The Issue Whether Petitioner's challenge to the failing score he received on the Practical Examination for Retention of Firefighter Retest he took on May 17, 2012, should be sustained.
Findings Of Fact Because no evidence was offered at the final hearing held in the instant case, no findings of fact are made.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Financial Services, Division of the State Fire Marshall, enter an order denying Petitioner's challenge to the failing score he received on the Practical Examination for Retention of Firefighter Retest he took on May 17, 2012. S DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of August, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STUART M. LERNER 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 August, 2012. COPIES FURNISHED: Jesse Beauregard 10731 Northwest 18th Court Coral Springs, Florida 33071 Linje E. Rivers, Esquire Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street, Sixth Floor Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0333 Julie Jones, CP, FRP, Agency Clerk Department of Financial Services Division of Legal Services 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0390
The Issue Whether Petitioner was wrongfully denied certification as a fire fighter due to his visual problems.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Petitioner, Louis C. Decker, is currently employed as a paid fire fighter in the City of Palm Bay, Florida. Additionally, Petitioner serves as a volunteer fire fighter in the town of Micco, Florida. Petitioner has served as a fire fighter in both a paid and/or volunteer status for approximately two and one-half (2 1/2) years. By letter dated April 9, 1981, Respondent, Office of the State Fire Marshal, advised Petitioner that he would not be certified as a fire fighter in Florida based on "pre-employment paper work submitted to the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training [which] reflect that [Petitioner] does not meet the qualifications set forth in Section 633.34(5), Florida Statutes." That statute provides in pertinent part that "any person initially employed as a fire fighter must be in good physical condition as determined by a medical examination as prescribed by the Division." That letter added that a pre-employment medical examination of Petitioner indicates a condition other than normal which is outside the parameters of the visual acuity medical standards for fire fighters. Dr. Andrew Zorbis, an ophthalmologist, was received as an expert in ophthalmology herein. Dr. Zorbis examined Petitioner on July 15, 1981. The results thereof reveal that Petitioner's uncorrected visual acuity with the right eye was 20/50 minus 2 and the uncorrected visual acuity with Petitioner's left eye was 20/50 plus 1, with the total uncorrected visual acuity in both eyes being 20/50 plus 2. During the examination, Petitioner was "squinting" severely, which provided him with the best possible uncorrected visual acuity. That is, without squinting, Petitioner's visual acuity would have been much worse and most probably would have been within the range of 20/200 to 20/100. Dr. Zorbis concluded that Petitioner could not be certified based on the NFPA booklet which sets forth the State's Fire-Fighter Standards 2/ and provides that the cause for rejection for an appointment shall be standard visual acuity without correction less than 20/40 in one eye and 20/100 in the other eye. That rule also provides that the corrected vision must be less than 20/20 in one eye and 20/40 in the other eye. Dr. Zorbis also examined Petitioner with his current prescription glasses which reveal a visual acuity of 20/40 in the left eye and 20/30 in the right eye, with corrected vision in both eyes of 20/30 plus Based on the current standards of required visual acuity, Petitioner, therefore, failed to meet either the uncorrected or the corrected visual acuity standards. Dr. Zorbis added that Petitioner was examined under optimum circumstances under a variety of targets. Accordingly, the above test results of Petitioner's vision are the best that Dr. Zorbis could obtain. Dennis "Buddy" Dewar, Chief of the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training, was received as an expert in fire fighter certification standards and qualifications. The task of a fire fighter requires excellent visual acuity. Fire fighters perform a variety of arduous functions under stress, both mental and physical and in so-called "smoky" conditions. Fire fighters are called upon to safely drive vehicles despite glare from light, road moisture or wetness. Fire fighters usually work in smoke-filled rooms and buildings. The permissible visual acuity parameters are 20/40 in one eye and 20/100 in the other eye, uncorrected; correctable to 20/20 in one eye and 20/40 in the other eye. A fire fighter suffering from a visual acuity problem worse than 20/40 puts himself in a position whereby he would have difficulty seeing through smoke and thereby jeopardized his life, the safety of himself, his peers and the safety of the citizens that he is charged with protecting. Chief Dewar indicated that fire fighters often find themselves disoriented in darkened, smoke-filled rooms. With the normal emotional and psychological stresses involved in a fire fighting activity, a fire fighter suffering uncorrected vision outside the Prescribed parameters compounds the stressful duties under which a fire fighter must perform. Finally, Chief Dewar examined the breathing mask used by Petitioner which has an insert for a corrective lens. Chief Dewar credibly testified that the particular mask used by Petitioner, with the breathing apparatus and corrective lens insert intact, has not been approved by the National Institute of Safety and Occupational Health or the American National Standards Institute. Petitioner, Louis C. Decker, as previously stated herein, has been employed as a fire fighter for approximately two and one-half (2 1/2) years. During this period, Petitioner has worked approximately twenty (20) fires as a volunteer fire fighter. Petitioner was denied certification and was not permitted to enroll in the certification and standards school based on certain pre-enrollment documents submitted which indicated that he suffered from a visual acuity problem. Petitioner has had hose-line and ladder training. Additionally, Petitioner has undergone emergency medical services training, salvage training, and hydraulics training. Petitioner has also fought "fake" fires. Petitioner uses a device called a Scott air mask which is a device used to enter a burning structure. According to Petitioner, with his corrective lens inserted in the Scott air mask, his visual acuity is 20/20. 3/ It was noted that Petitioner was told to refrain from driving a vehicle due to a problem he was experiencing with his vision. Several of Petitioner's coworkers appeared and testified as to his satisfactory performance in fighting fires. (Testimony of Captain Green, Lieutenant Samuel Evans and Bryon Williams Varn.) 4/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner's request for State certification as a fire fighter by the State Fire Marshal, be DENIED. RECOMMENDED this 11th day of September, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 11th day of September, 1981.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Orange County Fire Rescue (Respondent) committed an act of unlawful employment discrimination against Marlene Serrano (Petitioner) in violation of the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is a Puerto Rican-born Hispanic female. At all times material to this case, the Petitioner was employed by the Orange County Fire Rescue Department (FRD), a unit of the Orange County government. In order to increase the number of firefighters available to the Respondent, the FRD posted a job advertisement in July 2008 ("Job Req. #007931"), seeking to hire state- certified paramedics who were capable of becoming state-certified firefighters. The advertisement clearly indicated that applicants should be state-certified paramedics who were "[c]apable of successfully completing and maintaining the Florida State Firefighter certification after three (3) years of being hired." Employees hired into the new paramedic-firefighter positions were identified as "paramedics." Employees hired as paramedics only were identified as "PMOs." On September 8, 2008, the FRD officially hired four paramedics for the positions advertised by Job Req. #007931. The group included the Petitioner, two Caucasian females (Sarah Wilson and Jennifer Massey) and a Caucasian male (Shane Doolittle). It was commonly understood by those hired, including the Petitioner, that they were required to obtain state certification as firefighters by September 18, 2011, the third anniversary of their employment. Pursuant to the advertised job requirements, the paramedics were required to pass a physical ability test (referred to as the "CPAT") and complete the Orange County firefighter orientation program. The Petitioner passed the CPAT on her second attempt and completed the orientation program. Candidates seeking to be certified by the State of Florida as firefighters are required to complete a 450-hour firefighter training course (commonly referred to as Firefighter I and II Minimum Standards classes) and to pass a firefighter certification exam. The Petitioner had completed the Firefighter I and II Minimum Standards classes as of December 17, 2010. On December 22, 2010, the Petitioner took the firefighter certification exam at the Central Florida Firefighter Academy and failed the hose and ladder components of the exam. When the Petitioner failed to pass the exam, the Respondent placed her in a fire station with a ladder truck company so that she could improve her ladder skills. On February 22, 2011, the Petitioner retook the firefighter certification exam at a training facility in Ocala, Florida, where she successfully completed the hose component of the exam, but again failed the ladder component. A candidate for firefighter certification is permitted to take the exam twice. A candidate who twice fails the exam is required to retake the Firefighter II Minimum Standards