The Issue The issue is whether Petitioner's apparent failure to achieve a passing score on the written portion of the Firefighter Minimum Standards retest resulted from improper administration or grading of the examination by Respondent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department enter a final order dismissing Cruz's petition and denying his application for certification as a Florida firefighter. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of June, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOHN G. VAN LANINGHAM 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 4th day of June, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Hipolito Cruz, Jr. 1214 Southwest 46 Avenue Deerfield Beach, Florida 33442 James Morrison, Esquire Department of Insurance 200 East Gaines Street 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Honorable Tom Gallagher State Treasurer and 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 32399-0300
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent’s participation in the John M. McKay Scholarships for Students with Disabilities Program (McKay Scholarships) and the Corporate Income Tax Credit Scholarship Program (CTC Scholarships) should have been suspended, and whether Respondent’s eligibility to participate in the programs should be revoked.
Findings Of Fact CHC is a private school located in Merritt Island, Florida. Lara Nichilo is the owner and head administrator of CHC. Ms. Nichilo was also the owner and head administrator of another private school located in Cocoa, Florida. For the purposes of this proceeding, the school located in Cocoa, Florida, will be referred to as CHC 2.2 CHC and CHC 2 had participated in the McKay Scholarships and CTC Scholarships programs. Section 1002.39, Florida Statutes, authorizes the McKay Scholarships program, which affords a disabled student an opportunity to receive a scholarship to defray the cost of attending a private school of choice. Section 220.187, Florida Statutes, authorizes the CTC Scholarships program, which enables taxpayers to make private, voluntary contributions so that students who qualify for free or reduced-price school lunches under the National School Lunch Act may receive a scholarship to defray the cost of attending a private school of choice. The Department of Education has the responsibility to annually verify the eligibility of a private school to participate in these scholarship programs. Private schools participating in the McKay Scholarships and CTC Scholarships programs are required to comply with Section 1002.421, Florida Statutes, and must meet applicable state and local health, safety, and welfare laws, codes, and rules, including laws, codes, and rules relating to firesafety and building safety. If a private school participating in the McKay Scholarships and CTC Scholarships programs desires to renew its participation in the programs, the school must file a signed, notarized Form IEPC SCF-1 affidavit with the Department of Education by March 1 of each year for participation in the subsequent school year. The Form IEPC SCF-1 affidavit contains a list of requirements to which the private school must certify that it meets or does not meet. If the school certifies that it does not meet a requirement, such certification constitutes an outstanding compliance issue, which must be resolved by the school prior to May 1 of each year for the school to remain eligible to participate in the scholarship programs. Specifically, the signature page of the Form IEPC SCF-1 affidavit states in part: “I understand that in answering ‘No’ to any requirement in Section 9: School Facility, the provision of a reason for answering ‘No’ shall not make the school compliant with the reporting requirement and will be considered an outstanding compliance issue for resolution as described in State Board of Education Rules 6A-6.03315, 6A-6.0960, and 6A- 6.0970, Florida Administrative Code.” Florida Administrative Code Rule 6A-6.03315(2) requires that every third year a school applies for renewal of eligibility for the scholarship programs there must be a review of compliance documentation. This means that the school must submit documentation to support its eligibility along with the affidavit. For the renewal of eligibility for the 2009-2010 school year, CHC had to submit compliance documentation for review. On November 6, 2008, Ms. Nichilo executed and mailed the Form IEPC SCF-1 affidavit for CHC for renewal of CHC’s eligibility to participate in the McKay Scholarships and CTC Scholarships programs for the 2009-2010 school year. Subsection 1 of Section 9 of the Form IEPC SCF-1 affidavit requires the school to answer the following question: Does the school facility possess a current, violation free or satisfactory Fire Code Inspection and compliance report in accordance with Section 1002.421(2)(g)1., Florida Statutes, State Finance Services Rule 69A-58.004, Florida Administrative Code, and county and/or municipal ordinance? Ms. Nichilo answered “Yes” to the question. CHC submitted a fire inspection certificate for CHC with a date of February 22, 2008. At the time Ms. Nichilo executed and submitted the Form IEPC SCF-1 affidavit in November 2008, CHC did not have a current Fire Code Inspection and compliance report. The last fire inspection certificate was dated February 22, 2006, and had expired on February 22, 2007. Ms. Nichilo executed and submitted a Form IEPC SCF-1 affidavit for the 2007-2008 school year, certifying that CHC had a current, violation-free fire inspection report. The certificate affidavit which Ms. Nichilo signed stated: I have read the applicable scholarship program rules and understand that by signing this form I am certifying that the school is currently in compliance and agrees [sic] to remain in compliance with all scholarship program rules and reporting requirements. If at any point, the school is not in compliance with scholarship rules, or if there is a change in the status of any reporting requirement, the school will have 15 days to notify the Department of Education and will provide all information necessary to document its continued compliance with program rules and requirements. At the time the certification was submitted on January 11, 2007, CHC did have a current, violation-free fire inspection report; however, CHC did not have a current, violation-free fire inspection report that was valid for the entire 2007-2008 school year. CHC did not notify the Department of Education that it was not in compliance with the fire safety inspections during the 2007-2008 school year. On December 5, 2007, Ms. Nichilo executed and submitted a Form IEPC SCF-1 