The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent has violated section 458.331(1)(b), (kk), and (nn), Florida Statutes (2011), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a medical doctor licensed in the State of Florida, having been issued license number ME 89113. Petitioner is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of the practice of medicine pursuant to section 20.43 and chapters 456 and 458, Florida Statutes. Respondent is also licensed as a medical doctor in the State of New Jersey. The Department of Law and Public Safety, Division of Consumer Affairs, New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners (New Jersey Board) is the licensing authority regulating the practice of medicine in the State of New Jersey. On or about February 21, 2012, the New Jersey Board entered an Order of Automatic Suspension of Respondent’s New Jersey medical license. The basis for the Order was Respondent’s purported failure to comply with a Private Letter Agreement previously entered between Respondent and the New Jersey Board, in that she allegedly failed to undergo an independent psychiatric evaluation and failed to provide required psychiatric reports to the state’s Physician Assistance Program (PAP).2/ The action by the New Jersey Board constitutes action against Respondent’s medical license by the licensing authority of another jurisdiction. Respondent did not report the action against her New Jersey license to the Florida Board of Medicine on or before March 23, 2012, or within 30 days of the action against her license. When documents are received by the Department, they are imaged into the Department’s system. Mail for the licensing unit is picked up several times a day, and all documents are indexed by the licensee’s license number. A licensee can check to see if documents are received by contacting the Department by telephone or e-mail. As of the week before the hearing, no information regarding Dr. Ackerman had been received by the Department from Dr. Ackerman. Respondent claims that she notified the Board by both United States Mail and by certified mail of the action against her New Jersey license. A copy of the letter she claims to have sent is Respondent’s Exhibit 1. This letter is dated March 2, 2012, is not signed, does not contain her license number in Florida or New Jersey, and is addressed to “Florida License Board.” The document does not include an address beyond Tallahassee, Florida. No zip code is included. Dr. Ackerman could not say whether she had a receipt for the certified mail, only that she probably “had it somewhere.” She could not identify who, if anyone, signed for it. When asked for the address where she mailed the letter, Dr. Ackerman said, after a considerable pause, 452 Bald Cypress Way, and claimed she knew that address “off the top of her head.”3/ The copy admitted into evidence only reflects a faxed date of March 22, 2014, two days before the hearing.4/ By contrast, Board staff testified credibly as to the process for logging mail at the Department, and that no notification had been received from Dr. Ackerman. While staff acknowledged that it is “possible” for mail to come to the Department and not be routed appropriately, the more persuasive evidence in this case is that the Board staff received nothing from Dr. Ackerman. Respondent’s claim that both copies of her letter somehow slipped through the cracks is simply not believable. Moreover, Dr. Ackerman is a physician. As such, she is presumed to be a relatively intelligent person, capable of providing appropriate notification to the Board. The docket and evidentiary record in this case demonstrate that when she wants to get a message across, she is capable of doing so (and equally capable of avoiding answering a direct question if it is not to her advantage). Her claim that she notified the Board of the action against her license in New Jersey is not credible, and is rejected. Dr. Ackerman also did not update her practitioner profile. Practitioner profiles can be updated by faxing the updated information, using the fax number available on-line; by mailing the information to the Department; or by logging into the practitioner profile database using the licensee’s specific log- in ID and password. Dr. Ackerman did none of those.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Board of Medicine enter a Final Order finding that Respondent has violated section 458.331(1)(b), (kk), and (nn). In addition, it is recommended that the Board impose the following penalty: a reprimand of Respondent’s license to practice medicine; an administrative fine of $5,000; suspension of Respondent’s license to practice medicine until such time as Respondent demonstrates that her license in New Jersey has been reinstated and demonstrates the ability to practice medicine with reasonable skill and safety; and reservation of jurisdiction by the Board to impose a period of probation should Respondent successfully petition the Board for reinstatement and demonstrate compliance with the terms described in recommendation three. DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of May, 2014, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 15th day of May, 2014.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent, August Nocella, was a certified aluminum contractor having been issued license number C-3197. Respondent was the certified contractor for Allied Aluminum Company (Allied Aluminum), 1017 Robinson Drive, St. Petersburg, Florida. On March 28, 1994, Mr. Tim Connolly contracted with Allied Aluminum to build a screen enclosure on an existing second floor deck. The screen enclosure was to be constructed at Mr. Connolly's residence located at 2200 Park Street, St. Petersburg, Florida, at a cost of $2,897.00. The proposal submitted to Mr. Connolly by Allied Aluminum on March 28, 1994, contained an option under which a third floor wood deck would be constructed for $2,000.00. Pursuant to the proposal, Mr. Connolly had ninety days in which to exercise this option. The proposal stated in part the following: <90 days from March 28, 1994, build wood deck approximately 400 square feet at $2,000> The proposal was not