09-002968 Samuel Omega Rollins vs. Construction Industry Licensing Board
 Status: Closed
Recommended Order on Tuesday, November 24, 2009.

View Dockets  
Summary: The case discusses experience requirements for licensure and who may verify experience within the categories of contractor; the effect of questions at the FCILB hearing; and licensure by default.





13Petitioner, )


16vs. ) Case No. 09-2968



26BOARD, )


29Respondent. )



34Upon due notice, a disputed-fact hearing was held on

43September 14, 2009, in Tallahassee, Florida, before Ella Jane P.

53Davis, a duly-assigned Administrative Law Judge of the Division

62of Administrative Hearings.


66For Petitioner: J. Steven Carter, Esquire

72Henry, Buchanan, Hudson,

75Suber & Carter, P.A.

792508 Barrington Circle

82Tallahassee, Florida 32308

85For Respondent: Daniel R. Biggins, Esquire

91Department of Legal Affairs

95The Capitol, Plaza Level 01

100Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050


107Whether Petitioner is entitled to licensure as a Certified

116Building Contractor or Residential Contractor.


123Petitioner’s application for licensure as a certified

130building contractor was addressed by a Notice of Intent to Deny

141dated March 16, 2009.

145Petitioner timely requested a disputed-fact hearing, and on

153or about May 29, 2009, the cause was referred to the Division of

166Administrative Hearings. The Division’s file reflects all

173pleadings, notices, and orders intervening before the disputed-

181fact hearing.

183At hearing, Petitioner presented the oral testimony of

191Chad Banks and testified on his own behalf. He had Exhibits P-

2031, 2, 2A, 3, 4, and 5, admitted in evidence. Respondent

214presented the oral testimony of Jacqueline Watts and had no

224exhibits admitted in evidence.

228A Transcript was filed on September 29, 2009.

236The parties timely filed their respective Proposed

243Recommended Orders on October 19, 2009, each of which has been



2581. Petitioner is a 44-year-old male. He was born and

268raised in Tallahassee, Florida. He is a high school graduate.

2782. Petitioner passed the examination for licensure as a

287certified building contractor. This is a comprehensive

294examination that is designed to test knowledge in all aspects of

305the construction industry. Passing it is a mandatory

313prerequisite before an application can be considered by the

322Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board (FCILB). However,

329passing the examination does not eliminate or modify the

338statutory or rule experience requirements.

3433. Petitioner submitted his application for a certified

351building contractor license on or about March 24, 2008.

3604. By letter of May 2, 2008, the Department of Business

371and Professional Regulation requested additional information.

3775. Petitioner then provided a revised affidavit from

385Chad Banks, a certified building contractor, and a letter from

395the Maintenance Construction Chief of the City of Tallahassee’s

404Gas Utility Department, each containing more detailed

411information about Petitioner’s experience. These items were

418received by Respondent on May 23, 2008.

4256. It is not clear whether Petitioner requested and was

435granted a continuance of his appearance with regard to the

445instant license application at an earlier FCILB meeting, but on

455January 15, 2009, the full Board considered Petitioner’s

463application at a duly-noticed public meeting in Altamonte

471Springs, Florida. At that time, Petitioner was present.

4797. During his appearance before the full Board on

488January 15, 2009, Petitioner was very nervous, but he believes

498that one of the Board members offered him, or at least asked him

511if he would accept, a residential contractor’s license in place

521of a certified building contractor’s license, and that he

530answered that he would accept such a license, only to have that

542“offer and acceptance” voted down by the full Board. However,

552Petitioner does not rule out the possibility that the vote taken

563at the meeting was actually with regard to denying the certified

574building contractor license for which he had applied.

5828. There is no evidence that Petitioner has ever submitted

592an application for a residential contractor’s license.

