The Issue Whether Respondent engaged in negligence in the practice of engineering, in violation of section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes (2014), and implementing rules,1/ as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what is the appropriate sanction?
Findings Of Fact The Board is the state entity charged with regulating the practice of engineering, pursuant to chapter 455, Florida Statutes. FEMC provides administrative, investigative, and prosecutorial services to the Board pursuant to section 471.038. At all times material to this case, Mr. Holt was licensed as a professional engineer in the state of Florida, with license number PE 15252. The Board has adopted Responsibility Rules of Professional Engineers (Responsibility Rules). These rules are contained in Florida Administrative Code Chapters 61G15-30 through 61G15-36. Mr. Holt is required to comply with the Responsibility Rules when performing engineering services. On December 3, 2014, FEMC received a complaint filed by Mr. John Farinelli, chief building official for the City of Belle Glade, Florida (City). Mr. Farinelli had reviewed plans for three residential construction projects which had been submitted to the City for general building permits. The engineering plans for each project had been signed, sealed, and dated by Mr. Holt. Mr. Farinelli found what he believed to be numerous errors on the plans, resulting in the complaint against Mr. Holt. After receipt of the complaint, the engineering plans were reviewed by professional engineers retained by FEMC. Mr. Homer A. Ooten, Ph.D., P.E., LEED-AP, reviewed the electrical and mechanical elements of the plans; Mr. Roger L. Jeffery, P.E., LEED-AP, reviewed the structural elements of the plans. Based substantially upon engineering reports prepared by these engineers, an Administrative Complaint against Mr. Holt was filed on or about September 15, 2015. Mr. Holt filed an "Answer to Administrative Complaint" on October 23, 2015. In that pleading, he admitted that: Rule 61G15-30.002(1), Fla. Admin. Code, mandates that Respondent, as the engineer of record for all projects delineated in the Specific Allegations, is professionally responsible for the documents prepared. As such, Respondent is responsible for producing documents that comply with the applicable portions of the Responsibility Rules. In response to other portions of the Administrative Complaint setting forth requirements of the Responsibility Rules concerning electrical systems design, he repeatedly stated "any departures are justified by the specific circumstances of the project in question and the sound professional judgment of the Respondent." In response to specific allegations of material deficiencies in the electrical engineering design documents, Mr. Holt responded that any omissions were "negated by Respondent's reference to the NFPA 70 National Electrical Code 2008." Mr. Holt made numerous similar claims that departures were justified based on circumstances and his professional judgment in response to portions of the complaint setting forth the requirements for mechanical systems design, involving both heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) and plumbing elements. He also noted that "Respondent merely designed a hole for a future wall unit." Although Mr. Holt thus accepted responsibility for electrical and mechanical elements of the drawings prior to hearing, arguing that any departures were justified in the exercise of his "professional judgment," he later took a different tack. In testimony at hearing, Mr. Holt maintained that he signed and sealed the documents only as a structural engineer and that he did not therefore assume responsibility for any elements of the drawings constituting electrical or mechanical engineering. On cross-examination, Mr. Holt was evasive when asked who was responsible for the electrical and mechanical elements of the drawings he had sealed: Q. Whose work was it, if it wasn't yours? A. Whose work was it? Q. Yes. A. I don't know for sure. A lot of times we include air conditioning companies, electrical contractors. Depends. Q. Somebody drew the drawings. Did your office draw the drawings? A. What are you getting at? Q. I'm just asking a question. A. What was included or what was drawn? Q. I just want to know -- somebody drew these documents. A. Yes. My draftsmen drew them all up, yes. Q. They were all drawn up in your office? A. In my office? He has his own offices. Okay. Q. They were all drawn up by your draftsmen? A. Yes. Q. And that included the electrical work, mechanical work, and structural work all by your draftsmen? A. The structural input was mine. He drew it, yes. As was ultimately clear from his testimony, Mr. Holt was well aware that no other engineer was responsible for any part of the engineering drawings for the three residential construction projects. Mr. Holt was in responsible charge for the preparing, signing, dating, sealing, and issuing of all three of the engineering plans, whether he prepared them personally or whether they were prepared by his draftsmen. He was the engineer of record for all three projects. As he admitted, he was fully aware that the engineering drawings were submitted under his seal and filed for public record with the City for building permits. He knew that the drawings under his seal would be, and were, reviewed by City officials, not only as to structural elements, but also for electrical and mechanical elements, as the City was required to do. At hearing, in support of his position that he was not responsible for anything on the drawings other than the structural work, Mr. Holt noted that his name and address had appeared under the words "Structural Design Review by:" on the drawings for two of the projects. He added that he also "should have put that on there" for the third set of drawings. The title "Structural Engineer" also appears underneath Mr. Holt's name and address on the third set of drawings. Mr. Holt's signature appears in a different area on all three drawings, followed by the letters "P.E." and Mr. Holt's engineering license number. The references to "Structural Design Review" and "Structural Engineer" on the engineering drawings near his name and address were not sufficient to indicate to a City official or other person reading the drawings that, by use of these, words Mr. Holt intended not to accept responsibility for various elements of the drawings. Under the circumstances of this case--in which the engineering drawings were prepared under Mr. Holt's responsible charge, and he knew that they would be filed for public record to obtain building permits--it is disingenuous for Mr. Holt to attempt to disclaim responsibility because of the language "Structural Design Review by:" or "Structural Engineer." His argument that, at worst, he simply failed to clearly indicate the limits of his responsibility, is completely rejected.2/ As to the structural engineering elements for which Mr. Holt did accept responsibility at hearing, he maintained that any departures from the Responsibility Rules were justified by the specific circumstances of the project in question and his sound professional judgment. Mr. Holt also argued that his general citation to the Florida Building Code (FBC) put the contractor on notice of all of the construction code requirements. Finally, he argued that certain specifications did not need to be included in the engineering drawings if those specifications were commonly known in the county or area where the construction was to take place. The testimony of Mr. Ooten and Mr. Jeffery at hearing convincingly refuted all of Mr. Holt's contentions. First, departures from the Responsibility Rules, even if they are justified by circumstances and the professional judgment of the engineer--which these were not--must be documented. Second, general references to