prepared or signed by Respondent, but by an employee of Allied Aluminum. The inclusion in the proposal of the option and estimate for construction of a deck was done without Respondent's knowledge or direction. Pursuant to the contract between Allied Aluminum and Mr. Connolly, the screen enclosure was constructed. The construction project began on April 28, 1994, and was completed on May 3, 1994. There is no proof that Respondent did not comply with the terms of the agreement, that the construction of the screen enclosure was not performed in a workman like manner, or that the work did not conform to existing building codes. The Standard Building Code, the code adopted by Pinellas County and applicable to construction projects in St. Petersburg, required that a contractor submit building plans and obtain a building permit prior to initiation of a construction project. Respondent applied for and secured a building permit for construction of the screen enclosure on May 31, 1994, four weeks after the project was completed. Plans for the screen enclosure were submitted with Respondent's application for the building permit. Respondent was assessed and paid $44.00 for the building permit. The Standard Building Code also required that the certified contractor call for an inspection of the construction project within six months of the completion date. Respondent completed the screen enclosure on or about May 4, 1994, but never called for an inspection of the work. At some point in April or May 1994, Mr. Connolly informed Respondent that he wanted the wood deck built under the terms and conditions set forth in the March 28, 1994 proposal. Respondent immediately told Mr. Connolly that he could not construct the third floor deck. Upon being informed by Respondent that he could not build the wood deck, Mr. Connolly insisted that Respondent find someone to construct the third floor deck pursuant to the terms in the proposal. Mr. Connolly threatened to withhold payment from Respondent for construction of the screen enclosure if Respondent failed to locate someone who could construct the deck at or below the price quoted in the proposal. Mr. Connolly followed through on his threats regarding payment to Respondent. On or about May 23, 1994, Mr. Connolly wrote a check to Respondent to pay for construction of the screen enclosure, but subsequently stopped payment on the check. In an effort to receive payment for construction of the screen enclosure and to appease Mr. Connolly, Respondent attempted to locate a builder who would construct the third floor deck. After looking in the St. Petersburg Telephone Directory, Respondent called several companies listed as builders of decks. Decked Out Construction, Inc. (Decked Out) was one of the companies contacted by Respondent on behalf of Mr. Connolly. The telephone directory entry for Decked Out contained a license number for the company as well as the address and telephone number of the business. Respondent interpreted the published license number as evidence that Decked Out was qualified to perform the type of work under which it was listed. No evidence was presented indicating that Decked Out was not so licensed. On or about May 23, 1994, Decked Out sent Randy Miller to Mr. Connolly's residence to determine if it could construct the deck and, if so, to give an estimate. Mr. Miller determined that Decked Out would be able to construct the third floor deck for a cost within the price range quoted in the March 28, 1994 proposal. After Respondent was informed by Randy Miller that Decked Out could construct the deck for the amount stated in the March 28, 1994 proposal, there was no further contact between Respondent and Mr. Miller. All communication regarding construction of the wood deck at 2200 Park Street North was between Mr. Connolly and Mr. Miller. The deck was constructed by Decked Out on or about May 26, 1994, at a cost of $1010.00. The construction project took about one day. The $1010.00 payment for construction of the third floor deck was given directly to Mr. Miller by Mr. Connolly. There is no evidence that Respondent's certificate as an aluminum contractor has been subjected to disciplinary action on any prior occasion by Petitioner. The normal penalty imposed for a contractor's failure to obtain a building permit prior to beginning a project is payment of twice the amount of the permit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is therefore: RECOMMENDED that the Pinellas County Construction Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent, August Nocella, guilty of violating Chapter 89-504, Section 24(2)(d) and (n), Laws of Fla., and imposing a total fine of $144.00, $44.00 for failure to timely obtain a building permit, and $100.00 for failure to call for an inspection of the project. RECOMMENDED that Count III and COUNT IV of the Administrative Complaint be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of February, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of February, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-3515 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1995), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. Accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated except to extent unnecessary, irrelevant, or immaterial. Second sentence rejected as to the request that was made on April 20, 1995. The evidence shows that an inspection, not a permit, was requested on that date. Rejected as not supported by the greater weight of the evidence. Accepted as to statement that Respondent provided name of firm that would construct project in accordance with proposal amount. Statement that the firm or person was unlicensed is rejected as not supported by competent and substantial evidence. Second sentence is rejected as not supported by competent and substantial evidence, and by the greater weight of the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: William J. Owens, Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 11701 Belcher Road, Suite 102 Largo, Florida 34643-5116 John E. Swisher, Esquire 669 First Avenue North St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Howard Bernstein Senior Assistant County Attorney Pinellas County 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 34616