5999. By a Notice of Intent to Deny, dated March 16, 2009,

611and mailed March 24, 2009, the FCILB formally denied

620Petitioner’s application for a certified building contractor

627License stating:

629The applicant failed to demonstrate the

635required experience, pursuant to Section

640489.111, Florida Statutes and Rule 61G4-

64615.001, Florida Administrative Code.

65010. Petitioner seeks licensure as one who has four years

660of active experience and who has learned the trade by serving an

672apprenticeship as a skilled worker or as a foreman, at least one

684year of which experience is as a foreman.

69211. Petitioner has never worked as a full-time employee of

702a commercial or residential contractor.

70712. Petitioner got early experience in construction

714working around eight rental properties owned by his father. He

724performed light carpentry, deck construction, general handyman

731repairs, and some plumbing and roofing when he was approximately

74116 to 21 years of age.

74713. However, Petitioner essentially relies on a work

755history that includes working as a plumber for Jim Bennett

765Plumbing from 1987 to 1993; as a foreman for the City of

777Tallahassee Gas Department from 1995 to 2005; as a “contractor

787trainee” for Chad Banks from 1999 to 2002; as having volunteered

798as superintendent for Gulf Coast Painting from 2003 to 2007; and

809as a maintenance man for the City of Tallahassee Parks

819Department from 2006 to 2007.

82414. Petitioner’s dates of employment overlap, because his

832volunteer experience was acquired mostly on weekends, holidays,

840in hours after he had already completed a full work day for the

853City of Tallahassee, or on “time off” from his regular

863employments with the City. Petitioner is a hard worker and

873wanted to learn the construction trade, but his volunteer

882construction jobs were intermittent, and he provided no clear

891assessment of the number of hours per week or month that he put

904in for any of them.

90915. From 1987 to 1993, Petitioner worked for Jim Bennett

919Plumbing. He started as a plumber’s helper and progressed to

929greater responsibility. In that position, he acquired a wide

938range of experience in plumbing for some residential, but mostly

948commercial, buildings. During this period, he also did some

957light cosmetic carpentry and tile work to restore building parts

967damaged by the installation of plumbing apparatus.

97416. Much of Petitioner’s construction experience relates

981to his association with Chad Banks, who testified that at all

992times material, Petitioner had “hands on” experience, working

1000for him and that Petitioner was a competent worker.

100917. Petitioner has never been a “W-2 employee” of Mr.

1019Banks, but there is no specific statutory or rule requirement

1029that the experience necessary to qualify for the certified

1038building contractor or the residential contractor license must

1046be as a “W-2 employee.” Cf. Conclusions of Law.

105518. Mr. Banks was not licensed as a certified building

1065contractor until 1999.

106819. Petitioner did some work for Mr. Banks when Mr. Banks

1079was working as a sub-contractor on commercial projects

1087(specifically one or more Super-Lube buildings) prior to

1095Mr. Banks obtaining his certified building contractor’s license

1103in 1999. Most of this employment involved pouring concrete

1112slabs. Petitioner claims experience in “elevated slabs,”

1120limited to the construction of a single Super-Lube building,

1129which Petitioner described as laying a slab below ground level

1139for mechanics to stand on and an at-ground level slab for cars

1151to drive onto the lift for an oil change. He described no truly

1164“elevated” slabs or floors above ground level on this project,

1174and Petitioner’s and Mr. Banks’ testimony was vague as to

1184Petitioner’s responsibilities on this project and as to the

1193project’s duration. The general contractor on this project for

1202whom Mr. Banks “subbed” did not testify.

120920. From this, and other employments, Petitioner has

1217experience pouring foundation slabs, but he has never worked on

1227a foundation slab in excess of 20,000 square feet.

123721. Petitioner also assisted in Mr. Banks’ construction of

1246some rental sheds, but it is unclear if this was before or after

1259Mr. Banks was licensed.

