The Issue The issues are: (1) whether Petitioner passed the Practical Examination for Firefighter Retention test; and (2) whether Petitioner's application for firefighter recertification was properly denied.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner completed his minimum standards training and took the standardized state test in 2004 and Respondent issued him a Firefighter Certificate that year. Florida law requires Petitioner to be employed by a fire agency within a three year period after passing the state examination to keep his minimum standards credentials active. Petitioner is a full-time employee at American Medical Response. Because Petitioner has not been active as a firefighter during the past three years, Petitioner made application to the Department to take the Retention Examination. The practical portion consists of four sections or "evolutions" including the SCBA,1 the hose pull, the ladder operation, and the fire ground skills section. To pass the four practical evolutions, an applicant must achieve a score of at least 70 percent on each component. Each evolution of the practical exam has certain elements or skills that are graded. The SCBA portion of the test contains skills related to checking, donning, and properly activating the SCBA that enables a firefighter to breathe in a hostile environment, such as a burning building. The SCBA portion of the Retention Examination also has an established maximum time allotted for the examinee to complete a minimum of 70 percent of the skills. The time limitation is a mandatory requirement. If an examinee completes a minimum of 70 percent of the skills in a particular part, but fails to do so within the maximum allotted time specified for that part, the examinee has not met the mandatory time requirement and, thus, is not awarded any points for that part. Petitioner took the initial Retention Examination in May 2009. Petitioner did not pass the SCBA and fire ground skills components of the practical portion of the initial exam. On September 24, 2009, Petitioner took the Retention Examination re-test for the SCBA and fire skills components. Petitioner passed the fire skills component. The maximum time allotted for completion of the SCBA part of the Retention Examination is two minutes. Petitioner's completion time on the September 2009 Retention Examination re- test was two minutes and 30 seconds. Because Petitioner failed to complete a minimum of 70 percent of skills in the SCBA portion of the Retention Examination within the maximum time allotted, the Bureau properly awarded him zero points. It is an automatic failure if an examinee does not complete the exam in time. Therefore, Petitioner did not earn a passing score on the Retention Examination re-test. As a result of Petitioner's failing to pass the Retention Examination, his Firefighter Certificate of compliance expired. The Division employs field representatives to administer the Retention Examination to examinees in accordance with the applicable rules and procedures. Dennis Hackett is and has been a field representative with the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training for six years. As a field representative, Mr. Hackett administers and scores the minimum standards examination for firefighters, including the Retention Examination. Mr. Hackett has administered well over a thousand SCBA tests. Mr. Hackett was the examiner who tested Petitioner on the September 24, 2009, for re-test of the SCBA portion of the practical exam. Mr. Hackett timed Petitioner at two minutes and 30 seconds. Petitioner testified that before taking the retest, he practiced the SCBA test and had completed it within the time limit. Petitioner first learned SCBA skills in 2004 at the Coral Springs Fire Academy. At the academy, Petitioner took a three month, 450-hour course of fundamental firefighter skills. On or about September 16, 2009, Petitioner took a refresher course in Ocala, Florida. The course was two days and taught the SCBA skills in a manner different from how Petitioner had been taught at Coral Springs Fire Academy. Petitioner testified that the refresher course wasn't fair because he didn't have enough time to learn the new method. He asserted that the two day course was too short to learn the new method and techniques to compensate for errors. Petitioner admitted that a minor hiccup slowed him down while taking the re-test on September 24, 2009. Petitioner said, "It's not like I can't do it because I could do it, it's just I went over the time limit. I didn't have ample enough time to learn the new way of doing it or to overcome any minor obstacles." In a memorandum dated September 25, 2009, the Department formally advised Petitioner that he had failed the SCBA portion of the Minimum Standards Practical Retention Retest. The memorandum also informed Petitioner that, "Because you did not pass the retest, your Firefighter Certificate of compliance #117349, has expired as of 09/24/2009. It will be necessary for you to repeat the firefighter Minimum Recruit Training Program and submit a new application before any additional testing can be allowed." An individual is allowed to re-take the Retention Examination one time. If the person does not pass the re-test, he must repeat the Firefighter Minimum Recruit Training Program before he is eligible to re-take the Retention Examination. See § 633.352, Fla. Stat., and Fla. Admin. Code R. 69A-37.0527. As noted above, Petitioner did not pass the SCBA portion of the Retention Examination re-test. Therefore, before he is eligible to re-take that examination, he must repeat the Firefighter Minimum Recruit Training Program. Petitioner failed to establish that he was entitled to a passing grade for his performance on the Retention Examination re-test. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that Petitioner's performance on the Retention Examination re-test was appropriately and fairly graded.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the Findings of Fact and the Conclusions of Law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order denying Petitioner's application to retain his certification as a firefighter in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of March, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. McKINNEY 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 25th day of March, 2010.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether the application for an initial license to operate an Adult Family Care Home ("AFCH") should be denied because the applicant submitted fraudulent or inaccurate information in the application.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is owned by Ms. Marvell Lawton, R.N. (the "applicant"). On June 3, 1996, the applicant applied for a license to operate an AFCH at 550 East Division Street, Deland, Florida (the "facility"). Respondent is the state agency responsible for licensing AFCHs. Respondent requires several documents to be submitted with the application including: a Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services ("HRS") Community Residential Homes Sponsor Certification Form (the "HRS Form"); a statement by the local zoning office that the facility is properly zoned (the "zoning approval"); and a fire inspection report. The applicant altered the HRS Form, the zoning approval, and the fire inspection report to indicate that the facility was approved for a maximum capacity of five residents. Respondent initially denied the license application solely on the basis of the fire inspection report. However, the basis of denial was amended to include the HRS Form and the zoning approval pursuant to an order entered by Judge Stephen F. Dean on October 16, 1996. By letter dated July 11, 1996, Respondent notified the applicant that her application was denied. The letter stated, in relevant part, that the specific basis for denial was: . . . Submission of fraudulent or inaccurate information to the agency. The fire safety inspection report submitted with the application package was altered to indicate approval for five residents when the fire marshal's office had only approved three residents. The local fire marshal's office has verified that the original approval was for three residents because Ms. Lawton did not want to install a manual alarm system which is required for four or five residents. Submission of fraudulent or inaccurate information to the agency is grounds for denial of the AFCH application, s. 400.619(11)(e),F.S. On April 2, 1996, the applicant obtained a fire inspection report from the City of Deland Fire Department (the "Fire Department"). The fire inspection report limited the maximum capacity of the facility to three residents because the applicant did not have the manual alarm system required for four or five residents and did not wish to install such a system. The applicant altered the fire inspection report that she submitted with her application. She changed the number "3" to a "5" so that the fire inspection report appeared to approve the facility for a maximum capacity of five residents. As part of its review of the application, Respondent attempted to verify the fire inspection report included in the application by calling the Fire Department. When the Fire Department did not verify that the maximum capacity was five residents, Respondent obtained a copy of the original fire inspection report from the Fire Department. On March 22, 1996, the applicant obtained a zoning approval from the City of DeLand stating that the maximum capacity of the facility is three residents. The applicant added the phrase "to 5" after the number "3" in