applicable electrical, mechanical, and building codes do not incorporate the entire content of those codes so as to meet the specific documentation requirements of the Responsibility Rules. Third, while Mr. Holt's testimony that specifications for certain construction materials were well known in his area is credited, his argument that this eliminated the requirement to include them on the engineering drawings was completely unsupported by the Responsibility Rules or the FBC, and is rejected. Findings related to the specific allegations in the Administrative Complaint are discussed below. Mr. Holt testified that he did not dispute the opinions of Mr. Ooten as to the electrical and mechanical deficiencies in any of the plans. Betancourt Project On or about July 29, 2014, Mr. Holt signed, sealed, and dated revised engineering drawings for a conversion/renovation project located at 117 Northwest Avenue H Place, Belle Glade, Florida (Betancourt Project). The Betancourt Project drawings included sheets S-1 through S-3. It was clearly and convincingly shown that the electrical engineering design documents for the Betancourt Project are materially deficient as follows: The drawings contain an electrical riser diagram, but no short circuit values and no voltage calculations for the feeders and customer-owned service conductors. If the circuit breakers and the wires are undersized, then the electrical systems can overheat and that affects the safety of the occupants. The panel schedule does not contain the information it should. It has blank spaces that do not indicate whether there are missing circuit breakers. Conductor sizes, insulation types, circuit-interrupting devices, and fault current interrupting capability are omitted. No surge protective devices are shown on the drawings. While Mr. Holt argued at one point that no surge protection was required, Mr. Ooten credibly testified that the Responsibility Rules required it. He also noted that if there had been a justified departure from this requirement, a notation to that effect on the drawings was required, and there was none. The main electrical panel was not located on the plans. The fact that it was shown on the electrical riser diagram is not sufficient. The drawings show no circuitry for outlets, equipment, devices, or smoke detectors. The reference in the panel schedule to "building receptacles" is not sufficient. There is no outdoor receptacle outlet shown at the front and back of the one-family dwelling. There is no 125-volt receptacle outlet shown at an accessible location within 25 feet of HVAC equipment. The drawings do not contain information required by section 107.3.5 of the Florida Building Code-Building (FBC-B), requiring documents to show electrical overcurrent protection and wiring methods and materials. The legend on drawing sheet S-2 has a symbol for a ceiling-mounted light (style by contractor), but the drawings contain no specifications for any fixtures. The drawings show no circuitry for any lighting fixtures on this project. The lighting design drawings contain no energy form or calculated values to demonstrate compliance with the Florida Energy Code for Building Construction. The HVAC engineering design documents for the Betancourt Project show a new wall air conditioning unit, but no size, no voltage, no disconnecting means, and no circuit for the unit. While it was clearly shown that section 2701.1 of the FBC- B requires that electrical equipment shall be designed in accordance with the provisions of the National Fire Protection association (NFPA) 70, the National Electric Code (NEC), it was not clearly shown what provision of the NEC, if any, these omissions from the drawing violated. Section 1901.4 of the FBC requires construction documents to contain the specified compressive strength of concrete and the specified strength or grade of reinforcement. As Mr. Jeffery testified, structural engineering drawings also need to contain detail as to how a piling is anchored to the pile cap, particularly in plans designed, as these were, to withstand a wind sheer of 170 miles per hour. Mr. Jeffery also credibly testified that the overlap of reinforcing steel needed to be a minimum of 18 inches and that one of the bars was shown as 12 inches in total length, with about eight inches embedded into the footing, leaving only four inches of overlap. It was clearly and convincingly shown that the structural engineering design documents for the Betancourt Project are materially deficient as follows: The strength of the concrete and reinforcing steel are missing. There is no detail indicating how the piling is connected to the pile cap. The lap length of the reinforcing steel in the masonry walls is too short. Bullock Project On or about May 19, 2014, Mr. Holt signed, sealed, and dated revised engineering drawings for a residential conversion/renovation project located at 251 Noah Court, Belle Glade, Florida (Bullock Project). The Bullock Project drawings included sheets A-1 through A-3. It was clearly and convincingly shown that the electrical engineering design documents for the Bullock Project are materially deficient as follows: There is an electrical riser diagram, but it contains only one panel and one electrical meter. The drawings contain some conductor sizes, no insulation types, some circuit interrupting devices, and no fault current interrupting capability. No surge protective devices are shown on the drawings, and there is no notation on the drawings indicating any reason for departure from this requirement. One electrical distribution panel is shown for the south unit on Sheet A-1, but no panel is shown for the north unit. No meters are shown. The drawings show no circuitry for outlets, equipment, devices, or smoke detectors. The drawings do not indicate that an outdoor receptacle outlet is to be installed at the front and back of the Bullock Project. The drawings contain partial load computations for the panel schedule on sheet A-1, but they are inadequate to explain the wiring. The calculation is 99 amps, but that is serving into only one panel, which is not an appropriate design. The drawings do not contain information required by the FBC. Section 107.3.5 of the FBC-B requires branch circuitry and separate overcurrent protection for each of the two units, wiring methods and materials, and load calculations. While some information is included, it is incomplete, and some is incorrect. The legend on drawing sheet A-1 has a symbol for a ceiling-mounted light, but the drawings contain no specifications for any lighting fixtures. The drawings show no circuitry for any lighting fixtures for either unit. The lighting design drawings contain no energy form or calculated values to demonstrate compliance with the Florida Energy Code for Building Construction. It was clearly and convincingly shown that the HVAC engineering documents for the Bullock Project are materially deficient as follows: The drawings did not contain adequate information for the City to determine compliance with codes and ordinances. The drawings contain no air conditioning equipment schedules for air handling units and condensing units. The drawings do not contain cooling coil requirements based on sensible heat, latent heat and total heat gains; outside and inside design dry and wet bulb conditions; nor outside (fresh) air make-up conditions. The drawings contain no specifications for heating equipment. The drawings contain no condensate discharge piping layouts. No HVAC ductwork is shown on the drawings. The mechanical drawings do not contain all data required to complete the Florida Energy Code calculations, as required by the chapter 13 of the FBC-B. It was clearly and convincingly shown that the plumbing engineering design documents for the Bullock Project are materially deficient as follows: The drawings contain no plumbing equipment schedules. No