Espinoza v. DEPT. OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, 98-3077.
| Decision Date | 18 August 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 98-3077.,98-3077. |
| Citation | 739 So.2d 1250 |
| Parties | Richard S. ESPINOZA, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Florida Board of Professional Engineers, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard S. Espinoza, in proper person.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Edwin A. Bayo, (Tallahassee), Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
Before NESBITT, GERSTEN, and GODERICH, JJ.
Richard S. Espinoza, a licensed engineer in Peru and Ecuador, argues that the Florida Board of Professional Engineers (Board) erred in denying his application for a Florida licensure by endorsement. Section 471.015(3) of the Florida Statutes (1997), provides in part:
Thus, a professional engineer who possesses a license to practice in another country can obtain a Florida engineering license by endorsement if he establishes that he has passed another country's licensing examination that is substantially equivalent to the examination required by Florida law. The general rule is that, apart from statute, the burden of proof is on the party asserting the affirmative of an issue before an administrative tribunal. See Balino v. Department of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 348 So.2d 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
. Furthermore, an applicant who seeks to establish that the initial review of his application was incorrect must show that the agency's initial decision was arbitrary and capricious. See Harac v. Department of Professional Regulation, 484 So.2d 1333, 1338 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).
In the instant case, upon review of the denial of Mr. Espinoza's application in Florida for licensure by endorsement, the Board concluded that Mr. Espinoza did not demonstrate that the examinations taken in Peru and Ecuador were equivalent to National Council of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors(NCEES) examinations. See Eason v. Department of Business and Professional Regulation, 732 So.2d 1136, 1137 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
(citing Sutto v. Board of Medical Registration and Examination, 242 Ind. 556, 180 N.E.2d 533 (1962)(the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rivera v. Bd. of Trs. of Tampa's Gen. Emp't Ret. Fund
...had the burden of proving that Mr. Rivera's retirement benefits under the Plan should be forfeited. See Espinoza v. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Reg., 739 So.2d 1250, 1251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).Under the foregoing statutory framework, the Board was required to prove the following elements: (1) that ......
-
Beshore v. Department of Financial Services, 1D05-2730.
...As a general rule, the burden of proof is on the party asserting the affirmative of an issue. Espinoza v. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Regulation, 739 So.2d 1250, 1251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). Contrary to Appellant's argument, DFS never asserted in the affirmative that the MBI plan was ERISA qualified......
-
Henley v. City of N. Miami
...argument that the circuit court reweighed the evidence presented at the evidentiary hearing); see also Espinoza v. Dep't of Bus. & Pro. Regul., 739 So. 2d 1250, 1251 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) ("The general rule is that, apart from statute, the burden of proof is on the party asserting the affirmat......