required to take the retention examination. Petitioner's first attempt to successfully complete the retention examination occurred on September 26, 2011, and included four practical components: self-contained breathing apparatus ("SCBA"), hose operation, ladder operation, and fireground skills.2/ To pass the retention examination, an examinee must earn a score of at least 70 on all sections. Each portion of the retention examination has certain evaluative components that are graded. For instance, the ladder operation consists of 15 skills——e.g., maintaining contact with the ladder, lifting and securing the ladder properly, using proper hand position——that the examinee must complete within the maximum time of four minutes and 30 seconds. The ladder operation also requires the examinee to fulfill ten mandatory components, which include, among other things, maintaining control of the ladder at all times and securing the "dogs"3/ properly. Pertinent to the instant case, noncompliance with respect to any of the mandatory elements results in automatic failure, irrespective of the examinee's performance in connection with the 15 evaluative components. It is undisputed that Petitioner achieved passing scores on the fireground skills, SCBA, and hose components of the retention examination; Petitioner was unable, however, to complete the ladder evaluation within the prescribed time limit, which resulted in an automatic failure. Petitioner, like all candidates who fail the retention examination on the first attempt, was offered one retest opportunity.4/ Petitioner's retest was administered on November 15, 2011, at the Ocala Fire College, during which he passed the SCBA and hose portions of the examination. (For reasons not explained during the final hearing, Petitioner was not required to re-take the fireground skills component.) Once again, however, Petitioner failed the ladder evaluation, as established by the final hearing testimony of Tuffy Dixon, the field examiner on that occasion.5/ Mr. Dixon explained, credibly, that Petitioner scored an automatic failure because he neglected to lock one of the ladder's "dogs"——one of the ladder evaluation's ten mandatory components.6/ Accordingly, the evidence demonstrates that Petitioner failed the November 15, 2011, retention examination retest.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter an order denying Petitioner's application to retain his certification as a firefighter in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of July, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Edward T. Bauer Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of July, 2012.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Petitioner passed the "Hose Operation" portion of the initial and the re-test firefighters examinations and whether she was given a fair opportunity to pass the test.
Findings Of Fact On January 13, 2001, the Petitioner, Josephine Louise Ramsey, applied for certification to become a firefighter in the State of Florida. The Respondent is the agency regulating licensure and enforcing practice standards for firefighters in the State of Florida. On May 9, 2001, the Petitioner took the Minimum Standard Written and Practical Examination, a passing score on which would qualify her for firefighter certification. She did not achieve a passing score on the practical portion of the examination because she failed the Hose Operation portion of the examination. The Petitioner began taking the practical Hose Operation evolution portion of the examination with a broken shoulder strap on the "airpack" she was required to wear. She contended that this was an "unsafe act" and that Mr. Begley, the proctor for the examination, should have stopped her testing time and allowed her to correct the equipment malfunction and then resume the test. The Petitioner contended that this caused her a tremendous distraction while she was performing the Hose Operation evolution. She also contended that Mr. Begley should have stopped her test time from running further as soon as he noticed the broken airpack. The Petitioner testified that she changed airpacks after the Hose Operation evolution portion of her examination and was told to proceed on to the ladder portion of the examination. After the Petitioner had completed the ladder portion of the examination, the Petitioner was allowed to again take the Hose Operation evolution that same day. She took the second Hose Operation evolution test after five other applicants had been tested on that portion of the examination. The Petitioner failed the Hose Operation portion of the initial examination because she exceeded the maximum time allotted for that exercise. The Petitioner contends that she was never told of any recourse she might have if she failed her initial examination and was only told that she could schedule a re-test examination. On September 27, 2001, the Petitioner took the Minimum Standards Practical Examination Re-test which consisted, in her case, of only the Hose Operation portion of the examination. She received point deductions in four different categories on the re-test examination. She received point deductions for (1) failure to properly stop and call for water; (2) failure to slowly and fully open and close the hose nozzle while bleeding the hose line; (3) failure to slowly and fully open and close the nozzle during the cone operation; and (4) failure to maintain control of the hose and nozzle during the entire operation. The Petitioner thus received a total score of 60, which is below the minimum, acceptable, passing score of 70, and thus failed the re-test examination. The Petitioner claims that she was charged with point deductions twice for the same violation or deficiency, which in this case was improperly opening and closing the hose nozzle at the front of the truck bumper and during the cone operation. However, according to the Department's score sheet and scoring method, the opening and closing of the hose nozzle are two different skills at two locations, which are scored separately, based upon the location of the hose. The Department is thus attempting to assess how an applicant will handle the hose nozzle when the line is initially charged with water (at the front of the truck bumper) and also when the line is fully charged with water during the cone operation. In her testimony the Petitioner attempted to analogize the opening and closing of the hose operation with running during the exercise. According to the Department's scoring sheet and method, completing the task without running, or walking backwards, would entitle an applicant to 10 points. Before an applicant is deducted any points, an examiner must warn the applicant that they are running or walking backwards. Running during the exercise and properly opening and closing the hose nozzle, however, are two different skills and are scored separately and differently. The Department's policy is that it is an important skill for applicants to be able to properly maintain control of a fire hose and know how to properly open and close the hose in order to prevent injury to firefighters. In any event, the Petitioner received notice of a denial of her certification effective October 5, 2001.