126322. Petitioner worked for Mr. Banks d/b/a C. B.

1272Construction, Inc., in a volunteer capacity on exclusively

1280residential construction from 1999 to 2002, and again from

1289February 2004 to March 2008. During these periods, Petitioner

1298and Mr. Banks considered Petitioner a “contractor trainee,” but

1308Petitioner’s work for Mr. Banks was neither exclusive nor

1317continuous; both men described it as “volunteer” work; and some

1327of it seems to have amounted to Petitioner's looking over work

1338done personally by Mr. Banks and having Mr. Banks explain to

1349him, via a plan sheet, what Mr. Banks had already done

1360personally. There is no evidence that during this time frame

1370Petitioner worked for Mr. Banks as a foreman.

137823. Petitioner has the ability to “read” many types of

1388construction “plans.”

139024. Petitioner has experience with slab footers, but he

1399has not constructed red iron structural steel qualified for

1408framing a building.

141125. Petitioner has experience in decorative masonry walls,

1419but he has not constructed structural masonry walls of a type

1430that would support framing members of a building or other

1440vertical construction.

144226. Petitioner also worked for the City of Tallahassee as

1452a “W-2” employee, mostly as a foreman overseeing a crew of four

1464workers, from 1995 to 2005. In that capacity, he worked on a

1476church, but the church itself had been constructed several years

1486previously, and Petitioner’s crew’s contribution was tying-in

1493several gas lines during a roadway development project and

1502keeping all the utilities up and running during the project,

1512while a private contractor worked on the church.

152027. With regard to the foregoing project and many others

1530for the City Utilities Department, Petitioner directed a crew

1539that built sidewalks and gutters or that tied these features

1549into existing roadways and driveways. In that capacity, he

1558often coordinated activities with residential contractors. Over

1565his ten years’ employment with the City Utilities, Petitioner

1574also directed a crew that exclusively created underground vaults

1583for the housing and shelter of utility apparatus. However, none

1593of his endeavors for the City Utilities involved vertical

1602structural construction for floors above ground.

160828. Petitioner has also built new gas stations for the

1618City’s natural gas vehicles, and has erected pre-fab utility

1627buildings, including much slab work, but the nature and duration

1637of these endeavors is not sufficiently clear to categorize them

1647as qualifying him for the certified building contractor license.

165629. Most of Petitioner’s experience with the City, as

1665substantiated by the letter of the City Utilities Maintenance

1674Construction Chief, Mr. Lavine, has been in the construction of

1684driveways, roads, gutters, storm drains, sidewalks, culverts,

1691underground utility structures, plumbing and gas lines. While

1699it is accepted that Petitioner has worked on such projects, this

1710type of work more properly falls in the categories of “plumbing

1721was not demonstrated to have any certification/licensure in a

1730category appropriate to Petitioner’s application. ( See

1737Conclusions of Law.)

174030. Sometime after 2005, for approximately a year,

1748Petitioner was employed by the City of Tallahassee Parks and

1758Recreation Department and in that capacity participated in at

1767least one construction of a dugout and a concession stand at one

1779of its playgrounds. He also did repairs on several dugouts and

1790concession stands, but this latter work would not be classified

1800as “structural” construction.

180331. Petitioner’s experience in precast concrete structures

1810is limited to his work with gas utility structures, but does not

1822include work on precast tilt walls, which are the type of walls

1834that are constructed off-site, delivered to the job site, placed

1844on the slab foundation, and raised in place as part of an on-

1857going commercial building project.

186132. Petitioner has no experience in column erection.

1869“Columns” in this context within the construction trade refers

1878to supports for upper level structural members, which would

1887entail vertical construction.

189033. Petitioner’s experience in concrete formwork does not

1898include experience in the structurally reinforced concrete

1905formwork that would be used in vertical buildings, such as all

1916floors above ground level.

192034. FCILB’s Chairman testified that the Board interprets

1928the type of experience necessary to comply with the statutes and

1939rules, more particularly Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4-

194715.001(2), to be “structural experience.”

