The Issue Whether Petitioner achieved a passing score on the Practical Examination for Retention of Firefighter Retest.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for the certification of firefighters in the State of Florida, pursuant to chapter 633, Florida Statutes. In or around 2008, Petitioner achieved his Firefighter Minimum Standards Training Certification, which was valid for three years. To maintain his certification, it was necessary for Petitioner to either: maintain employment as a firefighter (or serve as a volunteer firefighter) for at least six consecutive months during the three-year period subsequent to his certification; or successfully complete the retention examination, which is identical to the practical examination given to new applicants.1/ Petitioner could not satisfy the first option, and was therefore required to take the retention examination. Petitioner's first attempt to successfully complete the retention examination occurred on May 20, 2011, and included four components: self-contained breathing apparatus ("SCBA"), hose operation, ladder operation, and fireground skills. To pass the retention examination, an examinee must earn scores of at least 70 on each section. Each portion of the retention examination has certain evaluative components that are graded. For instance, the ladder operation consists of 15 skills——e.g., maintaining contact with the ladder at all times, lifting and securing the ladder properly, using proper hand position——that the examinee must complete within the maximum time of four minutes and 30 seconds. A failure to finish the tasks within the allotted time results in an automatic failure and a score of zero, even if the examinee performs each of the 15 skills successfully.2/ Although Petitioner achieved perfect scores of 100 on the ladder operation and fireground skills components, he was unable to achieve scores of 70 or higher on the SCBA or hose portions of the practical examination. Petitioner, like all candidates who fail the retention examination on the first attempt, was offered one retest opportunity.3/ Petitioner's retest was administered on September 22, 2011, at the Ocala Fire College. On that occasion, Petitioner passed the SCBA and hose portions——the sections that he failed during his previous attempt——with scores of 85. Interestingly, however, the Department's field notes indicate that Petitioner exceeded the ladder evaluation's maximum permitted time by 32 seconds, a performance 58 seconds slower than his recorded time just four months earlier, when he achieved a perfect score. The field notes further reflect that Petitioner committed no errors in connection with the 15 ladder skills and that his failing score was entirely attributable to the examiner's conclusion that the time limit had been exceeded. During the final hearing, Respondent called Thomas Johnson, the field representative for the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training that administered Petitioner's retest, who testified that he timed the ladder examination with a stopwatch, and that Petitioner did not complete the evaluation within the prescribed time period. Significantly, however, the Department elicited no detail from Mr. Thomas with respect to the causes——e.g., loss of ladder control, tripping, fumbling, etc.——of Petitioner's purported failure to complete the evaluation within the allotted time.4/ In contrast, Petitioner testified that although he was not permitted to bring a timekeeping device to the examination (the Department forbids examinees from doing so), he is confident that he completed the ladder retest within the prescribed time limit: Mr. Saintilmond: All right. On the date of the retest, I was taking the ladder examination. I've gone through the evolution. I did not fumble around. I did not take any time. I went through the exam as trained. No fumbling around, no waiting, no nothing. And I believe that I completed the evolution on time. And I passed the examination before. I've done it several times. But on this particular day, on my retake, I know I went through this evolution and I passed it with no fumbling around. Final Hearing Transcript, p. 12. Notwithstanding the anecdotal nature of Petitioner's evidence, his description of the evaluation, which was credible and adequately detailed, carries significant persuasive force in light of his perfect completion of the same ladder examination—— with 26 seconds to spare——just four months before the retest. The undersigned therefore accepts Petitioner's version of the events and finds that he did not exceed the maximum time limit of four minutes and 30 seconds during the September 22, 2011, retention examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter an order granting Petitioner's application to retain his certification as a firefighter in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of May, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S Edward T. Bauer Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of May, 2012.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent properly denied Petitioner certification as a Florida firefighter.