potable water isometric diagrams are shown. Total water fixture units for either dwelling unit are not shown on the drawings. One isometric sanitary riser diagram is shown; however, total flow waste fixture units for both dwelling units are not shown on the drawings. No storm riser diagrams or area drainage calculations are shown on the drawings. The drawings contain no sanitary piping layouts, no cold water, no hot water, and no storm drainage piping layouts. Florida Building Code—Plumbing (FBC-P), 2010 Edition, is noted as an applicable plumbing code. However no other codes, design standards, or requirements are shown on the drawings. No specifications for materials for plumbing systems are shown on the drawings. It was clearly and convincingly shown that the structural engineering design documents for the Bullock Project are materially deficient as follows: The strength of materials for the reinforcing steel, grout, and masonry are missing. There is no detail indicating how the piling is to be connected to the grade beam. The engineer of record's engineering requirements for the delegated engineer for the wood roof trusses are missing. The phrase "pre-engineered wood trusses" appears, but no requirements. Morales Project On or about July 16, 2014, Mr. Holt signed, sealed, and dated engineering drawings for a residential extension project located at 1033 Whitaker Road, Belle Glade, Florida (Morales Project). The Morales Project drawings included sheets S-1 and S-2. It was clearly and convincingly shown that the electrical engineering design documents for the Morales Project are materially deficient as follows: The plan view on sheet S-1 shows the existing electric meter is to remain on the new covered patio, with no mention that the contractor needs to raise the height of the weather head so that it is at least eight feet above the roof as required by NEC 230.24. The drawings contain no panel schedules, no circuit interrupting devices, and no fault current interrupting capability. No surge protective devices are shown on the drawings. The drawings show no new panel, no existing panel, and no sizes, except for the addition of one 20-amp breaker. Whether or not a new or existing panel would have adequate physical space or electrical capacity to add the 20-amp breaker is not addressed. The drawings contain no circuitry for loads added by this project, or existing circuitry, and thus are deficient in circuiting all outlets, equipment and devices. NEC 210.52(E)(1) requires that at least one outdoor receptacle outlet be installed at the front and back of a one- family dwelling. No outlet is indicated. The drawings do not contain all information required by the FBC. Section 107.3.5 of the FBC-B requires that documents show electrical wiring, branch circuits, grounding, wiring methods and materials, and load calculations. The information that is provided is inadequate. The drawings contain no information on the performance specifications or number of lamps on the ceiling fans. The drawings show no circuitry for any lighting fixture, and no panel is shown. The design drawings contain no energy form or calculated values to demonstrate compliance with the Florida Energy Code for Building Construction. It was clearly and convincingly shown that the mechanical engineering design (HVAC) documents for the Morales Project are materially deficient in that the HVAC Scope of Work included a toilet exhaust fan for ventilation. No heat was specified, and the exhaust fan size was omitted from the drawings. It was clearly and convincingly shown that the plumbing engineering design documents for the Morales Project are materially deficient as follows: The drawings contain no equipment schedules for all plumbing fixtures, water heater, valves, and accessories. Potable water isometric diagrams and total water fixture units are not shown on the drawings. Total sanitary waste fixture units are not shown on the drawings. No storm riser diagrams or area drainage calculations are shown on the drawings. The drawings contain no piping layouts for cold water, hot water, sanitary, or storm drainage. The drawings acknowledge that FBC-P, 2010 Edition, is applicable to this project, but fail to list other applicable codes and standards. No specifications for materials for plumbing systems are shown on the drawings. It was clearly and convincingly shown that the structural engineering design documents for the Morales Project are materially deficient as follows: The strength of materials for the concrete, reinforcing steel, grout and masonry are missing. There is no reinforcing steel designated for the concrete piles. The lap length of the reinforcing steel in the masonry walls is missing. There is no detail indicating how the piling is connected to the pile cap. The drawings indicate that a 6" x 6" x 16" concrete masonry unit (CMU) block wall is an optional alternative. Contrary to Mr. Holt's argument, the bathroom walls are not interior walls in this design, as they are bounded by a porch, and this size block is inadequate to resist the design wind pressures. Mr. Holt failed to utilize due care in performing in an engineering capacity and failed to have due regard for acceptable standards of engineering principles in the Betancourt, Bullock, and Morales Projects. It was clearly and convincingly shown that Mr. Holt engaged in negligence in the practice of engineering in each project. Prior Discipline Mr. Holt was charged in FEMC Case No. 01-0159 with engaging in negligence in the practice of engineering. In 2002, he was disciplined by the Board in FEMC Case Nos. 0l-0159, 01- 0106, and 01-0170 after a settlement stipulation. Mr. Holt was charged in FEMC Case No. 2005048785 with engaging in negligence in the practice of engineering. In 2006, he was disciplined by the Board in that case after a settlement stipulation. Mr. Holt was charged in FEMC Case No. 2007068131 with engaging in negligence in the practice of engineering. In 2010, he was disciplined by the Board in that case after settlement stipulation. Mr. Holt was charged in FEMC Case No. 2007047569 with engaging in negligence in the practice of engineering. In 2010, he was disciplined by the Board in that case after settlement stipulation.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Board of Professional Engineers: Finding that John D. Holt, P.E., engaged in negligence in the practice of engineering, in violation of section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15- 19.001(4); suspending his professional engineer license for a period of one year, to be reinstated under such conditions and terms, including a period of probation, as the Board finds appropriate; and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $10,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 16th day of March, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S F. SCOTT BOYD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of March, 2016.