Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts were found: At all times material to these proceedings, the Respondent, Victor S. Davis, held a registered general contractor's license, numbered RG 0013635 issued by the State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board in April, 1973. At all times material to these proceedings, Respondent's general contractor's license, number RG 0013635, was in a delinquent status and had been in a delinquent status since July 1, 1977. Respondent failed to renew his license after June 30, 1975 but in May, 1976 made application to reinstate license number RG 0013635 which was approved and reinstated on an active status by Petitioner in May, 1976 and issued to Respondent, Victor S. Davis, qualifying Conch Construction Corp., of Key West, Florida. There was no evidence that the reinstated license was issued for Monroe County, Florida or that Respondent ever held a certificate of competency for Monroe County, Florida. At all times material to these proceedings, Respondent was an officer (Secretary) of Classic Marketing and Development, Inc. (Classic). On July 28, 1983, the Respondent, as Secretary of Classic, entered into a contract with William Dees to construct a shell home on the Dees' property located at Lot 14, Block 7, Breezeswept Estates, Ramrod Key, Florida for a contract price of $27,000.00. On September 13, 1983, William Dees applied for and obtained building permit No. 10902-A as owner/builder for the construction of the Dees's home. Construction of the Dees home began on or about September 13, 1983. Gregory H. O'Berry, President of Classic had knowledge of, and approved of, Respondent entering into contracts for construction of homes in Monroe County, Florida, including the contract with Dees. O'Berry was aware that Respondent did not hold a certificate of competency in Monroe County, Florida and that Respondent's registered general contractor's license did not cover contracting in Monroe County, Florida. O'Berry understood that Phillip A. Braeunig, a properly licensed general contractor in Monroe County, Florida, was acting as the general contractor for Classic- in the construction of homes by Classic, including the construction of the Dees home. Braeunig did not act as general contractor on the construction of the Dees' home. Respondent supervised the contraction of the Dees' home, until Respondent abandoned the construction of the Dees' home, and in performing these supervisory duties fulfilled the responsibilities of a general contractor. No other officer or authorized agent of Classic had any responsibility for the supervision of, or acted in any manner as a general contractor, in the construction of the Dees' home. Braeunig prepared and submitted to Respondent an application to qualify Classic with Petitioner using Braeunig's license but this application was never filed with Petitioner during- anytime material to these proceedings. Classic was never qualified by anyone, including Respondent or Braeunig, at any time material to these proceedings. Braeunig~acted as general contractor for Classic on the Conti home, which was in the beginning stages of Classic and prior to the Dees' job. Braeunig was brought into Classic for the purpose of acting as general contractor because of the Respondent's invalid license.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order Dismissing Count I of the Amended Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent. It is further RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violation charged in Count II of the Amended Administrative Complaint and for such violation it is RECOMMENDED that the Board suspend the Respondent's registered general contractor's license for a period of two (2) years and assess the Respondent with an administrative fine of $500.00, stay the suspension and place Respondent on probation for a period of two (2) years, provided the Respondent pays the $500.00 fine within ninety (90) days. Respondent's failure to pay the $500.00 fine within the time specified will result in his registered general contractor's license being suspended for a period of two (2) years with the requirement that when the fine is paid and the suspension lifted, the Respondent must appear before the Board for reinstatement of his license. Respectfully submitted and entered this 3rd of December, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of December, 1985. APPENDIX Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board v. Victor S. Davis, Division of Administrative Hearings Case No. 85-1963 Ruling on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Adopted in Finding of Fact No. 1 except for the statement that "Respondent's license was issued for Okaloosa County only" which is rejected as not being based upon competent substantial evidence. Hearsay alone is not sufficient to support a finding of fact. Adopted in Finding of Fact No. 1 except for statement that "said license has been delinquent since July, 1981" which is rejected as being contrary to the evidence in Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 which shows delinquent status as of July 1, 1977. Adopted in Finding of Fact No. 3. Rejected as a conclusion of law rather than a proposed finding of fact. Considered as background information and not as a finding of faet. Adopted in Finding of Fact No. 4. Adopted in Finding of Fact No. 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact Nos. 4 and 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact Nos. 5 and 7. Adopted in Finding of Fact No. 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact No. 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact No. 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact No. 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact No. 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact No. 9. Adopted in Finding of Fact No. 9. Adopted in Finding of feet No. 10 Adopted in Finding of Fact No. 10 Rejected as a conclusion of law rather than a proposed finding of fact. Respondent did not submit Proposed Findings of Fact. COPIES FURNISHED: James Linnan, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board P. O. Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Nancy M. Snurkowski, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 Victor S. Davis 2169 North Hercules Avenue Clearwater, FL 33575 and 6290 Sandcrest Circle Orlando, FL 32819