the zoning approval so that the zoning approval authorized a maximum capacity of "3 to 5" residents. On June 3, 1996, the applicant submitted the HRS Form to Respondent. The applicant amended the portion of the HRS Form requiring a designation of capacity for facilities with six or fewer residents as well as that for facilities with 7-14 residents. The latter category does not apply to Petitioner. The applicant did not submit fraudulent information to Respondent. The applicant did not intend to defraud Respondent. She misunderstood the application process. The facility has space for only three residents. It is physically impossible to house more than three residents in the facility. The applicant would have gained nothing from an authorized capacity of more than three residents. The applicant's refusal to add the manual alarm system required for four or five residents is consistent with the facility's limit of three residents. The applicant assumed that Respondent's minimum license category is for a license of 1-5 residents. The applicant altered the HRS Form, the zoning approval, and the fire inspection report under the mistaken belief that the capacity designation in each document should conform to the maximum capacity in Respondent's license category. In the HRS Form, the applicant even altered the licensed capacity for facilities with 7-14 residents. The applicant mistakenly submitted inaccurate information to Respondent within the meaning of Section 400.619(11)(e), Florida Statutes.1 The maximum licensed capacity of the facility must be consistent with fire safety requirements for the welfare of the residents. The licensed capacity of the facility must also conform to applicable zoning laws.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order and thereinGRANT a license to operate an AFCH for three residents. RECOMMENDED this 21st day of February, 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 21st day of February, 1997.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Department of Financial Services, Division of State Fire Marshal (the Department), properly administered and graded the Firefighter Minimum Standards practical examination taken by Petitioner, Catalina Williams (hereinafter Williams).
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility for testing, monitoring and certifying firefighters. The Department conducts certification examinations at the Florida State Fire College in Ocala, Florida, and some thirty-plus other sites around the State. Those sites are located on college campuses, training facilities, fire stations, and other locales. The test at issue in this proceeding was administered at the Fire College site. Catalina Williams is an Hispanic woman who desires to become a certified firefighter. Her interest in firefighting began when she worked as a photographer covering fire-related events for a magazine and thought it would be exciting and interesting to be on “the front line.” Williams has also served as a caregiver, giving her experience in providing assistance to others, and is a certified lifeguard. In order to accomplish her goal of becoming a firefighter, Williams entered into schooling to learn the trade. Williams first attended First Coast Technological College (First Coast) in 2009. She completed the Firefighter Minimum Basic Standards Course (Firefighter I) that year. In 2010, she enrolled at the school for the summer semester to begin training in the advanced (Firefighter II) curriculum. That school term was shorter and more compressed than a regular semester. Despite her best efforts, Williams did not successfully complete the Firefighter II course. Rochford was one of her instructors during her first unsuccessful enrollment at First Coast. In 2012, Williams entered First Coast again. At that time, she was working as a paid volunteer firefighter for Volusia County. The county paid her tuition costs at First Coast when Williams entered the school for the Firefighter II course work. The second time, Williams was able to successfully complete the course material and pass her final examination. Passing the final examination was a prerequisite to taking the State certification exam. While attending First Coast, Williams took hundreds of practice exams, especially on the practical portions of the tests. She took exams as part of her classes, took exams voluntarily with someone timing her, and took exams just to practice. The State Certification Exam There are four primary segments of the State certification exam: A written examination of 100 multiple choice questions; A hose evolution involving a self- contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) and personal protection equipment (PPE); A ladder/search and rescue evolution; and A skills portion, involving ropes and knots, two fire ground skills, and a short test on the emergency response guide (ERG). The ladder/search and rescue evolution is a practical portion of the exam; it is the singular portion of the test at issue in this proceeding and will be referred to as the ladder evolution. The ladder evolution portion consists of the following tasks and assignments: The candidate inspects ladders hanging on a simulated fire truck. He or she then takes a 24-foot ladder from the truck and extends it against the wall of a building up to the second floor. Once that ladder is properly hoisted, the candidate confirms that a ladder guard (another candidate acting as a spotter) has control of the ladder. The candidate then initiates radio contact and then walks quickly around the building to another ladder that is already in place. He/she must ascend the ladder to the second floor, test the floor inside the building to make sure it is safe, and enter the building through a window. Upon entry the candidate must find a “victim” (a 125-pound mannequin) on the lower floor, secure the victim in an approved manner, and then exit the building with the mannequin. Upon exit, the candidate must safely deposit the victim on the ground and provide notice by way of radio contact that he/she and the victim are outside the building. The radio transmission is something along the lines of: “PAR 2 [Personnel Accountability Reporting, two people]. Firefighter No. “X” and victim have safely exited the building.” The entire ladder evolution sequence must be done within four minutes and 30 seconds although, as will be discussed below, there are differences of opinion as to when the timed portion of the evolution ends. It is necessary for candidates taking the test to pass each of the four sections. Failure of any one portion would result in failure overall. Should a candidate fail the examination, they must reschedule their retest within six months of the failed test. All retest examinations are administered at the Fire College. On test day, there may be dozens of applicants taking the test at the same time. The procedure dictates that candidates arrive at the test facility in time to process paperwork prior to the 7:30 a.m., test commencement. Candidates must first provide identification to an instructor and be assigned a candidate number. They then fill out paperwork, including a waiver should any injuries occur during testing. Candidates will have their gear inspected to make sure it is in compliance with State standards. Prior to commencement of testing, one of the instructors or examiners will read a document called the “Minimum Standards Pre-Exam Orientation” (the Orientation) to the candidates. During the reading of the Orientation, which may take 45 minutes to an hour or more, candidates are allowed and encouraged to ask questions. Unless a question is asked, the Orientation will be read verbatim, word for word, with no additional comment. After the Orientation is read, candidates are walked through the facility so they can familiarize themselves with the test site. Once the test commences, candidates are not allowed to ask any questions. Williams’ Test Experience In October 2012, after successful completion of the Firefighter II course at First Coast, Williams applied for and was approved to take the State certification examination. The exam was conducted at First Coast on the school’s training grounds. The test was conducted by certified employees of the Department. Williams did not pass the examination. One of her shortcomings in that test was a failure in the ladder evolution. Her timed completion of that evolution was in excess of the required time of four minutes and 30 seconds. Williams had been confident she would pass the certification exam because it was similar to the final exam she had passed at First Coast during her schooling. She believes she failed because she was too nervous when she took the exam when it was administered as the actual State certification test. After failing the exam, Williams then applied for a retest which would be held at the Fire College on February 7, 2013. That re-test is the focus of the instant proceeding. On the morning of the retest, Williams arrived well in advance of the 7:30 a.m., start time. As she inspected her gear in anticipation of the start of the exam, she found that the SCBA regulator she was supposed to use did not properly fit the face mask on her helmet. There were extra regulators behind one of the tables being used to process applicants for that day’s test. Examiner Harper was sitting at that table and was providing paperwork to applicants who had already signed in at the first processing station. Williams went to Harper’s table and was allowed to obtain a new regulator. Inasmuch as she was already at Harper’s table getting her replacement regulator before going to the