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent engaged in the negligent practice of engineering, in violation of Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been a licensed professional engineer in Florida since 1994, holding license number 47676. He is not licensed in any other states. Respondent is a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers, National Society of Professional Engineers, Structural Engineers Council, and National Academy of Forensic Engineers. He also serves as a subject-matter expert for the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, and he helps prepare and evaluate contractor licensing examinations. Respondent is also a licensed general contractor. This case involves engineering drawings that Respondent prepared for a residential project known as the Sorrentino Residence. The Sorrentino Residence is located in Hillsborough County. The drawings, which are signed and sealed by Respondent, represent that the design portrayed by the drawings is “in accordance” with the SBCCI Standard Building Code, 1994 Edition[, and t]he wind design was conducted using a 110 MPH wind speed.” Prior to the Sorrentino Residence, Respondent had been the engineer of residence for over 20 projects. About 10 of these projects had been wood-frame homes, such as the home designed and constructed as the Sorrentino Residence. The owner of the Sorrentino Residence purchased plans from Amerilink. A mechanical/electrical engineering firm, Parker-Stevens, obtained the consent of Amerilink to alter these plans for the Sorrentino Residence. One of the changes increased the thickness of the second floor, which raised the overall building height by 12 inches. Respondent became involved with the Sorrentino Residence when one of the principals of Parker-Stevens contacted him and asked if he would work on the project. The structural engineer who had started to work on the project had moved out of Florida prior to obtaining any permits. Respondent agreed to accept the assignment. Respondent worked on the drawings, as well as on other assignments, for six weeks. He required about 60 hours to perform all of the necessary calculations. Because of poor soil conditions at the lakefront lot at which the Sorrentino Residence was to be built, Respondent had to substitute pilings for a masonry stemwall. To preclude differential settlement of pilings, Respondent performed the calculations necessary to place the pilings so that each was within 10 percent of the others’ axial load. Respondent also performed calculations for numerous other purposes, including designing the beams, floor diaphragm, second-floor bearing wall, exterior walls, and structural ability to withstand wind loads. At the time that he began to work on the Sorrentino Residence drawings, Respondent was still a partner with Architectural Services and Engineering. In July 1997, two weeks after Respondent had sealed the drawings, Respondent became dissatisfied with the business practices of his partner, who was not an engineer, contractor, or architect, and left Architectural Services and Engineering. Construction on the Sorrentino Residence started about six weeks later. When Respondent left Architectural Services and Engineering, he was the sole qualifier for the company, which did not obtain another qualifier for eight months. Following Respondent’s departure from Architectural Services and Engineering, the owner of the Sorrentino Residence contacted Respondent to discuss the drawings. Because the contract was between the owner and Architectural Services and Engineering, Respondent’s former partner objected to any communication between Respondent and the owner and, among other things, made the complaint that led to the commencement of this disciplinary proceeding. At this point, Respondent chose not to have further contact with the owner or construction of the residence. Count One alleges that Respondent’s drawings are deficient because they fail to specify the necessary supplemental framing in the exterior walls of the living room and kitchen. Petitioner has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent’s omission of the supplemental framing constitutes negligence in the practice of engineering. First, not surprisingly, common field practice has addressed the recurring phenomenon of openings in exterior walls. After cutting studs for an opening, all contractors add headers, jack studs, and full-length studs on each side of the opening. The omission from drawings of an element readily supplied by common field practice is not negligent. The Hillsborough Building Department expects drawings to depict supplemental framing, at least if such detail is necessary to construct the building that is the subject of the drawings. This expectation does not establish negligence in this case for two reasons. First, as noted in the preceding paragraph, common field practice obviates the necessity of the depiction of the supplemental framing around openings in exterior walls; thus, such detail is unnecessary to construct the building. Second, the Hillsborough Building Department frequently rejects drawings and plans; thus, a departure from its requirements is not necessarily negligence, at least absent a showing that negligence in engineering is common in Hillsborough County. Additionally, neither the Standard Building Code nor applicable rules specify the minimum contents of drawings. Interestingly, several years ago, the Hillsborough County Building Department eliminated its minimum requirements for drawings. These facts suggest that categoric minimum requirements for drawings must yield to a case-by-case approach that can better address the myriad of circumstances that accompany each design project, including the complexity of the subject structure, the significance of the item omitted from the drawings, and the likelihood that custom or practice will supply the information missing from the drawings. The preceding paragraphs sufficiently address the issue raised by Count One. However, both parties have addressed other issues. Given the resolution of these issues, it is unnecessary to consider whether they have been adequately pleaded. Sheet A-6 of the drawings contains details for a “typical wall section” and “typical shear wall.” The “typical wall section” clearly depicts exterior walls and specifies, for such walls, 2-inch by 4-inch studs spaced 16 inches on center. Sheet A-4 depicts exterior walls as 3 1/2 inches thick, which is consistent with exterior framing of 2-inch by 4-inch lumber, rather than 2-inch by 6-inch or 2-inch by 8- inch lumber. However, General Note 4.4.1 on Sheet A-1 specifies that the exterior framing shall be 2-inch by 6-inch and 2-inch by 8-inch. The only 2-inch by 4-inch lumber is reserved for interior framing. The drawings are inconsistent as to the specification of exterior framing. The inconsistency is obvious and caused the owner to contact Respondent after delivery of the drawings and confirm that he intended the use of 2-inch by 6-inch or 2-inch by 8-inch exterior framing. However, Petitioner has failed to establish that this internal inconsistency in the drawings constitutes negligence. It is not negligence merely because drawings are flawed, even if the flaw requires a contractor or owner to request clarification from an engineer. The flaw in specifying the exterior framing studs is not negligent for two reasons. First, the obvious inconsistency in the drawings, which caused even the owner to contact Respondent, left little chance that a contractor would fail to notice the conflicting specifications. Noticing the conflict, the contractor would either build to the more conservative specifications, which would be the stronger exterior framing studs, or contact the engineer for clarification. Second, the record amply demonstrates that informed engineers differ as to the materiality of the specification that the exterior framing studs be greater than 2-inch by 4- inch. Absent clear and convincing evidence that the structural integrity of the building would have been affected, in terms of its ability to support design wind loads, the flaw in specifying the exterior framing studs does not rise to negligence. Count Three alleges that Respondent’s drawings are deficient because they fail to specify the sheathing thickness and nailing of the floor and roof diaphragms. Petitioner has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent’s omission of the sheathing thickness and nailing of the floor and roof diaphragms constitutes negligence in the practice of engineering. Again, neither the Standard Building Code nor the rules require the depiction of a diaphragm or a specification of its thickness or nailing patterns. The practice of the Hillsborough County Building Department is to require the