195235. There is no affirmative evidence that Petitioner has

1961ever notified the Clerk of the Agency that he was relying on a

1974right to a default license.


198236. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

1989jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter of this cause,

1999pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), Florida Statutes


200837. In addition to asserting that he is substantively

2017entitled to a certified building contractor’s license,

2024Petitioner also contends that he is entitled to a license by

2035default, because his application was not timely granted or

2044denied after all information requested had been received by the

2054Agency/Board on May 23, 2008, and because his application was

2064not granted or denied within 15 days of the January 15, 2009,

2076public hearing by the FCILB on his license application.

208538. Petitioner further contends that he is entitled to a

2095residential contractor’s license because of his interchange with

2103one Board member at the hearing on January 15, 2009. ( See

2115Finding of Fact 7.)

211939. Petitioner bears the duty to go forward and prove

2129entitlement to the requested license by a preponderance of the

2139evidence. Department of Banking and Finance v. Osborne Stern

2148and Company , 670 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 1996); Antel v. Department of

2160Professional Regulation, Florida Real Estate Commission , 522 So.

21682d 1056 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988).

217440. Applicable to the issue of default is the following

2184statute, quoted only in pertinent part:

2190120.60 Licensing. --

2193(1) Upon receipt of an application for a

2201license, an agency shall examine the

2207application and, within 30 days after such

2214receipt, notify the applicant of any

2220apparent errors or omissions and request any

2227additional information the agency is

2232permitted by law to require. . . . An

2241application shall be considered complete

2246upon receipt of all requested information

2252and correction of any error or omission for

2260which the applicant was timely notified or

2267when the time for such notification has

2274expired. Every application for a license

2280shall be approved or denied within 90 days

2288after receipt of a completed application

2294unless a shorter period of time for agency

2302action is provided by law. The 90-day time

2310period shall be tolled by the initiation of

2318a proceeding under ss. 120.569 and 120.57.

2325Any application for a license that is not

2333approved or denied within the 90-day or

2340shorter time period, within 15 days after

2347conclusion of a public hearing held on the

2355application, or within 45 days after a

2362recommended order is submitted to the agency

2369and the parties, whichever action and

2375timeframe is latest and applicable, is

2381considered approved unless the recommended

2386order recommends that the agency deny the

2393license. . . . Any applicant for licensure

2401seeking to claim licensure by default under

2408this subsection shall notify the agency

2414clerk of the licensing agency, in writing,

2421of the intent to rely upon the default

2429license provision of this subsection, and

2435shall not take any action based upon the

2443default license until after receipt of such

2450notice by the agency clerk.

245541. Section 120.60(1), Florida Statutes, establishes a

2462timetable for agency action on a license application. If an

2472agency has not taken action within the prescribed time periods,

2482an application for a license or for an examination required for

2493licensure is considered approved. Johnson v. Dept. of Business

2502& Professional Regulation , 634 So .2d 666 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).

2513If the Agency has not taken action within the prescribed time

2524periods, and the applicant notifies the Agency Clerk in writing

2534that s/he claims a default license, then s/he is entitled to the

2546default license.

254842. Within 30 days after the receipt of an application for

2559a license, the agency must examine the application, notify the

2569applicant of any apparent errors or omissions, and request any

2579additional information. In this case, the Agency did not

2588request further information until the thirty-ninth day (March 24

2597to May 2, 2008). The burden of responding to the request for

2609further information is upon the applicant, if he chooses to go

2620that route, and the duty to notify the Agency Clerk in writing

2632is upon the applicant if, at that point, he seeks a default

2644license. In this case, there is no evidence that Petitioner

2654notified the Agency Clerk concerning a claimed default license,

2663but rather, there is evidence that Petitioner supplemented his

2672application with additional material on May 23, 2008.

268043. The Agency had 90 days from May 23, 2008, within which

2692to grant or deny the license. However, to take advantage of the

2704Agency’s delay at that point (August 23, 2008), Petitioner would

2714have to have notified the Agency Clerk in writing that he was

2726exercising his default rights. There is no evidence that he

2736notified the Agency Clerk at that point.