affidavit for the 2008-2009 school year, certifying that CHC had a current, violation-free fire inspection report. At the time of submission of the affidavit, CHC did not have a current, violation-free fire inspection report, and, from the beginning of the 2008-2009 school year until December 23, 2008, CHC did not maintain a current, violation-free fire inspection report nor did CHC notify the Department of Education as late as December 11, 2008, that CHC was not in compliance with the fire inspection requirement. On November 19, 2008, Assistant Fire Marshall Doug Carter of Brevard County Fire Rescue (BCFR) received a complaint concerning CHC and CHC 2 from an anonymous caller. It is the policy of BCFR to follow up on all complaints. On November 20, 2008, Lead Fire Inspector William Morissette, following up on the anonymous complaint, went to CHC for the purpose of performing a fire inspection. On November 20, 2008, Mr. Morissette performed a fire inspection on CHC and noted some violations. During the inspection on November 20, 2008, Mr. Morissette noticed that the fire inspection certificate that was posted at CHC was partially obscured, and he could not see the school’s address. On November 20, 2008, Mr. Morissette performed a fire inspection of CHC 2 and noted some violations. He observed the posted fire certificate at CHC 2 during his inspection. The fire certificate had an account number 23832 and was dated February 22, 2008. The font used in the printing of the certificate did not appear to be the same type as used by BCFR. While at CHC 2, Mr. Morrissette called Assistant Fire Marshall Carter and learned that account number 23832 was for CHC and not CHC 2 and that no fire certificate had been issued to CHC 2 on February 22, 2008. The last fire certificate that had been issued to CHC 2 was on December 15, 2005, and had expired on December 16, 2006. On November 6, 2008, CHC sent a copy of the fire inspection certificate dated February 22, 2008, to the Department of Education as part of the documentation supplied to verify CHC’s eligibility for renewal. The fire inspection certificate was a forgery. Ms. Nichilo testified that she did not send the forged certificate to the Department of Education and that some disgruntled former employee who had access to CHC’s files must have sent the certificate to the Department of Education or must have put the forged certificate in the envelope containing the renewal information that was sent to the Department of Education. Ms. Nichilo’s testimony is not credible. The certificate came in the same envelope as the other material which CHC submitted in November 2008. Ms. Nichilo signed and mailed the renewal information on November 6, 2008. Her testimony that the envelope must have been in the mail room a couple of days before it was mailed, thereby allowing the disgruntled employee an opportunity to slip the forged certificate in the envelope, is not credible. After the renewal package was sent to the Department of Education, Ms. Nichilo asked her secretary to contact BCFR to schedule a fire inspection. Ms. Nichilo knew that she needed a fire inspection because she knew that she did not have a current fire inspection certificate when she sent the renewal submittal to the Department of Education. Based on the clear and convincing evidence presented, it can only be concluded that Ms. Nichilo knew the fire inspection certificates, which she included with the renewal submittals, were forgeries. On or about December 5, 2008, Mr. Carter contacted the Department of Education and informed the Department of Education that he had concerns about CHC’s and CHC 2’s fire inspection certificates. Mr. Carter sent a memorandum dated December 9, 2008, to Riley Hyle with the Department of Education, explaining BCFR’s observations and concerns relating to the fire inspection certificates. After learning from Mr. Carter that CHC’s and CHC 2’s fire inspection certificates were in question, Mr. Hyle checked the Department of Education’s renewal files on CHC and CHC 2. Mr. Hyle found forged fire inspection certificates in both files. When CHC’s and CHC 2’s submittals arrived on November 10, 2008, in the same envelope, Mr. Hyle reviewed the submittals and verified that both submittals contained fire inspection certificates. He received no further documentation from CHC or CHC 2 from November 10, 2008, and the time he talked to Mr. Carter on December 5, 2008. On December 8, 2008, Mr. Morrissette returned to CHC 2 to do a follow-up inspection. CHC 2 had not corrected all its violations. Mr. Morrissette was advised by the principal at CHC 2 that CHC also had not corrected all of its violations. One of the violations CHC had was a broken lockbox. On December 7, 2008, CHC had called BCFR and requested an application for a lockbox. Thus, on December 8, 2008, CHC would still have not corrected its lockbox violation. On December 11, 2008, Ms. Nichilo signed a revised version of the Form IEPC SCF-1 affidavit3 for CHC for the 2009- 2010 school year. The question posed in the affidavit submitted in November 2008 concerning whether the facility had a current, violation-free fire code inspection remained the same in the revised affidavit. Again, CHC stated that it did have a current, violation-free Fire Code Inspection and compliance report. The revised affidavit also contained the same language as the November 2008 affidavit that answering a question in the negative in Section 9 would result in an out-of-compliance issue. Both the November affidavit and the revised affidavit contained the following language: I have read the applicable scholarship program rules and understand that by signing the form I am certifying that the school is currently in compliance and agrees [sic] to remain in compliance with all scholarship program rules and reporting requirements. If at any point, the school is not in compliance with the scholarship rules, or if there is a change in the status of any reporting requirement, the school shall have 15 days to notify the Department of Education and will provide all information necessary to document its continued compliance with program rules and requirements. The revised affidavit was submitted to the Department of Education, which received the affidavit on December 16, 2008. At the time CHC submitted the affidavit, it did not have a current, violation-free Fire Code Inspection and compliance report. On December 23, 2008, the BCFR re-inspected CHC and found that the violations had been corrected. After its inspection on December 23, 2008, BCFR issued a fire inspection certificate backdated to November 20, 2008, which was the date of the original inspection. On December 