class before being permitted to retake the certification exam. On March 8, 2011, the Petitioner met with FRD officials to assess her progress towards obtaining the firefighter certification. The Petitioner had received notice of the meeting on March 1, 2011, from Assistant Fire Chief Brian Morrow. Similar meetings occurred with the other paramedics employed by the Respondent. During the meeting, the Petitioner advised the FRD officials that she intended to dispute the results of her second test. The Petitioner was aware that she could not retake the certification exam without retaking the Firefighter II Minimum Standards class. Although the Petitioner contacted a training facility to inquire about course schedules, she did not attempt to retake the training course. The March 8 meeting and discussion was memorialized in a letter to the Petitioner dated March 14, 2011. The letter contained an assessment of her progress towards certification. The letter also noted that she was required to obtain her state certification prior to September 18, 2011, and that failure to obtain certification by that date could result in termination of her employment. The Petitioner received the letter on March 16, 2011. In an email dated March 22, 2011, to FRD Lieutenant John Benton, the Petitioner advised that she was trying to determine how she would be able to go to class and maintain her work schedule. Lt. Benton forwarded the email to Assistant Fire Chief Morrow. Assistant Fire Chief Morrow replied to the Petitioner's email on March 29, 2011, wherein he advised her that the FRD had met its obligation to fund the certification training. He asked the Petitioner to advise him of the status of her appeal, to identify the class she was planning to take, and to outline her schedule and specify the hours she would use as vacation time and as "time trades." He asked for a response "as soon as possible" and invited the Petitioner to contact him directly to resolve any questions. The Petitioner received Assistant Fire Chief Morrow's March 29 email, but did not respond to it. Assistant Fire Chief Morrow subsequently contacted the Petitioner by telephone to inquire as to the issues noted in the email, but received little additional information from the Petitioner regarding her plans. After receiving the official notice that she had failed her second attempt at the certification exam, the Petitioner filed an administrative appeal (DOAH Case No 11-1556) to dispute the scoring of the exam. A hearing was conducted before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) on May 24, 2011. On July 7, 2011, the ALJ issued a Recommended Order finding that the Respondent failed the exam and recommending that the appeal be denied. By Final Order dated August 20, 2011, the State of Florida, Department of Financial Services, Division of State Fire Marshall, adopted the findings and recommendation of the ALJ and denied the Petitioner's appeal of the exam grading. The Final Order specifically noted that the Petitioner's certification was denied until she obtained a passing score on the exam. The Petitioner made no further efforts to become a state-certified firefighter. She did not register to retake the Firefighter II Minimum Standards class. As of September 17, 2011, the Petitioner was not a certified firefighter and was not actively engaged in seeking certification. Because the Petitioner did not meet the published job requirements and was making no effort to meet them, the Respondent terminated the Petitioner from employment on September 17, 2011. The Respondent offered to permit the Petitioner to resign from her employment rather than be terminated, but she declined the offer. At the hearing, the Petitioner testified that, after she twice failed to pass the certification exam and was unsuccessful in challenging the scoring of the second attempt, she had no further interest in obtaining the certification. There is no evidence that the Petitioner requested an extension of the applicable three-year certification deadline. Nonetheless, the Petitioner has asserted that the Respondent provided deadline extensions to other paramedics and that the Respondent's actions, in not providing an extension to her and in terminating her employment, were based on her race or national origin. There is no evidence to support the assertion. The March 14, 2011, letter specifically referenced the published job requirements set forth in Job Req. #007931, as well as the applicable provisions of the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) governing the Petitioner's employment by the Respondent. The Petitioner was a member of the Orange County Professional Fire Fighters Association. Her employment by the Respondent was subject to a CBA dated December 14, 2010, between the Respondent and the Orange County Professional Fire Fighters Association, Local 2057, International Association of Fire Fighters. Section IV, Article 60, of the CBA provided as follows: ARTICLE 60 - PARAMEDIC PROMOTIONS/STATUS CHANGE Employees in the Paramedic classification agree to, upon reaching three (3) years of employment [sic] to meet the requirements of the Firefighter classification. Either upon reaching three (3) years of employment, or upon the desire of the department, the employee shall be moved from the Paramedic pay plan to Step 1 of the Firefighter pay step plan or to the higher nearest step to the employee's Paramedic current rate of pay. Nothing in this Agreement shall prohibit the Orange County Fire/Rescue Department from terminating the employment of a Paramedic when upon reaching three (3) years employment the minimum requirements for the position of Firefighter have not been met. Employees not meeting the minimum qualifications by the three (3) year employment anniversary may be separated from county employment without a predetermination hearing (PDH) and without access to Article 17 - Grievance and Arbitration Procedure of this contract. It is the sole discretion of Fire Rescue Management to extend the three (3) year time frame limitation due to case-by-case circumstances and/or operational need. The evidence establishes that certification deadlines have rarely been extended by FRD officials. The evidence fails to establish that FRD officials have considered race or national origin in making decisions related to deadline extensions. Sarah Wilson, a Caucasian female, was hired at the same time as the Petitioner and the deadline by which she was required to have obtained firefighter certification was September 18, 2011. Ms. Wilson completed the training course on September 15, 2011. She was scheduled to sit for the certification exam on October 4 and 5, 2011. The scheduling of the exam was the responsibility of the training facility. Neither Ms. Wilson nor the Respondent had any control over the testing date or the scheduling of the exam. The Respondent permitted Ms. Wilson to remain employed beyond the certification deadline and through the dates of the exam, an extension of 17 days. The extension granted to Ms. Wilson was the only time that the Respondent has allowed a paramedic more than 36 months of employment in which to obtain the required certification. Ms. Wilson passed the firefighter exam on October 4 and 5, 2011, and became a state-certified firefighter. Had Ms. Wilson not passed the exam on October 4 and 5, 2011, her employment would have been terminated by the Respondent. At the time of the hearing, Ms. Wilson retained all required certifications and remained employed as a firefighter paramedic with the FRD. In contrast to Ms. Wilson, the Petitioner was making no effort to obtain the required certification when the certification deadline passed. There was no evidence that the Respondent's extension of Ms. Wilson's certification deadline was based upon race or national origin. Jennifer Massey, a Caucasian female who was hired at the same time as the Petitioner, left her employment with the Respondent prior to the certification deadline. Shane Doolittle, a Caucasian male, was hired at the same time as the Petitioner, and the deadline by which he was required to have obtained firefighter certification was originally September 18, 2011. However, Mr. Doolittle was called to active military duty for three months during the three-year certification period. In order to provide Mr. Doolittle with the full 36 months of employment prior to the certification deadline, the Respondent extended Mr. Doolittle's certification deadline by three months, to December 18, 2011. In contrast to Mr. Doolittle, the Petitioner was employed and present with the FRD throughout the three-year period and had a full 36 consecutive months in which to obtain the required certification. There was no evidence that the Respondent's extension of Mr. Doolittle's certification deadline was based upon race or national origin. Mr. Doolittle did not become certified by the extended deadline, and the Respondent terminated his employment on December 18, 2011. There is no evidence that the Respondent was not invested in each paramedic successfully completing their training and meeting the requirements set forth in Job Req. #007931. The Respondent hired 12 paramedics in 2008. The Respondent paid the tuition and equipment costs for each paramedic who sought state certification as a firefighter. Additionally, the Respondent paid the salaries and benefits for the paramedics while in classes or exams, as well as the costs of the employees who covered the shifts of such paramedics. The Petitioner received the same training and benefits as all other employees seeking certification. The Respondent anticipated that the Petitioner would ultimately complete the training and exam requirements for certification, and she participated in the recruit training graduation ceremony with her colleagues. The 2008 hires included a Puerto Rican-born Hispanic male who obtained his firefighter certification prior to the deadline, and a Caucasian male who resigned from employment in lieu of termination because he had not obtained the firefighter certification by the deadline and was making no progress towards doing so. During the termination meeting with the Petitioner, FRD Chief Michael Howe advised the Petitioner that she was eligible for re-employment with the FRD if she obtained the firefighter certification. About a week after the termination meeting, Chief Howe called the Petitioner and left a voice message, offering to loan equipment to the Petitioner and to sponsor her for a discount on tuition costs, should she choose to retake the required course and become re-eligible for the certification exam. Chief Howe received no response from the Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing the complaint filed by the Petitioner against the Respondent in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of February, 2013, 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 8th day of February, 2013. COPIES FURNISHED: Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations Suite 100 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Susan T. Spradley, Esquire Gray Robinson, P.A. Post Office Box 3068 Orlando, Florida 32802 Scott Christopher Adams, Esquire LaBar and Adams, P.A. 1527 East Concord Street Orlando, Florida 32803 Cheyanne Costilla, Interim General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue for consideration in this proceeding is whether the Respondent’s license as an adult living facility should be subject to an administrative fine in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500.00) for repeated class III deficiencies.