274344. If a public hearing is held on the application, and

2754if, in this case, that public hearing occurred on January 15,

27652009, 1/ the notification of action on the application needed to

2776be provided by the Board to Petitioner Applicant within 15 days

2787after the conclusion of the public hearing, even if this is

2798beyond the statutory 90-day period. Herein, the Board did not

2808notify Petitioner by the fifteenth day (January 30, 2009). It

2818did not notify him until March 24, 2009, which was 54 days past

2831the public hearing date.

283545. However, there is no evidence that Petitioner has ever

2845provided written notification to the Clerk of the Agency that he

2856was invoking the default provision of Section 120.60, Florida

2865Statutes. Instead, he requested a disputed-fact hearing.

287246. If a proceeding under Sections 120.569 and 120.57,

2881Florida Statutes (such as the instant one) is initiated, the 90-

2892day period is “tolled” and the application must then be approved

2903or denied within 45 days after a recommended order (this

2913Recommended Order) is submitted to the agency and the parties,

2923unless the Recommended Order denies the license.

293047. Former Section 120.60, was amended in 2003, to remove

2940language providing that an agency’s lapse of time in making its

2951decision after completion of the application resulted in the

2960license,” first appears in the statute at that time. The

2971amendment effectively removed the requirement that an agency had

2980to take action to "deem approved" an application that the agency

2991had not timely acted upon in the first place. Thus, an

3002applicant exercising his right to a “default license” today no

3012longer has to await an already laggardly agency eventually

3021getting around to “deeming” him to have a default license. Now,

3032once the applicant properly notifies the Agency Clerk that he

3042has a right to a default license, the applicant (now licensee)

3053may proceed as if he were licensed, without waiting for the

3064Agency to do anything more.

306948. However, in the instant case, there is no evidence

3079that Petitioner ever gave written notice to the Agency Clerk

3089that he was relying on a default license, and his request for a

3102disputed-fact hearing does not substitute therefor.

3108Accordingly, Petitioner is not entitled to licensure by default

3117at this stage of the proceedings.

312349. As to the effect of FCILB’s public hearing on

3133January 15, 2009, it is not clear what the single member said to

3146Petitioner. He may have been inquiring about whether Petitioner

3155was entitled to one or more licenses, but a simple question

3166posed by a single Board member is meaningless. Moreover, this

3176question, however vague, does not, as Petitioner has suggested,

3185indicate a bias of the Board against an applicant whose

3195experience has been gained in the public sector. In fact, the

3206rule specifically recognizes the value of public sector

3214experience. See , infra .

321850. Without an application for a residential construction

3226license plus a favorable majority vote of the whole collegial

3236body to approve that residential license application, Petitioner

3244is not entitled to a residential license. Certainly, there is

3254no entitlement to any license simply because a single Board

3264member asked Petitioner about his interest in a residential


327451. On the substantive issue, the standards that

3282Petitioner must meet for licensure are contained in Section

3291489.111, Florida Statutes (2008), which provides, in pertinent

3299part, as follows:

3302489.111 Licensure by examination. --

3307(1) Any person who desires to be certified

3315shall apply to the department in writing.

3322(2) A person shall be eligible for

3329licensure by examination if the person:

3335(a) Is 18 years of age;

3341(b) Is of good moral character; and

3348(c) Meets eligibility requirements

3352according to one of the following criteria:

3359* * *

33622. Has a total of at least 4 years of

3372active experience as a worker who has

3379learned the trade by serving an

3385apprenticeship as a skilled worker who is

3392able to command the rate of a mechanic in

3401the particular trade or as a foreman who is

3410in charge of a group of workers and usually

3419is responsible to a superintendent or a

3426contractor or his or her equivalent,

3432provided, however, that at least 1 year of

3440active experience shall be as a foreman.