17, 2008, the Agency issued an Administrative Complaint, suspending CHC’s eligibility for the McKay Scholarships and CTC Scholarships programs for failure to have a current fire inspection report. By letter dated December 23, 2008, and received by the Department of Education on December 29, 2008, CHC advised that the school had been re- inspected and now had a current fire code inspection certificate. On January 2, 2009, CHC sent a 12-page facsimile transmission to the Department of Education. One of the pages of the transmission was a copy of a facsimile transmission coversheet dated December 31, 2008, with the BCFR letterhead concerning inspection reports. The comments section of the coversheet read “Please read letter.” The second page of the transmission was an unsigned to-whom-it-may-concern letter dated December 30, 2008. At the top of the letter, printed in large, bold type was the following: “Brevard County Fire Rescue.” The letter stated: To whom it may concern, In reviewing and trying to figure out what happen with the 2007 inspection reports this is the conclusion we have come to. If you review the two reports on both CHC-1 and CHC-2 the visiting inspection times over lap each other making it seem like a 2007 inspection was done when in reality it was not. CHC-1 inspection has a date on it February 22, 2006 to February 2007. CHC-2 inspection shows January 12, 2006 (re-inspection) January 2007. I believe that this was just an over site on both our parts due to the fact that the fire department does come in regularly every year even without an appointment. Lara Nichilo did notify us to come in ASAP when the reports could not be found. But as of November 20, 2008 all her inspections were done and her follow up correction reports have been completed putting her in good standing with the fire and inspections department. CHC-1 and CHC-2 (inspection reports provided to you with this letter) For more information you may contact us at 321-455-6383 Thank you for your time, The telephone number given in the letter was the telephone number for CHC. The original letter submitted at the final hearing by CHC was written on stationary bearing the CHC watermark. The letter received by the Department of Education had no visible watermark. The facsimile transmission coversheet that accompanied the letter was a coversheet which BCFR had sent to CHC on December 31, 2008. The statements in the comments section that BCFR sent had been deleted and replaced with “Please read letter.” The following are the comments which BCFR had written: There are no reports or certificates for 690 Range Road for 2006 or 2007. There are no inspection reports or certificates for 55 McLeod for 2007. Certificates will be issued upon receipt of payment. Laura Harrison, the director of the McKay Scholarships and CTC Scholarships programs at the Department of Education, transmitted a copy of the letter to BCFR and asked if the letter had originated from BCFR. Mr. Carter advised Ms. Harrison that the letter did not come from BCFR. Ms. Nichilo wrote the letter. A person reading the letter would be led to believe that the letter came from BCFR. The letter was accompanied by a facsimile transmission coversheet bearing the BCFR letterhead and the coversheet comments said “Please read letter.” The letter refers to Ms. Nichilo in the third person and uses first person plural pronouns to refer to BCFR. The letter purports to bear the letterhead of BCFR. It must be concluded that Ms. Nichilo intended the Department of Education to rely on the letter as a letter transmitted by BCFR to Ms. Nichilo to explain the situation. If Ms. Nichilo had intended the Department of Education to treat the letter as a letter written by her, she would have written the letter using CHC letterhead, signed the letter, not referred to herself in the third person, not referred to BCFR in the first person, and not used a transmission coversheet from BCFR in which the comments section had been altered. In a conversation on December 30, 2008, Ms. Nichilo advised Mr. Hyle that she was sending him a letter that would explain everything and would resolve the situation concerning the fire inspections. Ms. Nichilo testified that she told Mr. Hyle that she was writing the letter. Mr. Hyle did not recall whether Ms. Nichilo said that she was writing a letter. Jade Quinif, who was Ms. Nichilo’s administrative assistant on December 30, 2008, listened to the conversation between Mr. Hyle and Ms. Nichilo on speakerphone. She recalls Ms. Nichilo asking Mr. Hyle if he would like her to write a letter regarding Ms. Nichilo’s conversations with BCFR. Mr. Hyle said that would be fine. Ms. Nichilo typed a letter and asked Ms. Quinif to send it to the Department of Education. Ms. Quinif sent a letter to the Department of Education dated December 30, 2008. Based on the evidence presented, the letter that Ms. Quinif sent was a letter dated December 30, 2008, written on CHC letterhead and signed by Ms. Nichilo.4 It was not the letter dated December 30, 2008, which appeared to be from BCFR (purported BCFR letter). The only evidence of receipt of the purported BCFR letter by the Department of Education is in a 12-page facsimile transmittal, which was transmitted twice on January 2, 2009. Ms. Quinif credibly testified that she did not send a 12-page transmission and that she did not send the doctored transmission coversheet from BCFR. She also credibly testified that the letter that she sent was a few days after Christmas and was not more than a week after Christmas. Ms. Nichilo testified that Ms. Quinif did sent the transmittal coversheet from the BCFR on December 30, 2008; however, Ms. Nichilo’s testimony is not credible given that the transmittal coversheet from BCFR was dated December 31, 2008, and showed a transmission date of December 31, 2008, to CHC. The clear and convincing evidence is that Ms. Nichilo wrote and sent the purported letter from BCFR and the doctored transmittal coversheet from BCFR in an attempt to make it appear that BCFR was taking some of the blame for CHC not having maintained current fire inspection certificates. BCFR does not automatically do an annual inspection of schools. If a school desires to have a fire inspection, the school must notify BCFR and arrange for a fire inspection. The failure to have current, violation-free fire inspection reports rests with CHC and not with BCFR. The bogus letter was an effort by CHC to seek mitigation for its failure to adhere to the requirements for eligibility for the scholarships programs. After learning that the letter transmitted on January 2, 2009, was not from BCFR, the Agency issued an Amended Administrative Complaint on January 23, 2009, which superseded the December 17, 2008, Administrative Complaint. The Amended Administrative Complaint deleted the allegations concerning the failure to have a current, violation-free fire inspection report and added allegations involving fraud and failure to maintain current, violation-free fire inspection reports.