The Issue Whether Respondent, a certified general contractor, is guilty of pulling permits for construction projects not supervised by Respondent, and, if so, the appropriate disciplinary action which should be taken by the Board.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was the holder of Certified General Contractor's License No. CG C005204 issued by the Board. Although this license was active at the time the Administrative Complaint was filed, Respondent has placed it on an inactive status until June 30, 1981. (Stipulation, Testimony of Respondent) As to Amiguet Construction Project During 1976, Jose Amiguet entered into a contract with San Pedro Construction Inc. for the construction of an addition to his existing residence located at 1409 Granada Boulevard, Coral Gables, Florida. (Stipulation, Petitioner's Exhibit 1) Since San Pedro Construction Inc. was not properly licensed as a building contractor, it was not qualified to apply for and obtain a Coral Gables building permit to undertake this residential addition. Therefore, on January 12, 1977, pursuant to an agreement with Jose San Pedro, representative of San Pedro Construction Inc., the Respondent applied and obtained the required Coral Gables building permit under his on name. (Stipulation, Testimony of Respondent, Charles Kozak, Petitioner's Exhibit 1) The Respondent did not participate in, manage, or supervise, in any manner, the construction of the Amiguet residential addition by San Pedro Construction Inc. Jose Amiguet neither knew the Respondent, nor had any dealings with him during the construction work. (Stipulation, Testimony of Respondent) Final inspection of the Amiguet construction project has not been conducted by the Coral Gables building inspection department since the required documentation concerning sidewalk improvements and subcontractors used has not yet been submitted. The actual construction work has, however, been completed, to the satisfaction of Jose Amiguet. (Testimony of Charles Kozak, Respondent) Respondent made an effort to assist Jose Amiguet in obtaining the final inspection and clearance by the city building inspection department. However, since Respondent did not supervise the subcontractors' work, he cannot truthfully complete the required documents. He has, therefore, offered to (1) pay for the additional costs associated with obtaining the necessary final inspection, and (2) transfer to Jose Amiguet the right to receive, after final inspection, the refund of the contractor's performance bond in the amount of approximately $400-$500. (Testimony of Respondent) As to the Shaw Construction Project During July, 1977, and on February 8, 1978, James L. Shaw entered into separate contracts with San Pedro Construction Inc. for the construction of residential improvements at 836 Obispo Avenue, Coral Gables, Florida. The final contract was in the amount of $16,700.00. (Stipulation, Testimony of Respondent, James L. Shaw, Petitioner's Exhibit 4) Since San Pedro Construction Inc. was an unlicensed contractor, Respondent, on November 15, 1977, pursuant to an agreement with that company, applied for and obtained the required Coral Gables building permit. (Stipulation, Testimony of Respondent, James L. Shaw, Petitioner's Exhibit 4) The Respondent did not participate in, manage, or supervise in any manner the construction of the Shaw residential improvements by San Pedro Construction Inc. James Shaw neither knew Respondent, nor had any dealings with him during the construction work. (Stipulation, Testimony of Respondent) On or about April, 1978, the lending institution for the Shaw project, and James Shaw stopped making construction payments to San Pedro Construction Inc., due to its failure to proceed on and abandonment of the project. (Testimony of James Shaw, Charles Kozak) On June 20, 1978, James Shaw obtained an "owner-builder" permit from the City of Coral Gables and incurred the following costs in order to complete the construction project as originally planned: $12,000 for labor and materials, and $625.00 for architectural services. Inasmuch as approximately, $10,128.00 had earlier been paid to San Pedro Construction Inc. for the construction project, the total cost of the project to James Shaw was approximately $22,753.00-$6,053.00 in excess of the original contract price. (Testimony of James Shaw and Respondent) San Pedro Construction Inc. is no longer in business, and the whereabouts of its owner, Jose San Pedro, is unknown. (Testimony of Respondent) As with the Amiguet construction project, final inspection of the Shaw project cannot be conducted until missing documentation relative to sidewalk improvements and subcontractors involved is supplied. In an effort to assist James Shaw, the Respondent has offered to transfer to Shaw the right to receive, after final inspection, the refund of the contractor's performance bond in the amount of approximately $400-$500. (Testimony of Charles Kozak and Respondent) At all times material hereto, the Respondent was aware that it was unlawful, under both state law and the Code of Metropolitan Dade County, to aide an unlicensed contractor in evading the contractor licensing law, and to use one's license to pull permits for projects not supervised by the licensee. (Stipulation, Testimony of Respondent, Petitioner's Exhibit 1) The Metro Dade Construction Trades Board heard the complaint against the Respondent and found prima facie evidence and probable cause to refer the matter to the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board (Stipulation) Notwithstanding the evidence presented, the Administrative Complaint and the Board's counsel at hearing limited the amount sought for restitution purposes to $5,300.00, provided both the performance bonds are refunded to the benefit of Jose Amiguet and James Shaw. (Administrative Complaint, statement of Board's Counsel) Respondent regrets having taken the actions complained of in the Board's Administrative Complaint, and now more fully understands the resulting burdens which have been placed on Jose Amiguet and James Shaw. (Testimony of Respondent)
Recommendation Guilty, as charged. Respondent's certified general contractor's license should be suspended until such time as full restitution is made to the persons damaged by his actions.