depiction of the diaphragm if the drawings deviate from the sheathing orientation or nailing pattern specified in the Standard Building Code. Depicting the first floor framing plan, Sheet A-3 specifies 1/2-inch plywood subflooring. As noted by Respondent’s expert, 1/2-inch plywood subflooring would sag, although not collapse; 3/4-inch plywood subflooring is needed, given the 24-inch spacing of the floor trusses. Again, the owner, evidently concerned about this detail, contacted Respondent after delivery of the drawings, and Respondent told the owner to use 3/4-inch plywood. However, nothing in the Administrative Complaint alleges negligence in the misspecification of the plywood subflooring. Count Three alleges only that the drawings negligently omit specifications concerning the floor and roof diaphragm, which would include the plywood subflooring. Specifying the wrong item is not failing to specify an item. Proof concerning the erroneous specification of 1/2-inch plywood subflooring is therefore outside the scope of the pleadings and irrelevant. Count Four alleges that Respondent’s drawings are deficient because they include gable trusses even though the house was not to be constructed with gable trusses. Petitioner has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the depiction of gable trusses constitutes negligence in the practice of engineering. Respondent explained that he simply provided the truss engineer with an alternative roof design, in case the need for an alternative arose. Respondent’s explanation was implausible. It was also imprudent, as evidenced from pages 12-14 of Petitioner’s proposed recommended order. The inclusion of the gable trusses was a simple, but harmless, mistake on Respondent’s part. Although sloppy, the inclusion of gable trusses in the drawings could not possibly have misled the truss engineer, to whom Respondent had properly delegated the responsibility for designing the roof, into designing the wrong roof for the Sorrentino Residence, nor could it have misled the contractor into building the wrong roof for the Sorrentino Residence.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of March, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ___________________________________ ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Natalie A. Lowe, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Doug Sunshine, Esquire V.P. for Legal Affairs Florida Engineers Management Corporation 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William H. Hollimon Ausley & McMullen Post Office Box 391 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Brent Wadsworth Post Office Box 270118 Tampa, Florida 33688 David P. Rankin 3837 Northdale Boulevard Suite 332 Tampa, Florida 33624
The Issue This case arises on an amended administrative complaint filed by the Petitioner which seeks to have Respondent's contractor licenses disciplined for alleged violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, incident to the construction of a residence near Melrose, Florida. The case originally was scheduled to be heard on July 10, 1987, but after the hearing was convened, Respondent's counsel sought a continuance based on Respondent's health problems which were supported by a doctor's statement. The motion was granted and the hearing was continued until August 25, 1987. At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of Evans Starke, Marion Uhl, and Robert H. Adams. Petitioner submitted eight exhibits in evidence, including the depositions of Respondent and Matthew M. Gordon. Respondent testified in his own behalf and submitted three exhibits in evidence. However, Respondent's exhibit three, which was a house plan, was retained by Respondent and a copy thereof was to be filed within 10 days after the hearing. Additionally, Respondent was provided a period of 10 days after the hearing to submit a deposition of James A. Taylor However, the deposition was not filed within the required period nor was Respondent's exhibit three. Respondent's post-hearing motion to extend the time for filing the deposition was denied. The parties were provided a period of ten days from the filing of the hearing transcript in which to file proposed recommended orders. Neither party made a timely submission. However, Respondent's post-hearing motion to extend the time period was granted. The proposed Findings of Facts submitted by both parties were considered and substantially incorporated herein.
Findings Of Fact Respondent Joseph Rentz is licensed as a registered building contractor, roofing contractor, and mechanical contractor, and was so licensed at all times pertinent to this proceeding. In addition, he is the qualifying contractor for Alachua Association Builders. (Petitioner's exhibits 2-3) In March 1985, Evans Starke of Miami, Florida entered into an oral agreement with Respondent for the construction of a residence near Melrose, Florida. Respondent agreed to build the house on a cost-plus basis and estimated that the cost would be approximately $27.00 per square foot or less. Respondent told Starke that he would be satisfied with 10 percent of the cost of construction for his fee. The arrangement was that Starke would Periodically provide money to his aunt, Lenora Peterson, and that Respondent could make draws from that source as required to progress with construction. Starke also asked Respondent to open a checking account from which he would pay the bills for materials and labor. (Testimony of Starke) The original construction plans provided to the Respondent by Starke were for a house of approximately 4,000 square feet, but since Starke wished to expand the size of the house considerably, he informed Respondent of the various modifications which resulted in Respondent obtaining revised plans from a draftsman for a house of approximately 10,000 square feet. (Testimony of Starke, Respondent) Respondent obtained a building permit in his name and commenced construction. As work progressed, Respondent would inform Lenora Peterson of the need for progress payments for materials and labor on a weekly basis. She would then provide the necessary money in cash to Respondent and obtain a signed receipt from him. During the period March through September, 1985, Respondent signed receipts amounting to $121,360. Respondent had several checking accounts in the name of "J. & L. Properties", into which some of the draws were deposited and checks drawn thereupon to pay materialmen, subcontractors, and workmen. In other instances, Respondent paid cash to workmen, but obtained no receipts therefor. Starke visited the project site usually on a biweekly basis during the initial months of construction. On several occasions, he met Respondent midway between Gainesville and Miami to deliver cash for construction costs. Some of this money given to Respondent was not evidenced by a receipt of Respondent. Starke testified that on one occasion, he gave Respondent $3,000 to pay for the installation of a well, but Respondent had only given the well-digger $1,000, and Starke later found that he still owed the balance, plus a 25 percent rise in cost. Starke also claimed that he spent $1,000 to put a drain under the driveway to the basement because Respondent had forgotten to do so. He further stated that he had given Respondent $5,000 to purchase shingles for the house, but Respondent bought only enough to cover the garage. Consequently, Starke was obliged to expend further sums to obtain the remaining shingles. (Testimony of Starke, Respondent, exhibits to deposition of Rentz (Petitioner's Exhibit 2), (Petitioner's composite Exhibit 6) During Starke's periodic visits to the job site, he requested that Respondent show him the bills and receipts for the purchase of construction material and labor payments, but Respondent evaded such request by saying that his wife was handling the business