The Issue Whether petitioner suffered age discrimination for which Black & Veatch is answerable, when an employee of Black & Veatch objected to petitioner's becoming the safety engineer for M. A. Mortenson Company, the general contractor on a project for the Orlando Utilities Commission for which Black & Veatch was construction manager?
Findings Of Fact Since 1940, petitioner Jack Keels has been in the construction business, "95 percent of it would be . hydroelectric dams along the Columbia and Snake Rivers." (T.13) He has worked as a laborer, carpenter, an iron worker, a craft superintendent, a shift superintendent, a general superintendent, a craft foreman, a shift foreman and a general foreman. Aside from a wealth of practical experience, he has taken "probably 200 or 250 hours of classes on safety and first aid." (T. 13, 14) He has "been acting safety director on five or six jobs" (T.14) and once was responsible for the safety of 300 men. When he began work for M.A. Mortenson Company (Mortenson), however, on the Curtis H. Stanton Energy Center job (Stanton) , a coal-fired plant Mortenson was building for the Orlando Utilities Commission (OUC), Mr. Keels was a crane Coordinator without "assigned responsibility for safety." (T.93) But Mr. Keels offered suggestions about how to improve safety and spoke to Mortenson's Bill King regularly on such topics as safety latches for the hooks, proper nets, electrical splices, man baskets that were not regulation, and the like. When a new crane arrived on the site, Mr. Keels asked the general superintendent where the blocks were to test the crane and was told there were none and they had not been testing the cranes. There were other "flagrant violations" of safety regulations including widespread disregard for the rules requiring workmen to wear hard hats and forbidding them to bring glass containers onto the construction site. Although another contractor at Stanton, Babcock & Willcox, seemed to be doing worse as far as safety, Mortenson's practices were below average in Mr. Keels' opinion. This was also the impression key personnel at Black & Veatch had of Mortenson's performance. As the owner's representative at Stanton, Black & Veatch had invoked OUC's right under "option BC. 4. 1. of the . . . contract," Respondent's Exhibit No. 6, to require Mortenson to appoint a full-time safety engineer, in May of 1984. Bill King was Mortenson's safety director or designated safety engineer, when Mr. Keels started. Bill King left the job in February of 1985, and Mortenson's Mr. Barbato suggested replacing him with petitioner Keels. Mortenson did not propose this formally in writing, but Mr. Barbato explained to Richard F. King, Black & Veatch's project loss control manager at Stanton, that the work had reached a point that Mr. Keels' services as crane coordinator were no longer needed and that naming him safety engineer would make it possible to keep him on. He never told anybody at Black & Veatch about Mr. Keels' considerable background in construction safety. Petitioner and Black & Veatch's Paul William Weida had twice differed with each other on issues of safety: Once Mr. Weida objected to work on a generator pedestal going forward without a handrail in place. At the time, carpenters working for Mortenson were installing concrete forms on top of the pedestal, some distance above ground. Mr. Keels pointed out that they were wearing safety belts, and argued that a handrail could constitute a hazard as they moved around bolting and nailing the forms. The other dispute about which both men testified had to do with a bent crane lattice. The lessor of the crane told petitioner there was no need to replace that section of the lattice, but a representative of the manufacturer told Mr. Weida replacement would be best. Over petitioner's strenuous objection, Mr. Weida insisted that the damaged lattice be replaced. These confrontations left Mr. Weida with the impression that petitioner would be difficult to work with and also made him skeptical about petitioner's commitment to safety, a skepticism to which petitioner vehemently and perhaps justifiably objects. Under the contract between OUC and Mortenson, Black & Veatch had the right, as OUC's representative, to veto any candidate for safety engineer. The agreement provided, "During the life of the contract, replacement personnel will also be subject to interview and approval by the Owner." Respondent's Exhibit No. 7. Mr. Weida objected to Mr. Keels, and Richard F. King backed him up. Neither Mr. Weida's nor Mr. Richard King's opposition to Mr. Keels' being named safety engineer was in any way related to Mr. Keels' age, which, incidentally, was not proven with any specificity. After receiving indications from Black & Veatch that Mr. Keels would not be an acceptable safety engineer at Stanton, Mortenson laid him off, in February of 1985. By November of 1985, Mortenson had finished its work at Stanton.
Recommendation In consideration of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Petitioner enter its final order: Finding the Respondent guilty of Count One of the Administrative Complaint by (a) violating section 489.129(e), Fla. Stat. (1981), by aiding and abetting an uncertified and unregistered person to evade the licensing provisions of the Contracting Act, and (b) by violating section 489.129(1)(f), Fla. Stat. (1981), by knowingly combining and conspiring with an unregistered and unlicensed person with intent to evade the provisions of the Contracting Act. Finding the Respondent not guilty of the allegations in Count Two of the Administrative Complaint. For the violations of Count One, imposing a fine of five hundred dollars ($500). DONE and ENTERED this 10th day of May, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division Administrative Hearings this 10th day of May, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Martin F. Mann 2216 Bayshore Garden Parkway Bradenton, Florida 33507 Simon Rosin, Esquire Pflugner, Rosin & Hendricks Post Office Box 1918 Sarasota, Florida 33578 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board P.O. Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore Carpino General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee,, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in negligence in the practice of engineering, in violation of section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes (2014), and implementing rules,1/ as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction?