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered sustaining the suspension of CHC’s eligibility for the McKay Scholarships and CTC Scholarships programs and revoking CHC’s eligibility for the McKay Scholarships and CTC Scholarships programs. DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of May, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S SUSAN B. HARRELL 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 4th day of May, 2009.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Department of Financial Services, Division of State Fire Marshal (the Department), properly administered and graded the Firefighter Minimum Standards practical examination taken by Petitioner, Catalina Williams (hereinafter Williams).
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility for testing, monitoring and certifying firefighters. The Department conducts certification examinations at the Florida State Fire College in Ocala, Florida, and some thirty-plus other sites around the State. Those sites are located on college campuses, training facilities, fire stations, and other locales. The test at issue in this proceeding was administered at the Fire College site. Catalina Williams is an Hispanic woman who desires to become a certified firefighter. Her interest in firefighting began when she worked as a photographer covering fire-related events for a magazine and thought it would be exciting and interesting to be on “the front line.” Williams has also served as a caregiver, giving her experience in providing assistance to others, and is a certified lifeguard. In order to accomplish her goal of becoming a firefighter, Williams entered into schooling to learn the trade. Williams first attended First Coast Technological College (First Coast) in 2009. She completed the Firefighter Minimum Basic Standards Course (Firefighter I) that year. In 2010, she enrolled at the school for the summer semester to begin training in the advanced (Firefighter II) curriculum. That school term was shorter and more compressed than a regular semester. Despite her best efforts, Williams did not successfully complete the Firefighter II course. Rochford was one of her instructors during her first unsuccessful enrollment at First Coast. In 2012, Williams entered First Coast again. At that time, she was working as a paid volunteer firefighter for Volusia County. The county paid her tuition costs at First Coast when Williams entered the school for the Firefighter II course work. The second time, Williams was able to successfully complete the course material and pass her final examination. Passing the final examination was a prerequisite to taking the State certification exam. While attending First Coast, Williams took hundreds of practice exams, especially on the practical portions of the tests. She took exams as part of her classes, took exams voluntarily with someone timing her, and took exams just to practice. The State Certification Exam There are four primary segments of the State certification exam: A written examination of 100 multiple choice questions; A hose evolution involving a self- contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) and personal protection equipment (PPE); A ladder/search and rescue evolution; and A skills portion, involving ropes and knots, two fire ground skills, and a short test on the emergency response guide (ERG). The ladder/search and rescue evolution is a practical portion of the exam; it is the singular portion of the test at issue in this proceeding and will be referred to as the ladder evolution. The ladder evolution portion consists of the following tasks and assignments: The candidate inspects ladders hanging on a simulated fire truck. He or she then takes a 24-foot ladder from the truck and extends it against the wall of a building up to the second floor. Once that ladder is properly hoisted, the candidate confirms that a ladder guard (another candidate acting as a spotter) has control of the ladder. The candidate then initiates radio contact and then walks quickly around the building to another ladder that is already in place. He/she must ascend the ladder to the second floor, test the floor inside the building to make sure it is safe, and enter the building through a window. Upon entry the candidate must find a “victim” (a 125-pound mannequin) on the lower floor, secure the victim in an approved manner, and then exit the building with the mannequin. Upon exit, the candidate must safely deposit the victim on the ground and provide notice by way of radio contact that he/she and the victim are outside the building. The radio transmission is something along the lines of: “PAR 2 [Personnel Accountability Reporting, two people]. Firefighter No. “X” and victim have safely exited the building.” The entire ladder evolution sequence must be done within four minutes and 30 seconds although, as will be discussed below, there are differences of opinion as to when the timed portion of the evolution ends. It is necessary for candidates taking the test to pass each of the four sections. Failure of any one portion would result in failure overall. Should a candidate fail the examination, they must reschedule their retest within six months of the failed test. All retest examinations are administered at the Fire College. On test day, there may be dozens of applicants taking the test at the same time. The procedure dictates that candidates arrive at the test facility in time to process paperwork prior to the 7:30 a.m., test commencement. Candidates must first provide identification to an instructor and be assigned a candidate number. They then fill out paperwork, including a waiver should any injuries occur during testing. Candidates will have their gear inspected to make sure it is in compliance with State standards. Prior to commencement of testing, one of the instructors or examiners will read a document called the “Minimum Standards Pre-Exam Orientation” (the Orientation) to the candidates. During the reading of the Orientation, which may take 45 minutes to an hour or more, candidates are allowed and encouraged to ask questions. Unless a question is asked, the Orientation will be read verbatim, word for word, with no additional comment. After the Orientation is read, candidates are walked through the facility so they can familiarize