matters, and that she was ill and unable to show him the records. Eventually, Starke became more concerned because of the discrepancies in the expenditures of funds, and therefore made a special trip in October 1985 to meet with Respondent and go over the project accounts. At that meeting, Respondent's wife provided Starke with a number of canceled checks on the J. & L. Properties account, which failed to identify any specific payments for the Starke project, but which consisted mostly of apparent payments of Respondent's personal bills. (Testimony of Starke, Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibits 2,6) Subsequent to the October meeting, Respondent asked Starke for the sum of $1,500 for his own services, which was paid. This was the last payment made by Starke to Respondent and the last contact that he had with him. Respondent performed no further work and left the project about the third week of November 1985. Although Starke attempted to get in touch with him during the intervening period, he was unsuccessful in doing so. (Testimony of Starke, Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibit 2) On January 31, 1986, Starke obtained a new building permit to complete his residence, and hired Marion C. Uhl, a certified residential contractor, at an hourly rate to supervise the remaining work. Uhl found at that time that the house consisted of a shell with some interior partitions erected and doors in place, but without any electrical or plumbing work, except for a garage bathroom. It took him approximately ninety days to correct previous construction errors before it was ready for subcontractor work. Specifically, he found that the partition walls were out of plumb and that some of the doors were not framed properly. It was necessary for him to tear them out and redo the work. He found no backing (dead wood) for the ceilings and walls which should have been in place before the roof was sheathed. He had to take out all the windows which were out of plumb and reinstall them. It was necessary to frame out the gables of the house in order that water wouldn't accumulate in vacant areas. Water had accumulated in the garage basement due to a failure to install proper drain fields under the house. Additionally, it was discovered that there was no concrete in the tie beams which supported the floor above and could cause it to sag eventually. In Uhl's opinion, which is accepted, these problems would not have occurred if the job had been properly supervised. (Testimony of Starke, Uhl) Robert H. Adams, an expert in the residential contracting field, who owns a building inspection firm, inspected the Starke premises on May 18, 1987 at the request of Petitioner. Based upon his examination of the house, he found the following deficiencies, which had existed at the time Respondent left the project: In some areas, the brick veneer exterior walls were not properly supported on the footing in that the brick veneer protruded beyond the outside edge of the footing. Also the footing was at grade rather than being below grade. Failure to utilize solid concrete walls or pouring of concrete into concrete blocks which formed walls supporting a steel I-beam. This deviation from the plans could result in failure of the foundation walls. Improper splicing of girders under the house. Girders were butt-spliced rather than spliced with either a shep or a diagonal cut. The joints were not over a supporting pier. Settling from the floor above could cause the house floor to sag. The exterior brick roll-out window sills were level instead of being at a slight angle to permit water to flow away from the bottom of windows, thus causing the potential of water intrusion into the house. Front entry brick steps were not centered with the door opening by approximately 18 inches. An exterior garden hose bib Produced hot water instead of cold at left front of the garage. This was caused by "mis- plumbing" the cold and hot water lines. Block wall of the garage was out of plumb approximately 7/8 of an inch over a 4 foot vertical distance. One of the garage roll doors had only 9 foot, 3 inch clearance instead of 10 feet as called for by the plans. Uneven coursing of brick veneer at the ceiling of the right rear porch. Waferboard was used on roof decking rather than plywood as called for by the plans. Waferboard is not as strong as plywood. Water intrusion into the garage- basement. In Adams' opinion, which is accepted, the deficiencies noted by his inspection reflected very poor workmanship and gross negligence, in that the fundamentals of construction as practiced in the construction trade were not observed by Respondent in major areas. They were gross deviations from good building practices and a competent contractor properly supervising the job would have been aware of the deviations from good contracting practice. In addition, it is incumbent upon a contractor to keep accurate and complete financial records for a particular project. (Testimony of Adams, Petitioner's Exhibit 7) In January 1986, Starke employed Universal Engineering Testing Company, a structural engineering firm, to ascertain the cause of groundwater leaking into the garage-basement of his house and to provide remedial recommendations. Professional engineers of the firm inspected the premises and observed that groundwater was leaking at the wall-floor joint around most of the garage. They found that although a drainage system had been installed during construction, soil and groundwater conditions at the site limited the effectiveness of the existing system, due to hydrostatic pressure build up under the garage floor. It was determined that, unless the pressure was dissipated with under-slab drainage, the slab would heave, crack, and leak at the wall-slab joint They found that the situation could only be remedied by installing an under drain grid after removal of the existing slab. In their professional opinion, which is accepted, the failure of the existing slab had been caused by excessive water pressure build up and improper construction techniques. (Testimony of Gordon, Petitioner's Exhibit 1) At the hearing, Respondent admitted that he had never constructed a house of the scope and size of the Starke residence, but that he had attempted to build what Starke desired in accordance with the plans and numerous changes required by Starke during the course of construction. Such changes, in his view, caused the difficulty in centering the brick work at the front of the house since this work was called for after the front door had already been installed. He claimed that he had waterproofed the garage-basement and put in French drains, but that water couldn't go out, and it was necessary to install a tank under the driveway to pump the water from the basement. Respondent also conceded that he did not maintain continuing records during the course of construction as to the financial aspects of the project, but intended to recapitulate all costs and payments when construction was completed. He acknowledged that receipts from the project were commingled with other funds in his bank accounts and he was unable to show the disposition of proceeds from the project. As to leaving the job, Respondent said that he left because he was threatened by Starke and also because of ill health caused by the stressful situation which came from continuing complaints by Starke concerning the workmanship, and also by the numerous changes to the construction plans. Although Respondent claimed that he notified Starke by letter of January 14, 1986, that he intended to remove his permit no later than January 27, 1986, because it appeared that Starke had decided to take charge of completing the construction, Starke denied receiving such a letter and there is no credible evidence that it was delivered. (Testimony of Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibit 2, Respondent's Exhibit 1) On two prior occasions in 1985 and 1986, Respondent was disciplined by the Construction Industry Licensing Board pursuant to settlement stipulations of administrative complaints filed by Petitioner against Respondent. In those stipulations, Respondent admitted violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the complaints, and administrative fines of $250 and $400 were imposed. (Petitioner's Exhibits 4-5)