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, a resident of Ohio, requested to qualify for the Florida Minimum Standards Equivalence Examination, based on his experience, to become a Florida firefighter. Petitioner's request effectively "challenged" the exam and requested an exemption from attending the Florida Minimum Standards Course. Petitioner could have taken the Florida Minimum Standards Course. If he had taken the course, he may have had an opportunity to review video tapes and other instructional materials which are available but not a required part of the basic curriculum. Instead, Petitioner elected to furnish Respondent with his out-of-state firefighter credentials. Subsequently, Respondent granted Petitioner the requested exemption. Prior to taking the examination, Respondent's staff accurately informed Petitioner about the scope, structure and subject matter of the test during numerous telephone calls. On at least ten occasions, Respondent's staff described the test to Petitioner and told him how to prepare for it. Respondent's staff specifically told Petitioner that he should study the International Fire Service Training Association Manual (IFSTA Manual). As to part one of the practical portion of the exam, Petitioner knew that Respondent would test him on the breathing apparatus, the one and three quarter-inch hose and nozzle operation, and the twenty-four foot ladder evolution. Respondent told Petitioner that he needed to know how to perform all skills set forth in the IFSTA Manual because Respondent randomly selects six different sections of tasks to test on part two of the practical examination. The six skill sections which are picked for part two remain unknown to anyone in advance of the test regardless of whether he is out-of-state or in-state applicants. These skills are chosen by Respondent's Field Representatives in their offices at the Florida State Fire College prior to going to a testing site or for testing at the Florida State Fire College. The two parts of the practical examination are of equal worth. An examinee begins with 100 points and points are deducted for deficiencies throughout the exam. Candidates are required to achieve a score of at least seventy (70) points in order to pass the practical examination. Petitioner took his Minimum Standards Equivalency Practical Examination on April 28, 1997, at the Florida State Fire College in Ocala, Florida. Petitioner's final score on the April 28, 1997, Minimum Standards Equivalency Practical Examination was twenty-five (25) points, which was not a passing score. Candidates are allowed one retest of the Minimum Standards Equivalency Practical Retest if they are not successful on their initial test. Petitioner chose to take the test again on July 28, 1997, at the Florida State Fire College in Ocala, Florida. Respondent's Field Representative administered part one of the Minimum Standards Equivalency Practical Retest to Petitioner. Petitioner did not take part two of the Minimum Standards Equivalency Practical Retest. He chose to quit after realizing that his score on part one was so low that he could not pass the retest as a whole. After deciding not to take part two in the Minimum Standards Equivalency Practical Retest, Petitioner approached Field Representative Bill DePauw to tell him that he was quitting. Petitioner was not attired in the mandatory minimum safety gear, but in civilian clothes. At that time, Mr. DePauw was in the process of testing another examinee. Mr. DePauw told the Petitioner he needed to talk to Larry McCall, Field Representative Supervisor. Petitioner then approached Mr. McCall and informed him that he would not be taking part two of the retest. Mr. McCall asked Petitioner to leave the testing grounds because Petitioner was being loud and disruptive to the applicants testing or waiting to be tested. Further, once an applicant decides not to continue, he is no longer allowed in the testing area. Petitioner informed Mr. McCall, both on the field and in Mr. McCall's office, that the Florida exam and the process were "chicken." Petitioner lost seventy-five (75) points on part one of the Minimum Standards Equivalency Practical Retest. The maximum allowable deduction for part one of fifty (50) points was deducted from Petitioner's part one score. Therefore, Petitioner's final score on the Minimum Standards Equivalency Practical Retest administered on July 28, 1997, was fifty (50) points, which is not a passing score. Applicants are assigned a number during orientation. From that time on, the applicants are referred to only by that number to ensure impartiality. The applicant's name is attached to the number after the exam, sometimes several days later. The examiner makes up a package of exams, numbers the packets, and then circles six (6) skills at random in each packet. No names are applied to the packets and the numbers are not assigned to the examinees until the day of testing. The Field Representatives are required to give an orientation prior to each Minimum Standards Equivalency Examination on the day of the exam. The orientation consists of walking the applicants through each section of part one. The Field Representatives use the same form check-off sheet during each orientation to ensure that each candidate is given the same orientation. The Field Representatives use a scoresheet to grade the applicants which is a guide to simplify the scoring process. The numeric values on the scoresheet are negative points deducted from an applicant's raw score of 100 points. The Field Representatives only make deductions when the applicant does not follow the required procedure for performing the evolution. Petitioner admits that the point deduction is correct for exceeding the required time on the breathing apparatus evolution. Petitioner admits that he had to go back to the loop during the hose and nozzle evolution to fix the kinks in the hose line. Additionally, he took a couple of steps backwards while he was pulling the hose line. Walking backwards occurs when a candidate takes two steps or more backwards, walking in the opposite direction from where he is looking. There are no warnings issued for walking backwards during the certification examination. Petitioner admits that the deduction for exceeding time during the hose and nozzle evolution was correct. The greater weight of the evidence indicates that Petitioner struggled during the ladder evolution. He lacked control of the ladder at all times during the demonstration. All of the deficiencies which Petitioner admits to amount to a total of 35 negative points as the least possible point deduction. That equals a score of 65 without Petitioner even having taken part two. A score of 65 is not a passing score.