Bagdonas v. Board of Architecture, Department of Professional Regulation
This text of 402 So. 2d 1268 (Bagdonas v. Board of Architecture, Department of Professional Regulation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The appellant seeks review of an order of the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Architecture, denying his application for licensure as an architect in the State of Florida on the grounds that the appellant did not have a professional degree or ten years’ experience as a practicing architect.
In 1976, the appellant was registered as an architect in the State of Massachusetts. His registration was obtained pursuant to Section 60C of Ch. 112, General Laws of Massachusetts, which provided for registration based upon evidence of graduation from an accredited school of architecture or such practical experience and/or academic experience, or both, as the Board prescribed. The Board promulgated a rule permitting registration upon satisfactory evidence of eight years of practical experience for each year short of the requirements for an academic degree. The applicant would also have to pass the equivalency examination provided by the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards. The appellant met all this criteria and was licensed in Massachusetts.
In September, of 1979, the appellant applied for a licensure in the State of Florida under the provisions of Ch. 481.213(3Xb), Florida Statutes (1979), which provides that the Board shall certify for licensure a person who holds a degree and passes an equivalent licensing examination, or one who has a license in another State whose requirements are substantially equivalent to those in Florida at the time, or who has practiced architecture in another State for ten years. The Board denied the appellant’s application. This appeal followed.
Massachusetts accepted years of verified experience from architectural employers on its face as being equivalent to years spent in educational facilities.1 On the other hand, Florida at that time provided that applications be reviewed by the appellee’s Educational Advisory Committee to determine, among other things, a comparison of standards for equivalency for applicants who did not hold an academic degree.2
The appellant was invited to appear before this Committee for evaluation of his [1270]*1270credentials, but he declined to do so through his counsel.
The appellant’s refusal to appear before the Committee for purposes of evaluating his credentials, in conformity with applicable statutes and administrative rules, mandate affirmance of the order appealed. The appellant should comply with all of the procedural steps necessary for licensure before this court should be required to pass on the sufficiency of the evidence to support the appellee’s ruling. See: Florida State Board of Architecture v. Wasserman, 377 So.2d 653 (Fla.1979).
Therefore, we affirm the Board’s ruling.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
402 So. 2d 1268, 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 20724, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bagdonas-v-board-of-architecture-department-of-professional-regulation-fladistctapp-1981.