Findings Of Fact The Board is the state entity charged with regulating the practice of engineering, pursuant to chapter 455, Florida Statutes. FEMC provides administrative, investigative, and prosecutorial services to the Board pursuant to section 471.038. At all times material to this case, Mr. Holt was licensed as a professional engineer in the state of Florida, with license number PE 15252. The Board has adopted Responsibility Rules of Professional Engineers (Responsibility Rules). These rules are contained in Florida Administrative Code Chapters 61G15-30 through 61G15-36. Mr. Holt is required to comply with the Responsibility Rules when performing engineering services. On December 3, 2014, FEMC received a complaint filed by Mr. John Farinelli, chief building official for the City of Belle Glade, Florida (City). Mr. Farinelli had reviewed plans for three residential construction projects which had been submitted to the City for general building permits. The engineering plans for each project had been signed, sealed, and dated by Mr. Holt. Mr. Farinelli found what he believed to be numerous errors on the plans, resulting in the complaint against Mr. Holt. After receipt of the complaint, the engineering plans were reviewed by professional engineers retained by FEMC. Mr. Homer A. Ooten, Ph.D., P.E., LEED-AP, reviewed the electrical and mechanical elements of the plans; Mr. Roger L. Jeffery, P.E., LEED-AP, reviewed the structural elements of the plans. Based substantially upon engineering reports prepared by these engineers, an Administrative Complaint against Mr. Holt was filed on or about September 15, 2015. Mr. Holt filed an "Answer to Administrative Complaint" on October 23, 2015. In that pleading, he admitted that: Rule 61G15-30.002(1), Fla. Admin. Code, mandates that Respondent, as the engineer of record for all projects delineated in the Specific Allegations, is professionally responsible for the documents prepared. As such, Respondent is responsible for producing documents that comply with the applicable portions of the Responsibility Rules. In response to other portions of the Administrative Complaint setting forth requirements of the Responsibility Rules concerning electrical systems design, he repeatedly stated "any departures are justified by the specific circumstances of the project in question and the sound professional judgment of the Respondent." In response to specific allegations of material deficiencies in the electrical engineering design documents, Mr. Holt responded that any omissions were "negated by Respondent's reference to the NFPA 70 National Electrical Code 2008." Mr. Holt made numerous similar claims that departures were justified based on circumstances and his professional judgment in response to portions of the complaint setting forth the requirements for mechanical systems design, involving both heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) and plumbing elements. He also noted that "Respondent merely designed a hole for a future wall unit." Although Mr. Holt thus accepted responsibility for electrical and mechanical elements of the drawings prior to hearing, arguing that any departures were justified in the exercise of his "professional judgment," he later took a different tack. In testimony at hearing, Mr. Holt maintained that he signed and sealed the documents only as a structural engineer and that he did not therefore assume responsibility for any elements of the drawings constituting electrical or mechanical engineering. On cross-examination, Mr. Holt was evasive when asked who was responsible for the electrical and mechanical elements of the drawings he had sealed: Q. Whose work was it, if it wasn't yours? A. Whose work was it? Q. Yes. A. I don't know for sure. A lot of times we include air conditioning companies, electrical contractors. Depends. Q. Somebody drew the drawings. Did your office draw the drawings? A. What are you getting at? Q. I'm just asking a question. A. What was included or what was drawn? Q. I just want to know -- somebody drew these documents. A. Yes. My draftsmen drew them all up, yes. Q. They were all drawn up in your office? A. In my office? He has his own offices. Okay. Q. They were all drawn up by your draftsmen? A. Yes. Q. And that included the electrical work, mechanical work, and structural work all by your draftsmen? A. The structural input was mine. He drew it, yes. As was ultimately clear from his testimony, Mr. Holt was well aware that no other engineer was responsible for any part of the engineering drawings for the three residential construction projects. Mr. Holt was in responsible charge for the preparing, signing, dating, sealing, and issuing of all three of the engineering plans, whether he prepared them personally or whether they were prepared by his draftsmen. He was the engineer of record for all three projects. As he admitted, he was fully aware that the engineering drawings were submitted under his seal and filed for public record with the City for building permits. He knew that the drawings under his seal would be, and were, reviewed by City officials, not only as to structural elements, but also for electrical and mechanical elements, as the City was required to do. At hearing, in support of his position that he was not responsible for anything on the drawings other than the structural work, Mr. Holt noted that his name and address had appeared under the words "Structural Design Review by:" on the drawings for two of the projects. He added that he also "should have put that on there" for the third set of drawings. The title "Structural Engineer" also appears underneath Mr. Holt's name and address on the third set of drawings. Mr. Holt's signature appears in a different area on all three drawings, followed by