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Bill Nelson in his capacity as State Fire Marshal enter a Final Order denying Petitioner's request for a Certification of Compliance as a Florida Firefighter. DONE AND ORDERED this 20th day of August, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 20th day of August, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Elenita Gomez, Esquire Division of Legal Services Department of Insurance and Treasurer 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Paul Appleton 13500 Shaker Boulevard, No. 102 Cleveland, Ohio 44120 Bill Nelson, Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
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 should have received a passing grade on the Firefighter Minimum Standards Retest taken on November 30, 1998.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Department of Insurance and Treasurer (Department), through its Division of State Fire Marshall, certifies all paid firefighters. Applicants for firefighters must complete a 360-hour minimum standards training course and pass a written and practical examination. If the applicant fails the examination, the applicant may retake the examination within six months after taking the initial examination. If the applicant does not pass the retest, the applicant must complete the minimum standards training course before additional retesting will be allowed. The examination has two parts, a written and a practical part. The written examination consists of 100 multiple choice questions. The practical portion tests the applicant on skills dealing with breathing apparatus, hose and nozzle operation, and the 24-foot extension ladder. The applicant must receive a score of 70 percent on both portions of the examination in order to pass the examination. In the breathing apparatus section of the practical examination, the applicant is timed during the donning of the equipment. If the applicant does not don the equipment within one minute and thirty seconds, points are deducted from the applicant's score. The number of points deducted increases in proportion to the amount of time it takes to don the equipment. If the applicant dons the equipment in more than one minute and thirty seconds but not more than two minutes, five points are deducted. In the hose and nozzle operation portion of the practical examination, the applicant is timed. If the applicant fails to perform the operation in two minutes or less, points are deducted from the applicant's score. Five points are deducted if the applicant takes greater than two minutes but not over two minutes and thirty seconds. Ten points are deducted if the applicant takes greater than two minutes and thirty seconds but not more than three minutes. The ladder operation portion of the examination is timed. If the applicant takes more than two minutes and thirty seconds but not more than three minutes, five points are deducted. During the practical examination, applicants are required to demonstrate their skills in tying knots and hitches. The applicant is required to tie one of a number of knots or hitches. Applicants are also required to show their proficiency in dealing with fire hoses, hose appliances and various fittings by performing one of a number of functions. Applicants must demonstrate their knowledge of the North American Emergency Response Guidebook by answering three questions using the guidebook a reference. On January 20, 1998, Petitioner, Michelle M. McCue (McCue), applied for certification as a firefighter. She completed the Minimum Standards Course. On July 30, 1998, McCue took the minimum standards examination. She received a score of 81 on the written portion and 55 on the practical examination. She was notified by memorandum dated August 12, 1998, of her scores. By memorandum dated September 3, 1998, McCue was notified that she was scheduled to retake the examination on September 22, 1998. She did not take the examination on that date. By memorandum dated October 5, 1998, McCue was notified that she was rescheduled to retake the practical examination on November 30, 1998. She retook the practical portion on the day scheduled. On the retake examination, five points were deducted from McCue's score because her donning time for the breathing apparatus portion was one minute and fifty-one seconds. She took three minutes during the timed portion of the hose and nozzle operation; thus, ten points were deducted from her score. Five points were deducted from her score because she took two minutes and thirty-five seconds to perform the ladder operation. Five points were deducted from McCue's score for failure to correctly tie a Becket Bend knot. Another five points were deducted from her score for failing to properly connect a supply line into a female pumper intake. Five points were deducted for her failure to properly answer a question using the North American Emergency Response Guidebook. McCue received a final score of 65 on the retake of the practical examination.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding that Michelle M. McCue failed the retake of the practical portion of the Minimum Standards Test and that she shall be required to repeat the Minimum Standards Course before taking any further examinations. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of October, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. SUSAN B. KIRKLAND Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of October, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Bill Nelson, State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner Department of Insurance The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Shiv Narayan Persaud, Esquire Department of Insurance Division of Legal Services 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Michelle M. McCue 4801 Northwest 26th Avenue Tamarac, Florida 33309