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is the owner/operator of San Juan Retirement Home. The home is licensed to operate a 6-bed assisted living facility in Jacksonville, Florida. On March 5, 2003, AHCA conducted a survey of Respondent's facility. During that survey, Respondent did not have a fire safety inspection report within 365 days from an earlier fire safety inspection report. Because of the lack of a timely report the facility was cited for violating Tag A209, a Class III deficiency. Tag A209 requires that all licensed facilities have an annual fire inspection conducted by the local fire marshal or authorities having jurisdiction. In this instance the Agency interprets the word annual to mean 365 days from the last inspection report. Respondent had the facility inspected by the Fire Marshal on March 12, 2003. She received the report the same day. A follow-up survey was conducted on April 15, 2003. Tag A209 was noted as corrected in a timely manner by Respondent. Since this was the first Class III deficiency regarding the timeliness of the inspection report, no penalties were imposed by Petitioner on Respondent. On April 23, 2004, AHCA again inspected Respondent's facility. During the inspection, Respondent again did not have a fire safety inspection report completed within 365 days of the earlier inspection report of March 12, 2003. Because of the lack of the report, the facility was cited for a class III deficiency under Tag A209. Respondent admitted that she twice did not have a timely fire safety inspection report completed for her facility. The evidence demonstrated that, prior to the April 2004 inspection by AHCA, Respondent had called the Fire Marshal’s office to schedule an inspection for the facility. However, the call was not made until the expiration of the March 12, 2003, fire safety inspection report. For some unknown reason the Fire Marshal’s office did not schedule the fire safety inspection until after the April 2004 inspection. However, the Fire Marshal’s failure to schedule the inspection does not excuse Respondent’s lack of a timely inspection and report since Respondent remains responsible for obtaining the inspection and report in a timely manner and did not call the Fire Marshal’s office until the expiration of the earlier report. To her credit, Respondent obtained a new fire safety inspection report on May 4 or 5, 2004, after AHCA had inspected the facility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Finding of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That AHCA enter a final order imposing a $500.00 administrative fine for repeatedly failing to timely conduct or obtain an annual fire safety inspection report. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of November, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 9th day of November, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael O. Mathis, Esquire Agency for Health Care Administration 2727 Mahan Drive Building 3, Suite 3408D Mail Stop 3 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Elvira C. Demdam San Juan Retirement home 6561 San Juan Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32210 Alan Levine, Secretary Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3116 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Valda Clark Christian, General Counsel Agency for Health Care Administration Fort Knox Building, Suite 3431 2727 Mahan Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308
The Issue Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a certificate of compliance as a fire fighter under the provisions of Rule 4A-37.0515, Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner completed 240 hours of firefighter minimum standards training at the Orlando/Orange County Fire Training Academy in 1982 and was issued a certificate of completion at the end of the course. Between 1982 and 1985, Petitioner served as a reserve firefighter with the Winter Park Fire Department. From 1985 to June 1989, Petitioner was on inactive status. From June 1989 until March 1990, Petitioner completed technical training in American Sign Language. From 1990 through 1993, Petitioner completed a Bachelor of Science degree, with a double major in business and marketing. Between 1996 and February 1997, Petitioner was re-certified and also became a fire inspector. In February 1997, Petitioner was awarded an Associate of Science degree in Fire Science. Petitioner has served as a contract fire inspector with the Orange County Fire Department and has been a principal in a private arson investigation company for the past thirteen or fourteen years in Orange County, Florida. Florida law was amended in 1989 to require that a person pass an examination as prescribed by the Department, in addition to completing the firefighter minimum standards training program and being qualified for employment to be issued a certificate of compliance. Promulgated in 1991 and amended in 1995, a Florida administrative rule granted those persons that had been issued a certificate of completion by the opportunity to upgrade their certificate of completion to a certificate of compliance by June 30, 1995, without having to comply with the current requirements of the law. Petitioner did not upgrade her certificate of completion to a certificate of compliance by June 30, 1995. During the years 1991 through 1995, Petitioner made no effort to keep informed about the current requirements of becoming certified as a firefighter. Petitioner had a total of four years in which to upgrade her certificate of completion into a certificate of compliance. More than 11,000 certificates of completion were upgraded to certificates of compliance by June 30, 1995; 2,900 were not. Eighty percent of those certificates of completion that had been issued by the State, since certificates of completion were first issued in 1969, were upgraded to certificates of compliance by June 30, 1995. Petitioner's first inquiry into the status of her certificate of completion and request for a certificate of compliance was made by letter dated August 12, 1997, to the Fire Marshall's office. Respondent responded to Petitioner's August 12, 1997, letter with a letter dated October 3, 1997, which informed Petitioner that any certificate of completion not upgraded by June 30, 1995, was revoked. Respondent's October 3, 1997, letter also informed Petitioner that failure to follow the procedures outlined in Rule 4A-37.0515, Florida Administrative Code, for upgrading certificates of completion would require the individual to meet the current requirements of the law, which include having to complete 360 hours of firefighter minimum standards training, passing the Minimum Standards Certification Examination, and being qualified for employment according to Section 633.34, Florida Statutes, in order to be issued a certificate of compliance. There are no provisions in the rule for an extension after the cutoff date of June 30, 1995. There is no firefighter minimum standards training program consisting of 120 hours of instruction for the Petitioner to take which would enable Petitioner to meet the current requirements of Section 633.35, Florida Statutes, which require a total of 360 hours of firefighter minimum standards training, as Petitioner had completed only 240 hours of firefighter minimum standards training in 1982. Prior to 1984, a person needed both a certificate of completion and a certificate of compliance to become a firefighter. At that time, to be qualified for a certificate of compliance, a person had to successfully complete firefighter minimum standards training and satisfy the qualifications for employment found in Section 633.34, Florida Statutes. Section 633.35, Florida Statutes, was amended in 1984 with the result that the Respondent no longer issued certificates of completion, which had been issued since 1969, for the successful fulfillment of the firefighter minimum standards training program. Rule 4A-37.56 Florida Administrative Code, was amended in order to implement the amendments made in 1989 to Section 633.35, Florida Statutes. Rule 4A-37.056, Florida Administrative Code, was amended to establish the Minimum Standards Certification Examination, as required by the 1989 amendments to Section 633.35, Florida Statutes. Rule 4A-37.0515, Florida Administrative Code, was promulgated in order to implement the amendments made in 1989 to Section 633.35, Florida Statutes. In order to upgrade a certificate of completion to a certificate of compliance, Rule 4A-37.0515, Florida Administrative Code, provided that a person who had been issued a certificate of completion was required to make application to the Respondent for certification as a firefighter. Rule 4A-37.0515, Florida Administrative Code, as initially promulgated in 1991, stated that certificates