the letters "P.E." and Mr. Holt's engineering license number. The references to "Structural Design Review" and "Structural Engineer" on the engineering drawings near his name and address were not sufficient to indicate to a City official or other person reading the drawings that, by use of these, words Mr. Holt intended not to accept responsibility for various elements of the drawings. Under the circumstances of this case--in which the engineering drawings were prepared under Mr. Holt's responsible charge, and he knew that they would be filed for public record to obtain building permits--it is disingenuous for Mr. Holt to attempt to disclaim responsibility because of the language "Structural Design Review by:" or "Structural Engineer." His argument that, at worst, he simply failed to clearly indicate the limits of his responsibility, is completely rejected.2/ As to the structural engineering elements for which Mr. Holt did accept responsibility at hearing, he maintained that any departures from the Responsibility Rules were justified by the specific circumstances of the project in question and his sound professional judgment. Mr. Holt also argued that his general citation to the Florida Building Code (FBC) put the contractor on notice of all of the construction code requirements. Finally, he argued that certain specifications did not need to be included in the engineering drawings if those specifications were commonly known in the county or area where the construction was to take place. The testimony of Mr. Ooten and Mr. Jeffery at hearing convincingly refuted all of Mr. Holt's contentions. First, departures from the Responsibility Rules, even if they are justified by circumstances and the professional judgment of the engineer--which these were not--must be documented. Second, general references to applicable electrical, mechanical, and building codes do not incorporate the entire content of those codes so as to meet the specific documentation requirements of the Responsibility Rules. Third, while Mr. Holt's testimony that specifications for certain construction materials were well known in his area is credited, his argument that this eliminated the requirement to include them on the engineering drawings was completely unsupported by the Responsibility Rules or the FBC, and is rejected. Findings related to the specific allegations in the Administrative Complaint are discussed below. Mr. Holt testified that he did not dispute the opinions of Mr. Ooten as to the electrical and mechanical deficiencies in any of the plans. Betancourt Project On or about July 29, 2014, Mr. Holt signed, sealed, and dated revised engineering drawings for a conversion/renovation project located at 117 Northwest Avenue H Place, Belle Glade, Florida (Betancourt Project). The Betancourt Project drawings included sheets S-1 through S-3. It was clearly and convincingly shown that the electrical engineering design documents for the Betancourt Project are materially deficient as follows: The drawings contain an electrical riser diagram, but no short circuit values and no voltage calculations for the feeders and customer-owned service conductors. If the circuit breakers and the wires are undersized, then the electrical systems can overheat and that affects the safety of the occupants. The panel schedule does not contain the information it should. It has blank spaces that do not indicate whether there are missing circuit breakers. Conductor sizes, insulation types, circuit-interrupting devices, and fault current interrupting capability are omitted. No surge protective devices are shown on the drawings. While Mr. Holt argued at one point that no surge protection was required, Mr. Ooten credibly testified that the Responsibility Rules required it. He also noted that if there had been a justified departure from this requirement, a notation to that effect on the drawings was required, and there was none. The main electrical panel was not located on the plans. The fact that it was shown on the electrical riser diagram is not sufficient. The drawings show no circuitry for outlets, equipment, devices, or smoke detectors. The reference in the panel schedule to "building receptacles" is not sufficient. There is no outdoor receptacle outlet shown at the front and back of the one-family dwelling. There is no 125-volt receptacle outlet shown at an accessible location within 25 feet of HVAC equipment. The drawings do not contain information required by section 107.3.5 of the Florida Building Code-Building (FBC-B), requiring documents to show electrical overcurrent protection and wiring methods and materials. The legend on drawing sheet S-2 has a symbol for a ceiling-mounted light (style by contractor), but the drawings contain no specifications for any fixtures. The drawings show no circuitry for any lighting fixtures on this project. The lighting design drawings contain no energy form or calculated values to demonstrate compliance with the Florida Energy Code for Building Construction. The HVAC engineering design documents for the Betancourt Project show a new wall air conditioning unit, but no size, no voltage, no disconnecting means, and no circuit for the unit. While it was clearly shown that section 2701.1 of the FBC- B requires that electrical equipment shall be designed in accordance with the provisions of the National Fire Protection association (NFPA) 70, the National Electric Code (NEC), it was not clearly shown what provision of the NEC, if any, these omissions from the drawing violated. Section 1901.4 of the FBC requires construction documents to contain the specified compressive strength of concrete and the specified strength or grade of reinforcement. As Mr. Jeffery testified, structural engineering drawings also need to contain detail as to how a piling is anchored to the pile cap, particularly in plans designed, as these were, to withstand a wind sheer of 170 miles per hour. Mr. Jeffery also credibly testified that the overlap of reinforcing steel needed to be a minimum of 18 inches and that one of the bars was shown as 12 inches in total length, with about eight inches embedded into the footing, leaving only four inches of overlap. It