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Petitioner successfully completed the Firefighter Minimum Standards Practical Examination or the Practical Examination Retest for certification as a firefighter in the State of Florida.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a candidate for certification as a firefighter in the State of Florida. To be certified as a firefighter, a candidate is required to successfully complete the Firefighter Minimum Standards Written and Practical Examination (Practical Examination). A candidate is able to take the certification test twice. If a candidate fails the first time, the candidate is automatically afforded an opportunity for a retest. On October 15, 2012, Petitioner initially took the Practical Examination at Daytona State Fire College in Daytona, Florida. The Practical Examination consists of four parts, or evolutions: self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA), hose operation, ladder operation, and fireground skills. To successfully complete the Practical Examination, a candidate is required to receive a minimum of 70 points on each evolution and to complete all mandatory steps. Petitioner received more than a minimum of 70 points on the SCBA and hose evolutions, but did not achieve a passing score on either the ladder evolution or the fireground skills evolution. The maximum time allowed on the ladder evolution is four minutes and 30 seconds. Exceeding the maximum time allowed is an automatic failure of the ladder evolution. Petitioner’s time on the ladder evolution was four minutes and 50 seconds, which was 20 seconds more than the maximum time allowed. Petitioner admitted that he exceeded the maximum time allowed to complete the ladder evolution. He blames that failure on the testing instructor, Mr. Johnson, for not being located where Petitioner could hand off a halligan to him in order to complete the test. A halligan is a tool used by firefighters to sound the floor of a burning building for safety. During the ladder evolution, a candidate is required to pick up the halligan prior to ascending a pre-positioned 24-foot extension ladder, sound the floor with the halligan, enter the second floor, descend a set of stairs to the first floor, locate a mannequin, and execute a “rescue” by dragging or carrying the mannequin out of a doorway. When a candidate clears the doorway threshold with the mannequin, the ladder evolution is complete. During testing, Petitioner understood he would be handing the halligan off to Mr. Johnson. However, Mr. Johnson was not there, and, as Petitioner explained, “I had my halligan in my hand and I was looking around for him, but he was nowhere to be found. . . . Well, the time that it took me to look for my instructor, which I am not supposed to do, he was supposed to be there, my time went over –- my time went over.” Because of his failure to pass the ladder evolution and fireground skills evolution, Petitioner failed to successfully complete the Practical Examination. On November 6, 2012, Petitioner took a Practical Examination Retest (Retest) at Florida State Fire College in Ocala, Florida. The Retest consisted of the same four evolutions. He was required to receive a minimum of 70 points on each evolution and to complete all mandatory steps in order to successfully complete the Retest. On the Retest, Petitioner received a perfect score of 100 points on the SCBA and hose evolutions. He received 90 points on the fireground skills evolution, but received no points on the ladder evolution. Petitioner exceeded the maximum time allowed on the ladder evolution. As on the original examination, the maximum time allowed is four minutes and 30 seconds and exceeding the maximum time allowed is an automatic failure of the ladder evolution. Petitioner’s time was four minutes and 38 seconds, which is 8 seconds more than the maximum time allowed. He received zero points on the ladder evolution for exceeding the maximum time allowed. As a result of his failing to pass the ladder evolution, Petitioner failed to successfully complete the Retest. Because Petitioner failed the Retest, the Department denied his certification as a firefighter. In support of his challenge to the Department's determination that he exceeded the maximum time allowed on the ladder evolution, Petitioner testified that his wife was present at the Retest and recorded his time on the ladder evolution as four minutes and 17 seconds, 13 seconds faster than the maximum time allowed. Petitioner explained that his wife was positioned in an automobile at the grounds with a “straight-shot” view of the ground skills course, then drove to the other side of the course to observe and time the ladder evolution. Petitioner introduced into evidence a photocopy of a sheet of notebook paper on which was written “Ricky’s time 3:58” on one line and “4:17” on the next line. Petitioner’s wife neither testified to overcome the hearsay nature of the evidence, nor did she authenticate the evidence. Further, Petitioner admitted that the time his wife recorded was likely not exact, but rather gave him a “ballpark figure of not going over the four minutes and 30 seconds that I had.” Petitioner stated his wife’s