of completion had to be upgraded to certificates of compliance by June 30, 1993. Respondent published a Notice of Changes to Rule Chapter 4A-37, Florida Administrative Code, including the promulgation of Rule 4A-37.0515, in the Florida Administrative Weekly on March 15, 1991. Respondent keeps a mailing list, which includes every fire department and training center in the State of Florida, to facilitate mailing out notices of anything that effects the fire service, including changes in the statutes and rules governing the fire service. Respondent sent a copy of the Notice of Changes to Rule Chapter, 4A-37, Florida Administrative Code, including the promulgation of Rule 4A-37.0515, to every fire department and training center in the State of Florida on July 26, 1991. Respondent sent a copy of the Notice of Changes to Rule Chapter 4A-37, Florida Administrative Code, including the promulgation of Rule 4A-37.0515, to every fire department and training center in Orange County, Florida appearing on the Department's mailing list. Petitioner has lived and worked in Orange County, Florida, all of her life. Individual notices were not sent to certificate holders. Rule 4A-37.0515, Florida Administrative Code, became effective on June 30, 1991. Petitioner did not upgrade her certificate of completion to a certificate of compliance by June 30, 1993. Section 633.35, Florida Statutes, was amended in 1993 to require that firefighter minimum standards training would be composed of at least 360 hours of instruction. Respondent published a Notice of Changes to Rule Chapter, 4A-37, Florida Administrative Code, including the Rule 4A-37.0515, in the Florida Administrative Law Weekly on December 2, 1994. Respondent also sent a copy of the Notice of Changes to Rule Chapter, 4A-37, Florida Administrative Code, including the amendment of Rule 4A-37.0515, to every fire department and training center in the State of Florida on April 24, 1995. Respondent sent a copy of the Notice of Changes to Rule Chapter, 4A-37, Florida Administrative Code, including the amendment of Rule 4A-37.0515, to every fire department and training center in Orange County, Florida appearing on the Department's mailing list on April 24, 1995. Notice of Changes to the rule were not sent to individuals who held certificates. On March 20, 1995, Rule 4A-37.0515, Florida Administrative Code, was amended, extending the deadline by which certificates of completion could be upgraded to certificates of compliance from June 30, 1993, to June 30, 1995. Rule 4A-37.0515, Florida Administrative Code, was further amended to state that those individuals who held certificates of completion but did not upgrade them by June 30, 1995, would be required to meet the current requirements of Section 633.35, Florida Statutes, which included having to complete 360 hours of firefighter minimum standards training, passing the Minimum Standards Certification Examination, and being qualified for employment according to Section 633.34, Florida Statutes, in order to be issued a certificate of compliance. Certificates of completion which were not upgraded to certificates of compliance by June 30, 1995, were revoked that same day.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying the Petitioner's request for a certificate of compliance by the Department's Bureau of Fire Standards and Training of the Division of the State Fire Marshal. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of July, 1998, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of July, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Kathleen Mohr 4702 Abaca Street Orlando, Florida 32808 M. Joel Prather, Esquire Department of Insurance 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Daniel Y. Sumner, Esquire Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Lower Level 26 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300 Bill Nelson, Commissioner Department of Insurance and Treasurer The Capitol, Plaza Level 11 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0300
The Issue Is Petitioner eligible for Respondent sponsored retraining?
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant findings of fact are made: Petitioner sustained a workers’ compensation injury (injury) to his right knee on November 26, 1989, while working for the Polk County Fire Department (Fire Department), as a firefighter. Following the injury, Petitioner received authorized medical care at the expense of his employer, which included surgery, followed by approximately one year of physical rehabilitation. After completing approximately one year of physical rehabilitation and light duty work, Petitioner was returned to full duty work with the Fire Department in January 1991. Petitioner continued to experience problems with his right knee, including pain and swelling. However, Petitioner continued on full time duty receiving medical care for his knee. Petitioner’s right knee remained problematic and required regular medical attention between 1990 and 1996. In January 1996, Thomas F. Winters, Jr., M.D. performed a second surgical procedure on Petitioner’s right knee. Following the second surgical procedure, Dr. Winters provided conservative treatment for a brief period before releasing Petitioner to full duty on March 9, 1996, without any restrictions. On March 12, 1996, Dr. Winters placed Petitioner at maximum medical improvement (MMI). Dr. Winters is of the opinion that Petitioner had some degenerative changes to his knee but that those changes were related to a previous arthritic problem, not to the workman’s compensation injury; and if Petitioner was performing full firefighter duties before the injury then he could perform those duties after March 9, 1996. However, based on the opinions expressed by Dr. Barrett, and Dr. McGregor, Dr. Croft, it appears that Dr. Winters did not properly take into account Petitioner’s continued problem with his knee when Dr. Winters found Petitioner at MMI and put Petitioner on full firefighter’s duty. At the time of his release by Dr. Winters on March 9, 1996, and placed at MMI, Petitioner’s knee was so weak that he could not climb stairs or climb ladders or lift anything with any degree of certainty and Petitioner did not feel himself capable of safely performing the full duties of a firefighter. Because of his knee, Petitioner did not return to full duty as a firefighter but instead requested another medical opinion. Petitioner was authorized to see Carl L. Croft, M.D. for a second opinion. Dr. Croft agreed that Petitioner could not perform full duty as a firefighter and recommended that he receive further physical therapy. This physical therapy was never authorized. Petitioner did not return to full duty as a firefighter following Dr. Winters’ release. Instead, Petitioner requested the additional care recommended by Dr. Croft. This additional care was never authorized. Ultimately, Petitioner exhausted his sick leave and vacation time and was forced to return to work in May 1996. Upon his return to work in May 1996, Petitioner advised his employer of his continued concerns as they related to his knee and his inability to perform the essential functions of a firefighter. At this point, Petitioner’s employer changed Petitioner’s work duties and he was not functioning as a firefighter. Because of Petitioner’s physical limitations on performing full firefighter duties his employment could not be considered "suitable gainful employment" as that term is defined in Section 440.491(1)(g), Florida Statutes. Petitioner was placed on administrative leave in October 1996, and remained on administrative leave until his termination for cause on January 17, 1997. At the time of termination, Petitioner’s right knee continued to be problematic. Petitioner sought retraining through Respondent and was approved for retraining on July 14, 1998. However, the Fire Department and its insurance carrier objected on the basis that Petitioner had returned to work for 90 days or more after the injury and therefore, retraining was precluded by rule. After a reevaluation, the Respondent determined that Petitioner had worked more than 90 days after being released by Dr. Winters to return to full-time work and, additionally, had worked more than 90 days after Dr. Winters had determined that Petitioner had reached MMI. Therefore, Petitioner was denied retraining on the basis that retraining was precluded by rule. Thereafter, Respondent’s initial decision to grant retraining was revoked and retraining denied by letter dated August 5, 1998. Petitioner worked full-time for more than 90 days after his injury when he was returned to full firefighter’s duty by Dr. Winters in January 1991, and when he returned to work after Dr. Winters had determined that Petitioner had reached MMI on March 12, 1996. However, neither of these periods of employment could be considered as "suitable gainful employment" as that term is defined in Section 440.491(1)(g), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Respondent enter a final order granting Petitioner’s request for retraining. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th of May, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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) 921-6947 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of May 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Mary Hooks, Secretary Department of Labor and Employment Security 303 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Sherri Wilkes-Cape, General Counsel Department of Labor and Employment Security 307 Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2152 Geoffrey Bichler, Esquire Geoffrey Bichler, P.A. 533 West New England Avenue, Suite C Winter Park, Florida 32789 Nancy Staff Slayden, Esquire Department of Labor and Employment Security Suite 307, Hartman Building 2012 Capital Circle, Southeast Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2189
The Issue The issue for determination in this proceeding is whether the proposed amendment to Florida Administrative Code Rule 69A-39.005(1)(b)2.d. is an invalid exercise of legislatively granted authority in violation of section 120.52(8)(b), (c), (e), and (f), Florida Statutes (2020).