was clearly and convincingly shown that the structural engineering design documents for the Betancourt Project are materially deficient as follows: The strength of the concrete and reinforcing steel are missing. There is no detail indicating how the piling is connected to the pile cap. The lap length of the reinforcing steel in the masonry walls is too short. Bullock Project On or about May 19, 2014, Mr. Holt signed, sealed, and dated revised engineering drawings for a residential conversion/renovation project located at 251 Noah Court, Belle Glade, Florida (Bullock Project). The Bullock Project drawings included sheets A-1 through A-3. It was clearly and convincingly shown that the electrical engineering design documents for the Bullock Project are materially deficient as follows: There is an electrical riser diagram, but it contains only one panel and one electrical meter. The drawings contain some conductor sizes, no insulation types, some circuit interrupting devices, and no fault current interrupting capability. No surge protective devices are shown on the drawings, and there is no notation on the drawings indicating any reason for departure from this requirement. One electrical distribution panel is shown for the south unit on Sheet A-1, but no panel is shown for the north unit. No meters are shown. The drawings show no circuitry for outlets, equipment, devices, or smoke detectors. The drawings do not indicate that an outdoor receptacle outlet is to be installed at the front and back of the Bullock Project. The drawings contain partial load computations for the panel schedule on sheet A-1, but they are inadequate to explain the wiring. The calculation is 99 amps, but that is serving into only one panel, which is not an appropriate design. The drawings do not contain information required by the FBC. Section 107.3.5 of the FBC-B requires branch circuitry and separate overcurrent protection for each of the two units, wiring methods and materials, and load calculations. While some information is included, it is incomplete, and some is incorrect. The legend on drawing sheet A-1 has a symbol for a ceiling-mounted light, but the drawings contain no specifications for any lighting fixtures. The drawings show no circuitry for any lighting fixtures for either unit. The lighting design drawings contain no energy form or calculated values to demonstrate compliance with the Florida Energy Code for Building Construction. It was clearly and convincingly shown that the HVAC engineering documents for the Bullock Project are materially deficient as follows: The drawings did not contain adequate information for the City to determine compliance with codes and ordinances. The drawings contain no air conditioning equipment schedules for air handling units and condensing units. The drawings do not contain cooling coil requirements based on sensible heat, latent heat and total heat gains; outside and inside design dry and wet bulb conditions; nor outside (fresh) air make-up conditions. The drawings contain no specifications for heating equipment. The drawings contain no condensate discharge piping layouts. No HVAC ductwork is shown on the drawings. The mechanical drawings do not contain all data required to complete the Florida Energy Code calculations, as required by the chapter 13 of the FBC-B. It was clearly and convincingly shown that the plumbing engineering design documents for the Bullock Project are materially deficient as follows: The drawings contain no plumbing equipment schedules. No potable water isometric diagrams are shown. Total water fixture units for either dwelling unit are not shown on the drawings. One isometric sanitary riser diagram is shown; however, total flow waste fixture units for both dwelling units are not shown on the drawings. No storm riser diagrams or area drainage calculations are shown on the drawings. The drawings contain no sanitary piping layouts, no cold water, no hot water, and no storm drainage piping layouts. Florida Building Code—Plumbing (FBC-P), 2010 Edition, is noted as an applicable plumbing code. However no other codes, design standards, or requirements are shown on the drawings. No specifications for materials for plumbing systems are shown on the drawings. It was clearly and convincingly shown that the structural engineering design documents for the Bullock Project are materially deficient as follows: The strength of materials for the reinforcing steel, grout, and masonry are missing. There is no detail indicating how the piling is to be connected to the grade beam. The engineer of record's engineering requirements for the delegated engineer for the wood roof trusses are missing. The phrase "pre-engineered wood trusses" appears, but no requirements. Morales Project On or about July 16, 2014, Mr. Holt signed, sealed, and dated engineering drawings for a residential extension project located at 1033 Whitaker Road, Belle Glade, Florida (Morales Project). The Morales Project drawings included sheets S-1 and S-2. It was clearly and convincingly shown that the electrical engineering design documents for the Morales Project are materially deficient as follows: The plan view on sheet S-1 shows the existing electric meter is to remain on the new covered patio, with no mention that the contractor needs to raise the height of the weather head so that it is at least eight feet above the roof as required by NEC 230.24. The drawings contain no panel schedules, no circuit interrupting devices, and no fault current interrupting capability. No surge protective devices are shown on the drawings. The drawings show no new panel, no existing panel, and no sizes, except for the addition of one 20-amp breaker. Whether or not a new or existing panel would have adequate physical space or electrical capacity to add the 20-amp breaker is not addressed. The drawings contain no circuitry for loads added by this project, or existing circuitry, and thus are deficient in circuiting all outlets, equipment and devices. NEC 210.52(E)(1) requires that at least one outdoor receptacle outlet be installed at the front and back of a one- family dwelling. No outlet is indicated. The drawings do not contain all information