first processing station, Williams went ahead and filled out the paperwork Harper was providing to candidates at his processing station. That is, she filled out the paperwork before actually checking in at the first station. Williams then went to the first check-in table which was manned by Examiner Rochford. She provided her identification to Rochford and was assigned candidate number 37. Rochford then told Williams to go to Harper’s table to fill out the paperwork at that station. Williams told Rochford she had already done so and walked away. (At that point, Williams remembers Rochford yelling at her, asking whether she understood his order and telling her in a harsh manner to obey him. Rochford does not remember talking to Williams at all. Neither version of this alleged confrontation is persuasive. Inasmuch as the conversation was not verified one way or another by a third person -- although there were probably a number of other people around, it will not be considered to have happened for purposes of this Recommended Order.) The Orientation was then read to the candidates. The various portions of the test were addressed in the Orientation. The ladder evolution contained the following language, which Rochford read verbatim to the candidates without anything added or deleted: “Time starts when you touch anything. Time ends when the candidate and victim fully exit the building.” There is no evidence that any of the candidates asked a question concerning this part of the Orientation. Rochford’s timing policy regarding the ladder evolution differs from what he read to the candidates. He takes the position that time stops when the candidate exits the building with the victim, places the victim on the ground in an appropriate manner, and issues a verbal statement into the radio indicating that the firefighter and victim are out of the building. By his own admission, Rochford could not speak to how other examiners handle this timing issue. Harper, who was Williams’ assigned examiner on the test, also seemed to require candidates to lay the victim down and make radio contact before stopping the time. Neither Rochford nor Harper satisfactorily explained why their timing policy was different from what was stated in the orientation. The testimony concerning the correct way of timing the evolution was, at best, confusing. The following statements from the record provide contradictory and disparate opinions by various examiners: Rochford: “As soon as they lay the mannequin on the ground [and] announce they have exited the building . . . the time stops.” Tr. p. 45, lines 9-18 “The mannequin’s feet have got to be outside the plane from the door opening. That’s when the time stops.” Id. Lines 23- 25. “Until they talk on the radio is – - when they finish talking on the radio is when the time would stop.” Tr. p. 255, lines 7-9. Johnson: “At that point, they’ll use one of the prescribed methods for rescue to take the victim and themselves past the threshold out to the fresh air. At that point, the time stops.” Tr. p. 111, lines 11-14 “I read [the Orientation] word for word.” Tr. p. 114, line 23 “On the ladder rescue evolution . . . we [examiners] all stop when they pass the threshold.” Harper: “Then they’re told to lay the victim down, make radio contact you’re out of the building. Time stops.” Tr. p. 138, lines 7-8 “After they make radio contact.” Tr. p. 147, line 3 “[Orientation] says time starts when they touch anything, time ends when the candidate and the victim fully exit the building.” Tr. P. 148, lines 15-17 Hackett: “It stops when the victim comes out of the building.” Tr. p. 222, lines 7-8 [If the victim was thrown out of the building by the firefighter] “I think they would stop the clock.” Id., lines 9-11 “It is part of the timed part that they have to designate that they’re out of the building safely and lay down the victim.” Tr. pp. 222, line 24 through 223, line 1 Question to Hackett: “If [Williams] is coming out and she dropped the victim and picked up -- and presumably picked it up or whatever and then radioed, would that add time?” Answer: “No.” Tr. p. 246, lines 5- 10 Williams was timed by Harper when she took the ladder evolution portion of the exam. According to Harper’s (deposition) testimony, he subscribes to the version of timing that requires the victim to be laid down on the ground and the firefighter to make radio contact. Using that version of timing, Williams received a time of four minutes and 35 seconds for the entire ladder evolution portion of the test. In March, the Department mailed out notices to all the candidates that had tested on February 7. Notices of failure were sent by registered mail, return receipt requested. Williams’ letter was returned to the Department as unclaimed. Williams at some point in time found out from Chief McElroy, head of the Fire Academy, that she had purportedly failed the exam. She began calling examiner Harper in March seeking to find out what portion of the exam she had not successfully completed. She had at least two telephone conversations with Harper in March 2013. On April 4, 2013, the Department re-sent the failure letter to Williams, again by certified mail. This time, the letter was claimed by Williams and she became officially aware that she had not passed the exam. The basis given for Williams’ failure was that she did not complete the ladder evolution within the prescribed time parameters. She was timed at four minutes and 35 seconds, just five seconds beyond the allowable limit. It is her contention that she exited the building with the victim within the four minute/30 second time frame. The basis for her belief is that she has done the test so many times that she knows when she is behind schedule. During the test she did not stumble, drop any equipment, or have any other problem that would have added to her time. So, she concludes, she must have completed the evolution timely. Her personal feelings on the matter, without further corroboration or support, are not persuasive. Harper did not testify at final hearing. The transcript of his deposition taken in this case was admitted into evidence. In that transcript, Harper talks about his policy regarding timing of the evolution. His policy is the same as Rochford’s and is discussed above. He does not specifically say if he employed that policy when timing Williams during her test on February 7, 2013. He does not explain the difference between the Orientation statement about timing and his personal policy. The most persuasive evidence at final hearing established that it would have taken ten to 15 seconds after exiting the building to lay the victim down and make radio contact. The radio contact itself would have taken about four seconds. If Harper had stopped his timing when Williams and the victim broke the threshold of the building, her time would have likely been less than four minutes and 30 seconds. If he used his personal timing policy, then the time of four minutes/35 seconds was probably accurate. Harper deducted points from Williams’ score because of other minor mistakes. The totality of those points would not have caused Williams to fail the test. It was the ladder evolution time that caused the failure. In fact, Williams successfully completed all portions of the re-test except for the timing issue in the ladder evolution portion.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services, Division of State Fire Marshal, rescinding the failing score on the State Firefighter Certification Examination for Catalina Williams and certifying her as a Firefighter. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of November, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 19th day of November, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Seth D. Corneal, Esquire The Corneal Law Firm 904 Anastasia Boulevard St. Augustine, Florida 32080 Michael Davidson, Esquire Department of Financial Services Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Department of Financial Services Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390
Findings Of Fact At all times, material to this case, Petitioner has been licensed by the Department to operate an adult congregate living facility (ACLF) which is located at 6200 West Fairfield Drive, Pensacola, Florida, and is known as the Warrington House. Francis Cooper is the sole shareholder and operator of the Warrington House. Prior to 1984, the Warrington House was known as the Heritage House and was owned by a Mr. Mitchell. Sometime in 1984, Mr. Mitchell was criminally charged with elderly abuse on his residents and the Heritage House went into receivership. Another branch of HRS who was represented by Esther Ward, asked Ms. Francis Cooper to take over the facility. HRS was apparently well satisfied with Ms. Cooper's qualifications in running an ACLF since she had another such facility. When Ms. Cooper took over the Heritage House the electrical power to the facility was about to be turned off. Only by Ms. Cooper's pleading with Gulf Power was that circumstance forestalled. There were only thirteen (13) patients at the facility out of the sixteen (16) that were supposed to have been there. Three (3) of the patients had been mysteriously removed during the night. The residents that were at the house could not identify themselves and very few resident records were at the facility. The building was infested with roaches, there was raw sewage in the yard and the sewage system was completely blocked to the extent that sewage came up through the showers when a toilet was flushed. There was urine in every carpet. None of the appliances in the house worked. There