Findings Of Fact The Parties Respondent, Department of Financial Services, Division of State Fire Marshal, is headed by the Chief Financial Officer of the state, who serves as the Chief Fire Marshal pursuant to section 603.104(1), Florida Statutes. The State Fire Marshal is charged with the responsibility to minimize the loss of life and property in Florida due to fire, and to adopt rules, which must “be in substantial conformity with generally accepted standards of firesafety; must take into consideration the direct supervision of children in nonresidential child care facilities; and must balance and temper the need of the State Fire Marshal to protect all Floridians from fire hazards with the social and economic inconveniences that may be caused or created by the rules.” § 633.104(1), Fla. Stat. Petitioner is a Florida corporation authorized by the Department to offer fire certification training courses in both online and blended learning formats. A blended learning course is one that has both online and in-person components. The blended learning courses Petitioner currently offers have 37 hours of online learning and eight hours of in-person instruction to address those portions of the course that may need “hands on” instruction. Section 633.216, Florida Statutes, requires Respondent to certify fire safety inspectors, and to provide by rule for the development of a fire safety inspector training program of at least 200 hours. The program developed by Department rule must be administered by education or training providers approved by the Department for the purpose of providing basic certification training for fire safety inspectors. § 633.216(2), (8), Fla. Stat. Current Certification Requirements Section 633.406 identifies several certifications in the fire safety arena that may be awarded by the Division of State Fire Marshal: firefighter, for those meeting the requirements in section 633.408(4); fire safety inspector, for those meeting the requirements in section 633.216(2); special certification, for those meeting the requirements in section 633.408(6); forestry certification, for those meeting the requirements of section 590.02(1)(e); fire service instructor, for those who demonstrate general or specialized knowledge, skills, and abilities in firefighting and meet the qualifications established by rule; certificate of competency, for those meeting certain requirements with special qualifications for particular aspects of firefighting service; and volunteer fire fighter certifications. In order to become a fire safety officer, an applicant must take the courses outlined in rule 69A-39.005, and pass an examination with a score of 70% or higher. The five courses as listed in the current version of rule 69A- 39.005 are Fire Inspection Practices; Private Protection Systems; Blue Print Reading and Plans Examinations (also known as Construction Documents and Plans Review); Codes and Standards; and Characteristics of Building Construction. The Rulemaking Process On November 5, 2015, the Department held the first of a series of rule workshops and “listening sessions” as it began the process for making changes in the certification program for fire safety inspectors.1 These workshops and listening sessions were held on November 5, 2015; July 10, 2016; November 10, 2016; January 17, 2017; August 8, 2018; November 8, 2018; and October 29, 2019. As described by Mark Harper, who is now the assistant superintendent of the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training at the Florida State Fire College, the Bureau conducted the first few listening sessions to hear the industry’s view on what changes were needed, followed by drafting proposed rule language and conduct of rule workshops. 1 Curiously, neither party introduced the notices for any of these workshops or listening sessions, so how notice was provided to interested persons wanting to give input on possible changes cannot be determined. The first workshop/listening session was conducted on November 5, 2015, in Palm Beach Gardens, and was moderated by Mark Harper. At this workshop, a variety of comments were received regarding the quality of the existing program and the quality of the fire safety inspectors being certified. Those comments included the need for more field training and more hours of instruction; suggested use of a “task book” in training; the view that classes should be taught by more experienced inspectors, not just people who have passed the classes; and the need for more practical training. The view was expressed by at least one attendee that the quality and method of delivery needed to be examined, and that Codes and Standards and Construction Documents and Plans Review should not be taught online. In December 2015, Tony Apfelbeck, the Fire Marshal for Altamonte Springs, provided to Mr. Harper proposed draft revisions to chapter 69A-39, which included increasing the number of training hours to 315 hours (as opposed to the 200 hours required by section 633.216), and requiring use of a task book, as well as other changes. The draft did not include any language regarding course methodology in terms of classroom, online, or blended format classes. At the next workshop, held July 10, 2016, a draft proposal was provided to the audience, but it is not clear whether the draft provided is the one Mr. Apfelbeck suggested or something else. Concerns were expressed regarding the implementation of the use of a task book, and at least one speaker speaking against the suggested changes opined that the changes suggested in the draft would cost more money. Another commented that increasing the hours may not help the issue. Instead, there should be a greater emphasis on the quality of the educational delivery, and that instruction needed to be tied more closely to field work. Late in the workshop, comments were made regarding online and classroom delivery, and it was suggested that some classes should not be held online. While the drafts that were provided at the various workshops are not in the record, at some point, language was added that would require two of the five courses for fire safety certification, i.e., Codes and Standards and Construction Documents and Plans Review, be taught in a traditional classroom setting only. The subject of online classes was discussed more thoroughly at the next workshop held November 10, 2016. During this workshop, there were comments both in favor of and against the use of online classes. While the speakers cannot always be identified from the recordings of the workshops, some attendees stated that some of the online providers were doing a really good job, and the concern was raised that if online classes were eliminated, it might be an exchange of convenience for quality.2 At least one person expressed the opinion that the speaker was not a fan of online classes, and Mr. Harper suggested that blended learning might be a way to meet some of the concerns expressed, and that the method of delivery would be up to the institution. Others who participated in the workshop spoke highly of blended classes. The remaining workshops also had discussions regarding the online class change, as well as other changes in the proposed rule. Opinions were voiced on both sides of the issue. The primary source of comments seeking a traditional classroom setting only were fire marshals at various municipalities around the state concerned about the need for “hands-on” training and the current lack of preparation encountered with new staff. On July 10, 2019, the Department filed a Notice of Proposed Rules for rules 69A-39.003, 39.005, and 39.009. The proposed rule amendments included the following amendment to rule 69A-39.005(1)(b)2.d.: d. The courses “Codes and Standards” and “Construction Documents and Plans Review” 2 The identity of the speakers is not important, and the comments are not relayed for the truth of the statements made. They are listed simply to show that the Department heard several viewpoints during these listening sessions. required under this paragraph (1)(b) will only be approved by the Bureau when taught in a traditional classroom delivery method. No definition for “traditional classroom delivery method” is provided. On January 15, 2020, Respondent conducted a public hearing on the proposed rule. As was the case with the workshops, people voiced both support and opposition to the proposal to require a traditional classroom setting for the Codes and Standards and Construction Documents and Plans Review courses. Counsel for Petitioner appeared and spoke against the proposed language to eliminate online and blended learning for the two classes, and asked whether any type of data existed to support the change in the rule, or whether any type of study had been conducted to gauge the need for the change. Respondent’s representative stated that the proposed language was based upon “extensive testimony” from employers requesting the change. Counsel also asked that Respondent consider defining what is meant by traditional classroom delivery. No such definition has been added to the rule. The Notice of Proposed Rule does not include a Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs. Instead, it