The Issue The issues in these cases are whether the allegations of the administrative complaints are correct, and, if so, what penalty, if any, should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is charged with responsibility for regulation of the practice of engineering within the State of Florida. At all times material to these cases, the Respondent has been licensed by the State of Florida as a professional engineer holding license PE40904. At the hearing, the Petitioner presented the testimony of Joseph Berryman, P.E., a professional engineer licensed by the State of Florida. Mr. Berryman was accepted as an expert in structural engineering design, including aluminum structure design. Mr. Berryman's testimony regarding deficiencies in the Respondent's design of the projects referenced herein was clear and persuasive. In response, the Respondent testified that the referenced projects met applicable professional standards, including load and stress standards. The Respondent's primary engineering experience has apparently been in the realm of civil, not structural, engineering. According to Mr. Berryman, the Respondent's calculations included material errors, reflected structural elements other than those identified in the design documents, and revealed misunderstanding and misapplication of engineering precepts. The Respondent's testimony has been rejected. Mr. Berryman's testimony has been credited. DOAH Case No. 12-1635PL (Del Vecchio) On October 7, 2011, the Respondent signed, sealed, and dated a one-page structural engineering design document for construction of an aluminum screen swimming pool enclosure located at "3611 Throle" in Rockledge, Florida (the "Del Vecchio" project). The document failed to include elements and information required by the Florida Building Code (FBC) and by the Petitioner's rules. The document failed to identify the height of the mansard rise, failed to detail a proper end connection between diagonal roof bracing and the frame of the structure, failed to identify the size of the "K-bracing" elements included in the design, failed to indicate the size of the corner columns or to show a corner column section, and referenced a design element that had been superseded elsewhere in the document. Additionally, the frame spacing dimensions set forth on the document failed to conform to the width of the proposed structure. Because the material to be used in construction of the proposed structure was aluminum, the applicable design standard is set forth in Chapter 20 of the FBC and the Aluminum Design Manual (ADM). The standard requires that every element in the structure must be so proportioned as to resist the applied loading without exceeding the allowable stress for the construction material and without exceeding the allowable stress for each specific element of the structure's construction. Mr. Berryman reviewed the project proposed in the document for compliance with the standard set forth in the ADM and determined that the proposed structure (specifically the proposed roof beams, columns, and purlins) would not be sufficient to comply with applicable stress and load requirements. Mr. Berryman's analysis of the design proposed by the Respondent has been fully credited. The Respondent's preparation of the design document for the Del Vecchio project demonstrated a lack of due care in the practice of engineering and a lack of due regard for professional engineering standards. DOAH Case No. 12-1636PL (Nunez) On September 20, 2011, the Respondent signed, sealed, and dated a three-page structural engineering design document for construction of an aluminum screen swimming pool enclosure located at 4128 Southwest 102nd Lane Road, in Ocala, Florida (the "Nunez" project). The document failed to include elements and information required by the FBC and by the Petitioner's rules. The document failed to identify the height of the mansard rise and failed to detail a proper end connection between diagonal roof bracing and the frame of the structure. Because the material to be used in construction of the proposed structure was aluminum, the applicable design standard is set forth in Chapter 20 of the FBC and the ADM. The standard requires that every element in the structure must be so proportioned as to resist the applied loading without exceeding the allowable stress for the construction material and without exceeding the allowable stress for each specific element of the structure's construction. Mr. Berryman reviewed the project proposed in the document for compliance with the ADM and determined that the proposed structure (specifically the proposed roof beams, columns, purlins, cable bracing, anchor bolts, and gusset plates used in a roof beam splice) would not be sufficient to comply with applicable stress and load requirements. Mr. Berryman's analysis of the design proposed in the Respondent's document has been fully credited. The Respondent's preparation of the design document for the Nunez project demonstrated a lack of due care in the practice of engineering and a lack of due regard for professional engineering standards. DOAH Case No. 12-1637PL (Dunaway) On September 8, 2011, the Respondent signed, sealed, and dated a three-page structural engineering design document for construction of an aluminum screen swimming pool enclosure located at 8538 Southwest 135th Street, in Ocala, Florida (the "Dunaway" project). The document failed to include elements and information required by the FBC and by the Petitioner's rules. The document failed to identify the height of the gable rise, failed to detail a proper end connection between diagonal roof bracing and the frame of the structure, failed to indicate the size of the corner columns or to show a corner column section, and failed to identity the metal alloy of a clip used at a detailed shoulder connection. Because the material to be used in construction of the proposed structure was aluminum, the applicable design standard is set forth in Chapter 20 of the FBC and the ADM. The standard requires that every element in the structure must be so proportioned as to resist the applied loading without exceeding the allowable stress for the construction material and without exceeding the allowable stress for each specific element of the structure's construction. Mr. Berryman reviewed the project proposed by the Respondent's design document using the information set forth in the ADM and determined that the proposed structure (specifically the proposed roof beams, columns, and shoulder connection fasteners) would not be sufficient to comply with applicable stress and load requirements. Mr. Berryman's analysis of the design proposed in the Respondent's document has been fully credited. The Respondent's preparation of the design document for the Dunaway project demonstrated a lack of due care in the practice of engineering and a lack of due regard for professional engineering standards.