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to credit for her answers to questions 55 p.m. and 56 p.m. on the Fundamentals of Engineering portion of the engineering licensure examination given on April 15, 2000.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: The examination for licensure of an engineer in the State of Florida is administered by the Florida Engineers Management Corporation, a not-for-profit corporation, created under Section 471.038, Florida Statutes. A written examination is authorized by Rule 61G15-21.001, Florida Administrative Code. Respondent contracts with the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying to provide engineering licensure examinations. This practice is approved by Section 455.217, Florida Statutes, and Rule 61G1 5-21.005, Florida Administrative Code. The National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying develops standardized tests given for licensure throughout the United States and ensures that the questions are not ambiguous through a number of methodologies. A candidate for licensure as an engineer intern must attain a "scaled" score of 70 to pass the examination. On the examination taken by Petitioner, the minimum "raw" score required to attain a "scaled" score of 70 was 107; Petitioner's "raw" score was 105. Petitioner had initially challenged five questions; at the hearing, Petitioner withdrew her challenge to three questions; the two remaining challenged questions (55 p.m. and 56 p.m.) were "ethical" questions, i.e., they dealt with questions of engineering ethics. The challenged questions were multiple-choice questions. The test gives the following directions: "Each of the questions or incomplete sentences below is followed by four suggested answers or completions. Select the one that is the best in each case and then fill in the corresponding space on the answer sheet." (Emphasis added.) The challenged question 55 p.m. deals with an engineer hired to prepare a report on the design, manufacture, and assembly of a structure. The report contains references to "shoddy workmanship." Petitioner states that while she agreed that answer A [the graded "correct" answer] is correct, she believed that the inclusion of the word "also" in answer B included answer A in answer B by reference and therefore she chose B as her answer. Petitioner acknowledges that the word "also" in answer B could be referring to language in the question rather than in answer A. Answer A specifically refers to "engineering issues" which the engineer is "qualified to assess"; answer B indicates that the references to "shoddy workmanship" are "personal opinions" and "not professional opinions". An engineer is obligated by his license not to give an opinion for which he does not have expertise. An engineer should not render a personal opinion in a report in which the engineer gives a professional opinion. The challenged question 56 p.m. deals with an engineer who lacks expertise dealing with space frames but designed structures which included same. Regarding challenged question 56 p.m., the Petitioner acknowledged that answer A (the graded "correct" answer) could have been the correct answer as well as the answer she chose, answer D. Answer D indicates that the engineer was unethical because he did not refer that matter to the Registration Board. An engineer should not contact the Registration Board and report to the Board that someone has asked him to do something unethical; it is incumbent upon an engineer to practice engineering ethically without the input of the Board. In both instances in answering the challenged questions the Petitioner failed to provide the "best" answer and at hearing acknowledged that the graded "correct" answer by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveyors was a "correct" answer even though she chose a different answer.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Engineers Management Corporation enter a final order denying Petitioner's challenge to questions 55 p.m. and 56 p.m. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of December, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JEFF B. CLARK 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 27th day of December, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Yvette Bowman 3401 North Lakeview Drive Apartment 216 Tampa, Florida 33618 Douglas D. Sunshine, Esquire Florida Engineers Management Corporation 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Dennis Barton, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Natalie A. Lowe, Esquire Vice President for Legal Affairs Florida Engineers Management Corporation 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent, Robert C. Kany, P.E., committed the acts or omissions alleged in the Administrative Complaint; whether those acts or omissions constitute the violations alleged; and, if so, what penalty should be imposed (as submitted in the parties' Joint Pre-hearing Submission).