states: The Agency has determined that this will not have an adverse impact on small business or likely increase directly or indirectly regulatory costs in excess of $200,000 in the aggregate within one year after the implementation of the rule. A SERC has not been prepared by the Agency. The Agency has determined that the proposed rule is not expected to require legislative ratification based on the statement of regulatory costs or if no SERC is required, the information expressly relied upon and described herein: The Department’s economic analysis of the potential impact of the proposed rule amendments determined that there will be no adverse economic impact or increased regulatory costs that would require legislative ratification. Any person who wishes to provide information regarding a statement of estimated regulatory costs, or provide a proposal for a lower cost regulatory alternative must do so within 21 days of this Notice. Petitioner addressed the increased costs under the proposed rule during at least one of the workshops. There is no evidence, however, that Petitioner submitted, in writing, a proposal for a lower cost regulatory alternative within 21 days of the Notice of Proposed Rule. On January 27, 2020, Petitioner filed its Petition to Challenge Specific Changes to Proposed Rule 69A-39.005(1)(b)2.d. The Petition is timely filed. Current Online Providers and Course Review Process As of April 10, 2020, there are approximately 20 organizations approved by the Bureau of Fire Standards and Training that offer distance learning delivery for courses in programs leading to a certification pursuant to rule 69A-37.605. Of those providers, two are approved to teach Codes and Standards and three are approved to teach Construction Documents and Plans Review. In addition, as of June 1, 2020, there are 13 state colleges and/or universities in Florida also approved to provide distance learning. Of those, ten are approved to offer Codes and Standards, and ten are approved to offer Construction Documents and Plans Review. Petitioner has been approved to teach these two courses in a blended format since at least 2015. It also has articulation agreements with some educational institutions, including Waldorf University in Iowa, and Columbia Southern University in Alabama. The Department previously sought to take action against Ricky Rescue related to the type of courses taught, although the statutory basis for taking action against Ricky Rescue is not part of the evidence presented in this proceeding. The Consent Order entered to resolve the prior proceeding expressly provides, “Respondents agree that they will not offer any on-line courses until such time as they obtain approval from the Bureau, which will not be unreasonably withheld.” In order to be approved to teach any of the courses for certification in an online or blended format, a provider is required to go through an extensive review process. Initially, Respondent used a Quality Matters Higher Education Rubric to evaluate the courses a provider sought to offer. Course approvals initially took anywhere from four months to a year and a half to meet the standards and be approved. Respondent no longer uses the Quality Matters rubric, because it has transitioned to the accreditation process used by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. With this change, the length of time for class approvals has shortened considerably. Susan Schell used to be the Department’s Training Programs Manager and was in charge of the review and approval of classes for online learning. She has since moved on to another position within the Department. Ms. Schell would take the submitted course herself, view the different videos and discussion boards, and work through some of the projects, as well as review some of the case discussions and questions. Ricky Rescue’s courses that she reviewed met all of the state requirements to be approved. According to Ms. Schell, classes taught in the traditional format did not go through the same review process. Ricky Rescue’s accreditation verification from AdvancED Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Council on Accreditation and School Improvement indicated that Ricky Rescue’s accreditation was confirmed on March 31, 2017, for a five-year term expiring June 30, 2022. There is no credible dispute regarding whether Ricky Rescue complies with the requirements for offering its courses in a blended format. The report of the external review team prepared by AdvancED Education, Inc., noted that the school’s website is exemplary and stated in its conclusions: Once a month, students attend a day on site blended learning instruction where students can collaborate and complete and present projects. Given that the owners are brother fire fighters, there is a genuine feeling of camaraderie and collegiality. It is apparent to the Team that the Ricky Rescue Training Academy is an ideal institutional opportunity to obtain classes for firefighter training and certification classes. … The school has embraced the continuous improvement model to insure that they continue to deliver high quality online educational programs with rigor, relevance, and fidelity. Two Different Views Petitioner and Respondent approached the proposed rule amendment, both at the workshops and public hearing conducted by the Department and at the hearing in this proceeding, from different perspectives. Ricky Rescue focused on the needs and opinions of students seeking to take the courses. Its witnesses testified that the blended courses had significant substantive content; that the in-person component gave the necessary opportunity for completion of group projects and hands-on instruction or field trips; and that the ability to complete the course at any time during a 30-day period was essential in terms of both costs and scheduling for the student, and completing the classes while managing job and family responsibilities. For example, Ryan Russell has worked for over ten years in the fire service and is a battalion chief for the Haines City Fire Department. He has a variety of certifications and oversaw the training division for his department. Mr. Ryan has taken five courses from Ricky Rescue, and speaks highly of them. Mr. Ryan agrees that there are some advantages to traditional classroom settings, because they provide more opportunities for engagement, but that ultimately, a class is only as good as the instructor. Similarly, Robert Morgan is also a battalion chief at another fire department, and took Documents and Plans Review from Ricky Rescue. Mr. Morgan believed that the online blended course is just as good as a traditional classroom setting, and believes that in the blended setting, a student has to work harder than just sitting at the back of the classroom. Both men spoke of the convenience and accessibility that online learning provides that a traditional classroom does not. Matthew Trent also testified in favor of the availability of online and blended courses. Mr. Trent has a master’s degree in public administration and is a Ph.D. student in public policy administration. He is also a certified state firefighter II; pump operator; Fire Officer I, II, III, and IV; fire inspector I and II; fire investigator I; and fire life safety educator I. About half of Mr. Trent’s certifications have been based on classes taken online, and all of his classes for his masters’ and doctoral degrees have been online. Mr. Trent felt both courses at issue could be taught in an online format, and stated that both as a student and as an instructor, it is up to the student to choose the delivery method by which they want to learn. If not for online learning, he would not have been able to accomplish nearly as much in his professional life, because distance learning gives the student the ability to work around other responsibilities. The Department, on the other hand, was influenced more heavily by (and sought information from) the fire safety officials across the state who employ fire safety inspectors. Many of those officials spoke at the public workshops and some testified at hearing. The major concern voiced by these officials was that new fire safety inspectors certified by the state were not really prepared to do their job. Although most acknowledged that some on the job training would always be necessary to deal with local codes and ordinances that are not part of the state curriculum, they felt that new inspectors did not have a good grasp of the concepts necessary to be effective, especially with respect to the skills taught in the classes at issue in this case. For example, Anthony Apfelbeck is the Director of the Building and Fire Safety Department for the City of Altamonte Springs. He has worked in that department for approximately 20 years and served as Fire Marshal for a significant portion of his tenure there, and served in other cities as well. Mr. Apfelbeck has an impressive array of certifications and currently supervises approximately eight fire safety inspectors. He attended almost all of the workshops and was an active participant. Mr. Apfelbeck testified that he concurred