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order reprimanding the Respondent, placing the Respondent on probation for a period of two years under terms and conditions deemed appropriate by the Petitioner, and imposing a fine of $6,000 against the Respondent. Additionally, the final order should prohibit the Respondent from the practice of structural engineering until the Respondent submits to the Petitioner proof of his successful completion of an appropriate examination to be designated by the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: John Jefferson Rimes, III, Esquire Florida Engineers Management Corp. 2639 North Monroe Street, Suite B-112 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Scott Guy Campbell Apartment 805 250 58th Street, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33710 Zana Raybon, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2639 North Monroe Street, Suite B-112 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5268 Michael Flury, Esquire Office of the Attorney General The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 J. Layne Smith, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses, their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following findings of fact: In order for Petitioner to obtain a license as a building contractor in Florida, he is required to successfully complete a certification examination. The examination is prepared by the ACSI National Assessment Institute arid administered by the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR). The questions on the exam are prepared from specific reference materials disclosed to the applicants, generally accepted industry procedures and standard field knowledge. Petitioner took the building contractor's examination administered by DPR in October, 1988. There were four parts to the examination. No evidence was submitted as to the scores an applicant was required to achieve and/or the number of sections an applicant was required to pass in order to be entitled to licensure. Petitioner did not receive a score on the exam sufficient to entitle him to licensure. However, no evidence was presented as to the grades Petitioner received on the various parts of his exam. Petitioner initially challenged seven of the questions on the Construction Administration part of the exam contending that they were unclear and ambiguous, and that, in any event, he correctly indicated the "closest" answer included for the multiple choice questions. However, for the reasons set forth in the Preliminary Statement above, only two of those questions (CA #19 and CA #24) are at issue in this proceeding. No evidence was of feared as to the value of each of the challenged questions and/or the number of questions Petitioner would have to succeed in challenging in order to obtain a passing grade. The first question challenged by Petitioner, CA# 19 required the exam taker to determine the latest time that a subcontractor could effectively serve a Notice To Owner under the Mechanic's Lien Law. The reference materials provide that the Notice To Owner must be served on the owner within 45 days from the time the lienor first performs labor or delivers material to the site. The reference materials also specifically provide that receipt of the notice on the 46th day is timely where the 45th day is a Sunday. A calendar was provided with the exam materials. The 45th day in question CA #19 fell on a Sunday (September 11). Therefore, the latest day that the Notice To Owner could be served was September 12. Both September 11 and 12 were listed as answers on the exam. Petitioner selected the answer corresponding to September 11. The correct answer was September 12. Petitioner's challenge to question 19 is without merit. Question CA #24 relates to AIA Document A201 and asks the examine taker to draw an analogy between a sub-contractor's responsibilities and obligations to the contractor as being the same as one of four listed choices. According to the Respondent, the correct answer 5 (C) which states that the sub-contractor has the same responsibilities and obligations to the contractor as the contractor has to the architect and owner. Petitioner chose answer (A) which indicates the contractor has the same responsibilities and obligations to the contractor as the architect has to the owner. In support of its position, the Respondent cites paragraph 5.3.1 of AIA Document A201 which states that "by appropriate agreement, ... the Contractor shall require each Sub-contractor, to the extent of the work to be performed by the Sub-contractor, to be bound to the Contractor by terms of the Contract Documents, and to assume towards the contractor all the obligations and responsibilities which the contractor by these documents assumes towards the Owner and Architect." Petitioner interpreted the question as asking the exam taker to draw an analogy between the relationship created by the sub-contract with the other relationships listed in the various answers. Viewed in this context, Petitioner reasoned that, while a contractual relationship existed between the sub- contractor and the contractor, AIA Document A201 specifically does not create a contractual relationship between the contractor and the architect. Therefore, he eliminated answer C and instead chose answer A because there clearly is a contractual relationship between the architect and the owner. Because the question was structured in the form of an analogy, it is misleading and ambiguous and Petitioner's interpretation was reasonable. Unfortunately, while the question was drafted to test the exam taker's familiarity with paragraph 5.3.1, it could also be read to be asking an exam taker to distinguish between the various relationships created through the contract documents. Significantly, the question does not specifically track the language of paragraph 5.3.1 which indicates that the sub-contractor must "assume" all the obligations and responsibilities which the contractor "assumes" towards the Owner and Architect. Therefore, the question is misleading and Petitioner's answer was reasonable under the circumstances.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's request that his October, 1988 examination for building contractor's license be regraded be GRANTED and that Petitioner be deemed to have correctly answered question CA #24. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of January, 1990. APPENDIX Both parties have submitted Proposed Recommended Orders. The Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order contains a number of paragraphs of mixed findings of fact and conclusions of law which have not been numbered throughout. To the extent that the proposed findings of fact can be isolated, they are addressed below. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact The first two and a half pages of Petitioner's Memorandum simply sets forth question CA #24, the "correct" answer as determined by Respondent and Petitioner's answer. These facts are incorporated in Findings of Fact 8. The Remainder of Petitioner's Memorandum is deemed by the undersigned to constitute legal argument. The Respondent's Proposed Finding of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Finding of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 4. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Also adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Also adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Also adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Also adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Also adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. The first sentence is incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. The second sentence is subordinate to Findings of Fact 7 and 8. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 7. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 8. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth D. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Ste 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 E. Harper Field Deputy General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Curtis A. Littman, Esquire Littman, Littman, Williams & Strike P. O. Box 1197 Stuart, Florida 34995 Fred Seely, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Richard Eaton 2601 S. D. Miami Street Stuart, Florida 34997