themselves with the test site. Once the test commences, candidates are not allowed to ask any questions. Williams’ Test Experience In October 2012, after successful completion of the Firefighter II course at First Coast, Williams applied for and was approved to take the State certification examination. The exam was conducted at First Coast on the school’s training grounds. The test was conducted by certified employees of the Department. Williams did not pass the examination. One of her shortcomings in that test was a failure in the ladder evolution. Her timed completion of that evolution was in excess of the required time of four minutes and 30 seconds. Williams had been confident she would pass the certification exam because it was similar to the final exam she had passed at First Coast during her schooling. She believes she failed because she was too nervous when she took the exam when it was administered as the actual State certification test. After failing the exam, Williams then applied for a retest which would be held at the Fire College on February 7, 2013. That re-test is the focus of the instant proceeding. On the morning of the retest, Williams arrived well in advance of the 7:30 a.m., start time. As she inspected her gear in anticipation of the start of the exam, she found that the SCBA regulator she was supposed to use did not properly fit the face mask on her helmet. There were extra regulators behind one of the tables being used to process applicants for that day’s test. Examiner Harper was sitting at that table and was providing paperwork to applicants who had already signed in at the first processing station. Williams went to Harper’s table and was allowed to obtain a new regulator. Inasmuch as she was already at Harper’s table getting her replacement regulator before going to the first processing station, Williams went ahead and filled out the paperwork Harper was providing to candidates at his processing station. That is, she filled out the paperwork before actually checking in at the first station. Williams then went to the first check-in table which was manned by Examiner Rochford. She provided her identification to Rochford and was assigned candidate number 37. Rochford then told Williams to go to Harper’s table to fill out the paperwork at that station. Williams told Rochford she had already done so and walked away. (At that point, Williams remembers Rochford yelling at her, asking whether she understood his order and telling her in a harsh manner to obey him. Rochford does not remember talking to Williams at all. Neither version of this alleged confrontation is persuasive. Inasmuch as the conversation was not verified one way or another by a third person -- although there were probably a number of other people around, it will not be considered to have happened for purposes of this Recommended Order.) The Orientation was then read to the candidates. The various portions of the test were addressed in the Orientation. The ladder evolution contained the following language, which Rochford read verbatim to the candidates without anything added or deleted: “Time starts when you touch anything. Time ends when the candidate and victim fully exit the building.” There is no evidence that any of the candidates asked a question concerning this part of the Orientation. Rochford’s timing policy regarding the ladder evolution differs from what he read to the candidates. He takes the position that time stops when the candidate exits the building with the victim, places the victim on the ground in an appropriate manner, and issues a verbal statement into the radio indicating that the firefighter and victim are out of the building. By his own admission, Rochford could not speak to how other examiners handle this timing issue. Harper, who was Williams’ assigned examiner on the test, also seemed to require candidates to lay the victim down and make radio contact before stopping the time. Neither Rochford nor Harper satisfactorily explained why their timing policy was different from what was stated in the orientation. The testimony concerning the correct way of timing the evolution was, at best, confusing. The following statements from the record provide contradictory and disparate opinions by various examiners: Rochford: “As soon as they lay the mannequin on the ground [and] announce they have exited the building . . . the time stops.” Tr. p. 45, lines 9-18 “The mannequin’s feet have got to be outside the plane from the door opening. That’s when the time stops.” Id. Lines 23- 25. “Until they talk on the radio is – - when they finish talking on the radio is when the time would stop.” Tr. p. 255, lines 7-9. Johnson: “At that point, they’ll use one of the prescribed methods for rescue to take the victim and themselves past the threshold out to the fresh air. At that point, the time stops.” Tr. p. 111, lines 11-14 “I read [the Orientation] word for word.” Tr. p. 114, line 23 “On the ladder rescue evolution . . . we [examiners] all stop when they pass the threshold.” Harper: “Then they’re told to lay the victim down, make radio contact you’re out of the building. Time stops.” Tr. p. 138, lines 7-8 “After they make radio contact.” Tr. p. 147, line 3 “[Orientation] says time starts when they touch anything, time ends when the candidate and the victim fully exit the building.” Tr. P. 148, lines 15-17 Hackett: “It stops when the victim comes out of the building.” Tr. p. 222, lines 7-8 [If the victim was thrown out of the building by the firefighter] “I think they would stop the clock.” Id., lines 9-11 “It is part of the timed part that they have to designate that they’re out of the building safely and lay down the victim.” Tr. pp. 222, line 24 through 223, line 1 Question to Hackett: “If [Williams] is coming out and she dropped the victim and picked up -- and presumably picked it up or whatever and then radioed, would that add time?” Answer: “No.” Tr. p. 246, lines 5- 10 Williams was timed by Harper when she took the ladder evolution portion of the exam. According to Harper’s (deposition) testimony, he subscribes to the version of timing that requires the victim to be laid down on the ground and the firefighter to make radio contact. Using that version of timing, Williams received a time of four minutes and 35 seconds for the entire ladder evolution portion of the test. In March, the Department mailed out notices to all the candidates that had tested on February 7. Notices of failure were sent by registered mail, return receipt requested. Williams’ letter was returned to the Department as unclaimed. Williams at some point in time found out from Chief McElroy, head of the Fire Academy, that she