with the State Fire Marshal’s Association that both classes should be offered only in a traditional classroom environment. He stated that there is a limited period of time to get someone trained and certified as a fire safety inspector, and he has seen some of the deficiencies in the current training. In his view, requiring these two classes to be given in a traditional classroom environment allows the instructor to keep the student engaged, and to get into critical thinking with probing questions and real-life examples. Instructors can have interactions with students that address issues the students may be having in the students’ jurisdictions, and read the body language of the students to gauge involvement. He also spoke of the ability to develop relationships with other individuals in the class and develop a peer group within that body. Mr. Apfelback has used the virtual environment extensively during the COVID-19 pandemic, and does not feel that it has the spontaneity and free- flow of information that a traditional classroom affords. Mr. Apfelbeck has not taken any of Ricky Rescue’s classes, and does not know what it has done to make sure its students get 200 hours of education. Likewise, he is not aware of the review Ricky Rescue went through to get its courses approved. He stated, correctly, that the rule is not written specifically about Ricky Rescue’s programs. It is written for all educational programs that are provided pursuant to this rule. Michael Tucker is the assistant superintendent for the State Fire Marshal’s Office. His experience includes serving as battalion chief for the Reedy Creek Improvement District (i.e., Disney) for 13 years, and serving as the Chief of the Fire Department for the Villages for 13 years. He has taught fire safety classes both in the classroom setting and online. While at Reedy Creek, he was the training officer responsible for providing training to fire inspectors, firefighters, paramedics, and EMTs. Mr. Tucker believes that the two classes addressed in the proposed rule are very intricate classes with a lot of detail. He believes that the traditional environment gives more opportunity for students to get hands-on instruction and have more interaction with the instructor. He acknowledged that there is a possibility that fees could increase under the proposed rule, but thinks that the increased cost is outweighed by the value that employers would get when they hire people trained in a classroom setting. Cheryl Edwards is the Fire Marshal for the City of Lakeland, and her views regarding traditional versus online learning are similar to those already expressed. She believes that the traditional classroom environment promotes collaborative learning and enhances critical thinking skills, through live discussions, and the need to think on your feet. She also felt that in person, an instructor is better able to gauge students’ learning styles and provide activities and modalities for all to learn, regardless of learning style. Ms. Edwards believes that the traditional classroom setting allows for more “teachable moments,” and guided practice before a student has to put that knowledge into use. Finally, David Abernathy is the Fire Chief of the City of Satellite Beach and has worked with the City for 35 years. Mr. Abernathy has an impressive list of certifications and has taught all five of the courses necessary for fire safety inspector certification, but has never taught them in an online or blended learning format. Mr. Abernathy believes that for these two courses there is a benefit to the traditional classroom setting. He believes that both classes need a hands-on approach to be the most effective. Mr. Abernathy also believes that requiring these two courses to be taught in a traditional classroom setting will cost more, but as an employer is more willing to pay for it than for online classes. Mark Harper testified that during the workshops, the Department wanted to hear from everyone, because all would be impacted by the changes. However, he believes that there is a heavier weight of responsibility on employers as opposed to students, because they are the ones trying to fill positions, and they are the ones having to deal with additional costs occasioned by failures in training. As a practical matter, employers are more cognizant of the potential liability jurisdictions face when a fire safety inspector, who looks at everything from mom and pop businesses to industrial sites with large containers of hazardous materials, is not adequately trained. The decision to go forward with the proposed rule amendment requiring a traditional classroom delivery method with respect to Codes and Standards and Construction Documents and Plans Review is based on the feedback received through the workshop process. It is not based on data. The Department does not track how students who took certification classes online or in a blended format score on the certification examination as opposed to students who took the same classes in a traditional setting. It would be difficult to collect that type of data, because there is no requirement that a student take all five courses the same way. In preparation for the hearing in this case, the Department conducted a survey of employers regarding their views on traditional versus distance learning. The Florida Fire Marshals and Inspectors Association distributed the survey to its members, and of the 358 addressees, 114 responded. There was no evidence to indicate that the Department attempted to survey people taking the classes. The questions asked in the survey were quite limited, and frankly, provide no guidance because they provide only two alternatives, and do not address blended learning formats at all. There are three questions, and they are as follows, with the responses in parentheses: Is there is current need to increase the proficiency of newly certified Firesafety Inspectors in Florida? Yes (59.65%) No (16.67%) Neutral opinion (12.68%) When a prospective Firesafety Inspector attends a Codes and Standards class, which class setting would produce a more proficient inspector? Traditional classroom delivery method (71.17%) Online (distance learning ) delivery method (9.91%) Neutral opinion (18.92%) When a prospective Firesafety Inspector attends a Construction Documents and Plans Review Class, which class setting would produce a more proficient instructor? Traditional classroom (76.32%) Online (7.02%) Neutral opinion (16.67%) Questions two and three assume that one format must be better than the other, rather than allowing for the possibility of equivalency. Had there been some recognition of a blended learning format, the answers might be different. The survey was informative in terms of the comments that were provided by the respondents. Similar to the views expressed at the workshops, there were strong opinions both in favor of limiting the classes to the traditional setting, and strong opinions advocating for the option of online learning. Petitioner presented information related to the increased costs that will be incurred should the rule go in effect. Those costs include the need for space rental for five-day periods in order to teach in multiple locations; the costs related to conversion of the material to a classroom setting versus online; and the need to pay instructors for more days each time the course is taught. It does not appear from the evidence presented that Ricky Rescue would experience increased costs of $200,000 in one year. However, Ricky Rescue is just one provider, and section 120.54 speaks in terms of an increase in costs in the aggregate, meaning as a whole. It is not known whether the other approved providers who teach these two courses will continue to do so should the rule be amended to require a classroom setting. It is also unknown what types of costs would be borne by state colleges and universities in order to recast the courses for traditional classroom settings. Finally, the litigants to this proceeding were well aware that this rule was being developed and was noticed as a proposed rule before the world began to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. It is open to speculation whether some of the impetus to require a traditional classroom setting would have changed in light of the changes society has had to make over the last six months. Department employees were questioned regarding the Fire College’s response to the pandemic, and both Mark Harper and Michael Tucker testified about the precautions being taken on the campus to insure safety, such as taking temperatures, having students complete a questionnaire regarding possible exposure, limiting the number of students per class, and spacing people six feet apart to maintain effective social distancing. Mr. Tucker testified that they would be ready to postpone some classes until they could be taught safely in person. When asked whether Respondent would consider postponing the effective date of the proposed rule, he indicated “that would be something we would have to take into consideration, and again, the feedback from our constituents, but if it became necessary, then we would consider it.”