recorded time would not be the same as the field representative’s because the field representative started the stopwatch when Petitioner touched the ladder, as per protocol. Petitioner’s wife started her clock when Petitioner gave her the “thumbs up.” Dennis Hackett, Interim Standards Supervisor, testified that it would be impossible for a third party to accurately time a candidate during the ladder evolution at Florida State Fire College. Mr. Hackett explained: There’s just too many obstructions. If they were –- the tower, where the ladder evolution starts, is on the opposite side of where [third party observers] have to stay. Or they could go to another roadway that they could see the ladder evolution started, but there’s a burn building in the way to see the ascension of the ladder to the second floor. You can’t see that. They would have to be a marathon runner to get from where they could see to the second portion where they would come out of the building. [T.53:18 through T.54:2] The time of four minutes and 17 seconds recorded by Petitioner’s wife for Petitioner’s completion of the ladder evolution is not accepted as competent substantial evidence of the actual time in which Petitioner completed the ladder evolution on the Retest. Tuffy Dixon is the Department’s field representative who administered the Retest to Petitioner in Ocala. Petitioner argues that Mr. Dixon may have failed to reset the stopwatch to zero prior to Petitioner beginning the ladder evolution. Petitioner testified that he had been told by unnamed instructors at Daytona State Fire College that mistakes like that had been made. Petitioner failed to present any evidence as to the inaccuracy of the stopwatch used to time the ladder evolution or as to the inaccuracy of the Mr.Dixon’s use of the stopwatch at the Retest. He presented only assumptions or speculation as to the inaccuracy of Mr. Dixon’s use of the stopwatch. Mr. Dixon has administered approximately 500 practical examinations in the two years he has served the Department. He testified that he is certain his stopwatch was functioning correctly on the day of Petitioner’s Retest and that he reset the stopwatch to zero prior to Petitioner beginning the ladder evolution. Mr. Dixon’s testimony is accepted as credible. In further support of his arguments, Petitioner also testified that he never exceeded the maximum time allowed for the ladder evolution during practice runs at the facility. He maintained that the course in Daytona is longer than the course in Ocala, so it does not make sense that he would not complete the ladder evolution within the maximum time allowed. Despite the fact that Petitioner submitted with his petition in this case a list of names and telephone numbers of Daytona State Fire College classmates who could attest to his time on practice runs of the ladder evolution, Petitioner did not present the testimony of any of those candidates. Nor did he introduce any other evidence to corroborate his testimony that he never exceeded the maximum time allowed for the ladder evolution during practice. Further, no evidence was offered as to the comparable length of the two courses. The evidence fails to demonstrate that the amount of time in which Petitioner completed the ladder evolution, as determined by the Department, was incorrect or inaccurate. Therefore, the evidence demonstrates that Petitioner failed to successfully complete the ladder evolution within the maximum time allowed. Hence, the evidence demonstrates that Petitioner failed the Retest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services enter a final order: Finding that Ricardo Francois failed to successfully complete the Practical Examination Firefighter Retest; and Denying Ricardo Francois’ application for certification as a firefighter in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of April, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUZANNE VAN WYK 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 3rd day of April, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Linje E. Rivers, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Ricardo Francois 778 Jimmy Ann Drive, No. 1011 Daytona Beach, Florida 32114 Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399
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
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent properly denied Petitioner's application for certification as a firefighter after Petitioner failed to successfully pass the practical portion of the Minimum Standards Examination pursuant to Sections 633.34 and 633.35, Florida Statutes, and Rules 4A-37.056 and 4A-37.062, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner has served as a voluntary firefighter in Bay County, Florida, for approximately nine years. He first applied for certification as a firefighter in October 2001. In order to be certified, Petitioner was required to successfully complete the Minimum Standards Course. The course consists of taking a minimum of 360 hours of training at an approved school or training facility. After completing the training course, Petitioner was required to take the Minimum Standards Examination, which is structured in two parts: a written portion and a practical portion. The practical portion consists of four sections including the Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA), the hose pull, the ladder operation, and the fire ground skills. The purpose of the practical portion of the exam is to simulate real fire ground scenarios. To pass the four practical evolutions, an applicant must achieve a score of at least 70 percent on each one. Each evolution of the practical exam has certain steps that are mandatory. Failure to complete a mandatory step results in