Findings Of Fact E. J. Lamberth, III, is a certified general contractor having been licensed by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. Mr. Lamberth's license was not renewed by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board when it expired in June, 1975. However, the Board does not question Mr. Lamberth's right to issuance of such a license pending the outcome of this hearing, and the failure of the Board to reissue Mr. Lamberth's license is an apparent administrative oversight. Mr. Lamberth applied and obtained building permits as a Construction Industry Licensing Board Certified General Contractor for construction of modifications or additions to the homes of Mr. and Mrs. Cohen, Mr. and Mrs. Retter, and Mr. and Mrs. DeChant. Copies of the applications for building permits were introduced in the evidence. Exhibit I is the application for the Retter's permit; Exhibit V is the application for the permit for the Cohen's permit; and Exhibit VII is the application for the DeChant's building permit. Lamberth notified the Board by letter received by the Board on or about December 24, 1974 of his resignation as qualifier for Addition Builders, Inc. Lamberth's employment with Addition Builders, Inc. began when he answered a newspaper advertisement for a certified general contractor placed by Richard Butler. Butler was looking for a certified general contractor to supervise construction and to obtain building permits for a construction business which he was at that time incorporating. Lamberth checked with the local Better Business Bureau and having determined that there were no complaints against Butler, entered into an employment agreement with Butler. Subsequently, Butler did incorporate and E. J. Lamberth be came Vice-president for Addition Builders, Inc., a Florida corporation. Lamberth's duties were to inspect plans for any modification or additions which Addition Builders, Inc. contracted to construct, to supervise construction, and to be the qualifying agent for Addition Builders, Inc. In August 1974, Richard Butler entered into a contract in behalf of Addition Builders, Inc. with Michael and Carol Retter for the construction of two-bedroom/one-bath addition to their house located at 460 N. W. Opa Locka Boulevard, North Miami, Florida. Construction of this addition was to take approximately three to six months. Construction began in September of 1974. The construction at the Retter's residence was supervised by the building superintendent or chief carpenter, Mr. Braddock. Construction on the addition was intermittent during September and slowed to a halt in October 1974. The Retters called Addition Builders, Inc. in November and were advised by Mr. Braddock that Mr. Butler had withdrawn from the business but that Braddock would continue with the construction and complete the addition. Construction on the Retter's addition was approximately 50 percent complete, the floor, roof and walls having been built but the windows, doors and plumbing fixtures not having been set. Braddock came and did some work and advised the Retters that he had taken over the business from Butler. Mrs. Retter testified that she was working full-time during this period but that on days when she and her husband were home the construction personnel came at 9:00 a.m. and left in mid-afternoon. The personnel who came, with the exception of Braddock, were subcontractors employed by Addition Builders, Inc. During this period, she did not see Mr. Lamberth who she saw for the first time the day of the formal hearing. The Retters first learned of Lamberth's association with Addition Builders, Inc. from the officials of the city of North Miami, who gave the Retters Lamberth's name as the party who had drawn the construction permit. In January the Retters contacted Mr. Lamberth who advised them that he had withdrawn from the company and could not help them. The contract price for the contract between the Retters and Addition Builders, Inc. was for $8,900 of which the Retters had paid $8,000 at the time construction of the addition ceased. It cost the Retters approximately $2,000 to finish the construction of the addition after Addition Builders, Inc. ceased to perform any work on the job. E. J. Lamberth, III, has been a