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Petitioner, Brandon Michael Post (Petitioner or Mr. Post), achieved a passing score on the practical exam for firefighter certification.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency responsible for the regulatory process governing firefighters, including the process by which candidates apply for certification as firefighters in the State of Florida. In addition to meeting certain background and training requirements, candidates must take and attain passing scores on the Firefighter Minimum Standards Written and Practical Examination (firefighter examination) administered by the Department. Mr. Post applied to the Department for firefighter certification. There is no dispute that Mr. Post met the background and training qualifications for certification in all respects. In addition, Mr. Post took and passed the written portion of the firefighter examination. At issue is whether Mr. Post attained a passing score on the practical portion of the firefighter examination (practical exam). The practical exam has four components covering the following subjects: self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA); hose operations; ladder operations; and fireground scenarios. In order to pass the practical exam, a candidate must obtain a score of at least 70 percent on each component. If a candidate does not pass the practical exam, the candidate is offered the opportunity for a retest. The practical exams are conducted by Bureau field representatives. A field representative evaluates each candidate's performance and records the candidate's scores on a form called "minimum standards exam field notes" (field notes). There is a separate field notes form for each component of the practical exam. The field notes form identifies each of the separate skills or activities tested. Certain items are scored on a pass-fail basis, because they are considered mandatory skills. Thus, the failure to achieve an acceptable result in a mandatory item results in automatic failure for the component. Other tested items are considered evaluative, and the candidate's performance is given a point score. A total of 100 points is possible for all of the evaluative items; a candidate must attain a score of at least 70 to pass the component. Mr. Post took the firefighter examination on June 13, 2012. In the practical exam, Mr. Post received passing scores of 100 percent for the SCBA component; 100 percent for the hose operation component; and 70 percent for the fireground scenarios component. However, Mr. Post failed the ladder operations component. Mr. Harper was the field representative who administered Mr. Post's practical exam on June 13, 2012, and who completed the field notes reflecting how he scored Mr. Post's performance. Mr. Harper has been a Bureau field representative for more than five years, and in that time, he has administered thousands of practical exams. Mr. Harper gave Mr. Post a failing score for not donning and securing all personal protective equipment (PPE) properly. Donning and securing PPE properly is considered a mandatory item that has to be achieved, because of the importance of this skill to a firefighter's safety. To emphasize the safety concern associated with failing to don and secure all PPE properly, Mr. Harper also gave Mr. Post a failing score for committing an unsafe act that could result in serious injury or death. The "unsafe act" scoring category is separate on the field notes form from the mandatory item "donning and securing all PPE properly." However, a failing score in either one of these categories alone required an automatic failure for the ladder operations component. Thus, giving Mr. Post a failing score for an "unsafe act" had no effect on his score; Mr. Post's failing score for not donning and securing his PPE properly required an automatic failure for the ladder operations component. Mr. Harper credibly explained why he judged Mr. Post's donning and securing of his PPE to be improper. He recalled in precise detail how Mr. Post's mask had a five-point harness mechanism that is designed to hold the face piece tight to the face, creating an air-tight seal that will keep out dangerous smoke and fumes. There were two straps at the temple, two straps at the jaw, and one at the top center. To secure the mask, the two jaw straps are supposed to be pulled tight at the same time, then the two temple straps are pulled tight at the same time, then the top strap is pulled last to pull the mask up evenly on the face. Mr. Post did not secure his mask this way. Instead of pulling the two jaw and temple straps at the same time, he held the face piece with one hand, and pulled the straps on one side of his face with his other hand. This pulled the mask to the side, instead of centering it. Mr. Post testified that his face piece was on good enough for him to achieve an air-tight seal, which was maintained throughout the exercise. Therefore, he took issue with the opinion that the way he put on his PPE was unsafe. Mr. Post's statements were inconsistent regarding whether the mask was askew, pulled to one side. At the final hearing, Mr. Post testified at first that Mr. Harper's field notes comment was incorrect when it said that the "face piece was pulled to left side." Mr. Post testified that he disagreed with the field notes comment that his face piece was "pulled to one side." But then Mr. Post acknowledged that "it could have been maybe a little bit to the left, but there was no poor seal at all times." This latter statement was closer to Mr. Post's statement in his hearing request: "I had a seal of my face piece but was failed because the harness wasn't quite centered on my head." Mr. Post essentially admitted that he did not "properly" don and secure all of his PPE; his argument is with the extent to which it was improper, and whether his failure to properly secure the harness actually caused harm. Mr. Harper's testimony that Mr. Post improperly donned and secured his PPE and that this failure was an unsafe act that could result in serious injury or death is accepted. Mr. Harper credibly explained the danger of a mask not being harnessed securely with a centered face piece. Even though it is possible to initially attain a proper seal with an off-centered face piece, as Mr. Post did, the fact that it is not properly secured to be centered on the face means that it is easier to dislodge than a centered, properly-harnessed mask. Anything jarring the head gear, or even an abrupt head movement, could cause the mask to move further off-center and break the critical seal that protects the firefighter from toxic gases and smoke. These serious risks cannot be brushed aside simply because Mr. Post managed to make it through a short simulated exercise without dislodging his off-centered mask. The Bureau notified Mr. Post that he did not achieve a passing score on his practical exam because of his failed score on the ladder operations component. As provided by statute, Mr. Post was advised that he was allowed one opportunity to retake the practical exam. Mr. Post took the practical exam retest on September 18, 2012. Once again, Mr. Harper was the field representative who administered the practical exam to Mr. Post. Mr. Post admitted that his retest "was pretty sloppy." On the hose operations component, once again, Mr. Post had problems donning and securing all of his PPE. This time, the problems were with the gear that was supposed to protect his torso. As Mr. Post acknowledged, "my shoulder strap was twisted and . . . my high-pressure hose [was] under [the] strap. That is true. I remember that." His jacket was pulled up in the back, and his shirt was exposed. Based on these problems, Mr. Post received an automatic failure under the mandatory category for failing to don and secure all PPE properly. Mr. Post admitted that he failed to don and secure all of his protective equipment properly. The protective jacket is not supposed to be pulled up in the back, exposing one's shirt. Shoulder straps are not supposed to be twisted, with the high-pressure hose caught under a strap. Mr. Post testified that he did not think he should have been failed for these admitted problems with putting on his protective gear, because no skin was exposed. However, he offered no legitimate challenge to the reasonableness of the exam itself, which makes the proper donning and securing of all of one's PPE a mandatory step. As described, it was entirely reasonable to give Mr. Post an automatic failure on this retest component for his improper donning and securing of his protective gear. Mr. Post also received an automatic failure in the ladder operations component. There were two separate problems with this exercise. One problem was Mr. Post's failure to fully secure the ladder's "dogs" or locking devices that secure the separate sections of a multi-section ladder. The dogs are like clamps that are activated by a spring mechanism; when employed properly, they clamp around a rung at the joinder point of the ladder's separate sections. In Mr. Post's ladder exercise, he failed to properly employ the dogs; they were not fully secured in place around the rung. Instead, they were balanced on the tips, sitting on top of the rung, instead of locked around the rung. Mr. Post attempted to argue that it was not possible for him to have failed to properly employ the dogs in this manner because if the dogs were not locked, the ladder would have fallen down and his stayed upright. However, as Mr. Harper credibly explained, the dogs were sitting on top of the rung (instead of clamped around it). As such, the ladder could remain upright, albeit, in a precarious state that depended on the dogs keeping their balance on top of a rung, instead of in a secure state with the dogs locked in place around the rung. Mr. Harper's testimony is credited; Mr. Post did not effectively rebut the testimony regarding his improper employment of the dogs. The second problem Mr. Post had in the ladder operations component of his retest came in the part of the exercise in which Mr. Post was supposed to exit the building carrying the "victim" and retreat to safety. According to the field notes, Mr. Post received an automatic failure for committing an unsafe act that could result in serious injury or death, because he was running backwards with the victim. Mr. Post did not take issue with this aspect of his retest scoring, admitting that the field notes were accurate: "When you're carrying the victim out of a building, that's the only time you're allowed to go backwards, but I guess I was running where I should have been walking. But I don't really--I don't really testify against that." Mr. Post expressed some generalized concern with the fact that the same field representative--Mr. Harper--administered Mr. Post's initial examination and the retest. However, no evidence was offered to suggest that Mr. Harper's administration of the practical exam or the retest was improper or unfair to Mr. Post in any respect. Indeed, Mr. Post essentially conceded that Mr. Harper fairly and reasonably assessed Mr. Post's admittedly sloppy performance on the retest. Mr. Post's concession in this regard puts to rest any implication that Mr. Post might not have failed the retest if a different field representative had been assigned. Instead, the evidence established that Mr. Post's performance in the practical exam retest earned three different automatic failures, any one of which would have resulted in an overall failing grade on the retest.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by Respondent, Department of Financial Services, denying the application of Petitioner, Brandon Michael Post, for certification as a firefighter in the State of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of April, 2013, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELIZABETH W. MCARTHUR 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 9th day of April, 2013.