were no air conditioners, fans or plastic dishes. The floors were in bad shape. In fact, Ms. Cooper fell through two of the bathroom floors. When Ms. Cooper questioned HRS representatives about the appalling conditions of the facility, she received no responsive answer. After Ms. Cooper had taken over the facility, she discovered that Mr. Mitchell had absconded with three months advance rent from the residents. Ms. Cooper, therefore, had to operate the premises for three months without income from the residents that were there. She used her own money. Ms. Cooper started with the air conditioning, flooring and carpeting. All these items were replaced. The bathrooms were tiled and additional bathrooms were added. She put in a $6,000.00 sewage system, a lift station and paid $1,000.00 to hook the building onto city sewage. She also brought in an exterminator to get rid of the bugs. All of this took place over a period of two years wherein Ms. Cooper worked diligently to bring the building up to "snuff." In fact, in the time since she has had the facility she has accomplished wonders in improving conditions at the house. These conditions clearly did not appear overnight, but over several years and were apparently overlooked by Respondent until the crisis with Mr. Mitchell had occurred. Ms. Cooper went into the house with the understanding that the corporation would eventually build another facility and close what had become the Warrington House. The reason for the new construction was that the current building, regardless of the amount of repair, was still an old building not worth maintaining and which was allowed to deteriorate badly prior to her stewardship. However, due to a falling out with her brother, who was then a co- shareholder of the corporation, Ms. Cooper was unable to complete her plans for moving the residents of the Warrington House to a new facility. She continues to attempt to obtain financing to build a new facility. At least once a year, HRS does a full survey on a ACLF like the Warrington House. A full survey is simply an inspection of the property in order to determine the degree of compliance with HRS rules and regulations. Upon completing the inspection, the inspector goes through an exit briefing with the ACLF's management. During the exit briefing, the inspector will go over any deficiencies he or she has discovered and attempt to establish mutually agreeable correction dates. The inspector also explains that these time periods are the best estimates that they can come up with at that point to allow a reasonable amount of time for the required corrections to be made. If any problems should arise, the inspector requests that the manager communicate with his or her office and ask for an extension. Extensions are not always forthcoming. After the full survey inspection is done, a follow-up visit is normally scheduled to determine whether the earlier cited deficiencies have been corrected. If, after the follow-up survey there are items that are still not corrected, the inspector will explain to the person in charge that they are subject to administrative action and that he or she will report he facility's noncompliance to his or her office. Whether or not administrative action is taken is determined at a level above the inspector. However, it appears that the customary practice of the office is to pursue an administrative fine for any noncompliance after the correction date has been passed. After the first follow-up survey has been made it depends on the particular factual situation whether or not further follow-up surveys are made until compliance is achieved. If there are efforts being made to correct the problems further follow-up surveys will be made. If not, further follow-up surveys may not be made. In this case, James Temkin, an HRS Fire Protection Specialist, performed a full survey fire safety inspection on the Warrington House on September 24, 1986. During that survey, he cited 11 deficiencies. Various compliance dates were established for the deficiencies. A follow-up survey was conducted by Mr. Temkin on January 14, 1987. During that survey, he noted that 6 of the previously cited deficiencies had not been corrected. He recommended administrative action on all the uncorrected deficiencies. The six remaining uncorrected deficiencies were as follows: No up to date fire plan and the July 7th fire drills were not documented; No fire alarm test since July 1986 and fire alarm zones were not shown on the actuator panel; Smoke detectors not working in four (4) rooms; Exit sign lights burned out at the front and center exits, emergency lights not working at the front, rear and upstairs exit halls; Sleeping rooms had hollow core doors; and There was no documentation of fire safety on the wood paneling and tile ceilings on the first and second floors. All other deficiencies cited during the September 24, 1986 full survey were corrected. As to the alleged deficiencies contained in the latter half of (b) and (c)-(f) above, none appear at any point in HRS' rules governing ACLF's. Supposedly, these deficiencies are cited in the NFPA life safety code, which is incorporated by reference in the Fire Marshal's rule on ACLF's, Rule 4A-40, Florida Administrative Code. The 1984 version of Rule 4A-40, Florida Administrative Code is incorporated by reference in HRS' rule, Rule 10A-5, Florida Administrative Code. Both HRS' rule and the Fire Marshal's rule are contained in the Florida Administrative Code. However, the 1984 version of NFPA is nowhere to be found in the Administrative Code. The current Fire Marshal's rule adopts portions of the 1985 NFPA life safety code. However, the HRS' rule adopts the 1984 version of the Fire Marshal's rule. No showing was made by Respondent as to what the 1984 version of the NFPA code contained. The HRS inspector's testimony regarding a particular deficiency's inclusion in the NFPA cannot be relied on since both inspectors apparently used the 1985 version of the NFPA which is not the 1984 version included in HRS's rule. Without proof of the contents of the NFPA, HRS has failed to prove any deficiencies for which it may take administrative actions. As to the other deficiencies, attempts to comply were in fact made by the Warrington House. The facility's personnel in fact thought they had complied with HRS' desires based upon previous inspections. However, for one reason or another, these attempts were rejected by the HRS inspector and the deficiency was cited again, but because of another reason. The lack of an up- to-date fire plan (cited in (a) above) was met by the Warrington House when they obtained a fire plan prior to the established correction date from another arm of HRS responsible for devising such plans. However, upon the January 14th follow-up inspection, the plan obtained from HRS by Petitioner was considered insufficient in that it did not outline staff responsibilities during a fire. The same thing occurred with the lack of fire alarm tests, cited in the latter part of (a) and the first part of (b) above. The Warrington House obtained the testing document and test from another branch of HRS responsible for such testing. However, the inspector at the follow up survey did not deem his own agency's testing documents sufficient since it did not show a different type sending unit was being tested at least once a year. 1/ These are simply not repeat deficiencies since in each instance the earlier grievance had been met and it was another grievance which cropped up. On July 9, 1987, a second follow-up survey to the Temkin September 24, 1986, full survey was performed by O.B. Walton, an HRS fire safety inspector. The evidence was not clear as to any remaining uncorrected deficiencies, if any, he found. Therefore, Respondent failed to establish any repetitive deficiencies as a result of the July 9 follow-up survey. Apparently, however, Mr. Walton, did perform another full survey on July 9, 1987. Several additional deficiencies were cited by him. A follow-up visit was conducted by Mr. Walton on October 23, 1987. Four alleged deficiencies remained uncorrected as follows: Ceiling not repaired in hot water heater closet, i.e. not taped; Kitchen fire door latch was jammed open so it would not latch, but it would stay closed; Plug by hot water heater had no cover; No documentation that drapes were fire retardant. Again, none of the above alleged deficiencies appear in HRS' rules or in the fire marshal's rule and a reasonable person could not glean from any of the other provisions contained in HRS' rules that the above conditions might be included in these provisions. The lack of clarity or uniformity in interpretation of HRS' rules is especially born out in this case since two different inspectors while inspecting the same building cited different deficiencies under their respective interpretation of the rules. When the experts differ it is difficult to see how a reasonable lay person could even begin to know or understand the contents of HRS or the Fire Marshal's rules. This lack is especially true since the relevant contents of the 1984 NFPA life safety code are not contained in the Florida Administrative Code and were not demonstrated by HRS. HRS, therefore, failed to prove any repeat deficiencies from the October 23, 1987 follow-up survey. A third fire safety follow-up visit was conducted by Pat Reid, a human services program analyst, on January 21, 1988. She has no expertise or license to perform fire safety inspections. She found all of the earlier cited uncorrected deficiencies corrected except for the documentation on the drapes. That alleged deficiency was partially corrected