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following findings of fact are made: At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent was a licensed Professional Engineer with license PE 16739. On or about February 12, 2004, Respondent signed and sealed two pages of plans for a project described as "Renovations to Existing Facilities 8245 Curryford Road, Orlando." Respondent did not have a contract with or any communication with the Curryford Road owner. Between April 26, 2002, and on or about July 8, 2003, Respondent signed and sealed five pages of plans for a project identified a "2008 Corena Drive." Respondent did not have a contract with or any communication with the Corena Drive owner. Petitioner is the State of Florida agent that provides investigative and prosecutorial services for the Florida Board of Professional Engineers. The Florida Board of Professional Engineers regulates the practice of engineering pursuant to Chapters 455 and 471, Florida Statutes (2001). Joint Exhibit 1, "Renovations to Existing Facilities 8245 Curryford Road, Orlando," and Joint Exhibit 2, "2008 Corena Drive," contain deficiencies regarding mechanical, electrical, and plumbing design. Some deficiencies can be cured by the plans examiner's refusing to approve the plans and requesting clarifying information regarding the noted deficiency. In Florida, an electrical contractor can assume responsibility for electrical design requirements for residential properties that require less than 600 amps systems. However, when an engineer seals the plans, the engineer assumes that responsibility. The initial step in plans approval in Orange County, Florida, is submission of the plans to the Orange County Zoning Department. Both sets of plans in question were initially reviewed by the zoning department. The "Curryford" plans were submitted to the Orange County Building Department for review and were not approved. While the "Corena" plans were retained by Orange County, there is no evidence that these plans were submitted for building department review. It is not atypical for plans to be rejected by the Orange County Building Department and returned to the engineer for additions or corrections. While one small deficiency exists to the structural design of Joint Exhibit 1, "Renovations to Existing Facilities 8245 Curryford Road, Orlando," there was no threat to public safety. There are myriad structural engineering deficiencies in Joint Exhibit 2, "2008 Corena Drive," which are the sealed plans for the residence at that address. The deficiencies may be a result of the fact that the plans were incomplete due to the owners' failure to decide on a cathedral or closed ceiling. If the plans were preliminary, Respondent should not have sealed them. The plans depicted in Joint Exhibit 2, "2008 Corena Drive," do not meet minimum engineering standards; the engineer of record, Respondent, was negligent in sealing these plans. It is acceptable practice in the engineering community for an engineer to work with a designer who drafts design documents and is independently employed. It is also acceptable practice in the engineering community for an engineer working with a designing draftsman not to visit a particular project site if sufficient detail of the project is related to the engineer by the draftsman. It is acceptable practice in the engineering community for a draftsman to design complete drawings and then present the drawings to an engineer for engineering review and approval as long as the draftsman is known to the engineer and the engineer is aware of the draftsman's skill and expertise. Respondent has practiced his profession for 65 years, the last 25 in Florida. He has known Robert Thomas, the individual who drafted both sets of plans in question, for seven or eight years. Respondent considers Mr. Thomas to be a "darn good" draftsman with considerable knowledge of the building industry. When Mr. Thomas brings plans to Respondent for review, they discuss the project and the plans; Respondent then makes appropriate changes to assure that the plans comply with or exceed code. This process meets the "responsible charge" standard.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Professional Engineers reprimand Respondent, Robert C. Kany, P.E., for his negligence in sealing incomplete plans. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of March, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of March, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel M. Greene, Esquire Kirwin & Morris 338 West Morse Boulevard, Suite 150 Winter Park, Florida 32789 Bruce Campbell, Esquire Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Paul J. Martin, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 Doug Sunshine, Esquire Vice President for Legal Affairs Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2507 Callaway Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267