automatic failure of that portion of the exam. The mandatory steps for the SCBA evolution include the following: (a) complete the procedure in not more than one minute and forty-five seconds; and (b) activate the PASS device in the automatic position. After completing the Minimum Standards Course, Petitioner took the Initial Minimum Standards Examination on May 1, 2002. He was well rested on the day of the test, having slept approximately eight hours the night before. Petitioner passed the written portion of the exam but failed the practical portion of the initial exam because it took him one minute and fifty-nine seconds to complete the SCBA evolution. In a memorandum dated May 7, 2002, Respondent formally advised Petitioner that he had failed the SCBA portion of the practical exam because he exceeded the maximum time for the procedure. The memorandum also stated as follows in pertinent part: Important information about retesting and certification renewal is enclosed. Please read it carefully. You have automatically been scheduled for the next available examination, and written notification indicating your test date and location is enclosed. You are not required to call the Bureau for scheduling. Thank you. (Emphasis provided) In another memorandum dated May 7, 2002, Respondent advised Petitioner that he was scheduled to re-take the SCBA portion of the practical examination at the Florida State Fire College in Ocala, Florida, on May 24, 2002, at 8:00 a.m. The memorandum included the following relevant information: If you are unable to take the examination on the assigned date, please advise the Bureau and we will reschedule you for the next examination. Note: You must retest within six (6) months of the original test date. All an applicant has to do to reschedule a retest exam is to call Respondent's Bureau of Fire Standards and Training and request to be rescheduled. Respondent does not require applicants to provide a justifiable reason in order to be rescheduled. It is a routine and standard practice for Respondent to reschedule exams. Some applicants fail to show up for their retest exam without calling Respondent. In that case, Respondent automatically reschedules the retest. Applicants must take their retest exams within six months of their initial exam dates. Applicants that fail to meet this requirement must repeat the training course. Respondent reminds applicants of these requirements when they call to reschedule retests or fail to show up for retest, and the next retest exam date falls outside of the six-month window. If applicants still wish to reschedule retests outside the six-month window, Respondent will accommodate the requests. The next exam date that Petitioner could have taken his retest was in September 2002, which would have been within the six-month window. Petitioner testified that he called Respondent on May 16, 2002, to reschedule his retest because May 24, 2002, was not convenient with his work schedule. Petitioner also testified that an unidentified female in Respondent's office told him that he could not change the date of his retest. Petitioner's testimony in this regard is not persuasive. Petitioner's job involved working the "graveyard shift" at the Panama City Airport, loading and unloading planes. On May 23, 2002, Petitioner began working at 2:00 a.m. He finished his shift at approximately 1:00 p.m. Petitioner then immediately loaded his gear and began the trip to Ocala, Florida. The trip took about six hours, due to a traffic jam in Tallahassee, Florida. He arrived in Ocala at approximately 8:00 p.m. EST, located the testing site, and checked into a motel. Petitioner reported to the testing site the next morning. He did not tell any officials at the testing site that he was too tired to take the test. Petitioner failed the retest of the SCBA portion of the exam. Petitioner's time for the retest of the SCBA evolution was two minutes and twelve seconds. Additionally, Petitioner had point deductions for failing to complete the "seal check" and failing to properly don and secure all personal protective equipment correctly. In a letter dated May 26, 2002, Petitioner alleged that Respondent had denied his request for a different test date. Petitioner claimed that fatigue had prevented him from succeeding at the test. He requested another opportunity to retest the SCBA evolution within the required six-month period. Shortly thereafter, Fire Chief Tim McGarry from the Thomas Drive Fire Department on Panama City Beach, Florida, called Respondent's Field Representative Supervisor, Larry McCall. During that conversation, Mr. McCall told Chief McGarry that Petitioner could have decided not to show up for the retest. In a letter dated June 3, 2002, Mr. McCall responded to Petitioner's letter. In the letter, Mr. McCall stated that the question of whether Respondent erroneously denied Petitioner's request to reschedule the retest would be closed unless Petitioner could provide more specific details. In a memorandum dated June 6, 2002, Respondent formally advised Petitioner that he had failed the retest. In a letter dated June 6, 2002, Petitioner stated that he could not remember the name of the person he spoke to when he requested a change in his retest date. Once again, Petitioner requested an opportunity to take the retest. Mr. McCall spoke to Petitioner in a telephone call on June 18, 2002. During that conversation, Petitioner indicated that he would file his Election of Rights form, requesting an administrative proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner's application. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of April, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. _ SUZANNE F. HOOD 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 10th day of April, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Elenita Gomez, Esquire Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0330 Mark D. Dreyer, Esquire 747 Jenks Avenue, Suite G Panama City, Florida 32401 Honorable Tom Gallagher Chief Financial Officer Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Mark Casteel, General Counsel Department of Financial Services The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to a passing grade on the practical portion of the Florida Minimum Standards Examination for firefighters taken May 22, 2002.