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered denying the Petitioner's application for certification as a firefighter in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of April, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of April, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Ladasiah Jackson, Esquire Department of Insurance 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Josephine Louise Ramsey 1906 St. John's Bluff Road North Jacksonville, Florida 32225 Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer/Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307
The Issue Whether Petitioner should have received a passing grade on the Firefighter Minimum Standards Retest taken on November 30, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Department of Insurance and Treasurer (Department), through its Division of State Fire Marshall, certifies all paid firefighters. Applicants for firefighters must complete a 360-hour minimum standards training course and pass a written and practical examination. If the applicant fails the examination, the applicant may retake the examination within six months after taking the initial examination. If the applicant does not pass the retest, the applicant must complete the minimum standards training course before additional retesting will be allowed. The examination has two parts, a written and a practical part. The written examination consists of 100 multiple choice questions. The practical portion tests the applicant on skills dealing with breathing apparatus, hose and nozzle operation, and the 24-foot extension ladder. The applicant must receive a score of 70 percent on both portions of the examination in order to pass the examination. In the breathing apparatus section of the practical examination, the applicant is timed during the donning of the equipment. If the applicant does not don the equipment within one minute and thirty seconds, points are deducted from the applicant's score. The number of points deducted increases in proportion to the amount of time it takes to don the equipment. If the applicant dons the equipment in more than one minute and thirty seconds but not more than two minutes, five points are deducted. In the hose and nozzle operation portion of the practical examination, the applicant is timed. If the applicant fails to perform the operation in two minutes or less, points are deducted from the applicant's score. Five points are deducted if the applicant takes greater than two minutes but not over two minutes and thirty seconds. Ten points are deducted if the applicant takes greater than two minutes and thirty seconds but not more than three minutes. The ladder operation portion of the examination is timed. If the applicant takes more than two minutes and thirty seconds but not more than three minutes, five points are deducted. During the practical examination, applicants are required to demonstrate their skills in tying knots and hitches. The applicant is required to tie one of a number of knots or hitches. Applicants are also required to show their proficiency in dealing with fire hoses, hose appliances and various fittings by performing one of a number of functions. Applicants must demonstrate their knowledge of the North American Emergency Response Guidebook by answering three questions using the guidebook a reference. On January 20, 1998, Petitioner, Michelle M. McCue (McCue), applied for certification as a firefighter. She completed the Minimum Standards Course. On July 30, 1998, McCue took the minimum standards examination. She received a score of 81 on the written portion and 55 on the practical examination. She was notified by memorandum dated August 12, 1998, of her scores. By memorandum dated September 3, 1998, McCue was notified that she was scheduled to retake the examination on September 22, 1998. She did not take the examination on that date. By memorandum dated October 5, 1998, McCue was notified that she was rescheduled to retake the practical examination on November 30, 1998. She retook the practical portion on the day scheduled. On the retake examination, five points were deducted from McCue's score because her donning time for the breathing apparatus portion was one minute and fifty-one seconds. She took three minutes during the timed portion of the hose and nozzle operation; thus, ten points were deducted from her score. Five points were deducted from her score because she took two minutes and thirty-five seconds to perform the ladder operation. Five points were deducted from McCue's score for failure to correctly tie a Becket Bend knot. Another five points were deducted from her score for failing to properly connect a supply line into a female pumper intake. Five points were deducted for her failure to properly answer a question using the North American Emergency Response Guidebook. McCue received a final score of 65 on the retake of the practical examination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Michelle M. McCue failed the retake of the practical portion of the Minimum Standards Test and that she shall be required to repeat the Minimum Standards Course before taking any further examinations. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of October, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of October, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Bill Nelson, State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Shiv Narayan Persaud, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Michelle M. McCue 4801 Northwest 26th Avenue Tamarac, Florida 33309