since Petitioner was replacing the drapery with metal blinds. However, as indicated earlier the lack of documentation for fire retardant drapes was not proven to be a violation by Respondent. Ms. Reid had previously conducted a full survey of Petitioner on August 17 and 18, 1987 in her area of expertise operation and general maintenance of an ACLF. Several deficiencies were cited and correction dates were established. Ms. Reid conducted a follow-up survey to the August 17 and 18 full survey on October 23, 1987. The following alleged deficiencies had not been corrected: Facility staff do not have documentation of being free of communicable diseases; The physical examination (Health Assessment) of resident identified as M. B. does not indicate that the resident is free from communicable disease; Broken or cracked window panes in windows of second floor exit door, both first floor bathrooms nearest kitchen, and resident rooms identified as C. W., W. S., and W. L.; Shower tile missing in second floor bathroom nearest exit door; Linoleum of first floor bathroom is loose as well as badly stained with cigarette burns; Hole in wall next to sink and toilet of second floor bathroom nearest exit door and square hole in wall of second floor blue bathroom; Faucet of first floor bathroom is loose; Carpeting in first floor resident room (#7) is badly stained; Three vinyl chairs in dining room have tears, exposing foam padding; Second floor bathroom faucet nearest exit does not clearly distinguish between hot and cold water taps. As to the alleged deficiency contained in (a) above, the regulations do not contain a requirement that any documentation be kept regarding staff members being free of communicable disease. The regulations only require that the facility administrator assure that staff is free of communicable disease. The evidence showed that Petitioner had in fact assured that the staff was free of communicable disease. Therefore, no violation occurred. The alleged deficiency cited in (b) above does constitute a violation of Rules 10-5.081(1)(b), (2)(a)4.d., and (2)(b), Florida Administrative Code. However, in this instance, there are several mitigating circumstances. Foremost is the fact that Petitioner attempted on several occasions to obtain this information from another arm of HRS who had M. B. under its care prior to his admission to Petitioner's facility and had actually failed to complete M. B.'s Health Assessment form properly. Petitioner received many assurances from HRS that it would obtain and forward the information. HRS failed to do so. Moreover, after several years of M. B. living at the Warrington House and after several years of HRS care prior to his admission, common sense would dictate that M. B. is free of communicable diseases. Petitioner has in fact received confirmation of that fact from an examining physician who certified M. B. free of communicable diseases. 2/ As to (c) above, the evidence showed that the windows were only cracked and not broken. No evidence was presented as to the severity of the cracks. Cracked windows are not included in Rule 10A-5.022(a), Florida Administrative Code, which only addresses broken window panes. Moreover, cracked windows without proof of the severity of the cracks is not sufficient evidence of the lack of good repair or other hazardous conditions similar to those listed in Rule 10A-5.022(a), Florida Administrative Code. The Rule requires proof of the hazardous nature of such a condition. Cracked windows are not hazardous in and of themselves and no showing was made that these cracked panes constituted a hazard. Nor do cracked window panes standing alone constitute a violation of Rule 10A-5.022(d). The rule requires evidence that such cracked panes are unreasonably unattractive and no showing was made that the cracks were unreasonably unattractive. Likewise, the missing shower tile in (d) above fails to constitute a violation of Rule 10A-5.022(a) since the deficiency is not listed, and no showing was made that the missing tile constituted a hazardous condition. Similarly, the missing tile, by itself, does not constitute a violation under Rule 10A-5.022(d) since no showing was made that the missing tile was unreasonably unattractive. The same failure of proof occurs with the alleged deficiencies listed in (e), (f), (g), (h) and (i). See Rules 10A-5.022(c), (e) and (i). The alleged deficiency cited in (j) above does constitute a violation of 10A-5.023(9)(e). However, the violation was not repeated after October 1, 1987, the effective date of Section 400.414(2)(d), Florida Statutes. Ms. Reid conducted a second follow-up survey to the August 17 and 18 full survey when she performed the fire safety follow-up on January 21, 1988. All previously cited deficiencies had been corrected except for: Facility staff do not have documentation of being free of communicable diseases. The physical examination (Health Assessment) of resident identified as M. B. does not indicate that the resident is free from communicable diseases. The following maintenance problems exist: broken or cracked window panes in windows of second floor exit door, both first floor bathrooms and resident room identified as W. S. A third follow-up was conducted by Ms. Reid on April 15, 1988. All the previously cited deficiencies had been corrected except for: The physical examination (Health Assessment) of resident identified as M. B. does not indicate that the resident is free from communicable disease. Broken or cracked window panes in windows of second floor exit door, both first floor bathrooms nearest kitchen, and resident rooms identified as C. W., W. S., and W. L.; Shower tile missing in second floor bathroom nearest exit door; Linoleum of first floor bathroom is loose as well as badly stained with cigarette burns; Hole in wall next to sink and toilet of second floor bathroom nearest exit door and square hole in wall of second floor blue bathroom. All of the alleged deficiencies cited in the January 21, 1988 follow- up and the April 15, 1988 follow-up survey were carried forward from the alleged deficiencies discussed above, cited in the October 23, 1987 follow-up survey. The same findings are made as to the alleged deficiencies which were carried forward. Only the physical health assessment of M. B. was cited by Respondent and shown to be a repeated deficiency since the information was not obtained by the established correction dates occurring after October 1, 1987. By the date of the hearing all the above alleged deficiencies had been corrected. Respondent notified Petitioner that it proposed to deny renewal of Petitioner's license to operate the Warrington House on December 23, 1987. The basis for the denial was Section 400.414(1) and (2)(d) which states: 400.414 Denial, revocation, or suspension of license; imposition of administrative fine; grounds. The department may deny, revoke or suspend a license or impose an administrative fine in the manner provided in chapter 120. Any of the following actions by a facility or its employee shall be grounds for action by the department against a licensee: * * * (d) Multiple and repeated violations of this part or of minimum standards or rules adopted pursuant to this part. The language of Subsection (d) was added to Section 400.414 F.S. on October 1, 1987. Prior to that date Respondent had no authority to take punitive action against the license of an ACLF licensee for multiple and repeated violations of Respondent's statutes and rules. The only action Respondent could take against a facility for such violations was in the form of a civil fine the amount of which could be raised if the violation was repetitive. Section 400.426, Florida Statutes. No multiple violations were shown by the evidence through the April 15, 1988 follow-up survey. More importantly, however, no multiple violations were shown by Respondent after October 1, 1987, the effective date of the statutory language at issue in this case. No showing was made by Respondent as to any legislative intent that the statute operate retrospectively. The statute operates only prospectively. Therefore, any alleged deficiencies cited prior to October 1, 1987 are irrelevant for purposes of imposing the punishment contemplated under Section 400.414, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services renew Petitioner's license. DONE and ENTERED this 9th day of November, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 9th day of November, 1988.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to a passing grade on the Self Contained Breathing Apparatus section (the SCBA section) of the Firefighter Minimum Standards Examination (the Examination) administered September 25, 2003.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied to Respondent for certification as a firefighter. Pursuant to Section 633.35, Florida Statutes, Petitioner was required to take and pass the written portion and all four sections of the practical portion of the Examination to achieve this certification. The practical portion of the Examination consists of four sections: the SCBA section; the Hose and Nozzle Operation section; the Ladder Operation section; and the Fireground Skills section. On May 29, 2003, Petitioner took both the written and practical portions of the Examination. She passed the written portion and three sections of the practical portion. Petitioner failed the SCBA section. Petitioner was not required to retake the written portion of the examination or the three sections of the practical examination she passed. Petitioner thereafter retook the SCBA section on September 25, 2003. As implied by the name of the section, the SCBA section involves the use of equipment that enables a firefighter to breathe in a hostile environment, such as a burning building. The candidate must check the equipment, properly don the equipment, activate the equipment, and properly doff the equipment. Mr. Chase was responsible for administering and grading Petitioner’s retake of the SCBA section on September 25, 2003. To pass each section of the practical examination, including the SCBA section, a candidate has to achieve a score of at least 70 points.2 The candidate’s performance on the SCBA section is graded in ten categories, with each category being worth ten points. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that Petitioner's performance on the SCBA section of the practical examination was appropriately and fairly graded. Petitioner earned a score of 40 points on her retake the SCBA portion of the practical examination. Petitioner was awarded no points for six of ten categories for which points could be awarded.3 Petitioner failed to establish that she was entitled to additional credit for her performance on the SCBA section. Respondent established that Mr. Chase appropriately administered and graded the subject SCBA section pursuant to the applicable provisions of Chapter 69A-37, Florida Administrative Code, which set forth guidelines for the practical examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding that Petitioner failed the SCBA section of the practical portion of the Firefighter Minimum Standard Examination administered September 25, 2003. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of June, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 25th day of June, 2004.
The Issue Whether Petitioner should receive a passing score on the retake of the Minimum Standards Certification Examination for a firefighter, and whether Petitioner should be required to retake the Minimum Standards Certification Examination for a firefighter without repeating the Minimum Standards Course.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Tamara Lynn Rose (Rose), applied for certification as a firefighter on January 21, 1997. She completed a training course at the Broward Fire Academy. Rose took the initial Minimum Standards Examination for Firefighters in August 1997. She passed the written part of the examination, but failed the practical portion. On October 13, 1997, she retook the practical portion of the examination. The only portion of the examination results which Rose contests is the score received for the 1 3/4" Hose and Nozzle Operation of Part I of the examination. The hose and nozzle operation is a timed event. The hose advance exercise should be completed within two minutes. If the applicant takes over five minutes to finish the operation, 40 points are deducted from the applicant's score. In order to pass the practical examination, the applicant must score 70 percent or better on the examination. Rose took five minutes and thirty-six seconds to complete the hose and nozzle operation portion of the examination, resulting in a forty-point deduction and an automatic failure of the examination. The hose and nozzle portion of the examination consists of the applicant shouldering the hose load, advancing to the rear of the fire truck, making a u-turn and looping the hose, advancing to the front of the fire truck, bleeding the lines, advancing 100 feet, and knocking down three cones with the water coming from the nozzle. Rose had difficulty in getting the load out of the bed of the truck. The hose became tangled, and she had to stop and straighten out the hose. She walked to the front of the truck and began her hose drag, but the drag was slow and hard because the hose had caught on one of the truck's tires. She pulled the hose free. Because of the tangling of the hose and the hose catching on the tire, Rose lost too much time to be able to complete the hose and nozzle operation in a timely manner. The hose is loaded on the truck by students who are taking the examination. The loading is supervised by instructors who are certified firefighters. It is the responsibility of these instructors to correct any improper loading. The field representative from the State Fire Marshall's Office at the retest was Phillip Bagley. After retiring with 24 years with the Tampa Fire Department, Mr. Bagley began working for the State Fire Marshall in 1996. He has administered between 900 and 1,000 tests. He did not see any problem with the way that the hose was loaded on the truck. In his experience it is not uncommon for the hoses to become tangled, usually resulting from a failure of the applicant to get enough of the hose on the his shoulder causing the load to pull loose when the applicant steps down from the truck. The applicants are given an opportunity to inspect the hoses prior to beginning the examination. Prior to the examination being administered, the applicants are given an orientation and are advised that they should report immediately to the examiners any malfunction. At the time of the examination, Rose did not report to Mr. Bagley that the hose was improperly loaded. Rose also received a five-point deduction because she failed to form a loop during the hose advance portion of the examination. Rose is not contesting the five points that were deducted for failing to tie the safety knot during the 24-foot ladder extension portion of the examination or the five points that were deducted for not having her chin strap under her chin during the donning of the protective gear portion of the examination. Her total score for the retest was 50.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying Rose's application for certification as a firefighter and requiring her to repeat the Minimum Standards Course prior to retaking the Minimum Standards Certification Examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of August, 1998, 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of August, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Bill Nelson State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Y. Sumner General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Karuna P. Rao, Esquire Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 33314 Tamara Lynn Rose, pro se 4051 Southwest 72 Terrace Davie, Florida 33314
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner’s application for certification should be approved as a result of her successfully completing the Firefighter Minimum Standards MIN. STD. PRACTICAL RETEST retest.
Findings Of Fact Ms. Evans is a candidate for certification as a firefighter in the State of Florida. Ms. Evans attended the Coral Springs Fire Academy (Fire Academy), as a student, from July 11, 2009, through January 9, 2010. During her training at the Fire Academy, she was chosen as the squad leader. A candidate for the certification examination must pass a written and practical examination, with a minimum score of 70 on both the written and practical parts. Pertinent hereto, a candidate must pass the Firefighter Minimum Standards Practical Examination (Practical Examination) in order to become certified as a firefighter. The Practical Examination consists of four components: the Self Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA); the Hose Operation (a/k/a Hose Evolution); the Ladder Operation (a/k/a Ladder Evolution); and the Fireground Skills. The Practical Examination is replicated at the Fire Academy, and students at the Fire Academy must pass the four components. The Fire Academy adopted the State standards for passing the Practical Examination, except that at the Fire Academy the standards for the Ladder Evolution are more strict. Also, pertinent hereto, for the Ladder Evolution, the State’s passing score is 70, but the Fire Academy’s passing score is 80; and the maximum time allowed by the State to successfully complete the Ladder Evolution is two minutes and 20 seconds, but the Fire Academy’s maximum time is two minutes and 10 seconds. Additionally, pertinent hereto, for the Ladder Evolution, the State’s established testing protocol is to permit a candidate to perform a safety inspection of the ladder prior to beginning the timing of the Ladder Evolution, and the timing begins after the candidate touches the ladder again. Consequently, State testing protocol dictates that, during the safety inspection, no timing occurs, but, when the candidate touches the ladder again, the timing begins. The Fire Academy uses this same protocol at testing for the Ladder Evolution. The time limit placed on the Ladder Evolution is designed to replicate actual fire fighting conditions, producing a certain degree of stress upon candidates. At the Fire Academy, Ms. Evans successfully completed the Ladder Evolution on November 11, 2009, receiving a score of 80 and a time of two minutes and three seconds. Again, on January 5, 2010, she successfully completed the Ladder Evolution with a score of 100 and a time of one minute and 53 seconds. Ms. Evans graduated from the Fire Academy and was eligible to sit for the certification examination. On January 10, 2010, Ms. Evans took the Ladder Evolution part of the State Practical Examination in Coral Springs, Florida. A wind gust caused her to lose control of the ladder. She received a score of zero, due to losing control, and, therefore, did not successfully complete the Ladder Evolution. Ms. Evans took a re-test of the Ladder Evolution part of the State Practical Examination on January 28, 2010, in Ocala, Florida. She completed the Ladder Evolution in two minutes and 50 seconds, which was beyond the maximum allowed time of two minutes and 20 seconds. She received a score of zero and, therefore, failed to successfully complete the Ladder Evolution on the re-test. Ms. Evans contends that, on January 28, 2010, the State’s Field Representative began the time during her safety inspection of the ladder. The more persuasive evidence supports this contention. As a result, a finding of fact is made that, on January 28, 2010, the State’s Field Representative began the timing of Ms. Evans’ Ladder Evolution during her safety inspection, which was contrary to the State’s testing protocol. The evidence fails to demonstrate what Ms. Evans’ time on the Ladder Evolution would have been had the timing begun in compliance with the State’s established testing protocol.