3447(Emphasis supplied.)

344952. Also applicable is Florida Administrative Code Rule

345761G4-15.001(2), which provides, in pertinent part, as follows:

3465(1)(a) . . . Active experience in the

3473category in which the applicant seeks to

3480qualify shall be verified by affidavits

3486prepared or signed by a state certified

3493Florida contractor, or an architect or

3499engineeer, in the applicant’s category, who

3505is licensed in good standing or a licensed

3513building official, who is active in the

3520applicant’s category, employed by a

3525political subdivision of any state,

3530territory or possession of the United States

3537who is responsible for inspections of

3543construction improvements, listing

3546chronologically the active experience in the

3552trade, including the name and address of

3559employers and dates of employment (which may

3566be corroborated by investigation by the

3572Board). Said affidavit shall be subscribed

3578to in front of a notary.

3584(b) Applicants shall follow the guidelines

3590set forth in this section when seeking to

3598verify active experience in accordance with

3604paragraph 61G4-15.001(1)(a), F.A.C.

3607If the applicant’s category is: The

3613following licensees can verify the

3618applicant’s experience:

36201. General General contractor

36242. Building General and/or Building contractor

36303. Residential General, Building and/or Residential


36374. P l u m b i n g General, Building, Residential,

3649Plumbing and/or Underground Utility

3653and Excavation contractor

365615. Underground Utility and General, Building, Residential,

3663Excavation Contractor Underground utility and exca vation,

3670and/or Plumbing contractor

3673(2)(a) In the case of applicants for

3680certification in the general or building

3686contractor categories, the phrases “active

3691experience” and “proven experience” as used

3697in Section 489.111(2)(c)1., 2., or 3., F.S.,

3704shall be defined to mean construction

3710experience in four or more of the following

3718areas :

37201. Foundation/Slabs in excess of twenty

3726thousand (20,000) square feet.

37312. Masonry walls.

37343. Steel erection.

37374. Elevated slabs.

37405. Precast concrete structures.

37446. Column erection.

37477. Formwork for structural reinforced

3752concrete. [2/] (Emphasis supplied.)

375653. The rule is clear on its face that without evidence

3767from the appropriate type(s) of licensed contractor, covering at

3776least four years, one of which years Petitioner worked as a

3787foreman, Petitioner’s application must be denied. Petitioner’s

3794employment with the City Utilities was not the type of

3804employment that would qualify him for a certified building

3813contractor license, and while his City supervisor’s

3820qualifications might support Petitioner in other categories of

3828licensure, they did not fit the category for which he was


384054. Likewise, Petitioner’s employment history with Mr.

3847Banks did not qualify.

385155. An agency’s interpretation of its own rules is

3860entitled to great weight. See Woodley v. Department of Health

3870and Rehabilitative Services , 505 So. 2d 676 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).

3881However, here, the rule is clear with or without the evidence of

3893the Chairman of the Board that structural, as opposed to

3903decorative, proficiency in the correct categories is necessary

3911to qualify.

391356. Section 489.111(2)(c), Florida Statutes, provides that

3920experience shall be in the category for which the person seeks

3931to qualify, and that the experience shall be as a skilled worker

3943who can command the rate of a mechanic on a particular trade, or

3956as a foreman who is in charge of a group of workers and is

3970responsible to a superintendent or a contractor or the

3979equivalent, with at least one of the four years being the

3990foreman. It is inherent in the statute that the experience

4000shall be full-time, which would amount to 40 hours per week for

4012at least 50 weeks each year, of qualified employment

4021experience. 3/

402357. Petitioner has not demonstrated the required

4030experience in any of the seven categories.


4038Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

4048Law, it is

4051RECOMMENDED that the Florida Construction Industry

4057Licensing Board enter a Final Order denying Petitioner’s

4065application for licensure as a Certified Building Contractor.

4073DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 2009, in

4083Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.