had purportedly failed the exam. She began calling examiner Harper in March seeking to find out what portion of the exam she had not successfully completed. She had at least two telephone conversations with Harper in March 2013. On April 4, 2013, the Department re-sent the failure letter to Williams, again by certified mail. This time, the letter was claimed by Williams and she became officially aware that she had not passed the exam. The basis given for Williams’ failure was that she did not complete the ladder evolution within the prescribed time parameters. She was timed at four minutes and 35 seconds, just five seconds beyond the allowable limit. It is her contention that she exited the building with the victim within the four minute/30 second time frame. The basis for her belief is that she has done the test so many times that she knows when she is behind schedule. During the test she did not stumble, drop any equipment, or have any other problem that would have added to her time. So, she concludes, she must have completed the evolution timely. Her personal feelings on the matter, without further corroboration or support, are not persuasive. Harper did not testify at final hearing. The transcript of his deposition taken in this case was admitted into evidence. In that transcript, Harper talks about his policy regarding timing of the evolution. His policy is the same as Rochford’s and is discussed above. He does not specifically say if he employed that policy when timing Williams during her test on February 7, 2013. He does not explain the difference between the Orientation statement about timing and his personal policy. The most persuasive evidence at final hearing established that it would have taken ten to 15 seconds after exiting the building to lay the victim down and make radio contact. The radio contact itself would have taken about four seconds. If Harper had stopped his timing when Williams and the victim broke the threshold of the building, her time would have likely been less than four minutes and 30 seconds. If he used his personal timing policy, then the time of four minutes/35 seconds was probably accurate. Harper deducted points from Williams’ score because of other minor mistakes. The totality of those points would not have caused Williams to fail the test. It was the ladder evolution time that caused the failure. In fact, Williams successfully completed all portions of the re-test except for the timing issue in the ladder evolution portion.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Financial Services, Division of State Fire Marshal, rescinding the failing score on the State Firefighter Certification Examination for Catalina Williams and certifying her as a Firefighter. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of November, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of November, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Seth D. Corneal, Esquire The Corneal Law Firm 904 Anastasia Boulevard St. Augustine, Florida 32080 Michael Davidson, Esquire Department of Financial Services Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Department of Financial Services Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent properly denied Petitioner's application for certification as a firesafety inspector.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is an applicant for certification as a firesafety inspector. In order to be certified, Petitioner was required to successfully complete the Firesafety Inspector Training Course and pass a firesafety inspector certification examination. Petitioner successfully completed his required coursework at the Florida State Fire College and Daytona State College. To pass the written examination, an applicant must achieve a score of at least 70 percent. Petitioner took the exam the first time and did not receive a passing score. After a month or so, Petitioner took a "retest." He received a score of 68 on the retest, which is below the minimum passing score of 70. By letter dated October 11, 2011, Respondent notified Petitioner that he did not receive a passing grade on the retest. The notice also informed Petitioner that because he failed both the initial and retake examinations, it would be necessary for him to repeat the Inspection Training Program before any additional testing can be allowed. The notice further informed Petitioner that if he enrolled in another training program, he would have to submit a new application. Petitioner submitted a letter which was received by the Department on September 27, 2011, in which he raised concerns about the quality of instruction he received at Florida State Fire College. Petitioner asserted that in two classes he took, the instructors had not taught the class before. He also asserted that the books used for class were not always the books used for testing, and that he believed that some of the state inspector test questions were irrelevant to how or what he would need to know in performing an actual inspection. Attached to this letter were five questions which had been marked as being answered incorrectly on the examination. Petitioner's letter and attachments were treated as a request for administrative hearing, which was forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings, which resulted in this proceeding. Marshall Shoop took classes with Petitioner at the Florida State Fire College. It was also Mr. Shoop's understanding that at least one instructor had never taught the class before. Karl Thompson is the Standard Supervisor for the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training. At hearing, Mr. Thompson reviewed each question offered by Petitioner and the answer Petitioner thought to be correct. Mr. Thompson concluded that Petitioner answered each of the five questions incorrectly. Mr. Thompson explained that the firesafety test is a secure document and, pursuant to a contract with a third party, persons who take the test and later review their incorrect answers are not allowed to write down the questions or copy anything from the test. The test must remain secure so that it is not compromised. The test questions and answers are not in evidence. Petitioner has been shadowing a part-time fire inspector for the City of Flagler Beach. Martin Roberts is the Fire Chief for the City of Flagler Beach. Chief Roberts would feel comfortable with Petitioner taking on the role of fire inspector despite Petitioner's grades on the fire safety inspector certification examination. While attending Daytona State College, Petitioner earned an "A" in a building construction course and a "B+" in a course in "construction codes and materials rating."