required by the FBC. Section 107.3.5 of the FBC-B requires that documents show electrical wiring, branch circuits, grounding, wiring methods and materials, and load calculations. The information that is provided is inadequate. The drawings contain no information on the performance specifications or number of lamps on the ceiling fans. The drawings show no circuitry for any lighting fixture, and no panel is shown. The design drawings contain no energy form or calculated values to demonstrate compliance with the Florida Energy Code for Building Construction. It was clearly and convincingly shown that the mechanical engineering design (HVAC) documents for the Morales Project are materially deficient in that the HVAC Scope of Work included a toilet exhaust fan for ventilation. No heat was specified, and the exhaust fan size was omitted from the drawings. It was clearly and convincingly shown that the plumbing engineering design documents for the Morales Project are materially deficient as follows: The drawings contain no equipment schedules for all plumbing fixtures, water heater, valves, and accessories. Potable water isometric diagrams and total water fixture units are not shown on the drawings. Total sanitary waste fixture units are not shown on the drawings. No storm riser diagrams or area drainage calculations are shown on the drawings. The drawings contain no piping layouts for cold water, hot water, sanitary, or storm drainage. The drawings acknowledge that FBC-P, 2010 Edition, is applicable to this project, but fail to list other applicable codes and standards. No specifications for materials for plumbing systems are shown on the drawings. It was clearly and convincingly shown that the structural engineering design documents for the Morales Project are materially deficient as follows: The strength of materials for the concrete, reinforcing steel, grout and masonry are missing. There is no reinforcing steel designated for the concrete piles. The lap length of the reinforcing steel in the masonry walls is missing. There is no detail indicating how the piling is connected to the pile cap. The drawings indicate that a 6" x 6" x 16" concrete masonry unit (CMU) block wall is an optional alternative. Contrary to Mr. Holt's argument, the bathroom walls are not interior walls in this design, as they are bounded by a porch, and this size block is inadequate to resist the design wind pressures. Mr. Holt failed to utilize due care in performing in an engineering capacity and failed to have due regard for acceptable standards of engineering principles in the Betancourt, Bullock, and Morales Projects. It was clearly and convincingly shown that Mr. Holt engaged in negligence in the practice of engineering in each project. Prior Discipline Mr. Holt was charged in FEMC Case No. 01-0159 with engaging in negligence in the practice of engineering. In 2002, he was disciplined by the Board in FEMC Case Nos. 0l-0159, 01- 0106, and 01-0170 after a settlement stipulation. Mr. Holt was charged in FEMC Case No. 2005048785 with engaging in negligence in the practice of engineering. In 2006, he was disciplined by the Board in that case after a settlement stipulation. Mr. Holt was charged in FEMC Case No. 2007068131 with engaging in negligence in the practice of engineering. In 2010, he was disciplined by the Board in that case after settlement stipulation. Mr. Holt was charged in FEMC Case No. 2007047569 with engaging in negligence in the practice of engineering. In 2010, he was disciplined by the Board in that case after settlement stipulation.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Board of Professional Engineers: Finding that John D. Holt, P.E., engaged in negligence in the practice of engineering, in violation of section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15- 19.001(4); suspending his professional engineer license for a period of one year, to be reinstated under such conditions and terms, including a period of probation, as the Board finds appropriate; and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $10,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of March, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD 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 16th day of March, 2016.
The Issue The issues in these cases are whether the allegations of the administrative complaints are correct, and, if so, what penalty, if any, should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is charged with responsibility for regulation of the practice of engineering within the State of Florida. At all times material to these cases, the Respondent has been licensed by the State of Florida as a professional engineer holding license PE40904. At the hearing, the Petitioner presented the testimony of Joseph Berryman, P.E., a professional engineer licensed by the State of Florida. Mr. Berryman was accepted as an expert in structural engineering design, including aluminum structure design. Mr. Berryman's testimony regarding deficiencies in the Respondent's design of the projects referenced herein was clear and persuasive. In response, the Respondent testified that the referenced projects met applicable professional standards, including load and stress standards. The Respondent's primary engineering experience has apparently been in the realm of civil, not structural, engineering. According to Mr. Berryman, the Respondent's calculations included material errors, reflected structural elements other than those identified in the design documents, and revealed misunderstanding and misapplication of engineering precepts. The Respondent's testimony has been rejected. Mr. Berryman's testimony has been credited. DOAH Case No. 12-1635PL (Del Vecchio) On October 7, 2011, the Respondent signed, sealed, and dated a one-page structural engineering design document for construction of an aluminum screen swimming pool enclosure located at "3611 Throle" in Rockledge, Florida (the "Del Vecchio" project). The document failed to include elements and information required by the Florida Building Code (FBC) and by the Petitioner's rules. The document failed to identify the height of the mansard rise, failed to