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 directing the re-testing of Melanie Evans on the Ladder Operation (a/k/a Ladder Evolution) of the Firefighter Minimum Standards Practical Examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of July, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of July, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert J. Slotkin, Esquire 600 South Andrews Avenue, Suite 600 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309 Nic Thornton, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Alex Sink, Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Benjamin Diamond, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Julie Jones, Agency Clerk Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, Brandon Michael Post (Petitioner or Mr. Post), achieved a passing score on the practical exam for firefighter certification.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for the regulatory process governing firefighters, including the process by which candidates apply for certification as firefighters in the State of Florida. In addition to meeting certain background and training requirements, candidates must take and attain passing scores on the Firefighter Minimum Standards Written and Practical Examination (firefighter examination) administered by the Department. Mr. Post applied to the Department for firefighter certification. There is no dispute that Mr. Post met the background and training qualifications for certification in all respects. In addition, Mr. Post took and passed the written portion of the firefighter examination. At issue is whether Mr. Post attained a passing score on the practical portion of the firefighter examination (practical exam). The practical exam has four components covering the following subjects: self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA); hose operations; ladder operations; and fireground scenarios. In order to pass the practical exam, a candidate must obtain a score of at least 70 percent on each component. If a candidate does not pass the practical exam, the candidate is offered the opportunity for a retest. The practical exams are conducted by Bureau field representatives. A field representative evaluates each candidate's performance and records the candidate's scores on a form called "minimum standards exam field notes" (field notes). There is a separate field notes form for each component of the practical exam. The field notes form identifies each of the separate skills or activities tested. Certain items are scored on a pass-fail basis, because they are considered mandatory skills. Thus, the failure to achieve an acceptable result in a mandatory item results in automatic failure for the component. Other tested items are considered evaluative, and the candidate's performance is given a point score. A total of 100 points is possible for all of the evaluative items; a candidate must attain a score of at least 70 to pass the component. Mr. Post took the firefighter examination on June 13, 2012. In the practical exam, Mr. Post received passing scores of 100 percent for the SCBA component; 100 percent for the hose operation component; and 70 percent for the fireground scenarios component. However, Mr. Post failed the ladder operations component. Mr. Harper was the field representative who administered Mr. Post's practical exam on June 13, 2012, and who completed the field notes reflecting how he scored Mr. Post's performance. Mr. Harper has been a Bureau field representative for more than five years, and in that time, he has administered thousands of practical exams. Mr. Harper gave Mr. Post a failing score for not donning and securing all personal protective equipment (PPE) properly. Donning and securing PPE properly is considered a mandatory item that has to be achieved, because of the importance of this skill to a firefighter's safety. To emphasize the safety concern associated with failing to don and secure all PPE properly, Mr. Harper also gave Mr. Post a failing score for committing an unsafe act that could result in serious injury or death. The "unsafe act" scoring category is separate on the field notes form from the mandatory item "donning and securing all PPE properly." However, a failing score in either one of these categories alone required an automatic failure for the ladder operations component. Thus, giving Mr. Post a failing score for an "unsafe act" had no effect on his score; Mr. Post's failing score for not donning and securing his PPE properly required an automatic failure for the ladder operations component. Mr. Harper credibly explained why he judged Mr. Post's donning and securing of his PPE to be improper. He recalled in precise detail how Mr. Post's mask had a five-point harness mechanism that is designed to hold the face piece tight to the face, creating an air-tight seal that will keep out dangerous smoke and fumes. There were two straps at the temple, two straps at the jaw, and one at the top center. To secure the mask, the two jaw straps are supposed to be pulled tight at the same time, then the two temple straps are pulled tight at the same time, then the top strap is pulled last to pull the mask up evenly on the face. Mr. Post did not secure his mask this way. Instead of pulling the two jaw and temple straps at the same time, he held the face piece with one hand, and pulled the straps on one side of his face with his other hand. This pulled the mask to the side, instead of centering it. Mr. Post testified that his face piece was on good enough for him to achieve an air-tight seal, which was maintained throughout the exercise. Therefore, he took issue with the opinion that the way he put on his PPE was unsafe. Mr. Post's statements were inconsistent regarding whether the mask was askew, pulled to one side. At the final hearing, Mr. Post testified at first that Mr. Harper's field notes comment was incorrect when it said that the "face piece was pulled to left side." Mr. Post testified that he disagreed with the field notes comment that his face piece was "pulled to one side." But then Mr. Post acknowledged that "it could have been maybe a little bit to the left, but there was no poor seal at all times." This latter statement was closer to Mr. Post's statement in his hearing request: "I had a seal of my face piece but was failed because the harness wasn't quite centered on my head." Mr. Post essentially admitted that he did not "properly" don and secure all of his PPE; his argument is with the extent to which it was improper, and whether his failure to properly secure the harness actually caused harm. Mr. Harper's testimony that Mr. Post improperly donned and secured his PPE and that this failure was an unsafe act that could result in serious injury or death is accepted. Mr. Harper credibly explained the danger of a mask not being harnessed securely with a centered face piece. Even though it is possible to initially attain a proper seal with an off-centered face piece, as Mr. Post did, the fact that it is not properly secured to be centered on the face means that it is easier to dislodge than a centered, properly-harnessed mask. Anything jarring the head gear, or even an abrupt head movement, could cause the mask to move further off-center and break the critical seal that protects the firefighter from toxic gases and smoke. These serious risks cannot be brushed aside simply because Mr. Post managed to make it through a short simulated exercise without dislodging his off-centered mask. The Bureau notified Mr. Post that he did not achieve a passing score on his practical exam because of his failed score on the ladder operations component. As provided by statute, Mr. Post was advised that he was allowed one opportunity to retake the practical exam. Mr. Post took the practical exam retest on September 18, 2012. Once again, Mr. Harper was the field representative who administered the practical exam to Mr. Post. Mr. Post admitted that his retest "was pretty sloppy." On the hose operations component, once again, Mr. Post had problems donning and securing all of his PPE. This time, the problems were with the gear that was supposed to protect his torso. As Mr. Post acknowledged, "my shoulder strap was twisted and . . . my high-pressure hose [was] under [the] strap. That is true. I remember that." His jacket was pulled up in the back, and his shirt was exposed. Based on these problems, Mr. Post received an automatic failure under the mandatory category for failing to don and secure all PPE properly. Mr. Post admitted that he failed to don and secure all of his protective equipment properly. The protective jacket is not supposed to be pulled up in the back, exposing one's shirt. Shoulder straps are not supposed to be twisted, with the high-pressure hose caught under a strap. Mr. Post testified that he did not think he should have been failed for these admitted problems with putting on his