full-time employee of the Dade County Recreation Department since January 9, 1963. He was employed by Richard Butler as a qualifying agent for Addition Builders, Inc. and was made Vice-president of that corporation. Addition Builders, Inc. began operation in late July or August of 1974. Lamberth performed the duties for which he was employed. He drew the construction permits required, inspected plans for modifications and additions to be built by Addition Builders, Inc., and visited the various construction sites of the corporation at noon and in the late afternoon to determine the progress being made by the subcontractors employed by Addition Builders, Inc. Through his contact with Mr. Braddock and the subcontractors employed by Addition Builders, Inc., Lamberth arranged for the scheduling of the subcontractors on the various jobs. At this time, Addition Builders, Inc. had between six and eight projects under construction. Lamberth was able to determine the progress being made on the various sites through his periodic inspections two to three times per week. These inspections and his conversations with the subcontractors revealed in early October that Butler was countermanding Lamberth's directions and canceling Lamberth's instructions given to subcontractors. Because of these activities, Lamberth advised Butler that he, Lamberth, would have to be in charge of the projects underway and schedule work on the projects or he would have to withdraw as qualifying agent for Addition Builders, Inc. Because of Butler's continued interference, Lamberth eventually resigned from his position with Addition Builders, Inc. in December 1974. Lamberth was not a stockholder in Addition Builders, Inc. When the work began on the various additions, Lamberth received 3 percent of the contract price as his compensation for his services to Addition Builders, Inc. Subsequent to being advised of the problems with Addition Builders, Inc., Lamberth attempted to locate Richard Butler. Richard Butler could not be located and has apparently left the State of Florida.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board take no action against the certificate of L. E. Lamberth, III. DONE and ORDERED this 12th day of October, 1976 in Tallahassee, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Barry Sinoff, Esquire 1010 Blackstone Building Jacksonville, Florida 32202 J. K. Linnan Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 8621 Jacksonville, Florida James W. Bowling, Esquire Vernis and Bowling Sailboat Bay - PH II 2951 South Bayshore Drive Coconut Grove, Florida 33133 STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 76-1241 E. J. LAMBERTH, III, CG C006734, P. O. Box 570444, Miami, Florida 33157. Respondent. /
The Issue The issues presented in this case concern certain allegations made by the Petitioner against the Respondent through an Administrative Complaint. In particular, it is alleged that on or about April 23, 1980, the Respondent's contractor's license issued by the Petitioner was suspended and subsequent to that time, the Respondent continued to perform contracting services through a company, David H. Hamilton, Inc., a corporation which was not properly qualified by the Petitioner to provide contracting services. It is further alleged by the Petitioner that the Respondent obtained building permits Nos. S2740-80B 1/ and 3214-80B from the Osceola County Building Department with the use of another contractor's license, namely: Louie S. Winchester, license #RR003839. For the reason of these facts, the Petitioner alleges that the Respondent has violated Subsection 489.127(1)(e), Florida Statutes, in that he attempted to use a suspended registration. It is further alleged, based upon the facts as reported in this Issues statement, that the Respondent has violated Subsection 489.129(1)(g), Florida Statutes, by acting in a capacity as a contractor under a certificate of registration not in his name. Finally, it is alleged, based upon the facts as reported hereinabove, that the Respondent has violated Subsection 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes, by failing to comply with Subsection 489.119(2), Florida Statutes, by not properly qualifying a corporation under which he performed contracting services.