Recommendation Based on the forgoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for certification as a Firesafety Inspector, and permitting Petitioner to repeat the required coursework before retaking the Firesafety Inspector certification examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of February, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S BARBARA J. STAROS 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 16th day of February, 2012.
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.
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 The issue in this case is whether the Department of Financial Services, Division of State Fire Marshal can revoke Respondent's certification as a firefighter because Respondent failed to timely complete the requirements to maintain his Firefighter Certificate of Compliance prior to September 30, 2011, pursuant to section 633.352, Florida Statutes (2010).
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency charged with the responsibility for certifying firefighters in the State of Florida, pursuant to chapter 633, Florida Statutes. On June 30, 2006, Respondent also obtained certification as a fire Instructor III. On October 9, 2006, Pointu obtained his Firefighter II Certificate of Compliance ("certification"). On September 30, 2008, Respondent stopped volunteering with Lauderdale-By-The-Sea Volunteer Fire Department ("Lauderdale-By-The-Sea"). Prior to July 1, 2010, state certified fire instructors were able to maintain their firefighter certification as long as their fire instructor certification was current. On July 1, 2010, the statutory requirements for firefighters changed. Section 633.352 was amended to require a certified firefighter be a full-time fire instructor or a full- time fire inspector to maintain certification. The 2010 statutory change retained a three-year period for firefighters to complete the requirements to maintain certification. It is undisputed that between September 30, 2008, and September 30, 2011, Pointu did not perform any of the necessary requirements to maintain his certification in section 633.352, such as retake the Minimum Standards Examination; maintain employment as a firefighter or volunteer firefighter; or work full time as an instructor or firesafety inspector. On April 6, 2012, the Department distributed an informational bulletin titled "Firesafety Instructors & Maintenance of Firefighter Certification." The bulletin stated in bold "The 3-year period begins on July 1, 2010 for persons who held an active instructor certification and an active firefighter certification as of June 30th, 2010." Question 7 of the bulletin also provided: 7. Is the Division of the State Fire Marshal attempting to amend the State Statute to reflect the previous language that does not require "full-time employment as a fire instructor"? The Division has attempted to amend or reinstate this language, however, the Statute remains unchanged, and the Division may not be successful in amending the language to its previous form. Pointu received the 2012 bulletin and determined that since he held an active instructor certification and active firefighter certification as of June 30, 2010, his firefighter certification period started July 1, 2010, and expired July 1, 2013. On July 1, 2013, section 633.352 was revised amended and renumbered legislature as section 633.414. The statutory amendment also changed the three-year recertification cycle to a four-year cycle and removed the full-time instructor requirement. Respondent used the 2013 statutory change to calculate his certification validation date until 2018. In 2014, Pointu contacted the Department regarding his certification after being told by a county official that his certification was not valid. Thereafter, over an approximate two-year period, Respondent was informed various and conflicting information regarding his certification status and expiration dates. The Department does not have a statutory requirement to provide notice to certified individuals of requirements to maintain certification. The Fire College Department of Insurance Continuing Education ("FCDICE") database monitors and manages all firefighters' certifications. Department's interim chief, Michael Tucker ("Tucker"), made the final decision regarding Pointu's certification. Tucker reviewed FCDICE and did not find any records which demonstrated Pointu's renewal of certification prior to September 29, 2011. Tucker correctly determined that the 2010 version of the statute applied to Pointu's certification because Respondent left his employment at Lauderdale-By-The-Sea on September 30, 2008, which made his three-year period for renewal deadline September 30, 2011, pursuant to section 633.352. Tucker also established that Pointu did not fulfill the minimum requirements to renew his certification prior to September 30, 2011, because he did not become employed again, volunteer with a fire department, become a full-time fire inspector or a full-time instructor, or retake the practical portion of the examination. After evaluating Respondent's certification history, Tucker concluded Respondent failed to meet the minimum firefighter requirements and therefore Pointu's certification is not valid and should be revoked. At hearing, Tucker acknowledged that he was not familiar with the issuance of the April 6, 2012, bulletin, but, after reviewing it, he determined there were misstatements in the bulletin regarding requirements for certification because the Department did not have the authority to waive any statutes. On June 3, 2011, Petitioner issued an amended Notice that it intended to revoke Pointu's certification for failure to renew his certification within three years of employment termination from an organized fire department pursuant to section 633.352. Pointu contested the notice and requested a hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of State Fire Marshal, enter a final order finding that Respondent, Patrick Pointu, violated section 633.252, Florida Statutes. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent's Firefighter Certificate of Compliance be revoked. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of August, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JUNE C. MCKINNEY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of August, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Melissa E. Dembicer, Esquire Department of Financial Services 612 Larson Building 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 (eServed) Merribeth Bohanan, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) Patrick Pointu (Address of Record-eServed) Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Division of Legal Services Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390 (eServed)