protective gear, because no skin was exposed. However, he offered no legitimate challenge to the reasonableness of the exam itself, which makes the proper donning and securing of all of one's PPE a mandatory step. As described, it was entirely reasonable to give Mr. Post an automatic failure on this retest component for his improper donning and securing of his protective gear. Mr. Post also received an automatic failure in the ladder operations component. There were two separate problems with this exercise. One problem was Mr. Post's failure to fully secure the ladder's "dogs" or locking devices that secure the separate sections of a multi-section ladder. The dogs are like clamps that are activated by a spring mechanism; when employed properly, they clamp around a rung at the joinder point of the ladder's separate sections. In Mr. Post's ladder exercise, he failed to properly employ the dogs; they were not fully secured in place around the rung. Instead, they were balanced on the tips, sitting on top of the rung, instead of locked around the rung. Mr. Post attempted to argue that it was not possible for him to have failed to properly employ the dogs in this manner because if the dogs were not locked, the ladder would have fallen down and his stayed upright. However, as Mr. Harper credibly explained, the dogs were sitting on top of the rung (instead of clamped around it). As such, the ladder could remain upright, albeit, in a precarious state that depended on the dogs keeping their balance on top of a rung, instead of in a secure state with the dogs locked in place around the rung. Mr. Harper's testimony is credited; Mr. Post did not effectively rebut the testimony regarding his improper employment of the dogs. The second problem Mr. Post had in the ladder operations component of his retest came in the part of the exercise in which Mr. Post was supposed to exit the building carrying the "victim" and retreat to safety. According to the field notes, Mr. Post received an automatic failure for committing an unsafe act that could result in serious injury or death, because he was running backwards with the victim. Mr. Post did not take issue with this aspect of his retest scoring, admitting that the field notes were accurate: "When you're carrying the victim out of a building, that's the only time you're allowed to go backwards, but I guess I was running where I should have been walking. But I don't really--I don't really testify against that." Mr. Post expressed some generalized concern with the fact that the same field representative--Mr. Harper--administered Mr. Post's initial examination and the retest. However, no evidence was offered to suggest that Mr. Harper's administration of the practical exam or the retest was improper or unfair to Mr. Post in any respect. Indeed, Mr. Post essentially conceded that Mr. Harper fairly and reasonably assessed Mr. Post's admittedly sloppy performance on the retest. Mr. Post's concession in this regard puts to rest any implication that Mr. Post might not have failed the retest if a different field representative had been assigned. Instead, the evidence established that Mr. Post's performance in the practical exam retest earned three different automatic failures, any one of which would have resulted in an overall failing grade on the retest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Respondent, Department of Financial Services, denying the application of Petitioner, Brandon Michael Post, for certification as a firefighter in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of April, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of April, 2013.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner successfully completed the Minimum Standards Practical Examination for Retention of Firefighter Certification Retest.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was certified as a Florida firefighter by Respondent on June 27, 1991, being issued certificate number C- 62497. During the period 1991 through 1994, Petitioner was not active as a firefighter, either in a paid or volunteer role. He maintained his certification by completion of a 40-hour continuing education class in vehicle extrication in 1994. During the period 1994 through 2000, Petitioner was not active as a firefighter, either in a paid or volunteer role. His primary income was derived from being a painting contractor. Effective July 1995, Florida's law, regarding certification of firefighters, changed to require firefighters to take and pass the Examination when they have not been active as a firefighter, either paid or as a volunteer, for a period of three years. The Florida law was Section 633.352, Florida Statutes. As a result, in order for Petitioner to retain his certification, he was required to take the Examination. On September 8, 2000, Petitioner made application to take the Examination, which consisted of four areas--SCBA, Hose Operations, Ladder Operations, and Fireground Skills. Petitioner's primary preparation for the Examination was a private refresher course offered by the Marion County School Board. The refresher course consisted of a 24-hour class, spread over three days. The refresher course reviewed the four areas on the Examination. During the refresher course, approximately 20 hours were devoted to practicing the four areas. As to practicing the SCBA skill, under the supervision of an instructor, two to three hours on the first day were devoted to timed conditions and one to two hours on the second and third day were devoted to timed conditions. The instructor of the course taught and explained to the attendees, including Petitioner, that time was an issue in the Examination and that completing the timed skills within the maximum time allotted is pass/fail. On September 25, 2000, Petitioner took the Examination. None of the candidates taking the Examination were identified by name but were given numbers for identification. Prior to March 1, 2000, the scoring system for the Examination consisted of initially giving each candidate 100 points and thereafter, subtracting points for things done incorrectly. On and after March 1, 2000, the scoring system changed and consisted of each candidate starting with zero points and being awarded points for things done correctly. Three of the four skilled areas on the Examination were being timed. The timed skills were SCBA, Hose Operations, and Ladder Operations and mandatory steps existed for each skill. Each mandatory step for each skill was required to be successfully completed and, if not, the candidate received an automatic failing score for the skill. Examiners for the Examination, during orientation, reviewed the timed skills with the candidates and explained the grading for each of the skills. Furthermore, the examiners explained to the candidates that time was pass/fail for the SCBA and the Ladder Operations skills. The minimum score required to pass the Examination was 70 on each of the four skills. Petitioner received a score of zero on each of the SCBA and the Ladder Operations skills, which was failing for both. The maximum time allotted for SCBA was one minute and forty-five seconds, but Petitioner took one minute and fifty seconds; and for Ladder Operations was two minutes and forty-five seconds, but Petitioner took three minutes and twenty-five seconds. Petitioner exceeded the maximum time allotted for both skills. On November 29, 2000, Petitioner took the Examination Retest. He was only required to re-take the SCBA and the Ladder Operations skills; both again being timed. For the Examination Retest, Petitioner did not take a refresher course. He arrived at the Examination Retest early and was present for the orientation given by the examiners. Again, during the orientation, the examiners reviewed the timed skill with the candidates and explained the grading for each of the skills. Furthermore, the examiners again explained to the candidates that time was pass/fail on SCBA and Ladder Operations. On the Examination Retest, Petitioner passed the Ladder Operations skill. However, Petitioner failed the SCBA skill, having received a score of zero. The maximum time allotted for SCBA was one minute and forty-five seconds, but Petitioner took two minutes and twenty-six seconds. Petitioner exceeded the maximum time allotted for the SCBA skill. By letter dated December 7, 2000, Respondent notified Petitioner, among other things, that he had not successfully completed the Examination Retest and that, therefore, his application to retain his certification was denied. Applicants for retention of their certification are permitted to take the Examination Retest only once. An applicant for retention of certification, who fails the Examination and the Examination Retest, must take and successfully complete the Minimum Standards Course before being allowed to take the Examination again. Having unsuccessfully completed the Examination Retest, Petitioner cannot take the Examination again until he takes and successfully completes the Minimum Standards Course.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Insurance enter a final order finding that Jeffrey M. Williams is not entitled to retention of his firefighter certification and that his certification has expired. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of June, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Jeffrey M. Williams 3241 Arthur Street Hollywood, Florida 33021 James Morrison, Esquire Department of Insurance 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer/Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 02 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0307