Findings Of Fact At times pertinent to this proceeding, Petitioner held certification as a firefighter (Firefighter Certificate of Completion #81191) issued by the State Fire Marshal. For at least three years prior to December 5, 2001, Petitioner had not been active as a firefighter or as a volunteer firefighter with an organized fire department. Pursuant to Section 633.352, Florida Statutes, Petitioner was required to successfully complete the practical portion of the Florida Minimum Standards Examination for firefighters to retain his certification. 1/ The practical examinations at issue in this proceeding consisted of four sections: the Self Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) section, the Hose and Nozzle Operation section, the Ladder Operation section, and the Fireground Skills section. A candidate must pass each section to pass the practical examination. On November 16, 2001, Petitioner applied to sit for the practical examination scheduled for December 5, 2001. Petitioner sat for and failed all four sections of the practical examination administered December 5. Respondent's Rule 4A- 37.0527(6), Florida Administrative Code, permits a candidate to retake the practical examination once without further training. Petitioner thereafter applied to retake the examination, which was scheduled for May 22, 2002. Petitioner passed the Hose and Nozzle Operation and the Ladder Operation sections of the practical examination on May 22, and the scoring on those sections are not at issue in this proceeding. At issue in this proceeding is whether Petitioner failed the SCBA section and/or the Fireground Skills section of the practical examination administered May 22, 2002. The SCBA section of the practical examination consisted of questions for which a candidate was awarded credit and certain items that a candidate was required to successfully complete (fatal items). If a candidate missed a fatal item, the candidate failed the SCBA section of the examination and, consequently, the entire practical examination. The Firegrounds Skills section of the examination tests a candidate on a variety of skills a firefighter is expected to demonstrate while fighting a fire, and the candidate is awarded a score for his or her performance. To pass each part of the practical examination, including the SCBA and the Fireground Skills sections, a candidate must achieve a score of 70 points and must not miss a fatal item. The SCBA section of the practical examination requires the candidate to properly don certain protective gear in 1 minute and 45 seconds. The failure to complete the exercise in the allotted time is a fatal item. In addition, the candidate must activate and check a personal alarm system as part of the exercise. The failure of the candidate to properly wear and activate the alarm system is also a fatal item. 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 failed to timely complete the exercise, which is a fatal item. Petitioner failed to properly activate the personal alarm system, which is also a fatal item. Petitioner was awarded no points for 5 of 10 items for which points could be awarded (each item was worth 10 points). Even if he had passed the fatal items noted above, Petitioner would have failed the SCBA section because he failed to achieve a passing score of 70 on that section of the examination. Petitioner failed to establish that he was entitled to additional credit for the SCBA section of the practical examination. Petitioner received a failing score on the Firegrounds Skills section of the practical examination administered May 22, 2002. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that Petitioner's performance on the Firegrounds Skills section of the practical examination administered May 22, 2002, was appropriately and fairly graded. Of the 100 points available for this section of the examination, Respondent established that Petitioner deserved no credit for the following: 20 points on the forcible entry part of the section; 12 points on the ladders and fire service tools part of the section; and 4 points on the hazardous materials part of the section. Consequently, Respondent established that Petitioner was entitled to a total of 64 points on the Firegrounds Skills section of the practical examination administered May 22 2002, which is a failing grade. Petitioner failed to establish that he was entitled to additional credit for the Firegrounds Skills section of the practical examination administered May 22, 2002. Respondent established that the administration and grading of the subject exams were consistent with the provisions of Chapter 4A-37, Florida Administrative Code, which set forth by rule applicable 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 adopting the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law set forth herein. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order deny Petitioner's application for re-certification as a firefighter. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of January, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. 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 14th day of January, 2003.