Findings Of Fact The case presented concerns license disciplinary action by the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, against the Respondent, David H. Hamilton, who holds a residential contractor's license issued by the Petitioner, #RR0014037. The prosecution of this action is through the offices of the Department of Professional Regulation and the outcome of the matter could lead to the revocation, suspension or other disciplinary action against the Respondent, in keeping with the provisions of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. This case was presented before the Division of Administrative Hearings following a decision on the part of the Respondent to request a formal hearing pursuant to Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes. The facts reveal that a Final Order of the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board was issued on April 23, 1980, and this order established disciplinary action against the current license of David H. Hamilton. (A copy of this Final Order may be found as a part of the record in this proceeding and official recognition of that Final Order is made by the Recommended Order process.) This Final Order was entered after review of a Recommended Order of a Division of Administrative Hearings' Hearing Officer. By the terms of the Final Order, Hamilton's license was suspended "until such time as his Lake County Certificate of Competency is reinstated by the Lake County Board of Examiners." This contingency referred to the fact that the Respondent had his Lake County Certificate of Competency Card removed prior to the entry of the April 23, 1980, order of the Construction Industry Licensing Board. On September 2, 1980, at a time when the Respondent's residential contractor's license was under suspension by the State of Florida, the Respondent through a corporation applied to the Osceola County Building Department for a building permit to construct a residence in Osceola County, Florida. This permit number was #2740-80B. The permit was issued on September 4, 1980, and was granted in the name of David Hamilton, Inc., a corporation in which the Respondent was a principal. To obtain the permit in the sense of an effort to meet the requirements that the permit be applied for by a licensed Florida contractor, the Respondent used the registered residential contractor's license of one Louie Stevens Winchester who held license #RR003839 issued by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. On the occasion of the issuance of the permit by Osceola County, Winchester was an officer of David Hamilton, Inc. Through the action of "pulling" this permit and the utilization of the permit in his construction of the residence, the Respondent was acting in the capacity of contractor under Winchester's license and the offices of the corporation, as opposed to the Respondent's suspended license. Prior to the request for permit, neither Hamilton nor Winchester had attempted to properly qualify David Hamilton, Inc., as a contracting corporation with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. In this case, to properly qualify the corporation, it would have entailed the use of Winchester as the qualifying agent, in view of the fact that Winchester still held a valid contractor's license from the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. No effort was made to qualify David Hamilton, Inc., in its own right, through the agency of Winchester, until some time shortly beyond December 1, 1980. On October 28, 1980, the Respondent in his individual capacity, that is to say unconnected with his business pursuits as David Hamilton, Inc., went to the Osceola Building Department and applied for the issuance of a building permit for a home remodeling project for a customer of his. The permit in question on this occasion was #3214-80B. That permit was issued on October 29, 1930, and was used by the Respondent in his building project. An official in the Osceola County Building Department had checked with an employee in the Lake County Building Department on the status of Hamilton's rights to be employed as a building contractor in Lake County, Florida, and was informed that Hamilton's status in Lake County was acceptable. Based upon these representations, the Osceola County employee issued the permit discussed in this paragraph to Hamilton. The Osceola County employee also asked that the Lake County employee formally confirm Hamilton's status. The correspondence in response to Osceola County employee, John Pate, Assistant Building Director, as issued by an official in Lake County, one Herb Dudgeon, may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3. This letter was received by Pate after the permit was issued. That correspondence indicates that Hamilton had been given the privilege of reinstating his Lake County Competence Card, contingent upon "providing bond, insurances, occupational license, etc.," which had not been received by Lake County as of the date of the correspondence. The correspondence goes on to mention that the State, meaning the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, was waiting for confirmation of the completion of the contingencies referred to. Subsequent to this correspondence, the Respondent having completed all the necessary steps for reinstatement of the Lake County Competency Card, had his license suspension removed and was reinstated by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, as verified by that body.
Recommendation Based upon a full consideration of the findings of fact and conclusions of law reached herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board issue a Final Order which absolves the Respondent of any responsibility for a violation of Subsection 489.127(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1980); that finds the Respondent in violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(g), Florida Statutes (1979), and imposes a penalty of a 60-day suspension; and that finds the Respondent in violation of Subsection 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1979), and imposes a suspension of 60 days to run concurrently with the other suspension in this paragraph of recommendation. 2/ DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of November, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, 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 13th day of November, 1981.