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Respondent is guilty of the violations alleged in the administrative complaint dated July 23, 1992; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent filed an application for fire safety inspector certification on or about March 4, 1992. One of the questions on the application for fire safety inspector certification posed the following: Have you ever been convicted of a felony, or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude? Respondent answered the foregoing question by marking the space before "NO." On or about March 8, 1989, Respondent was charged by information issued through the State Attorney's Office in Lake County, Florida, with aggravated assault. Aggravated assault is a felony. On or about June 2, 1989, the information referenced above was amended but continued to allege aggravated assault. On June 8, 1989, the Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere to the offense of aggravated assault and was placed on probation for a period of three years. Adjudication of guilt was withheld at that time. Subsequently, the Respondent was discharged from probation and the proceedings in the criminal case were terminated. Respondent had completed his probation at the time his application for certification as a firesafety inspector was made. Respondent is currently certified as a firesafety inspector, certificate number FI-66318. Additionally, Respondent is employed as a firefighter with the Reedy Creek Fire Department. Subsequent to the receipt of Respondent's application for certification, the Department requested information from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding Respondent's criminal record. The information received from those sources led to the discovery of the facts addressed in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, and 6 above and the initiation of these proceedings.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is, hereby, RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Insurance and Treasurer enter a final order revoking Respondent's certification as a firesafety inspector. DONE AND RECOMMENDED this 27th day of January, 1993, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH 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 27th day of January, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-4921 Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Petitioner: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 11 are accepted. Rulings on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the Respondent: None submitted. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph Egan, Jr. EGAN, LEV & SIWICA, P.A. Post Office Box 2231 Orlando, Florida 32802 Daniel T. Gross Division of Legal Services 412 Larson Building Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Tom Gallagher, Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill O'Neil, General Counsel Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, PL-11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to a passing grade on the Self Contained Breathing Apparatus section (the SCBA section) of the Firefighter Minimum Standards Examination (the Examination) administered September 25, 2003.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner applied to Respondent for certification as a firefighter. Pursuant to Section 633.35, Florida Statutes, Petitioner was required to take and pass the written portion and all four sections of the practical portion of the Examination to achieve this certification. The practical portion of the Examination consists of four sections: the SCBA section; the Hose and Nozzle Operation section; the Ladder Operation section; and the Fireground Skills section. On May 29, 2003, Petitioner took both the written and practical portions of the Examination. She passed the written portion and three sections of the practical portion. Petitioner failed the SCBA section. Petitioner was not required to retake the written portion of the examination or the three sections of the practical examination she passed. Petitioner thereafter retook the SCBA section on September 25, 2003. As implied by the name of the section, the SCBA section involves the use of equipment that enables a firefighter to breathe in a hostile environment, such as a burning building. The candidate must check the equipment, properly don the equipment, activate the equipment, and properly doff the equipment. Mr. Chase was responsible for administering and grading Petitioner’s retake of the SCBA section on September 25, 2003. To pass each section of the practical examination, including the SCBA section, a candidate has to achieve a score of at least 70 points.2 The candidate’s performance on the SCBA section is graded in ten categories, with each category being worth ten points. The greater weight of the credible evidence established that Petitioner's performance on the SCBA section of the practical examination was appropriately and fairly graded. Petitioner earned a score of 40 points on her retake the SCBA portion of the practical examination. Petitioner was awarded no points for six of ten categories for which points could be awarded.3 Petitioner failed to establish that she was entitled to additional credit for her performance on the SCBA section. Respondent established that Mr. Chase appropriately administered and graded the subject SCBA section pursuant to the applicable provisions of Chapter 69A-37, Florida Administrative Code, which set forth guidelines for the practical examination.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding that Petitioner failed the SCBA section of the practical portion of the Firefighter Minimum Standard Examination administered September 25, 2003. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of June, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of June, 2004.