4092Administrative Law Judge

4095Division of Administrative Hearings

4099The DeSoto Building

41021230 Apalachee Parkway

4105Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060

4108(850) 488-9675

4110Fax Filing (850) 921-6847


4115Filed with the Clerk of the

4121Division of Administrative Hearings

4125this 24th day of November, 2009.


41321/ Respondent asserts the Board held a “public meeting” and not

4143one before the Division of Administrative Hearings.

41502/ This rule was last amended effective 11-26-08. It remained

4160the same at all times material to the application and through

4171the disputed-fact hearing. However, the rule, as noticed in

4180Vol. 34, No. 10, March 7, 2008, of the Florida Administrative

4191Weekly, was withdrawn as of November 20, 2009, per publication

4201of Florida Administrative Weekly, Vol. 35 No. 46.

42093/ Respondent suggests that the 2,000 hours provided for “full-

4220time equivalency” of proven experience of one year named in

4230Florida Statutes Section 489.111(2)(c)1., with regard to those

4238seeking licensure through a four years’ baccalaureate program

4246and one year of experience applies here, as well.


4258Daniel R. Biggins, Esquire

4262Department of Legal Affairs

4266The Capitol, Plaza Level 01

4271Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050

4274J. Steven Carter, Esquire

4278Henry, Buchanan, Hudson,

4281Suber & Carter, P.A.

42852508 Barrington Circle

4288Tallahassee, Florida 32308

4291G. W. Harrell, Executive Director

4296Construction Industry Licensing Board

4300Department of Business and

4304Professional Regulation

4306Northwood Centre

43081940 North Monroe Street

4312Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792

4315Reginald Dixon, General Counsel

4319Department of Business and

4323Professional Regulation

4325Northwood Centre

43271940 North Monroe Street

4331Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792


4340All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

435015 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

4361to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

4372will issue the Final Order in this case.

Select the PDF icon to view the document.
Date: 11/24/2009
Proceedings: Recommended Order
Date: 11/24/2009
Proceedings: Recommended Order (hearing held September 14, 2009). CASE CLOSED.
Date: 11/24/2009
Proceedings: Recommended Order cover letter identifying the hearing record referred to the Agency.
Date: 10/19/2009
Proceedings: Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
Date: 10/19/2009
Proceedings: Respondent's Proposed Recommended Order filed.
Date: 09/29/2009
Proceedings: Transcript of Proceedings filed.
Date: 09/14/2009
Proceedings: CASE STATUS: Hearing Held.
Date: 08/21/2009
Proceedings: Respondent's Notice of Witnesses and Exhibits filed.
Date: 08/21/2009
Proceedings: Petitioner's Witness List filed.
Date: 08/21/2009
Proceedings: Petitioner's Exhibit List filed.
Date: 08/21/2009
Proceedings: Pre-hearing Stipulation filed.
Date: 06/09/2009
Proceedings: Order of Pre-hearing Instructions.
Date: 06/09/2009
Proceedings: Notice of Hearing (hearing set for September 14, 2009; 9:30 a.m.; Tallahassee, FL).
Date: 06/05/2009
Proceedings: Respondent's Response to Initial Order filed.
Date: 06/05/2009
Proceedings: Petitioner's Notice of Providing the Information Required by Initial Order filed.
Date: 06/03/2009
Proceedings: Notice of Filing Original Petition for Administrative Hearing filed.
Date: 05/29/2009
Proceedings: Initial Order.
Date: 05/29/2009
Proceedings: Petition for Administrative Hearing filed.
Date: 05/29/2009
Proceedings: Notice of Intent to Deny filed.
Date: 05/29/2009
Proceedings: Referral for Hearing filed.

Case Information

Date Filed:
Date Assignment:
Last Docket Entry:
Tallahassee, Florida
Department of Business and Professional Regulation


Related DOAH Cases(s) (1):

Related Florida Statute(s) (4):

Related Florida Rule(s) (1):