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, George E. Feld, held certified general contractor license number CG C021801 issued by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. Feld has been a licensed contractor in Florida since June 1982. He has qualified George E. Feld and Associates, Inc. under his license and operates the business at 2131 Northeast 205th Street, North Miami Beach, Florida. After submitting the low bid, on or about March 1, 1985 George Feld and Associates, Inc. entered into a contract with the City of Tamarac to construct a 5,500 square foot recreation building for the City. The negotiated contract price was $195,950. The contract called for commencement of the project within ten days after the contract was signed and completion by July 27, 1985. Sometime prior to March 20, 1985, Feld met one David P. McCall and Marvin Weiss at a motel in North Miami. McCall was interested in doing work on the Tamarac project. He gave Feld a business card with the name "Arrow Head Development Corporation, Inc." printed on it, and which stated the firm was "state certified" and "licensed" as a general contractor. Feld also noted that Weiss held a general contractor's license, and he assumed that McCall and Weiss were working together. Relying on McCall's card, and later representations by McCall, but without checking with petitioner's office to verify if McCall or Arrow Head were licensed or qualified, Feld agreed to subcontract out the shell and sewer work on the Tamarac project to Arrow Head. To this end, Feld and Arrow Head entered into two contracts on March 20, 1985, for Arrow Head to perform the shell and sewer work. On June 21, 1985 McCall submitted a written "proposal" to Feld for the shell work on the job. The proposal had the following words and numbers typed on its face: "State License Number: #CGC 05961." It was not disclosed whose license number this was. Although McCall denied typing this document (because he does not personally know how to type), he did not deny that it was placed on the document at his direction or with his knowledge. It was not until sometime later that Feld learned that Arrow Head was not qualified by any licensee. Because of his mistaken belief that Arrow Head was qualified, Feld had never qualified that firm. Even so, there was no evidence that Feld intended to allow an unqualified firm to perform the work. Work proceeded on a timely basis as required by the contract. Feld visited the job site daily, and supervised all activities, including those performed by McCall. He routinely inspected the work, verified that it was being done according to specifications, and made corrections where needed. The job specifications called for trusses that were over forty feet in length. Because of this, and pursuant to the South Florida Building Code (Code), it was necessary for the City to hire an engineer to oversee their installation. The City hired one George Fink as engineer to supervise this phase of the project. However, Fink's responsibility was limited to just that, and once the installation was completed, Feld resumed responsibility for the remainder of the job. Trusses are a manufactured roof member and may vary in length, height and pitch. In this case, they were designed in the form of a cathedral roof, and were in excess of forty-seven feet in length. Further, because of the building's design, there were a number of trusses to be installed. The installation of the trusses was begun around 9:00 a.m. on Friday, June 27, 1985 and finished by 2:00 p.m. that same day. As required by the Code, Fink was present and supervised the installation of the trusses on the top of the shell. He confirmed at hearing that they were properly installed. The problem herein arose early that day when Fink had noticed that the building plans did not provide for lateral bracing of the trusses. However, according to Fink, this was not unusual since plans do not normally provide for lateral bracing. Even so, Fink told an unnamed person who "appeared to be the fellow running the erection crew" that lateral bracing should be added to the center and two side core members and that the four trusses on each end needed additional bracing. Fink also suggested to this unnamed individual that sheathing be added "as soon as possible" to the top and outside of the trusses to give added stability and protect them from wind damage and the like. In this regard, at hearing Fink conceded that it was "reasonable" for a contractor to erect trusses one day, and to place sheathing on them the following work day. Fink thought sheathing to be particularly necessary on this job since the trusses were high pitched," "long in length," and there were "no gables or anything in between to ... add any other support." By the end of the work day, the crew had placed the proper bracing on the trusses. However, no sheathing was applied. According to Fink, who was accepted as an expert in this proceeding, a prudent and competent contractor would be aware of the need for sheathing and added bracing because of the potential hazard of high winds caused by late afternoon thunderstorms in South Florida. By failing to place sheathing on the roof, Fink opined that Feld was grossly negligent and incompetent in the practice of construction on the Tamarac project. Sometime on late Sunday night or early Monday morning, most of the trusses on the roof collapsed. Some fell on an electrical wire running to the building. However, no injuries occurred. Only five trusses on the north side of the building remained in place. The City of Tamarac then filed a complaint with petitioner against Feld. The cause of the collapse was not disclosed, and even Fink was unable to state that the lack of sheathing was the cause of the accident. There was no evidence that strong winds or thunderstorms occurred on the night the trusses fell, or that bad weather was predicted when the work day ended on Friday afternoon. Feld acknowledged that no sheathing was placed on the trusses. He attributed this to the fact that the construction crew stopped work at 3:30 on Friday afternoon, and did not return to the job site until the following Monday morning. He intended to install the sheathing the following Monday but by then it was too late. This was in accord with the standard enunciated by Fink that it was not unreasonable for a contractor to erect trusses one day, and to place sheathing on them the following work day. Feld also stated that he was well aware of the need for bracing and sheathing on trusses by virtue of his long experience in the construction business. Feld hinted, but did not prove, that McCall may have been responsible for the accident because of bad blood between the two. In any event, he doubted that wind would have caused the trusses in question to fall. Finally, Feld pointed out that, even though city inspectors were present, no one had come to him on Friday afternoon and said the trusses might collapse over the weekend without sheathing. Feld is a graduate of the University of Buenos Aires with a degree in architecture, and has been engaged in the construction/architecture business for twenty-two years. He presently is an instructor of construction at Miami-Dade Community College. There is no evidence he has ever been the subject of a disciplinary action by the Board on any other occasion.