detail a proper end connection between diagonal roof bracing and the frame of the structure, failed to identify the size of the "K-bracing" elements included in the design, failed to indicate the size of the corner columns or to show a corner column section, and referenced a design element that had been superseded elsewhere in the document. Additionally, the frame spacing dimensions set forth on the document failed to conform to the width of the proposed structure. Because the material to be used in construction of the proposed structure was aluminum, the applicable design standard is set forth in Chapter 20 of the FBC and the Aluminum Design Manual (ADM). The standard requires that every element in the structure must be so proportioned as to resist the applied loading without exceeding the allowable stress for the construction material and without exceeding the allowable stress for each specific element of the structure's construction. Mr. Berryman reviewed the project proposed in the document for compliance with the standard set forth in the ADM and determined that the proposed structure (specifically the proposed roof beams, columns, and purlins) would not be sufficient to comply with applicable stress and load requirements. Mr. Berryman's analysis of the design proposed by the Respondent has been fully credited. The Respondent's preparation of the design document for the Del Vecchio project demonstrated a lack of due care in the practice of engineering and a lack of due regard for professional engineering standards. DOAH Case No. 12-1636PL (Nunez) On September 20, 2011, the Respondent signed, sealed, and dated a three-page structural engineering design document for construction of an aluminum screen swimming pool enclosure located at 4128 Southwest 102nd Lane Road, in Ocala, Florida (the "Nunez" project). The document failed to include elements and information required by the FBC and by the Petitioner's rules. The document failed to identify the height of the mansard rise and failed to detail a proper end connection between diagonal roof bracing and the frame of the structure. Because the material to be used in construction of the proposed structure was aluminum, the applicable design standard is set forth in Chapter 20 of the FBC and the ADM. The standard requires that every element in the structure must be so proportioned as to resist the applied loading without exceeding the allowable stress for the construction material and without exceeding the allowable stress for each specific element of the structure's construction. Mr. Berryman reviewed the project proposed in the document for compliance with the ADM and determined that the proposed structure (specifically the proposed roof beams, columns, purlins, cable bracing, anchor bolts, and gusset plates used in a roof beam splice) would not be sufficient to comply with applicable stress and load requirements. Mr. Berryman's analysis of the design proposed in the Respondent's document has been fully credited. The Respondent's preparation of the design document for the Nunez project demonstrated a lack of due care in the practice of engineering and a lack of due regard for professional engineering standards. DOAH Case No. 12-1637PL (Dunaway) On September 8, 2011, the Respondent signed, sealed, and dated a three-page structural engineering design document for construction of an aluminum screen swimming pool enclosure located at 8538 Southwest 135th Street, in Ocala, Florida (the "Dunaway" project). The document failed to include elements and information required by the FBC and by the Petitioner's rules. The document failed to identify the height of the gable rise, failed to detail a proper end connection between diagonal roof bracing and the frame of the structure, failed to indicate the size of the corner columns or to show a corner column section, and failed to identity the metal alloy of a clip used at a detailed shoulder connection. Because the material to be used in construction of the proposed structure was aluminum, the applicable design standard is set forth in Chapter 20 of the FBC and the ADM. The standard requires that every element in the structure must be so proportioned as to resist the applied loading without exceeding the allowable stress for the construction material and without exceeding the allowable stress for each specific element of the structure's construction. Mr. Berryman reviewed the project proposed by the Respondent's design document using the information set forth in the ADM and determined that the proposed structure (specifically the proposed roof beams, columns, and shoulder connection fasteners) would not be sufficient to comply with applicable stress and load requirements. Mr. Berryman's analysis of the design proposed in the Respondent's document has been fully credited. The Respondent's preparation of the design document for the Dunaway project demonstrated a lack of due care in the practice of engineering and a lack of due regard for professional engineering standards.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order reprimanding the Respondent, placing the Respondent on probation for a period of two years under terms and conditions deemed appropriate by the Petitioner, and imposing a fine of $6,000 against the Respondent. Additionally, the final order should prohibit the Respondent from the practice of structural engineering until the Respondent submits to the Petitioner proof of his successful completion of an appropriate examination to be designated by the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 August, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: John Jefferson Rimes, III, Esquire Florida Engineers Management Corp. 2639 North Monroe Street, Suite B-112 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Scott Guy Campbell Apartment 805 250 58th Street, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33710 Zana Raybon, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2639 North Monroe Street, Suite B-112 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5268 Michael Flury, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 J. Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