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the administrative complaint against George E. Feld be DISMISSED, with prejudice. DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of April, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of April, 1987.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's license as a professional engineer should be disciplined for the reasons given in the Administrative Complaint filed on March 30, 1999.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: In this disciplinary action, Petitioner, Florida Engineers Management Corporation (FEMC), seeks to impose penal sanctions on the license of Respondent, Allen A. Davis, a professional engineer, on the ground that he committed negligence in the practice of engineering by signing and sealing the electrical portion of a set of plans when he had no expertise in that area of engineering. Respondent denies the allegation and contends that when he signed and sealed that part of the plans, he did not intend to hold himself out as an electrical engineer or for anyone to rely upon the plans in that respect. Respondent is a long-time licensed professional having been issued Professional Engineer License No. 8986 on September 15, 1961, by the Florida Board of Professional Engineers. His current license is effective through February 28, 2001. Respondent's specialty is as a structural engineer, and he holds himself out as having expertise in only that specialty. By experience gained over the years, however, he has a general familiarity with most aspects of engineering, including electrical engineering. Upon graduation from college, Respondent worked for the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT). After leaving DOT some 20 years ago, he engaged in the engineering practice "in various forms of housing construction, including subdivisions, PUD's, house plans themselves, hydraulics and drainage projects involved in civil works throughout." For the last 15 years, he has also served as an engineering consultant for Volusia County. Most recently, he has operated a "one-man shop" in Deland, Florida, "checking, reviewing, and supervising production of plans for houses and other structures involving buildings, and [performing] some highway work [and] some traffic work." Rule 61G15-23.002(2), Florida Administrative Code, provides that whenever an engineer places his signature and seal on a set of documents, the engineer is responsible for all work contained in the documents. However, engineers are only required to sign and seal that portion of a document for which they are proficient. Under informal agency policy, which the FEMC's expert says is based on a "common sense" interpretation of the cited rule, any other drawings which are signed and sealed should contain a disclaimer indicating that the engineer is not responsible for the content which lies outside of his expertise. Whether this policy was disseminated to engineers throughout the state in 1994 is unknown. One of Respondent's projects involved a two-story residential home in Palm Harbor, Florida, being constructed by Brattlof Construction Company, Inc. (Brattlof) in 1994. The third page of the plans described the electrical floor plan for the residence. In June 1994, Respondent signed and sealed that page, even though this discipline was outside his specialty area, and he failed to put a disclaimer on the sheet. As it turned out, the electrical plan contained numerous deficiencies as recited in paragraph 5 of the Administrative Complaint. Respondent says he signed all pages of the plans since this was a long-time practice of other professional engineers in the Volusia County area. An electrical draftsman for Brattlof actually prepared the electrical plan. At that time, the Volusia County Building Department required that before it would accept any building plans, all pages had to be signed and sealed. Although the record is not altogether clear, it appears that if a project was "below 600 amp," a master electrician could sign that portion of the plans. In this case, the house apparently fell into this category. Even so, Respondent signed and sealed every page of the drawings in order to file them with the local agency. By doing so, Respondent unintentionally contravened the rule and informal policy. Respondent pointed out, however, that Brattlof later submitted a separate electrical plan prepared by the electrical subcontractor as a part of the permit process. The significance of this submission was not explained in the record. According to Petitioner's expert, if an engineer is faced with a situation where a signature and seal is required on every page, he or she should engage the services of another professional (an architect or engineer) with expertise in electrical engineering, who could then review the plans and sign and seal them. In terms of mitigation, there is no evidence that Respondent has ever been the subject of a disciplinary action during his lengthy 38-year career as a licensed professional engineer. In addition, there is no evidence that a third party was injured, mislead, or adversely affected by relying on the plans. The project can be considered "minor", no restitution was required, and once this matter was brought to Respondent's attention, he began the practice of placing a disclaimer on all pages outside of his specialty. Finally, it can be inferred that Respondent has high professional standing among his peers, given the fact that he has testified as an expert around 500 times since gaining licensure.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and that he be given a reprimand. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of October, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 12th day of October, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Dennis Barton, Executive Director Florida Board of Professional Engineers 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-0500 Natalie A. Lowe, Esquire Florida Board of Professional Engineers 1208 Hays Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-0500 Dennis K. Bayer, Esquire Post Office Box 1505 Flagler Beach, Florida 32136 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
